College Football Week 15 (Championship) thread........

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

If you do, there's no point in me responding to you further on this issue.

Hell, there's no point in anyone trying to respond to you or any of the ridiculous playoff zealots.

It's an unnecessary, unfeasible, and unwarranted clusterfuck of a bad idea that seems to appeal largely to people hell bent & determined to break something that isn't broken.

In addition to the business reasons that kill the notion straightaway
-- It devalues the most compelling regular season of any sport.
-- It screws up the one of the most entertaining post seasons of any sport.
-- It risks the health of players already being pushed beyond what's wise.
-- The logistics alone an enough to declare this stupidity DOA.

If you don't like how it is don't watch or turn it off or whatever but I wish to hell everybody who is apparently too simpleminded to fathom how the current system works quite well enough would please stop trying to screw things up for everyone else.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Drop to 11 games regular season. Drop the conference championship games.

Take 16 teams. 11 champs, 5 at large. Or maybe something along the lines of 8 champs, with the Big Six getting automatics, and the best two of the non-BCS conferences getting the last two.

Start the playoffs the week of Christmas. Home games to the higher seeds.

Second week, normal BCS bowl time, do the quarters. Play the semis on the Saturday of NFL conference championships. Play the title game on the Saturday or Sunday in the two week break between the NFL conference championships and the Super Bowl.

What determines who's at large? The computers? The voters? 11 game schedules make it even harder to determine who is worthy of being an at large.

No conference title games? What happens when two MAC teams are 7-0 in their conference and don't get to play? Obviously only one can go. Is it fair to go off overall record if Central Michigan plays Ohio State and Michigan, and Toledo plays Arkansas State and SMU?

Seems like the same problems we have with the BCS just to decide who gets into the tournament.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hell, there's no point in anyone trying to respond to you or any of the ridiculous playoff zealots.

It's an unnecessary, unfeasible, and unwarranted clusterfuck of a bad idea that seems to appeal largely to people hell bent & determined to break something that isn't broken.

In addition to the business reasons that kill the notion straightaway
-- It devalues the most compelling regular season of any sport.
-- It screws up the one of the most entertaining post seasons of any sport.
-- It risks the health of players already being pushed beyond what's wise.
-- The logistics alone an enough to declare this stupidity DOA.

If you don't like how it is don't watch or turn it off or whatever but I wish to hell everybody who is apparently too simpleminded to fathom how the current system works quite well enough would please stop trying to screw things up for everyone else.

As if you're some reasonable, movable person who is always open to new ideas or trying to improve things? Got it, I'm the zealot then, and you're the paradigm of moderation and openness.

I think the business reasons can be worked around, but it would take a concerted effort that, you're right, is not likely from the assholes involved in the decision making process. And that's something we all are getting a raw deal from.

As to your points, I'll take them one by one.
--How much does it devalue the regular season? I see you now have changed it to simply devalue rather than "greatly devalue". You chose to ignore my response to you before or to respond to the challenge presented there, and instead change your stance to something more defensible. Once again, I'll note that an eight team or even 16 team system will still put a tremendous emphasis on regular season results and conference championships.
--And replaces it with an even more entertaining postseason. Oh yeah, and 90% of the bowls (or more) remain unchanged.
--Worst argument you have presented. The players are already subjected to 12-15 games a year, along with year round training. The increase in risk is negligible.
--Yup, logistics so scary, so why try it, huh? Just hide in a corner, cover your eyes and weep, "Everything's gonna be all right!" over and over again.

I actually don't watch it. Nor do I attend games. I can't stand the whole system. Only game I watch is when UCLA is playing, because I want to support my team.

Nice ad hominem at the end. We're not only zealots, we're also simpleminded. As usual, JIMG, you display your utter and total classy style.

Oh wait, maybe, I should shut up now, because otherwise you'll physically threaten me again!

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

One way determines the best team on the field, the other determines the best team in an office.

There's a subtle but important distinction between the "best" team and the team that wins the championship (in whatever format that sport uses).

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

What determines who's at large? The computers? The voters? 11 game schedules make it even harder to determine who is worthy of being an at large.

Locked into conference schedules, the total games don't make for much of a difference in determining who deserves at large. We all know that there are too many teams for 11 or 12 games or maybe even 20 games to determine everything for 100% sure. We don't get answers out of a 12 game schedule; it doesn't change any going with 11.

The BCS ranking system would be fine for determing at large, or we can go with something else. Not really improtant how so long as its a fair system, or a system which comes as close to fairness as rationally possible. And once again, it is always better to be discussing if the values of the fifth or sixth at large teams deserves to be in (which, I would guess is what #10 and #11?), a playoff as opposed to whether the #3 or #4 team should be in the title game.

No conference title games? What happens when two MAC teams are 7-0 in their conference and don't get to play? Obviously only one can go. Is it fair to go off overall record if Central Michigan plays Ohio State and Michigan, and Toledo plays Arkansas State and SMU?

Conference title games don't have to be eliminated. Just cut out an inter-divisional matchup or two, and make sure that the intradivisional matchups are still in place. I just suggest it because removing the games would make things better logistically. But they don't have to be removed. That would be up to the inidividual conferences how they want to do it.

Seems like the same problems we have with the BCS just to decide who gets into the tournament.

Like I say above. Better to argue about #10 vs #11 than #2 vs #3.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

There's a subtle but important distinction between the "best" team and the team that wins the championship (in whatever format that sport uses).

Yeah, I pointed that out, too. Strangely enough, though, it was someone arguing the other side of things from Rainmaker and I.

[DeToxRox]

Honestly, the only way a playoff would work is by creating 8 conferences of 10 teams, and then each team once. Then at least everyone has played one another.

You can make a 12 team playoff and allow 4 at larges to be play in type games to give other teams a shot.

80 teams can then at least say have a shot to win a National title every year.

The rest of the teams not in these conferences proceed as is, and enjoy bowl games and conference titles.

It screws the least amount of teams.

[DeToxRox]

Dola, I guess there are what, 119 teams? You can stretch it to 12 10 team conferences.

I assume though the importance on the conference games would be so big that people would treat the non conference like exhibition games.

I mean if you know it's win your conference or bust, why bother with scheduling huge non conferences games. Sure it means nothing, so why not, but even if teams did, you'd see starters in the game for a half.

I mean do your really want to see three weeks of college exhibitions?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Because (among other reasons) the latter will greatly devalue the regular season, just as it has in college basketball.

Isn't it devalued already? Any team that is not in a BCS conference is not playing for a championship. Losing more than one game ends the hopes of any team playing for a championship. Losing even once typically means no title for you.

There are maybe 5-6 teams in college football that matter in any given year. The rest are just trying to break .500 and earn a birth in the Kenmore Refrigerator Bowl.

[st.cronin]

I agree with Jon from middle Georgia. Any of the proposed playoff scenarios would, in my opinion, almost completely ruin college football.

Pre-BCS bowl chaos >>> BCS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> playoff

As a Badger Fan, what I hope for in a season is: Beat Minnesota. Win the Big 10. Failing that, win a bowl game.

As things are, I barely care about the championship game. Having said that, I am likely to watch at least part of Florida vs. Oklahoma. But there is no way in heck I could get excited about watching Florida, for example, play 4 or more post-season games. This is true of the NFL as well - I watch the Patriots' playoff games, otherwise I often just watch the Super Bowl, skipping the rest of the playoffs.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

There's a subtle but important distinction between the "best" team and the team that wins the championship (in whatever format that sport uses).

Of course there is. But we praise champions, not the best team on paper. It's why we love sports. The ability for one team to reach down inside and do something special. Otherwise we might as well not even play the games and just let the guys on Around the Horn determine all the best teams.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Honestly, the only way a playoff would work is by creating 8 conferences of 10 teams, and then each team once. Then at least everyone has played one another.

You can make a 12 team playoff and allow 4 at larges to be play in type games to give other teams a shot.

80 teams can then at least say have a shot to win a National title every year.

The rest of the teams not in these conferences proceed as is, and enjoy bowl games and conference titles.

It screws the least amount of teams.

Why not just do a playoff the way FCS, D2, and D3 do it? Seems to work just fine for them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

-- It devalues the most compelling regular season of any sport.

How does it devalue the regular season? Do rivalries somehow disappear? Most teams know they won't be able to lose more than 1 game and get into a playoff. They also know that they may have to win a conference championship. If anything, it puts even more emphasis on conference play and rivalries. It would bring a lot more attention to other conference championship games like the ACC. This is the same argument that went into baseball and the addition of the wildcard. All it did was allow more people to have meaningful games which is never a bad thing.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

-- It screws up the one of the most entertaining post seasons of any sport.

The postseason is 1 game. The rest don't matter. They are a smattering of 30+ consolation games. But I still see no reason why bowls would have to be eliminated. If it means so much to see a 6-6 team play in the Rice-A-Roni Bowl, let them play. Other divisions of college football still have bowl games for non playoff teams.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

-- It risks the health of players already being pushed beyond what's wise.

The NCAA sure cares about the health of their players. If this was really an issue, they wouldn't have allowed them to add another game. They wouldn't allow schools like Florida to play schools like Citadel that they outweigh by 30 pounds at every position. If you're really worried about their health, drop the annual FCS cupcake that every team puts on their schedule to get an easy gate.

But hey, FCS, D2, and D3 have been doing this just fine for a long time. They also do it with inferior athletes, inferior training schedules, and inferior travel arrangements.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

-- The logistics alone an enough to declare this stupidity DOA.

Again, FCS, D2, and D3 have had the logistics figured out for a long time.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

When you show me a way to determine a true champion given the limitations NCAA football has with scheduling and the number of teams at each level I'll listen.

Two options.

1) Do it just like the other divisions. Create a 16-team tournament with conference champions and 5-at large schools. You could also make limitations that state a conference champ must be in the top 20 or something or have a required number of FBS wins. The playoffs take place a week or two after the conference championships. You play till you get to the final 4. You set the semifinals up on New Years Day and the Championship up the following week. Other bowl games can take place and I'd even say teams eliminated in the first or second round of the tournament would be eligible. The regular season will be shortened by a game as well, preferably the game each team schedules against an FCS school.

2) 8 teams get in based strictly on a BCS system. There would be no conference champion qualifiers. You'd essentially be left with the 8 highest ranked teams in the country. Yes this does probably fuck smaller schools, but not much you can do. First round is played the week after conference championships. Semis played the following week. You would be finished around the 15th and set for the Championship. All teams that lost will be eligible for Bowl games. The Championship game will be played when it is right now. Everything kept in tact but at least the championship is decided on the field between the undefeated schools and top 1 loss ones. Would add two phenomenal weekends of college football on to the schedule. I'd also eliminate a week from the season, preferably the FCS game.

Too many of you have bought into the propoganda that this can't be accomplished. It has been done forever with FCS, D2, and D3. Their playoffs are exciting and their regular seasons don't lose meaning. If anything, the buildup is great as fans prepare for a matchup they always wanted to see. A playoff would allow us the chance to see how USC's defense could matchup with Oklahoma's offense and other dream games.

Defending this current system is just silly. No other sport does it this way and for good reason. It's a joke. It's one game that matters and 30+ consolation games.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's one game that matters and 30+ consolation games.

This claim shows that you don't really understand college football, imo. It is true that for me there is one bowl game that matters - but its not Florida-Oklahoma, its The Champs Sports Bowl. For another fan, its the Insight Bowl. For another, its the Rose Bowl. Etc.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Two options.

1) Do it just like the other divisions. Create a 16-team tournament with conference champions and 5-at large schools. You could also make limitations that state a conference champ must be in the top 20 or something or have a required number of FBS wins. The playoffs take place a week or two after the conference championships. You play till you get to the final 4. You set the semifinals up on New Years Day and the Championship up the following week. Other bowl games can take place and I'd even say teams eliminated in the first or second round of the tournament would be eligible. The regular season will be shortened by a game as well, preferably the game each team schedules against an FCS school.

2) 8 teams get in based strictly on a BCS system. There would be no conference champion qualifiers. You'd essentially be left with the 8 highest ranked teams in the country. Yes this does probably fuck smaller schools, but not much you can do. First round is played the week after conference championships. Semis played the following week. You would be finished around the 15th and set for the Championship. All teams that lost will be eligible for Bowl games. The Championship game will be played when it is right now. Everything kept in tact but at least the championship is decided on the field between the undefeated schools and top 1 loss ones. Would add two phenomenal weekends of college football on to the schedule. I'd also eliminate a week from the season, preferably the FCS game.

Too many of you have bought into the propoganda that this can't be accomplished. It has been done forever with FCS, D2, and D3. Their playoffs are exciting and their regular seasons don't lose meaning. If anything, the buildup is great as fans prepare for a matchup they always wanted to see. A playoff would allow us the chance to see how USC's defense could matchup with Oklahoma's offense and other dream games.

Defending this current system is just silly. No other sport does it this way and for good reason. It's a joke. It's one game that matters and 30+ consolation games.

You did absolutely nothing to solve the number of teams/schedule problem. All you're doing is throwing some teams together without really figuring out who the best 8 or 16 teams are and calling it a playoff.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Again, FCS, D2, and D3 have had the logistics figured out for a long time.

FCS, D2, and D3 don't have the spotlight on them that FBS does. You can't compare them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

You did absolutely nothing to solve the number of teams/schedule problem. All you're doing is throwing some teams together without really figuring out who the best 8 or 16 teams are and calling it a playoff.

You can never truly figure out the best teams in every sport. There are always going to be scheduling issues due to the number of teams/games and weighting. The NFL doesn't truly give you the 12 best teams, but it does a decent job of it. In any event, this system would allow any team to play their way in and win a national championship, something the other system does not allow.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

FCS, D2, and D3 don't have the spotlight on them that FBS does. You can't compare them.

Yes, because D1 football is so complex that no other sport could possibly even compare to it. Do tell what exactly the spotlight does to make a bracket impossible?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

The argument does fly when you consider Joe Castiglione at Oklahoma, Deloss Dodds at Texas, Mike Garrett at USC, etc. are at schools that are recipients of the lions share of money that come from the current BCS and non-BCS bowl system. If the FBS ever went to an NCAA administered playoff like the other divisions, the money would be evenly distributed among all 119 teams. That's why it's never going to happen, folks.

You missed the point of Bucc's post that I responded to. It had a romantic notion that collegiate sports don't have playoff, which simply isn't the case.

And in any event, DeLoss Dodds has been a long time proponent of a playoff for Div. 1A/FBS (going back at least 20 years: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A961948260 ), so he is all for the sharing of the potential playoff revenue.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Best team != champion

One is subjective. The other is usually determined on the field to play and is a true measure where for the most part all teams have a shot at said championship.

Except in FCS Division I football, of course.

The problem with this line of argument is that most people treat the champion as the "best team". You ask people who was the best team of last year's NFL season and most of them will say the Giants, because they won the Superbowl.

Maybe we should do what they do in soccer and crown a season champion and a playoff (or cup) champion?

[MJ4H]

You can make most people understand that best team is not the same things as champion. Just because you ask them on the spot and they answer that way doesn't mean they are incapable of understanding it. It's a pretty simple concept that most people just don't stop to consider.

If we want to just vote on who we think is the best team, we can do that without playing any games. If we want to have a champion, we need to do that on the field.

If we don't want to have a champion because it is "no big deal" then you will need to convince probably tens of millions of people that they don't want a champion, because that's where all of this is coming from (I can't believe anyone seriously puts forth the argument that we shouldn't even try to have a champion because it is no big deal, but hey, they are apparently out there).

Now, I totally see the idea of not ruining the regular season. Great, I'm on board. I can see how letting a ton of teams into playoffs devalues the regular season games.

Also, I totally see how the current system has major problems in determining a champion. After all, it is impossible for some teams to win it. That can't possibly work.

So, what is the best way to solve this problem? The only I see is by having a playoff (guess what, we already have a playoff, it is just 2 teams) system that is expanded to be able include all teams that legitimately deserve a shot at it without devaluing the regular season.

Now, does anyone besides me think this is possible? Or is there some other flaw in my reasoning that I'm just not getting. And, no, Bucc, it has nothing to do with me being emotional over the game.

[ISiddiqui]

Personally, I thought there was no problem with having the National Championship Game as a +1. Have the traditional bowl tie ins and then AFTER the bowls have been played, then have a national championship.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Just a response to those who were complaining about OU running up the score on MU. There should be no complaints about that. MU didn't stop them at all and made some crucial mistakes on offense early on. If the MU defense didn't like it, they should have bothered to cover someone.

One other thing. I find it insanely ridiculous to see some of the MU fans complaining about this season (moreso locally than on this board). We're a good program that is getting some great recruits due to the last two years. With a win in the the Alamo Bowl, the program will have consecutive 10 win seasons for the first time in school history and 2 straight North Division titles. I remember not long ago when 6 wins and a bowl berth was exciting. I'll take this kind of disappointment anyday.

[Noop]

.....*walks back*....lol

[Lathum]

It's a joke that a 2 loss average Ohio St team goes to a BCS game over an undefeated Boise St.

OSU will lose by at least 2 TD's, guarenteed. There needs to be a rule in place about a 2 loss team going over an undefeated team ( except for conference champs). I understand OSU travels well, etc... but IMO they don't deserve this game.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It's a joke that a 2 loss average Ohio St team goes to a BCS game over an undefeated Boise St.

OSU will lose by at least 2 TD's, guarenteed. There needs to be a rule in place about a 2 loss team going over an undefeated team ( except for conference champs). I understand OSU travels well, etc... but IMO they don't deserve this game.

In OSU's defense their losses are to two top 5 teams. Has Boise even played anyone in the top 25? Ball State was the same way until they lost to...Buffalo.

[Dr. Sak]

Thanks for making me defend Ohio State....jerk Lathum

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

In OSU's defense their losses are to two top 5 teams. Has Boise even played anyone in the top 25? Ball State was the same way until they lost to...Buffalo.

Boise has a similar SOS to 'Bama. Source

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Boise has a similar SOS to 'Bama. Source

That's not saying much when Bama's two biggest wins are against Georgia and Mississippi. I don't hold a high opinion of the SEC. I don't want to go into a huge tirade about it because I've said enough before.

[Dr. Sak]

Dola and if you go to Sagarin's ratings

SOS
Boise State 114th
Alabama 56th
Utah 71st

So it's all opinion anyway.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Headline: Today, UCLA was relegated to the WAC and LSU was relegated to Conference USA.

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

A playoff would make other conferences cease to exist

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

The only option is to totally eliminator mid majors, and they're a main reason people want a playoff, because the little guy is always screwed

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Dola, I guess there are what, 119 teams? You can stretch it to 12 10 team conferences.

I love arguments like this that forget that the SEC, Mountain West, and Conference USA participate in sports other than football. I'm sure the LSU Tiger baseball team will look forward to playing in Conference-USA.

[Dr. Sak]

I think this might be as sure of a bet as possible...

Over/Under in the Rose Bowl is 50.

USC averages giving up 7.8 ppg and PSU gives up 12.4 ppg. Take the under.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hell, there's no point in anyone trying to respond to you or any of the ridiculous playoff zealots.

It's an unnecessary, unfeasible, and unwarranted clusterfuck of a bad idea that seems to appeal largely to people hell bent & determined to break something that isn't broken.

In addition to the business reasons that kill the notion straightaway
-- It devalues the most compelling regular season of any sport.
-- It screws up the one of the most entertaining post seasons of any sport.
-- It risks the health of players already being pushed beyond what's wise.
-- The logistics alone an enough to declare this stupidity DOA.

If you don't like how it is don't watch or turn it off or whatever but I wish to hell everybody who is apparently too simpleminded to fathom how the current system works quite well enough would please stop trying to screw things up for everyone else.

I want to respond to you and everyone else that thinks a playoff would devalue the regular season.

At the start of the season, before ANY games are played, there are a ton of teams who have no shot at winning a national championship - even if they win every single game they play. So essentially ALL of their games are meaningless. I'd throw out a conservative number like maybe 30% of the teams in Div 1 football are out of the NC picture before they even play a game.

Then there are teams that lose in week one. A large percentage of teams (because of their conference and low prestige) will never make it into the NC game with even just 1 loss. So after week one, you can add most of the losers of that game to the very quickly growing number of teams who are effectively out of contention for the NC. By now, you're probably looking at 65-70% of the teams whose season is "over" after one game. If your assertion is that a playoff devalues the reg season, you have to take these games into account. Under the current system, these teams' regular seasons are completely meaningless after week one - that's a LOT of meaningless games to be played - thousands in fact. And of course the % of teams out of the picture goes up every week.

However, under an 8 or 16 team playoff, those games by undefeated mid-major schools or 1-loss schools from major conferences become important again. They matter much more than they do in the current system.

So actually, a playoff makes the regular season matter MORE for almost every school out there.

And there would only be a small few games that would become less important under a playoff (especially an 8 team playoff). There would be very few circumstances where a team would have a spot "locked up" and a win or a loss wouldn't matter - and seeding in the playoffs would still be important, so even in those games a team would still have a lot to play for.

[Dr. Sak]

So by your thinking...let's just look at an 8 or 16 team playoff. By the end of the season both Florida and Alabama would probably be in the playoff no matter what happened in their last game or the SEC Title game.

In the last week Florida and Alabama both played pretty big games against their rivals. In a playoff system, it wouldn't matter if they lost so they could have sat all of their starters which would've made for sucky rivalry games that mean nothing. But in this system they HAD to win because another loss would've been devastating, and with the way Auburn's season (and FSU's for that matter cause BC won) that would've made their season to knock their rival out of a chance to play for the MNC.

For each reason you give that the playoffs make the regular season more meaningful, I can give you reasons why they won't.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

This claim shows that you don't really understand college football, imo. It is true that for me there is one bowl game that matters - but its not Florida-Oklahoma, its The Champs Sports Bowl. For another fan, its the Insight Bowl. For another, its the Rose Bowl. Etc.

No, I disagree. In those "other" bowls, there is usually at least one team disappointed to be there. They had higher expectations than to simply be called "Meineke Car Care Bowl Champion" or whatever. They don't get up for the game, play poorly, and go home with a bad win or with a loss.

That goes for the players and the fans. I am huge Georgia Bulldog fan, but do I really care if they win the Capital One Bowl? I'd rather them win than lose, but ultimately, no, I don't really care if they win what amounts to an exhibition game tacked onto the end of a very disappointing season.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

So by your thinking...let's just look at an 8 or 16 team playoff. By the end of the season both Florida and Alabama would probably be in the playoff no matter what happened in their last game or the SEC Title game.

In the last week Florida and Alabama both played pretty big games against their rivals. In a playoff system, it wouldn't matter if they lost so they could have sat all of their starters which would've made for sucky rivalry games that mean nothing. But in this system they HAD to win because another loss would've been devastating, and with the way Auburn's season (and FSU's for that matter cause BC won) that would've made their season to knock their rival out of a chance to play for the MNC.

For each reason you give that the playoffs make the regular season more meaningful, I can give you reasons why they won't.

There is a big difference between having 1 or 2 games that meant less for the teams at the end of the season versus having THE ENTIRE SEASON be meaningless for a huge number of teams who eliminated before they even play a game. And then for all the other teams who happen to lose their first game.

You can point to a handful of games that would have diminished importance under a playoff. If I had the time, I could list literally hundreds of games that would have increased importance if we had a playoff system.

There is a difference.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by cartman

And in any event, DeLoss Dodds has been a long time proponent of a playoff for Div. 1A/FBS (going back at least 20 years: Presidents Veto Playoffs - New York Times ), so he is all for the sharing of the potential playoff revenue.

Most of the AD's and presidents will go on record and say that they're looking into the idea of a playoff, but rest assured when they get behind closed doors, they're in collusion to prevent it from happening. They've gotten fat and happy from feeding at the bowl and BCS trough over the years, and it's too late to turn back the clock now. They aren't ever going to turn the purse strings over to NCAA control like the minor college divisions.

That's why it's naive to try and project the lower division model on the FBS. The current BCS contract runs through the next decade, and don't expect anything to change after it expires.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

In a playoff system, it wouldn't matter if they lost so they could have sat all of their starters which would've made for sucky rivalry games that mean nothing.

No. In that particular playoff system, maybe. There are definitely ways to make this game meaningful in a playoff system.

[gstelmack]

I think any playoff scheme has to start with taking conference champions. I don't like the idea of a wildcard for many of the reasons stated. If Mizzou beats Oklahoma in the Big-12 title game, TOUGH! You can't win your conference, you can't win the national championship, period.

And if that forces some realignment, fine. If that forces Notre Dame into a conference, fine. 12-team conferences, if that means 10 teams in a playoff, then some get byes based on BCS or whatever.

As for the sanctity of the bowl system, it's what, tripled over the last decade? How many bowls have a history going back more than 15 years? They can be incorporated into the playoffs, or take the teams that didn't make it (no matter what the playoff situation, you can't tell me Texas / Alabama isn't a draw even while playoffs are happening...).

Or just give up on this "crown a national champion" nonsense and use the BCS to pick the bowl pairings. 1v2, 3v4, 5v6, etc and stuff the rest.

[digamma]

KWhit,

You are a Georgia fan, no? Let's pretend you are the Georgia AD. A play-off system has just been passed and the SEC champion gets an automatic bid. What is the first thing you do to your schedule?

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by KWhit

There is a big difference between having 1 or 2 games that meant less for the teams at the end of the season versus having THE ENTIRE SEASON be meaningless for a huge number of teams who eliminated before they even play a game. And then for all the other teams who happen to lose their first game.

You can point to a handful of games that would have diminished importance under a playoff. If I had the time, I could list literally hundreds of games that would have increased importance if we had a playoff system.

There is a difference.

If you think you have crappy OOC games now, imagine if there is a playoff? If only conference winners get into the playoffs, what is the reward for playing a decent OOC schedule? None. So add that to your meaningless game list. If I'm an AD I want warm up games so my team isn't beat up which gets me some glorified practice time before Conference play starts up.

Teams who lose early in the season are not eliminated, actually most of the time they benefit by losing early because voters have a short memory and forget those early season losses...see USC losing to Oregon State or even Florida losing to Mississippi.

If you think by any means that if Florida would've lost to Mississippi 3 weeks ago rather than 2 months ago, they would be in the title game, you are mistaken.

You can bitch and complain about the BCS but all you have to do as a BCS School is win every game. Every game is a playoff for you. For the Non-BCS Schools, go and play some big BCS schools...on the road if you have to. Plus you say that the entire season is MEANINGLESS for HUNDREDS of schools with the BCS...well wouldn't the rest of the season be MEANINGLESS for HUNDREDS of schools once the are out of the conference race.

Also with the playoffs I'm sure there will be a huge pissing match with schools from conferences like the SEC or Big 12 because in their opinion it is much tougher to win that conference then say the Big East or ACC. So they'll want more people in there...heck just look at this year do you really think Va Tech or Cincinnati are better than say Texas, Alabama, Ohio State? I am in the camp where I think you have to win your conference to be in the title game, but we all know how some of the SEC elitists think.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

If you think you have crappy OOC games now, imagine if there is a playoff? If only conference winners get into the playoffs, what is the reward for playing a decent OOC schedule? None. So add that to your meaningless game list. If I'm an AD I want warm up games so my team isn't beat up which gets me some glorified practice time before Conference play starts up.

As a fan of an SEC school, that's what I want for my team anyway, because in my opinion, the in-conference scheduling is as tough as it gets in football. There is no level playing field between the conferences, which makes it even tougher to tell who the top 2 teams are at the end of the year under the current system.

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Teams who lose early in the season are not eliminated, actually most of the time they benefit by losing early because voters have a short memory and forget those early season losses...see USC losing to Oregon State or even Florida losing to Mississippi.

USC was actually eliminated by losing to O-State. They're not in the championship game, are they? And maybe you missed in my post where I said that most teams are eliminated as soon as they lose their first game. Not all, obviously. But the vast majority of teams don't have the national respect to "come back" from even just one loss to make it all the way back up to #1 or #2 in the BCS under the current system.

The main reason Florida is in is because they're Florida. If it would have been Vandy or Ole Miss or Kentucky or any number of other teams who went 1-loss in the SEC they wouldn't be in the title game.

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

You can bitch and complain about the BCS but all you have to do as a BCS School is win every game. Every game is a playoff for you.

Ask Auburn fans if that's true.

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

For the Non-BCS Schools, go and play some big BCS schools...on the road if you have to. Plus you say that the entire season is MEANINGLESS for HUNDREDS of schools with the BCS...well wouldn't the rest of the season be MEANINGLESS for HUNDREDS of schools once the are out of the conference race.

First of all, it would still make many more games important than under the current system. And the reason I brought that up is because I was refuting the illogical argument that a playoff is bad because it devalues the regular season. I've been showing why it doesn't devalue the regular season - it actually makes many many more games valuable.

That's not my main reason why a playoff system would be better, but it's an often made argument against a playoff that I think is bunk.

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Also with the playoffs I'm sure there will be a huge pissing match with schools from conferences like the SEC or Big 12 because in their opinion it is much tougher to win that conference then say the Big East or ACC. So they'll want more people in there...heck just look at this year do you really think Va Tech or Cincinnati are better than say Texas, Alabama, Ohio State? I am in the camp where I think you have to win your conference to be in the title game, but we all know how some of the SEC elitists think.

I'll try my best to ignore your condescension, but all conferences are not the same, so they should not be treated equally. That's really a separate discussion, IMO, but any playoff scenario should take that into account in some way, perhaps with at-large bids being handed out to deserving non-conference champions or a move toward fewer super-conferences with mandatory conference championship games.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by digamma

KWhit,

You are a Georgia fan, no? Let's pretend you are the Georgia AD. A play-off system has just been passed and the SEC champion gets an automatic bid. What is the first thing you do to your schedule?

Actually, if the SEC champ gets an automatic bid, I'd be more likely to schedule tough non-conference games early in the season to try to season my team for the big SEC games coming later.

As it is right now, there is no reason for a team like UGA to schedule tough out of conference games because their schedule is already among the toughest in the country and a loss is devastating under today's system. Why take the risk of a loss?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

In OSU's defense their losses are to two top 5 teams. Has Boise even played anyone in the top 25? Ball State was the same way until they lost to...Buffalo.

Boise St won at Oregon. I'm not sure OSU goes to Oregon and wins.

I would rather see a spirited Boise team then an OSU team that struggled to win at home against Ohio, barely beat Wisconson and Illinois and showed absolutly nothing in their 2 biggest games.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by KWhit

As a fan of an SEC school, that's what I want for my team anyway, because in my opinion, the in-conference scheduling is as tough as it gets in football. There is no level playing field between the conferences, which makes it even tougher to tell who the top 2 teams are at the end of the year under the current system.

This comment alone makes my elitist comment valid, and honestly I wasn't even referring to you. The SEC is not that good this year. Besides Florida and Alabama, the rest of the conference is average or below average.

Quick off the top of your head, what was their best OOC win this year? Besides Florida who will play Miami and FSU each year, the rest of the upper teams won't travel. Yes, Georgia did this year, but its the first time in decades the team has left the south to play an OOC game.

Originally Posted by KWhit

USC was actually eliminated by losing to O-State. They're not in the championship game, are they? And maybe you missed in my post where I said that most teams are eliminated as soon as they lose their first game. Not all, obviously. But the vast majority of teams don't have the national respect to "come back" from even just one loss to make it all the way back up to #1 or #2 in the BCS under the current system.

The main reason Florida is in is because they're Florida. If it would have been Vandy or Ole Miss or Kentucky or any number of other teams who went 1-loss in the SEC they wouldn't be in the title game.

Sorry I guess I don't know the different between huge (as you stated first) and most.

Originally Posted by KWhit

Ask Auburn fans if that's true.

Again maybe if they challenged themselves and played a tough OOC Schedule instead of the juggernauts like Louisiana-Monroe, Citadel, and Louisiana Tech. Again SEC fans love to hang their hat on their conference schedule and that is their crutch for playing such crap OOC.

Oklahoma played Bowling Green, Houston, and Oregon that year while USC had Virginia Tech, Colorado State, BYU, and Notre Dame.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Boise St won at Oregon. I'm not sure OSU goes to Oregon and wins.

I would rather see a spirited Boise team then an OSU team that struggled to win at home against Ohio, barely beat Wisconson and Illinois and showed absolutly nothing in their 2 biggest games.

Agreed.

Add to that the fact that OSU wet the bed the last 2 years in the BCS.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

How many bowls have a history going back more than 15 years?

More than you'd think I imagine, 23 of 36 with lineages.

16 Bowls <15 years
EagleBank - 2008
magicjack St. Petersburg - 2008
International - 2007
*Papa John's - 2006 (replaced All-American Bowl/Hall of Fame Cls 77-90)
Armed Forces - 2006
Texas - 2006 (was Houston Bowl from 2000-2005)
Poinsettia - 2005
Emerald - 2002
Car Care - 2002
*Hawaii - 2002 but dates back to Aloha Bowl 1982
New Orleans - 2001
GMAC - 1999 (started as Mobile Bowl)
Music City - 1998
Humanitarian - 1997
Motor City - 1997
*Outback - 1995 (was Hall of Fame Bowl 86-94)
------FIFTEEN YEARS OR MOE--------------------
20 Bowls>15 years
Alamo - 1993
Las Vegas - 1992 (was California Bowl 81-91)
Champs Sports - 1990 (under various names)
Insight - 1989 (dating back to Copper Bowl name)
Holiday - 1978
Independence - 1976
Fiesta - 1971
Peach - 1968
Liberty - 1959
Capital One - 1947 (via Tangerine & Florida Citrus)
Gator - 1945
Cotton - 1937
Sun - 1935
Orange - 1934
Sugar - 1934
Rose - 1901

Plus around that cutoff point the Freedom Bowl (84-94) ceased operation (merged into Holiday bowl)

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Boise St won at Oregon. I'm not sure OSU goes to Oregon and wins.

I would rather see a spirited Boise team then an OSU team that struggled to win at home against Ohio, barely beat Wisconson and Illinois and showed absolutly nothing in their 2 biggest games.

I agree. I really wanted to see Utah and Boise play. But like a lot of other things in life, these matchups in the other games are money driven.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Again maybe if they challenged themselves and played a tough OOC Schedule instead of the juggernauts like Louisiana-Monroe, Citadel, and Louisiana Tech. Again SEC fans love to hang their hat on their conference schedule and that is their crutch for playing such crap OOC.

Oklahoma played Bowling Green, Houston, and Oregon that year while USC had Virginia Tech, Colorado State, BYU, and Notre Dame.

Bowling Green, Houston, and Oregon? None of those teams were in the top 25 at year's end.

Virginia Tech, Colorado State, BYU, and Notre Dame? Same. Not one was a top 25 team.

In fact, if you look at the whole schedule:

Auburn beat the #4, #5, #8, #10, and #15 teams.

Oklahoma beat the #5, #20, and #22 teams.

USC beat the #3, #7, and #19 teams.

I love it how people only want to talk about Auburn's OOC schedule when in their full season had many more big wins than either OU or USC.

My point isn't that they were better than USC or OU, because I don't know if they were or not, but they deserved a chance to find out.