College Playoff

[Jake]

Yeah, and then there's the concept that after 12 games we can't trust any system to give us 2... but now I'm supposed to accept ... with 13 games... well, sure... no problem, now we can pick 4.

I'd rather see them pick 4 after 13 games than 2 after 12 games. It's a step, albeit small, toward having more of the title decided on the field and less in the board room.

 

[Jaxbuck]

It's a step, albeit small, toward having more of the title decided on the field and less in the board room.

Would any playoff proponent be ok with a B10 championship season being seen as a failure because we lost our first round playoff game? Look at the Tenn Titans this past season or any NFL team that has a great regular season and exits the playoffs before the SB. Their seasons are looked back on as nothing but a painful choke. Thats the door you are opening with a playoff in CFB along with seeing rivalry games watered down when teams start resting players for their upcoming playoff games.

It also quickly becomes NC or nothing and as good as that sounds, less than 10% of CFB teams out there can realistically aspire to that on any given year. Fortunately we are fans of one of them but those other 90% should have some reward at the end of a good season so, imo, you can't scrap Bowls completely. I'm not 100% opposed to a playoff, I see a lot of pro's to it, but these things are the major con's I see that I don't hear discussed enough when people start talking playoffs.

Its easy to bash the Bowl system because it was never intended to crown any kind of champion. They were originally created to be nothing more than an exhibition game played as an excuse for a teams fans to take a trip (usually to a warm weather site) at the end of a good year (nice break in the middle of winter for most). In fact they used to vote for the NC before Bowl games were even played. Only in the past 25 years or so have they been asked to crown a champion and they obviously were ill prepared to do that with the conference tie ins (again back to the reward/vacation concept) and such.

anyway, sorry for the ramble but its always a fun topic to discuss.

 

[Jake]

I think the BCS Championship Game has already made it "NC or nothing" for some of our fans - which is not a good thing, IMO - so I don't think a playoff makes a difference in that regard. For clarification, any playoff I personally endorse would not include eliminating the bowls. I've heard some people say a playoff would cheapen the bowls, but seriously, could some of them be any more cheapened than they are now? Still, the teams that play in those bowls usually seem to enjoy them so why not let them go on?

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

So you have 5 BCS bowl winners and only 4 advance to the playoff? How do they decide which winner is left out? I'd also be interested in how the seeding of the 5 BCS bowls would work. Do they keep traditional conference tie-ins or are the matchups somehow determined by rank?

There would no longer be 5 bowls, because you take away the national championship game. Seems pointless to have a national championship game that doesn't decide the nation's champion correct?

 

[BB73]

There would no longer be 5 bowls, because you take away the national championship game. Seems pointless to have a national championship game that doesn't decide the nation's champion correct?

He was referring to the Mtn West's proposal, which when described by The Denver Post had 5 BCS Bowls (one was from a new site, which would probably be Dallas), but only advanced 4 teams after those games. It wasn't certain whether the bowl game whose winner wouldn't advance would be determined before or after the bowl games, but it probably would be before. Which makes the 5th BCS game a joke if it isn't a playoff quarterfinal like the rest.

Under his proposal, a conference would qualify for one of the BCS bowls only by meeting two criteria: playing at least 20 regular-season games in a two-year period against teams from the six major BCS conferences; and winning at least 40 percent of those games. A new 12-person committee, made up of one representative from each of the 11 conferences, plus Notre Dame, would determine the top 25 teams at the end of the regular season. The top 10 teams would play in the Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Sugar bowls, plus a to-be-determined fifth bowl currently hosting a non-BCS bowl. The winners of the top four bowls would play in semifinals one week later, with those two winners meeting in another week for the national title.
Denver Post

 

[ArmyVet83]

After years of debate, I do not think there is a "perfect" scenario to determine who the true NC is of college football. There will always be a large group of people that don't agree with this format or that format and will always make an arguement for their team or conference due to any reason they can think of. For every point there is a counter-point.

The only thing I would like to see is the Big Ten season as a whole extend into early December. If it means adding an additional conference game or even two, I would be OK with that. Drop the YSU, New Mex St., and MAC teams and add the conference teams. There is no reason with the current format that we cannot play a full conference schedule and add a 13th game to leading into Decmeber. It would look like this 2009:
(Changes in bold)

Navy (9/5)
USC (9/12)
(BCS Conference game - UVA, BYU, TTU, etc.) (9/19)
Toledo (9/26)(Northwestern)
Illinois (10/3)
at Indiana (10/10)
Wisconsin (10/17)
at Purdue (10/24)
Minnesota (10/31)
New Mexico State (MSU) (11/07)
at Penn State (11/14)
Iowa (11/21)
at Michigan (11/28)

Granted this scenario does not get us into early December but an open date early in the season can always be added. However with our history coming off bye-weeks, I would be game to play straight through.

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

He was referring to the Mtn West's proposal, which when described by The Denver Post had 5 BCS Bowls (one was from a new site, which would probably be Dallas), but only advanced 4 teams after those games. It wasn't certain whether the bowl game whose winner wouldn't advance would be determined before or after the bowl games, but it probably would be before. Which makes the 5th BCS game a joke if it isn't a playoff quarterfinal like the rest.

Well that does seem like a stupid idea then, seems pointless to add another bowl game if your still going to have the same amount of teams advance. Idea would work fine if you just toss the last game.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Drop the YSU, New Mex St., and MAC teams and add the conference teams. There is no reason with the current format that we cannot play a full conference schedule and add a 13th game to leading into Decmeber

I thought the NCAA mandated a 12 game schedule? If so thats the answer for why you won't see the round robin B10 schedule. It cuts your OOC games down to 2 and your total possible home games a year down to 7 instead of 8. It comes down to the revenue the football program is responsible for generating.

If we could do a 13 week schedule then you are still cutting off 1 OOC game a year and would therefore be eliminating any marquee OOC matchups most likely. They would want that 3rd OOC game to be at home and that would require 3 opponents of the calibre that does not require a home and home. Say good bye to the USC and Texas type matchups.

All this assumes I'm doing the math right on a full round robin B10 schedule being 10 B10 games every year.

 

[BB73]

I've seen a lot of comments (not just in this thread, JoePa has talked about it) about the Big Ten needing to play after Thanksgiving, in order to not leave the voter's minds for the last two weeks of the season.

Well, the Big Ten is playing games after Thangsgiving - The Game will be after Thanksgiving for the next couple of years at least. And Illinois is playing a game in December this year, against Fresno State.

But I don't buy that argument anyway. tOSU made it after the 2006 and 2007 seasons, and Penn State would have played in the Title game last year if they had defeated Illinois.

But there is a 12-game limit to the schedule now, unless you play at Hawaii, which is a weird rule that allows a 13th game.

 

[Jaxbuck]

But there is a 12-game limit to the schedule now, unless you play at Hawaii, which is a weird rule that allows a 13th game.

Its because Hawaii is so good the NCAA counts it as a season unto itself to get ready for them. At least thats what I read on a ND board.

 

[Oh8ch]

unless you play at Hawaii, which is a weird rule that allows a 13th game.

and you can add a 14th game if you agree to play in Youngstown.

 

[ArmyVet83]

and you can add a 14th game if you agree to play in Youngstown.

How about if you play @Hawaii and @Youngstown? Does that mean you get to play a 15th game? Does that mean an automatic bid to a BCS game? or dare I say the BCS National Championship if you beat both teams by 11 and 12 points respectively in back to back away games? WOW!! That would be AWESOME!!

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

But I don't buy that argument anyway. tOSU made it after the 2006 and 2007 seasons, and Penn State would have played in the Title game last year if they had defeated Iowa.

I finally got to correct YOU for once!

 

[BB73]

I finally got to correct YOU for once!

Oops. :!

I remember thinking 'Iowa' as I typed that yesterday.

 

[zincfinger]

Maybe SC was a superior team [to Oregon St. when they played last year], but like in ANY sport, on that day they were not, OSU was, that is exactly why games are played. That is why there should be a playoff.

That kind of example is an anti-playoff argument, not a pro-playoff argument. Sometimes the lesser team wins. This is indisputable. It happened in the Oregon St./USC game last year, and in countless other games in any year. This undercuts the core claimed benefit of a playoff, that it presumably yields a more meaningful championp. It does not.