2014 College Football Playoff

[Notre Dame Joe]

Not diminished any more than one loss any other year.

I really don't know what you're asking with your second question. They had the same or fewer. ???

The national title chances were diminished (often destroyed) by a loss more in the BCS era than any other time. The BCS story is a litter of 1 loss teams that were frozen out of the BCSCG. That's why I said the BCS didn't really hurt the regular season as much as the other bowls.

The playoff does the opposite by taking value from the regular season. In the first playoff year, two teams got a mulligans. And if/when they water down the playoff to 8, then teams like Sparty will get their 3rd shot.

But you're only looking at one side of the coin. The games coming down the stretch this year for Ohio State, TCU, Baylor and Oregon would have meant basically nothing in years past. Now they were still playing for a chance at a National Championship.

They all would have had to keep winning in case Bama/FSU slipped up.

 

[Mavric]

They all would have had to keep winning in case Bama/FSU slipped up.

So.....just like it was under the BCS.

Which games, specifically, meant less this year than they would have if there wouldn't have been a four-team playoff?

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

They all would have had to keep winning in case Bama/FSU slipped up.

So.....just like it was under the BCS.

Which games, specifically, meant less this year than they would have if there wouldn't have been a four-team playoff?

Hey I said it took value from the regular season, not that it immediately sucked all the value away ala college basketball.

Examples are anOSU-VaTech which would have knocked the Bucks out, not that they would know it at the time. Notre Dame's post FSU schedule was heavily devalued because the team felt that they had just played an elimination game and the team thought it.

2014 was very unusual because the P5 didn't have any 2+ loss champions. How about 2013 Alabama? The Kick 6 means that Bama gets omg a lower playoff seed at #4. Does anyone remember Notre Dame beating MSU in 2013? That's why the Spartans didn't get a shot at Winston. It's unlikely to have all 5 conferences vying for 4 slots. So going forward, there will be more years an early season loss gets washed away (Oregon) or a late season loss won't divert a team's road to the conference championship then playoff.

and that's all before we consider the awful expanded playoff scenario.

 

[Mavric]

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the tOSU/VaTech game was valued less but the rest of tOSU's game were still as highly valued. There's no way ND could have known they were out of it after the FSU game - they were still #7 and at least three teams ahead of them were guaranteed to lose. If anything, their games meant a lot more this year than previously because they still had a chance. You point to Alabama last year but what about Alabama in 2011. Same story.

 

[BigRedBuster]

There were one hell of a lot more games that mattered this year because of the playoffs.

Seriously, I think you are the only person I know that is still hanging onto his ridiculous notion the playoff ruined everything.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the tOSU/VaTech game was valued less but the rest of tOSU's game were still as highly valued. There's no way ND could have known they were out of it after the FSU game - they were still #7 and at least three teams ahead of them were guaranteed to lose. If anything, their games meant a lot more this year than previously because they still had a chance. You point to Alabama last year but what about Alabama in 2011. Same story.

Sure I can. They get 1 mulligan, and after its gone they are back to playing BCS era ball.

Well what is your position then? Do regular season games have the same value even though the loser can get a second bite at the apple? (Or 3rd bite in the case of an 8 team playoff).

 

[Blackshirts007]

My buddy and I are moving into a new place next week and this game decides who gets the master (which is a lot nicer than the other bedroom). We both think oregon will win but he spotted me 9.5 and I took tOSU. Let's hope for a close game!

 

[BigRedBuster]

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the tOSU/VaTech game was valued less but the rest of tOSU's game were still as highly valued. There's no way ND could have known they were out of it after the FSU game - they were still #7 and at least three teams ahead of them were guaranteed to lose. If anything, their games meant a lot more this year than previously because they still had a chance. You point to Alabama last year but what about Alabama in 2011. Same story.

Sure I can. They get 1 mulligan, and after its gone they are back to playing BCS era ball.

Well what is your position then? Do regular season games have the same value even though the loser can get a second bite at the apple? (Or 3rd bite in the case of an 8 team playoff).

Are you saying one loss teams couldn't win it all before?

 

[Mavric]

More teams have a chance for longer. Therefore, there are more meaningful games. QED.

There is simply not enough cross-over games to be able to say that only two teams deserve a shot at the national title at the end of the year. There is just not enough comparison between them to be able to say for sure that those are the two best teams. If there were no playoff, we would have had a Florida State/Alabama Championship game. Is anyone going to argue that those are the two best teams?

One loss should not necessarily eliminate you from contention. Under the previous system, much preference was given to being undefeated - though even that didn't guarantee you a shot at the National Championship. If you were undefeated previously, you "deserved" a shot even if you weren't one of the two best teams. Especially when the schedules are so uneven.

If Florida State had played in the SEC or Pac-12, they would more than likely have at least two losses. They just didn't play well enough consistently and turned the ball over way too many times. They "deserved" a chance because they won all their games which is an accomplishment but few would have said they were one of the two best teams this year. Ohio State was totally rebuilding their offensive line and breaking in a new QB when they lost early in the year. By the end of the year, they were definitely deserving of a shot at the National Championship. Oregon played in what may have been the best conference this year and slipped up in one game.

Thus, your comment about getting a second bite is irrelevant. Everything you accuse the playoff of doing had already been happening under the BCS system. In almost every year, someone is getting a second bite - or a third in 2007 LSU's case. If you are looking for a truly meaningless regular season game, look no farther than Alabama/LSU in 2011. That game meant absolutely nothing in terms of who won the national championship. In fact, you could argue that losing that game gave Alabama an easier path to the National Championship game because they didn't have to play in the SEC championship game. Now there are simply more teams each year getting that second chance. If you want to say that is diminishing that one game - even though you have no idea which game that is - that is possible. But it is also adding a bunch of value to a lot more games because there are more teams still in contention. Overall, there are actually more meaningful games.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

More teams have a chance for longer. Therefore, there are more meaningful games. QED.

There is simply not enough cross-over games to be able to say that only two teams deserve a shot at the national title at the end of the year. There is just not enough comparison between them to be able to say for sure that those are the two best teams. If there were no playoff, we would have had a Florida State/Alabama Championship game. Is anyone going to argue that those are the two best teams?

One loss should not necessarily eliminate you from contention. Under the previous system, much preference was given to being undefeated - though even that didn't guarantee you a shot at the National Championship. If you were undefeated previously, you "deserved" a shot even if you weren't one of the two best teams. Especially when the schedules are so uneven.

If Florida State had played in the SEC or Pac-12, they would more than likely have at least two losses. They just didn't play well enough consistently and turned the ball over way too many times. They "deserved" a chance because they won all their games which is an accomplishment but few would have said they were one of the two best teams this year. Ohio State was totally rebuilding their offensive line and breaking in a new QB when they lost early in the year. By the end of the year, they were definitely deserving of a shot at the National Championship. Oregon played in what may have been the best conference this year and slipped up in one game.

Thus, your comment about getting a second bite is irrelevant. Everything you accuse the playoff of doing had already been happening under the BCS system.

I never wanted the BCS system. This off-shoot started when I posted my annual What if it was the old January 1st? bowl matchups on Huskerboard. But I have to refer to the BCS era because it was a long time and a large number of people on message boards wouldn't remember Jan 1st 1990.

And as posted

The college football playoff is awesome dude.

Almost as great as the original NYD.
Rose: Oregon vs Ohio State

Fiesta: TCU vs Sparty

Cotton: Baylor vs Ole Miss

Sugar: Bama vs FSU

Orange: KSU vs GaTech

Six teams go to bed in contention for a national title.

the matchups are practically the same (depending on which decade used for OLD). If nothing else you can see that this year's 4 team playoff is more like the old Jan 1st than it is the BCS. So why not make all the bowls count instead of just two?

 

[BigRedBuster]

There wouldn't have been more bowl games that mattered. The only ones that would have mattered in your kind up is the Rose and Sugar.

Most of the regular season games that mattered this year would have been meaningless.

Good Lord...this argument is meaningless. Either you just simply refuse to see it or you are trolling.

Have a good weekend.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

There wouldn't have been more bowl games that mattered. The only ones that would have mattered in your kind up is the Rose and Sugar.

Most of the regular season games that mattered this year would have been meaningless.

Good Lord...this argument is meaningless. Either you just simply refuse to see it or you are trolling.

Have a good weekend.

did you miss the part about 6 teams being eligible for that national title? That means two more can claim they DENIED someone a share of a title.

 

[Glendower]

College Football wants us to watch the 'NY6' bowls in the same way we used to watch all the Jan 1st major bowls. Problem is as they expand the playoff, the other bowls are playing for less and less. Also this year the timing was troublesome, if you were on the West Coast, the Peach Bowl kicked off at 9:30am on a Wednesday.

Which "other" bowls meant less this year than they have in previous years?

Huskers should remember when the Orange Bowl was always must see tv and often the winner was the national champion. Now they have to use their contracts to select teams worth watching. In the future there will be some Oranges pitting Notre Dame vs ACC #2 (who is already on ND's regular schedule). Boring.

The Rose will take a hit when it isn't a playoff, this year would have been Arizona vs Wisconsin, compared to TCU vs Wisconsin where the Frogs were playing for a credible share of the national title even if not the official argue (and probably playing for a conference invite).

The Peach and Cotton should be better, as they are being promoted. Still it's not like the old NYD when any bowl could affect the national title.

AND Drunkoffpunch teams played for their final AP ranking since it was a viable talking point since things were not run by computer/committee. Even in the BCS bowls like Oregon-KSU they played for a top 3 ranking and the right to claim they should have played for the title.

The Orange bowl only meant something because there was a contract between the Big 8 and what ever conference the florida teams were in and they happened to be good teams that were playing for a championship. That is the ONLY reason. It wasn't some grand scheme that made this great Orange Bowl game one of the deciding factors in the NC. If the winner of the Big 8 was ranked 25, they were still in that game and it meant nothing.

The Rose bowl for decades meant nothing (most years) because the champions of the Pac 10 and the Big 10 weren't anywhere close to winning anything substantially. But...hey...everyone watched because we would turn it on and hear constantly how it was the "Grand Daddy of them all". But, the game meant nothing.

So, I fail to see how these bowls have all of a sudden become meaningless just because a playoff system was put in place. In fact, NONE of the bowl games have reduced in meaning. for 99% of them, it only meant something to the players, the fans of that team and maybe the fans of that conference that wanted to see their conference do well. Other than that, they are literally meaningless.

This entire argument about OMG....the bowl system was so miraculous that we shouldn't put a play off system in place because it will ruin it is total hog wash and anyone trying to still argue that is either delusional or refuses to see reality.

I think I saw where the first round of the playoffs was extremely highly ranked TV as far as viewership. The last few years, the viewership of the championship game (if I remember right) had fallen.

I honestly can not believe there is someone still trying to argue that this year's bowl season and playoffs weren't the most exciting post season in college football in a very very very long time. There is no reason why that should change if not get even better in the future years.

Yeah, I agree with you. I think some people are thinking about this backwards. All bowls, except for one, have *always* been meaningless to everyone but fans of those games. This doesn't make the non-playoff bowls meaningless, it elevates a few bowls to having meaning beyond the participating teams and their fans. I mean, okay, it's nice to know if your team is going to end up, say, number 5 or several spots lower depending on the outcome, but nobody else really cares. In a playoff, I'd really be concerned about most of the other games in the bracket, too!

ETA: I think a lot of people are concerned about the "meaning" of the regular season based on the structure of the playoff in the NFL where a relatively large percentage of teams get in. Even if the field were expanded to 8, it would still be, what? 5-6% (edit: 6.3%) of all teams? Teams still have to dominate their regular season schedules to be part of that top-tier group.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Here is what I've learned from having this argument for years now. The people who pine for the old days are upset because of one thing. They love arguing about who should be the NC by giving them the "eye test". This almost always comes up in what ever conversation about this subject....."Well, XYZ team shouldn't have been there because they just don't pass the eye test". I have never understood quite what the "eye test" is. Is this a beauty contest? If so, I would much rather watch the cheer leaders than the football team.

Sports are designed to be won on the field in competition. Not from some stupid poll by some one who has absolutely no ability to watch every game nor even the knowledge needed to make that decision and the entire process can be manipulated so bad it's sick.

I am so glad the powers that be have finally moved college football into the modern era and out of one of the most ridiculous methods of choosing a champion ever invented.

The regular system means more. The bowl's and the championship game means more.

Anyone still hanging on this entire argument only wants to argue. That is the only conceivable reason why someone would still not be able to see the pure excitement and interest around these three games.

Well....that would make sense since those are the people who pine for the days of actually arguing on who was best because the teams had no chance of proving it on the field.

 

[BigRedBuster]

College Football wants us to watch the 'NY6' bowls in the same way we used to watch all the Jan 1st major bowls. Problem is as they expand the playoff, the other bowls are playing for less and less. Also this year the timing was troublesome, if you were on the West Coast, the Peach Bowl kicked off at 9:30am on a Wednesday.

Which "other" bowls meant less this year than they have in previous years?

Huskers should remember when the Orange Bowl was always must see tv and often the winner was the national champion. Now they have to use their contracts to select teams worth watching. In the future there will be some Oranges pitting Notre Dame vs ACC #2 (who is already on ND's regular schedule). Boring.

The Rose will take a hit when it isn't a playoff, this year would have been Arizona vs Wisconsin, compared to TCU vs Wisconsin where the Frogs were playing for a credible share of the national title even if not the official argue (and probably playing for a conference invite).

The Peach and Cotton should be better, as they are being promoted. Still it's not like the old NYD when any bowl could affect the national title.

AND Drunkoffpunch teams played for their final AP ranking since it was a viable talking point since things were not run by computer/committee. Even in the BCS bowls like Oregon-KSU they played for a top 3 ranking and the right to claim they should have played for the title.

The Orange bowl only meant something because there was a contract between the Big 8 and what ever conference the florida teams were in and they happened to be good teams that were playing for a championship. That is the ONLY reason. It wasn't some grand scheme that made this great Orange Bowl game one of the deciding factors in the NC. If the winner of the Big 8 was ranked 25, they were still in that game and it meant nothing.

The Rose bowl for decades meant nothing (most years) because the champions of the Pac 10 and the Big 10 weren't anywhere close to winning anything substantially. But...hey...everyone watched because we would turn it on and hear constantly how it was the "Grand Daddy of them all". But, the game meant nothing.

So, I fail to see how these bowls have all of a sudden become meaningless just because a playoff system was put in place. In fact, NONE of the bowl games have reduced in meaning. for 99% of them, it only meant something to the players, the fans of that team and maybe the fans of that conference that wanted to see their conference do well. Other than that, they are literally meaningless.

This entire argument about OMG....the bowl system was so miraculous that we shouldn't put a play off system in place because it will ruin it is total hog wash and anyone trying to still argue that is either delusional or refuses to see reality.

I think I saw where the first round of the playoffs was extremely highly ranked TV as far as viewership. The last few years, the viewership of the championship game (if I remember right) had fallen.

I honestly can not believe there is someone still trying to argue that this year's bowl season and playoffs weren't the most exciting post season in college football in a very very very long time. There is no reason why that should change if not get even better in the future years.

Yeah, I agree with you. I think some people are thinking about this backwards. All bowls, except for one, have *always* been meaningless to everyone but fans of those games. This doesn't make the non-playoff bowls meaningless, it elevates a few bowls to having meaning beyond the participating teams and their fans. I mean, okay, it's nice to know if your team is going to end up, say, number 5 or several spots lower depending on the outcome, but nobody else really cares. In a playoff, I'd really be concerned about most of the other games in the bracket, too!

ETA: I think a lot of people are concerned about the "meaning" of the regular season based on the structure of the playoff in the NFL where a relatively large percentage of teams get in. Even if the field were expanded to 8, it would still be, what? 5-6% (edit: 6.3%) of all teams? Teams still have to dominate their regular season schedules to be part of that top-tier group.

Your last paragraph is so true. There were more games this regular season that meant something than any previous regular season I can remember.