Playoffs

[junior4949]

For every game like the Giants game there are many that dont matter because the teams are mathematically eliminated, they have home field,and playoff spots locked up already. Giants game would have mattered just as much in the Bcs and so would some of the others.Bengals, Seahawks,etc have been out of it for weeks, but even crappy teams like UTEP, Troy etc in college had a bowl game to play for. Hate those NFL games where the teams are resting the starters at the end of the season.

And you don't have those games in myriad numbers now? 60 teams don't make bowl games this year. That's hundreds of games that have zero bearing on anything.

 

UTEP and Troy can still go to a bowl - only eight bowl games would die in the playoff scenario. So you can still have the Poulon Weed-Eater Bowl and the South-Central Friends of Jim-Bob Jones Bowl and the We Have An Empty Stadium Bowl every year, too. The only difference is that in a playoff scenario, you have a real bona-fide champion, not some beauty pageant winner.

 

Many arguments FOR a playoff can be easily skewered also.For instance why would you want to drag 12-16 teams into a playoff when only maybe 4 teams have any claim to being good enough to be there. Makes the season way too long, and really doesnt help with the main goal of crowning a champion. People throw out ideas that arent well thought out on either side. IMO the BCS works well at its main goal of crowning the #1 team. Bowl games are also an incentive for lesser teams. Not much reason to change.

 

Yes, many arguments for a playoff can be skewered. But the one you've chosen holds no water. Boise St. would beat 99% of teams out there this year, and would qualify for a playoff, but this year, because they had one bad quarter, they have no shot at the title. Completely unfair, and you cannot assert with a straight face that Oregon and Auburn are the ONLY teams that deserve a shot. Who's to say that the SEC #2 doesn't deserve at least a shot? Typically the SEC loser has lost one game, has better SOS than most other schools, and lost a close game. This year the Pac-10 #2, Stanford, is a better argument than the SEC loser, since their one loss was to Oregon early in the season.

 

I would rather have a 16-team playoff where every game holds urgency and grabs my attention (because anyone in any of those games could be the National Champion), instead of 7,000 bowl games, 99% of which hold no more drama or impact than regular season games between two C-USA teams. Do you really see drama in the Beef 'O' Brady's bowl? Do you really see drama in the Meineke Car Care bowl? Really, do you care who finishes #8 on a typical year, unless it's Nebraska? If you do you're among the vast minority. The majority of people know two things - who won the national championship and whether their team won their bowl game. Aside from that, the rest of bowl season is just clutter.

 

The BCS works was well at crowning the #1 team as "just the tip" works at preventing pregnancies. If it worked they wouldn't have had to change the formula every year for the last ten years. If it worked people wouldn't be lighting torches and sharpening pitchforks this time every year. If it worked - and this is the most damning point of all - if it worked, someone else would use it to determine a champion.

 

But nobody else does. Nowhere. In any sport.

What year can you pinpoint that the true national champion wasnt crowned? The bowl games hold drama for the teams , and their fan bases, and i dont care about them any more than half of the NFL teams that make the playoffs, but it gives THEM a little more to play for. IMO theres no point in letting a whole bunch of teams into the playoffs in the hope that a lesser team will luck out and beat #1. That proves nothing and only adds to the "What ifs". You still only listed a few more deserving teams, not 10 or 12 more. Not really true that everybody else would be doing it if it worked either.Bowl games, conference championship games, and the polls are some of the things that make college football unique and interesting. If it was really failing that bad it would be gone. People will "sharpen pitchforks" etc. based on what their buddies at work, the bar, or internet boards, tell them, without any logical thought or a viable alternative.

 

Do you really want to choose this path? The BCS was supposed to crown the true NC. However, in 2003 we had two NC. How can that be with the BCS putting the two best teams against one another? Then, there's always 2007 when a two loss LSU team is crowned the NC where a loss was to an unranked team while several other two loss teams with losses coming to ranked opponents get kicked to the curb. We can't talk about getting the knob job unless we bring up 2004 where undefeated Auburn was told too bad so sad. In 2008, the only undefeated team was Utah. They stayed that way by beating a once ranked #1 Alabama team. They did everything that was asked, yet still got nothing for their efforts. Last year, there were four undefeated teams. I'd venture to guess that there's been controversy more times than not since the BCS was established.

 

Your argument is very leaky. The polls and conference championship games would very much matter in a playoff scenario because how do you think they're going to come up with the playoff teams? Draw straws? The BCS has epic fail written all over it. Look at how many times they've had to "tweak" the formula because somebody got butthurt that OU got in the game in 03' and Nebraska got in the game in 01'. If it's such a great system, quit manipulating the formula which it seems like they do every year.

[Big Red 40]

What year can you pinpoint that the true national champion wasnt crowned? The bowl games hold drama for the teams , and their fan bases, and i dont care about them any more than half of the NFL teams that make the playoffs, but it gives THEM a little more to play for. IMO theres no point in letting a whole bunch of teams into the playoffs in the hope that a lesser team will luck out and beat #1. That proves nothing and only adds to the "What ifs". You still only listed a few more deserving teams, not 10 or 12 more. Not really true that everybody else would be doing it if it worked either.Bowl games, conference championship games, and the polls are some of the things that make college football unique and interesting. If it was really failing that bad it would be gone. People will "sharpen pitchforks" etc. based on what their buddies at work, the bar, or internet boards, tell them, without any logical thought or a viable alternative.

 

A true national champion has never been crowned in college football - at least not Div1A. It's always been based on a popularity contest - votes cast by ballot. That's not winning it on the field, it's a collective guess. Why do you think it's so commonly referred to as the "Mythical" National Championship?

 

You want unique and interesting. The rest of the sporting world wants their team to have a legitimate shot at a deserved title. And it is really failing that bad, and it will be gone. My guess is within a decade. The kinds of money involved in college football put it under the jurisdiction of the Sherman Act. Don't think for a second this is just water cooler talk. Maybe it is for you, but not for those who are serious about the sport.

All but one (LSU) of the teams to play in the BCS championship game since its inception were 1 loss or undefeated teams, and most of them were major conference champs too. How much more proof is needed that they were the best? This system puts more emphasis on winning ALL of your games than any other, and also on playing the highest quality opponent possible.Auburn and Oregon won ALL their games (Nobody else did!) and were both major conference champs, meaning they deserved to be there.Boise lost a game, and played in a weak conference, so they dont deserve to play for the championship.Put Boise state in the SEC and we wouldnt be talking about them because they would have lost at least one more game this year. If i was the only person in the world who felt this way (Ha HA), it would have never happened, and would surely be gone by now.It works, and i hope they leave it alone!

[knapplc]

All but one (LSU) of the teams to play in the BCS championship game since its inception were 1 loss or undefeated teams, and most of them were major conference champs too. How much more proof is needed that they were the best? This system puts more emphasis on winning ALL of your games than any other, and also on playing the highest quality opponent possible.Auburn and Oregon won ALL their games (Nobody else did!) and were both major conference champs, meaning they deserved to be there.Boise lost a game, and played in a weak conference, so they dont deserve to play for the championship.Put Boise state in the SEC and we wouldnt be talking about them because they would have lost at least one more game this year. If i was the only person in the world who felt this way (Ha HA), it would have never happened, and would surely be gone by now.It works, and i hope they leave it alone!

 

It works? Then why don't any other sports, major or minor, in the world use this system? Why have sports been using a form of bracket tournament for millennia?

 

You may be fooling you with this "it works" nonsense, but you're not fooling anyone else.

[junior4949]

What year can you pinpoint that the true national champion wasnt crowned? The bowl games hold drama for the teams , and their fan bases, and i dont care about them any more than half of the NFL teams that make the playoffs, but it gives THEM a little more to play for. IMO theres no point in letting a whole bunch of teams into the playoffs in the hope that a lesser team will luck out and beat #1. That proves nothing and only adds to the "What ifs". You still only listed a few more deserving teams, not 10 or 12 more. Not really true that everybody else would be doing it if it worked either.Bowl games, conference championship games, and the polls are some of the things that make college football unique and interesting. If it was really failing that bad it would be gone. People will "sharpen pitchforks" etc. based on what their buddies at work, the bar, or internet boards, tell them, without any logical thought or a viable alternative.

 

A true national champion has never been crowned in college football - at least not Div1A. It's always been based on a popularity contest - votes cast by ballot. That's not winning it on the field, it's a collective guess. Why do you think it's so commonly referred to as the "Mythical" National Championship?

 

You want unique and interesting. The rest of the sporting world wants their team to have a legitimate shot at a deserved title. And it is really failing that bad, and it will be gone. My guess is within a decade. The kinds of money involved in college football put it under the jurisdiction of the Sherman Act. Don't think for a second this is just water cooler talk. Maybe it is for you, but not for those who are serious about the sport.

All but one (LSU) of the teams to play in the BCS championship game since its inception were 1 loss or undefeated teams, and most of them were major conference champs too. How much more proof is needed that they were the best? This system puts more emphasis on winning ALL of your games than any other, and also on playing the highest quality opponent possible.Auburn and Oregon won ALL their games (Nobody else did!) and were both major conference champs, meaning they deserved to be there.Boise lost a game, and played in a weak conference, so they dont deserve to play for the championship.Put Boise state in the SEC and we wouldnt be talking about them because they would have lost at least one more game this year. If i was the only person in the world who felt this way (Ha HA), it would have never happened, and would surely be gone by now.It works, and i hope they leave it alone!

 

Wow, really? There really were only two teams this year undefeated? TCU must have lost and invisible game or two in there that the BCS knows nothing about. Most were major conference champs to play in the BCS championship game? Really? In 2001, Nebraska didn't even play in their conference championship game because they lost to CU. In 2003, OU got their a$$es handed to them by KState in the conference championship game. In 2004, Auburn won the friggin SEC (you know the same conference to win the last four NC) and was told too bad so sad even though they were undefeated. You can hope in one hand and $hit in the other. We'll see which one gets filled first. The clock is ticking on the death of the BCS.

[Big Red 40]

All but one (LSU) of the teams to play in the BCS championship game since its inception were 1 loss or undefeated teams, and most of them were major conference champs too. How much more proof is needed that they were the best? This system puts more emphasis on winning ALL of your games than any other, and also on playing the highest quality opponent possible.Auburn and Oregon won ALL their games (Nobody else did!) and were both major conference champs, meaning they deserved to be there.Boise lost a game, and played in a weak conference, so they dont deserve to play for the championship.Put Boise state in the SEC and we wouldnt be talking about them because they would have lost at least one more game this year. If i was the only person in the world who felt this way (Ha HA), it would have never happened, and would surely be gone by now.It works, and i hope they leave it alone!

 

It works? Then why don't any other sports, major or minor, in the world use this system? Why have sports been using a form of bracket tournament for millennia?

 

You may be fooling you with this "it works" nonsense, but you're not fooling anyone else.

thats just stupid! Yeah im the only guy in the world who thinks the system works. Again i LOL!You didnt disclaim any of the reasons i gave for favoring the current system, and you also didnt argue any of i gave for not liking a playoff system.If it works for other sports good, but i dont like it in college football You may be think that you know what the "rest of the sporting world" wants, but YOU may be the one fooling yourself!

[Big Red 40]

What year can you pinpoint that the true national champion wasnt crowned? The bowl games hold drama for the teams , and their fan bases, and i dont care about them any more than half of the NFL teams that make the playoffs, but it gives THEM a little more to play for. IMO theres no point in letting a whole bunch of teams into the playoffs in the hope that a lesser team will luck out and beat #1. That proves nothing and only adds to the "What ifs". You still only listed a few more deserving teams, not 10 or 12 more. Not really true that everybody else would be doing it if it worked either.Bowl games, conference championship games, and the polls are some of the things that make college football unique and interesting. If it was really failing that bad it would be gone. People will "sharpen pitchforks" etc. based on what their buddies at work, the bar, or internet boards, tell them, without any logical thought or a viable alternative.

 

A true national champion has never been crowned in college football - at least not Div1A. It's always been based on a popularity contest - votes cast by ballot. That's not winning it on the field, it's a collective guess. Why do you think it's so commonly referred to as the "Mythical" National Championship?

 

You want unique and interesting. The rest of the sporting world wants their team to have a legitimate shot at a deserved title. And it is really failing that bad, and it will be gone. My guess is within a decade. The kinds of money involved in college football put it under the jurisdiction of the Sherman Act. Don't think for a second this is just water cooler talk. Maybe it is for you, but not for those who are serious about the sport.

All but one (LSU) of the teams to play in the BCS championship game since its inception were 1 loss or undefeated teams, and most of them were major conference champs too. How much more proof is needed that they were the best? This system puts more emphasis on winning ALL of your games than any other, and also on playing the highest quality opponent possible.Auburn and Oregon won ALL their games (Nobody else did!) and were both major conference champs, meaning they deserved to be there.Boise lost a game, and played in a weak conference, so they dont deserve to play for the championship.Put Boise state in the SEC and we wouldnt be talking about them because they would have lost at least one more game this year. If i was the only person in the world who felt this way (Ha HA), it would have never happened, and would surely be gone by now.It works, and i hope they leave it alone!

 

Wow, really? There really were only two teams this year undefeated? TCU must have lost and invisible game or two in there that the BCS knows nothing about. Most were major conference champs to play in the BCS championship game? Really? In 2001, Nebraska didn't even play in their conference championship game because they lost to CU. In 2003, OU got their a$$es handed to them by KState in the conference championship game. In 2004, Auburn won the friggin SEC (you know the same conference to win the last four NC) and was told too bad so sad even though they were undefeated. You can hope in one hand and $hit in the other. We'll see which one gets filled first. The clock is ticking on the death of the BCS.

Again i said MAJOR CONFERENCE teams . TCU would have lost more games in any major conference! Youre always gonna have mismatches and teams complaining even with a playoff.Citing a few times out of 12 years that it was questionable doesnt mean we should scrap the whole thing.

[knapplc]

All but one (LSU) of the teams to play in the BCS championship game since its inception were 1 loss or undefeated teams, and most of them were major conference champs too. How much more proof is needed that they were the best? This system puts more emphasis on winning ALL of your games than any other, and also on playing the highest quality opponent possible.Auburn and Oregon won ALL their games (Nobody else did!) and were both major conference champs, meaning they deserved to be there.Boise lost a game, and played in a weak conference, so they dont deserve to play for the championship.Put Boise state in the SEC and we wouldnt be talking about them because they would have lost at least one more game this year. If i was the only person in the world who felt this way (Ha HA), it would have never happened, and would surely be gone by now.It works, and i hope they leave it alone!

 

It works? Then why don't any other sports, major or minor, in the world use this system? Why have sports been using a form of bracket tournament for millennia?

 

You may be fooling you with this "it works" nonsense, but you're not fooling anyone else.

thats just stupid! Yeah im the only guy in the world who thinks the system works. Again i LOL!You didnt disclaim any of the reasons i gave for favoring the current system, and you also didnt argue any of i gave for not liking a playoff system.If it works for other sports good, but i dont like it in college football You may be think that you know what the "rest of the sporting world" wants, but YOU may be the one fooling yourself!

 

I didn't rebut anything you said because you didn't say anything that wasn't obviously easily refutable. The letters TCU kill your argument this year.

 

Florida kills your argument last year - the only loss they had was to Alabama, meaning they have the exact same credentials as Texas.

 

Utah was 13-0 in 2008, yet had no chance for the MNC. Florida had a loss that year (to four-loss Ole Miss), yet was in the title game. Another nail in your coffin.

 

2007 is an absolute disaster for your argument, where Kansas was the only top-25 team with less than two losses, and they didn't play in the title game.

 

In 2006 another one-loss Florida team won, only this time they only lost two two-loss Auburn. They beat undefeated Ohio State, yet undefeated Boise St. again had no chance at the title. No chance at all.

 

That's the last five years, and you're 0-5. That's a pretty poor track record of "getting it right."

[junior4949]

I cited four times. Four out of twelve means the BCS has screwed the pooch one third of the time. Isn't that a D in school. You want to keep a system that grades out at a D?

[Big Red 40]

All but one (LSU) of the teams to play in the BCS championship game since its inception were 1 loss or undefeated teams, and most of them were major conference champs too. How much more proof is needed that they were the best? This system puts more emphasis on winning ALL of your games than any other, and also on playing the highest quality opponent possible.Auburn and Oregon won ALL their games (Nobody else did!) and were both major conference champs, meaning they deserved to be there.Boise lost a game, and played in a weak conference, so they dont deserve to play for the championship.Put Boise state in the SEC and we wouldnt be talking about them because they would have lost at least one more game this year. If i was the only person in the world who felt this way (Ha HA), it would have never happened, and would surely be gone by now.It works, and i hope they leave it alone!

 

It works? Then why don't any other sports, major or minor, in the world use this system? Why have sports been using a form of bracket tournament for millennia?

 

You may be fooling you with this "it works" nonsense, but you're not fooling anyone else.

thats just stupid! Yeah im the only guy in the world who thinks the system works. Again i LOL!You didnt disclaim any of the reasons i gave for favoring the current system, and you also didnt argue any of i gave for not liking a playoff system.If it works for other sports good, but i dont like it in college football You may be think that you know what the "rest of the sporting world" wants, but YOU may be the one fooling yourself!

 

I didn't rebut anything you said because you didn't say anything that wasn't obviously easily refutable. The letters TCU kill your argument this year.

 

Florida kills your argument last year - the only loss they had was to Alabama, meaning they have the exact same credentials as Texas.

 

Utah was 13-0 in 2008, yet had no chance for the MNC. Florida had a loss that year (to four-loss Ole Miss), yet was in the title game. Another nail in your coffin.

 

2007 is an absolute disaster for your argument, where Kansas was the only top-25 team with less than two losses, and they didn't play in the title game.

 

In 2006 another one-loss Florida team won, only this time they only lost two two-loss Auburn. They beat undefeated Ohio State, yet undefeated Boise St. again had no chance at the title. No chance at all.

 

That's the last five years, and you're 0-5. That's a pretty poor track record of "getting it right."

Do you honestly think that TCU is the best team in the country this year? Or Utah or Boise in the other years? No way! Again i say if they want to have a legit beef get in a major conference, then go undefeated, which they wouldnt.

[Big Red 40]

I cited four times. Four out of twelve means the BCS has screwed the pooch one third of the time. Isn't that a D in school. You want to keep a system that grades out at a D?

4 times other teams MAY have had a beef on who should be there, but the best team still came out on top anyway,

[knapplc]

Do you honestly think that TCU is the best team in the country this year? Or Utah or Boise in the other years? No way! Again i say if they want to have a legit beef get in a major conference, then go undefeated, which they wouldnt.

 

I believe that TCU and Boise St. are both very good teams. I believe that they deserve a shot at the title. They would be able to prove they belong by beating the stiff competition they'd have to face in a playoff and earning their spot in the title game. All anyone is saying is that in a playoff, even unlikely teams that you don't think belong have a shot.

 

In the BCS, a voting system so flawed that it's needed to be changed several times in the past several years determines that only two teams have that shot. The playoff allows the flaws inherent in the system to work themselves out on the field. The BCS ingrains those flaws into the system forever.

[junior4949]

I cited four times. Four out of twelve means the BCS has screwed the pooch one third of the time. Isn't that a D in school. You want to keep a system that grades out at a D?

4 times other teams MAY have had a beef on who should be there, but the best team still came out on top anyway,

 

How do you know? In 2004, Auburn was the undefeated champion in a conference that has won the last four titles. How do you know whether or not they could beat USC or OU? In 2007, LSU won the title. I'm not even sure if they deserved to be in the game. Ohio State played in title games because they didn't play anyone in the regular season, and they didn't have a conference title game to play. In 2008, Utah beat Alabama by more points than Florida who won the title beat Alabama. How do you know the only undefeated team (Utah) couldn't have beaten Florida? In 2008, OU got into the title game and nearly beat Florida. However, should OU have been in the game? There's a lot of people from Texas who believed they should have been in the game because they beat OU head to head but lost some screw ball tie breaker. I might add that the tie breaker had to be addressed or should I say "tweaked" for later years. In all reality, the BCS is no better than what we had prior to the BCS. There's been as much if not more controversy since the inception of the BCS. It's all well and good to say teams from the nonqualifying conference can't compete, but that argument doesn't hold water when they beat the big boys in bowl games. To say the best team still came out on top is simply wrong.

[knapplc]

Another thing the BCS proponents are ignoring is the fact that 2007 is going to become the norm, not the exception. We're going to have fewer undefeated teams the longer we go in this era of scholarship limitations. There will always be teams with flawed arguments for getting into the MNC game under the BCS. This year is an exception, and only the fact that Cal's two point conversion attempt failed is keeping two undefeated teams in this game.

 

Throw Nebraska into this mix as well - if we simply play with our heads out of our collective asses this year, there are four undefeated teams, not three. At that point who do you choose? I'll guarantee you the short-sighted here would be clamoring for a shot at the title if we were in TCU's shoes, flawed as we are this year.

[VA Husker Fan]

 

And much more better than the extremely boring NFL regular season or smaller division college playoffs.

By better I mean every game being "life-or-death" until you've already lost more than three.

 

 

Smaller division college playoffs are only boring to those who don't care about teams at that level, much like the NAIA or whatever the lower levels of hoops are. I went to a couple of JMU playoff games a couple years ago and they were fantastic. The fans were really into it, and I got into it even though my only connection to JMU was that my kid was in the marching band. And by the way for those worried about travel, Montana brought a pretty nice crowd, and I challenge anyone to find a quick, easy and cheap route from Missoula, MT to Harrisonburg, VA.

 

And as far as playoffs impacting the regular season games, that same year JMU played Appalachian State, the year defending FCS champ ASU beat Michigan, and JMU was shooting for a championship season. Even though it was early in the season, it was pretty clear that this game wouldn't knock the loser out of the playoffs (and it didn't). So that's a pretty meaningless game, right? Well, that game was an freakin' all-out war, and the stadium was bedlam the entire 2nd half as JMU made up a 21 point deficit to win.

 

But I'm sure it would be different at the FBS level, right?

[JTrain]

It's silly to think that playoffs destroy the importance of the regular season. Regular season games aren't minimized by playoffs, they just have different meaning. Instead of playing for that ridiculous two spots in the MNC game, you're playing for your playoff life and/or seeding.

 

Ask the New York Giants this morning how "boring" or "minimal" regular season games are. They went from winning their division and a first-round bye to having to win out to make the playoffs. Doesn't sound boring or minimal to me.

 

So many of the arguments against a playoff are so easy to skewer. It's like people don't even think before throwing these arguments out - they're just so ingrained to support the BCS that they toss out any old argument without bothering to look at the myriad examples we already have where playoffs work, and work well.

 

To compare the importance of NYG-Philly to Stanford-Oregon or Wisconsin-Ohio St. is absurd. Not even close. Everything was on the line in the latter games, which is why those games were so monumental. The NYG loss to Philly was just one of several and, while important, it pales in comparison.

 

There are far more zombies on the pro-big playoff side, mindlessly chanting "settle it on the field!", "screw the BCS!", etc. without even understanding how the BCS works or having any interest in discussing philosophically the nuances of each system and where value is placed in each.

 

As I've said countless times, I'm all for a 4-team playoff so that we can sort out among teams that are all deserving (TCU got left out this year, and I don't deny that's a shame). But college football, unlike many sports, has always been about having a national championship season. Sports with large playoff pools use the regular season as qualifying runs for playoff berths, and winning the playoff itself is where the value is placed. In college basketball or the NBA (even the NFL to a smaller extent) it would be more appropriate to call the winner the "playoff champion" as opposed to the "2010 National Champion". The winner is the team that put it all together for a 3-4 week stretch at the end of the season, and beat a series of several teams (although there's no guarantee those opponents were the best or most deserving). That doesn't guarantee that they had the most worthy season. But again, most people aren't interested in a nuanced debate. They love the thought of brackets and hate the BCS (regardless if they have a clue what it is or the history of how it came to be).

 

Here's another thing to consider. Any playoff system larger than four most likely includes automatic qualifiers for AQ conference champions. Well, you might as well call September the preseason then, because big non-conference games make very little difference to AQ schools with title aspirations. Let's say #2 Ohio State is set to play #4 LSU. From a national title perspective, what's the point? A loss doesn't hurt anybody, as winning their respective conferences is the only real goal. Might as well rest the starters.