This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
    Dismiss Notice

Panel to decide bcs game?

Discussion in 'Buckeye Football' started by jimotis4heisman, Dec 17, 2004.

  1. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2004-12-17-bcs-title-committee_x.htm


     
  2. So next year we will still be bitching this time of year. We need a damn Playoff.
     
  3. Bucktastic

    Bucktastic Troy Smith for HEISMAN

    How many times does this trash have to be tweaked before the idiots realize there is no good way of solving this other than a PLAYOFF?

    Yet another DUMB IDEA.
     
  4. KevinBuck

    KevinBuck Gave up the ghost

    I think a committee is actually a decent idea. The current system is completely backwards, as they brought in the computers to settle discrepancies between the 2 major polls, but now the computer has the power to override even a consensus between the polls. The other option, a playoff, is simply not a part of D-IA football IMO: the inevitable discussion/controversy is part of the appeal for many fans, myself included.

    We're still talking about NCs OSU should have won back in the 50s-70s: who still talks about the Super Bowl a week after it's over?
     
  5. buckeyegrad

    buckeyegrad Don't Immanentize the Eschaton Staff Member

    Yeah, I'm sure the media is just going to delay their poll just because the BCS insists. Never mind all of the money the media outlets make every year when they release the pre-seaons polls by fans bickering and/or bragging about their position. They will just give this up because the BCS thinks it is best.

    Echoing previous posters, whatever system they re-create will only cause a different controversy for next year. We need a playoff system (don't care if it is a 4/8/12/16 team playoff, we just need one) or the controversy will never end.
     
  6. KevinBuck

    KevinBuck Gave up the ghost

    As a paraphrase of your first paragraph: More controversy means more money. Plus, a playoff would kill the bowl system, which would seriously damage lots of local economies that depend on their annual bowl revenue. I hope we never see a playoff in ANY form.
     
  7. MililaniBuckeye

    MililaniBuckeye The satanic soulless freight train that is Ohio St Staff Member Tech Admin

    Not if you integrate the current bowls into the playoff. The first round of a 16-team bracket has eight games...if you take eight of the lower-tier bowls and let them host the first-round games, they'd make a shit-load more money. If you were on the committee of the Draino Toilet Bowl, would you rather have two unranked 6-5 teams playing half-heartedly or a couple of highly ranked teams playing for survival in a championship playoff?
     
  8. Buckeyeskickbuttocks

    Buckeyeskickbuttocks Z --> Z^2 + c Staff Member

    I like your idea, Mili, but I also like the idea of simple seeding. That way, we can see what it's like for Florida State or LSU or Texas or some warm weather team to play outside the sun belt in Dec/Jan.
     
  9. methomps

    methomps an imbecility, a stupidity without name

    I'm not sure that the TV networks would go for delaying the release of the polls. How are they suppose to hype the games if all the teams are unranked? Besides, somebody will release a poll, even if unofficial. By somebody, of course, I mean lots of people. Fans demand preseason polls. It is unrealistic to believe you can suppress the beast.

    A 6-team playoff would be nice, imo. It has numerous benefits over no playoffs or a larger playoffs.

    Top 2 teams get 1st-round byes
    1st round: #3 hosts #6, #4 hosts #5
    semis held at 2 of Sugar/Fiesta/Orange
    final rotated between Sugar/Fiesta/Orange

    This year:

    (1st round)
    Utah @ Auburn
    Cal @ Texas

    (2nd round)
    Fiesta: USC vs Cal/Texas
    Sugar: OU vs Utah/Auburn

    1. The regular season would still be very important because the top 2 teams get 1st-round byes.
    2. There will still be enough controversy with the seeding for the 1st round (1st round is held at the homefield of the 3rd and 4th ranked teams), but the controversy won't be such that a legit contender is left with nothing (like Auburn this year).
    3. Semifinals and finals held at Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta (Rose would get its Pac10-Big10), so no bowls will be lost.
    4. Worst case: extends the season by 2 games for 2 teams, but I'm sure they'd gladly take that chance. Most cases it extends the season by 1 game for 2-4 teams.
     
  10. Sdgobucks

    Sdgobucks Pig on a wing

    The Rose would still be pissed because they wouldn't get access to the top 2 PAC 10 teams (this year). This means that they have less money, and greedy bastards don't like it when they have less money. What are the chances that 1 of the top 6 teams wont be from EITHER the big 10 or the PAC 10. I like your idea though, I think we can begin to see why we haven't had a playoff. These bowl people don't want their toes stepped on, and you have to be carefull not to leave any of them out. It reminds me of dealing with children. You have to give them all the same exact thing or they start crying and bitching. They all think they deserved everything, and you have to trick them into believing that they are getting everything. If we could just get a +1 system going, that would solve almost any of the controversies that have happend since the BCS came into existence.
     
  11. methomps

    methomps an imbecility, a stupidity without name

    I think it was made quite obvious this year that the Rose would've been much happier with the #2 Pac10 team (Cal this year) than another B12 team. They were all set to go with the #2 Pac10 team vs the #1 B10 team. While #1v#1 is obviously their ideal situation, lesser Pac10/B10 teams beat the crap out of having B12 teams 3 of the last 4 years.
     
  12. Airspace

    Airspace Newbie

    Here is an idea for a real playoff format. Have a 16 team playoff. There are 11 conferences in Division 1A. ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big 10, CUSA, MAC, Mountain West, Pac-10, SEC, Sun Belt and WAC. Each conference gets an automatic qualifier (11 teams). The remaining 5 teams comes from the highest ranking left. This would bring back the importance of winning your conference and encourage teams to play tough out of conference games. Right now there is no incentive to play a tough schedule.

    The highest ranked teams would host the playoffs through the first three rounds. The championship game could be rotated between Orange, Rose, Sugar and Fiesta. The schools by being hosts reduce costs of travel for them and their fans. It rewards the higher ranked teams for having a great year.

    The rest of the teams that did not qualify (something like 40 this year) would be eligible for the bowl games. The bowl games would be what they were, a reward for having a good season (not great). The bowls don't care about a playoff, they are only interested in tourism and the dollars they generate. People from Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska and other places want a nice holiday get away.

    This format allows both a playoff and the bowls to go forward.
     
  13. JWil

    JWil O-State.com S.I.D

    Pardon me in advance, Big 10 folks, but the Rose Bowl can just be cut out. The Cotton is 4 years away from a 90,000-seat home in Arlington, making it BCS-able. Take the other three bowls in the BCS, the Cotton, and let the Rose have whatever Pac10-Big10 game they wany that doesn't interfere.

    "Plus, a playoff would kill the bowl system, which would seriously damage lots of local economies that depend on their annual bowl revenue."

    I disagree! The bowls already only appeal to a small population as it is. Do you think folks in non-Ohio State or non-Oklahoma State areas care about the Alamo? NO. If there was an 8-team playoff, the Alamo could still have its fun with OSU and OSU while the top 8 teams played in a playoff using the top BCS bowls as quarterfinal sites, with two new games the next week for semis, with a SUPER COLLEGE BOWL the week after. That would come just before the spring semester for many schools.

    Why is it that football players can't miss spring classes when basketball players basically lose the entire month of March (typically during midterms as well) to the tourney?

    This whole thing is just crooked and that's a shame.
     
  14. methomps

    methomps an imbecility, a stupidity without name

    Yes, that will help the legitimacy of the BCS. Cut out at least 4 of the top 10 NC-winning schools of the AP era. Will anyone be able to say 'BCS national champ' with a straight face?
     
  15. BuckeyeSoldier

    BuckeyeSoldier 2 time Reigning BuckeyePlanet Poker Champion

    count me in the side that hopes we NEVER have a playoff... sure there is contreversy every year... so what? if it keeps everyone argueing/talking about it, then its generating interest in the game... and i have a sickening feeling that shortly after a playoff is instituted college football interest will seep away to the NFL.. the regular season SHOULD BE THE PLAYOFF, i would rather have the buckeyes have to argue over whether they were the TRUE national champs anytime before id devalue the regular season.... also once you have a playoff.. every team EXCEPT ONE ends their season on a down note... the way we have no half the teams can still finish with a win... and on a highnote, where fans will want to be more involved with a winning team...
     

Share This Page