-
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
DDN
College football playoff would kill excitement
By Doug Harris
Staff Writer
Thursday, May 29, 2008
College football commissioners met again recently to explore the possibility of a playoff, but the idea fizzled after the Big Ten's Jim Delany and the PAC-10's Tom Hanson dug in their designer loafers and refused to give their blessing.
Good for them.
Sentiment for a playoff had been building since Ohio State was dealt a second consecutive shellacking in the Bowl Championship Series title game in January, a pounding that left schools like Georgia moaning about how they would have been a much more worthy participant. They may have had a legitimate beef, but changing the system would be a big mistake.
A playoff would devalue the regular season in a way its proponents seemingly can't understand. Even a defeat in September has the potential of eliminating a contender from a national title shot, and fans are riveted throughout the season because every game is so meaningful.
College football is the only sport that can make that claim.
Pittsburgh's 13-9 stunner against No. 1 West Virginia last season would already have been forgotten if there had been a playoff because the Mountaineers would have had their ticket punched. But because it knocked them out of the BCS championship, that game will live forever in college football lore.
Cont...
College football playoff would kill excitement
By Doug Harris
Staff Writer
Thursday, May 29, 2008
College football commissioners met again recently to explore the possibility of a playoff, but the idea fizzled after the Big Ten's Jim Delany and the PAC-10's Tom Hanson dug in their designer loafers and refused to give their blessing.
Good for them.
Sentiment for a playoff had been building since Ohio State was dealt a second consecutive shellacking in the Bowl Championship Series title game in January, a pounding that left schools like Georgia moaning about how they would have been a much more worthy participant. They may have had a legitimate beef, but changing the system would be a big mistake.
A playoff would devalue the regular season in a way its proponents seemingly can't understand. Even a defeat in September has the potential of eliminating a contender from a national title shot, and fans are riveted throughout the season because every game is so meaningful.
College football is the only sport that can make that claim.
Pittsburgh's 13-9 stunner against No. 1 West Virginia last season would already have been forgotten if there had been a playoff because the Mountaineers would have had their ticket punched. But because it knocked them out of the BCS championship, that game will live forever in college football lore.
Cont...
Upvote
0
There is truth to that statement.
NASCAR used to have each race carry an equal amount of points for the season-long championship. A few years ago, they went to the 'Chase' system, where they re-shuffle the points with 10 races remaining. The last 10 races are now similar to a playoff system.
Besides the Daytona 500 (their opening-day "Super Bowl'), the other 25 or so races prior to the chase have lost much of their meaning. Last year, Gordon and Johnson were virtually guaranteed spots in the Chase several races before it started, and spent those races tinkering instead of racing for points.
For me, the Chase has reduced the appeal of NASCAR. Yeah, I know, for most of you, there never was any appeal.
Upvote
0
This is a very polarizing issue, but I remain the oddball who is increasingly ambivalent about it.
I can see the appeal for a play-off, and have even argued in favor of going that route.
But it is undeniable that the upcoming game with USC would have ZERO national title implications if there were a playoff.
Both teams would have a very good chance at making it to even a plus-one game if that's all there was.
That having been said; I would be riveted to my plasma for the entire game either way. As for how many other people might be watching in each case; I really don't care.
I can see the appeal for a play-off, and have even argued in favor of going that route.
But it is undeniable that the upcoming game with USC would have ZERO national title implications if there were a playoff.
Both teams would have a very good chance at making it to even a plus-one game if that's all there was.
That having been said; I would be riveted to my plasma for the entire game either way. As for how many other people might be watching in each case; I really don't care.
Upvote
0
Buckeneye
I lead, you follow.
Honestly, had there been a play-off system. This season wouldn't have been so...special ( I guess thats a good word for it)
I doubt I'll forget how many ranked teams went down and the upsets that occurred. Knocking Oregon, USC, WVU, Oklahoma, Missouri out of the title game... it was exciting to watch all of their respective match-ups.
If they were guaranteed a spot in an 8 team playoff - I know myself, and many others wouldn't have given two shits.
I doubt I'll forget how many ranked teams went down and the upsets that occurred. Knocking Oregon, USC, WVU, Oklahoma, Missouri out of the title game... it was exciting to watch all of their respective match-ups.
If they were guaranteed a spot in an 8 team playoff - I know myself, and many others wouldn't have given two shits.
Upvote
0
KreagerBuckeye
All-American
The BCS- Good or Bad for College Football?
I'd like to discuss the BCS for a minute.
I recorded 'The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame the BCS for the lack of a college football playoff' and felt like talking about it.
There are far more BCS bashers than backers, but I would like to know if how you feel about it.
(Personally, I'm for it and DON'T want a playoff- I do not want a three-loss team playing for all the Tostitos/Oranges/Roses.)
Here are my views of both sides of the argument.
The case for:
Gives us matches that normally don't happen.
Prior to the BCS, Ohio State and Miami would have shared the title.
If there are at least two unbeaten teams, it gives us a decent solution (In the old days, three undefeated teams play in three separate bowls and it's difficult to choose a champion if they all won their respective games)
It tries and make things easier than the old days
Gives us great drama
The Case Against
Conference-qualifiers allow unworthy teams (2002 and 2005 Florida State) to make it in over more worthy teams (2004 Cal, 2005 Oregon)
Notre Dame
Nebraska in 2001
Florida State in 1998 and LSU last year backing into the title games
Allows team that don't play in a conference title game to still get in (Kansas last year)
Switching from ABC as its main network to FOX
Cares more about strength-of-schedule than actual record (Remember what I said about West Virginia getting screwed in 1993 in favor Florida State because the press and such wanted Bowden to win his first title?)
I'd like to discuss the BCS for a minute.
I recorded 'The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame the BCS for the lack of a college football playoff' and felt like talking about it.
There are far more BCS bashers than backers, but I would like to know if how you feel about it.
(Personally, I'm for it and DON'T want a playoff- I do not want a three-loss team playing for all the Tostitos/Oranges/Roses.)
Here are my views of both sides of the argument.
The case for:
Gives us matches that normally don't happen.
Prior to the BCS, Ohio State and Miami would have shared the title.
If there are at least two unbeaten teams, it gives us a decent solution (In the old days, three undefeated teams play in three separate bowls and it's difficult to choose a champion if they all won their respective games)
It tries and make things easier than the old days
Gives us great drama
The Case Against
Conference-qualifiers allow unworthy teams (2002 and 2005 Florida State) to make it in over more worthy teams (2004 Cal, 2005 Oregon)
Notre Dame
Nebraska in 2001
Florida State in 1998 and LSU last year backing into the title games
Allows team that don't play in a conference title game to still get in (Kansas last year)
Switching from ABC as its main network to FOX
Cares more about strength-of-schedule than actual record (Remember what I said about West Virginia getting screwed in 1993 in favor Florida State because the press and such wanted Bowden to win his first title?)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Nothing determines a more-worthy champion than a playoff.
As for LSU "backing in" to the title game last year, they sure made their case against us, now didn't they?
As for LSU "backing in" to the title game last year, they sure made their case against us, now didn't they?
Upvote
0
VprHis
Get off my lawn, you hooligans!
I'm against playoffs, I think mostly because the thing I love most about college football is the traditions.
I like seeing my Bucks in the Rose Bowl. With the BCS in place, I like seeing them in one of the big money games (preferably in Pasadena, but wherever). I like the bowls because they're unique to college football, and becuase of the link to our past teams that they represent.
Playoffs, in my mind, only alter the argument. With the BCS, everyone bitches that the wrong 2 teams got in. With playoffs, it'll be that the wrong 8 teams, or 4, or 16. I don't care. Earn it in the regular season.
I think I also don't want playoffs because I'm annoyed by all the pro-playoff talking heads. I'm spiteful and want them to live in disappointment.
I seem to recall Tressel saying he's against playoffs because of undue wear and tear (his stated reasoning being that Division IA teams take a bigger beating in each game). Of course, there's the NFL, which I'm sure is more brutal each week.
Bottom line, I'm sure I'd like playoffs well enough, it's just that they represent the continued erosion of the traditions I cherish.
I like seeing my Bucks in the Rose Bowl. With the BCS in place, I like seeing them in one of the big money games (preferably in Pasadena, but wherever). I like the bowls because they're unique to college football, and becuase of the link to our past teams that they represent.
Playoffs, in my mind, only alter the argument. With the BCS, everyone bitches that the wrong 2 teams got in. With playoffs, it'll be that the wrong 8 teams, or 4, or 16. I don't care. Earn it in the regular season.
I think I also don't want playoffs because I'm annoyed by all the pro-playoff talking heads. I'm spiteful and want them to live in disappointment.
I seem to recall Tressel saying he's against playoffs because of undue wear and tear (his stated reasoning being that Division IA teams take a bigger beating in each game). Of course, there's the NFL, which I'm sure is more brutal each week.
Bottom line, I'm sure I'd like playoffs well enough, it's just that they represent the continued erosion of the traditions I cherish.
Upvote
0
methomps
an imbecility, a stupidity without name
[NCAA Presidents]
Dear commonfolk,
We would like to remind you that we oppose a playoff for D1-A football because of concern about the length of the season and its effect on the student-athlete's physical and academic well-being. Pay no heed to the fact that we added an extra game for every team a few years ago, we feel that adding an extra game or two for a handful of teams in a 4, 6, or 8-team playoff would be too onerous.
In other (unrelated) news, we are pleased to announce that we are expanding the D1-AA playoff to include 20 teams starting in 2010. This means another tier of playoff games, an exciting result for our fans and players. Note that this brings us closer to DII football, which has a 24-team bracket. Recap:
D1-A 6 or 8 team playoff= too burdensome on students
D1-A extra regular season game = awesome
D1-AA 20-team and DII 24-team playoff = awesome
That is all.
[/NCAA]
Dear commonfolk,
We would like to remind you that we oppose a playoff for D1-A football because of concern about the length of the season and its effect on the student-athlete's physical and academic well-being. Pay no heed to the fact that we added an extra game for every team a few years ago, we feel that adding an extra game or two for a handful of teams in a 4, 6, or 8-team playoff would be too onerous.
In other (unrelated) news, we are pleased to announce that we are expanding the D1-AA playoff to include 20 teams starting in 2010. This means another tier of playoff games, an exciting result for our fans and players. Note that this brings us closer to DII football, which has a 24-team bracket. Recap:
D1-A 6 or 8 team playoff= too burdensome on students
D1-A extra regular season game = awesome
D1-AA 20-team and DII 24-team playoff = awesome
That is all.
[/NCAA]
Upvote
0
OCBucksFan
I won a math debate
man, you just missed the sympathy train, it left like an hour ago.
Upvote
0
billmac91
Head Coach
methomps;1323894; said:
I will never wrap my head around the anti-playoff sentiment. All arguments are easily shot down.
The biggest argument being it makes the regular season less important.....hey Buckeye fan, would the Illinois game this weekend be fun to watch knowing a chance for the playoffs was obtainable?
An 8 team playoff format would be perfect. It would make more money than the current set-up...EASILY.
And you can keep all of the other Bowls.
My only question is why the powers that be have so much power? Who are these guys, and why do they dictate what college football does? It seems more and more, coaches want a playoff. Even the coaches that support the BCS seem to be lying through their teeth. What will it take to change the system?
Upvote
0
ScarletStorms
Senior
MililaniBuckeye;3727; said:
I have this program that realistically simulates college football. It's made by Greydog. In it you have the option to choose a bowl or playoff system. Their playoff is 16 team format. You include the winners of every conference including non bcs. That leaves 5 at large bids open.
The non-bcs teams get their shot and remove a lot of the aristocracy that doesn't seem appropriate in sports. I won't say that a season like 2002 would be less entertaining but I can't say that it wouldn't be either. You have to consider that if you are arguing that every game is important because you can't lose that after you do lose the season is much less appealing.
I can tell you that the format in this simulation seems to be altogether more exciting and the finale is certainly more conclusive. As a point of reference I would say that a team in our situation, ranked 11th at this point in the season would barely make the tournament if they won out.
I think we are missing the moment when the tournament bracket is revealed and the story lines all come together and your heart starts to race thinking about the possibilities. But the administration that oversees the championship is going to continue to stand behind their argument that a tournament is not in the best interests of the students. Because this is college and the players are students before football players. They will say this all while perched in figurehead positions paid for by the contradiction to their arguments.
Upvote
0