• 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!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
AuburnBuckeye;1491830; said:
Yeah and what if Ulysses S. Grant would have dove in front the bullet that killed Abe Lincoln?
The obvious difference there is that the question of whether a game counts or not is a matter of definition, and is therefore somewhat arbitrary. The question of whether Grant took a bullet for Lincoln is not a matter of definition, and is not at all arbitrary.
 
Upvote 0
AuburnBuckeye;1491830; said:
Yeah and what if Ulysses S. Grant would have dove in front the bullet that killed Abe Lincoln? What if the Broncos would have beat the chargers and made the playoffs? They could be the champs!! You can't just try and change history to make an argument for yourself, that makes no damn sense.

As Zinc said, the arbitrary nature of saying when it does and does not count is the logical fallacy. But we are getting way off track here imo.

I would throw this out there for you. We already have a 12 game playoff, the problem is with the tie breaking scenarios. Why not work on that angle of it?
 
Upvote 0
AuburnBuckeye;1491833; said:
Can you give me a system that eliminates this problem?
No. In fact, I've explicitly stated that I believe any possible system has this inherent feature (particularly in college where you've got ~70 BCS teams, ~120 teams total, and ~15 games to sort them out), and that therefore the primary consideration should be what makes the entire season, as a whole, the most entertaining and exciting.
 
Upvote 0
AuburnBuckeye;1491847; said:
It could be better however. And I think a playoff would do that.

I think that's a fair statement. It might actually make the post season better... I'm not convinced it would, but I concede that it certainly could.

Those of us who are concerned about a playoff typically think that the cost of this improvement is too high because the CFB regular season is so freakin' awesome.

And as others have noted, I'm actually quite fond of the current CFB post season.
 
Upvote 0
AuburnBuckeye;1491843; said:
I think you all live by the phrase " It's about the journey not the destination" I understand wanting a great regular season. But i'd prefer a great postseason. Just a matter of opinion.
I think you misunderstand the arguments you're disagreeing with, then. I don't think anyone's saying "yes, a playoff would clearly, sunstantially improve the post-season, but I don't care because only the regular season matters". Instead the argument is that it is unclear that a playoff would appreciably improve the post-season, but quite clear that it would appreciably harm the regular season. In other words, it's not a question of only considering one or the other (post-season vs. regular season), it's a question of considering both and coming to a conclusion on net improvement or net diminishment.
 
Upvote 0
Zinc's nailed it.

I like things as they are now, but I would still watch as much football with a playoff as without. I'm certainly not going to march in a parade of horribles that suggests CFB would lose any popularity with me personally.

But, I've researched this topic and I am not impressed with the scenarios I've seen as it concerns producing an exciting post season. Especially if playoff folks are hell bent on keeping the poll system to determine seeds. The rematches we'll get are several, and some of them (Like #2 OU v. # 7 TTU) weren't interesting the first time they played.

Likewise, and I thought of this on my way home, as for potential controversy, wjy couldn't an argument go like this

Say #2 Florida looses to #7 Miami of Florida, while #1 Ohio State kicks the hell out of #8 Utah. If it's based on the BCS ranking, don't we have the same problem? I mean, couldn't Florida argue "We should have been #1 going in, and if we drew Utah instead of Miami, we'd have won too!" I mean the difference between #1 and #2 would still be up to our pollsters and the computers, would it not?

The way I see it - we already have controversy, playoffs don't fix it. We already have a way to determine a champion, and a playoff doesn't make it any more (or less) legit. Our current system addresses mid majors and spreads the wealth, playoffs (in most cases) do not. (The cases which do address mid majors "fairly" produce snoozer games like USC v. Troy... who wants to see that?) The current system has demonstrated that the regular season is exciting and important. The proposed alternative comes with the risk that the importance of each game is reduced.

I'm unable, in this instance, to agree with a playoff scenario. The costs outweigh the benefits. I believe this view of mine is based on reason and not opinion. That's a big reason why I get so passionate about this argument.

All that said, Lordjeff's big make-over proposal is still probably the best alternative... or is at least the one I'd like most if we're to have a playoff. Cut the fat, kick out a bunch of teams, balance the schedules (more or less) and go from there.
 
Upvote 0
I don't think a playoff would ruin the regular season as much as you guys think it will. Only a few teams will make it to the playoffs so there would still be PLENTY of intensity during the regular season. Still not very much room for a team to slip-up.

One question, what would you guys honestly prefer to watch? A bunch of bowls, or a playoff?
 
Upvote 0
AuburnBuckeye;1491866; said:
I don't think a playoff would ruin the regular season as much as you guys think it will. Only a few teams will make it to the playoffs so there would still be PLENTY of intensity during the regular season. Still not very much room for a team to slip-up.

One question, what would you guys honestly prefer to watch? A bunch of bowls, or a playoff?
Honestly - a bunch of bowls.

Truth is this, I love college football for many reasons, but chief among them is that I have a personal interest in my alma mater unlike I might root for a pro team. I don't call Ohio State "we" because I'm not on the team, but as an alum, I feel connected to them and, right or wrong, it matters to me. I would love for OSU to win a National Championship every year they play. But, when they don't, I love watching them play Texas, or Bama or whoever in whatever bowl. I'm in it for the love of the Buckeyes, and the love of the game generally.... I only tangentially care who "wins it all" I mean, I care who wins it, but I love watching college football no matter who's playing. I watch Nevada v. Tulsa. I watch Colorado v. Washington State... I don't have a rooting interest, really, I just love watching it.

The bowls generate match-ups and playoffs generate rematches.

Eh.. not explaining myself well... but, there's no doubt - to answer your question I prefer Bowl Games, with all the pagentry and fanfare (it's what college is all about, after all) much much more than I care for watching a playoff. I'll still watch, don't get me wrong, but I've seen the Bowls... I've seen playoffs. I care more about bowl games. I watch the Las Vegas Bowl. I could give a shit about Cincinatti v. Tennessee in the first round.
 
Upvote 0
AuburnBuckeye;1491866; said:
I don't think a playoff would ruin the regular season as much as you guys think it will. Only a few teams will make it to the playoffs so there would still be PLENTY of intensity during the regular season. Still not very much room for a team to slip-up.

One question, what would you guys honestly prefer to watch? A bunch of bowls, or a playoff?


If it were up to me we'd go back to the old Bowl tie in system and New Years Day would go back to being one of the most glorious days of the year.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top