or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › If there ever was a year where College football needed a playoff format, this could be that year... The BCS is broken.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If there ever was a year where College football needed a playoff format, this could be that... - Page 5

post #73 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

I always use Urban dictionary for these type of questions: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hand+grenade  . You can decide what definition fits....
Oh my! I'm gonna guess he was referring to definition #1, however I cracked up at def. #2! After that, you continue reading at your own peril.
post #74 of 214
Definitely the first haha although the second one is a common scenario at bourbon street. The third??? Not so much b1_ohmy.gif
post #75 of 214

I never said anything about the accuracy of urban dictionary. And I really hope at least 2/3s of the definitions are made up....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Oh my! I'm gonna guess he was referring to definition #1, however I cracked up at def. #2! After that, you continue reading at your own peril.
post #76 of 214

For what it's worth, and I am not a fan of the BCS system, but they got it right this year. ND v Bama.

 

See, you gotta let the season play out first. It's too easy to say after Week 10, with five teams with a single loss (or whatever) that this team deserves it & that team doesn't. It is designed to determine #1 versus #2 after the season has finished.

 

ND went undefeated. Bama beat Georgia in the SEC Championship. No brainer.

post #77 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post

For what it's worth, and I am not a fan of the BCS system, but they got it right this year. ND v Bama.

 

See, you gotta let the season play out first. It's too easy to say after Week 10, with five teams with a single loss (or whatever) that this team deserves it & that team doesn't. It is designed to determine #1 versus #2 after the season has finished.

 

ND went undefeated. Bama beat Georgia in the SEC Championship. No brainer.

I used to not be a fan of the BCS as well, then I changed my tune.  (For the record, I am not against a playoff, just not sure we need one - more on that later ...)

 

I had plans to come on here this week and show everybody how good for college football the BCS has been by comparing this years bowl games to what they would have been pre-BCS.  The problem with that is, for one, that Notre Dame is one of the top two teams this year, so its likely they would have had a title game no matter who ended up in second since Notre Dame in an independent has no bowl tie-ins.  Also, the conferences have realigned so much (specifically the Big-8/SWC/Big-12) that it's pretty difficult to guess who would have won which conferences.  The point, though, is that the BCS - while certainly not as good as a playoff in determining a "true" national champion - should really be compared to system it replaced if you want to be fair.

 

In that system, all major conference champions had bowl tie-ins that didn't line up with any other conferences except for the Rose Bowl.  If Oregon and Kansas State or Alabama, for example, managed to finish undefeated, there would have been no chance that any of them would have played each other in a bowl game.  It's easy to rip on the BCS because its not a playoff, but I feel we should be giving it credit for what it eliminated.

 

Lastly, my only argument against a playoff is ... why do we need one?  The answer to that one is obvious, right:  "Because that is the only way to truly determine a consensus national champion."  That may be true, but it also may not ... keep in mind that this year if we had a 4-team playoff it WOULD NOT include Kansas State, Stanford, Georgia, LSU, or Texas A&M.  So maybe an 8-team playoff would do the trick.  I don't know.

 

My point is, is it really that important that we have a consensus national champion?  If so, why?

post #78 of 214

Sure its important.  (almost) Every sport ends with a champion.  Why should college football be different?  Its sort of strange how the game evolved with bowls instead of a national championship, with writers just crowning the victor at the end of the year.

 

I like the system as is.  I like the importance it puts on every game--2 loss teams don't have a chance, and 1 loss teams are on the bubble.  Its like a season-long playoff.  I think they could tweak things, like no rankings until 6 or 7 games into the season, more heavily weighting strength of schedule, etc.  But this are minor in comparison.  

post #79 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

Sure its important.  (almost) Every sport ends with a champion.  Why should college football be different?  Its sort of strange how the game evolved with bowls instead of a national championship, with writers just crowning the victor at the end of the year.

 

I like the system as is.  I like the importance it puts on every game--2 loss teams don't have a chance, and 1 loss teams are on the bubble.  Its like a season-long playoff.  I think they could tweak things, like no rankings until 6 or 7 games into the season, more heavily weighting strength of schedule, etc.  But this are minor in comparison.  

Yes, it may be true that it's basically the only sport that doesn't have a national champion, but so what?  It's not important that there be a national champion JUST BECAUSE all other sports have one, is it?  Is that really a reason?

 

Why else is it important?  Who does it really affect (not having a true champion)?

 

I would argue that the BCS and all of the discussions/arguments it creates during the course of the season are good for the sport.  Having a playoff would almost create an anti-climax.

post #80 of 214

Its not because other sports do, but its for the same reason that every other sport does.  The goal is to come out on top and prove that you're the best.  Every game is a microcosm of that.  Prove that you're better than them.  Then play someone else and do the same.  At the end, the two best teams play and the winner is crowned.  Winning your conference or division is proving that your the champion of that group.  But then there are other divisions or conferences, so you're still not done.  Until there is a national champion.  Then there's nowhere else to go.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

I would argue that the BCS and all of the discussions/arguments it creates during the course of the season are good for the sport.  Having a playoff would almost create an anti-climax.

 

I totally agree with this.  I think eliminating early rankings would give us a better "true champion" but I don't know if its worth it.  The rankings are half the fun.

post #81 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

Its not because other sports do, but its for the same reason that every other sport does.  The goal is to come out on top and prove that you're the best.  Every game is a microcosm of that.  Prove that you're better than them.  Then play someone else and do the same.  At the end, the two best teams play and the winner is crowned.  Winning your conference or division is proving that your the champion of that group.  But then there are other divisions or conferences, so you're still not done.  Until there is a national champion.  Then there's nowhere else to go.

OK, fair enough.  I would agree with this if the season just ended now, and we just said that Notre Dame was the champion.  Talk about anti-climactic.  But the BCS will, 9 times out of 10, (OK, maybe 4 times out of 5, or 3 times out of 4a1_smile.gif) put the top two teams together to play for a title.  Every few years we will have the argument that some team got hosed (OK St. last year, Auburn I think in '03??) and I'm basically saying 'so what" to those anomalies.

 

The system that creates those types of discussions might actually be BETTER, in my opinion, than a playoff that ends all discussion.  (I know I may sound crazy, but I'm thinking outside the box here)

post #82 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Yes, it may be true that it's basically the only sport that doesn't have a national champion, but so what?  It's not important that there be a national champion JUST BECAUSE all other sports have one, is it?  Is that really a reason?

 

Why else is it important?  Who does it really affect (not having a true champion)?

 

I would argue that the BCS and all of the discussions/arguments it creates during the course of the season are good for the sport.  Having a playoff would almost create an anti-climax.

 

Well I could answer your question with a question - Why does every other sport but Div 1 college football have a playoff? The lower tiers of college do it. What's so damn unique about Div 1 football that they don't do it?

 

Especially given the glut of bowl games which are meaningless except for the two schools playing in them & their alumni. I'm a Kent State grad (Bachelor & Masters degrees from there) & am totally geeked that they're going to a bowl game for the first time in 40 years, but aside from KSU alum & Arkansas State (our opponent) alum, nobody gives a damn who wins. It's meaningless. There will be about 15,000 people in the stands.

 

Ah, but what if the GoDaddy.com Bowl was the first round of a, say, 16-team playoff system? What if it was #1 versus #16? Now it's Notre Dame versus Nebraska with the loser done & the winner moving on. I guarantee you it would generate a thousand percent more interest.

 

I know this concept has been trotted out before, but my point is, the system is already in place. The bowl games already exist. All it would take is the will. And therein lies the problem - long-established bowls have a stranglehold on the current system. And the top 4 (I believe) rotate the BCS Championship Game. The big boys are happy & don't want to change their monopoly.

 

That's why there's no playoff system. Cuz the Rose Bowl doesn't want one. To me, that's the tail wagging the dog.

post #83 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post

Well I could answer your question with a question - Why does every other sport but Div 1 college football have a playoff? The lower tiers of college do it. What's so damn unique about Div 1 football that they don't do it?

 

Especially given the glut of bowl games which are meaningless except for the two schools playing in them & their alumni. I'm a Kent State grad (Bachelor & Masters degrees from there) & am totally geeked that they're going to a bowl game for the first time in 40 years, but aside from KSU alum & Arkansas State (our opponent) alum, nobody gives a damn who wins. It's meaningless. There will be about 15,000 people in the stands.

 

Ah, but what if the GoDaddy.com Bowl was the first round of a, say, 16-team playoff system? What if it was #1 versus #16? Now it's Notre Dame versus Nebraska with the loser done & the winner moving on. I guarantee you it would generate a thousand percent more interest.

 

I know this concept has been trotted out before, but my point is, the system is already in place. The bowl games already exist. All it would take is the will. And therein lies the problem - long-established bowls have a stranglehold on the current system. And the top 4 (I believe) rotate the BCS Championship Game. The big boys are happy & don't want to change their monopoly.

 

That's why there's no playoff system. Cuz the Rose Bowl doesn't want one. To me, that's the tail wagging the dog.

Good answer.  I can't really argue with anything you said.  I would be super excited if your fantasy scenario (in bold) became the reality.  The one negative, I would suggest might come of it, is the interest in the bigger games might actually go down a bit.  No evidence here whatsoever, just my opinion, and I base it on the NCAA basketball tournament.  By the time the actual final four rolls around, I'm kinda spent on the whole thing.  Those first two weekends are the most exciting of the entire season, by far, but the last 3 games ... meh.

 

While I don't disagree that a playoff would be fun, and perhaps "better" than the current system - quotes are for people like me who don't necessarily care if we have a consensus national champion or not ;) - what I do disagree with is people who say that the "BCS is broken" or that the "BCS sucks" etc etc.

 

Maybe its not ideal to everybody, but it's pretty darn good.

post #84 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Good answer.  I can't really argue with anything you said.  I would be super excited if your fantasy scenario (in bold) became the reality.  The one negative, I would suggest might come of it, is the interest in the bigger games might actually go down a bit.  No evidence here whatsoever, just my opinion, and I base it on the NCAA basketball tournament.  By the time the actual final four rolls around, I'm kinda spent on the whole thing.  Those first two weekends are the most exciting of the entire season, by far, but the last 3 games ... meh.

 

While I don't disagree that a playoff would be fun, and perhaps "better" than the current system - quotes are for people like me who don't necessarily care if we have a consensus national champion or not ;) - what I do disagree with is people who say that the "BCS is broken" or that the "BCS sucks" etc etc.

 

Maybe its not ideal to everybody, but it's pretty darn good.

 

You're probably correct, which is why the big bowls don't want to see a playoff system happen. They're the ones standing in the way of it occurring. They use words like "tradition" to defend their position. And they only care about their matchup. They don't want to be part of a playoff system. My guess is they don't want to be a semifinal game of a playoff system, for example. They would rather have the, say, #5 ranked team play the #9-ranked team, call a great matchup & be done with it. I think they think a playoff would degrade their prestige.

post #85 of 214

That is true. A lot of college teams also wouldn't like a playoff instead of bowls. Sure it would be great for the 16 teams that make it but there are like 30 bowls now. There would be 40+ teams that used to go to a post season game that are now sitting home. And the teams that make the championship game would have played 3 (2 if you go off the play off) more games than the current one. That might not be a win for those players either.

 

And there will always be complaints. If you go to an 8 team playofffs your 7-10 teams are Georgia (1-2 in against the top 15), LSU (2-2), A&M (1-2),  SC (2-2) would be fighting for those last 2 spots and we are back to a beauty contest. Given how SC crushed Georgia and had the Clemson win, why are they the not the better team? Sequences of losses is the big one. And you can do that logic for the rest of them. And are any of those teams better than OK who has 2 losses against top5 teams (granted no big wins). Bump it up to 16 and we are talking margin teams (maybe Northern Ill will suprise me). I mean take a look at Clemson. 0 top 25 wins, Nebraska (just gave up 70 pts to a Wisc team. and doesn't have a top 25 win either), Or St (1 top 25 win, 3 losses total). I am sure on any given saturday any team in the top 50 or so can beat any other team. Using a play off to big a national champion isn't a better or worse champion than using the regular reason. Last season was Alabama really a better team than LSU? Not really. The order of wins was just different. Well and LSU looked pathetic in the championship game.

 

Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post

 

You're probably correct, which is why the big bowls don't want to see a playoff system happen. They're the ones standing in the way of it occurring. They use words like "tradition" to defend their position. And they only care about their matchup. They don't want to be part of a playoff system. My guess is they don't want to be a semifinal game of a playoff system, for example. They would rather have the, say, #5 ranked team play the #9-ranked team, call a great matchup & be done with it. I think they think a playoff would degrade their prestige.

post #86 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

That is true. A lot of college teams also wouldn't like a playoff instead of bowls. Sure it would be great for the 16 teams that make it but there are like 30 bowls now. There would be 40+ teams that used to go to a post season game that are now sitting home. And the teams that make the championship game would have played 3 (2 if you go off the play off) more games than the current one. That might not be a win for those players either.

 

And there will always be complaints. If you go to an 8 team playofffs your 7-10 teams are Georgia (1-2 in against the top 15), LSU (2-2), A&M (1-2),  SC (2-2) would be fighting for those last 2 spots and we are back to a beauty contest. Given how SC crushed Georgia and had the Clemson win, why are they the not the better team? Sequences of losses is the big one. And you can do that logic for the rest of them. And are any of those teams better than OK who has 2 losses against top5 teams (granted no big wins). Bump it up to 16 and we are talking margin teams (maybe Northern Ill will suprise me). I mean take a look at Clemson. 0 top 25 wins, Nebraska (just gave up 70 pts to a Wisc team. and doesn't have a top 25 win either), Or St (1 top 25 win, 3 losses total). I am sure on any given saturday any team in the top 50 or so can beat any other team. Using a play off to big a national champion isn't a better or worse champion than using the regular reason. Last season was Alabama really a better team than LSU? Not really. The order of wins was just different. Well and LSU looked pathetic in the championship game.

 

Yeah.  Totally agree with both of you that the Bowls themselves wouldn't care for it, but it is appealing from a fan standpoint.  Looks like there are currently 35 bowls, so there are 70 teams that play for something at the end of the year.  13 of them are 6-6 teams (one actually 6-7) who nobody - except their mothers - want to watch play again.  If you had a 16 team playoff, that would "use up" 15 of the bowl games.  You could keep the other 20 bowls and all that would happen is you'd have slightly better teams in the cruddier bowls ... making them less painful to watch.

post #87 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

That is true. A lot of college teams also wouldn't like a playoff instead of bowls. Sure it would be great for the 16 teams that make it but there are like 30 bowls now. There would be 40+ teams that used to go to a post season game that are now sitting home. And the teams that make the championship game would have played 3 (2 if you go off the play off) more games than the current one. That might not be a win for those players either.

 

And there will always be complaints. If you go to an 8 team playofffs your 7-10 teams are Georgia (1-2 in against the top 15), LSU (2-2), A&M (1-2),  SC (2-2) would be fighting for those last 2 spots and we are back to a beauty contest. Given how SC crushed Georgia and had the Clemson win, why are they the not the better team? Sequences of losses is the big one. And you can do that logic for the rest of them. And are any of those teams better than OK who has 2 losses against top5 teams (granted no big wins). Bump it up to 16 and we are talking margin teams (maybe Northern Ill will suprise me). I mean take a look at Clemson. 0 top 25 wins, Nebraska (just gave up 70 pts to a Wisc team. and doesn't have a top 25 win either), Or St (1 top 25 win, 3 losses total). I am sure on any given saturday any team in the top 50 or so can beat any other team. Using a play off to big a national champion isn't a better or worse champion than using the regular reason. Last season was Alabama really a better team than LSU? Not really. The order of wins was just different. Well and LSU looked pathetic in the championship game.

 

 

 

Not necessarily. You could still have the other bowl games, they just wouldn't be part of the playoff system. And for those who would say that would make those games irrelevant, they are now.

 

And you're right. Regardless of the system, there will be complaints. If it's an 8-team playoff, #9 will be pissed. If it's 16, then #17 will be pissed and so on. Hey, for that matter, the current system is a playoff system - a 2-team playoff system. So #3 will be pissed.

post #88 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post

Not necessarily. You could still have the other bowl games, they just wouldn't be part of the playoff system. And for those who would say that would make those games irrelevant, they are now.

 

And you're right. Regardless of the system, there will be complaints. If it's an 8-team playoff, #9 will be pissed. If it's 16, then #17 will be pissed and so on. Hey, for that matter, the current system is a playoff system - a 2-team playoff system. So #3 will be pissed.

Like I mentioned above ... it would actually make those particular bowl games MORE relevant.  Since the top 16 teams are "hogging" the best 15 bowl games, that means that the 14 "worst" teams in bowls right now would get to stay home and the lwest tier bowl games would get the teams from the next tier games.  Instead of a bunch of 6-6 teams, the worst will be 7-5.

post #89 of 214

Or would you take those top 16 teams and make the losers keep playing? IE after 1 beats 16 does 16 then get to play 7? The other question is would the money still be there? IE supposedly the big bowls make money off of tourism. It is a bit harder to get that if you don't have 4 weeks to plan vacations.

 

Personally I think the real solution is to have more REAL games during the regular season.  Get rid of the cupcakes and make the SEC (to big the most blantant example) play real teams. It would be a bit of scheduling nightmare but make week 8 Pac-10/SEC challenge week where the teams all get seeded and face off. Week 12 could be SEC vs Big 12.  Or maybe you split it in half and have some of the teams play ACC/Big 10 games. You could get enough good intersection games (sure it favors cupcakes early, good teams late scheduling but nothing is perfect) to get a decent idea how good the conference is. Right now I don't have any feel for good the Big 12 or Pac 12 is. I know the ACC and Big East suck but teams like Oregon, Stanford, Oregon St, Kansas St, and Ok don't have any big out of conference wins (or losses other than Stanford and OK) to talk about. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Like I mentioned above ... it would actually make those particular bowl games MORE relevant.  Since the top 16 teams are "hogging" the best 15 bowl games, that means that the 14 "worst" teams in bowls right now would get to stay home and the lwest tier bowl games would get the teams from the next tier games.  Instead of a bunch of 6-6 teams, the worst will be 7-5.

post #90 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

Or would you take those top 16 teams and make the losers keep playing? IE after 1 beats 16 does 16 then get to play 7? The other question is would the money still be there? IE supposedly the big bowls make money off of tourism. It is a bit harder to get that if you don't have 4 weeks to plan vacations.

 

Personally I think the real solution is to have more REAL games during the regular season.  Get rid of the cupcakes and make the SEC (to big the most blantant example) play real teams. It would be a bit of scheduling nightmare but make week 8 Pac-10/SEC challenge week where the teams all get seeded and face off. Week 12 could be SEC vs Big 12.  Or maybe you split it in half and have some of the teams play ACC/Big 10 games. You could get enough good intersection games (sure it favors cupcakes early, good teams late scheduling but nothing is perfect) to get a decent idea how good the conference is. Right now I don't have any feel for good the Big 12 or Pac 12 is. I know the ACC and Big East suck but teams like Oregon, Stanford, Oregon St, Kansas St, and Ok don't have any big out of conference wins (or losses other than Stanford and OK) to talk about. 

 

Nah, I don't really think about it too much, cuz like I said, I don't mind the current system.  However, I love your idea about the regular season!  I know that it's a bit of a catch-22 in that the cupcakes WANT to get their brains beat in just to acquire the money they need to advance their programs, however, it's not fun for the fans (except when said cupcakes humiliate the big guys on occasion).  But if they could just make a rule that you could only play teams from FBS, or even better, have your challenge weeks, that would be huge!

 

Hey, if you would go down one further in the Pac-12 (UCLA) you would see that they beat Nebraska.  It's not a lot, but its something!

 

P.S.  Ah, my favorite (sarcasm) part of the college football season.  When coaches who just led their team to successful seasons and are starting to prepare for their big bowl games start taking new jobs elsewhere. http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8709694/bret-bielema-head-coach-wisconsin-badgers-accepts-position-coach-arkansas-razorbacks-source


Edited by Golfingdad - 12/4/12 at 7:08pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
  • If there ever was a year where College football needed a playoff format, this could be that year... The BCS is broken.
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › If there ever was a year where College football needed a playoff format, this could be that year... The BCS is broken.