College Playoff

[MililaniBuckeye]

ummm... not even the nfl does that. you planning on just doing away with the conferences all together as they apparently will hold little to no value. i seriously doubt any of the conferences would support this.

This ain't the NFL...and at least the NFL has four wildcards amongst 32 teams instead of only two from amongst 120 like the BCS does.

Are you saying that conference had little or no value prior to the implimentation of the BCS system? What about the Big 12 this year...they could have a top-5 team left out of a BCS spot due to the stupid no-more-than-two-teams-per-conference restriction.

Div I-AA, Div II, and Div III have had playoffs for eons and it hasn't negated their conferences. In a playoff format, every deserving team gets a chance.

 

[mross34]

you argue that once your team looses a game the season looses its appeal for the fans. i would argue that from a viewership perspective its actually less entertaining when teams are winning. things don't really get interesting until teams start loosing. then anything becomes possible. once your team looses, your interest not only in the rest of your teams season increases but your interest in other teams (and thereby viewership) increases significantly as a result.

lets use usc as an example. clearly their season is over and the games have lost almost all appeal for their fans now that a nc is an impossibility correct? not only do i not believe that is the case, but the exact opposite is now true. i personally think that usc fans are now far more interested in watching their team finish out the season as a means to find arguements for their team to go to a nc over other deserving teams. but they are also very interested in watching teams like florida, okie, and texas. why? because they know for a fact that florida/bama and okie/texas tech will kock eachother off. so that virtually guarantees them #4 by the end of the year. all they need is 2 more losses and they are in. this doesn't decrease viewership and interest in games, it increases it.

I think if you used any school outside of USC, Florida, LSU, tOSU, Oklahoma, or Texas this argument would fall apart. I think the sentiment comes from (1) complacency, and (2) starting the season at the top of the rankings.

 

[AKAK]

Noticed that one of the other threads was turning into a discussion of that ever popular message board topic - a playoff for CFB. I thought this board should have a thread dedicated to the topic, so here goes -

I have very strong feelings on the issue. I think anything more than a four team playoff has the same effect it has had in every other major sport - it diminishes the importance of the regular season. CFB is the ONLY major sport where every game every week is important. A playoff system would change that. I honestly do not understand what folks think we are getting in return. Certinaly playoffs are exciting. If you want to ignore CFB until the end of December and then watch a 'tournament' a playoff is perfect.

I like watching the entire season knowing that the Miami-West Virginia, USC-California, and OSU-SDSU games held the NC in the balance.

How can you improve on a 16 week playoff system that starts the end of August and includes hundreds of games?

I felt the same way about Baseball when they added the extra round... (and Split the divisions up, wildcard, etc)

But, I think what happened is that instead of maybe having 6 teams in the hunt at the end of the year every year (assuming 2 of the 4 divisions had teams with big leads), you expanded that to 10 or 12, and I really think it helped people keep interest.

So, what I like about it is, if you have 16 team playoff... most teams in the top 25 right now would have a shot to do something with help...or however it works out.

So, I think the flipside is that you have 118 od teams fighting for 16 spots... I tend to think the regular season will mean more for a lot of teams when you have a team that might be 8-3 going into the last game playing for a spot in the final 16 (and also for the 5-6 team trying to keep them out) rather than realizing their gonna get a BumFuck Bowl bid whether they win or lose.

Sorry if that point has already been made... (as to the baseball analogy)

 

[Oh8ch]

I felt the same way about Baseball when they added the extra round... (and Split the divisions up, wildcard, etc)

But, I think what happened is that instead of maybe having 6 teams in the hunt at the end of the year every year (assuming 2 of the 4 divisions had teams with big leads), you expanded that to 10 or 12, and I really think it helped people keep interest.

So, what I like about it is, if you have 16 team playoff... most teams in the top 25 right now would have a shot to do something with help...or however it works out.

So, I think the flipside is that you have 118 od teams fighting for 16 spots... I tend to think the regular season will mean more for a lot of teams when you have a team that might be 8-3 going into the last game playing for a spot in the final 16 (and also for the 5-6 team trying to keep them out) rather than realizing their gonna get a BumFuck Bowl bid whether they win or lose.

Sorry if that point has already been made... (as to the baseball analogy)

I am sure all of this has been said many times by now - but pro sports playoffs make the case against a playoff very clear for me.

You have teams that finish second or third in their division - sometimes 10 games back and barely over 500 - and they are crowned World Champions and the Best Team in Baseball.

It's cool. It's interesting. But it has little to do with who was best during the season.

 

[mross34]

I am sure all of this has been said many times by now - but pro sports playoffs make the case against a playoff very clear for me.

You have teams that finish second or third in their division - sometimes 10 games back and barely over 500 - and they are crowned World Champions and the Best Team in Baseball.

It's cool. It's interesting. But it has little to do with who was best during the season.

How about a 4 team playoff, or 8? Conference champs from the top 8 ranked conferences for that year.

 

[GaTechBuckeye]

I've never been for a tournament and I do think it would compromise the legitimacy of a teams body of work all season.

I will say though that thanks to some arguments made on this board, I see a valid point to revising the system.

Under the current structure, it is feasible for a team to go undefeated and not be given the opportunity to compete for the national championship. I am fine letting a formula determine which 1 loss team is more deserving of a bid for the national championship game, because those teams at least had a shot to go undefeated and play for it. It would have been tragic for me had Ohio State gone undefeated and been left out to an Alabama vs. Texas Tech national championship game.

 

[martinss01]

Are you saying that conference had little or no value prior to the implimentation of the BCS system?

the opposite actually. in a world where perception is everything, yes i think that conference is vitally important now and has been for a very long time.

but i don't think any conference not the wac, mac, or sun belt would agree to allow their conference champ to be excluded from a playoff for any reason regardless of how logical. look at history. how much of a fit did georgia throw last year about not making the nc? not only did they not win their conference, they didn't even play in the game. now, just imagine what lsu would have had to say if the situation had been reversed. im guessing they would have been less than understanding.

but that wouldn't happen in a playoff right? assuming oregon state wins out, you think they'd be cool with usc making the playoffs while they sit at home? how do you think the big east would respond when none of their teams made the cut?

we can argue over whether they deserve it until we're blue in the face. but each bcs conference (so long as they have atleast 1 team eligible) will be represented in a bcs bowl game. i suspect that was not an afterthought.

What about the Big 12 this year...they could have a top-5 team left out of a BCS spot due to the stupid no-more-than-two-teams-per-conference restriction.

agreed. i don't much care for the rule. i understand the intent, but the execution leaves much to be desired.

 

[AKAK]

I am sure all of this has been said many times by now - but pro sports playoffs make the case against a playoff very clear for me.

You have teams that finish second or third in their division - sometimes 10 games back and barely over 500 - and they are crowned World Champions and the Best Team in Baseball.

It's cool. It's interesting. But it has little to do with who was best during the season.

Well, it did take me a long time to get here... but we have a one game playoff now....

And, as far as the "little to do with who was the best during the regular season" I think the problem is that we don't have maybe the best idea who is the best during the regular season. What if the Voters had put Michigan in instead of Florida in '06? Or Georgia and not LSU? Obviously the list goes on and on....

Also, I do like the "Playing the best at the end of the season" kind of argument too... these are college kids, with a tarnsient population, I wouldn't mind rewarding teams that did well at the end after stumbling against more veteran if less talented teams non-conference.

I think it would also encourage teams to play better opponents in non-conference if SOS is a major component... and one loss not a death sentence.

Having said all that, if you're a fan on an elite program who is going to get in year after year, you're right, it might take some of the luster away... I dont' disagree... on the other hand... I think there is upside for the rest of the football world.

 

[redbenn]

i like the idea that i think someone from yahoo sports proposed a couple years ago... that included all conference champs... if you're going to do a playoff, then everyone should have a chance to win... that includes non-BCS schools.

then again, i don't think a playoff is the answer, who says that is the way a team should be crowned champ? i like it the way it is.. unless we do my European Football Style Power Conferences w/ relegation and promotions
http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/...college-football-realignment.html#post1264472

 

[CCI]

BCS Change = OBAMA

 

[martinss01]

I think if you used any school outside of USC, Florida, LSU, tOSU, Oklahoma, or Texas this argument would fall apart. I think the sentiment comes from (1) complacency, and (2) starting the season at the top of the rankings.

curious as to why you think that. imo just about any team in a perceived strong conference would have a half decent to legit shot even with a single loss. this year i would dub those conferences the sec, big 12 and pac 10.

How about a 4 team playoff, or 8? Conference champs from the top 8 ranked conferences for that year.

conference champs is a no go for several reasons already stated. first and foremost this years oregon state usc issue. who goes? oregon state? usc might have something to say about that. as mili has noted, should crappy conferences get to send someone regardless while considerably better teams sit at home because they lost a single game? does "insert random big east team here" go over texas or ou? what about the acc? they get an auto bid?

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

How about a 4 team playoff, or 8? Conference champs from the top 8 ranked conferences for that year.

Then you get champs of a shit conference getting selected over teams like Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech who are legit top-5 teams and yet may not win their conference.

Take the top 16 teams as ranked by the BCS formula and let them duke it out...

 

[mross34]

curious as to why you think that. imo just about any team in a perceived strong conference would have a half decent to legit shot even with a single loss. this year i would dub those conferences the sec, big 12 and pac 10.

In 2006, an 10-1 Wisconsin team didn't even sniff the title game after battling through a strong Big 10. In 2005, a 10-1 Penn State had the same story. In 2004, an undefeated Auburn squad couldn't get higher than 3rd in the BCS rankings until after the title game because everyone severely underrated the SEC until 2006. That same year a 10-1 Texas squad didn't enter title talk once because of a loss less than halfway through the season. In 2003, 1 loss USC didn't make the title game even though it was ranked in the top slot in both polls.

Think back to 2002, and tell me how exciting that season was, before Ohio State was perennially ranked in the preseason top 10. Realize that almost all but the teams I listed in my initial post lose all hopes of making the title game with 1 loss. It just so happens that the last two years have been the most insane years in recent college football history.

 

[mross34]

Then you get champs of a [censored] conference getting selected over teams like Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech who are legit top-5 teams and yet may not win their conference.

Take the top 16 teams as ranked by the BCS formula and let them duke it out...

16 is just too many games for a lot of people. I think 4 is ideal. Keeps the whole "regular season is a playoff" aspect alive, but still allows arguments to be settled. I also like the idea of top 6 conference winners, regardless of BCS status or not, and top 2 at-larges.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

16 is just too many games for a lot of people.

Don't give shit what a lot of people think. A lot of people think the fucking world is flat...