College Playoff

[mercer_buckeye]

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.

Dude there's some pretty major bowls played in Boise and Montreal.

The amazing thing is it seems like these games always feature MAC teams.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Say there was a 16 team playoff and Maryland was the last team in at 9-3, while Virginia (who beat maryland) was left out with that same record but lost later on. Maryland gets hot, not unlike this years Giants, and wins the title. People begin to clamor that Virginia should have had a shot.

A lot less folks would be complaining about that compared to when one of three 12-0 undefeated teams is left out of the current BCS title game. Fortunately that's never happened...oh, wait.

 

[mercer_buckeye]

There's is away to remedy all this without a playoff system PLAY A NONCONFERENCE SCHEDULE I'm looking at you ACC/Big East/WAC.

P.S. Fuck Michigan

 

[Nutriaitch]

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.

I understand your point, but I think the situation has gotten better with the BCS. Playing the Pac-10 champ in Pasadena is a "road game" for y'all against 3/4 of the Pac.

But now that the title game rotates around, the chances of playing the "home" team for the title are slimmer. Because of how well OSU travels, y'all would have had a 50/50 crowd (if not 60/40 in y'all favor) if this year's game had been against ANY D-1 team not named LSU.

Or if the LSU/OSU title game would have happened in any other season during a 7 year stretch (The BCS Cg is New Orleans only once from '04-'11). Any of the 3 other BCS stadiums would have been as neutral as either fan base could ask for.

 

[mercer_buckeye]

But now that the title game rotates around, the chances of playing the "home" team for the title are slimmer. Because of how well OSU travels, y'all would have had a 50/50 crowd (if not 60/40 in y'all favor) if this year's game had been against ANY D-1 team not named LSU.

Um really didn't Miami play in the Orange bowl for a title, didn't USC play for a title in Rose Bowl, and then as you mentioned this year's championship. It's not as if it doesn't happen.

 

[BB73]

I understand your point, but I think the situation has gotten better with the BCS. Playing the Pac-10 champ in Pasadena is a "road game" for y'all against 3/4 of the Pac.

But now that the title game rotates around, the chances of playing the "home" team for the title are slimmer. Because of how well OSU travels, y'all would have had a 50/50 crowd (if not 60/40 in y'all favor) if this year's game had been against ANY D-1 team not named LSU.

Or if the LSU/OSU title game would have happened in any other season during a 7 year stretch (The BCS Cg is New Orleans only once from '04-'11). Any of the 3 other BCS stadiums would have been as neutral as either fan base could ask for.

It's better with the BCS. It will be fair when there's at least a 20% chance of a Title Game between tOSU and (USC, LSU, Florida, Texas, Miami, etc.) taking place in Cleveland or Columbus. A fan whose team has played in 2 BCS Title games, both in New Orleans, should be able to see that advantage.

 

[Gatorubet]

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.

WTF?? Sunbelt? Arizona has nothing to do with the SEC or Big 10. Certainly, having to play in Florida or Louisiana for the Orange and Sugar is a negative, and of course it would be more fair to play in the dome in Minnesota once in a while. But just like BKB was talking about having built up programs over time, where is the effort and money and tradition building up bowl games up north? There isn't. That is whose fault? (Ok, actually no one's, as the domed stadium thing was technology related, and if you wanted to play in late December or early January, you went where it was warm)

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)

Bill, you seem to complain because you guys chose to link yourself with the "Grand Daddy of them all" for all of those years. I don't know what to say, as it was your own doing. Now, all of the SEC sans Florida will not have an advantage in the Orange Bowl, and none of the SEC sans LSU will have an advantage in the Dome. No SEC team will have an advantage in LA, and none will in Glendale. So unless you play LSU in N'Awlins, Florida in Miami (which is not Gator country, but - yeah - home field I guess), or UCLA or USC in the Rose, every other permutation is neutral.

I see your point, agree that 74 and 79 might have been better if played somewhere else, but I fail to see the gripe now. Absent four teams, there is no home field in the real sense. The major bowls were created over decades because of the climate and lack of northern venues . How you get rid of them to play in a bowl up North now is beyond me, and given the limited scenarios where there is a southern advantage, it seems now - more than then - to be a fairer system.

 

[mercer_buckeye]

Now, all of the SEC sans Florida will not have an advantage in the Orange Bowl, and none of the SEC sans LSU will have an advantage in the Dome. .

Bullshit all them inbred fucks down there, for the record I'm not including you in this crowd, root for any and all SEC teams versus the teams of northern agression. I talk to a buddy of mine from Louisiana all I ever hear "SEC, SEC, SEC you boys just don't know nothin bought football up here." Also for the record in my head I used a retard voice for the sec thing and a little doc holliday for the rest of the quote.

 

[Gatorubet]

Bullshit all them inbred fucks down there, for the record I'm not including you in this crowd, root for any and all SEC teams versus the teams of northern agression. I talk to a buddy of mine from Louisiana all I ever hear "SEC, SEC, SEC you boys just don't know nothin bought football up here." Also for the record in my head I used a retard voice for the sec thing and a little doc holliday for the rest of the quote.

I understand. Our level of conference loyalty is a topic that has been widely discussed here before, and it is interesting to see that the very thing that we were ridiculed for having is now viewed as some sort of unfair SEC home field advantage weapon.

That's Ok Merc....you're my Yankee Huckleberry.:tongue2:

( as to "inbred fucks" and retards, my normally thick gator hide grows even thicker when it has scoreboard.)

 

[OH10]

I'm one.

First time a Wild Card team won the Super Bowl the concept of a true Season champion was completed discounted. It is a post season tournament just like March Madness.

Fun to watch and somebody gets to be the tournament champion. But the more teams you let in to the tournament the less relevance it has to the regular season.

Same thing for baseball. 162 games and it is all about who gets hot in October. Granted, it has been that way since the first World Series. But even with Divisions you had to win SOMETHING during the regular season to qualify for a chance. Now you just have to be a few games over 500 and you are essentially even with the rest of the league.

I really cannot remember ever hearing a clamoring for change in the way the NFL and Major League Baseball crown their champion. The clamoring I ever hear in college basketball is to add MORE teams, not less.

Imagine if the media just simply voted for the two best teams in those sports to play in the championship at the end of the regular season. (with a little ridiculous computer input.) Last year, you would have likely had:

NBA: Dallas vs. Detroit
NFL: New England vs. Dallas (scratch that) - Green Bay, because the media loves Brett Favre
NCAA: North Carolina vs. Memphis

Seriously, how is that any way to win a championship?

 

[OH10]

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?

Really? Was 2007 a playoff season? Because, last I checked, everyone got eliminated... except, of course, Hawaii (who despite being a D-1 school has no real shot to ever win the D-1 championship - so why, again, are they a D-1 school?)

 

[OH10]

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 still fail to see this logic.

 

[lvbuckeye]

A lot less folks would be complaining about that compared to when one of three 12-0 undefeated teams is left out of the current BCS title game. Fortunately that's never happened...oh, wait.

the solution to that dilemma is "DON'T SCHEDULE THE FUCKING CITADEL."

 

[Dryden]

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.

My feeling, and I suspect you'll probably hear the same from the majority of Big 10/Pac 10 fans, is that winning your conference by winning a single game at the end in a divisional championship game isn't the be-all, end-all that the most vocal (obnoxious) SEC fans seem to think it is.

An SEC, ACC, or Big XII team could just as easily dodge the 'real' best team from the other division as they could wind up having to play them twice. LSU, for example, beat Georgia twice en route to the 2003 title, but never even played Tennessee, who some might consider the better team in the East that year. LSU split two games versus Tennessee in 2001, but the 'real' best team in the East that season was arguably Florida, who blew LSU's doors off in a rout earlier that year. Or take Georgia, who were on the outside looking in at Ohio State & Miami in 2002. Who'd Georgia beat in that CCG? A pretty average Arkansas team that had lost to Alabama, Tennessee, and Kentucky.

The Big XII title game is almost always a clusterfuck that proves little, but most people have acknowledged that lately. So what draws the ire of non-SEC fans is the belief that the SEC's conference strength is self-evident and validated through its championship game.

Now, the SEC may well be the best conference right now, but it's not because of the brutal gauntlet of the SEC schedule, because the fact of the matter is SEC teams may dodge stronger foes just like teams in any other conference, and beating the same team twice (or avenging a prior loss), doesn't prove anything.

Would OSU's conference championships be more valid if they beat Michigan or Wisconsin twice to win them? Would OSU suddenly be exposed a pretender if they lost a rematch on a controversial call after handily winning the first match-up in the regular season?

I think the Pac 10's round-robin schedule is the way to go, and I would personally prefer seeing the Big 10 contract back to ten teams and play a similar full conference rotation. It is the only mechanism that is truly fair and does not diminish the regular season contests.

The CCG argument is going to take a beat-down one of these years when some terrible team from the Big XII North or ACC Coastal wins their conference with a .500 record or worse. I am convinced it is not a question of if, but when.

Eh ... didn't mean to go off on a rant ... but every time I hear the CCG argument, or the "the SEC title game is the real national championship game" and all that other regurgitated BS, I throw up in my mouth a little. :p

 

[Dryden]

the solution to that dilemma is "DON'T SCHEDULE THE FUCKING CITADEL."

It's OK to schedule a W vs a lower division foe like the Citadel as long as you balance that with some upper tier match ups versus stronger teams, like Louisiana Tech and UL-Monroe.