2013 NCAA College Football

[SloverUT]

I think it's closer to fact than opinion, but the facts don't necessarily agree with either of you.

There will be some of those games, yes, but at the same time Alabama could have lost to Auburn like they did and if they still make the playoffs, that game didn't completely end their title run.

On the flip side, the regular season will be more important to teams that are outside the top few spots, because they'll want to make sure they get into the top eight or 16 or whatever - I don't care one bit about college sports - so their games will matter when normally they'd know from the outset that they're not going to be competing for a spot in the top two.

I just don't see how it could be fact if it is open to debate on whether people think the regular season is more or less important based on their situation.  If the thought process on whether it is more or less important changes based on ones situation or how one feels at the time, wouldn't that make it opinion?

[SloverUT]

I agree. Would the Auburn-Alabama game be so watched on a national scale, with such intensity if it didn't have the implication it did on Saturday, I don't think it would have. .

Would it mean more important to the players, maybe. If Oregon can't get up for a rivalry game, then that is sad. Still, when we are talking about overall excitement on the media, nationally. Would OSU fans be tuned into the Auburn game if it didn't matter to them going to the NC game or not. I can see your side of it, but it doesn't have the weight of Golfingdad's side.

Saevel, you sided with GD but completely made  my point for me.  OSU fans cared about the Auburn game because it had implications for whether or not they'd make the N.C. game.  If neither team was ranked that still could have been a great ball game but OSU/FSU wouldn't have cared about it the way they did.  Those are the only two teams that could contribute really from the Bama loss.  However, with the playoff system I've discussed, people outside of Oregon would have cared about the Oregon/Oregon State game because it had a great effect on whether teams would make it into the playoffs or not.  And that is my whole point.  Instead of 1-2 games on Saturday having a real effect on the system, there would have been several.  This makes for more entertaining college football to me because there is still something to fight for in the last 3-4 weeks of the season, aside from the 3-4 teams in the top 5.

The regular season would obviously still be important and you will still need to have a winning regular season to make it in.

[saevel25]

I just don't see how it could be fact if it is open to debate on whether people think the regular season is more or less important based on their situation.  If the thought process on whether it is more or less important changes based on ones situation or how one feels at the time, wouldn't that make it opinion?

Because it is a fact.

Will having a playoff decrease the excitement for certain games, like the Auburn-Alabama game. Would all of OSU's fans be celebrating Auburn's win if we were already in the playoff? Maybe because we might get a better seed. But it wouldn't be the uproar that it is now. This is a fact.

Will other team's fans be more excited because of the playoff, yea. If it was an 8 team play off. A few teams, from 9-12 would have fans who would be watching a lot of games in the top 8. This is a fact. Would it bring the national attention like the Alabama Auburn game, I don't think so, not as much.

We are not saying one or the other doesn't happen. What the opinion is which one is more important, or more meaningful.

To me, when you have a storied rivalry that has national championship implications because the NC game is only for two teams. That brings in much more national excitement, then a few teams buying for those last few tournament spots.

[iacas]

I just don't see how it could be fact if it is open to debate on whether people think the regular season is more or less important based on their situation.

It's a fact.

For a team like Alabama the regular season would be less important.

For a team like Stanford the regular season would be more important (because they have to stay in the top 8 or whatever).

It's not an opinion whether the above things are true. They are. The regular season currently doesn't mean much to a team like Stanford because they aren't going to be capable of competing for the final biggest trophy. For a team like Alabama, they can lose to Auburn but still have the chance to finish the season as the ultimate winner.

(I only know the place of these teams because I looked them up. Still don't care about college sports.)

[SloverUT]

Because it is a fact.

Will having a playoff decrease the excitement for certain games, like the Auburn-Alabama game. Would all of OSU's fans be celebrating Auburn's win if we were already in the playoff? Maybe because we might get a better seed. But it wouldn't be the uproar that it is now. This is a fact.

Will other team's fans be more excited because of the playoff, yea. If it was an 8 team play off. A few teams, from 9-12 would have fans who would be watching a lot of games in the top 8. This is a fact. Would it bring the national attention like the Alabama Auburn game, I don't think so, not as much.

We are not saying one or the other doesn't happen. What the opinion is which one is more important, or more meaningful.

To me, when you have a storied rivalry that has national championship implications because the NC game is only for two teams. That brings in much more national excitement, then a few teams buying for those last few tournament spots.

That is what you think Saevel.  You think that game was more important because it was a storied rivalry and had N.C. impliciations.  That is what YOU "feel".  That doesn't mean that is what everyone thinks, so that doesn't make it a fact.  I assure you that Northern Illinois fans would think the regular season would be more important if going undefeated gave them a shot to anything in regards to being close to a N.C. game.

If different people think different things and feel differently about it, it is not a fact.

It is also sad that we keep coming back to one game.  One game out of the entire year that everyone is going crazy about.  Don't you think its sad that we are only that excited about ONE game?

I find it a bit amusing that we are arguing that a playoff would make games like Auburn/Bama irrelavent when I think it would make it more relevent.  Those games would still have playoff implications, we would still get to see them play more in the playoffs, and still have storied rivalries.  It would also create the possibility of created new rivalries because it would allow teams who don't normally play each other, to play more often.

Note: Most importantly, and something I haven't added yet, is that every season doesn't have games at the end of the year like the Auburn/Bama game did this year.  Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't.  We don't often get top 5 teams paired off so late in the season.  However, the playoff system ensures this happens year in and year out.

[SloverUT]

It's a fact.

For a team like Alabama the regular season would be less important.

For a team like Stanford the regular season would be more important (because they have to stay in the top 8 or whatever).

It's not an opinion whether the above things are true. They are. The regular season currently doesn't mean much to a team like Stanford because they aren't going to be capable of competing for the final biggest trophy. For a team like Alabama, they can lose to Auburn but still have the chance to finish the season as the ultimate winner.

(I only know the place of these teams because I looked them up. Still don't care about college sports.)

I see what you did there.  I can't argue the semantics of this comment but it is a bit of a trickster move.

Saevel, I am also surprised you are this adamant about the regular season.  If Ohio State had lost to Michigan they would have been on the outside looking in on the N.C. game.  The top 4 would have been FSU/Auburn/Mizzou/Bama or maybe Bama/Mizzou.  Three of those teams would have one loss just like Ohio State but they would be out of the picture because the N.C. game would most likely be FSU vs the Winner of Auburn/Mizzou.

That is what I want to avoid and why I am for the playoff system.  It reduces situations like the one above.

[phan52]

I think it's closer to fact than opinion, but the facts don't necessarily agree with either of you.

There will be some of those games, yes, but at the same time Alabama could have lost to Auburn like they did and if they still make the playoffs, that game didn't completely end their title run.

On the flip side, the regular season will be more important to teams that are outside the top few spots, because they'll want to make sure they get into the top eight or 16 or whatever - I don't care one bit about college sports - so their games will matter when normally they'd know from the outset that they're not going to be competing for a spot in the top two.

Because you don't care, you have a biased perspective. I think all of the games matter to the better programs in college sports, particularly to the players, coaches and their fans. Look at Penn State, for example. You would think that they have absolutely nothing to play for because they are bowl ineligible, yet the fans still have the same interest and their games are still mostly competitive because the coaches and players are all in. They ruined Wisconsin's season just last weekend.

Of course, I am biased with the opposite perspective because I care and I enjoy college sports, particularly football and basketball. I'll be at a college hoops game tonight.

[SloverUT]

5 days until heisman ballots. Who gets it?

[Golfingdad]

It isn't a fact GD, it is your opinion.  The regular season won't be less important cause there will still be games where if you don't  win you won't be in the race.  As I stated above, the playoff will only cause there to be more games where this is the fact.  As I mentioned above in last weeks game there was only three really important games despite tons being played.   The only games that mattered were OSU vs Michigan, FSU vs (forgot who they played), and Auburn vs Alabama.  If a 16 game playoff was installed, as an example, there would have been several games where if a team didn't win they wouldn't make the playoffs and thus making the games more important.  I'll take 7 or 8 important games instead of three.  I would also think it would give those teams who lose a fluker early in the season incentive to keep plugging away as there entire season wasn't shot with one loss.

Not to mention the fact that a playoff system makes seasons like Northern Illinois more important considering they are undefeated and have no chance at playing in the N.C. game.

A good example would be the Oregon/Oregon State game.  Other than it being an in state rivalry it wasn't a very important game.  But if there was a 16 team playoff it would have been very important to Oregon as it would have allowed them to still have a chance at the pie.  Thus my theory that the regular season would be relevant and more important for the entire season for many more teams than it is currently.

What I mean when I say it's a fact is simply this (and I'm still using last weeks game as my example):

Alabama is out of the NT hunt because of that loss (barring a miracle this weekend), but in an 8-team playoff scenario like we're discussing they would still be right in the middle of the title hunt.  That isn't opinion, that is fact.  Therefore, that loss would mean a heck of a lot less to them in a playoff system than it currently does.  A golfing comparison would be something like saying that a missed 3' birdie putt on the last hole of the last day of the qualifying stage of Q-school that drops a guy from 10th place to 11th place, but still well undel the cut line is equally as important as the same missed putt were he ON the cut line.

Now, let's switch away from the fact portion of the debate and into the opinion portion. ;)  I disagree with your statement above in bold.  I would channel my inner Lee Corso here and say "Not so fast, my friend."  You're basing this on the assumption that a team like Northern Illinois definitely wants to play for a national title.  As a Fresno State fan (who was in place for a BCS bowl until last Friday), I would argue that the opposite may be true.  I know that my team isn't nearly as good as the other FSU, or Ohio State or Alabama, and they would be huge underdogs in any one game against any of those guys.  Moreso, their chances of winning 3 games against that competition is less than zero.  I think I would actually prefer that they have a chance to plan for one big game against Oklahoma State or Baylor or Michigan State and have at least a 5-10% chance at ending their season with a win.  I say "may" because I don't really know.  Maybe next time we put ourselves in position and its for a playoff spot, I will be more excited.  But I don't know.  I'm just saying that your bold statement is certainly not a given.

Also, consider the money.  BCS games bring huge payouts for the schools and conferences involved.  I don't know if a playoff system would provide the same amount, or more, or less, but it has to be a huge consideration, especially when you're talking about the small schools.

[RPMPIRE]

5 days until heisman ballots. Who gets it?

Right now, I think Winston will win, but I can see some voters are hesitant because of the possibility of him getting charges against him. I would like to see Jordan Lynch win it, but I think Winston is the winner by a long shot.

[saevel25]

Because you don't care, you have a biased perspective. I think all of the games matter to the better programs in college sports, particularly to the players, coaches and their fans. Look at Penn State, for example. You would think that they have absolutely nothing to play for because they are bowl ineligible, yet the fans still have the same interest and their games are still mostly competitive because the coaches and players are all in. They ruined Wisconsin's season just last weekend.

Of course, I am biased with the opposite perspective because I care and I enjoy college sports, particularly football and basketball. I'll be at a college hoops game tonight.

Just because he doesn't care about college football, doesn't mean that he is biased against it. Who do you think is more biased, a juror who is a young mother who can sympathize with the defendant, or someone who doesn't sympathize and can have a clear look. Out of any of us, Erik is the most unbiased because he doesn't have a vested interest in college football by being a fan. He can sit back and look at it objectively.

Of course they have something to play for. Penn State's coaches did a great job getting them up for that game. That point means nothing to the argument that is being discussed. There was nothing being said that no one cared, or their wasn't interest. It is an argument about the LEVEL of interest.

What I mean when I say it's a fact is simply this (and I'm still using last weeks game as my example):

Alabama is out of the NT hunt because of that loss (barring a miracle this weekend), but in an 8-team playoff scenario like we're discussing they would still be right in the middle of the title hunt.  That isn't opinion, that is fact.  Therefore, that loss would mean a heck of a lot less to them in a playoff system than it currently does.  A golfing comparison would be something like saying that a missed 3' birdie putt on the last hole of the last day of the qualifying stage of Q-school that drops a guy from 10th place to 11th place, but still well undel the cut line is equally as important as the same missed putt were he ON the cut line.

Now, let's switch away from the fact portion of the debate and into the opinion portion. ;)  I disagree with your statement above in bold.  I would channel my inner Lee Corso here and say "Not so fast, my friend."  You're basing this on the assumption that a team like Northern Illinois definitely wants to play for a national title.  As a Fresno State fan (who was in place for a BCS bowl until last Friday), I would argue that the opposite may be true.  I know that my team isn't nearly as good as the other FSU, or Ohio State or Alabama, and they would be huge underdogs in any one game against any of those guys.  Moreso, their chances of winning 3 games against that competition is less than zero.  I think I would actually prefer that they have a chance to plan for one big game against Oklahoma State or Baylor or Michigan State and have at least a 5-10% chance at ending their season with a win.  I say "may" because I don't really know.  Maybe next time we put ourselves in position and its for a playoff spot, I will be more excited.  But I don't know.  I'm just saying that your bold statement is certainly not a given.

Also, consider the money.  BCS games bring huge payouts for the schools and conferences involved.  I don't know if a playoff system would provide the same amount, or more, or less, but it has to be a huge consideration, especially when you're talking about the small schools.

To channel my inner Corso, "NOT SO FAST MY FRIEND!". Yes as a fan, you might think this. As a player there is NO WAY they would turn down a chance to compete for a National Championship. Doesn't matter if they get plastered, but you do not pass up that shot. Would it be nice to win a game, yes. To give up before they even tried, NO WAY!!!

[Golfingdad]

5 days until heisman ballots. Who gets it?

Duh ... the guy who leads the nation in passing yards and touchdowns (and no, its not just cuz he threw it 9000 times - he is third in the nation in completion percentage as well at 70.3%), and also a possible top 5 draft pick next season ... Derek Carr!!!!!!!

Seriously though ... I don't know.  Are enough voters going to be scared of choosing Winston before his legal troubles are cleared up?  If so, he's probably the winner.  Otherwise ... I don't know.  AJ MCcarron?

[Golfingdad]

To channel my inner Corso, "NOT SO FAST MY FRIEND!". Yes as a fan, you might think this. As a player there is NO WAY they would turn down a chance to compete for a National Championship. Doesn't matter if they get plastered, but you do not pass up that shot. Would it be nice to win a game, yes. To give up before they even tried, NO WAY!!!

Oh, certainly.  Guys playing for New Mexico State probably believe that they have a shot at beating Alabama if given the chance.  I was careful to make it clear there that it was an opinion, and actually not even a set one.  That's why I said "may."  I also qualified it at the end saying I don't even really know if I'd feel that way in that position (but I hope I have the chance someday! ;))

Just mainly trying to point out that it's not necessarily a guarantee.

[phan52]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

I think it's closer to fact than opinion, but the facts don't necessarily agree with either of you.

There will be some of those games, yes, but at the same time Alabama could have lost to Auburn like they did and if they still make the playoffs, that game didn't completely end their title run.

On the flip side, the regular season will be more important to teams that are outside the top few spots, because they'll want to make sure they get into the top eight or 16 or whatever - I don't care one bit about college sports - so their games will matter when normally they'd know from the outset that they're not going to be competing for a spot in the top two.

Originally Posted by phan52

Because you don't care, you have a biased perspective. I think all of the games matter to the better programs in college sports, particularly to the players, coaches and their fans. Look at Penn State, for example. You would think that they have absolutely nothing to play for because they are bowl ineligible, yet the fans still have the same interest and their games are still mostly competitive because the coaches and players are all in. They ruined Wisconsin's season just last weekend.

Of course, I am biased with the opposite perspective because I care and I enjoy college sports, particularly football and basketball. I'll be at a college hoops game tonight.

Originally Posted by saevel25

Just because he doesn't care about college football, doesn't mean that he is biased against it. Who do you think is more biased, a juror who is a young mother who can sympathize with the defendant, or someone who doesn't sympathize and can have a clear look. Out of any of us, Erik is the most unbiased because he doesn't have a vested interest in college football by being a fan. He can sit back and look at it objectively.

Of course they have something to play for. Penn State's coaches did a great job getting them up for that game. That point means nothing to the argument that is being discussed. There was nothing being said that no one cared, or their wasn't interest. It is an argument about the LEVEL of interest.

To channel my inner Corso, "NOT SO FAST MY FRIEND!". Yes as a fan, you might think this. As a player there is NO WAY they would turn down a chance to compete for a National Championship. Doesn't matter if they get plastered, but you do not pass up that shot. Would it be nice to win a game, yes. To give up before they even tried, NO WAY!!!

I disagree. By reading the post that I responded to, it is easy to surmise that he is suggesting that Alabama maybe wouldn't be all in against Auburn if they thought that they had a backup like a playoff system.

Try to imagine Alabama not being all in against Auburn under any circumstance. You can't.

[iacas]

Because you don't care, you have a biased perspective.

I feel that you've once again failed to read what I've written. You're assuming things that aren't there. And you can't come back with "but they are" because I'm the author of my posts, and I can tell you that not once did I consider whether players would "care" about a rivalry game, or make any comments that even touched on that topic.

That point means nothing to the argument that is being discussed. There was nothing being said that no one cared, or their wasn't interest. It is an argument about the LEVEL of interest.

Yes… and the impact that any one game has on the final goal. It's increased for a contending team in the current scenario, and decreased for others who aren't contenders for the top two spots. Playoffs lessen the impact on the top teams and increase it on the playoff-level teams.

I disagree. By reading the post that I responded to, it is easy to surmise that he is suggesting that Alabama maybe wouldn't be all in against Auburn if they thought that they had a backup like a playoff system. Try to imagine Alabama not being all in against Auburn under any circumstance. You can't.

You're wrong about what I'm suggesting. That's not what I said. I didn't say anything about how much the players would care about a game, or anything like that. I simply said that if by losing to a team, a #1 ranked team drops to #4 but is still in the playoffs, then that game matters less to the ultimate goal of winning the last and biggest playoff game than it does under the current system.

Professional sports have rivalries. Hockey's a good example because the season is pretty long (but not so long as in baseball where you might play the same team 10+ times a year). Players will get up for rivalry games, but at the end of the day, they could lose ALL of them and still make the playoffs and win the Stanley Cup.

[MS256]

Sometimes the subject comes up of what kind of chance undefeated teams from non-qualifying conferences would have in a game against winners of automatic qualifying conferences.

I probably give those teams more of a chance more often than most fans, but I also probably penalize those teams more than most fans for having an easier road to get there.

In other words I think those teams have a good chance of competing very well against the "big boys" in a single game but I also think they would be 7 and 4 if they were in a major conference because I don't think they have the personnel to go through the grind. Because of that opinion I am biased against putting them in a championship game.

[Golfingdad]

Sometimes the subject comes up of what kind of chance undefeated teams from non-qualifying conferences would have in a game against winners of automatic qualifying conferences.

I probably give those teams more of a chance more often than most fans, but I also probably penalize those teams more than most fans for having an easier road to get there.

In other words I think those teams have a good chance of competing very well against the "big boys" in a single game but I also think they would be 7 and 4 if they were in a major conference because I don't think they have the personnel to go through the grind. Because of that opinion I am biased against putting them in a championship game.

It pains me to admit this (as a diehard fan of a non-AQ) but I would tend to agree.  And this is part of the reason why I tend to think that I (as a non-player ... obviously as @saevel25 points out, players would think differently) would prefer the one-time shot at the big boys in a BCS game than a spot in a playoff format that would require them to win 3 or 4 against those teams.**

A good example for this is Fresno State in 2005.  They were 8-1 and ranked 16th going into their 10th game.  The one loss was in the second week of the season by 3 points at Oregon.  Their next opponent was #1 USC, led by Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush, who was on a 32 game winning streak.  The game was in the LA Coliseum.  We ended up giving them their second toughest game of the season to that point.  (The toughest was ND - the one where Leinart pushed Bush into the end zone).  The game was back and forth with Fresno leading with only 9 minutes left in the game.  It ended on an INT near the end zone with 1 minute left and FSU down by 8.

Other than that Oregon loss, we had basically 8 "easy" games up to that point.  After the USC loss??? They lost every remaining game. :(  Too much prep and emotion and effort went into that one game, and they just didn't have enough to keep going after that.

---------------------------

**non-AQ teams have a 5-2 record in BCS games, and a 4-1 record against AQ's.  It's a pretty safe bet, though, that the chances of those teams winning 3 games against top ranked AQ schools was very remote.

[SloverUT]

It pains me to admit this (as a diehard fan of a non-AQ) but I would tend to agree.  And this is part of the reason why I tend to think that I (as a non-player ... obviously as @saevel25 points out, players would think differently) would prefer the one-time shot at the big boys in a BCS game than a spot in a playoff format that would require them to win 3 or 4 against those teams.**

A good example for this is Fresno State in 2005.  They were 8-1 and ranked 16th going into their 10th game.  The one loss was in the second week of the season by 3 points at Oregon.  Their next opponent was #1 USC, led by Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush, who was on a 32 game winning streak.  The game was in the LA Coliseum.  We ended up giving them their second toughest game of the season to that point.  (The toughest was ND - the one where Leinart pushed Bush into the end zone).  The game was back and forth with Fresno leading with only 9 minutes left in the game.  It ended on an INT near the end zone with 1 minute left and FSU down by 8.

Other than that Oregon loss, we had basically 8 "easy" games up to that point.  After the USC loss??? They lost every remaining game. :(  Too much prep and emotion and effort went into that one game, and they just didn't have enough to keep going after that.

---------------------------

**non-AQ teams have a 5-2 record in BCS games, and a 4-1 record against AQ's.  It's a pretty safe bet, though, that the chances of those teams winning 3 games against top ranked AQ schools was very remote.

A point you have to consider though is recruiting.  You are obviously a fan of Fresno State.  I honestly have never seen Fresno State play a football game.  Some of it has to due with me being EST and some of it to do with them being a smaller school.  However, if Fresno State was able to make the playoffs it would do quite a few things to help their program.

1) It helps them get exposure to people who generally would never see them play and also helps them to get on National Television.

2)It helps build the prestige of the program and to build a history.

3) #1 and #2 combine to help the school get new recruits that can better the program and increase their chances of winning.

If Fresno State was #16 this year and they had to play Florida State they are still going to be on National T.V. in a large atmosphere type game.  If they lose, they were still seen playing in a great atmosphere and potential recruits get excited about that.  If they win, even better, because they just beat a powerhouse team in a playoff environment.  Never mind the fact that they may not be able to win that second game.  That win against FSU would help them out in a lot of ways and also they would get big $$ for it.