Official argue about all dumb things BCS and CFB playoff thread

[M2d]

[ QUOTE ]
Ohio State would be a lock over Hawaii, not LSU or USC. I meant to say I'd love for tOSU to play Hawaii.

[/ QUOTE ]

bring it

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ohio State would be a lock over Hawaii, not LSU or USC. I meant to say I'd love for tOSU to play Hawaii.

[/ QUOTE ]

bring it

[/ QUOTE ]

I would take Ohio State -17 against Hawaii. I just checked and Sagarin Predictor has Ohio State better by 14 points. Ohio State is 3 points better than LSU according to the predictor, and 5 points better than USC. Since it doesn't take into account the injuries USC had, it should be close to a pick-em against USC. After watching LSU week in and week out, the 3 point line favoring OSU seems about right.

[eviljeff]

[ QUOTE ]
8 team playoff. Top 2 teams get a bye to the 3rd round.

[/ QUOTE ]

we already have this

[Bump_Bailey]

[ QUOTE ]
10 game regular season, 16 team playoff

[/ QUOTE ]

The correct answer. Just like 1-AA, first round game at better seed. Then second round and further at Pasadena, New Orleans, etc.

[MicroBob]

Yeah, something like this.
Just let the conference winners in even from the mid-majors. It works for college hoops just fine. Even though a 16 seed has never beaten a 1 seed there have still been some exciting games. You can still keep the conference championships to determine who represents each conference.

You will have 5 at-larges plus champs of the 11 conferences:
ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big 10, C-USA, MAC, MWC, Pac 10, SEC, Sun Belt, WAC


Other elgibile teams can still go to smaller bowl games. I don't think this set-up makes it any less prestigious for 6th place Big 10 or 4th place CUSA or 3rd place MAC to go play at the Fort Worth Bowl or Emerald Bowl or Pointsettia Bowl or GMAC Bowl, etc.

These smaller bowls don't exactly need to be protected in the first place imo. Many of them are relatively new and only came on the scene because they are able to take advantage of the system and get a TV contract, etc.
hell, most people joke about the sillyness and pointlessness of some of these smaller bowl games.


It wasn't too long ago, less than 10 years, that a 10-1 Miami, Ohio team that beat a #11 ranked UNC did not get an invite to any bowl simply because there weren't enough bowls around and they just weren't a big enough attraction.
Only one MAC team went to a bowl and that year Marshall with Pennington and Moss went 11-0.
Meanwhile, 6-5 UNC went to the Las Vegas Bowl that year.

I think there were 16 or 17 bowl games 10 yrs ago perhaps...as opposed to 32 or 33 now I think.

Now you have 3 bowl games guaranteed for the MAC and 5 bowl games for the freaking CUSA. This is great for those conferences. They get revenue and get on TV, etc etc.
But these are bowl games that are NOT steeped in tradition or in dying need of being preserved.
Even the small schools that get their chance to go to bowls no longer get THAT excited about it.
And again, I'm not even sure that a playoff system would need to detract from the pagentry and excitement that is the Motor City Bowl one little bit.

I mean, it's nice for Troy to go to a bowl, but I think they are more excited about competing with an SEC team in the regular season than they are about taking on a Northern Illinois in the Emerald Bowl like they did a couple yrs ago.


But think of the excitement for a Central Michigan or Hawaii or BYU or UCF if we set it up so that they get their shot at LSU or WV or whoever.
Yeah, most of the time they'll get killed. But I honestly don't see why that's such a horrible thing when we have the exact same thing in the college hoops tourney every year.

[ClarkNasty]

My understanding is that the problem isn't that a tourney would make less money than the Bowls. The problem is that tourney revenue would have to be split amongst all teams and not just the BCS teams.

[Mike Cuneo]

The reason I hate the BCS is, that in the best possible situation (clear cut #1 and #2), then it "works fine". However, it isn't needed in this case. Who needs the computers to tell you who the obvious #1 and #2 are? In all other situations, especially this year, it's up for debate.

There should be drastic changes, every "major" conference needs a championship game. So get more teams in the Big East and Big 10 and get everyone a championship game. The winners of those get auto bid to the playoff. This completely smashes the lame argument that the regular season is so meaningful now and would be ruined by a playoff. Last I checked, NCAAB regular season is still important and intense. Teams chasing a playoff spot in fb would want to win every game obviously. There would still be rivalries. I'm not sure how people can make the "regular season would be diminished with a playoff" argument.

Every game isn't ultra-important, just because a team loses early and it knocks them out of the BCS #1 race doesn't make every other game meaningless. Michigan lost 2 to start the year, and still played hard and won 8 in a row, this is why a playoff would be great, teams who start slow but finish well could and should be considered championship contenders. Also teams need to stop playing Divison 2 teams, it's a huge waste of time, either the team wins easily or they somehow lose and are just humiliated.

Sort of reminds me of the whole "Tim Tebow shouldn't win the Heisman, he's only a Soph." argument I sometimes hear. Why does age or class even have a factor in this? If no one that young has won it before, maybe they weren't mature enough to take on tough college competition. Tebow has been all season and deserves the award. I think him being a Soph actually should help his cause, but I haven't heard anyone say that.

[critikal]

Playoffs suck and are more of a crapshoot than the current system. Plus some of these kids are already playing 14 game seasons which is absolutely ridiculous. If a playoff is added we'd be forcing some unpaid college kids to play in as many games as professional football players. College players should be getting paid anyways.

[BigSoonerFan]

The reason we need a playoff is, and with more than four teams, is sample size. If you really want to find out who the best team is (at least by proving it on the field), then the current system doesn't provide that. With 7/8/9 games within conferences and very few non-conference games between top teams, you have no idea how strong each team or conference is. Right now Missouri and WVU are at the top, but most people consider that there are at least 3 or 4 teams better than they are. At least an 8 team, better yet 16 team, playoff is needed to determine who deserves to be called the best.

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
Playoffs suck and are more of a crapshoot than the current system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing it out is more of a crapshoot?

[ QUOTE ]
College players should be getting paid anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's for another thread.