Playoffs
- Thread starter Mosskid84
- Start date
redblooded
Special Teams Player
redblooded
Special Teams Player
The entire season boils down to basically a playoff as it stands now, win every game (which is rare) and you likely play for the MNC if you belong to a Major Conference or are Consistently a top 10 team (TCU/Boise now). Lose a game and you very well might have lost your shot.
An 8 team playoff doesn't solve ANY of the arguments about which teams get in and a tournament means the regular season instantly becomes less important as you no longer have to be as consistently good from start to finish.
Frankly the MNC BCS system is fine... It gave people who needed a consensus #1 their game instead of each poll naming their own at the end of the bowl season. That's good enough. If the NCAA turns anymore into the NFL it'll lose the charm it has for people like myself (I hate watching NFL games, but love my college football Saturdays.) I couldn't be more against a playoff.
Ultimately someone will probably come up with a way to make it happen financially and it'll be a sad day for college football and it's tradition. We'll see 1-2 (maybe more) wasted spots every year of teams that shouldn't have gone into a whatever team playoff because the same issues that apply to teams like Hawaii 2007 lobbying for BCS bowls will continue to be there.
A playoff just trades awarding the MNC for consistency throughout the season to whoever gets hot in a tournament. I'd argue that consistent teams deserve it far more. Look at Kansas losing to VCU in the BB tourney or Ohio St this year, do you think they lose a majority if they played those games in a series of 5-7 games? That's what a single elimination tournament gets you. We'd stand to lose MNC teams like the 1995 Cornhusker's season long dominance if they got a bad match-up after a punishing game. Frankly I'd rather see consistency throughout the season rewarded. Football already has its single elimination tournament... watch that if you need one and leave college alone.
An 8 team playoff doesn't solve ANY of the arguments about which teams get in and a tournament means the regular season instantly becomes less important as you no longer have to be as consistently good from start to finish.
Frankly the MNC BCS system is fine... It gave people who needed a consensus #1 their game instead of each poll naming their own at the end of the bowl season. That's good enough. If the NCAA turns anymore into the NFL it'll lose the charm it has for people like myself (I hate watching NFL games, but love my college football Saturdays.) I couldn't be more against a playoff.
Ultimately someone will probably come up with a way to make it happen financially and it'll be a sad day for college football and it's tradition. We'll see 1-2 (maybe more) wasted spots every year of teams that shouldn't have gone into a whatever team playoff because the same issues that apply to teams like Hawaii 2007 lobbying for BCS bowls will continue to be there.
A playoff just trades awarding the MNC for consistency throughout the season to whoever gets hot in a tournament. I'd argue that consistent teams deserve it far more. Look at Kansas losing to VCU in the BB tourney or Ohio St this year, do you think they lose a majority if they played those games in a series of 5-7 games? That's what a single elimination tournament gets you. We'd stand to lose MNC teams like the 1995 Cornhusker's season long dominance if they got a bad match-up after a punishing game. Frankly I'd rather see consistency throughout the season rewarded. Football already has its single elimination tournament... watch that if you need one and leave college alone.
Last edited by a moderator:
junior4949
All-American
As it stands now, the BCS Championship is made up like this: SEC Champion vs. ___________. I'm not quite sure how anyone could claim a playoff trades the MNC for consistency after watching a two loss LSU who was anything but consistent crowned the MNC while tossing consistent undefeated Utah to the side. While you use Kansas losing to VCU as an example in a series of 5-7 games, how can you argue that Miami would have lost a majority of the games they played in a 5-7 series with Ohio State in the 2002 season? College football is anything but a single elimination tournament. College football is all about when you lose. In order for a shot at the MNC, the goal is to lose early. Only twice in the past five years has the MNC been undefeated. In three of the past five years, there's been an undefeated team who didn't even get to play for a MNC. So, lets break this down. Only 40% of the time has the MNC been undefeated through the entire season while 60% of the time there's been an undefeated team who got absolutely zero shot at winning the MNC.
I'm also not really sure how anyone could logically argue that a playoff would diminish college football's tradition. If we look at tradition, we wouldn't even have a BCS. Traditionally speaking, each conference had bowl alliances. The BCS ruined this tradition. If we're to believe or buy into the parity argument, things couldn't be more unfair. Because of this, Utah was forced into the Pac 12 and TCU to the Big East. TCU probably hasn't guaranteed themselves anything because of how the Big East is viewed. The only thing they've done is go to a BCS conference. They've already been playing in BCS bowls. Cincinnati went undefeated in 2009 and didn't get a shot at the MNC.
If a person is against a playoff in D1 college football because of how comparable it is to the NFL, then I'm not sure how they can watch any other sport or even football at any other level. High school football has a playoff, and I don't think it's anything like the NFL. High school football is a lot more comparable to college football because the players want to be there and want to win. In the NFL, players don't always play up to their potential unless there's a contract on the line. Because of the incentives built into most contracts, NFL players develop a me first attitude. A college football playoff will not make college football players behave in the same manner as NFL players. I for one am glad that there's a playoff in college basketball. Not one single #1 is left in the tournament. Where's the consistent argument? They weren't consistently the best team on the court!
sewardite4NU
Five-Star Recruit
I didn't bother reading every post in here, so I'm sure there's something similar to this, but here's my 2 cents.
Keep all the bowls. Every single one. I do enjoy watching the bowl games quite a bit. My problem is with the way the actual champion is decided. So to decide this, make the voters/computers decide the top 8 teams at the end of the season. Seed these 8 teams and put them in the BCS bowls (Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange). Then have a playoff from there. You're only adding 2 extra games to the games the final 2 teams would play otherwise. There would definitely be enough time between the end of the regular season and when the national championship game is now. The bowls would all get to keep their money and I would say that best team in the nation is ALWAYS in the top 8 teams at the end of the season (if not top 4). I really don't think this format would make the regular season boring. Teams are still going to try and win every game. If an undefeated team completely tanks it at the end of the season, the voters can punish them and knock them out of the playoffs. Plus with big rivalries throughout the season, I would think bragging rights alone will make teams want to win every game. Let's look at how it would have happened under this system last year going off the week 15 BCS rankings.
Bowl 1 (Sugar Bowl?)
1 Auburn 13-0
8 Arkansas 10-2
Bowl 2 (Rose Bowl?)
4 Stanford 11-1
5 Wisconsin 11-1
Bowl 3 (Fiesta Bowl?)
2 Oregon 12-0
7 Oklahoma 11-2
Bowl 4 (Orange Bowl?)
3 TCU 12-0
6 Ohio State 11-1
Winner of 1 would play winner of 2
Winner of 3 would play winner of 4
Then the winners would play each other in the BCS championship game.
You could rotate the bowls so that one bowl doesn't always have the, for example, 1-8 match up.
Some notable teams left out:
Michigan State 11-1
Boise State 11-1
LSU 10-2
Nevada 12-1
So it is possible for one-loss, BCS conference teams to get left out, meaning you would HAVE to try to win every game.
In my opinion, the ULTIMATE way of deciding a true national champion would be to somehow realign everyone into 8 conferences and have the winners of those conferences be seeded and play the same format. That would be difficult though since every conference would have to have 15 teams and you'd probably want everyone to play everyone within the conferences. It would eliminate the non-conference regular season, too.
I'd like to somehow get rid of the voters, but I don't really see a feasible way of doing so given the conferences and 120 teams in division 1. All in all, there really is no fool-proof way of doing the whole thing. I just think the way we have now leaves A LOT to be desired. The fact that 3 teams from BCS conferences could all go undefeated, yet 1 doesn't even get a shot at the title, is complete BS. Like I've said before, had Nebraska gone undefeated last year along with Oregon and Auburn, we would have been screaming bloody murder had we been left out. Same with Oklahoma fans, Oregon fans, or Auburn fans had they been the ones left out. The fact that TCU didn't get a shot isn't a COMPLETE travesty due to a fairly weak conference and lack of a weakly grind against top competition, but I still think they should have gotten one. They proved they could hang with the big boys when they played Wisconsin and beat them. If there were a playoff, I really don't think TCU would have kept it up 3 straight games to win it all.
But I'd like to thank CornHOLIO for bumping this thread, as I was about to given all the discussion about this on statuses lately.
Keep all the bowls. Every single one. I do enjoy watching the bowl games quite a bit. My problem is with the way the actual champion is decided. So to decide this, make the voters/computers decide the top 8 teams at the end of the season. Seed these 8 teams and put them in the BCS bowls (Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange). Then have a playoff from there. You're only adding 2 extra games to the games the final 2 teams would play otherwise. There would definitely be enough time between the end of the regular season and when the national championship game is now. The bowls would all get to keep their money and I would say that best team in the nation is ALWAYS in the top 8 teams at the end of the season (if not top 4). I really don't think this format would make the regular season boring. Teams are still going to try and win every game. If an undefeated team completely tanks it at the end of the season, the voters can punish them and knock them out of the playoffs. Plus with big rivalries throughout the season, I would think bragging rights alone will make teams want to win every game. Let's look at how it would have happened under this system last year going off the week 15 BCS rankings.
Bowl 1 (Sugar Bowl?)
1 Auburn 13-0
8 Arkansas 10-2
Bowl 2 (Rose Bowl?)
4 Stanford 11-1
5 Wisconsin 11-1
Bowl 3 (Fiesta Bowl?)
2 Oregon 12-0
7 Oklahoma 11-2
Bowl 4 (Orange Bowl?)
3 TCU 12-0
6 Ohio State 11-1
Winner of 1 would play winner of 2
Winner of 3 would play winner of 4
Then the winners would play each other in the BCS championship game.
You could rotate the bowls so that one bowl doesn't always have the, for example, 1-8 match up.
Some notable teams left out:
Michigan State 11-1
Boise State 11-1
LSU 10-2
Nevada 12-1
So it is possible for one-loss, BCS conference teams to get left out, meaning you would HAVE to try to win every game.
In my opinion, the ULTIMATE way of deciding a true national champion would be to somehow realign everyone into 8 conferences and have the winners of those conferences be seeded and play the same format. That would be difficult though since every conference would have to have 15 teams and you'd probably want everyone to play everyone within the conferences. It would eliminate the non-conference regular season, too.
I'd like to somehow get rid of the voters, but I don't really see a feasible way of doing so given the conferences and 120 teams in division 1. All in all, there really is no fool-proof way of doing the whole thing. I just think the way we have now leaves A LOT to be desired. The fact that 3 teams from BCS conferences could all go undefeated, yet 1 doesn't even get a shot at the title, is complete BS. Like I've said before, had Nebraska gone undefeated last year along with Oregon and Auburn, we would have been screaming bloody murder had we been left out. Same with Oklahoma fans, Oregon fans, or Auburn fans had they been the ones left out. The fact that TCU didn't get a shot isn't a COMPLETE travesty due to a fairly weak conference and lack of a weakly grind against top competition, but I still think they should have gotten one. They proved they could hang with the big boys when they played Wisconsin and beat them. If there were a playoff, I really don't think TCU would have kept it up 3 straight games to win it all.
But I'd like to thank CornHOLIO for bumping this thread, as I was about to given all the discussion about this on statuses lately.
JTrain
All-Conference
There are so many holes in these playoff arguments it's very difficult to even work up the motivation to start to argue against them. The masses have already decided a playoff is everything that's right and good. There's really no changing their minds now. But I can't help fighting it anyway.
Again, playoffs prove absolutely nothing but which team played the best for a very short span at the end of the season. THAT'S IT. It doesn't crown a true champion of that season, which the current college football system comes much, much closer to.
If you want to argue for playoffs on the grounds that brackets are awesome to look at and follow, and that the elimination style of it is generally very entertaining and exciting, that's fine. I won't be mad at you. I won't even disagree, actually. Brackets are great. March Madness is exciting. But, does the March Madness winner more accurately represent who the most excellent college basketball team was of the season leading up to it, than the BCS National Championship Game winner represents the most excellent college football team of the season leading up to it? Absolutely not.
In college football, the championship is about having the best season. The post-season is really just about breaking the tie among the very best teams who haven't had the chance to play each other. This year it was Auburn and Oregon. TCU got left out, and that sucks. I don't personally think they would beat Auburn anyway, but I'm not against a four-team playoff to avoid cases like this. But more than four teams? No thanks. Then you're taking the championship emphasis off the season. The season then just becomes one long qualifying round. Just find a way into the playoffs and then the real fun starts.
This is why the March Madness winner is often just referred to as the "20xx tournament champions" as opposed to the "20xx National Champions". The winner is simply the one that had a hot streak (combination of jelling at the right time, luck, an easy path and lack of key injuries) from mid-March to the first week of April. That's basically two weeks of a season that spans several months.
And yet people wanna say: "With playoffs, you settle it on the field/court!" Rubbish. Auburn settled it on the field. They settled it on the field in early September in an ugly win against a gritty Miss St. team and their crazy crowd. They settled it on the field holding off a crazy Kentucky second half. They settled it on the field with an insane thee-TD comeback against the defending champs. They were forced to settle it on the field every single week of the season. Auburn truly had the most outstanding 2010 football season. No one in their right mind could argue that.
Let's say Butler wins the NCAA b-ball tournament. Did Butler settle it on the court? Well, sure... for two weeks. A combination of factors (including a wacky win over an overrated Pitt team) led to them winning six games spanning from March 17 to April 4... in a season that began in November. Did they settle it on the court when they got handled by Louisville their second game? Or manhandled by Milwaukee? How about losing to a YSU team that finished 9-21? This is just a handful of examples of Butler's nine losses, only one of which came to a team ranked at the time.
Maybe you don't care about all that. Maybe you just wanna see a bunch of awesome games at the end of the season in a winner takes all, single elimination orgasm. Again, I won't fault you for wanting that. Just don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Don't try to feed me any of this nonsense about playoffs being fair or crowning a truer champion or "settling it on the field!"
I want to see a whole season of exciting, crucial games between national title contenders. When I watch the Nebraska-Ohio St. game this season, I want the same excitement and nerves running through me as a championship game. I love that. I know that a loss of any magnitude means the national title chances take a massive, often unredeemable hit. Same idea with huge and interesting match-ups like Oregon-LSU and Bama-Penn St.
Remember that huge basketball game between UConn and Kentucky? No, not the one coming up this weekend... the one back in the regular season. Yeah, me neither. That's because it didn't matter. Both teams were clearly going to make the dance and get good seeds as well.
Do you remember, in football, Boise-Va Tech? Boise-Nevada? Nebraska-Texas? Auburn-Bama? Most likely you do.
Again, playoffs prove absolutely nothing but which team played the best for a very short span at the end of the season. THAT'S IT. It doesn't crown a true champion of that season, which the current college football system comes much, much closer to.
If you want to argue for playoffs on the grounds that brackets are awesome to look at and follow, and that the elimination style of it is generally very entertaining and exciting, that's fine. I won't be mad at you. I won't even disagree, actually. Brackets are great. March Madness is exciting. But, does the March Madness winner more accurately represent who the most excellent college basketball team was of the season leading up to it, than the BCS National Championship Game winner represents the most excellent college football team of the season leading up to it? Absolutely not.
In college football, the championship is about having the best season. The post-season is really just about breaking the tie among the very best teams who haven't had the chance to play each other. This year it was Auburn and Oregon. TCU got left out, and that sucks. I don't personally think they would beat Auburn anyway, but I'm not against a four-team playoff to avoid cases like this. But more than four teams? No thanks. Then you're taking the championship emphasis off the season. The season then just becomes one long qualifying round. Just find a way into the playoffs and then the real fun starts.
This is why the March Madness winner is often just referred to as the "20xx tournament champions" as opposed to the "20xx National Champions". The winner is simply the one that had a hot streak (combination of jelling at the right time, luck, an easy path and lack of key injuries) from mid-March to the first week of April. That's basically two weeks of a season that spans several months.
And yet people wanna say: "With playoffs, you settle it on the field/court!" Rubbish. Auburn settled it on the field. They settled it on the field in early September in an ugly win against a gritty Miss St. team and their crazy crowd. They settled it on the field holding off a crazy Kentucky second half. They settled it on the field with an insane thee-TD comeback against the defending champs. They were forced to settle it on the field every single week of the season. Auburn truly had the most outstanding 2010 football season. No one in their right mind could argue that.
Let's say Butler wins the NCAA b-ball tournament. Did Butler settle it on the court? Well, sure... for two weeks. A combination of factors (including a wacky win over an overrated Pitt team) led to them winning six games spanning from March 17 to April 4... in a season that began in November. Did they settle it on the court when they got handled by Louisville their second game? Or manhandled by Milwaukee? How about losing to a YSU team that finished 9-21? This is just a handful of examples of Butler's nine losses, only one of which came to a team ranked at the time.
Maybe you don't care about all that. Maybe you just wanna see a bunch of awesome games at the end of the season in a winner takes all, single elimination orgasm. Again, I won't fault you for wanting that. Just don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Don't try to feed me any of this nonsense about playoffs being fair or crowning a truer champion or "settling it on the field!"
I want to see a whole season of exciting, crucial games between national title contenders. When I watch the Nebraska-Ohio St. game this season, I want the same excitement and nerves running through me as a championship game. I love that. I know that a loss of any magnitude means the national title chances take a massive, often unredeemable hit. Same idea with huge and interesting match-ups like Oregon-LSU and Bama-Penn St.
Remember that huge basketball game between UConn and Kentucky? No, not the one coming up this weekend... the one back in the regular season. Yeah, me neither. That's because it didn't matter. Both teams were clearly going to make the dance and get good seeds as well.
Do you remember, in football, Boise-Va Tech? Boise-Nevada? Nebraska-Texas? Auburn-Bama? Most likely you do.
Last edited by a moderator:
Count 'Bility
Banned
Really REALLY!!?? So the regular season doesnt matter? Since all 32 teams go to the playoffs anyway? Didnt know this was Nebraska high school basketball.
kill the preseason games that have us all so enamored and glued to our seat...NU vs. SDSU, Michigan vs Troy, Alabama vs. Kent State, etc. play conference championships like now so the reguar season counts, have all conference champions meet in a national tourney, seeded high against low. winner winner checken dinner at the end is the NC....oh wait a minute that would cut the NCAA out of billions of dollars that are "all going to students" ALLEDGEDLY. and I would be missing the Manwich horse$%#^ bowl...dont wanna do that! I love the bowl season starting in June every year--riveting TV!
HuskerMav11
Special Teams Player
I like an 8 team playoff. Keeps the regular season still worth something and keeps the season short. Some teams would inevitably still get f'd over, but that's life.
CornHOLIO
Starter
Wow!
There's really only 32?
Must be why they have to play each other so often..And most? of them make it in.
Even Conference Championships (Div.1) diluted the importance of games like OU/NU knowing you'd probably have a chance at a rematch later on in a CCG.
Judoka
Starter
The sheer volume of games makes the regular season of basketball in general unmemorable (unless a particular game is truly epic).
junior4949
All-American
While I won't argue that Auburn had the best season in 2010, I will argue over other seasons. How did that single elimination work out in 2001? We got embarrassed, yet we still made the title game. In 2003, OU got trounced by KState but still managed their way into the title game. The BCS was supposed to crown one true champion, yet we had two National Champions in 2003. I know everyone here hates Texas, but we all must admit what a tough pill it was for them to swallow watching OU play in the MNC game after they had the same record and beat OU on the field.
Those who are against a playoff usually say well just win every game during the season and things will be settled on the field. This couldn't be further from the truth. In every other division and sport, those teams who win every game win the championship. I've never seen a college basketball team win every game and not be crowned the champion. However, it happens all the time in college football where a team wins every game and isn't crowned the champion. In the past five years alone, 60% of the time a team that won all of their games has been told too bad so sad. It's pretty sad when a team has a better season and is left out in the cold. This is what we have now.
Who defines better season? In 2007, LSU won the MNC after being beaten by two teams that finished the season unranked in the top 25 of the BCS. Virginia Tech doesn't get in with two losses even though those two teams that beat them finished in the top 15 of the BCS. Oklahoma had the same credentials as LSU losing twice to teams that finished unranked in the top 25 of the BCS. However, OU's two losses came on the road while one of LSU's came at home to an Arkansas team that got trounced by Mizzou who OU beat twice.
I don't know why everyone always wants to point to basketball as a comparison. They might as well say college volleyball as well. Those sports play a lot more games. Those teams usually play the same opponent more than once. They play several games a week in some cases. In some instances, the team that wins in those sports is the team that had the most rest between games. I don't think anyone wanting a playoff is advocating playing anymore than one game per week. Claiming people remember college football games over college basketball games should be common sense. College football teams play 12-14 games per year while college basketball teams play roughly 40 games. I remember pro football games a lot more than I do pro basketball for the same reason.
Those who are against a playoff usually say well just win every game during the season and things will be settled on the field. This couldn't be further from the truth. In every other division and sport, those teams who win every game win the championship. I've never seen a college basketball team win every game and not be crowned the champion. However, it happens all the time in college football where a team wins every game and isn't crowned the champion. In the past five years alone, 60% of the time a team that won all of their games has been told too bad so sad. It's pretty sad when a team has a better season and is left out in the cold. This is what we have now.
Who defines better season? In 2007, LSU won the MNC after being beaten by two teams that finished the season unranked in the top 25 of the BCS. Virginia Tech doesn't get in with two losses even though those two teams that beat them finished in the top 15 of the BCS. Oklahoma had the same credentials as LSU losing twice to teams that finished unranked in the top 25 of the BCS. However, OU's two losses came on the road while one of LSU's came at home to an Arkansas team that got trounced by Mizzou who OU beat twice.
I don't know why everyone always wants to point to basketball as a comparison. They might as well say college volleyball as well. Those sports play a lot more games. Those teams usually play the same opponent more than once. They play several games a week in some cases. In some instances, the team that wins in those sports is the team that had the most rest between games. I don't think anyone wanting a playoff is advocating playing anymore than one game per week. Claiming people remember college football games over college basketball games should be common sense. College football teams play 12-14 games per year while college basketball teams play roughly 40 games. I remember pro football games a lot more than I do pro basketball for the same reason.
The "if you win out even against the worst 11 teams in America" comment was a bash on the pro BCS people who say the regular season is a "playoff" system. Just making a point that it could not be a true "playoff" system if a team wins every game and still has no shot at the "title" game (TCU) regardless of its strength of schedule.
So if you are a 18 yr. old HS FB standout who chooses Nebraska because of there precious strength of schedule shouldn't mean Hawaii doesn't have the better team on the field any particular year and deserve a shot if they run the table.
In response to your first quote, I've never heard anybody say the playoffs would suck because regular season NFL games are unbearable to watch. The NFL season is not unbearable to watch. That's a very dissenting opinion.
Honestly, television ratings and viewer-ship contradict that opinion. A Monday Night Football game between the Indianapolis Colts and the New England Patriots draws HUGE numbers both in stadiums and on television. Any sport with a playoff clearly makes the regular season slightly less important, but the games still matter and they still draw millions of fans. It's the most popular sport in the nation for a reason.
Furthermore, the main reason people want to get rid of the BCS is because it is more heavily weighted on opinion than any other sport in the nation.
Implementing a playoff system will hurt the regular season in college football, but I believe the BCS hurts the integrity of the game more than anything else.