But CFB needs a playoff right??

[Fighting_Irish9]

Here's the thing though, for every one "lucky champion" you name, I can probably name 5-10 "deserving" champs. The BCS fails to put the right 2 teams together in the title game40-50% of the time. If you are the best team, you should be able to win the tournament. It's not a hard concept to follow. The playoffs is the best teams squaring off. Winning a tournament is just as hard as going undfeated and really harder. Going undefeated in the tournament against top notch competition provers more than going undefeated (or even losing) through an easy schedule.

IMO the BCS has gotten it correct 100% of the time, and 100% of the time the BCS champion had the most impressive season in college football..

 

[Satans Little Helper]

IMO the BCS has gotten it correct 100% of the time, and 100% of the time the BCS champion had the most impressive season in college football..

 

[solo]

IMO the BCS has gotten it correct 100% of the time, and 100% of the time the BCS champion had the most impressive season in college football..

But how do you know? There has been significant controversy over who should be the #2 team in the championship game about 50% of the time. Had they selected the other opponent to play in the title game, we may have had much diffeent results.

But the thing I don't get at all is this. My main bowl system advocate in this debate is saying that we can pick the 2 best teams. So why have a title game at all? If we are able to determine who the 2 best teams are decisively, why not not just pick the single best team and crown them? Have everybody vote and just pick your champion. That's how they did it in the 1950's. After the regular season, a vote was taken and the champ was determioned BEFORE the bowl games. There you have it. This year, Ohio State clearly had the best regular season. Why didn't we just name them champions? Every poll had them #1. Every power ranking, every human poll, evreyone associated with college football had the Ohio State Buckeyes #1. They were the only undfeated BCS conference team. They clearly had the best season, right? Why not just call them champions?

If it is so obvious who had the best season, why bother even letting #2 play #1? #2 obviously didn't have as good fo a season or doesn't have as good of a team. Why let #2 try to to derail #1's season?

 

[ACamp1900]

But how do you know? There has been significant controversy over who should be the #2 team in the championship game about 50% of the time. Had they selected the other opponent to play in the title game, we may have had much diffeent results.

But the thing I don't get at all is this. My main bowl system advocate in this debate is saying that we can pick the 2 best teams. So why have a title game at all? If we are able to determine who the 2 best teams are decisively, why not not just pick the single best team and crown them? Have everybody vote and just pick your champion. That's how they did it in the 1950's. After the regular season, a vote was taken and the champ was determioned BEFORE the bowl games. There you have it. This year, Ohio State clearly had the best regular season. Why didn't we just name them champions? Every poll had them #1. Every power ranking, every human poll, evreyone associated with college football had the Ohio State Buckeyes #1. They were the only undfeated BCS conference team. They clearly had the best season, right? Why not just call them champions?

If it is so obvious who had the best season, why bother even letting #2 play #1? #2 obviously didn't have as good fo a season or doesn't have as good of a team. Why let #2 try to to derail #1's season?

well as you know solo my standpoint is when trying to decide "champion" as I went over a few posts back... the BCS is far better than a 8/16/32 team playoff... you never have an average or lucky team win the BCS, the greatness is proven all year by those two teams, not just over the course of a couple hot weeks... I say if a playoff is what's wanted why even play the reg. season... why not just playoff every year with every team involved and skip the season all together... and the hottest team during the playoffs or the team that gets the breaks on the field and in the match ups...is your "champion" that's essentially what a playoff does anyway, no matter what format

I think you are missing that I see the problems with a BCS like system... but most playoff people refuse to consider the obvious issues with a playoff... what's the point of a playoff in terms of determining a champion when a champion is the best team for that entire given season.. and a playoff's very intent is not to give us that very thing? as well as the bowl aspect as well as the history, as well as the fact that a playoff is rather boring in most ccases imo... as well as cfb's reg season is the best across the board I think we can all agree on that... as well as numerous other reasons... both large and small... I simply feel there is not one good reason to change, especially to a playoff... which does nothing but degrade the entire season for any given sport imo and doesn't even accomplish, even in the year's it gets it right simply because that was not it's intent, what it is said to be set out to do... now a plus one would be another story but as I stated before I find it hard to believe you playoff pushers would ever stop there...

those are my feelings...

I'm sure it's still agree to disagree... but enjoy your NFL playoffs this weekend... I prob won't be watching...

 

[jiggafini19]

IMO the BCS has gotten it correct 100% of the time, and 100% of the time the BCS champion had the most impressive season in college football..

In 5 of the last 7 years, you're in the minority on this one.

 

[FleaFlicker]

But how do you know? There has been significant controversy over who should be the #2 team in the championship game about 50% of the time. Had they selected the other opponent to play in the title game, we may have had much diffeent results.

But the thing I don't get at all is this. My main bowl system advocate in this debate is saying that we can pick the 2 best teams. So why have a title game at all? If we are able to determine who the 2 best teams are decisively, why not not just pick the single best team and crown them? Have everybody vote and just pick your champion. That's how they did it in the 1950's. After the regular season, a vote was taken and the champ was determioned BEFORE the bowl games. There you have it. This year, Ohio State clearly had the best regular season. Why didn't we just name them champions? Every poll had them #1. Every power ranking, every human poll, evreyone associated with college football had the Ohio State Buckeyes #1. They were the only undfeated BCS conference team. They clearly had the best season, right? Why not just call them champions?

If it is so obvious who had the best season, why bother even letting #2 play #1? #2 obviously didn't have as good fo a season or doesn't have as good of a team. Why let #2 try to to derail #1's season?

I actually think that is a very good point. A two-team playoff is still a playoff. And still applies by the same rule. OSU had the better season than Fla, they never lost. By ACAMP's logic, the BCS game could have been a complete mess because maybe that team just got lucky in a few instances, and actually isn't a better team than OSU.

That could especially be the case if the game was a very close one. Yet Fla is the champion?

It seems that the best argument would be a 4 team playoff. That's not bad IMO. Getting into the top 4 is NOT easy, and will still make every game extremely interesting. One loss and you could easily be out of the championship hunt. This means that the 4 best teams are going to be remarkably similar when the season is over, and they can determine who is the best by playing each other. Of course there will be whining by #5 and #6, but there will be that in absolutely any system. It is unavoidable and part of what makes the debate a fun one.

 

[ACamp1900]

I actually think that is a very good point. A two-team playoff is still a playoff. And still applies by the same rule. OSU had the better season than Fla, they never lost. By ACAMP's logic, the BCS game could have been a complete mess because maybe that team just got lucky in a few instances, and actually isn't a better team than OSU.

That could especially be the case if the game was a very close one. Yet Fla is the champion?

It seems that the best argument would be a 4 team playoff. That's not bad IMO. Getting into the top 4 is NOT easy, and will still make every game extremely interesting. One loss and you could easily be out of the championship hunt. This means that the 4 best teams are going to be remarkably similar when the season is over, and they can determine who is the best by playing each other. Of course there will be whining by #5 and #6, but there will be that in absolutely any system. It is unavoidable and part of what makes the debate a fun one.

as I have said many times... lesser of two evils... Florida proved it was an elite team... what did the Pittsburgh Steelers show anyone other than a hot stretch... again as I stated I see nothing wrong with taking to two/four top teams after a season has been played in most cases as you know those teams are worthy of their chance... all things considered I feel a plus one is the best situation... it's that simple

 

[FleaFlicker]

as I have said many times... lesser of two evils... Florida proved it was an elite team... what did the Pittsburgh Steelers show anyone other than a hot stretch... again as I stated I see nothing wrong with taking to two/four top teams after a season has been played in most cases as you know those teams are worthy of their chance... all things considered I feel a plus one is the best situation... it's that simple

I guess the main thing we have to determine then, is... what constitutes an elite team. This is different than MLB or the NFL or even the NBA, because one team could lose 5% of their games, another team could lose 40% of their games, and both could play each other in a simple series.

And in that situation, I see your point. Same with the Steelers last year or the Cardinals this year (though I am a cards fan).

However, in CFB, you aren't going to get a team in the top 8 that has lost three games. Unless they had a brutal schedule and whooped on heavy hitters, and even then, it isn't going to happen. Only a select few teams will get in with two losses, based off of their history and/or their schedule.

So we are realistically looking at all teams being 10-2 or better, in an 8 team playoff. In a 4 team playoff, they'd typically be 11-1 and better (or 12-1 depending on conf championships). So does that justify getting a shot? I just think it is different than most playoff systems because in an 8 team playoff, the gap between teams 1 and 8 won't be that large, because there are 108 other teams that are being weeded out during the regular season. In the pro sports, a 1/4 or 1/3 get into the playoffs, which would roughly be the same as 30 or 40 college teams... And in the situation with the Steelers and the Cardinals, they wouldn't have made the cut if only ~7% of the teams in the league got in.

See my point?

 

[ACamp1900]

I guess the main thing we have to determine then, is... what constitutes an elite team. This is different than MLB or the NFL or even the NBA, because one team could lose 5% of their games, another team could lose 40% of their games, and both could play each other in a simple series.

And in that situation, I see your point. Same with the Steelers last year or the Cardinals this year (though I am a cards fan).

However, in CFB, you aren't going to get a team in the top 8 that has lost three games. Unless they had a brutal schedule and whooped on heavy hitters, and even then, it isn't going to happen. Only a select few teams will get in with two losses, based off of their history and/or their schedule.

So we are realistically looking at all teams being 10-2 or better, in an 8 team playoff. In a 4 team playoff, they'd typically be 11-1 and better (or 12-1 depending on conf championships). So does that justify getting a shot? I just think it is different than most playoff systems because in an 8 team playoff, the gap between teams 1 and 8 won't be that large, because there are 108 other teams that are being weeded out during the regular season. In the pro sports, a 1/4 or 1/3 get into the playoffs, which would roughly be the same as 30 or 40 college teams... And in the situation with the Steelers and the Cardinals, they wouldn't have made the cut if only ~7% of the teams in the league got in.

See my point?

simply put... plus one and done... no?

 

[Fighting_Irish9]

But how do you know? There has been significant controversy over who should be the #2 team in the championship game about 50% of the time. Had they selected the other opponent to play in the title game, we may have had much diffeent results.

But the thing I don't get at all is this. My main bowl system advocate in this debate is saying that we can pick the 2 best teams. So why have a title game at all? If we are able to determine who the 2 best teams are decisively, why not not just pick the single best team and crown them? Have everybody vote and just pick your champion. That's how they did it in the 1950's. After the regular season, a vote was taken and the champ was determioned BEFORE the bowl games. There you have it. This year, Ohio State clearly had the best regular season. Why didn't we just name them champions? Every poll had them #1. Every power ranking, every human poll, evreyone associated with college football had the Ohio State Buckeyes #1. They were the only undfeated BCS conference team. They clearly had the best season, right? Why not just call them champions?

If it is so obvious who had the best season, why bother even letting #2 play #1? #2 obviously didn't have as good fo a season or doesn't have as good of a team. Why let #2 try to to derail #1's season?

Yes there was folks complaining, just like there were folks crying that ND played all the Service accadamies but they, IMO, were complaining to complain, the BCS hasn't gotten it wrong once....people will cry about not winning a conference or losing their last game before the NC game, but those things are irrelevent when talking about an entire season...

1st game or last doesn't matter, one record in once conference gives you the win, yet doesn't in another????again....winning a conference doesn't matter

Was Auburn a sad story...sure for them, but they had the 3rd best season going into the champ game...maybe if they didn't schedule some D1AA crap, they might have gotten in...

Basicly sure people griped but people will always gripe, when you get a playoff the 1st team left off while cry foul....#3 or #5, or #9 or #17 will always cry it wasn't fair...but they are wrong...it is fair

I don't see a single year the BCS got it wrong....but I will admit I am not a fan of this new system, it was much more accurate when everyone was crying....

Quality win
SOS
Computer
AP
Coaches....

That was a great system the complainers ruined

 

[solo]

What ACAMP fails to acknowledge is that with a playoff, you still need to have a very good season to get in. if you are 1 of 4, 8, or 16 teams invited to the playoffs ( out of 119 teams), doesn't that mean that you had a great season? If we automatically invite conference champs, doesn't every conference champ have an excellent season? The premise of a playoff is that we can't accurately determine who the 2 best teams are. So we invite all the best teams to the post season and let them fight it out. It just doesn't get any more fair than that. And the regular season maitnains it's integrity because you must still have a great season to get invited to the post season. So what if the team that went undefeated in the regular season doesn't reach the finals? They had the same chance as everyone else. If you can't win 3 in a row at the end of the season with everything to play for, you don't deserve to be crowned.

Now, are the playoffsreally boring? Go tell the TV networks. Last I heard was that fans of every sport LOVE them. No, playoffs aren't boring. What is boring is the first week of bowl season. Every NFL playoff game has been exciting this year. If you don't think so, you must just not like the NFL.


So while ACAMP will continue to favor the 2 team playoff, I would much prefer a larger group be considered to take the politics out of the equation and inject a littel fairness. We both support a playoff. We just can't agree on how many teams should be invited.

 

[Fighting_Irish9]

I guess the main thing we have to determine then, is... what constitutes an elite team. This is different than MLB or the NFL or even the NBA, because one team could lose 5% of their games, another team could lose 40% of their games, and both could play each other in a simple series.

And in that situation, I see your point. Same with the Steelers last year or the Cardinals this year (though I am a cards fan).

However, in CFB, you aren't going to get a team in the top 8 that has lost three games. Unless they had a brutal schedule and whooped on heavy hitters, and even then, it isn't going to happen. Only a select few teams will get in with two losses, based off of their history and/or their schedule.

So we are realistically looking at all teams being 10-2 or better, in an 8 team playoff. In a 4 team playoff, they'd typically be 11-1 and better (or 12-1 depending on conf championships). So does that justify getting a shot? I just think it is different than most playoff systems because in an 8 team playoff, the gap between teams 1 and 8 won't be that large, because there are 108 other teams that are being weeded out during the regular season. In the pro sports, a 1/4 or 1/3 get into the playoffs, which would roughly be the same as 30 or 40 college teams... And in the situation with the Steelers and the Cardinals, they wouldn't have made the cut if only ~7% of the teams in the league got in.

See my point?

4 and 8 team playoffs will have 2 loss teams, considering most teams only play 3 maybe 4 tough games all year and can go .500 or worse and still make the playoffs....

No thanks

 

[Fighting_Irish9]

For me its simple....

People who want a playoff want to give teams who screwed up another chance

People who don't want a playoff don't want to give the teams that screwed up another chance...they screwed up...better luck next year

 

[ACamp1900]

What ACAMP fails to acknowledge is that with a playoff, you still need to have a very good season to get in. if you are 1 of 4, 8, or 16 teams invited to the playoffs ( out of 119 teams), doesn't that mean that you had a great season? If we automatically invite conference champs, doesn't every conference champ have an excellent season? The premise of a playoff is that we can't accurately determine who the 2 best teams are. So we invite all the best teams to the post season and let them fight it out. It just doesn't get any more fair than that. And the regular season maitnains it's integrity because you must still have a great season to get invited to the post season. So what if the team that went undefeated in the regular season doesn't reach the finals? They had the same chance as everyone else. If you can't win 3 in a row at the end of the season with everything to play for, you don't deserve to be crowned.

Now, are the playoffsreally boring? Go tell the TV networks. Last I heard was that fans of every sport LOVE them. No, playoffs aren't boring. What is boring is the first week of bowl season. Every NFL playoff game has been exciting this year. If you don't think so, you must just not like the NFL.


So while ACAMP will continue to favor the 2 team playoff, I would much prefer a larger group be considered to take the politics out of the equation and inject a littel fairness. We both support a playoff. We just can't agree on how many teams should be invited.

again who cares about fairness in terms of declaring a true champion when a playoff doesn't even decide a true champion???

 

[ACamp1900]

4 and 8 team playoffs will have 2 loss teams, considering most teams only play 3 maybe 4 tough games all year and can go .500 or worse and still make the playoffs....

No thanks

For me its simple....

People who want a playoff want to give teams who screwed up another chance

People who don't want a playoff don't want to give the teams that screwed up another chance...they screwed up...better luck next year

lol... I agree on the basic meaning

 

[jiggafini19]

I enjoy the NFL playoffs.

No fat redneck SEC beat writers or coaches poll determines who gets in. They win it on the field.

The BCS is what we've got and that's what we're stuck with. At least Florida won their conference, unlike Nebraska and OU in past seasons.

 

[Fighting_Irish9]

I enjoy the NFL playoffs.

No fat redneck SEC beat writers or coaches poll determines who gets in. They win it on the field.

The BCS is what we've got and that's what we're stuck with. At least Florida won their conference, unlike Nebraska and OU in past seasons.

Both had the same conferance record (or better) than the team they beat out to get into the BCS....

So please explain how winning your conference is important, and since ND can never win a conference should they be banned from NC play?

 

[ACamp1900]

I enjoy the NFL playoffs.

No fat redneck SEC beat writers or coaches poll determines who gets in. They win it on the field.

The BCS is what we've got and that's what we're stuck with. At least Florida won their conference, unlike Nebraska and OU in past seasons.

this is a valid point... and both got smoked in the title game...lol... but as I have said continually the BCS champion has done it all year long in every case... the nfl champion has done it all playoff long... If ya'll haven't noticed by now I have MAJOR issue with a 5-7 loss team being declared the cream of the NFL simply because the system allowed them to back into a four week cluster... it is that feeling every year that takes away from the overall excitement for me.. that has never sat well with me personally and since this is a discussion on personal opinion... there you have mine

 

[FleaFlicker]

4 and 8 team playoffs will have 2 loss teams, considering most teams only play 3 maybe 4 tough games all year and can go .500 or worse and still make the playoffs....

No thanks

And at the end of it, if the two-loss team wins it all, and the undefeated team doesn't.

It means the two-loss team played great at the end of the year, but the undefeated team still lost, so they have one-loss, whereas the other team has two losses and just got three quality wins. Is that any different than this year when two teams ended up with 1-loss amidst good competition, and one was crowned the champ?

 

[ACamp1900]

what I fail to understand is why a plus one, simply, moving the BCS title game back a week, wouldn't solve our issues on both sides?? you'd have a true champion and no one could whine about fairness... at least not in any year we've seen to date

and I was the one accused of simply wanting the status quo earlier in the thread???

 

[solo]

again who cares about fairness in terms of declaring a true champion when a playoff doesn't even decide a true champion???

The champion of a 2 team playoff is no more a "bonified" champ than one of an 8 or 16 team playoff. hat you are saying is that there is no way to cron a true champ, so we might as well stick with the status quo.

 

[ACamp1900]

The champion of a 2 team playoff is no more a "bonified" champ than one of an 8 or 16 team playoff. hat you are saying is that there is no way to cron a true champ, so we might as well stick with the status quo.

no, actually I'm saying a two team playoff (BCS) is in fact MUCH more "bonified" if you will than a 16 team playoff winner... adn while both are flawed the BCS is closer to the truth so THEN why not stick to the system we have

 

[Fighting_Irish9]

The champion of a 2 team playoff is no more a "bonified" champ than one of an 8 or 16 team playoff. hat you are saying is that there is no way to cron a true champ, so we might as well stick with the status quo.

No when you take the 2 teams with the best seasons and have them play each other, 100% of the time you will get the team with the best season winning the National Championship...

When you play the top 16 seasons....the 16th (which would improve to about the 4th or 5th) best season can win the Championship

 

[solo]

4 and 8 team playoffs will have 2 loss teams, considering most teams only play 3 maybe 4 tough games all year and can go .500 or worse and still make the playoffs....

No thanks

So instead, let's only invite 0 or 1 loss teams to our championshiop game whether they played a tough schedule or not. Louisville was about 1 minute from a title game. They would have made the championship game having only played 2 decent teams all year. If Louisville beats Rutgers, the title game is Louisville-OSU and the best team in the nation doesn't even get invited.

 

[FleaFlicker]

no, actually I'm saying a two team playoff (BCS) is in fact MUCH more "bonified" if you will than a 16 team playoff winner... adn while both are flawed the BCS is closer to the truth so THEN why not stick to the system we have

I see what you are saying, but another part of this issue for me is... what happens to every other team but those two after they lose their first game? Are we supposed to stop caring about them? Of course you still have rivalries and stuff to keep you entertained, but for me this is more about entertainment than fairness.

Why do you love CFB, why do I love CFB, because it is entertaining. A playoff of 8 teams is more entertaining to me than having 30 bowls and only one of them has any kinf od meaning whatsoever, aside from bragging rights. It just boils down to that basically.

 

[Fighting_Irish9]

And at the end of it, if the two-loss team wins it all, and the undefeated team doesn't.

It means the two-loss team played great at the end of the year, but the undefeated team still lost, so they have one-loss, whereas the other team has two losses and just got three quality wins. Is that any different than this year when two teams ended up with 1-loss amidst good competition, and one was crowned the champ?

1st off, any one loss champion gets an asterick in my book...means you got lucky to get in the game...

second, I still prefer the team with 1 loss over the team with 2....unless their schedules were night and day (like an undefeated Boise State)

 

[ACamp1900]

So instead, let's only invite 0 or 1 loss teams to our championshiop game whether they played a tough schedule or not. Louisville was about 1 minute from a title game. They would have made the championship game having only played 2 decent teams all year. If Louisville beats Rutgers, the title game is Louisville-OSU and the best team in the nation doesn't even get invited.

LOL... simply put this is why I love CFB... I'm actually more of a baseball fan in pure sport... but nothing beats cfb for great discussion

 

[Fighting_Irish9]

I see what you are saying, but another part of this issue for me is... what happens to every other team but those two after they lose their first game? Are we supposed to stop caring about them? Of course you still have rivalries and stuff to keep you entertained, but for me this is more about entertainment than fairness.

.

That is just it, Each and every game defines your season in COllege football

after 1 loss, you are looking BCS and an outside shot at NC
after 2 losses you are looking BCS
after 3 losses you are looking for a New Years Bowl
after 4 Losses you are hoping for any bowl

Each game can define what type of team and season you had.....that is simply not the case in any other sport

 

[ACamp1900]

I'm not sure I agree with FI9 in his last post with the whole one loss asterisk thing, but I do feel a BCS like system only allows teams that have been elite in both the reg. season and post season to win the Natioanl Championship... playoff systems simply don't do that

 

[solo]

For me its simple....

People who want a playoff want to give teams who screwed up another chance

People who don't want a playoff don't want to give the teams that screwed up another chance...they screwed up...better luck next year

No, it's not quite that simple. Playoff advocates want a more fair way to determine the champ. The current system is not "lose and you are out". Nor is the current system "win all your games and you are in". The current system is an unfair, biased way to determine a champ that permits some teams to lose a game while not others and at the same time ruling out other teams that go undefeated.