Interesting BCS Viewpoint

[Pheasant]

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]

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]

***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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[bucknut4life]

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.

thanks..

and i agree...i think VT will go down..Ive thought that all season..

I might actually want to re phrase my last post and say that someone to the extent of Georgia, if they beat florida, might get left out..

 

[timBUCK2]

An 8-12 game playoff in cfb would be even worse than a 4 game playoff. (Which would still be worse than the current system)

This isn't basketball folks - in football, people get hurt a lot more frequently. Who's to say the best team in the country doesn't lose because their star QB gets injured in the first round and can't play in the title game.

What if the #4 team is substantially worse than the #3 team. That would give one team an unfair advantage going into the title game because they would be fresher than the team that had to go 3OT to get their win.

 

[methomps]

An 8-12 game playoff in cfb would be even worse than a 4 game playoff. (Which would still be worse than the current system)

This isn't basketball folks - in football, people get hurt a lot more frequently. Who's to say the best team in the country doesn't lose because their star QB gets injured in the first round and can't play in the title game.

Funny nobody cared about this when they added an extra regular season game to everyone's plate.

 

[bullsfan75]

The 1998 Buckeyes arguably got screwed more by the BCS than any other team in history. They would have given Tennessee a MUCH better game than Free Shoes U.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Any system that does not end in a playoff is a opinion based therefore biased in someway. Period. I want someone to tell me where the regular season goes if a playoff is used because, everyone who doesn't want a playoff says its lost, where does it go? Are you telling me that you would not watch the regular season games? Are you saying that after the Texas lose you like the fact that the NC chances are pretty much history? You wouldn't want to have another shot at them, a much better possibility with a playoff? Tressels teams always play better late, he is a great playoff coach. I suggest you embrace the playoff, or keep making a few men richer and richer, which is the only thing that the current system does well.

 

[Piney]

The article I posted earlier in this thread has a 2nd part, he answered his emails about it and made a couple other good arguments. I posted the important parts of the article.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/john_walters/10/27/campus.blitz/index.html

Splitting hairs

Readers talk Jolie's 'do, college football playoff

Posted: Thursday October 27, 2005 9:07PM; Updated: Friday October 28, 2005 11:20AM

The other day I wrote a column in which I stated that college football, and its method of determining a champion, is satisfactory to me.

Since that column was posted, approximately 200 letters have filled my inbox from all over the country, as well as Mexico and Panama. Never have I gotten such a response on a story, which tells me either 1) college football is alive and well or 2) some of Jon Wertheim's readers aren't paying attention.

Really, 200 letters (none, regrettably, from an "Ange in Hollywood.") The breakdown? A little more than half of you (let's say 54 percent) agreed with me, while the rest just as staunchly defended the position that the sport needs a playoff.

About the letters:

Thank you to everyone who wrote. I appreciate that you take the time to do so. The shorter your letter, the better the chance that I will reply.
I'm keeping all the e-mails. I'm filing away the "Pro-playoff" replies. I've already printed out the "Amen, brother" e-mails and have taped them to my bedroom ceiling. They're fun to wake up to, although I am concerned about the smudge marks on the mirror.

Herewith, the best of the "My Favorite Brunette" e-mails, along with my rebuttals (the privilege of having your own column):

Well said, and I've often said that the day a fan from a team in the hunt says "It was just one game" is the day all that is great about college football will die. I'm a 'Bama fan and I'd rather see us screwed than see a playoff system.-- Jason, Sardis, Ala.
I'm with you, Jason. And now that the Crimson Tide and Florida State have agreed to play in 2007, I can almost guaran-damn-tee you that should 'Bama go 12-0 two years from now, they'll be in the BCS title game. In fact, I'm penciling them in as my preseason Nos. 1 and 2 on guts alone.

Sorry, John, your logic is flawed. Flawed argument one: A playoff would not pitt No. 1 vs. No. 2.-- Thomas, Simi Valley, Calif.
I just love this because it's the only time all season we'll read "pitt No. 1" in a sentence.

You absolutely nailed it. I love the importance of every single regular-season college football game. I love the fact that a team with national title aspirations can't really afford to lose even ONE game, let alone a few. I love the fact that I'm compelled to clear my schedule to watch Texas-Ohio State on a Saturday night in September.
-- Bill, Hollis, N.H.
I love that you get cold when it's 71 degrees out. I love that it takes you an hour and a half to order a sandwich. I love that you get a little crinkle above your nose when you're looking at me like I'm nuts. I love that -- oh, I'm sorry. When Harry Met Sally is on TBS right now.

The whole comparison to March Madness is terrible. Apples and oranges, my friend. Apples and oranges.
-- Rudy, Tempe, Ariz.
Rudy is taking issue with my comparing the number of times The Associated Press Nos. 1 and 2 met in the NCAA hoops final as opposed to the BCS championship game. I'll grant Rudy that AP does not stand for "Absolutely Positive." I'll take him one further: I promise not to compare the NCAAs to the BCS if he promises not to insist that college football needs a playoff by using March Madness as an example.

Using your logic, the Super Bowl did not yield a true NFL championship last year ...
-- Douglas, Houston, Texas
People, people, people. This isn't sports imperialism. The NFL is fine as it is, and March Madness is fine the way it is. I don't want to change the NFL. What gets me is why NFL people are so eager to make college football conform to their standards (what I like to refer to as the "Mike & the Mad Dog Effect," wherein someone confesses to being 'not much of a college guy', but then pontificates on how it could be better).

Have you noticed something about NFL fans? Almost every one of them I meet is in a fantasy league. You know why college football isn't big on fantasy leagues? Because the games themselves are satisfying enough. NFL fantasy league types remind me of that Seinfeld episode where George Costanza has to eat while having sex. The sex just isn't enough for him any more.

So if the regular season IS the playoffs, and Auburn won every game (in '04) explain to me again why they weren't the national champions. Because the voters say so?
-- Greg, Houston
Ah, yes, the Auburn quandary. This is to college football conservatives such as myself what the Book of Job was to the Old Testament. You're going along, thinking Yahweh is a fair and loving God and then you're hit with the "Bad Things Happen to Good War Eagle!" dilemma.

OK, here goes. First, if I'm an Auburn player, coach or fan, no one -- especially not a dolt/retard/idiot/moron blogger -- will ever be able to tell me we weren't the best team in the nation last year. The Tigers were perfect in '04, and that's all anyone can ask. Congratulations.

For my rebuttal, I'm going to get a little Adam Smith (no, he wasn't the quarterback at Utah last season, he was an economist) on you. Basically, I believe in the Invisible Hand of College Football. In capitalism, what serves everyone's best individual interest also serves the greater good. For example, because I want the least expensive goods as a consumer, producers will battle one another to get me as a customer. That results in the lowest price for me and a huge profit for whoever can manufacture the best product at the lowest price.

Capitalism is social Darwinism, and when it comes to sports, I'm a social Darwinist. Actually, I'm terrible at parties so put me down as an anti-social Darwinist.

I digress. Now, what's best for college football, in my opinion, is to see the best possible games that we can. That's why I'm so fired up about the Alabama-Florida State announcement. That's why I love that Notre Dame will play USC, UCLA, Penn State and Michigan next season.

The question is: How do we make what's best for college football also what's best for the individual team? Well, if you're Auburn and you want to schedule Louisiana-Monroe, The Citadel and Louisiana Tech out of conference, then you have to be willing to accept that along with an undefeated season you may be on the outside looking in come January. (Auburn fans: I know about the mitigating circumstances with the schedule last year. But why should that have been USC's or Oklahoma's problem? That's a "The dog ate my homework" excuse.)

Now, if Auburn were to schedule, say, a USC or a Georgia Tech and go undefeated they might not have that problem. But here's the beauty of that. Auburn did schedule USC (in '03) and Georgia Tech (in '05) and lost both times. There's that Invisible Hand thing working for us. If enough solid programs agree to play one another, then the odds of there being greater than two (or even a maximum of two) unbeatens at season's end lessens considerably.

Also, we as fans win. If I write B.C.-Miami or Colorado-Michigan, you instantly know what I'm talking about, even though those games took place 21 and 11 years ago, respectively. Now what does Sam Houston State-Texas Tech do for you? Nothing, and that happened just last month.
Now, if you're an Auburn fan and you say, "The SEC is tough enough, it doesn't behoove us to schedule a tough out-of-conference team", here's what I say: We're talking about the national championship here, not the Pinewood Derby regionals. It should be difficult to win. If you don't think you can go undefeated against anyone, then why are you saying you deserve to be national champs?

Also, Auburn supporters also claim that the polls never game them a chance. No. If Auburn had played better non-conference competition, they'd have moved up in the polls (I don't vote and I don't put any stock in a ranking that comes out before Oct. 1st ... except Stewart Mandel's Power Rankings, of course). Auburn's athletic director never gave Auburn a chance.

Finally, if you only play schools in your neighborhood before your bowl game, then you only deserve to be champion of your neighborhood. Auburn administrators must learn that they can fly to non-SEC campuses for reasons other than to clandestinely court a school's head coach.
By the way, kudos to Tennessee for visiting South Bend and to Arkansas for visiting USC this season. That's the way it should be done.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

In spite of the fact that I have offered my own play-off solution (who hasn't), I feel much less strongly about this debate than most participants seem to. This debate is, to me, primarily an academic exercise. From that perspective, I'd like to comment on this passage from the follow-up article.

If I write B.C.-Miami or Colorado-Michigan, you instantly know what I'm talking about, even though those games took place 21 and 11 years ago, respectively.

How in the blue fuck does he think that this is an argument AGAINST a play-off. Is he so monumentally stupid that he can write that sentence and NOT have a synapse fire, telling him that with the current system he will get FEWER high-profile, early OOC matchups than he will get under a play-off system? (For those of you who are too young to remember it, the B.C.-Miami game referred to WAS an OOC game at the time.)

If I cared about this argument, his stupidity would probably irritate me a little. Not a lot, something like the way Mark May can irritate me. But like I said, this is just an academic exercise for me, so who cares.

Besides, how can you take a GUY seriously when he quotes When Harry Met Sally??? Debate over, you lose. Please turn in your y-chromosome at the door on your way out, and thanks for playing.