Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Playoffs? This team? PLAYOFFS!

[bilsker]

A national championship is about to become less meaningful.

Oh c'mon. Do you think there's a single solitary sport whose national title is less "meaningful" because they have a playoff? You gotta come with something more well thought out than that.

 

[bilsker]

I've posted at great length about it in the past, so I won't get into all of it here. There are a couple of key things, though.

First, a playoff opens the door for less impressive teams to get an extra chance at knocking of the top team. I think that a champion should truly be elite. That means that if you didn't get it done during the season, too bad. If your schedule wasn't as good, or you had a loss, or whatever... tough. I'm not interested in handing out second chances. Take your participation ribbon and go play in another bowl. Good season, but not a CHAMPIONSHIP season. Can you imagine the howls that would come from this state if we had a playoff in 1971? We would have had a rematch with OU in the first round, while Alabama and Michigan would have squared off in the other game. To me, playing Alabama or Michigan would have been preferable to playing OU, but if the seeding was done by the rankings, we would have gotten the short end of that deal. That's just one example.

Second, this playoff solves nothing. There will still be controversy - probably MORE controversy - and for what?

Third, it really does lessen the importance of the regular season. The 4 team model won't be a big drain, but we're not stupid. Anyone who thinks about this for more than 2 seconds will realize that it will expand.

I liked the old bowl system. I like having several games on New Year's Day. I liked that many of those games meant something and had good matchups. The rest of this BCS and playoff nonsense is driven by nothing but money, which is not good for college athletics. It's already got too much money involved for "amateurs," and it's just getting worse.

Sorry to sound like an old fart. I still love college football, more than any other sport in the world. In fact, Husker football was the one consistent thing in my life growing up. I'm just concerned that the fix to a broken (BCS) system is going to be even worse.

you couldn't be more wrong on about every point.

 

[huskheartguy]

First, a playoff opens the door for less impressive teams to get an extra chance at knocking of the top team. I think that a champion should truly be elite. That means that if you didn't get it done during the season, too bad. If your schedule wasn't as good, or you had a loss, or whatever... tough. I'm not interested in handing out second chances. Take your participation ribbon and go play in another bowl. Good season, but not a CHAMPIONSHIP season. Can you imagine the howls that would come from this state if we had a playoff in 1971? We would have had a rematch with OU in the first round, while Alabama and Michigan would have squared off in the other game. To me, playing Alabama or Michigan would have been preferable to playing OU, but if the seeding was done by the rankings, we would have gotten the short end of that deal. That's just one example.

I would agree IF every year there were only two undefeated teams from BCS conferences...but the probability of that happening is slim to none...why did Alabama deserve a "second chance" last year over okie st? They already lost to LSU...already had their chance...how does a "single game NCG" solve this problem? When was the last time we had "the perfect scenario" like the one you describe?

Second, this playoff solves nothing. There will still be controversy - probably MORE controversy - and for what?

You are correct..there will ALWAYS be controversy...the only way (playoffs and the current and past college football systems) to not have controversy is to have 2 conferences, 3-4 divisions and have a record based seeding system (ie MLB, nfl, NHL, etc)...I'm not saying that is what should happen but that is the only way to not have controversy.

Third, it really does lessen the importance of the regular season. The 4 team model won't be a big drain, but we're not stupid. Anyone who thinks about this for more than 2 seconds will realize that it will expand.

It doesn't lessen the regular season at all...just like the current system and the previous college football system, if you want a chance to play for the NC then win all your games...the only way you leave your teams fate in the hands of others is if you lose...in the proposed playoff system can you name a way a team goes undefeated and doesn't get into the 4 team playoff? Now remember, within this proposal there is a clause about how "the committee" (which is my biggest and only problem with the proposal) will strongly take into account if a team won their conference or not.

I liked the old bowl system. I like having several games on New Year's Day. I liked that many of those games meant something and had good matchups. The rest of this BCS and playoff nonsense is driven by nothing but money, which is not good for college athletics. It's already got too much money involved for "amateurs," and it's just getting worse.

Yes it is driven by money...what isn't driven by money these days? However, if the BCS would have been in existence in '97 we could have played Michigan in the NCG...or in 2000 we could have lost to someone else in the semi-final round and not have had to get pounded by Miami...since the BCS and even with the playoff, there will never be a split NC again...and to me, that is better than the old system...now, I do wish the major bowls would all be played on new years day and have no other bowls after that...I hate how that has evolved.

 

[Scarlet]

in the proposed playoff system can you name a way a team goes undefeated and doesn't get into the 4 team playoff?

Sure. In 2009 Boise State finished in sixth in the final BCS standings with four undefeated teams ahead of them. In 2008 both Utah and Boise State finished out of the top four in the final BCS standings. In 2007 it was Hawaii. In 2006 it was Boise State again. In 2004, Utah and Boise State again....In.........

Are you saying that this new system will only take the champions of the big four conferences? If not then the odds are pretty high that an undefeated team will be left out.

 

[Pops]

Sure. In 2009 Boise State finished in sixth in the final BCS standings with four undefeated teams ahead of them. In 2008 both Utah and Boise State finished out of the top four in the final BCS standings. In 2007 it was Hawaii. In 2006 it was Boise State again. In 2004, Utah and Boise State again....In.........

Are you saying that this new system will only take the champions of the big four conferences? If not then the odds are pretty high that an undefeated team will be left out.

yup...sure soulds like they are going to put a lot more meaning to the SOS

 

[Cardinal]

This thing will go to 16 teams. Guaranteed. Is the game going to better for it? That I don't know. But Cardinal does, I'm sure....

Who is the one making guarantees of things that haven't happened yet?

 

[Cardinal]

In short: give this a chance because it at least succeeds at matching the the 4 top teams in a small, manageable way. It's rare that the conversation of "who should be in" goes past 4 teams. It might, and situations like Stanford/Oregon last year may be the new system's Achilles heel.

Agree.

No. 5 has a lot less to whine about than does No. 3. Last year if Stanford had been left out of a 4-team playoff, I would have been disappointed, but if you want in, win your conference. If Oregon had been left out, I would have no problem telling them that you shouldn't have had that second loss.

Big improvement over 2-team playoff. Regular season has been diminished zero. Season has been extended not one week longer.

 

[Cardinal]

Then what is the goal? Giving extra chances to a couple of teams that didn't earn it during the regular season?

Settling on the field through competition. Those who don't understand that concept likely never competed.

 

[Cardinal]

totally suck! doest change anything.

If it doesn't change anything, I assume you have no objections. What is there to object to?

 

[huskheartguy]

Sure. In 2009 Boise State finished in sixth in the final BCS standings with four undefeated teams ahead of them. In 2008 both Utah and Boise State finished out of the top four in the final BCS standings. In 2007 it was Hawaii. In 2006 it was Boise State again. In 2004, Utah and Boise State again....In.........

Are you saying that this new system will only take the champions of the big four conferences? If not then the odds are pretty high that an undefeated team will be left out.

Very true...however, I would much rather see a tough situation once every 4th or 5th year (I think with all the conference realignment that the days of 5-6 undefeated teams is over...but we will see) than see last years debacle again.

And no, it was said that winning your conference will be apart of the decision making process for "the committee"

On a side note...whoever makes up this "committee" better not be able to ever be identified...I can't imagine the death threats they would get each year...I'm talking CIA level confidentiality.

 

[cm husker]

Any playoff is bad for CFB, especially one that could contain two or even three teams from one conference​.

 

[huskernut]

Do players in the lower levels not bring it every week? I can speak from experience and I assure you that they do in fact "bring it every week".

Do players at lowly I-A programs who have no hope of making a bowl game or playing for a conference title not bring it every week?

I wasn't very clear. I was talking about resting players and such, which are decisions of the coaches. I don't expect that to actually happen with just a four team playoff, but probably with eight and certainly with 16.

 

[huskernut]

The comparison to Chicken Little is because people are already running around saying the sky is falling and that teams are going to start second stringers and not give full effort to win their biggest games of the year because there is a four-team (not 16) playoff, because games will be rendered meaningless. And that is utterly ridiculous.

Anything more than four team playoff is hypothetical and nothing to get your underpants in a wad about at this juncture.

"Ignore that camel's nose coming under the tent. He's only looking for his contact lenses."

I'm not sure it will go to 16 or rest at 8, but it will definitely not stay at 4. May as well discuss it the way it will truly end up.

But I'm not inclined to discuss it much more. I have never been for a playoff, specifically because I like the lunacy of the mythical approach and pagentry that was college football, But alas, Harvey and I and a few others are on the losing end of this, it's clear to me. (I've suspected so for years.) And now the time has come.

My post in this thread was to get my view on record for future "I told you so"s, and to stir things up. So now, I will resign from the argument, and leave the field to the baying victors.

 

[huskheartguy]

Any playoff is bad for CFB, especially one that could contain two or even three teams from one conference​.

So, if Nebraska was the fourth team in and Ohio st had beaten us by 1 point in the CCG you still think that would be bad? Or would you be happy because we might get another chance to beat them?

I think you're saying this because the SEC is so good right now...I'm pretty sure no Nebraska fan would be unhappy if we were the fourth team in and have a shot at the NCG.

 

[bilsker]

Any playoff is bad for CFB, especially one that could contain two or even three teams from one conference​.

First part...wrong.

Second part...you mean like last year?