College Playoff

[Saw31]

Originally Posted by akronbuck

lets see would I respect archie griffin and a bunch if past buckeys players or someone like you

That is about as stupid a response as I could expect. You believe what Archie Griffin thinks has any bearing on what some WAC school thinks? Uh, not likely...

THEY WILL NOT WILLINGLY GIVE UP THEIR SHARE OF THE MONEY!!!

[akronbuck]

Originally Posted by 23Skidoo

Are you saying that we're not playing on a field on January 8th?
If by field you meant rice field, I suppose you're right. Yet another blanket statement with nothing behind it.

playoffs are played on fields/stadiums and whatever system they would come up, would have to better then the BCS top 2 to for the title. OSU by 17

[akronbuck]

Originally Posted by Saw31

That is about as stupid a response as I could expect. You believe what Archie Griffin thinks has any bearing on what some WAC school thinks? Uh, not likely...

THEY WILL NOT WILLINGLY GIVE UP THEIR SHARE OF THE MONEY!!!

Almost as stupid as every comment you make,you must be a MAC FAN. If you can't play with the big boys. To bad become a fan.

[Saw31]

Originally Posted by akronbuck

Almost as stupid as every comment you make,you must be a MAC FAN. If you can't play with the big boys. To bad become a fan.

Let me know when you reach puberty. Maybe then you'll be capable of comprehending some of this big boy conversation...

[Bucky Katt]

Originally Posted by Saw31

Let me know when you reach puberty. Maybe then you'll be capable of comprehending some of this big boy conversation...

You can actually read what's being written? I'll have to get it translated before I can even try to respond.......

[akronbuck]

Originally Posted by Saw31

Let me know when you reach puberty. Maybe then you'll be capable of comprehending some of this big boy conversation...

all your saying is that to much money involved for playoffs will never happen and I just disagree with that. You must be a short north guy sorry ,I'm not like that.

[methomps]

Originally Posted by Jaxbuck

For clarification on my point regarding resting starters.

-Depending on the seeding/format a team could easily be "maxed out". Not neccessarily for #1 but say for the final spot. Maybe a team knows its already in but also knows its not getting a home game.

How would it be any difference than it is now under the BCS regime? A team that low in a playoff scheme (last spot) that is maxed out is also out of the running under the BCS regime. So does that mean the BCS makes the regular season less meaningful?

Originally Posted by Jaxbuck

-Also consider instances like in The Game this year. What if teams start to see the game getting out of hand and just start pulling starters because they'll still make the playoffs but probably can't win that particular late season game? The entire dynamic of whos' #2 this year changes if tsun gets beat by 10+ points.

Again, why would this be any different than it is now?

Originally Posted by Jaxbuck

Essentially no matter the format you can't see all the possible scenario's ahead of time but you can see every sport that has a well established playoff system also has a less meaningful regular season.

Their regular season is less meaningful because it is so much longer. If college football had 162 games and then a BCS championship, the regular season games would be pretty meaningless. It isn't the presence of the BCS system that makes the regular season meaningful. It's the short length.

Originally Posted by Jaxbuck

My point still remains that some degree of harm will be done to the regular season if you go to a playoff. To what degree is the question no one will have the answer to unless a playoff is actually implemented.

No, not necessarily.

[Zurp]

Originally Posted by methomps

Their regular season is less meaningful because it is so much longer. If college football had 162 games and then a BCS championship, the regular season games would be pretty meaningless. It isn't the presence of the BCS system that makes the regular season meaningful. It's the short length.

Each game of a 162-game season is less meaningful than each game in a 12-game season. Each game of the 162-game season is 0.6% of the season, but each game of the 12-game season is 8.3% of the season. So, if that's your angle, you're right.

However, if you're talking about the season, as a whole, it doesn't really matter how many games in the "regular season" (as long as there's enough games for people to make educated guesses as to who's #1, #2, #3, etc.). If only 2 out of 119 teams make it into the play-offs (if we call 1 game a "play-off"), then the regular season is more important than if 4, 6, 8, 12, 16 teams make it to the play-offs. The more teams there are that make it into the play-offs, the less important the regular season, as a whole, becomes.

Although I am against it, play-offs may be better for the NCAA regular season games. Currently, one loss and most teams are out of it. Only the historical power-house teams (Michigan, USC, Ohio State, Florida, etc.) have any chance at ever making it to a national championship game with one loss. And, even then, all those one-loss teams that fit that category have to duke it out in a war of finger-pointing and name-calling. With a play-off, that one loss isn't the end of the season, to the fans of all of those teams. Instead of only Ohio State, USC, Florida, and Michigan fans excited about chances at winning a national championship, you can throw in the fans of Oklahoma, LSU, Louisville, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Auburn, etc.

By the way, I don't know that I buy into the whole bowl-money idea. Why can't the money go to teams for winning each round of the play-offs? If $X million is involved in the BCS bowl games, why can't all of the teams that make the play-offs get a small percentage of that, then the winners of the first round get a little more, the winners of the second round get a little more, and so on? It's not like the money that comes from those bowl games gets put in a box and sunk to the bottom of the ocean. Is it?

[23Skidoo]

Originally Posted by Zurp

By the way, I don't know that I buy into the whole bowl-money idea. Why can't the money go to teams for winning each round of the play-offs? If $X million is involved in the BCS bowl games, why can't all of the teams that make the play-offs get a small percentage of that, then the winners of the first round get a little more, the winners of the second round get a little more, and so on? It's not like the money that comes from those bowl games gets put in a box and sunk to the bottom of the ocean. Is it?

Right now the money is distributed across the entire division, though far from "equally". In your scenario, that money would be concentrated on the top-16/12/8/4/whatever and their conferences to the exclusion of practically everyone else. Believe it or not, the little guy actually makes out alright in the current BCS system -- esp now that there's a 5th BCS bowl and the rules for midmajors have been relaxed.

[Saw31]

Originally Posted by 23Skidoo

Right now the money is distributed across the entire division, though far from "equally". In your scenario, that money would be concentrated on the top-16/12/8/4/whatever and their conferences to the exclusion of practically everyone else. Believe it or not, the little guy actually makes out alright in the current BCS system -- esp now that there's a 5th BCS bowl and the rules for midmajors have been relaxed.

MAC fan...

[23Skidoo]

Originally Posted by Saw31

MAC fan...

hehe the MAC isn't a bad midmajor conference. They're like our little sister... and you gotta look out for your little sister.

[Jaxbuck]

Originally Posted by methomps

How would it be any difference than it is now under the BCS regime? A team that low in a playoff scheme (last spot) that is maxed out is also out of the running under the BCS regime. So does that mean the BCS makes the regular season less meaningful?

I never said the BCS makes the regular season less meaningful. I said a playoff would to some degree or another negativly affect the importance of the regular season. Not sure what you were asking here.

Their regular season is less meaningful because it is so much longer. If college football had 162 games and then a BCS championship, the regular season games would be pretty meaningless. It isn't the presence of the BCS system that makes the regular season meaningful. It's the short length.

I diasagree. The length of the season isn't what makes CFB's regular season mean so much, its the one loss cripples your NC/conf championship model. CFB has gone from 8 or 9 games a year to 12 in most of our lifetimes without diminishing the importance of the regular season.

No, not necessarily.

Yes it would. The only question is the degree.

Example, 2006 The Game.

If we have a playoff system and tsun knows they are in after the loss but will still get a shot at the NC then our game on 11/18 is diminsihed. Simply no other way to look at it.

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Originally Posted by Saw31

That is about as stupid a response as I could expect. You believe what Archie Griffin thinks has any bearing on what some WAC school thinks? Uh, not likely...

THEY WILL NOT WILLINGLY GIVE UP THEIR SHARE OF THE MONEY!!!

I don't understand why there still couldn't be the consolation bowls for the also-rans why still having a playoff. Its irrelevant to the discussion.

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Originally Posted by Jaxbuck

I never said the BCS makes the regular season less meaningful. I said a playoff would to some degree or another negativly affect the importance of the regular season. Not sure what you were asking here.



I diasagree. The length of the season isn't what makes CFB's regular season mean so much, its the one loss cripples your NC/conf championship model. CFB has gone from 8 or 9 games a year to 12 in most of our lifetimes without diminishing the importance of the regular season.




Yes it would. The only question is the degree.

Example, 2006 The Game.

If we have a playoff system and tsun knows they are in after the loss but will still get a shot at the NC then our game on 11/18 is diminsihed. Simply no other way to look at it.

Is that much different from scUM having the Rose bowl in hand with a loss?

[methomps]

Originally Posted by Jaxbuck

I never said the BCS makes the regular season less meaningful. I said a playoff would to some degree or another negativly affect the importance of the regular season. Not sure what you were asking here.

You gave an example of a situation that you claim shows how a playoff would reduce the meaning of the regular season. "Depending on the seeding/format a team could easily be "maxed out". Not neccessarily for #1 but say for the final spot. Maybe a team knows its already in but also knows its not getting a home game."

What meaning does this game have under the BCS? Really, it would help if you were more specific,

Originally Posted by Jaxbuck

I diasagree. The length of the season isn't what makes CFB's regular season mean so much, its the one loss cripples your NC/conf championship model. CFB has gone from 8 or 9 games a year to 12 in most of our lifetimes without diminishing the importance of the regular season.

If the length of the season were longer, then it wouldn't be true that one loss cripples your season.

Originally Posted by Jaxbuck

Yes it would. The only question is the degree.

Example, 2006 The Game.

If we have a playoff system and tsun knows they are in after the loss but will still get a shot at the NC then our game on 11/18 is diminsihed. Simply no other way to look at it.

Michigan's loss takes them from a bye to having to play a game in the first round. Compare that with Auburn. Under the BCS regime, their regular season was meaningless. The went undefeated and were left out. It all balances out.