College Playoff

[HailToMichigan]

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.

I'm really puzzled as to why you Buckeye fans think the USC game will make or break the season. IMO, it can only make it - not break it. Heaven forbid, but if you guys roll through the Big Ten undefeated and have a lone loss to USC on your record, that will be good enough unless there are two undefeated teams. Lose two or three others and those are your make-or-break games - mostly break.

On the other hand, if a playoff were to be implemented next year, the USC game would be essentially meaningless. Two powerhouse teams that both look likely to make the playoffs. Yawn. Wake me up for the playoff rematch.

 

[HailToMichigan]

In most playoff formats, every game would matter just as it does with the BCS.

How? Final week of the regular season, the whole country was hanging on Oklahoma-Missouri, Pitt-West Virginia, and LSU-Tennessee. Those games mean squat if there's a playoff. Seeding? Whatever. So you play Georgia instead of USC. Whoopee.

 

[Nutriaitch]

In most playoff formats, every game would matter just as it does with the BCS. Nobody is talking about a playoff system where .500 teams get in on a regular basis, like the NFL.

I understand that part, but I'm not talking about the importance of an LSU game for an LSU fan. I'm talking about the weight y'all loss vs. Stanford had on LSU and Florida when that score was announced during that game. I'm talking about the intensity with which I watched USF/Rutgers, how much emotionally involved people outside of the Va Tech/BC fanbases got for that game. How much the Oregon/Arizona game meant to the rest of the top 5/10.

With a playoff system, those games lose the National luster they have now. Sure, Rutgers fans still would have showed up in full force for that game, and Big East fans with a shot at a conference title would have been somewhat excited about it, but the rest of the country would have veiwed it as "just an other game". The Big XII championship game would have meant only as much Nationally as the C-USA championship game.

 

[methomps]

How? Final week of the regular season, the whole country was hanging on Oklahoma-Missouri, Pitt-West Virginia, and LSU-Tennessee. Those games mean squat if there's a playoff. Seeding? Whatever. So you play Georgia instead of USC. Whoopee.

Pitt-West Virginia knocks West Virginia out of most 4-, 6-, and 8-team playoffs.

OU-Mizzou knocks Mizzou from the #1 seed (first round bye) to the #6 seed (traveling to Blacksburg, Va, to play VaTech). It also represents a play-in game for OU, goes from out (#9) to hosting Georgia in Norman.

LSU-Tennessee is a play-in game for LSU.

But what does LSU-Tennessee mean if either West Virginia or Mizzou win? Under the BCS, "meaningless." Under a playoff, still a play-in game for LSU.

 

[methomps]

I understand that part, but I'm not talking about the importance of an LSU game for an LSU fan. I'm talking about the weight y'all loss vs. Stanford had on LSU and Florida when that score was announced during that game. I'm talking about the intensity with which I watched USF/Rutgers, how much emotionally involved people outside of the Va Tech/BC fanbases got for that game. How much the Oregon/Arizona game meant to the rest of the top 5/10.

With a playoff system, those games lose the National luster they have now. Sure, Rutgers fans still would have showed up in full force for that game, and Big East fans with a shot at a conference title would have been somewhat excited about it, but the rest of the country would have veiwed it as "just an other game". The Big XII championship game would have meant only as much Nationally as the C-USA championship game.

USC could've rebounded from the Stanford loss to still make the BCS. They also might not have made a playoff. Just like LSU-Arkansas and OSU-Illinois, sometimes the meaning of games evolves in ways we can't know.

And no, the Big12 championship game wouldn't have been meaningless. It arguably would've had greater meaning, since OU would've been playing more than just spoiler: they would've been playing for a spot in the playoff. Mizzou would still be out of most 4-, 6-, and 8-team playoffs with the loss.

 

[Nutriaitch]

Pitt-West Virginia knocks West Virginia out of most 4-, 6-, and 8-team playoffs.

No, because the presidents will never accept a system that doesn't give Conf. champs automatic slots. WVU already clinched the Big East the week before. White and Slaton don't even dress for this game with a playoff system.

OU-Mizzou knocks Mizzou from the #1 seed (first round bye) to the #6 seed (traveling to Blacksburg, Va, to play VaTech). It also represents a play-in game for OU, goes from out (#9) to hosting Georgia in Norman.

So, outside of OU/Mizzou, nobody really cares, except a few fans who may or may not tune in to see the final seedings.

LSU-Tennessee is a play-in game for LSU.

But what does LSU-Tennessee mean if either West Virginia or Mizzou win? Under the BCS, "meaningless." Under a playoff, still a play-in game for LSU.

LSU loses that game this year, Va. Tech, USC, and OU/Mizzou winner (game didn't start till after LSU/UT game ended) are all alive for NC game. With a playoff game, it's just a game to see which SEC team gets into the playoffs.

 

[Nutriaitch]

USC could've rebounded from the Stanford loss to still make the BCS. They also might not have made a playoff. Just like LSU-Arkansas and OSU-Illinois, sometimes the meaning of games evolves in ways we can't know.

You have to go by the emotions of fans at the time games are played though. When that score was anounced in Death Valley that night, it meant if we win, we're #1 and in complete control of our own Destiny. And for Florida fans, it meant that if they win, #1 and #2 just went down, and they're right back in the hunt. With a playoff system, yeah it would have gotten a reaction because of how big an upset it was, but it would have meant ZERO to anyone not in the Pac-10.

 

[methomps]

No, because the presidents will never accept a system that doesn't give Conf. champs automatic slots. WVU already clinched the Big East the week before. White and Slaton don't even dress for this game with a playoff system.

I don't recall conference champ being a requirement for the BCS NC game now.

So, outside of OU/Mizzou, nobody really cares, except a few fans who may or may not tune in to see the final seedings.

Ohio State and Georgia fans care because it means a chance at a first-round bye. Kansas and VaTech fans care because it means a chance to host a 1st round game instead of going on the road. VaTech, USC, and LSU fans care because they're worried about OU leapfrogging them but Mizzou not falling behind them. Oh yeah, and OU and Mizzou fans care because the game may determine which of them get in.

LSU loses that game this year, Va. Tech, USC, and OU/Mizzou winner (game didn't start till after LSU/UT game ended) are all alive for NC game. With a playoff game, it's just a game to see which SEC team gets into the playoffs.

If you are going to say that #8 USC cares about the LSU-Tennessee game in a BCS, then you can't deny that every top 14 team cares in a playoff because they would all have a chance to get in.

 

[methomps]

You have to go by the emotions of fans at the time games are played though. When that score was anounced in Death Valley that night, it meant if we win, we're #1 and in complete control of our own Destiny. And for Florida fans, it meant that if they win, #1 and #2 just went down, and they're right back in the hunt. With a playoff system, yeah it would have gotten a reaction because of how big an upset it was, but it would have meant ZERO to anyone not in the Pac-10.

You were already in control of your own destiny. And just think how much more games for those teams ranked 5-14 matter in a playoff because they are actually still fighting for something. In the BCS, most of them were mathematically eliminated two weeks prior.

 

[Nutriaitch]

I don't recall conference champ being a requirement for the BCS NC game now.

It's not, but all 6 conference champs get an automatic bid to the BCS bowls. No way the presidents allow for a system that doesn't promise their champs a playoff berth.

Ohio State and Georgia fans care because it means a chance at a first-round bye. Kansas and VaTech fans care because it means a chance to host a 1st round game instead of going on the road. VaTech, USC, and LSU fans care because they're worried about OU leapfrogging them but Mizzou not falling behind them. Oh yeah, and OU and Mizzou fans care because the game may determine which of them get in.

They don't care nearly as much as they did that final weekend, when the outcome had enormous effects on who played in the title game. Of course OU/Mizzou fans care, I was trying to point out how much these games meant to fans of teams not involved in that game. The NFL suffers in ratings the last couple of weeks of the year, because most years, who is in or out is usually decided by then, and most people don't tune in for the sake of seeding.

If you are going to say that #8 USC cares about the LSU-Tennessee game in a BCS, then you can't deny that every top 14 team cares in a playoff because they would all have a chance to get in.

USC should have cared about that game. Those games go y'all way (LSU loses, and Va Tech loses) on top of the WVU and Mizzou losses that did happen, y'all are in the Big Game (probably) over UGA. In a playoff situation, SC is in (Pac-10 champs), so other than slight differences in seeding, those games don't mean anything at all to the Trojan faithful.

 

[methomps]

It's not, but all 6 conference champs get an automatic bid to the BCS bowls. No way the presidents allow for a system that doesn't promise their champs a playoff berth.

Who says you can't have a system where conference champs who don't get playoff bids get bids to the BCS bowls not used in the playoff?

They don't care nearly as much as they did that final weekend, when the outcome had enormous effects on who played in the title game. Of course OU/Mizzou fans care, I was trying to point out how much these games meant to fans of teams not involved in that game. The NFL suffers in ratings the last couple of weeks of the year, because most years, who is in or out is usually decided by then, and most people don't tune in for the sake of seeding.

As I've said, the NFL playoff is completely different because it takes half the league. Most playoff proposals here don't call for anything like that. Also, the NFL is based on wins and losses. Thus, teams can mathematically clinch playoff spots early. In playoff formats that rely on the BCS, teams that lose late are always at a danger of dropping out because the voters and computers are not a lock-step win-loss system.

USC should have cared about that game. Those games go y'all way (LSU loses, and Va Tech loses) on top of the WVU and Mizzou losses that did happen, y'all are in the Big Game (probably) over UGA. In a playoff situation, SC is in (Pac-10 champs), so other than slight differences in seeding, those games don't mean anything at all to the Trojan faithful.

VaTech had already won. As you said, your game started later. And you keep blowing off seeding, but seeding can be the difference between a first-round bye, a game in Death Valley, or a game in the Swamp. Pretend all you want, but it matters.

 

[Jaxbuck]

I don't recall conference champ being a requirement for the BCS NC game now.



Ohio State and Georgia fans care because it means a chance at a first-round bye. Kansas and VaTech fans care because it means a chance to host a 1st round game instead of going on the road. VaTech, USC, and LSU fans care because they're worried about OU leapfrogging them but Mizzou not falling behind them. Oh yeah, and OU and Mizzou fans care because the game may determine which of them get in.






If you are going to say that #8 USC cares about the LSU-Tennessee game in a BCS, then you can't deny that every top 14 team cares in a playoff because they would all have a chance to get in.

All good reasons why the fans should/would care but my problem with a playoff is when a coach rests players to get ready for the playoffs.

No matter how you set it up as soon as you have a playoff its a matter of when, not if this happens. This leads to my second biggest issue, the final game of the year is traditionally for your big rivalry games and thats exactly when coaches are going to be faced with this decision.

I forget the year but iirc the first season they had the SEC CG, Spurrier rested guys against FSU to get ready for the SEC CG. He openly stated to the media winning that game was more important than beating FSU.

I'm not 100% opposed to a playoff, I just hope that all of those who are proponents understand that the regular season will be affected, specifically the late season games. Its just a matter of degree.

 

[Nutriaitch]

Who says you can't have a system where conference champs who don't get playoff bids get bids to the BCS bowls not used in the playoff?

Do you honestly think the Pac-10 comissioner would vote "yes" to a playoff system that doesn't GAURANTEE a spot for their conference champ? Do you think the Big Ten comish would allow it? Or any other big conference?

As I've said, the NFL playoff is completely different because it takes half the league. Most playoff proposals here don't call for anything like that. Also, the NFL is based on wins and losses. Thus, teams can mathematically clinch playoff spots early. In playoff formats that rely on the BCS, teams that lose late are always at a danger of dropping out because the voters and computers are not a lock-step win-loss system.

I'll agree with most of this.

VaTech had already won. As you said, your game started later. And you keep blowing off seeding, but seeding can be the difference between a first-round bye, a game in Death Valley, or a game in the Swamp. Pretend all you want, but it matters.

I hate to use the NFL since we've already pointed out the differences, but here's another example. Most die hard Saints fans I know paid little if any attention to the Bears down the stretch last season, even though a Bears loss meant the difference between playing at home in a Dome vs. outdoors on the shores of Lake Michigan in the cold and snow. If I had to guess, this type of thinking would trickle down to the college level as well.

 

[methomps]

All good reasons why the fans should/would care but my problem with a playoff is when a coach rests players to get ready for the playoffs.

No matter how you set it up as soon as you have a playoff its a matter of when, not if this happens. This leads to my second biggest issue, the final game of the year is traditionally for your big rivalry games and thats exactly when coaches are going to be faced with this decision.

I forget the year but iirc the first season they had the SEC CG, Spurrier rested guys against FSU to get ready for the SEC CG. He openly stated to the media winning that game was more important than beating FSU.

I'm not 100% opposed to a playoff, I just hope that all of those who are proponents understand that the regular season will be affected, specifically the late season games. Its just a matter of degree.

The same could happen with the BCS (see Oklahoma circa 2003). But it won't with a playoff anymore than the BCS. In the NFL, a team can't fall any further than its W-L record dictates. This is not so in college football. One loss dropped #1 Mizzou to #6 and #2 West Virginia to #9.

 

[Jaxbuck]

The same could happen with the BCS (see Oklahoma circa 2003). But it won't with a playoff anymore than the BCS. In the NFL, a team can't fall any further than its W-L record dictates. This is not so in college football. One loss dropped #1 Mizzou to #6 and #2 West Virginia to #9.

Given the capricious nature of the voters I can see that but if you are using say the current BCS formula to seed the playoffs the top 3 teams or so are pretty much assured a single loss won't knock them out of the top 8. If its a 16 team deal forget it, you know you are in by the final week or two.

Also how badly do human pollsters knock down a team that lost if they are obviously resting players? The current voter bias we see isn't going to magically go away. Some teams might very well get a pass for a late season loss for "resting" because the pollsters just "know" they are that good and the loss means nothing.

We can discuss the minutia to death, and I kind of enjoy it, but to me the bottom line stays the same. The regular season will be changed from our traditional understanding of it if/when a playoff starts. Its just a matter of how much.