College Playoff

[DaddyBigBucks]

OK, 23Skidoofus, he not qualifying Iowa being in the Alamo Bowl but rather he's qualifying if the Alamo Bowl (and thus Iowa) is "immediately preceeding" a playoff game, he's watching them both games, despite the fact he's not an Iowa fan.

I now see how big a mistake it was to post in this thread. I now have to comeback and settle a dispute over what I meant.

For future reference, MililaniBuckeye understands my writing style. He knows that when I use an overly specific reference that it can be taken to mean a reference to anything of the type. If there are further disputes about what I mean, and I don't chime in; it's because Mili is right again and I don't have anything further to add.

 

[Best Buckeye]

I for one am not a proponent of either choice here. I don't care if they have a playoff system. I would watch it if they did. Of course more money would be made over all thru TV and gate receipts. The question arises who controls that money.
The BCS schools split off from the ncaa because they thought they could strike a better deal and make more money than what they were receiving thru that organization. The ncaa fought tooth and nail to prevent that, but in the end the BCS won.
Now the BCS had all the power and control over college football marketing.
They got contracts with the media and the bowls over rights. Because the major schools are the money makers, not the mid majors.
So now we have an organization that controls the structure, the purse strings of collegiate football.
They are the supreme rulers. They have devised a methodology of how they want events to occur. They do not want any other group or organization to corrupt or influence that power.
In other words they want "it all". And they have it all. They may make changes if they see fit ie. the additional BCS bowl.
So in this vein proponents of a playoff may speak out all they want to, in the end the BCS will do want they want to.
They exert influence over the polls and the computers too. If any one steps out of line they simply take their ball and won't let the offender play anymore.
They are not listening.

 

[osugrad21]

Canton

Boise State?s stunning victory renews cry for national playoff
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
By Todd Porter REPOSITORY SPORTS WRITER

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. When Boise State was finished pulling out all the tricks, it had one more - tricking up college football's landscape with a thrilling New Year's Night overtime upset of Oklahoma.

 

[CookyPuss]

Yahoo Sports

Article by Josh Peters about Big 10 Commissioner Delany's role in the preventing a D-IA playoff. Very interesting, he even states the "academic" argument is ridiculous.

 

[sandgk]

That was an interesting read. Good thing he is on the side of our conference.

 

[Jaxbuck]

"There's no doubt in my mind that there's far more money out there than what we have," Delany said. "But there's also no doubt in my mind that there would be a huge sucking sound coming out of the regular season towards the postseason because I know, as a fact, that there is a consumer dollar, there is a marketing dollar, there is an advertising dollar and it's not an unlimited dollar.
"It's a migratory dollar. And the dollar tends to follow those areas of those elements of a competitive season that are most attractive. And right now what I would say is that we're at some sort of equilibrium of a bowl system and a championship game on the one hand. There's some gravitas from an economic perspective, from a public interest perspective in the regular season. I see there being a balance."

Most telling part of the whole thing and I agree 100%. A playoff of any type will take focus off of the regular season to some degree or another. The only question is the degree.

 

[Zurp]

Is anyone changing his/her opinions over playoffs, now that all of the "top" teams have lost? (The "top" teams are the teams that the talking-heads think should be the ones who have a chance at the championship.) Personally, I haven't. I don't like the idea of a playoff. The bigger the playoffs, the less meaningful the regular season becomes. And I'd be saying the same thing if the national championship game was as boring as Western Kentucky vs. Middle Tennessee State.

 

[methomps]

Most telling part of the whole thing and I agree 100%. A playoff of any type will take focus off of the regular season to some degree or another. The only question is the degree.

Not necessarily. The last week of the season, is anyone looking at what the 6th, 7th, and 8th ranked teams are doing (outside of their own fans or conference rivals)? Everyone is focused on 1, 2, and 3. A playoff would broaden the focus in some areas just as much as (or more htan) it would reduce it in other areas.

 

[Zurp]

A playoff would broaden the focus in some areas just as much as (or more htan) it would reduce it in other areas.

A playoff would make it more interesting for twice as many teams if it's a 4-team playoff, or by four times as many teams if it's an 8-team playoff, etc. So I'd have to agree with you, there.

However, I think that it is important that the "champions" also be the best team. And we all know that on any given day, the better team doesn't necessarily win the game. If you find someone who believes that Stanford is better than USC, then you've found someone who we can all make fun of.

If you increase the number of games a team needs to win in order to win the championship, you increase the chances that the so-called "best" team loses. You get situations where a 5-seed wins the NCAA basketball tournament, when they weren't even considered as being one of the "best" before the tournament even started. The larger a tournament gets, the more you can get into situations where one team dominated all season long, and they lose to another team that doesn't even deserve to be on the field. Someone might say, "They did deserve to be there - they won the game." Well, I say, "No - they lost three games before that. How can they be considered 'national champions' when they really didn't do anything spectacular to be in that position?"

Come up with a way - we can argue about that "way", if you want - to come up with two teams who have relatively similar arguments for being considered "national champions," and have them play in a truly neutral stadium.

 

[Dryden]

Come up with [...] two teams who have relatively similar arguments for being considered "national champions," and have them play in a truly neutral stadium.

Are you suggesting that Alabama should play Notre Dame for the National Title every single year?

 

[Zurp]

Are you suggesting that Alabama should play Notre Dame for the National Title every single year?

Come up with a way - we can argue about that "way", if you want - to come up with two teams who have relatively similar arguments for being considered "national champions," and have them play in a truly neutral stadium.

I said "relatively similar" arguments. Maybe I should have said "good" arguments. And by "good" arguments, I really mean "good" arguments. I don't want to hear anyone say that since they have the most national titles in the past 50 years, they deserve a shot. No.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Is anyone changing his/her opinions over playoffs, now that all of the "top" teams have lost? (The "top" teams are the teams that the talking-heads think should be the ones who have a chance at the championship.) Personally, I haven't. I don't like the idea of a playoff. The bigger the playoffs, the less meaningful the regular season becomes. And I'd be saying the same thing if the national championship game was as boring as Western Kentucky vs. Middle Tennessee State.

So, if there are no undefeated teams at the end of the regular season, the whole season has been totally meaningless? Dude, you've said a lot of bong-induced stupid shit before, but this ranked right up there...

 

[Zurp]

So, if there are no undefeated teams at the end of the regular season, the whole season has been totally meaningless? Dude, you've said a lot of bong-induced stupid shit before, but this ranked right up there...

That might be the nicest thing you've ever said to me. Are you feeling OK? Where's the mean Mililani that we've all come to know and ignore?

And when did I say that the season was meaningless? "Less meaningful" isn't the same as "meaningless." And I was talking about a play-off with more than two teams, and didn't say anything about the number of undefeated teams.

Excuse me while I step away and eat some more bongs, or whatever it is I'm supposed to do.

 

[Thump]

Dude, you've said a lot of bong-induced stupid shit before, but this ranked right up there...

Totally disagree with yourt disaggrement with Zurp, with a playoff, all of the recent losses don't mean as much b/c the teams know they're pretty much guaranteed a shot in a playoff at the end of the season.

 

[methomps]

However, I think that it is important that the "champions" also be the best team. And we all know that on any given day, the better team doesn't necessarily win the game. If you find someone who believes that Stanford is better than USC, then you've found someone who we can all make fun of.

If you increase the number of games a team needs to win in order to win the championship, you increase the chances that the so-called "best" team loses.

I think that point works both ways. If you only take two teams, you increase the chance that the best team is left on the outside (especially if there are several undefeated teams.