| College Football The place to talk about college football teams other than Ohio State |
|
View Poll Results: College Playoff - Yes or No?
|
|
Yes, small playoff format 4-12 teams and keep the rest of the bowls.
|
   
|
54 |
49.54% |
|
Yes, large playoff format 16+ teams with no bowls.
|
  
|
5 |
4.59% |
|
No, but tweak current BCS.
|
  
|
33 |
30.28% |
|
No, keep the current BCS system.
|
  
|
12 |
11.01% |
|
No, go back to the traditional Bowl tie-ins only
|
  
|
5 |
4.59% |
12-01-2006, 11:00 AM
|
 |
There is no charge for awesomeness
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,633
Points: 44,171.99
Bank: 0.28
Total Points: 44,172.27
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by StadiumDorm
That's the beauty of creating the a system in your mind. An undefeated team would automatically be in under the system I propose.
|
That would be absolutely terrible for college football as a whole--so much for quality regular-season matchups, let's beat the 3 worst non-conf teams and hope for a good Big10 lineup, so we can skate into the playoffs. The BCS as of now is forcing everyone to step up their game for a shot at the title, whereas your simplistic proposal dumbs-down the CFB season to be like every other boring sport out there: yawn, wake me when the playoffs are here... |
12-01-2006, 11:05 AM
|
 |
no longer turned on by mules
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,516
Points: 1,094.39
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 1,094.39
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayBuck
That would be absolutely terrible for college football as a whole--so much for quality regular-season matchups, let's beat the 3 worst non-conf teams and hope for a good Big10 lineup, so we can skate into the playoffs. The BCS as of now is forcing everyone to step up their game for a shot at the title, whereas your simplistic proposal dumbs-down the CFB season to be like every other boring sport out there: yawn, wake me when the playoffs are here...
|
Exactly, the greatest game ever (The Game '06) would have been absolutely meaningless if there were a playoff system. Would people have really given a damn about that game if they knew both teams would make it into a playoff whether they won or lost?
__________________
|
12-01-2006, 11:18 AM
|
 |
Loves Buckeye History
Senior Moderator
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 26,289
Points: 1,501,645,275.85
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 1,501,645,275.85
|
|
|
If USC defeats UCLA and makes the title game this year, the BCS will have accomplished something this year.
All of the other 1-loss teams can be told this answer, explaining why USC ended up #2:
USC's non-conference schedule was (at) Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame. If you want to win the best 1-loss team argument, schedule non-conference teams that are worth beating, don't just whine about how tough your own conference is when you play Western Carolina, Southern Miss, Central Florida, and Florida State (although it's not the SEC's fault that FSU sucks this year).
Rewarding the teams that have tough non-conference schedules is a good thing for college football. It looks like the BCS will do just that this year.
__________________
"In your veins runs Scarlet and Gray blood with which there is no quit, no stopping. It makes you relentless and powerful, more so than your opponent."
SFC Ryan Poetsch
101st ABN DIV, Afghanistan
|
12-01-2006, 11:20 AM
|
 |
Boom Goes the Dynamite
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,067
Points: 547.28
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 547.28
|
|
|
Any system that allows for split national championships is complete BS. As long as all major d-1 colleges get a fair shot at the title, then im all for it.
An 8-10 team playoff system would be the ideal situation.
__________________
Go sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.
|
12-01-2006, 11:29 AM
|
|
Loves Buckeye History
Senior Moderator
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 26,289
Points: 1,501,645,275.85
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 1,501,645,275.85
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaxbuck
Personally either is preferable to me over what we used to have. The poster who brought up 2002 made the perfect point i always try and bring up when some say go back to how it was pre-BCS. 2002 Miami pounds a B12 team in the Orange Bowl and gets the NC in both polls regardless of what we do in the RoseBowl vs USC. [censored] that noise.
|
I completely agree with your point.
However, the traditional, pre-BCS bowl arrangement would have been even worse for tOSU - it would have produced tOSU-Washington State in a rematch (25-7 in a September game). The Cougars played in the Rose Bowl that year since they and USC each had a conference loss and Washington State won head-to-head.
TSKCoug posted in this thread, but he must not have read your post closely. 
__________________
"In your veins runs Scarlet and Gray blood with which there is no quit, no stopping. It makes you relentless and powerful, more so than your opponent."
SFC Ryan Poetsch
101st ABN DIV, Afghanistan
|
12-01-2006, 11:29 AM
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,099
Points: 116.28
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 116.28
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cincibuck
The Buckeyes opened the season with the Wyoming Cowboys not so many years ago and with NIU this year... so, yes, it is a possibility.
|
Please learn to read... I said "play the Broncos on the blue field." Of course, we'd play them here, but would we schedule a home and home. No f'n way.
Quote:
|
Theory? I'll call your "theory" and raise you "your naive assumptions are ridiculus"...Practicality? Apparently you don't know what that word means...Let me explain what will happen, practically speaking of course...
|
I didn't want to quote your whole post, but I'll simply respond with a point I made earlier... drop the mid-majors from Division 1-A. Why are they on a level that it's already been decided they can't win on? It's disingenuous to call teams from those leagues Division 1-A teams and then say you can't win the 1-A title.
Apparently, you also think that undefeated seasons grow on trees for mid-majors such that they could theoretically afford to stop travelling to schools like Ohio State and Texas. The idea that they would consider the calculated decision to assume they will go undefeated, thus eliminating the necessity of the payday for playing a big school is naive. They can't make that assumption. As I stated, one mid major team out of many goes undefeated once out of every maybe 4 years. It would be ludicrous for those schools to take a gamble on a big payday when the guaranteed money is right there for the taking. It's just that hard to go undefeated.
Quote:
|
That would be absolutely terrible for college football as a whole--so much for quality regular-season matchups, let's beat the 3 worst non-conf teams and hope for a good Big10 lineup, so we can skate into the playoffs. The BCS as of now is forcing everyone to step up their game for a shot at the title, whereas your simplistic proposal dumbs-down the CFB season to be like every other boring sport out there: yawn, wake me when the playoffs are here...
|
Yeah, people find the NFL playoffs and the NCAA tournament extremely boring...  The fact is they are the most anticipated (nationwide) sporting events of the year. If you go to a 'real' basketball school like Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, or Indiana, here's betting they don't sleep during the regular season. Ohio State fans are so busy sticking their noses up at that [censored] to allow Ohio State to become a 'real' basketball school. And I'm not even going to entertain the absurd argument that the NFL regular season is boring.
As long as you minimize the number of teams in a playoff to a number like 6 or 8, I guarantee you wouldn't have a problem with teams scheduling tough in the preseason. First of all, they know they could afford to lose a game. Whereas now, some team out there in a major conference could have scheduled an easy non-conference schedule, gone undefeated and they'd be playing Ohio State Jan. 8. As I stated before, a lot of people thought West Virginia was going to be that team. And if they had gone undefeated on that cupcake schedule they'd be there - you can't even challenge that point.
So how does the current system foster stronger matchups when the incentive is already out there to schedule to go undefeated?
Further, there would inevitably be subjectivity involved in the selection process, even possibly .... (gasp)... a BCS-type formula to determine who gets in the playoff. Therefore, teams would want to schedule stronger to have a better chance at a quality win, especially knowing they can afford to lose a game on a fluke, and not be eliminated in September.
Quote:
|
Exactly, the greatest game ever (The Game '06) would have been absolutely meaningless if there were a playoff system. Would people have really given a damn about that game if they knew both teams would make it into a playoff whether they won or lost?
|
If USC had lost to Notre Dame, it would have become even more meaningless, because you'd have an automatic rematch instead of a seeding system. That's the problem with the BCS - it needs to get lucky to work. This will be the ninth year, and only twice (2002 and 2005) did it actually pit the undisputed number 1 and 2 teams out there.
Last edited by OH10; 12-01-2006 at 11:38 AM.
|
12-01-2006, 11:41 AM
|
|
| |
