-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter Oh8ch
- Start date
Nutriaitch
Retired Super Hero
Lockup;1060822; said:Ahh questioning your title. Welcome to our world.
Well, at least no one said y'all played the wrong team, and may not be better than team X who played a weaker opponent in another bowl game. Then have the media lessen your win because it was a "home" game, yet leave out the fact that team X played just as much of a "home" game as yours. Then let that happen TWICE in a 5 year period.
I just HOPE and PRAY that if the LSU/USC game ever happens, that both teams are completely healthy, and not in a "down" year. I don't want any excuses from either side. The hype and build-up to that game would be HUGE!
Upvote
0
CookyPuss
Screw Blue
I hear what you guys are saying and a playoff would certainly end the arguments about the legitimacy of the national champion. However, I also think it would be good for the losing team as well. With the expansion of the BCS, the other games are so watered down it seems and the championship game is of such magnitude that unless it is a game like the Texas-USC from a couple of years ago; the loser gets skewered in the media (unless it is Oklahoma). A team that endured a 4 round playoff to get to the NC game would certainly not be treated with such disrespect as this year's Buckeyes.
For me, I favor a playoff because of the match-ups it would produce. Teams like LSU, USC, OU, tOSU would likely be seeing one another on a regular basis. You'd see rivalries develop in time. I'm also afraid that teams will stop scheduling tough non-conference games if they think its going to bite them in the ass. When Kansas gets the BCS bid over Mizzou, that does nothing to encourage teams to play stronger schedules.
I like the model that has the 16 team field with all of the conference champs and a couple of wild cards. Play the first round at home sites. Use bowl sites/neutral fields for the later rounds. Leave the bowls in place and let them have teams that lost in the first round. I know it is not going to happen, but I can dream.
For me, I favor a playoff because of the match-ups it would produce. Teams like LSU, USC, OU, tOSU would likely be seeing one another on a regular basis. You'd see rivalries develop in time. I'm also afraid that teams will stop scheduling tough non-conference games if they think its going to bite them in the ass. When Kansas gets the BCS bid over Mizzou, that does nothing to encourage teams to play stronger schedules.
I like the model that has the 16 team field with all of the conference champs and a couple of wild cards. Play the first round at home sites. Use bowl sites/neutral fields for the later rounds. Leave the bowls in place and let them have teams that lost in the first round. I know it is not going to happen, but I can dream.
Upvote
0
Nutriaitch;1060848; said:
Last time I checked, this year's crystal football will still be in your trophy case...
Upvote
0
Nutriaitch
Retired Super Hero
MuckFich06;1060870; said:
I'm against a playoff actually. What I love about college football, is the excitement of the regular season. For example, if we win our conference, we would be in a playoff (comissioners would never allow a system that doesn't ensure a spot for league champs). So, when Va Tech played BC in the regular season, I probably would have watched, but no way in hell would I have been jumping around and screaming at my TV (I was at a hotel in Corpus, and woke the neighbors) when Va Tech choked that game away. I probably would not have cared about the 'Zona/Oregon game, nor the USF/Rutgers game. Yet I was IN TO each of those, because of what they meant to my team. This happens EVERY year for several teams' fans. That would be completely lost with a playoff system.
Upvote
0
Nutriaitch
Retired Super Hero
MililaniBuckeye;1060874; said:
So is the one from '03, it just gets old having to justify it to outsiders. Especially when teams from your own conference (Auburn '03) defend team X instead. And those bastard wonder why we shed no tears for them in '04
.
Upvote
0
CleveBucks
Serenity now
Surprise, surprise. The UGA pres proposes not giving higher seeds any home field advantage.
My question is, if the playoff format was such that the higher seed had home field advantage in the first round, would *ANY* SEC president vote in favor of it? The mere prospect of sending an SEC team to Columbus, A^2, State College, South Bend, etc. in December would make me in favor of it.
My question is, if the playoff format was such that the higher seed had home field advantage in the first round, would *ANY* SEC president vote in favor of it? The mere prospect of sending an SEC team to Columbus, A^2, State College, South Bend, etc. in December would make me in favor of it.
Upvote
0
HungryHungry
full leather jacket
lol I'd get a kick out of an SEC team having to play here in December.
football is always good fun, but its at its best outside in crappy weather. jmo.
football is always good fun, but its at its best outside in crappy weather. jmo.
Upvote
0
CookyPuss
Screw Blue
Nutriaitch;1060876; said:
Yeah, I've heard that agrument many times. I've thought about it quite a bit. And, yes, certain games would not be nearly as meaningful. The big upsets wouldn't have quite the impact that they do now. However, you'd be trading that for a whole other set of very important games with a huge degree of magnitude. What would be bigger than LSU-USC in the quarterfinals? Right now we have a slate of mostly meaningless, and pretty boring bowl games. I would rather see 7 really great games (quarter, semis, and final game) each and every year rather than fretting over whether or not Pitt can upset WV. Besides, those kind of game only have an impact on a select few teams that are directly affected and the real college die hards. A playoff, I believe, will pull in a wider audience. Also, you'll have other games of great importance as teams fight it out for those last few spots.
The final lynchpin for me is that it would not discourage tough out of conference schedules. You could theoretically lose all of your non-confernce games and still get in. The OSU-USC game is a likely make or break game for both teams. It would be nice to know that if tOSU goes out there and loses by a field goal that the season is not most likely done from a NC standpoint (not every year is like this one with the upsets). Even if those games don't have the "meaning" of some of the games we have now, I'd like to know that they will continue to take place. I'd like to see more SEC teams travel up north and I think it would take a large format playoff with automatic champ bids to make that sort of thing more feasible. Simply, I like a system that gives us more meaningful matchups like LSU-USC, tOSU-Georgia, OU-Va Tech on a regular basis. I'd rather have those "meaningful" games than having Stanford beating USC. IMO, the biggest games should have the biggest teams.
A 16 team playoff system doesn't settle all of the arguments or appease all the pundits, but I think it would give us more great games and that's what I want to see.
Upvote
0
Lockup
Off Season BLAH
Nutriaitch;1060877; said:So is the one from '03, it just gets old having to justify it to outsiders. Especially when teams from your own conference (Auburn '03) defend team X instead. And those bastard wonder why we shed no tears for them in '04
Yeah we are right there with you. From time to time we still have to defend the 2002 one over 1 stupid late flag.
Upvote
0
HailToMichigan
Maize and Blue Wahoo
Welcome to the club.Nutriaitch;1060877; said:So is the one from '03, it just gets old having to justify it to outsiders. Especially when teams from your own conference (Auburn '03) defend team X instead. And those bastard wonder why we shed no tears for them in '04
[whine]At least yours isn't a "split" title because the coaches changed their mind at the last minute....and rumor has it, a prominent SEC coach (who is still coaching) "punished" Michigan for the "travesty" visited upon his team that year.[/whine] Interestingly enough, had we had the BCS that year, it would have "worked perfectly" as it did in 2005 and there would have been no split title. Anyway, as Mili said - the trophies are in your case, and you're the champions, and frankly anyone else who claims they should have had a shot can suck it, and reflect on getting beat at home by teams they shouldn't have lost to (looking at you there, USC, UGA, WVU). As you said, that's the beauty of the regular season under the current system.
Upvote
0
Nutriaitch
Retired Super Hero
MuckFich06;1061002; said:
Yeah, those matchups would be great, but I don't want to throw away 3 months so we could have 3 weeks of great matchups. That's one of the things I hate about the NFL. The season just started last weekend IMO. Dallas/Washington is supposed to be one of the grea "rivalries" of the NFL. That game sucked due to the Cowboy playing their second string. Would you want the OSU/UM game to sink to that level, just so you could see USC/UGA in a playoff game?
Upvote
0
Taosman
Your Cousin In New Mexxico
ESPiN is reporting that the BCS has finally blown up and next year in stead of the BCS Championship game we will finally have................
The Peoples/Media ESPN Choice Bowl game!
Pitting the two most favorite teams next year(determined by national ESPN Poll) I mean it's what everybody wants, right? (actual records won't count as this is a beauty contest all the way)
(the sarcasm detector has blown up)
The Peoples/Media ESPN Choice Bowl game!
Pitting the two most favorite teams next year(determined by national ESPN Poll) I mean it's what everybody wants, right? (actual records won't count as this is a beauty contest all the way)
(the sarcasm detector has blown up)
Upvote
0