Interesting BCS Viewpoint

[Pheasant]

Originally Posted by Onebuckfan

I could live with the BCS system if strength of schedule was more important. It seems OSU and Texas could be penalized for playing each other. If UT loses a close game at tOSU they could be shut out of the NC game to Va Tech. I thinkthat would be unfair.

WTF?
Is Texas coming to the 'Shoe again? If they had lost the first time they deserved to be shut out of the title game to an undefeated Va Tech.

[Zurp]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

a better question is, would we be better to ditch the BCS and return to the old system? That would retain the tradition of CFB and value to each season game, but also try to avoid misranking teams. Basically people need to realize it has always been unfair, it just has been less obvious in past years. I think a 4 game playoff would be just fine. Anything more than that and unworthy teams creep in.

I've said for years (maybe even on Buckeye Planet) that I think the BCS is better than the old system, where a #2 Ohio State plays #15 Oregon in the Rose Bowl (as a made-up example), and has no chance at the national championship if #1 Texas beats #40 Up Yours University in the I Can't Believe It's Not Butter Bowl.

But I think it needs a slight change: add another BCS Bowl. Use the BCS system to get the #1 and #4 teams to play in one bowl game, and the #2 and #3 teams to play in another bowl game. The remaining 6 bowl spots can be filled up however you want (at-large bids, conference champions, etc.). The bowl games would rotate, as they do now, which gets the 1-4 matchup and which gets the 2-3 matchup. The winners of those two bowl games would meet a week later in the "Quit-Bitching-If-You-Think-Your-Team-Belongs-Here-Because-They-Don't" Bowl. The winner, of course, gets to be champions. Sure - you get the #5 team complaining that they should be #4. But is anyone really going to listen to them? No one would listen to us if we were the #5 team, right?

[DaddyBigBucks]

In March, a few college basketball teams complain that they should have gone to "The Dance". There isn't much discussion about it however, as even those teams for whom the bubble burst would acknowledge that they were in no danger of actually winning the tournament.

If a playoff system were implemented for the greatest sport ever invented (ironically the only major college sport without a playoff), then it would need to include enough teams that those who were left out would not have a legitmate argument that they could have won it.

Is 4 that number? Maybe. I personally think the number is 8, but whatever.

***nonsequitor alert***

I think the bowls are great, and there's a lot of tradition wrapped up in them. You could still play a round or two of the playoffs in "Bowl" games, but why does it have to be the first round?

Why not allow the top (4?) seeds to host first round games, then play the 2nd and subsequent round(s) in the Bowls? I realize that this will be anethema to many of you, and that i'm risking reputation here, but consider this.

Imagine a 10-1 Florida State or Miami having to come north and play a first round game IN THE HORSESHOE, IN DECEMBER. The nfl plays games in January at Lambeau Field, so I don't want to hear any whining about the weather. Let fans of teams who NEVER play north of the Mason-Dixon whine about the weather.

This scenario also generates more money for the schools themselves, which is one thing that might make it palatable to the University Presidents.

[Piney]

Originally Posted by DaddyBigBucks

***nonsequitor alert***

I think the bowls are great, and there's a lot of tradition wrapped up in them. You could still play a round or two of the playoffs in "Bowl" games, but why does it have to be the first round?

Why not allow the top (4?) seeds to host first round games, then play the 2nd and subsequent round(s) in the Bowls? I realize that this will be anethema to many of you, and that i'm risking reputation here, but consider this.

Imagine a 10-1 Florida State or Miami having to come north and play a first round game IN THE HORSESHOE, IN DECEMBER. The nfl plays games in January at Lambeau Field, so I don't want to hear any whining about the weather. Let fans of teams who NEVER play north of the Mason-Dixon whine about the weather.

This scenario also generates more money for the schools themselves, which is one thing that might make it palatable to the University Presidents.

IF they would go to an 8 or 12 team playoff (12 teams to include non-BCS conference champs to satisfy those critics) I have always thought the best way to #1 Solve the travel issue of short notice #2 To give the higher ranked teams an advantage is to have those early round games at the higher seeds home stadium.

It helps solve the issue of a #1 team who is undefeated playing a 2 loss team a huge advantage and also gives that college the money of having a home game.

But the reality is what is the chance of them getting that far? That might be 20-30 years away. So the best case is to go hard for at least the 4 team plus-one model. At least it starts the ball rolling into the right direction.

[Stammie]

Originally Posted by Oh8ch

The argument in the first post is similar to the one I have always made. The important question, though, is what is lost if we have a playoff (at least one of more than 4 teams).

The answer is that it takes away from the regular season. Virginia Tech is playing for the NC as I type. They play for it every week. OSU got to play Texas for the NC. Even had the home field advantage. We don't deserve a shot - we HAD a shot.

The argument for a playoff is being pushed by tv. They know that there are two types of fans for every sport. The smaller group - like us - will watch college football every week no matter what. The casual fan, however, doesn't pay that much attention til the World Series or NFL Playoffs roll around. Give those folks a playoff and ratings skyrocket.

So what did it prove in the NFL and MLB that teams have won the Super Bowl or World Series who could not win their division? What does it prove in NCAA BBall when teams win the title who couldn't win their conference?

There are NOT 8 teams in college football who deserve a shot at the title in any given season. There might be 3 some years, never more than 4. OSU deserves no such shot. To give them one and watch them win doesn't prove they are the best, it only proves that what you prove on the field proves nothing.

I don't want to see kids sitting out for the Michigan game getting healthy for a playoff. CFB is awesome. Leave it alone.

I couldn't agree more with these sentiments and would like to give an outsider from a different country's view.
I feel there is only one true way to determine rankings, unfortunately a way not feasible in college football and that is for each competing team to play the exact same schedule and the team with the best record is #1.
Given that is not possible an alternative method needs to be found.

Playoffs in any sport do not determine the best team but the team most capable in knockout competition.
Rarely in any sport does the best team go on to be champions in a playoff situation.
They are an invention of tv and should be left to money driven professional sports.

Even though it is not perfect, as an outsider looking in who only discovered first the Buckeyes then college football 5 or 6 years ago through some dear friends I have from Columbus (before that the only football I knew or saw was NFL),
the BCS system seems to me a much better system of determining the best teams.

College football is a great sport and a wonderful spectacle don't ruin it by introducing playoffs to please tv executives.
Even though I know and can see the skill level and athleticism in the NFL is of a much higher standard I find myself looking forward to Saturdays to be able to watch the college games they show us in England and rarely these days watch the professional version of the sport.
Its great to see kids playing their heart out for their college each week rather than chasing a place in a playoff.
To my eyes college football is a much purer version of the sport and you should be cherishing a great sport not bastardising it for tv.

[bucknut4life]

as much as i would love to see a playoff system devloped, i just dont know if that is exactly the right thing to do..

Is that really going to prove who the best team actually is?? Its just like the part about college basketball, last year was the first time in a while that the actual #1 and #2 teams in the country met..Upsets happen in the regular season, and as we all know they happen in the playoffs..

There is nothing better than college football's regular season..I love the fact that every game these teams have to go out and play their hearts out every single weekend..

Ive actually changed my thoughts about a playoff recently. I mean i dont really agree with the way the BCS works now, but i dont think a playoff would do justice. My friends and I were discussing what would happen to college football if a playoff system was developed. And actually, i dont know if i like the way it would head

Every year someone is going to get left out, thats just how it happens. This year, who knows, it may be VT..

[Zurp]

Originally Posted by DaddyBigBucks

Why not allow the top (4?) seeds to host first round games, then play the 2nd and subsequent round(s) in the Bowls?

I don't like that idea. I've thought of it, and it isn't terrible. First, I would LOVE to see late December games in the 'Shoe. Let's see that "Great Florida Speed" in any northern outdoor stadium when the temperature drops below 30. (Or below 50, for that matter.)

But here's my problem with it: let's say Ohio State makes it into the 8 or 12-team playoff. They could be the top seed or the bottom seed - it doesn't really matter. We'd all be talking about chances to beat this team and then this team, etc. If they win this game, they go on to the X Bowl to play Team Y, and if they win that, they go play in the national championship game. But what if they lose? Are they completely shut out of a bowl? I can't imagine a post-1975 10-1 Buckeye team being shut out of all the bowls. And even if they still go to the Underpants Bowl, will they really be playing with the same ferocity they were playing before the playoff? The easy answer is "yes, of course - they're Buckeyes." But isn't it true that there used to be a consolation round for the two final four teams that didn't make it to the championship round in basketball? From what I've heard of that, it was rarely an interesting game, because the players weren't playing for anything.

I've also heard the theory that maybe one round of the playoffs is some crappy bowls, and then the second round is some better bowls, and then the last round is some awesome bowl game. I don't like that idea, either, because one of the big traditions behind the bowl games is that teams play in only one bowl game a year. Under this idea, a team might be the Music City Bowl champion, the Capital One Bowl champion, the Cotton Bowl champion AND the Sugar Bowl champion - all in the same year. I don't it.

I think that if you want to keep the bowls AND implement a playoff system, you need the bowls to be the first round of the playoffs.

[DaddyBigBucks]

Originally Posted by bucknut4life

Every year someone is going to get left out, thats just how it happens. This year, who knows, it may be VT..

Well put. It MAY BE VT. But maybe not.

There is still a LOT of football to be played, and I for one expect VT to go down like a $4 whore before the season is over.