Official argue about all dumb things BCS and CFB playoff thread

[Dudd]

One thing I'd really like to see is to only allow computer rankings that publish their formula. I'm a little leery currently of how couched in secrecy all of them except one are, transparency is a good thing.

[Needle77]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is, of course, Bowl money to worry about, too. Ugh. This will never get done.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think there would be money in a playoff?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bowl money argument is so absurd.

You could still have all the non-bcs bowls, the Motor city bowl wouldn't be any more meaningless than it already is. It wouldn't devalue their product one bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's gonna come down to how to spread the BCS money out, you don't want to give it to the same team in the semi's and the finals. I think that would be absurd, but it can obviously be fixed.

FTW, all I want to see is a +1 and that is all. I love the bowl system and wouldn't want anything to ever have it taken away from NCAAF. So do a 4 team playoff to make everyone happy and stop there please. I think they are just afraid that if they concede that then when will they be forced to concede a 6 team with a top 2 bye week or a 8 team playoffs, ect.

[Zimmer4141]

I'd love to see an 8 team playoff. 6 BCS Conference champions. The 2 extra spots go to 1. Any other undefeated team, then 2. The best available team as determined by whatever formula is deemed best to determine the best at large team.

I just think this would be very fun. Also, throw in home field advantage for the first 2 games. I'd love to see USC or Florida try to come to the Big House or the Horseshoe and win a game in December.

[Toro]

The problem with having an only 4 team playoff is that there aren't enough major bowl games as this system would yield only 3 major bowls. Currently the BSC has 4 major bowls and then the championship a week later, 5 total major bowls.

With an 8 team playoff, play 4 major bowls as scheduled around New years Day and then the 4 winners play the next week and then the championship game the following week, 6 major bowls, every year rotating the bowls.

[UATrewqaz]

I fully support a 4 team playoff.

This would keep the regular season very important, losing a single game puts you in jeopardy of missing the playoff, and losing two eliminates you 99% of the time.

We already have a 2 team playoff so expanding it to 4 is a less dramatic step than to a larger number.

And as others have pointed out, you are playing for #1 so #5 really has no business complaining. They WILL of course complain, but to hell with them.

Expanding the playoff to including too many teams (8 or even some people say 16) is just far too many. It would make the regular season much less important. You would have many two loss and even three loss teams making it every year. Also the preseason polls (which are a load of crap and should be abolished) would decide which 2-3 loss teams actually made it, as there are MANY 2-3 loss teams at the end of the year.

Also - Carl from Aqua Teen Hunger Force talks about the BCS

[iron81]

Easiest way to implement a 4 team playoff would be to just reseed the BCS after the Jan 1 bowls and let the top 2 play the NC game. The top 4 teams would have to win their game and its not like a team that just lost its bowl game would ever play the NC game.

The advantage of this is that it keeps the existing powers happy. The NC game is owned by the other BCS bowls so you wouldn't be taking any money out of their pocket and it keeps the schools and alumni happy because it preserves the existing bowl structure.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Expanding the playoff to including too many teams (8 or even some people say 16) is just far too many. It would make the regular season much less important.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it would make the post-season much more exciting; and it's not as if a 16 team playoff lets in that many teams, especially if it's limited to the 11 conference winners and 5 at-large teams. For a BCS school, getting into such a playoff would likely mean: 1) winning their conference, which I think most all of us agree should be rewarded or 2) getting an at-large spot, which would probably mean losing no more than two games.

I fail to see how this makes the regular season irrelevant, since it's entirely possible that under the current BCS system, a 2-loss team might find itself in the national title game if WVU and Mizzou both lose this weekend. And a 16-team system that awards spots to the Conf. champions plus 5 at-large teams would put a premium on being seeded highly to ensure a 1st round matchup against the Sun Belt or WAC champion.

In other words, if a playoff would make the regular season irrelevant (despite the fact it would almost naturally exclude non-conf. champ teams with more than 2 losses), then isn't the current BCS system making the regular season similarly meaningless, since a two-loss team like Georgia could conceivably get into the national title game if Mizzou and WVU lose this weekend? It is, of course, a matter of degree; the current incarnation of the BCS makes the regular season very meaningful, yes. But I don't think that a playoff would markedly depreciate the value of the regular season so drastically that we shouldn't consider the benefits.

I think everyone agrees that the #5, or #8, or #16 team doesn't have a legitimate gripe or claim to the national title; but I don't think that's what playoff advocates are arguing.

I think the claim is that 8 or 16 team playoff would be orgasmic for a college football fan, and would make the 3 or 4 weekends that it was held on the greatest weekends of the year, rivaling or surpassing the NCAAB basketball tournament.

Bowl season has its charm, no doubt. But I think a CFB playoff, if done correctly, could become the premier sporting 'event' in the country. My interest in a playoff isn't to "crown the best team as the legitimate national champion" -- I'm not sure there's any system that can do that, given the natural sample size problems college football presents. But at least a playoff would provide 3 to 4 weeks of college football awesomeness everyone could appreciate.

The chances of this getting done are so small. There's so much guaranteed bowl money floating around, and everyone is getting a piece that even if all parties agreed a playoff would generate more TV and sponsorship revenue, diving it up in a way that doesn't scare everyone in the process would probably be impossible, given that the bowl system is still a huge guaranteed cash cow for a lot of the power players involved. The current 'system' may be broke for fans looking to anoint a 'real' national champion, or a 13-0 Auburn program that doesn't get to buy rings, but I suspect it's "working" for a lot of athletic departments who are swimming around in the bowl monies. Northwestern (sorry iron) doesn't have to pour too much money into it's athletic department to make the Motor City Bowl and then split the BCS monies with the rest of the conference; will a playoff divide up the money the same way? Is that conceivable? What about home gates and ticket monies? Surely, a 16 team type system that involved playing the playoff games at neutral sites would be logistically difficult; there would be a lot of pressure to play a round or two on campuses. How does gate revenue get divided? Does it get divided? Who owns the broadcast rights? I'm not saying these are impossible hurdles, but they're difficult ones.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
The chances of this getting done are so small. There's so much guaranteed bowl money floating around, and everyone is getting a piece that even if all parties agreed a playoff would generate more TV and sponsorship revenue, diving it up in a way that doesn't scare everyone in the process would probably be impossible, given that the bowl system is still a huge guaranteed cash cow for a lot of the power players involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's precisely the point. A 16 team playoff has basically 0% chance of happening within the next 10 years. A 4-team playoff would be as simple as changing the format such that the Orange Bowl and the Sugar Bowl are the semi-finals and the NC game is the final (with the semi-finals rotating to Rose and Fiesta the next year).

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, i've seen two Ohio State games this year, against Illinois and Michigan, and Ohio State looked impressive in neither, at least offensively. i realize they blew out a bunch of other teams but who was good exactly? The worst part about all of this is even if some of these Rose Bowl matchups look like potential national championships USC will own because its basically home field for us, and last time I checked none of these teams have Vince Young on their team.

[/ QUOTE ]

I watched two USC games all year; Stanford and Washington. I have no idea how anybody could possibly put them in the top 25.

Any team can look bad if you cherry-pick the worst aspects of its worst games. It's interesting that you mention Ohio State's offensive struggles against Michigan yet fail to note that they allowed 91 yards of offense to the Wolverines.

Also, the Buckeyes have two big wins against top 30 teams; Penn State and Wisconsin. In addition, Ohio State didn't nearly squander its lead against Washington like a certain team from Los Angeles.

[tshort]

6 team playoff so the #1 and #2 ranked BCS teams still have a deserved edge.

Presuming you use 5 "BCS bowls" for these 5 games, the problem arises cutting out 4 teams from these high $ games.