College Playoff

[TheIronColonel]

I honestly don't think we need a playoff so much as a way to distinguish between power programs and wannabes. Look at the English Premiere League; they never have this issue, because teams that consistently suck get relegated to lower divisions. Something similar could easily be done in CFB. Let everyone play their conference schedule, but if they want to win it all force them to play a non-con schedule against top tier teams. If everyone played 3 or 4 non con games against BCS calibre schools (not including freebies like Indiana, etc). You'd have to have someone decide who that upper echelon of BCS schools includes, and that would be a good place for computers. The point is, you wouldn't have to listen to Hawaii piss and moan about how they got screwed even though they played practically the easiest schedule in the history of college football.

Every off season, let the BCS decide who gets demoted from the upper echelon for sucking consistently for a few years or promoted into the upper echelon for consistently good play. Not perfect, but then the season actually matters and everyone is (theoretically) playing a competitive schedule.

 

[BayBuck]

Good! Fuck ESPN and their incessant whining for a CFB playoff! This is a sport where fans are still arguing over who was the true champion in some season decades ago, and that endless conversation is great for the sport.

 

[buckeyesin07]

As long as college football fans have this sense that the National Champion actually be "the best team in the nation" for any particular year, the system we are under right now is probably actually best at accomplishing that goal. You've got people and computers ranking precisely that - who's the best. Surely "subjective" but... frankly, so is our own perception of who is best. People smarter than I can maybe devise a better system, and that's fine. But... As has been repeated, a play-off satisfies nothing regarding "who's the best" and again, the whole if you have 4 teams, team 5 bitches about getting screwed. Have 8, and 9 bitches. 16? Here comes 17... I have no doubt when (not if) the NCAA goes to 128 teams, 129 will bitch.

I've given this a lot of thought and used to be a play-off guy.... but the more I consider the problem, I'd just as soon keep the BCS. But, when I say that - settle on a fucking formula! If there is ONE problem with the BCS it's that they change the fucking parameters all the time to account for last year's problem (or percieved problem). And... for shit's sake don't apologize for who the system selected. "Sorry USC, the system spit out LSU v. Oklahoma" We'll tweak the formula this off season...What the fuck? Tweak it for what reason, exactly? So the computers spit out the same shit the we already have people spitting out? If that's what we want, get rid of the computers and just have the old poll system. (That's too LLs Bill... no one wants to hear about your old pole).

The simple truth is, ultimately the playoff folks will win this debate. And it'll be a sad sad day for me. In years where Ohio State wins the title even though they slipped in at 9-3, I'll of course be thrilled. In years they get fucked going 12-0 during the regular season and then trip up on a bad call to a clearly inferior team, I doubt all the playoff proponents will be talking about how great a system it is. When Villanova wins the national championship in basketball people say "Isn't that great?" Give a title to fucking Vanderbilt in football and see how "great" it is.

I suppose a +1 isn't that bad an idea, really. In as much as the top 4 are picked in terms of their "BCS Rank" (or whatever). I don't know that the team who's 4th in the nation deserves a shot, but I'm not convinced they dont. But.. it won't stop there. It'll become 8 and 16 and 32.....

Hell, if you're a playoff guy - every week matters... must win... I give you the 2008 season... every game matters.. every game is a must win. It's a season long playoff. What more do you want?

Well said. I'll add something that I saw in an article earlier today--the fans/media were complaining the most about USC and Georgia being the "hottest" teams at the time of the NC game last year, yet those two would not have even been in the top 4, so a plus 1 system wouldn't have helped them (it would have been OSU, LSU, Va Tech, Oklahoma). So what would we have gotten last year even if there were a plus 1? A bunch of people complaining that the playoff should have 8 teams. And guess what? the 9th and 10th teams would be whining that the playoff should be expanded to 16 teams. And on, and on. Don't believe me? Every single year on selection Sunday, you hear several national media people (Bob Knight this year off the top of my head), griping that the field of 65 in the NCAA men's tournament should be expanded. As if the men's college basketball regular season weren't meaningless enough already...

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Fixed the quote.

They never will be happy. Give them a 16 team playoff, and they'll start whining about how unfair it is to play in higher seeded team's stadiums and demand all neutral sites. Give them that, and they'll start whining about the inherent unfairness in revenue discrepancies and start demanding that all television, radio and attendance money is put into one big pot to be divided equally. Give them that, and they'll start whining about how unfair it is that high school football players are allowed to choose where to go to school and demand an NFL style draft. Give them that, and I'm sure that they'll move on to their next conspiracy theory of how the big schools (The Man) is sticking it to them.

The reality is that the college football landscape predates the BCS or even the old bowl tie-in system. It was largely in place--with its fanbases and large stadiums--before WWII. No tinkering with the system or instituting a playoff is going to reverse history.

I had this discussion on a BGSU board a couple years ago. It's really quite simple. Some schools, Ohio State, Michigan, Oklahoma, USC, Texas etc. (your "traditional powers" and some others) invested in football a LONG time ago. That investment is paying off. There's a reason why BGSU can't fill 100,000 seats, and that reason has nothing to do with their proximity to Toledo (they think it does) or budget (in and of itself) and so on... it has to do with the fact that BGSU has not made a concentrated effort to promote BGSU football for decades. Why is Ohio State football popular? Well, because Ohio State made it worth our while to root for. Stadiums, talent, etc. These things don't (and didnt) come cheap. It's just that OhioState (and the other "traditional powers") did their spending over time.

The mid majors all want a bite of the BCS apple, but they don't want to make the investment, they just want the windfall. And, mid major fans, don't tell me "it can't be done" as far as making your program popular. As much as I can't stand em, the University of Miami is a fine example of football being an after thought and rising to a level of national prominance. So is Florida State. Shit, Flast was a chick only school for a long long time, so don't tell me it cant be done. You want BCS money? Build your goddamned programs then.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Well said. I'll add something that I saw in an article earlier today--the fans/media were complaining the most about USC and Georgia being the "hottest" teams at the time of the NC game last year, yet those two would not have even been in the top 4, so a plus 1 system wouldn't have helped them (it would have been OSU, LSU, Va Tech, Oklahoma). So what would we have gotten last year even if there were a plus 1? A bunch of people complaining that the playoff should have 8 teams. And guess what? the 9th and 10th teams would be whining that the playoff should be expanded to 16 teams. And on, and on. Don't believe me? Every single year on selection Sunday, you hear several national media people (Bob Knight this year off the top of my head), griping that the field of 65 in the NCAA men's tournament should be expanded. As if the men's college basketball regular season weren't meaningless enough already...

Yeah.. the "hottest team right now" argument... ridiculous. I guess that means if a team starts 0 - 8 but win their final 4 they should get a shot.

 

[BB73]

Fuck ESPN and their incessant whining for a CFB playoff!

Great post. I agree.

It's not going to happen until at least 2014. So couldn't they just STFU about it for the next 5 years?

 

[IronBuckI]

Great post. I agree.

It's not going to happen until at least 2014. So couldn't they just STFU about it for the next 5 years?

2014? We'll all be dead by then anyway. The Big Wobble in December of 2012 will wipe us out before we ever have to worry about a college football playoff.

 

[Gatorubet]

Again; note those in favor, ACC and SEC. Not one game played above the Mason Dixon and only one on the West Coast.

Ask yourself this: How many NC titles did USC win while playing their final game on the Road? Try one. How many did any SEC team win outside the Sunbelt?

If it's a National Championship game then the playing field needs to be leveled.

Aww common Cinci...I could make a case that a conference refusing to add a conference championship game is as valid a gripe as noting that SEC non-conference games are usually played at home. There is also a debate about those who want their conference champion viewed with the same favor as one who survived a championship game...

Ultimately, all of that talk will be resolved on the field.

As to the sunbelt claim, that is broadening the concept to the point of silliness. I mean, someone is going to have to explain to me the advantage to the south in playing out west in Arizona.

The reason the games are not played in the north is that the money guys don't want to see a game in zero degree blizzards. The fans who pay far too much money to see a BCS game want to enjoy the game, not simply survive it, and the cold hard fact is that more people want to walk around before and after the game in a nice climate on a sort of winter vacation.

I admit, like anyone with half a brain, that having to play LSU last year in the Dome was obviously a gift to them. But if home field is worth 3 to 7 points, once could argue that the last two games were not decided by a home field in Arizona or New Orelans.

Finally, unless somebody can show me where a Big-10 school offered a home and home with an SEC team and we refused, you could just as well say that y'all do not want to come south to play either.

The SEC is in favor of a playoff because a really good team might lose a close championship game, or be undefeated and left out like Auburn was.

There are plenty of reasons to debate the form of championship, be it BCS or plus one, etc., but the least relevent stat is who plays north of the Mason Dixon line, IMO.

 

[Gatorubet]

Good! Fuck ESPN and their incessant whining for a CFB playoff! This is a sport where fans are still arguing over who was the true champion in some season decades ago, and that endless conversation is great for the sport.

I have to agree with Baybuck. The arguments are a large part of the fun of the season.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Aww common Cinci...I could make a case that a conference refusing to add a conference championship game is as valid a gripe as noting that SEC non-conference games are usually played at home. There is also a debate about those who want their conference champion viewed with the same favor as one who survived a championship game...

Problem with the argument about conference championship games:

1. NCAA mandates conferences must have 12 teams to have one. Its not easy finding 1 team to make the Big 10 12 let alone 2 for the PAC 10 or 4 for the Big East. And Ntre Ame sucks. Other Independants???

2. Last time I checked that makes only half of the BCS conferences with conference championship games and only 5 of 11 1A conferences with conference championships games. You're suggesting your minority of conferences tell the majority how to run their conferences. Good Luck.

3. No one forced the SEC, Big 12, ACC to have conference championship games. You all got greedy.

 

[Gatorubet]

Problem with the argument about conference championship games:

1. NCAA mandates conferences must have 12 teams to have one. Its not easy finding 1 team to make the Big 10 12 let alone 2 for the PAC 10 or 4 for the Big East. And Ntre Ame sucks. Other Independants???

2. Last time I checked that makes only half of the BCS conferences with conference championship games and only 5 of 11 1A conferences with conference championships games. You're suggesting your minority of conferences tell the majority how to run their conferences. Good Luck.

3. No one forced the SEC, Big 12, ACC to have conference championship games. You all got greedy.

I was not advocating it, I was trying to point out that the "won't play up north" claim is as valid a point as bitching about a lack of a conference championship. Neither has an effect on who wins the game when it is time to tea it up.

And - yeah - it was the SEC's commissioner who created the championship game for more $$. Nothing but TV money greed was behind it.

Also, the point about Notre Dame sucking was accurate, but you left out the important component of them always sucking before today, and the fact that they will always suck in the future. Otherwise, great post.

 

[mercer_buckeye]

To hell with a playoff system. College football is great because it is not the steralized version of football that the NFL promotes. You know 5-6 times a year I wanna see my team go out and just murder the competition. Then again I love it when your team is 9-0 going on the road to play a top ten team that is going to make or break your season. Your so nervous you can barely sleep the night before and your hands are clasping each other between every play. In a college football world with a playoff system every game wouldn't mean quite as much and the asskickin would go right the window no need to get respect when all you have to do is finish the season in the top four.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Also, the point about Notre Dame sucking was accurate, but you left out the important component of them always sucking before today, and the fact that they will always suck in the future. Otherwise, great post.

This is why we like you Gator because we share this common truth to be self-evident.

 

[mercer_buckeye]

Notre Dame's so bad they canceled St. Patrick's day!

 

[BB73]

There are plenty of reasons to debate the form of championship, be it BCS or plus one, etc., but the least relevent stat is who plays north of the Mason Dixon line, IMO.

Since 1968, the final AP poll has been taken after the Bowl games. Since then, tOSU has played in 9 Bowl Games in which a win would have resulted in a certain or probable (1972) NC.

While I'll concede that the 2 BS Title games in Arizona against Florida teams were neutral (and tOSU split them), the other 7 were played in the home state (and 5 times in the same metropolitan area as) the opponent, and tOSU went 1-6 in those games. Taking away a handful of points for "home-field" advantage, tOSU would probably have at least 2 more National Championships, and its place in college football history would be conidered more dominant.

I believe that cinci is saying that it would be more fair if some of the BCS Title games were played in non-Sun Belt locations. And if you're attempting to state that the location of the championship games isn't significant, this is not an audience that will agree with that sentiment.

Under the BCS, would tOSU still be 1-2 if all of the locations were neutral? Probably, but history tells us that over time the location of the Bowl Game can make a real difference in which teams become National Champions.

Here are the bowl games that tOSU has played in, since 1968, in which the Buckeyes had a chance to when the MNC when the game was played:

Season..Bowl......Location.......Opponent...Result
1968....Rose......Pasadena, CA...USC.........27-16 (National Champs)
1970....Rose......Pasadena, CA...Stanford....17-27
1972....Rose......Pasadena, CA...USC.........17-42 (USC won NC)
1974....Rose......Pasadena, CA...USC.........17-18 (USC won Coaches NC)
1975....Rose......Pasadena, CA...UCLA........10-23
1979....Rose......Pasadena, CA...USC.........16-17 (USC won NC)
2002....Fiesta....Tempe.....AZ...Miami.......24-17 (2OT - won NC)
2006....BCS Title.Glendale, AZ...Florida.....14-41 (Fla won NC)
2007....BCS Title.N'Awlins, LA...LSU.........24-38 (LSU won NC)