Poll: College Playoff Yes or No?

[BayBuck]

That's the beauty of creating the a system in your mind. An undefeated team would automatically be in under the system I propose.

That would be absolutely terrible for college football as a whole--so much for quality regular-season matchups, let's beat the 3 worst non-conf teams and hope for a good Big10 lineup, so we can skate into the playoffs. The BCS as of now is forcing everyone to step up their game for a shot at the title, whereas your simplistic proposal dumbs-down the CFB season to be like every other boring sport out there: yawn, wake me when the playoffs are here...

 

[Buckeye86]

That would be absolutely terrible for college football as a whole--so much for quality regular-season matchups, let's beat the 3 worst non-conf teams and hope for a good Big10 lineup, so we can skate into the playoffs. The BCS as of now is forcing everyone to step up their game for a shot at the title, whereas your simplistic proposal dumbs-down the CFB season to be like every other boring sport out there: yawn, wake me when the playoffs are here...

Exactly, the greatest game ever (The Game '06) would have been absolutely meaningless if there were a playoff system. Would people have really given a damn about that game if they knew both teams would make it into a playoff whether they won or lost?

 

[BB73]

If USC defeats UCLA and makes the title game this year, the BCS will have accomplished something this year.

All of the other 1-loss teams can be told this answer, explaining why USC ended up #2:

USC's non-conference schedule was (at) Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame. If you want to win the best 1-loss team argument, schedule non-conference teams that are worth beating, don't just whine about how tough your own conference is when you play Western Carolina, Southern Miss, Central Florida, and Florida State (although it's not the SEC's fault that FSU sucks this year).

Rewarding the teams that have tough non-conference schedules is a good thing for college football. It looks like the BCS will do just that this year.

 

[ScarletBlood31]

Any system that allows for split national championships is complete BS. As long as all major d-1 colleges get a fair shot at the title, then im all for it.

An 8-10 team playoff system would be the ideal situation.

 

[BB73]

Personally either is preferable to me over what we used to have. The poster who brought up 2002 made the perfect point i always try and bring up when some say go back to how it was pre-BCS. 2002 Miami pounds a B12 team in the Orange Bowl and gets the NC in both polls regardless of what we do in the RoseBowl vs USC. Fuck that noise.

I completely agree with your point.

However, the traditional, pre-BCS bowl arrangement would have been even worse for tOSU - it would have produced tOSU-Washington State in a rematch (25-7 in a September game). The Cougars played in the Rose Bowl that year since they and USC each had a conference loss and Washington State won head-to-head.

TSKCoug posted in this thread, but he must not have read your post closely.

 

[OH10]

The Buckeyes opened the season with the Wyoming Cowboys not so many years ago and with NIU this year... so, yes, it is a possibility.

Please learn to read... I said "play the Broncos on the blue field." Of course, we'd play them here, but would we schedule a home and home. No f'n way.

Theory? I'll call your "theory" and raise you "your naive assumptions are ridiculus"...Practicality? Apparently you don't know what that word means...Let me explain what will happen, practically speaking of course...

I didn't want to quote your whole post, but I'll simply respond with a point I made earlier... drop the mid-majors from Division 1-A. Why are they on a level that it's already been decided they can't win on? It's disingenuous to call teams from those leagues Division 1-A teams and then say you can't win the 1-A title.

Apparently, you also think that undefeated seasons grow on trees for mid-majors such that they could theoretically afford to stop travelling to schools like Ohio State and Texas. The idea that they would consider the calculated decision to assume they will go undefeated, thus eliminating the necessity of the payday for playing a big school is naive. They can't make that assumption. As I stated, one mid major team out of many goes undefeated once out of every maybe 4 years. It would be ludicrous for those schools to take a gamble on a big payday when the guaranteed money is right there for the taking. It's just that hard to go undefeated.

That would be absolutely terrible for college football as a whole--so much for quality regular-season matchups, let's beat the 3 worst non-conf teams and hope for a good Big10 lineup, so we can skate into the playoffs. The BCS as of now is forcing everyone to step up their game for a shot at the title, whereas your simplistic proposal dumbs-down the CFB season to be like every other boring sport out there: yawn, wake me when the playoffs are here...

Yeah, people find the NFL playoffs and the NCAA tournament extremely boring... The fact is they are the most anticipated (nationwide) sporting events of the year. If you go to a 'real' basketball school like Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, or Indiana, here's betting they don't sleep during the regular season. Ohio State fans are so busy sticking their noses up at that shit to allow Ohio State to become a 'real' basketball school. And I'm not even going to entertain the absurd argument that the NFL regular season is boring.

As long as you minimize the number of teams in a playoff to a number like 6 or 8, I guarantee you wouldn't have a problem with teams scheduling tough in the preseason. First of all, they know they could afford to lose a game. Whereas now, some team out there in a major conference could have scheduled an easy non-conference schedule, gone undefeated and they'd be playing Ohio State Jan. 8. As I stated before, a lot of people thought West Virginia was going to be that team. And if they had gone undefeated on that cupcake schedule they'd be there - you can't even challenge that point.

So how does the current system foster stronger matchups when the incentive is already out there to schedule to go undefeated?

Further, there would inevitably be subjectivity involved in the selection process, even possibly .... (gasp)... a BCS-type formula to determine who gets in the playoff. Therefore, teams would want to schedule stronger to have a better chance at a quality win, especially knowing they can afford to lose a game on a fluke, and not be eliminated in September.

Exactly, the greatest game ever (The Game '06) would have been absolutely meaningless if there were a playoff system. Would people have really given a damn about that game if they knew both teams would make it into a playoff whether they won or lost?

If USC had lost to Notre Dame, it would have become even more meaningless, because you'd have an automatic rematch instead of a seeding system. That's the problem with the BCS - it needs to get lucky to work. This will be the ninth year, and only twice (2002 and 2005) did it actually pit the undisputed number 1 and 2 teams out there.

 

[BayBuck]

Please learn to read... I said "play the Broncos on the blue field." Of course, we'd play them here, but would we schedule a home and home. No f'n way.

Why would it have to be AT Boise? Coming into Ohio Stadium and beating the Buckeyes would do just as much to legitimize their NC aspirations, and really there's more money to be made for both schools (which helps mid-majors continue building up to major level) here than there.

Apparently, you also think that undefeated seasons grow on trees for mid-majors ...As I stated, one mid major team out of many goes undefeated once out of every maybe 4 years.

You should rethink that assumption... 5 undefeated mid-majors in the last 9 years (Tulane in 1998, Marshall in 1999, Utah and Boise State in 2004, and Boise State in 2006).

Yeah, people find the NFL playoffs and the NCAA tournament extremely boring...

Um, I think I said I'll be awake come playoff time; it's their regular seasons that don't mean anything to me (except Buckeye BB of course, but that's because I'm a diehard for one specific team).

If USC had lost to Notre Dame, it would have become even more meaningless, because you'd have an automatic rematch instead of a seeding system. That's the problem with the BCS - it needs to get lucky to work. This will be the ninth year, and only twice (2002 and 2005) did it actually pit the undisputed number 1 and 2 teams out there.

You might want to watch that SEC championship game before you call Michigan a automatic #2 over Florida (assuming USC were to be out of the picture). And despite some controversy over the 2nd teams involved in some BCS title games, I for one have no problem calling 99 FSU, 00 Oklahoma, 01 Miami, 03 LSU and 04 USC the undisputed champs for those years--just like when we beat whomever for 06. Mission accomplished, BCS.

 

[Zurp]

I voted "No, but tweak the current BCS system." But in my idea of a perfect world, it would be a four-team playoff. No more. Start adding more and more rounds to the playoff, and you get teams with 2 or 3 losses in there. BOO!!! The only reason I'd want a 2-round playoff (4-team) is to avoid another 2004, where three major teams were undefeated, and one was left out in the cold. I don't think five teams could realistically all claim to be legitimate national champion contenders.

I also think that the BCS formula needs to be tweaked. It was better the old, complicated way, when the voters (both polls combined) comprised a total of 20% of the formula. Now, each of the two polls is 1/3 of the formula. They can leave the computer polls potentially useless (which I have no doubt was the goal when changing the BCS forumla). Maybe the human polls (combined) should comprise of about 40%-50% of the formula, and computer polls the remaining amount. Or whatever. But the new formula gives the media favorites almost guaranteed BCS games.

 

[Dryden]

I didn't want to quote your whole post, but I'll simply respond with a point I made earlier... drop the mid-majors from Division 1-A. Why are they on a level that it's already been decided they can't win on? It's disingenuous to call teams from those leagues Division 1-A teams and then say you can't win the 1-A title.

That's a pipe dream and so far beyond unrealistic that your argument has no credibility.

Wake up. College presidents, ADs, and conference commissioners don't give a damn whether or not we have one unanimous best team in the country, or two co-best teams in the country, or six different ones, or whatever. They care about money. Football funds EVERYTHING.

The original bowl system was about money.
The additional bowls were about more money.
Conference championship games are about money.
The BCS is about obscene amounts of money.
Football games on Tuesday and Thursday and Friday and Sunday is about money.

Any pro-playoff argument that begins with "Notre Dame has to join a conference and get rid of the borderline mid-majors and every conference needs a championship game and this and this and this" displays a colossal lack of understanding about the system. At the major 1A/BCS level, there cannot and will not be a playoff, because the teams that play additional games will receive such a disproportionate amount of extra money it would throw the entire landscape into disarray.

Example: Not only does Ohio State make tens of millions more than Ohio U annually in revenue, but they also pull down several millions more with bowl access. Ohio State playing two or even three additional post season games? Every other Ohio school is going to cry bloody murder. Yet, beyond shafting them in that manner, you propose further to order them down to the 1AA level? Absurd. This will not only destroy college football as it has existed for most of our lifetimes, but it would bankrupt many athletic departments.

What is it that everyone wants to prove?! Why are people so obsessed about whether or not we can hang a banner or display a trophy?

We can say OSU was awarded a national title in 1970, fuck what Nebraska wants to say about it. We can say OSU was awarded a national title in 1961 too, fuck what Alabama wants to say about that. USC can say they won a national title in 2003, despite the lunatic rantings of LSU. We can argue which was the best team in Ohio State history: 1969 or 1973 or 1998. Guess what? None of them has a national title, yet somehow football and life go on.

It. Doesn't. Make. A. Difference.

 

[OH10]

That's a pipe dream and so far beyond unrealistic that your argument has no credibility.

That's a pipe dream and so far beyond unrealistic that your argument has no credibility.

Wake up. College presidents, ADs, and conference commissioners don't give a damn whether or not we have one unanimous best team in the country, or two co-best teams in the country, or six different ones, or whatever. They care about money. Football funds EVERYTHING.

Let me first preface by saying that I'm not a college president, AD or conference commissioner. So my perspective isn't clouded by money. The question on the table is which system should college football have ... BCS or playoff? I don't doubt it will never happen because of money. (which of course leads back to "why aren't we paying players then if it is all about money?" - let's stop kidding ourselves about silly notions of the scholar-athlete and amatuerism).

Further, I have never once heard a credible argument that more college football (i.e. through a playoff system) couldn't generate just as much, if not more, money for these schools.

I really don't advocate tossing mid-majors from 1-A, but you can't be a hypocrite about it. If they're on that level, they have to at least be given an outside shot at winning the championship on that level.

Example: Not only does Ohio State make tens of millions more than Ohio U annually in revenue, but they also pull down several millions more with bowl access. Ohio State playing two or even three additional post season games? Every other Ohio school is going to cry bloody murder.

Funny, if they're not crying blood murder about the payout Ohio State has been getting recently for BCS appearance, why all of a sudden would it take place under that scenario? And if they are crying bloody murder, um... who gives a shit?

We can say OSU was awarded a national title in 1970, fuck what Nebraska wants to say about it. We can say OSU was awarded a national title in 1961 too, fuck what Alabama wants to say about that. USC can say they won a national title in 2003, despite the lunatic rantings of LSU. We can argue which was the best team in Ohio State history: 1969 or 1973 or 1998.

Why don't you just go ahead and admit that you're not interested in an undisputed national champion then?

From my personal perspective, the absurd arguments that the BCS and bowl system in general have created are beyond pointless. College football is like gymnastics then. Let's just score the performances on a 1 to 10 scale, and we can argue about the subjectivity of it later.

Why would it have to be AT Boise? Coming into Ohio Stadium and beating the Buckeyes would do just as much to legitimize their NC aspirations, and really there's more money to be made for both schools (which helps mid-majors continue building up to major level) here than there.

I'm sure they would do that. It's not as if Boise hasn't scheduled tough games before. I still remember the year they took on Georgia. One of the problems for schools out West is that, proximity wise, it just makes more sense to schedule Pac-10 schools - which doesn't do them a lick of good b/c the Pac 10 sucks, unless you can convince USC to give you a shot (after Fresno St. in 2005, they're not gonna jump up and down to play Boise). So Boise is stuck with Oregon St.

You should rethink that assumption... 5 undefeated mid-majors in the last 9 years (Tulane in 1998, Marshall in 1999, Utah and Boise State in 2004, and Boise State in 2006).

Hey, give them a seat at the dinner table then. I still don't see them avoiding the major conference teams. I see the major conference teams avoiding them.

Um, I think I said I'll be awake come playoff time; it's their regular seasons that don't mean anything to me (except Buckeye BB of course, but that's because I'm a diehard for one specific team).

A small playoff would not diminish the regular season. I think it would actually make the end of the season a little more exciting. Right now, there are 3 conference championship games this weekend, and USC-UCLA. And only USC-UCLA really matters.

You might want to watch that SEC championship game before you call Michigan a automatic #2 over Florida (assuming USC were to be out of the picture). And despite some controversy over the 2nd teams involved in some BCS title games, I for one have no problem calling 99 FSU, 00 Oklahoma, 01 Miami, 03 LSU and 04 USC the undisputed champs for those years--just like when we beat whomever for 06. Mission accomplished, BCS.

Wow, I guess we can just declare them undisputed in our minds now. Bravo! Doesn't satisfy me, so pointless argument.

 

[BayBuck]

Wow, I guess we can just declare them undisputed in our minds now. Bravo! Doesn't satisfy me, so pointless argument.

So the fact that few people would dispute those NCs that didn't involve an indisputable 1-2 matchup (despite several times resulting in a single unbeaten team in all of CFB) isn't valid--because it doesn't satisfy you? Okay, clearly this discussion has reached its conclusion.

 

[OCBucksFan]

Any system that allows for split national championships is complete BS. As long as all major d-1 colleges get a fair shot at the title, then im all for it.

An 8-10 team playoff system would be the ideal situation.

The current system was supposed to Eliminate split national championships, the LSU/USC fiasco is more to blame on human error than the BCS system. Correct me if I am wrong, but the current system was agreed to and everyone seemed ok with it until it came to someone sneaking in with one loss and USC not getting a shot.

No system, even a playoff system, would be without flaws. Take 8 teams and #9 will have a case for making it, especially if 8 and 9 played similiar schedules, or evey worse, 9 beat 8 but 8 had a tougher schedule. It's happened, looking at Rutgers and Louisville at the moment, last I checked Rutgers handed Louisville thier ass, both have one loss, yet Rutgers is below them.

I have thought about a playoff system and part of me would like to see it, as I have expressed, but another part of me is afraid that if we got such a system in place it would be dissapointing. You wind up with #2 Getting upset by #7, the whole tournament goes lopsided with #1 beating everyone by 35 points. More often then not, the level of talent between 1 and 4 is a sizable gap.

The BCS needs some adjustments if it is going to stay in place, it needs to be something everyone agrees to go with. Everyone talks about USC's back to back championships and LSU seems all but forgotten by a good part of the nation, even though they played in the title game, and that to me is where the current system failed.

 

[k_stone_69]

IMO start the F@#!*in playoff!! If it doesn't go back to the original system or back to the BcS. Give it a few years and see what happens.

After the conf. championships take a week lay off Middle of December end of December something like that and play three rounds and one for the NC.

puts it in middle or end of January.

Top 15 make it based on USA today and coaches poll (rankings after the conf. chmp. games) during the week layoff have "the play-in game" between 16 and 17 for the last spot.

maybe remove one OOC game from the schedules to get it started a week earlier. 11 games and a playoff.

again IMO it could work.:osu:

 

[OH10]

So the fact that few people would dispute those NCs that didn't involve an indisputable 1-2 matchup (despite several times resulting in a single unbeaten team in all of CFB) isn't valid--because it doesn't satisfy you? Okay, clearly this discussion has reached its conclusion.

It means they are disputed if one, or even more people dispute the legitimacy of the titles. And there are a lot of people that would dispute the list you threw out there, which included a one-loss LSU team and an undefeated USC team that got the nod over an undefeated Auburn, because what? They were prettier. I take back my gymnastics analogy. College football's system can be equated closer to the Miss America pageant.

What a way to choose a champion...

It would be hilarious to see how Buckeye fans would have changed their tune had 2002 Ohio State suffered the same fate as 1994 Penn State or 2003 Auburn. And make no mistake about it, the voters didn't want that team in the national title game. If Oklahoma or any other major conference team had gone undefeated that year, Ohio State wouldn't have played in that Fiesta Bowl. Unfortunately, it would take something of that magnitude to finally convince those in denial that the system is stupid.

 

[BayBuck]

It means they are disputed if one, or even more people dispute the legitimacy of the titles. And there are a lot of people that would dispute the list you threw out there, which included a one-loss LSU team and an undefeated USC team that got the nod over an undefeated Auburn, because what? They were prettier. I take back my gymnastics analogy. College football's system can be equated closer to the Miss America pageant..

I admit including LSU was an oversight on my part... but just one person disputing a title does not make that title "disputed" in any meaningful way: there are still crackpots who dispute OSU's 2002 NC, but that does not detract from its legitimacy. Same goes for 2000 OK, 2001 Miami, 2004 USC, 2005 Texas...

As for your 2002 hypothetical, you can take your "if"s and "but"s and give yourself a very Merry Christmas.