College Playoff

[mross34]

Don't give [censored] what a lot of people think. A lot of people think the [censored]ing world is flat...

That's great if you want to talk in ideals, but the bottom line is the powers that be are quite happy with the status quo. The only way I see it changing is from public demand, from a severely unpopular system to a extremely popular system. A system that drastic in change would have quite a few opponents, not as many as the current system has, but IMO enough to prevent that from being implemented.

 

[Oh8ch]

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

FWIW nobody from the ACC or Big East is currently ranked in the top 18.

We can look back 40 years and argue over 2-4 teams in any given season who had a case for the NC. But not more than that. Let 16 in and you will get a "wild card" champion sooner or later. How is that better than today?

As I said before, I can not support Karl Marx or Obama's arguments for an 8 team playoff. And certainly not Trotsky and his 16 team proposal (which is why FDR had him tracked down in Mexico).

But if you pushed me into a corner I might agree that Engels had it right with his plus one.

No more than that.

 

[ScriptOhio]

Re: BCS coordinator John Swofford responded Sunday night: "First of all I want to congratulate newly-elected President Obama and I am glad he has a passion for college football like so many other Americans. For now, our constituencies ? and I know he understands constituencies ? have settled on the current BCS system, which the majority believe is the best system yet to determine a national champion while also maintaining the college football regular season as the best and most meaningful in sports.
"The college presidents, conference commissioners, athletics directors and coaches have continually considered ways to improve the system in keeping with four primary objectives, among others: protecting the unique significance of the regular season, preserving the bowl system for the thousands of students and fans who participate each year, keeping football as a one semester sport and doing what's best for the student-athletes. We certainly respect the opinions of president-elect Obama and welcome dialogue on what's best for college football."
Obama still stumping for playoff - USATODAY.com

John Swofford I FIFY (below):

BCS coordinator John Swofford responded Sunday night: "First of all I want to congratulate newly-elected President Obama and I am glad he has a passion for college football like so many other Americans. For now, our constituencies ? and I know he understands constituencies ? have settled on the current BCS system, which the majority believe is the best system to make the most money in determining a national champion."
The college presidents, conference commissioners, athletics directors and coaches have continually considered ways to improve the system in keeping with four primary objectives, among others: make more money, make a lot more money, make as much money as possible, and make even more money. We certainly respect the opinions of president-elect Obama and welcome dialogue on how to increase the amount of money we get."

It's all about the money.

 

[Bleed S & G]

I will never wrap my head around the anti-playoff sentiment. All arguments are easily shot down.

$$$$$$$

Look at it like this.. the Big 10 gets 5-8 teams in bowl games a year..

With a playoff - the Big 10 gets 2-3 teams (16 team playoff)..

 

[Bleed S & G]

Point is, on the issue of "who's the best team?" a playoff solves nothing. A recognizable champ? Sure. But, the BCS provides us that already. Hell, the pre-BCS polling provided us with that.... All you have to do is submit yourself to accepting the process in place.

I understand this argument.. but don't agree with it.

The Giants weren't the best team.. but when it mattered, under the spotlight, the Giants did beat the best team.

Isn't that how Champions are decided?

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

FWIW nobody from the ACC or Big East is currently ranked in the top 18.

We can look back 40 years and argue over 2-4 teams in any given season who had a case for the NC. But not more than that. Let 16 in and you will get a "wild card" champion sooner or later. How is that better than today?

As I said before, I can not support Karl Marx or Obama's arguments for an 8 team playoff. And certainly not Trotsky and his 16 team proposal (which is why FDR had him tracked down in Mexico).

But if you pushed me into a corner I might agree that Engels had it right with his plus one.

No more than that.

There are at least eight teams that have a legit claim to being worthy of being in the NC game. I think YSU won a I-AA title when they entered the 16-team playoffs ranked around 11th (they were definitely outside of the top eight). IIRC, it was when they finished third in their conference (Gateway), and the only two teams they lost to were their conference champs and runners-up (So. Ill. and No. Iowa I think). The Gateway conference back then was like the Big 12 is this year.

 

[Oh8ch]

There are at least eight teams that have a legit claim to being worthy of being in the NC game. I think YSU won a I-AA title when they entered the 16-team playoffs ranked around 11th (they were definitely outside of the top eight). IIRC, it was when they finished third in their conference (Gateway), and the only two teams they lost to were their conference champs and runners-up (So. Ill. and No. Iowa I think). The Gateway conference back then was like the Big 12 is this year.

Which again is my point.

I have no argument that if you take any value of 2 squared to some power and keep playing games you will get down to one team. Be it 4, 8, 16, or 512 teams. It is a mathematical certainty.

My question is what does that have to do with who is the best team when (in the case of a sixteen team playoff) something akin to 192 other games have been played and are being ignored other than as qualifiers?

When a three loss team plays an undefeated team in the CFB playoff finals I will have only slightly more interest than I did in the 2003 World Series with the mighty wild card Florida Marlins proving themselves to be the very bestest absolutely greatest team in baseball (despite finishing 10 games back in their own division).

But it is all good. My interest level in CFB is too strong. A playoff may just be the cure.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Which again is my point.

I have no argument that if you take any value of 2 squared to some power and keep playing games you will get down to one team. Be it 4, 8, 16, or 512 teams. It is a mathematical certainty.

My question is what does that have to do with who is the best team when (in the case of a sixteen team playoff) something akin to 192 other games have been played and are being ignored other than as qualifiers?

When a three loss team plays an undefeated team in the CFB playoff finals I will have only slightly more interest than I did in the 2003 World Series with the mighty wild card Florida Marlins proving themselves to be the very bestest absolutely greatest team in baseball (despite finishing 10 games back in their own division).

But it is all good. My interest level in CFB is too strong. A playoff may just be the cure.

Texas beats Oklahoma, Texas Tech beats Texas, and Oklahoma beats Texas Tech (if that happens this Saturday). Now, how do you determine which team is better? This stuff happens all the time in college football (which is one of the great things about it).

The fairest (not the "perfect", the "fairest") way is to rack-and-stack the top 16 teams in the country based on their performance throughout the season and then let them decide the champion on the field.

 

[jwinslow]

16 would diminish the regular season a bit, much more than a +1 or 8 team playoff would do. Generally once you get past the top-10, you started finding a lot of 3 loss teams, and a lot of mediocrity.

Does Michigan State really deserve to be in a BCS playoff? LSU is sitting at 18, and likely make the top-16 after some attrition.

When was the last season when a team was snubbed beyond the top-4?

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

16 would diminish the regular season a bit, much more than a +1 or 8 team playoff would do. Generally once you get past the top-10, you started finding a lot of 3 loss teams, and a lot of mediocrity.

Uh, YSU had two losses when they won the I-AA national title despite being ranked outside the top eight...

 

[jwinslow]

Is there a reason you skipped the rest of my post? Does LSU really deserve to be in the title hunt?

Uh, YSU had two losses when they won the I-AA national title despite being ranked outside the top eight...

What does YSU have to do with I-A football?


07
top-9 (1-2 losses)
10. Florida 9-311. Boston College 10-312. Hawaii 12-013. Arizona State 10-214. Tennessee 9-415. Illinois 9-316. Clemson 9-3
Did Florida, Boston College, Tennessee, or Clemson really deserve a chance at a title?

 

[OHSportsFan]

I'm pretty much against a playoff system, but IF one were to be implemented...

then I would look at the plus-1 scenario (seems a little to difficult),

or just a 6 team playoff.

#1 and #2 get byes

#3 and #6 play at Rose
#4 and #5 play at Orange

#1 and #4 play at Sugar
#2 and #3 play at Fiesta

#1 and #2 play at "BCS National Championship"

Obviously, rotating the locations each year. At most a team plays 3 extra games, if top seeds win out, it's only 2. All other bowl games could continue. On the money side, if a Big10 team got a chance to play in 2 or 3 extra games, pretty sure that = more money.

I haven't put much thought into it (I don't usually get involved in "playoff" talk, just deal with the hand that's dealt for the year), but doesn't seem that difficult.

I'm sure wiser people could dissect, critique, and bash my flawed system, but whatever. :p

 

[billmac91]

Does anyone else hate the idea of dumb-ass Harris Poll voters and coaches WHO DO NOT watch games on Saturday being 2/3rds responsible for picking the title game?

So you end up with coaches filling their ballots out based on national perceptions and along company lines. Or if you're Jim Tressel, you have the SID fill out for you.

The system is a joke.

Yes it creates tons of excitement because every fanbase is hoping to get one of two lottey tickets to the title game. But I don't think there is anyway to justify Tennessee making the title game over OSU in 1998. Oklahoma lost their Big 12 title game, and got blasted by USC. I don't remember who else had 1 loss, but they should have had a chance.

The year Auburn, USC, and Oklahoma all went undefeated and Auburn got left out. And 2006, Michigan gets left out for Florida. Hindsight says the system got it right, but whos to say Michigan doesn't paste an out of shape OSU team either? Maybe Michigan/UF would have been a better game. The way OSU showed up that night, I doubt Michigan would have gotten pasted any worse.

It's just a crappy system that does a terrible job of wrapping up all of the loose ends. A playoff eliminates all of that. A playoff takes out the guess work and assumptions of idiot sportswriters and douchebags that start OSU at #20 b/c they think the Big 10 is overrated. I don't want those guys having a final influence on the National Champion. If that guy has a say in the final 8 or 16, so be it I guess. Teams 9 and 10 or 17 and 18 have a lot less to argue about than a team sitting at #3 in the current system.

And the money to be made is astronomical. And you can keep the current bowl system.

I'd still like to see what type of implications a college playoff has on the current jobs of those involved with a BCS. It seems to me, you are asking those who directly benefit from the BCS, to change a system that keeps them fat and happy. It isn't because the BCS makes more money, IMO...it is because the BCS means those involved continue to keep their jobs involved with a BCS system.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Is there a reason you skipped the rest of my post? Does LSU really deserve to be in the title hunt?
What does YSU have to do with I-A football?


07
top-9 (1-2 losses)
10. Florida 9-311. Boston College 10-312. Hawaii 12-013. Arizona State 10-214. Tennessee 9-415. Illinois 9-316. Clemson 9-3
Did Florida, Boston College, Tennessee, or Clemson really deserve a chance at a title?

Why don't you use this year's rankings, seeing as that's what applies right now. By the way, YSU's winning a national title in a 16-team playoff when they were ranked outside the top eight is the perfect example of why I-A should have a 16-team playoff...that's what they have to do with I-A football.

Try to comprehend what someone is saying for a change. Oh yeah, we're not talking about photography...my bad.

 

[jwinslow]

amen bmac.

Why don't you use this year's rankings, seeing as that's what applies right now.

You mean like my last post, where I asked whether LSU deserved to be in a playoff? They're ranked 18th and will likely make the top-16 after attrition. LSU is not a title-worthy team.

Besides, there are still weeks of games to be played, which will lead to more blemishes on the resumes of individual teams.

YSU's winning a national title in a 16-team playoff when they were ranked outside the top eight is the perfect example of why I-A should have a 16-team playoff...that's what they have to do with I-A football.

Teams can overachieve quite often, see Michigan over Florida last year. Overachievement doesn't change my stance that most teams out fo the top-10 are not worthy of a title run. But it's a little hard to have an actual debate when you don't address my points.

Penn State could lose their second straight game (and were a fortunate fumble away from 3 straight) at home against MSU and probably hang around #15/16 in the polls. Sixteen lets in way too much mediocrity.

Try to comprehend what someone is saying for a change.

This is your explanation for only addressing the portions of my argument you wish to face?

Oh yeah, we're not talking about photography...my bad.

Oh boy, you sure showed me Just imagine if you had snuck another 'uh' in there.