College Playoff

[AuburnBuckeye]

Couldnt the same thing be said about a playoff system though? You are inevitably going to have teams that qualify for at large bids that get left out using that same premise because there arent enough bids to go around.

Exactley but it's not quite as bad, with the BCS a team can go undefeated and still not get their rightful shot at the title. But with this system the #9 team in the country will be on the outside looking in. Which team would you prefer be screwed over. An undefeated or one loss major or small conference team, or a 2-3 loss one?

Doesnt a playoff essentially take into account the last game only too? In essence the arguements that are being made on both sides, can also be used against the other one. There is no guarantee that a team with an arguement to be in the NC gets a chance to play for it. Hypothetically last year Ball St goes undefeated, but would they make the playoffs since they wouldnt be part of a major conference? If you expand the playoffs to include the mid majors, the same arguement could be made that they didnt deserve to be playing for the NC because the body of work didnt support it. The BCS does have its flaws, but a playoff system not only would keep the same flaws in place, but would also create additional gripes from teams just on the outside of qualifying that would deserve to be in.

If Ball St. would have gone undefeated last year the very well might not have been in the top 8, but do you seriously think they deserved a shot at the title? People look for some form of consistency from a team before they are taken seriously, last year was the first year Ball St. was impressive this decade.

They aren't creating gripes they are essentially transferring them. Would rather have a #3 or #4 team that was a few votes away from being a top 2 team get screwed or some #9-10 team that would be hard pressed to make a BCS bowl game get screwed? When it comes down to it someone will probably get screwed, I would just rather have it be a team barely scratching the top 10.

Likewise. You are trying to convince people that the BCS is such a terrible system and that a playoff system would somehow make everything perfect. My opinion is that it wouldnt work any differently, yours is the opposite so I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

I have admitted NUMEROUS times that the playoff system isn't perfect, I just think it keeps some really really quality teams from getting boned.

 

[Oh8ch]

Sounds an awful lot like what people here have been saying.

Just the smart ones.


What CFB really needs to do is have a playoff in late to mid October. Then have another one at the end of the regular season. Then those two winners can play for the NC. (Kinda like what baseball did in 1981 where they exposed the Reds as frauds.)

Or we could come up with a points system like NASCAR or the FEDEX Cup. We could do some neat stuff to spruce up this sport that is clearly failing on every front.

IT AIN'T BROKE!

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

So, those with a differing opinion are 'shoving BS down your throat?' You've repeatedly argued in favor of a playoff system; should those who disagree with that stance accuse you of doing the same thing?

That type of attitude is what is BS, and it won't serve you well on this site.

Sorry about that, I tend to get a little too much in to it during a heated debate.

But when I said BS i didn't mean there point of view in general. I can definetley see where they're coming from. What I meant was he said something along the lines of atleast the BCS takes into account the whole body of work ( implying the playoff doesn't ) that was false and thus I considered it BS. The rest of the arguments stated by there side of the issue are usually well-founded and thought out.

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

Now, let's look at who "deserves" something

Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sa garin
Big XII....Oklahoma.........1...12-2....7....5.....3
SEC........Florida..........2...13-1....4....1.....1
Big XII....Texas............3...12-1...14....4.....4
SEC........Alabama..........4...12-2...28....6.....6
Pac 10.....USC..............5...12-1...16....3.....2
MWC........Utah.............6...13-0...56....2.....5
Big XII....Texas Tech.......7...11-2...27...12.....9
Big Ten....Penn State.......8...11-2...55....8.....8

There is no question in my mind that this is what playoff proponents "see" when they talk about Playoffs. But, don't tell me it's "fair" If it were, WAC Champ Boise State (rated #9 by the way) would be involved. I mean, what else are they supposed to have done? Does #11 TCU deserve a look? What about #10 Ohio State? Is it fair that they get left out, or are we still looking at a "popularity contest" to see who "deserves" it?

But in the BCS, teams like USC and Texas get screwed over. In a playoff teams like BSU and TCU get the shaft. Those are a couple of high quality teams, but they are definetley not on the level of UT and USC. Ideally no one should get screwed, so if you show me a system that can do that i'm all aboard.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Exactley but it's not quite as bad, with the BCS a team can go undefeated and still not get their rightful shot at the title. But with this system the #9 team in the country will be on the outside looking in. Which team would you prefer be screwed over. An undefeated or one loss major or small conference team, or a 2-3 loss one?

It still just boils down to arguing over who the system picks for the NCG after the 12 week playoff is over.

You design a system that takes 8 teams and the cry will go up from #9, 16 teams and the committe for fairness to #17 will get some attention whore in Congress to go ape shit when his home state U gets passed over etc etc etc.

If you are going to change something maybe allow for the flexibility of having extra games to fit the situation if and only if multiple teams finish UNDEFEATED and in the BCS top 10-15. Then and only then do I think the current sysytem is inherently unfair. I don't think a standing playoff system no matter the circumstances is the answer. Problem is you can't make as much money year to year if you don't know if you'll have that extra game or two so it can never happen that way.

1 loss teams that don't like the cards the tie breaker dealt them shouldn't have lost that 1 game. I understand the frustration but thats just how it goes.

 

[zincfinger]

Exactly but it's not quite as bad, with the BCS a team can go undefeated and still not get their rightful shot at the title.

We're basically talking about Auburn here. I personally would exclude mid-majors from this point of discussion, because they do not run remotely the same gauntlet that BCS teams do (with the arguable exception of a weak OOC scheduling BigEast team). You seem to agree with this in the following comment.

If Ball St. would have gone undefeated last year the very well might not have been in the top 8, but do you seriously think they deserved a shot at the title?

So as I said, we're talking about 2004 Auburn here. And I agree with you, Auburn got hosed. They proved it on the field as much as possible, and didn't get a shot despite that. And I completely understand Auburn fans having a particular animus against the BCS because of that. But nevertheless, this is a rarity. That's small consolation to Auburn fans, I know, but this has happened 1 time in 11 years. Texas last year, or 1 or 2 loss USC teams other years are not the same thing.

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

It still just boils down to arguing over who the system picks for the NCG after the 12 week playoff is over.

You design a system that takes 8 teams and the cry will go up from #9, 16 teams and the committe for fairness to #17 will get some attention whore in Congress to go ape [censored] when his home state U gets passed over etc etc etc.

If you are going to change something maybe allow for the flexibility of having extra games to fit the situation if and only if multiple teams finish UNDEFEATED and in the BCS top 10-15. Then and only then do I think the current sysytem is inherently unfair. I don't think a standing playoff system no matter the circumstances is the answer. Problem is you can't make as much money year to year if you don't know if you'll have that extra game or two so it can never happen that way.

1 loss teams that don't like the cards the tie breaker dealt them shouldn't have lost that 1 game. I understand the frustration but thats just how it goes.

This argument has quite a bit of merit, I just think this system is quite a bit more entertaining. It could make the sport better, or it could be a total colossal failure and ruin the sport, I just think the former is more likely.

 

[Oh8ch]

Ideally no one should get screwed, so if you show me a system that can do that i'm all aboard.

The desire to make sure nobody get's screwed is what invites 12 levels of wild card.

I have seen no widespread support for a playoff system that does not include the conference champions from the 6 BCS conferences. For an 8 team playoff that leaves two spots for all the other teams with a claim - including an 11-1 second place team from the all-mighty SEC.


That many folks are arguing for a playoff is far from the same as many folks agree on a playoff.

 

[Oh8ch]

it could be a total colossal failure and ruin the sport

What the hell - let's roll the dice. What have we got to lose?

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

So as I said, we're talking about 2004 Auburn here. And I agree with you, Auburn got hosed. They proved it on the field as much as possible, and didn't get a shot despite that. And I completely understand Auburn fans having a particular animus against the BCS because of that. But nevertheless, this is a rarity. That's small consolation to Auburn fans, I know, but this has happened 1 time in 11 years. Texas last year, or 1 or 2 loss USC teams other years are not the same thing.

I've moved on from 04 (and trust me, it wasn't easy). But I think Utah got hosed this year as well, they have proven in the past they can be a quality program, and are quite obviously able to hang with the big dogs.

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

What the hell - let's roll the dice. What have we got to lose?

This is a VERY unlikely situation. In time the BCS could ruin the sport as well, also VERY unlikely.

 

[Jaxbuck]

This argument has quite a bit of merit, I just think this system is quite a bit more entertaining. It could make the sport better, or it could be a total colossal failure and ruin the sport, I just think the former is more likely.

Absolutely agree.

I disagree that its enough to just say I think the pro is more likely than the con and place your bet. Its about risk reward ratio. You have something pretty damn great already so it would take a massive reward on the other end to justify running the risk of losing it.

At least thats the way I roll.

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

What the hell - let's roll the dice. What have we got to lose?

In case you've forgotten the BCS was only put in place recentley as well, that had and still has the chance to be a collosal failure.

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

Absolutely agree.

I disagree that its enough to just say I think the pro is more likely than the con and place your bet. Its about risk reward ratio. You have something pretty damn great already so it would take a massive reward on the other end to justify running the risk of losing it.

At least thats the way I roll.

And that is why this whole thing is a matter of opinion, whether or not you think the reward is enough to constitute the risk involved.

 

[zincfinger]

I've moved on from 04 (and trust me, it wasn't easy). But I think Utah got hosed this year as well, they have proven in the past they can be a quality program, and are quite obviously able to hang with the big dogs.

There's a difference between being able to hang with the big dogs, and actually going undefeated over a 13 game schedule that includes 5 or 6 big dogs. There are probably 20-30 teams every year that can hang with the big dogs, at least on occasion. To my mind, an undefeated team that runs through the season playing a bunch of weak-to-middling opponents, and capping it off with one good win against a big dog, is not in the same category as going undefeated over the schedule that includes multiple big dogs throughout the season.