Oklahoma State came REALLY close to the BCS title game

[knapplc]

They create less controversy in other sports because the systems have been around and accepted for a long time. I still say the playoffs diminish the regular season. What's the most interesting thing to follow in the NFL right now (besides off field drama)? The packers are still unbeaten. They've already clinched their playoff spot. The thrill now is that undefeated season. Look at San Francisco...already clinched their division. So what they fight for a home game or a bye week. But really they could lose out now and stil have a championship shot. Boring.

 

 

Their longevity isn't the reason they're more accepted - playoffs are more widely used because they settle it on the field. The championship has to be earned, not voted on. Football isn't some subjective sport like figure skating where judges need to determine a winner. There's a winner in every game - judges are extraneous.

 

Playoffs don't diminish the regular season one bit. The regular season exists for two things - to determine who is deserving to compete for the title and for entertainment purposes. I enjoy watching Sun Belt football because it's football. The more the better, and the better the teams involved the more fun it is - but any football is better than no football. Give me a 12-game regular season, a 16-team playoff and the other 54 teams can go into whatever extraneous bowl they want. Best of both worlds.

[NoKoolAidForME]

So you force LSU to win two more games? That's fair.

 

We're not always going to have a situation where there is only one undefeated team.

Exactly. Sometimes the BCS works quite well. Other times a playoff might make more sense. Neither will be the solution everytime but people push a playoff like it is the best way to do it when it's really no more "fair" than the BCS.

 

Settling it on the field is less fair than putting teams in the championship based on biased opinions and computers? I understand what you are saying about a playoff not being a perfect system but I think it is much less flawed then the BCS. There is a reason that playoffs create far less controversy compared to the BCS.

They create less controversy in other sports because the systems have been around and accepted for a long time. I still say the playoffs diminish the regular season. What's the most interesting thing to follow in the NFL right now (besides off field drama)? The packers are still unbeaten. They've already clinched their playoff spot. The thrill now is that undefeated season. Look at San Francisco...already clinched their division. So what they fight for a home game or a bye week. But really they could lose out now and stil have a championship shot. Boring.

 

Anyone think it was a great matchup to have Kansas losing to that small iowa school? It might have been a neat "upset" but we get those "wow" upsets almost every week in college football. The NCAA has watered down march madness so much that you lost a big matchup when KU got upset like that. Honestly people don't pay to watch George Washington square off againt UCONN. They pay to see the UCONN/NC matchups. I'm concerned that the +1 would turn into an 8 man playoff then 16 and soon you've got schools winning titles with 3 losses or schools with an embarrassing final regular season loss because they rested their guys since they couldn't help their spot in the bracket. We see NFL teams do this. Playing backups and resting the stars. You really want that for college football? To see LSU's 3 string players against Arkansas' first string?

If a team makes it through a playoff, I will see them as a champion. It doesnt matter who deserves to win. If you lose you lose and go home.

 

I think the playoff would not change the regular season. You best bet to win is to be ranked high. It will still be a beauty contest for position so I don't see players being rested. The one thing that would go away with a playoff is the conference championship. More teams would play each other in conference similar to the round robin Big 12.

[NUance]

If a team makes it through a playoff, I will see them as a champion. It doesnt matter who deserves to win. If you lose you lose and go home.

 

I think the playoff would not change the regular season. You best bet to win is to be ranked high. It will still be a beauty contest for position so I don't see players being rested. The one thing that would go away with a playoff is the conference championship. More teams would play each other in conference similar to the round robin Big 12.

Maybe. Maybe not. Those CCGs bring in millions of dollars in revenue. The dollars. That's what it's all about.

[NoKoolAidForME]

Yeah I understand that and see your point. My thought was if a team is there and lose that game and not make it to the playoff they would lose even more by possibly not making the playoff pairings.

[HuskerShark]

Someone on ESPN also mentioned a 6-team playoff, which I would be in favor of. You just give the 1 and 2 seed a bye in the first round.

 

Basically, I would go for a 4, 6, or 8 team tourney, but any more than that would be awful.

[SoCal Husker Terry]

Even if you have, say, a 6 game playoff, what about the team that is ranked 7th? Out here in Ca, there was an issue a few years back with the Trojans winning a share of the title after losing an epic OT game to Cal. USC lost early in the season, does that make them better than someone who loses late in the season? What is someone like Saban was still able to vote on this stuff, and his team was on the bubble of being 6th or 7th...

[VectorVictor]

See my post above. And as stated earlier...was it fair for the Seahawks to make the playoffs last year? Really? Did we have the top 6 teams from the NFC? So Auburn wasn't the best team last year? And Alabama the year before that? I mean people act like the BCS NEVER gets it right.

 

Don't know about that--the year Texas stole its way to the NC game (at the expense of our rightful Big XII title), there were other teams more deserving that would have put up a better fight than the limp-wristed slap Texas gave 'Bama.

 

'Bama may have been the best team, but they sure didn't earn it in the NC game, which kind of defeats the purpose of having said game in the first place.

 

The other reasonable options for that game were Florida, Boise and TCU. Texas was the only other undefeated BCS squad. I wouldn't call those 3 more deserving than UT that season.

 

You're missing the point--Texass wasn't undefeated. And despite their fraudulent one-loss record (when they really had two), a one-loss Florida, an undefeated Boise State, or a one-loss TCU (whose only loss was to Boise State when they were ranked #3) would have given 'Bama a better game and would have been a worthy #2 over the vermin of Austin.

 

Bottom line, we're supposed to be matching up the two best teams to play for the title, and the two best teams did not play that year. The BCS was created to match the two best teams to play for the title, and it's failed to do that almost as much as it has succeeded.

[VA Husker Fan]

They create less controversy in other sports because the systems have been around and accepted for a long time. I still say the playoffs diminish the regular season. What's the most interesting thing to follow in the NFL right now (besides off field drama)? The packers are still unbeaten. They've already clinched their playoff spot. The thrill now is that undefeated season. Look at San Francisco...already clinched their division. So what they fight for a home game or a bye week. But really they could lose out now and stil have a championship shot. Boring.

 

Anyone think it was a great matchup to have Kansas losing to that small iowa school? It might have been a neat "upset" but we get those "wow" upsets almost every week in college football. The NCAA has watered down march madness so much that you lost a big matchup when KU got upset like that. Honestly people don't pay to watch George Washington square off againt UCONN. They pay to see the UCONN/NC matchups. I'm concerned that the +1 would turn into an 8 man playoff then 16 and soon you've got schools winning titles with 3 losses or schools with an embarrassing final regular season loss because they rested their guys since they couldn't help their spot in the bracket. We see NFL teams do this. Playing backups and resting the stars. You really want that for college football? To see LSU's 3 string players against Arkansas' first string?

College football is almost perfectly set up for a playoff, without diluting the regular season.

 

The reason NFL games turn meaningless is that a team only has to beat out 3 or 4 other teams in their division. In college, you are battling against all other 117 teams or whatever the number is.

 

NCAA hoops games turn meaningless because they put 64+ teams in the tourney. With football, you'd have to keep it pretty small. 16 max, and I think 8 or 12 is better, and even 4 or 6 is ok with me.

 

Also, basketball has 30+ games. A team can have more than 1 or 2 losses and still get a top seed. Put some meaning on seeding, like a bye for the top 2 teams and/or maybe a first round home game, and a loss really hurts. It could be the difference between a first round bye or a first round road game. A second loss can knock you out.

 

The SEC championship game was fairly meaningless because LSU was probably getting to the NCG no matter what, yet it was pretty darned exciting when they were on the ropes early.

 

If anything, the season gets more exciting with a playoff, because instead of trying to win your own games and hoping someone else loses just to get into a BCS bowl, you are watching for a shot at the playoffs and a chance at #1. An early season loss, or maybe even 2, might not mean your season is over if you were looking to win the championship.

[HeyBurke]

I think a playoff system would make the regular season more exciting. Right now, if a team loses one game late in the year, their BCS chances are pretty much shot. Is that exciting? Not at all. With a playoff system, one loss, regardless of when it happens, won't hurt a teams chances at making the playoffs. To me, that would make the regular season way more exciting than it is now.

[Hercules]

So you force LSU to win two more games? That's fair.

 

We're not always going to have a situation where there is only one undefeated team.

Exactly. Sometimes the BCS works quite well. Other times a playoff might make more sense. Neither will be the solution everytime but people push a playoff like it is the best way to do it when it's really no more "fair" than the BCS.

 

Settling it on the field is less fair than putting teams in the championship based on biased opinions and computers? I understand what you are saying about a playoff not being a perfect system but I think it is much less flawed then the BCS. There is a reason that playoffs create far less controversy compared to the BCS.

They create less controversy in other sports because the systems have been around and accepted for a long time. I still say the playoffs diminish the regular season. What's the most interesting thing to follow in the NFL right now (besides off field drama)? The packers are still unbeaten. They've already clinched their playoff spot. The thrill now is that undefeated season. Look at San Francisco...already clinched their division. So what they fight for a home game or a bye week. But really they could lose out now and stil have a championship shot. Boring.

 

Anyone think it was a great matchup to have Kansas losing to that small iowa school? It might have been a neat "upset" but we get those "wow" upsets almost every week in college football. The NCAA has watered down march madness so much that you lost a big matchup when KU got upset like that. Honestly people don't pay to watch George Washington square off againt UCONN. They pay to see the UCONN/NC matchups. I'm concerned that the +1 would turn into an 8 man playoff then 16 and soon you've got schools winning titles with 3 losses or schools with an embarrassing final regular season loss because they rested their guys since they couldn't help their spot in the bracket. We see NFL teams do this. Playing backups and resting the stars. You really want that for college football? To see LSU's 3 string players against Arkansas' first string?

 

Totally wrong.

 

College football doesn't play 16 games like in the NFL. They play 12, and at the end of it all, out of 117 teams, you'd have a playoff of 4 or 8 teams. Success during the regular season would still be critical. In a plus 1 system this year, Oregon's narrow loss to USC knocks them out of the playoff. In an 8 team playoff using conference champions, the divisional races and the CCGs become even MORE exciting, because they actually have meaning beyond who goes to what bowl game.

 

Wisconsin vs. Michigan St. this year had little national relevance, because all it did was decide who went to the Rose Bowl. In a playoff system with automatic bids for conference champions, that game decides who from the Big Ten is going to have a shot at the title. Oklahoma - Oklahoma St would have been for a conference championship AND a playoff berth, rather than for a conference championship and a meaningless exhibition game.

 

You wanna talk about rewarding strong regular seasons? In the BCS, Michigan and Virginia Tech are playing in one of the nation's top bowl games. Neither would stand a chance of making an 8 team playoff, much less a plus 1 berth. Programs like Kansas State or Boise State wouldn't get routinely screwed, because we'd have a system that actually rewards programs based on the merit of their season, rather than the size of the fan base's collective wallet.

 

A playoff system would absolutely not diminish the significance of the regular season in college football. If anything, it would make it more exciting. The entire regular season would still be just as important with the last few weeks being more chaotic than March Madness with conference races and teams shifting in and out of the top 4/8 looking for a playoff berth.

[ohiocornhusker]

I still say the playoffs diminish the regular season.

 

My idea. 16 teams. All conference winners get an automatic bid (this will help keep teams from jumping ship to BCS conferences and creating stupid conference moves, San Diego State in the Big East? Really?)Add 4 next 4 highest ranking teams, but with a total of only 2 teams max from each conference, i.e. LSU and Alabama, but not Arkansas even though Ark. is highly ranked, both SEC spots are taken. Keeps strong conferences from being all pissy because lesser conferences are included. Keep the bowls for those who do not make it to the playoffs. Kinda like how the NIT tournament is still for those not in the March Madness tournament. Keep bowl affiliations so those who like the history of particular bowls are still happy, i.e. Wisconson is in the playoff so Michigan State gets the Rose bowl.

 

This scenario still puts an emphasis on the regular season, because if you don't do well enough to get to your CCG or win out your conference, you don't have a shot at the national championship.

 

Also, this will appease bowl lovers, mid major conferences that say they never get a chance, etc.

 

You would get 2 brackets similar to this ( I may have some of the smaller conferences mixed up, I looked and these seemed like the conference winner, but I may be wrong)

 

1. LSU (SEC) vs. 16. La. Tech (WAC)

5. Oregon (Pac 12) vs. 12. West Virginia (Big East)

9. Virginia Tech (ACC) vs. 8. Wisconsin (Big 10)

13. Notre Dame (Ind) vs. 4. Stanford (Pac 12)

 

 

3. Oklahoma State (Big 12) vs. 14. Northern Illinois (Mid Am)

7. Kansas State (Big 12) vs. 10. Michigan (Big 10)

11. So. Miss. (USA) vs. 6. Boise St. (MWC)

15. Arkansas St. (Sunbelt) vs. Alabama (SEC)

[Omaha-Husker]

See my post above. And as stated earlier...was it fair for the Seahawks to make the playoffs last year? Really? Did we have the top 6 teams from the NFC? So Auburn wasn't the best team last year? And Alabama the year before that? I mean people act like the BCS NEVER gets it right.

 

Don't know about that--the year Texas stole its way to the NC game (at the expense of our rightful Big XII title), there were other teams more deserving that would have put up a better fight than the limp-wristed slap Texas gave 'Bama.

 

'Bama may have been the best team, but they sure didn't earn it in the NC game, which kind of defeats the purpose of having said game in the first place.

 

The other reasonable options for that game were Florida, Boise and TCU. Texas was the only other undefeated BCS squad. I wouldn't call those 3 more deserving than UT that season.

 

You're missing the point--Texass wasn't undefeated. And despite their fraudulent one-loss record (when they really had two), a one-loss Florida, an undefeated Boise State, or a one-loss TCU (whose only loss was to Boise State when they were ranked #3) would have given 'Bama a better game and would have been a worthy #2 over the vermin of Austin.

 

Bottom line, we're supposed to be matching up the two best teams to play for the title, and the two best teams did not play that year. The BCS was created to match the two best teams to play for the title, and it's failed to do that almost as much as it has succeeded.

 

Your argument has a pretty big flaw, Texas was undefeated prior to their game with 'bama...

 

TCU and Boise(both played a weak schedule and don't deserve a championship game berth if another BCS team were undefeated, which Texas was) were undefeated prior to their bowl game. Florida didn't win their conference(the popular argument against Alabama this season).

[irafreak]

Eh...hard to keep up with every response. I still say it's all a matter of opinion. Some prefer playoffs. The same people in charge of the BCS/bowl system would still influence who gets into your playoff. I still say the best team has to prove it over the whole season. But I've defended my position enough. I'd like to hear which 4 teams would get into the playoff this season. Just for some more focused debate. I would probably say LSU, Bama, OSU, Stanford...but even that stinks because Stanford and Bama didn't win their conference...

[husker_99]

Easy way to determine a playoff system. Only take those who win their conferences. No at large bids. this means it's fair to every team out there. No controversy. Just results.

[ZRod]

Easy way to determine a playoff system. Only take those who win their conferences. No at large bids. this means it's fair to every team out there. No controversy. Just results.

Easier said than done, you have 11 conferences and 4 independents. Doesn't make good numbers for a fluid post season.