College Playoff

[osugrad21]

Sporting News

College football doesn't need a playoff system


Posted: November 13, 2006


And you poor saps want a national playoff.

How many Novembers do we have to live through before this nonsensical talk ends? How many times must I sit here and explain that every week in college football is your national playoff and that a typical national playoff diminishes the regular season?
Four teams had their seasons end last week -- four teams that just a few days earlier were politicking and scheming and begging to find a way to secure more BCS love and earn that coveted No. 2 spot opposite the Ohio State-Michigan winner in the national championship game.
Louisville, Auburn, Texas and California have been relegated to either playing for a conference championship or playing out the string. Had Florida not blocked a last-second field goal, there would have been five teams picking up the pieces.
"At this point in the season," Florida coach Urban Meyer says, "every play is important."
When all else fails, follow this credo: November is the month to remember. It's when pressure is overwhelming, when teams thrive and survive or flop and drop. We're deep into the last month of a white-knuckle season, and there isn't a person on the planet comfortable picking a matchup in the national title game.
Yeah, this system sucks.
Now that I've proved my point, let's move on and break down the remaining one-loss teams -- you know, those still alive in the weekly national playoff (ranked by best chance to survive).
Southern California. The remaining schedule -- Cal, Notre Dame and UCLA -- will provide enough BCS juice. That and a newfound attitude of a team told over and over that it's done.
Arkansas. The Hogs are the best team in the best conference in the nation. Watch how high their BCS number climbs after wins against LSU and Florida. Bottom line: Arkansas needs to win out and USC -- which it lost to by 36 to begin the season -- to lose.
Notre Dame. Now that ND has won the Commander-In-Chief's Trophy, it must beat USC and have the SEC contenders fall apart.
Florida. The Gators need a USC loss and a win against Arkansas. Good luck with that.
Finally, the Armageddon scenarios that would benefit the current unbeatens:
Rutgers. USC loses to Cal or UCLA, LSU beats Arkansas, Florida loses to Arkansas and USC beats Notre Dame. And, of course, Rutgers wins out.
Michigan-Ohio State loser. Follow the Rutgers scenario, and add a Scarlet Knights loss.
Anyone who thinks all of that can't happen obviously hasn't been paying attention.
And you poor saps want a national playoff.

[MuckFich06]

Originally Posted by Zurp

The Pittsburgh Steelers were something like a #6 seed last year. What was their record? I don't know. The point is, they didn't win their division. I'm not bashing the Steelers, or their fans. I'm just using that as an example. I'm sure there are billions of similar examples throughout sports.

Like the year that Nebraska made the BCS Championship game without winning their conference?

I go back and forth on this every year and I have two main reasons for supporting a play-off.

1. Schedules are determined years in advance and schools within each conference do not play all the other schools in the conference. OSU has to play _ichigan and Penn State every year, while team's in weaker conferences or with weaker schedules can make it by winning say one big game and 11 games against patsies. At least in a play-off they will have to play 2 or 3 tough teams to make the championship game. I mean this year everyone is saying how great the SEC is and that those teams are being punished by having to play "tougher" schedules than everyone else. How do we know this? USC waxed Arkansas. Does that make the Pac 10 superior? Some have argued that we would not see as many great out of conference match-ups, but I disagree. I think you would see more. I think teams would be less reluctant to put a tough foe on their schedule, knowing that one game will not necessarily cost them a chance at the title. And that brings me to point #2.

2. The opportunity to see match ups you would never, ever ordinarily get to see. When was the last time tOSU played Florida? Have the ever played Florida? Ever since the goal of the Rose Bowl has faded for the pursuit of a BCS game, anything less than a NC seems a disappointment. I would like to see tOSU get a chance to fight for that spot in the post season year after year, playing teams for far away and exotic places like Rutgers. Wouldn't that be a fun first round matchup at the Shoe?

[BB73]

Originally Posted by MuckFich06

The opportunity to see match ups you would never, ever ordinarily get to see. When was the last time tOSU played Florida? Have the ever played Florida?

tOSU has never played the Gators in football. Nor Arkansas or Rutgers, who are also possible bowl opponents.

[ant80]

I would love to see an optional, yes I said OPTIONAL playoff system to determine only the national championship, not to determine other locations in the poll.

For example, in 2004, Auburn and Utah would square off, with the winner playing USC for the title. In 2003, LSU and USC should've squared off (but they should've squared off in the first place aniway). Other years, the system works perfectly.

My reason for saying this is because football is a very physical sport. And we don't need to test the kids, who are not paid to endure the amount of abuse they take aniway, so much when it is not required. Playoffs for determining NC when there is no other option is OK. But playoffs for determining other positions in the polls, or playoff for NC when they are not required, are just stupid. They would probably create needless rematches.

[methomps]

Logistically, it's just not possible to have optional games with such short notice.
Plus, you are just shifting the controversy to "when should we have a playoff and when shouldn't we."

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by methomps

Logistically, it's just not possible to have optional games with such short notice.
Plus, you are just shifting the controversy to "when should we have a playoff and when shouldn't we."

Easy, when it benefits Ohio State to have a playoff, we should have a playoff, and when it doesn't, then we shouldn't have a playoff.

Damn, man... I thought you were a mod here.