Why college football is better off without the BCS

[dutch91701]

All you are doing is playing with words, while ignoring the essence of the thing itself. We all know what a playoff is, it is multiple teams playing in order to reach quarter finals, semifinals and then the finals. In some cases this is subdivided further or to a lesser degree. However in general knowledge terms a playoff is not 2 teams playing in a final. It's a cute play on words and misdirected logic your using, but that's all it is.

 

All you are doing is spreading a misconception. Playoffs can exist with any number of teams but 1. Any post-season, championship-determining game, or series of games, is a playoff. The two best teams "play off" for a title. That's where the term originated. To say that I'm the one contorting it is completely off base. Fans may use the term to reference a specific style of postseason (same style, just bigger), but it means the same thing as it did initially. I've given a dictionary definition, outlined the logic I used (and you can too!), given hypothetical as well as real world examples. You can't just say I'm wrong and you're right because you feel like being right. "We all know what a playoff is" is not an argument. In fact, as you and several others have proven, it's absolutely untrue.

 

Typing enough convoluted BS I can also turn the mating of the wild otter into a college football playoff, but it would still be BS. No point arguing further, this is like going in circles with someone who doesn't believe that there were moon landings.

So because you lack the intelligence to keep up with the conversation, I'm equated to people who don't believe in moon landings? My argument is not convoluted. In fact, it's the opposite. If you'd like I can create an outline for you...or perhaps a pop-up book is more your speed?

 

You made a poor argument that's all, I'm not the only one to have pointed that out to you, but you insist you are the most intelligent human being in the world and we just don't get this truly dizzying intellect of yours. To be fair I'm not going to attack it as you would likely freak out completely and honestly it would serve no purpose or be entirely factual since I don't know you well at all.

However my comparison to those who don't believe in moon landings is based on exactly the pattern you are exhibiting which sadly is culminating with the proclamation of a superior intellect and how we just don't get it, so meh.

I made an argument that nobody has disproven in any way. If it's so poor, why hasn't anyone taken it down? If anyone is exhibiting that behavior it's you. I've provided facts, definitions, and examples supporting my argument. All I've received in return is "we all know what a playoff is". That's not an argument.

[dutch91701]

So I went and read the definition of "playoff" in several sources and Dutch is correct. It can be one game or a series of games. I'm not sure why people feel that they can use their perception to argue facts. You can say that you (and all your friends) believe that in essence 2+2=5...but it doesn't change the fact. A table can have one leg, two legs, 4 legs, 6, 8, etc...it's still a table. You can't make up your own definitions. So then, if by definition, a playoff can be a game or series of games that determines a champion, then the only thing the NCAA is doing next year is expanding the playoff.

 

You didn't use the full definition. It can only be one game to determine the winner if there is a tie. That means overtime is a playoff by definition. Plus, you picked from the secondary definition and not the primary which is:

 

a series of games that is played after the end of the regular season in order to decide which player or team is the champion

 

Since you're using the secondary definition which is "a game or series of games that is played to decide the winner when people or teams are tied" you have to pay attention to the portions in bold. That means if you do a single game and teams are still tied (win loss record), there has to be more games to eliminate the tie...it's part of the definition of the word and I'm not sure why you feel you can use your perception to argue facts.

 

You can say that you and all your friends believe that 2 + 2 ≠ 5....but it doesn't change the fact. Yadda Yadda...so on and so forth.

 

In other words, you're both right and wrong. You're right in saying that 1 game is a playoff if it results in a tie or is with 2 teams that have a tied record...but we are also correct in showing that if multiple people have the same exact record, a play-off will mean multiple games to satisfy the second portion of the definition of the word....to decide the winner, a tie cannot be present and thus more games are played until a tie does not exist.

Two teams "play off" to determine a champion (or other title, as previously discussed). That's where the term originated. Notice that the NFL Playoffs are "Playoffs". The NBA Playoffs are "Playoffs". They are plural because there are multiple instances of a play-off within one bracket. Play-off is singular. Two teams. It has since been taken to mean the whole bracket as well but, that doesn't change what it is. Two teams make a play-off, Four teams makes play-offs, and after that it is just further rounds of play-offs. Like I said earlier, is the four-team bracket next year two play-off games and a bowl game? Or is it two rounds of play-offs with the final round being dubbed the "Championship Game".

 

The part I bolded is not necessarily true. Multiple games can be played, but are not necessary, to determine a champion in the context of college football.

[California Husker]

So I went and read the definition of "playoff" in several sources and Dutch is correct. It can be one game or a series of games. I'm not sure why people feel that they can use their perception to argue facts. You can say that you (and all your friends) believe that in essence 2+2=5...but it doesn't change the fact. A table can have one leg, two legs, 4 legs, 6, 8, etc...it's still a table. You can't make up your own definitions. So then, if by definition, a playoff can be a game or series of games that determines a champion, then the only thing the NCAA is doing next year is expanding the playoff.

 

You didn't use the full definition. It can only be one game to determine the winner if there is a tie. That means overtime is a playoff by definition. Plus, you picked from the secondary definition and not the primary which is:

 

a series of games that is played after the end of the regular season in order to decide which player or team is the champion

 

Since you're using the secondary definition which is "a game or series of games that is played to decide the winner when people or teams are tied" you have to pay attention to the portions in bold. That means if you do a single game and teams are still tied (win loss record), there has to be more games to eliminate the tie...it's part of the definition of the word and I'm not sure why you feel you can use your perception to argue facts.

 

You can say that you and all your friends believe that 2 + 2 ≠ 5....but it doesn't change the fact. Yadda Yadda...so on and so forth.

 

In other words, you're both right and wrong. You're right in saying that 1 game is a playoff if it results in a tie or is with 2 teams that have a tied record...but we are also correct in showing that if multiple people have the same exact record, a play-off will mean multiple games to satisfy the second portion of the definition of the word....to decide the winner, a tie cannot be present and thus more games are played until a tie does not exist.

Uhhh, actually I looked at several dictionary sources and your definition of a game to settle a tie is just one definition. There is also a definition (the first in many sources, but it's there in all of the ones I looked up) that says something like this one from Webster: "Noun 1. playoff - any final competition to determine a championship". I am pretty sure the BCS championship game would qualify as a "final competition".

 

So, just as I said above...it is a playoff if it is a one game championship or if it is a series of games. What part of this is so hard to understand? I am not "both right and wrong". I am right...I know I am right, because I can read.

[Ulty]

[dutch91701]

So I went and read the definition of "playoff" in several sources and Dutch is correct. It can be one game or a series of games. I'm not sure why people feel that they can use their perception to argue facts. You can say that you (and all your friends) believe that in essence 2+2=5...but it doesn't change the fact. A table can have one leg, two legs, 4 legs, 6, 8, etc...it's still a table. You can't make up your own definitions. So then, if by definition, a playoff can be a game or series of games that determines a champion, then the only thing the NCAA is doing next year is expanding the playoff.

 

You didn't use the full definition. It can only be one game to determine the winner if there is a tie. That means overtime is a playoff by definition. Plus, you picked from the secondary definition and not the primary which is:

 

a series of games that is played after the end of the regular season in order to decide which player or team is the champion

 

Since you're using the secondary definition which is "a game or series of games that is played to decide the winner when people or teams are tied" you have to pay attention to the portions in bold. That means if you do a single game and teams are still tied (win loss record), there has to be more games to eliminate the tie...it's part of the definition of the word and I'm not sure why you feel you can use your perception to argue facts.

 

You can say that you and all your friends believe that 2 + 2 ≠ 5....but it doesn't change the fact. Yadda Yadda...so on and so forth.

 

In other words, you're both right and wrong. You're right in saying that 1 game is a playoff if it results in a tie or is with 2 teams that have a tied record...but we are also correct in showing that if multiple people have the same exact record, a play-off will mean multiple games to satisfy the second portion of the definition of the word....to decide the winner, a tie cannot be present and thus more games are played until a tie does not exist.

Uhhh, actually I looked at several dictionary sources and your definition of a game to settle a tie is just one definition. There is also a definition (the first in many sources, but it's there in all of the ones I looked up) that says something like this one from Webster: "Noun 1. playoff - any final competition to determine a championship". I am pretty sure the BCS championship game would qualify as a "final competition".

 

So, just as I said above...it is a playoff if it is a one game championship or if it is a series of games. What part of this is so hard to understand? I am not "both right and wrong". I am right...I know I am right, because I can read.

 

 

 

LOL. So you state I'm right with my definition and then insist that yours is still the only right one after...interesting I suppose.

 

For someone harping on understanding you don't seem to understand very well.

Nobody is saying multiple rounds isn't a playoff, you are the one saying that a single round isn't a playoff. That is incorrect. A single game can be a playoff.

[Redux]

This has gone too far. Settle time.

 

Who actually prefers a one game "play off" or Championship?

 

Who wants to see a real play off with multiplee seeds and not two a computer picked.

[California Husker]

So I went and read the definition of "playoff" in several sources and Dutch is correct. It can be one game or a series of games. I'm not sure why people feel that they can use their perception to argue facts. You can say that you (and all your friends) believe that in essence 2+2=5...but it doesn't change the fact. A table can have one leg, two legs, 4 legs, 6, 8, etc...it's still a table. You can't make up your own definitions. So then, if by definition, a playoff can be a game or series of games that determines a champion, then the only thing the NCAA is doing next year is expanding the playoff.

 

You didn't use the full definition. It can only be one game to determine the winner if there is a tie. That means overtime is a playoff by definition. Plus, you picked from the secondary definition and not the primary which is:

 

a series of games that is played after the end of the regular season in order to decide which player or team is the champion

 

Since you're using the secondary definition which is "a game or series of games that is played to decide the winner when people or teams are tied" you have to pay attention to the portions in bold. That means if you do a single game and teams are still tied (win loss record), there has to be more games to eliminate the tie...it's part of the definition of the word and I'm not sure why you feel you can use your perception to argue facts.

 

You can say that you and all your friends believe that 2 + 2 ≠ 5....but it doesn't change the fact. Yadda Yadda...so on and so forth.

 

In other words, you're both right and wrong. You're right in saying that 1 game is a playoff if it results in a tie or is with 2 teams that have a tied record...but we are also correct in showing that if multiple people have the same exact record, a play-off will mean multiple games to satisfy the second portion of the definition of the word....to decide the winner, a tie cannot be present and thus more games are played until a tie does not exist.

Uhhh, actually I looked at several dictionary sources and your definition of a game to settle a tie is just one definition. There is also a definition (the first in many sources, but it's there in all of the ones I looked up) that says something like this one from Webster: "Noun 1. playoff - any final competition to determine a championship". I am pretty sure the BCS championship game would qualify as a "final competition".

 

So, just as I said above...it is a playoff if it is a one game championship or if it is a series of games. What part of this is so hard to understand? I am not "both right and wrong". I am right...I know I am right, because I can read.

 

 

 

LOL. So you state I'm right with my definition and then insist that yours is still the only right one after...interesting I suppose.

 

For someone harping on understanding you don't seem to understand very well.

Oh please, I beg of you, go back and find anywhere in this thread where I said that a playoff is NOT a series of games or some sort of bracket tournament, etc.

 

What I was attempting to do was point out that, although there is a definition of playoff that includes a series of games that culminates with a championship game; a playoff, by definition, can also be one game to determine a champion. The reason I even weighed in on this conversation is because there are people here who seem to think that because they perceive something a certain way, it must be true. I was just pointing out that (as someone above stated) the NCAA already has a one game playoff to determine a champion...all they are doing next season is expanding that playoff to four teams.

[dutch91701]

 

Nobody is saying multiple rounds isn't a playoff, you are the one saying that a single round isn't a playoff. That is incorrect. A single game can be a playoff.

 

 

I said nothing of the sort.

Then what are you even arguing?

[dutch91701]

 

Nobody is saying multiple rounds isn't a playoff, you are the one saying that a single round isn't a playoff. That is incorrect. A single game can be a playoff.

 

 

I said nothing of the sort.

Then what are you even arguing?

 

Looks like you're the only one who doesn't get it.

Wow...reduced this to trolling, eh?

[Notre Dame Joe]

Skipping the semantical yammering, there were fewer teams eligible for a national title after the bcs came into existence. Underf the old NYD bowls, @ 6 teams in the big 5 had a chance for a natty if the things worked out.

 

And btw, college ball used a meaningful regular season to crown a champion. Wins in Jan are not naurally better than ones in September.

 

There is absolutely NOTHING that diminishes the regular season with a play off of 4 teams. If you move it to 8 team and make it 6 conference champions plus two wild cards then it even makes the regular season even MORE exciting. It creates an atmosphere where if you are in contention to win your conference, then you are in contention for an NC. That is huge and right now, most conference champions have absolutely no chance of an NC.

 

You can take a loss and only lower your playoff seed a little. Furthermore, many teams will get a mulligan in a conference championship game.

 

Pitt @ ND 2012 wasn't the 13th highest rated game of the year because people wanted to know where the Irish would be seeded.

 

You are throwing away what makes CFB special so ESPN can make more money off banality.

[tschu]

Skipping the semantical yammering, there were fewer teams eligible for a national title after the bcs came into existence. Underf the old NYD bowls, @ 6 teams in the big 5 had a chance for a natty if the things worked out.

 

And btw, college ball used a meaningful regular season to crown a champion. Wins in Jan are not naurally better than ones in September.

 

There is absolutely NOTHING that diminishes the regular season with a play off of 4 teams. If you move it to 8 team and make it 6 conference champions plus two wild cards then it even makes the regular season even MORE exciting. It creates an atmosphere where if you are in contention to win your conference, then you are in contention for an NC. That is huge and right now, most conference champions have absolutely no chance of an NC.

 

You can take a loss and only lower your playoff seed a little. Furthermore, many teams will get a mulligan in a conference championship game.

 

Pitt @ ND 2012 wasn't the 13th highest rated game of the year because people wanted to know where the Irish would be seeded.

 

You are throwing away what makes CFB special so ESPN can make more money off banality.

Man this is the most old-fogey short-sighted crap ever

 

College football is only going to get better because of the playoff. Not all change is bad!

[Notre Dame Joe]

like college basketball got better with an expanded tourney? yeah, the NCAA Tournament got better while the regular season is ignored.

[tschu]

NCAA Football is not comparable to basketball. Basketball is way less popular to start, has been hurt a lot the the early jumps to the NBA, and has a ton more games. Basketball games are just games - football games are day-long events. This playoff is not going to hurt college football in any way, shape, or form. Nor will an 8 or 16 team playoff.

[dutch91701]

NCAA Football is not comparable to basketball. Basketball is way less popular to start, has been hurt a lot the the early jumps to the NBA, and has a ton more games. Basketball games are just games - football games are day-long events. This playoff is not going to hurt college football in any way, shape, or form. Nor will an 8 or 16 team playoff.

Adding more teams adds more randomness, which will hurt college football long-term.

[tschu]

NCAA Football is not comparable to basketball. Basketball is way less popular to start, has been hurt a lot the the early jumps to the NBA, and has a ton more games. Basketball games are just games - football games are day-long events. This playoff is not going to hurt college football in any way, shape, or form. Nor will an 8 or 16 team playoff.

Adding more teams adds more randomness, which will hurt college football long-term.

Just like it's hurt the NFL right?

 

It will absolutely not. Having more teams in championship contention or playoff qualification contention at any point in time will only increase interest.