Poll: College Playoff Yes or No?

[OCBucksFan]

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.

True, that argument has been used multiple times in these posts. Teams get done every year through this system. 2004 Auburn got done that way, this year there's multiple teams that feel they deserve a shot and who can say they don't? I mean theres one undefeated team, and multiple teams who have one loss. All have an argument, but the ranking system is the final decision.

USC: Thier strength of schedule, but they have a loss to an unranked team. Thier strong victories look more and more hollow each weak however, Cal and Oregon fell apart. Arkansas showed that it was completely one dimensional last week and Notre Dame is the true deffinition of over-rated.

TTUN: Lost to the #1 Team in the nation by 3 points, but they already had thier shot such is life.

Florida: They have an argument but since thier out of conference schedule is so soft the computers aren't giving them any chance. Nice job scheduling that AA team.

Louisville, Rutgers and Wisconsin could all make an argument as well.

In the end, if USC takes care of thier business the computers will give them the nod to play. Now you have 5 teams that will say "THE BCS IS UNFAIR."

My point, at the end of the season there's always a team who feels they get screwed, last year I would have loved a tourney because the Bucks got HOT towards the end of the season, but losses to Penn State and Texas kept us out of the big dance.

So yes, a lot of the arguments about the system, both ways, come from people who feel they got screwed. But in the end, this is the system that was agreed upon and there's so much money made during these bowls that it would take a SERIOUS dissaster (like 5 undefeated teams) for anything to change.

 

[OH10]

But in the end, this is the system that was agreed upon and there's so much money made during these bowls that it would take a SERIOUS dissaster (like 5 undefeated teams) for anything to change.

I didn't agree on this system.

I would consider 2004 to be a serious disaster, with three undefeated teams from major conferences (if you count the Pac 10). Heck, if I were an Auburn, I'd wish there were more. They wouldn't have been alone on that miserable toilet bowl of an island.

I'm out of this discussion. I can think of no more arguments than the 100 or so I've already put out there for why the BCS sucks.

 

[Oh8ch]

I'm out of this discussion. I can think of no more arguments than the 100 or so I've already put out there for why the BCS sucks.

You convinced me the BCS sucks a long time ago. The problem is coming up with something that sucks considerably less without screwing up the regular season - which does not suck. That is the issue.

 

[HailToMichigan]

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.

This is my favorite thing I've heard so far. So many people are trying and trying to get rid of the arguments by declaring that a playoff would eliminate controversy. Does anyone stop to think that:
1) NO system is without arguments and controversy, and
2) What on earth is wrong with the arguments in the first place? They're some of the best things about college football. What would we talk about otherwise?

Also mega-applause to those who understand just how badly the regular season would be diminished with playoff. We had excellent regular-season matchups this year, as always. Not a single one of those games would have meant a damn thing if all those teams knew they were gonna be in the playoffs anyway.

 

[akronbuck]

they need to cut so many bowl games. All these at least 6 winning teams playing just sucks. The money will still be for those top bowls in a playoff and heck they could even keep some other bowls to keep the teams that didn't make the playoffs happy but, were close to making it so giving them a chance of improvement/recruiting/money,,,,,

These bowls have to much power over college football and its about the game not business

 

[Zurp]

I think that the BCS is the transition between the old, traditional bowls and a play-off system. Personally, I don't like the play-offs because it diminishes the regular season. That Ohio State-Michigan game would be simply for which team gets the #1 seed and which team gets a #2-4 seed. Meh.

But look: Only 10 years ago, the Rose Bowl was the Holy Grail for the Big Ten. There was nothing more a Big Ten team could want, and people didn't complain. Or, those who did, weren't listened-to. I remember in 1992 Beano Cook blasting Gary Moeller on TV for playing for the tie against someone (Illinois, I think) to secure his Rose Bowl bid, rather than try to win and keep Michigan's perfect season and national championship hopes alive. National rankings weren't as important. Sure - fans wanted their teams to be ranked high, but nothing was on the line. Today, you got Oregon fans complaining about their 2005 ranking keeping them out of a BCS bowl. Then, it was all about conference standings. A 7-1 team is always ahead of a 6-2 team. Always. Always always always. ALWAYS!!! And if there were two 7-1 teams, there were tie-breakers in place. It was always clear who was going to the Rose Bowl. Then so-and-so is going to the Citrus Bowl, and so on.

In 2006, the Rose Bowl is most likely going to be the consolation prize for the Ohio State-Michigan. Can you imagine what Woody and Bo would have said or thought if you told them in 1973 that the loser of that game would still get to play in the Rose Bowl? The holiest of bowl games goes to the team that loses the Ohio State-Michigan game. And I'm not talking about in 2004 when Michigan lost to Ohio State and still went to the Rose Bowl, or like in 1996 when Ohio State went to the Rose Bowl, despite losing to Michigan. This is all-out winner goes here, loser goes to the Rose Bowl.

Maybe it's just my recent high expectations of Ohio State. Rose Bowl? Meh. Ohio State can do better. But it seems to me that the bowl games are losing their mystique. And it isn't helped by the fact that roughly half of the teams in Div-IA will make it to bowl games.

My guess is that within 20 years, the majority of the bowl games will become so ho-hum that the NCAA will establish a play-off. It will start small - 4 teams or so. But it will grow quickly to 16-teams or more. The smaller bowl games will fade out, and the major bowl games will become smaller bowl games.

 

[OCBucksFan]

You convinced me the BCS sucks a long time ago. The problem is coming up with something that sucks considerably less without screwing up the regular season - which does not suck. That is the issue.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

 

[23Skidoo]

The passion people feel for CFB will always leave a little something wanting playoff or no playoff. First and foremost, no other sport save soccer on a global scale, can say this.

Playoff's detract from the regular season, reward the team playing the best at the time of the tourney and often diminish a dominant regular season teams accomplishments. The positive is one loss doesn't kill your regular season and the champ is truely settled on the field.

The current system obvioulsy is the opposite. Regular season is emphasised and rewarded but you can never really say who the champ is for sure when opinions and natural human bias enter the equation(polls and never actually settle it on the field).

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.

So to me its pick your poison but don't think for a minute a playoff will stop all the bitching and moaning. Thats part of CFB and to me, its good to have something so many people feel so passionately about.

P.S. if you do a playoff, do it NFL style or not at all. Seeding/home field will keep regular season very important.

Awesome post. This sums up everything I've been thinking reading through so far.
I'd also like to point out that the other football (soccer) has no playoffs whatsoever (at least not in Europe). They do have tournaments that reward different trophies, but no playoffs.

For the record, I voted to tweak the BCS: ditching Sagarin, forcing more accountability with the computers, and having the Coaches poll start the same time as the Harris poll.

 

[cincibuck]

True, that argument has been used multiple times in these posts. Teams get done every year through this system. 2004 Auburn got done that way,

Auburn and the rest of the old SEC teams do themselves in playing Chattanoga, Northwest BiPolar Louisianna, Memphis, Citadel, and never leaving the sacred South. LSU came here once in the 80s and OSU must have scheduled some other SEC teams in the 30's because we have losses to Alabama that pre date bowl games and the kickoff game in NYC.

After northern schools opened their doors to black athletes the South would have nothing to do with them. Syracuse was invited to the 55 Cotton Bowl one the promise that they would leave their running back, some kid named Jim Brown, at home. Little Rock, Medgar Evans entering Ol' Miss and George Wallace standing at the gates of 'Bama did not end segregated sports in the SEC. It was after a 64 USC team went into Tuscaloosa and kicked Bama's ass something like 35 to 7, that Bear Bryant finally gave a scholarship. And when Kentucky got rolled by Nevil Shedd and Bobby Jo Hill in the NCAA finals, the Barron, Adolph Rupp, who had once stood on the K at mid court and promised the students that "No black (he used the 'N' word) player would ever set foot on this floor while I'm coaching," saw the light.

Ergo, race was a major factor in who OSU scheduled in the 40s and 50s and so incidentally probably affects who the Bucks schedule today.

 

[BB73]

I think the factor of starting the polls later in the year gets far more attention than it deserves. Voters will take a long, hard look at who deserves to be #2 late in the season, and most will change their vote if they see a justification for it.

In 2006, these teams have all been ranked #2 in the AP poll (not a part of the BCS): ND, Texas, Auburn, Florida, TSUN, and USC. Additionally, if Louisville and West Virginia hadn't lost, they would have made it to #2.

The SEC highlighted the 'started too low to make it to #2' argument when Auburn made it to #3, but couldn't pass Oklahoma or USC in 2004. They wanted to point the discussion in that direction, rather than the fact that Auburn's non-conference schedule in 2004 was La-Monroe, The Citadel, and La. Tech. The fact was simply that their schedule didn't justify moving them up to #2.

TSUN was #14 in the preseason poll, and made it to #2 by mid-October. So clearly teams can move up if they play well and defeat quality opponents.

The legitimate reason for delaying BCS rankings until mid-season is that the computers need several games before having enough data to generate a decent ranking. But the preseason polls aren't that much of a factor. That's just something else that those that dislike the current system latch onto and bitch about.

It was after a 64 USC team went into Tuscaloosa and kicked Bama's ass something like 35 to 7, that Bear Bryant finally gave a scholarship

Actually, it was 42-21 in the 1970 Sam 'Bam' Cunningham game.

 

[Dryden]

I think the factor of starting the polls later in the year gets far more attention than it deserves. Voters will take a long, hard look at who deserves to be #2 late in the season, and most will change their vote if they see a justification for it.

Agreed. I'd add that a number of voters would continue doing Top-25s anyhow, even if they weren't required to mail them in anywhere. Does anyone think if the AP mandated that they won't release their poll until the 3rd week of October that it would have any bearing on Stewart Mandel writing his power poll every week for SI or Dodd doing so for CBS Sportsline and Maisel for ESPN? These early polls that people perceive as being unfair will still be there.

 

[CookyPuss]

This is my favorite thing I've heard so far. So many people are trying and trying to get rid of the arguments by declaring that a playoff would eliminate controversy. Does anyone stop to think that:
1) NO system is without arguments and controversy, and
2) What on earth is wrong with the arguments in the first place? They're some of the best things about college football. What would we talk about otherwise?

Also mega-applause to those who understand just how badly the regular season would be diminished with playoff. We had excellent regular-season matchups this year, as always. Not a single one of those games would have meant a damn thing if all those teams knew they were gonna be in the playoffs anyway.

I am in favor of a limited playoff system and no I don't think it would end all controversy. And anyone who thinks it would is a fool. Playoffs are the only way I can see to eliminate some of the things which annoy me the most about the BCS, like teams backdooring their way into the championship game when somebody else loses or getting there coming off a loss (ie Oklahoma a couple of years ago).

I have a difficult time arguing with the "meaningless" regular season games argument. I guess because I would set the limit on playoff teams small enough that every game would still count. I think at times it would even elevate some regular season games. Say the Big 10 has 1 guaranteed playoff spot every year. Say OSU and scUM come into the final game of the year with one loss each, both on close road games. Oklahoma and USC are undefeated. Does that not give this game possible NC implications that it would not have otherwise had? Well, as long as it wasn't some wierd year where Northwestern didn't have to play either of them and was the only Big 10 undefeated.

We could probably go in circles for hours about non-conference schedules. Some years a tough non-conference schedule could help you and other times it is a liability. If Florida had beaten Auburn, do you think USC would be happy about having played a tougher non-conference schedule. That's one of the things that irks me about the BSC. What also bothers me is that relative strength of conference is difficult to assess. And often it is perceived differences such as this which influence who get in.

I know, some will say that giving automatic bids to conference champs would render non-conference matchups meaningless, because you could lose to a team in a non-conference game and still get in. Well, had Texas run the table after their loss to tOSU, do you honestly think that they might not be the BCS #2 right now. Would that have made the game in Austin meaningless? Maybe to some. Or if USC blows it next week and OSU has to play scUM again? I say the current system also has this potential flaw.

I think for true fans of the game the games always matter. I watched a great OSU-UNC basketball game the other night and although it will make no difference in who is crowned national champ in April, I certainly didn't find it "meaningless." In fact, it was the most fun I have ever had watching Ohio State lose a game. So, sure, the regular season games may "mean" something different and not get the hype that they do now. I just don't see it as "meaningless."

 

[Zurp]

TSUN was #14 in the preseason poll, and made it to #2 by mid-October. So clearly teams can move up if they play well and defeat quality opponents.

And Ohio State started 2002 at #13 or #14. They moved up to #2. It took them a little longer, but they were winning games by a low margin of victory.

The legitimate reason for delaying BCS rankings until mid-season is that the computers need several games before having enough data to generate a decent ranking. But the preseason polls aren't that much of a factor. That's just something else that those that dislike the current system latch onto and bitch about.

Is there any real reason for releasing the BCS standings before the final one? The one that matters? Aside from giving jerks like us something to talk about, that is.

 

[Dryden]

Is there any real reason for releasing the BCS standings before the final one? The one that matters? Aside from giving jerks like us something to talk about, that is.

I asked the committee responsible for the official release of the Dr. Pepper BCS Championship Game Standings presented by Dr. Pepper on FOX in conjunction with the support of Dr. Pepper, and they said, "Not really, we just want to get our logo out there a whole bunch."

Honestly though, you have to remember that the system was different when the whole scheme was hatched in 1998. Originally, they had to get the polls out early so that the New York Times could figure out a way to get Notre Dame ranked higher if they debuted too low.

 

[23Skidoo]

Agreed. I'd add that a number of voters would continue doing Top-25s anyhow, even if they weren't required to mail them in anywhere. Does anyone think if the AP mandated that they won't release their poll until the 3rd week of October that it would have any bearing on Stewart Mandel writing his power poll every week for SI or Dodd doing so for CBS Sportsline and Maisel for ESPN? These early polls that people perceive as being unfair will still be there.

IMO, the AP can keep their preseason polls. It gives us a "bearing" from the self-proclaimed "experts" and still gives them an opportunity to throw rankings around for hype and advertising.
I'm stringently against a playoff, but I think the Coaches poll would benefit if it was delayed until the same time that the Harris came out. The political nature of the coach's position and the fact that they cannot possibly watch all the games, means they are far less likely to just change their poll. Coaches are in a very precarious position when they vote, it is very political and they do have a personal interest involved. It was a big deal when Tressel said he voted Texas #1, no? That's exactly my point.