College Playoff

[MililaniBuckeye]

I think the fact that the pile of mediocre upstarts is knocking off the top seeds left and right in the highest-profile tournaments further emphasizes the point.

I think the fact you don't have the common sense to see that there is no corellation between an 8- or 16-team football playoff, which takes the top 8 or 16 teams team based on BCS rankings, and the galactic clusterfuck that is the 65-team basketball playoff that has let in sub-.500 teams solely because of conference tournaments, sort of negates your credibility on the subject. Only a baffoon would really think they are even remotely similar.

 

[jwinslow]

Only a baffoon would really think they are even remotely similar.

 

[Mike80]

Every year we get closer and closer. Whether people like it or not, the move toward a playoff will be within 5-10 years.

Short of you and every other college football fan NOT watching the bowl games, this isnt' going to happen in 10 years.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

 

[methomps]

That's kind of thin. "Our fans failed to show up" doesn't change the fact that you get to sleep in your own bed and stay in your own place the night before a game.

When did I say we didn't show up? Sc was well-represented, but so was everybody. The nature of the ticket packages is such that there are fans from other teams at your games

And I'm pretty sure SC stayed in a hotel

 

[HailToMichigan]

I think the fact you don't have the common sense to see that there is no corellation between an 8- or 16-team football playoff, which takes the top 8 or 16 teams team based on BCS rankings, and the galactic clusterfuck that is the 65-team basketball playoff that has let in sub-.500 teams solely because of conference tournaments, sort of negates your credibility on the subject. Only a baffoon would really think they are even remotely similar.

I think the fact that you don't have the common sense to see that I was talking about the 8-to-16 team conference tournaments and not the 64-team Big Dance sort of negates your credibility on the subject of reading comprehension.

 

[TheIronColonel]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

 

[kn1f3party]

What do you expect to get out of a college playoff, whether you are for it or against it even the casual fan could answer this with some degree of intelligence. Where people seem to disagree is what the purpose is believe it or not. We hear all of these arguments about whether someone deserves to be the champion or not, because it is opinion that they are not the best team in the league. This may or may not be true, but how do you determine something like this? There is no tangible way to say without a doubt that one team is the best team in the nation. We can vote, but you don't have to go back very far in history to find examples where the majority of American citizens seemed to have made poor choices with their votes. The moment you put a human element in to it there is going to be some form of bias or another. Whether you are biased to a team that plays in a tough conference, or you're biased toward a team that scores a lot of points, or defense tickles your fancy there is some form of bias.

So again, what should a college playoff determine? The only thing it should determine is a national champion. Does the national champion have to be the best team in the nation? Not necessarily. Ideally it would be, but that depends on what your opinions of best are. If you look at TV ratings for the bowl games there is no rhyme or reason to them. The only thing that stands out is that ratings are up when controversy is. I personally find it asinine to argue for bowl games because they have produced television ratings. As much as we'd like to be involved in the sport we love to watch, we're spectators. We watch it. We can concoct these notions that we're going to democratically make changes but the sport is changing on its own. Every season you're going to have another team that feels they were shafted, every season you're going to have controversy about rankings, because every season the BCS is in place the sport is going to be subjected to biased rankings--whether by computer or not. College football is big, so it is slow to move... But when it does, it will move in a big way.

I'm not interested in debating the proper way to determine the best team in the league each year, but I welcome anyone that is anti-playoff to make an argument for how bowls are the best solution for determining a national champion.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I think the fact that you don't have the common sense to see that I was talking about the 8-to-16 team conference tournaments and not the 64-team Big Dance sort of negates your credibility on the subject of reading comprehension.

I think the fact you can't recognize that 8-to-16 team conference tournaments don't come into play in college football as they do in basketball, thus making your comparison completely irrelevent, totally negates your credibility about anything.

Every time I read one of your posts, I go:

 

[SuperBuckFan08]

So now Congress has decided to take it upon themselves to review the BCS..

 

[blueinfla]

If OSU isn't good enough to beat USC at home then they don't deserve to be in the NC game is how I look at it. OTOH, beat USC at home and no one can complain about OSU getting in, even if they slip up once in Big 10 play. OTOH play a weak ass schedule in a league the media thinks is sub-SEC and your undefeated team has to settle for jst another BCS bowl game. So no thanks to the pasties, give me one of the big boys every year.

Look, I think we can all agree that a playoff would be good for college football. In a playoff scenario, UM and OSU can both schedule UF, USC, Texas, and Oklahomo every year. Now who wouldn't want to see that. I'd love to see that. But that kind of scheduling doesn't work in the BCS. That's asking to not make a big time bowl. Now say UM or OSU (doesn't matter for this hypothetical situation) goes 2-2 in those 4 games. Those games are going to prepare them for the big 10 regular season even more so than playing scrubs. If said team goes on to win the Big10, they will represent them in the playoff. Or, if 9-3 is good enough with that kind of schedule for a bid, then they also get in. You might say it takes the importance away from every game, which they may be some degree of truth. However, watching your team play top competition week in and week out, is a hell of a lot more fun than watching them play scrubs.

 

[Palpie]

Look, I think we can all agree that a playoff would be good for college football. In a playoff scenario, UM and OSU can both schedule UF, USC, Texas, and Oklahomo every year. Now who wouldn't want to see that. I'd love to see that. But that kind of scheduling doesn't work in the BCS. That's asking to not make a big time bowl. Now say UM or OSU (doesn't matter for this hypothetical situation) goes 2-2 in those 4 games. Those games are going to prepare them for the big 10 regular season even more so than playing scrubs. If said team goes on to win the Big10, they will represent them in the playoff. Or, if 9-3 is good enough with that kind of schedule for a bid, then they also get in. You might say it takes the importance away from every game, which they may be some degree of truth. However, watching your team play top competition week in and week out, is a hell of a lot more fun than watching them play scrubs.

I don't think you get it. I'm not a playoff proponent. I just happen to think if OSU is worthy of the BCS title game then they'll win those big OOC games. So I don't care if losing to USC hurts OSU's chances at the title game. Cause if OSU can't beat USC/Texas/Oklahoma, then they don't deserve a chance for the title.

I guess I can see where a fan of a team that can't beat Toledo would prefer to take the easy route and hope for a one big upset than actually have a team that's deserving of a championship though.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Look, I think we can all agree that a playoff would be good for college football.

We most certainly cannot. Unless there is a MASSIVE overhaul of the system like Lord Jeff proposes.

Here's what your playoffs would look like (Start here) since the inception of the BCS..... be careful what you wish for... it's not as simple as saying "Texas deserved a chance" and that's it... by inviting Texas... other teams get a shot too... and they probably DONT deserve it....

A playoff would do little to help "popular mid major" and would do little to create compelling match-ups, instead creating rematches and is at its core as arbitrary a system as the current BCS.

 

[blueinfla]

We most certainly cannot. Unless there is a MASSIVE overhaul of the system like Lord Jeff proposes.

Here's what your playoffs would look like (Start here) since the inception of the BCS..... be careful what you wish for... it's not as simple as saying "Texas deserved a chance" and that's it... by inviting Texas... other teams get a shot too... and they probably DONT deserve it....

A playoff would do little to help "popular mid major" and would do little to create compelling match-ups, instead creating rematches and is at its core as arbitrary a system as the current BCS.

Not a fan of the way the OP "broke down" his playoff brackets. I like a 16 team tournament. The Wetzel Plan is what I'd base my playoff after.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

and would do little to create compelling match-ups,

You can label a match up compelling or non-compelling before the games begin if you want. It is the play on the field that makes the games compelling. It is when the games go into overtime that make them compelling even though they are not compelling matchups at kickoff.