Archived Topic

A Playoff- Is it Really that Hard?

by Mars · 12/9/2009

Mars

12/9/2009, 7:39:31 AM

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=ArhBo6JdFC_jSa3EZe0pdNocvrYF?slug=dw-ncaafplayoff120709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

http://l.yimg.com/a/p/sp/tools/med/2009/12/ipt/1260176065.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I agree with 16 teams.

I agree with 11 conference champs.

I would set a 2 teams per conference limit.

And I would make it so they had to be on opposite sides of the bracket.

And I would have the 5 at-larges ranked the five lowest (12-16).

Italics

12/9/2009, 9:30:04 AM

Wow, that was perhaps the best sports article I've ever read.

Highly recommended read!

GolfDiveNCougs

12/9/2009, 1:36:58 PM

I liked it too. I like the tone this guy takes. He's very matter-of-fact, and he full on admits that all of these ideas have been floating around for years. He did a great job consolidating them.

Sammich

12/9/2009, 4:10:51 PM

Good article. I think there's a better answer for the long season problem though: Take one/two games out of everyone's schedule. Most teams are playing two/three out-of-conference games, which under the bowl system is necessary to create their rankings network. Under this system those three games become just that---extra games---because even the at-large bids can be selected with less data (how many teams are going to go 8-1 or 9-1 in their regular season, losing only to the conf. champs? Then use the ranking of the OOC game to filter through those guys to pick out the best 4). The highly touted cartel teams usually play only one real out of conference game a year anyway---so what do we really learn from Florida playing Southwestern Chattanooga State besides that a small university will take a loss for money?

I like that he counters the "bowls are a good reward for lesser teams argument" by allowing most bowls to still exist outside the playoff---they just wouldn't include national championship contenders.

Guest

12/9/2009, 6:56:43 PM

I agree. Make it so.

mormonrasta

12/9/2009, 10:35:54 PM

Why do we need a 16 team playoff when only 5 teams have proven worthy of a NC?

Congratulations Alabama. You beat Troy and Ohio State. In order to play for then national title you must play the winner of LSU-Florida even though you already beat them in the regular season. Your SEC championship is meaningless. LSU and Florida get a 2nd chance, but you don't get one if they beat you.

Let's not change a bad system and replace it with another bad system.

mormonrasta

12/9/2009, 10:38:15 PM

Sammich wrote:
Good article. I think there's a better answer for the long season problem though: Take one/two games out of everyone's schedule.

This is not an option. The regular season in college football generates alot more money than any postseason option. Canceling 120 games to make room for 15 more games will never happen.

Mars

12/9/2009, 11:02:51 PM

mormonrasta wrote:
Why do we need a 16 team playoff when only 5 teams have proven worthy of a NC?

You have to be undefeated to be #1? Well there goes a huge chunk of sports history... :roll:

Sammich

12/9/2009, 11:57:45 PM

mormonrasta wrote:
Good article. I think there's a better answer for the long season problem though: Take one/two games out of everyone's schedule.

This is not an option. The regular season in college football generates alot more money than any postseason option. Canceling 120 games to make room for 15 more games will never happen.

Good point. And this whole thing being about money again rears its ugly head.

GolfDiveNCougs

12/10/2009, 12:05:43 AM

mormonrasta wrote:
Why do we need a 16 team playoff when only 5 teams have proven worthy of a NC?

Congratulations Alabama. You beat Troy and Ohio State. In order to play for then national title you must play the winner of LSU-Florida even though you already beat them in the regular season. Your SEC championship is meaningless. LSU and Florida get a 2nd chance, but you don't get one if they beat you.

Let's not change a bad system and replace it with another bad system.

You're right, man, that whole March Madness thing SUCKS, man.

Italics

12/10/2009, 12:18:54 AM

mormonrasta wrote:
1. Why do we need a 16 team playoff when only 5 teams have proven worthy of a NC?

2. Congratulations Alabama. You beat Troy and Ohio State. In order to play for then national title you must play the winner of LSU-Florida even though you already beat them in the regular season. Your SEC championship is meaningless. LSU and Florida get a 2nd chance, but you don't get one if they beat you.

3. Let's not change a bad system and replace it with another bad system.

1. So that 100% of the worthy teams get a chance, not 40%. That makes good sense, no?

2. This happens in nearly every other sport. In the NFL, NBA, MLB, College Basketball, etc. etc. there is always a pretty good chance that a team you will be meeting in the playoffs will be a team you have already played once in the regular season. Why is this suddenly so hard for you to swallow if it happens in the NCAAF?

3. If both systems are "bad," it is certainly to different degrees. The BCS sucks to epic proportions.

mormonrasta

12/10/2009, 2:35:21 AM

Italics wrote:
1. Why do we need a 16 team playoff when only 5 teams have proven worthy of a NC?

2. Congratulations Alabama. You beat Troy and Ohio State. In order to play for then national title you must play the winner of LSU-Florida even though you already beat them in the regular season. Your SEC championship is meaningless. LSU and Florida get a 2nd chance, but you don't get one if they beat you.

3. Let's not change a bad system and replace it with another bad system.

1. So that 100% of the worthy teams get a chance, not 40%. That makes good sense, no?

2. This happens in nearly every other sport. In the NFL, NBA, MLB, College Basketball, etc. etc. there is always a pretty good chance that a team you will be meeting in the playoffs will be a team you have already played once in the regular season. Why is this suddenly so hard for you to swallow if it happens in the NCAAF?

3. If both systems are "bad," it is certainly to different degrees. The BCS sucks to epic proportions.

I agree with #1 and disagree with #3.

I think a better question is why do you enjoy swallowing #2? I want the regular season to mean more than seeding, byes, or home field advantage. The other sports think you are stupid and want you to to think that seeding, byes, and home field advantage are what you should spend most of your season trying to accomplish.

I think if you win your conference then you are the only team from that conference that can even remotely claim the right to a championship. It's not a coincedence that every BCS champion is a conference champion and that will be true this year. I don't want to change to a system where they try to tell me LSU is the best team in the country because they won 4 games in a row when I saw Alabama be a better team over 4 months. It's go with the evil you know I guess.

Schmoe

12/10/2009, 2:42:31 AM

Also, if you ran an eight-team playoff this year with the top eight conference champions, you'd have BSU, TCU, Oregon, Texas, OSU, Bama, Cingy, and GT. Great matchups, excellent competition, and a true national champion, what could be better?

GolfDiveNCougs

12/10/2009, 3:17:51 AM

mormonrasta wrote:
It's not a coincedence that every BCS champion is a conference champion and that will be true this year.

rasta, that's revisionist enough I have to call bull crap on it. So do the 2001 Colorado AND Oregon teams, AND the 2003 Southern California AND Michigan teams. Sure, the eventual winner of the title game each year has happened to be a conference champion winner, karma has taken your argument that far, but there sure as hell is precident under the current system to stick teams IN the title game that AREN'T conference champs, just dumb luck that neither of them won it! Mean time, legit champs those years looked on PISSED as the BCS sold out to BIGGER Royalty names.

PLEASE tell me I'm wrong. I BEG you!!!

Schmoe

12/10/2009, 3:22:34 AM

It's because they only let conference champions into the BCS championship game. If 99% of the teams going meet that criteria, then there's a good chance that the winner will meet it as well.

GolfDiveNCougs

12/10/2009, 3:46:28 AM

Schmoe wrote:
It's because they only let conference champions into the BCS championship game. If 99% of the teams going meet that criteria, then there's a good chance that the winner will meet it as well.

Uhh, Schmoe, please refer to my previous post about that. 2 years in 12 is a little higher than 1%.

CougarPeasant

12/10/2009, 3:48:31 AM

So when Nebraska still went to the title game after losing their conference championship game is how it's supposed to work? I don't think so.

Last year, there were teams that had just as much a right to settle it on the field as did Florida and Oklahoma. Where did Texas go after beating Oklahoma? That's right, they were left out of the championship game even though they had teh same record as OU but actually BEAT OU during the regular season.

The BCS system is horribley flawed. At least with a playoff system, there would be no doubt who the national champion would be and NO ONE WOULD COMPLAIN about who did or didn't get a chance.

IF there is a 16 team playoff, you gotta bring it every weekend if you want to get that atlarge bid if you don't win your conference like Texas didn't last season.

'rasta, you make good points about how the BCS is better than what preceded it, but this is NCAA FBS football, not just BCS conference football and the outsiders looking in, which is what it is now.

The reason BSU got a spot this season is because they went undefeated last season and to leave them out this season after Congress' review this year would have cause the BCS even more trouble than what they endured after last season.

Okay, here's a solution, let's take the 11 conference champions in the FBS and the top 5 conference champions in the FCS and give them each a spot in the playoffs. That way, only conference champions play for the title. ;)

Schmoe

12/10/2009, 3:53:39 AM

GolfDiveNCougs wrote:
It's because they only let conference champions into the BCS championship game. If 99% of the teams going meet that criteria, then there's a good chance that the winner will meet it as well.
Uhh, Schmoe, please refer to my previous post about that. 2 years in 12 is a little higher than 1%.

You're right, I was exaggerating, two teams out of twenty-four is eight percent.

BroncoBot

12/10/2009, 4:09:02 AM

GolfDiveNCougs wrote:
It's not a coincedence that every BCS champion is a conference champion and that will be true this year.

rasta, that's revisionist enough I have to call bull crap on it. So do the 2001 Colorado AND Oregon teams, AND the 2003 Southern California AND Michigan teams. Sure, the eventual winner of the title game each year has happened to be a conference champion winner, karma has taken your argument that far, but there sure as hell is precident under the current system to stick teams IN the title game that AREN'T conference champs, just dumb luck that neither of them won it! Mean time, legit champs those years looked on PISSED as the BCS sold out to BIGGER Royalty names.

PLEASE tell me I'm wrong. I BEG you!!!

Not to mention teams that lose in the regular season and STILL get to play for the "NC".

Prime example; Florida 2008. To me that was the biggest hypocrisy yet out of the BCS. By your logic (that teams that lose shouldn't have a shot) BSU or Utah had more of an argument to be in that game.

Another problem is that teams are watering down their schedules to ensure that they won't lose. This isn't good for college football.

Italics

12/10/2009, 4:34:42 AM

For many BCS homers/supporters, and including those in the BCS itself, it has come down to this: They know it's an awful system, but there is an unwillingness to swallow their pride. When a human battles and fights so long and hard in the defense of something, and it fails, there are often pride issues in admitting their mistakes, as well as that they were wrong all along.

Page 1 of 3

This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.