This Guy Has It Figured Out

[ACamp1900]

Would people complain about the number of rounds in March Madness? I think the whole process is what is so fun, not just the title game (it's almost a letdown when you make it to the final four). I can't see a playoff as small as 16 teams being boring or tedious. The concern I would have is for player injuries and interfering with finals and whatnot.

The best way to answer this, and something the NCAA in its....bureaucracy would never do, is ask the players. Have every single D1A football player vote and see what they would like to do. I can assure you that the vote will unanimously support a playoff - but the NCAA doesn't care because all the players do is give their all for the team. They aren't the ones with money.

Also, that's a fallacy by definition alone... I can easily say the opposite and place the buredn of proof on you...

 

[piyachi]

I guess I'm the only one that attends a lot of regular season games...

Maybe it just isn't as big around you guys. I have a lot of friends that will watch all sorts of regular season games (NCAA Mens BBall) just because. Not to mention the fact that football season is still about a third as many games, and you don't play teams in your conference more than once.

4 game series is a lot - but then on the other hand making it only 8 teams does seem to leave a lot of teams out in the cold. I guess with the inclusion of the four lesser-BCS bowls it would work ok.

"Democracy is the worst system of government ever tried....except all the others"

 

[piyachi]

Also, that's a fallacy by definition alone... I can easily say the opposite and place the buredn of proof on you...

I wasn't looking for technical accuracy - I'm saying, from the perspective of someone who had some experience with college spots, a playoff is a wonderful thing. Its exciting, challenging, just a fun time. I cannot imagine being so far from what a majority of players would support.

 

[ACamp1900]

I wasn't looking for technical accuracy - I'm saying, from the perspective of someone who had some experience with college spots, a playoff is a wonderful thing. Its exciting, challenging, just a fun time. I cannot imagine being so far from what a majority of players would support.

Fair enough... but I honestly doubt your statement... and it's conjecture... all I'm saying...

Even if tOSU falls into the title game... the two teams that have ended up in the BCS title game have been better representatives of the "best of their sport" than than the average Super Bowl or NCAA Championship in Basketball IMO... AND we still have the rich history of the bowls intact... those two are all I need and care about... BCS for me

 

[ACamp1900]

Fair enough... but I honestly doubt your statement... and it's conjecture... all I'm saying...

Even if tOSU falls into the title game... the two teams that have ended up in the BCS title game have been better representatives of the "best of their sport" than than the average Super Bowl or NCAA Championship in Basketball IMO... AND we still have the rich history of the bowls intact... those two are all I need and care about... BCS for me

Plus, how funny is it gonna be to watch the uck-eyes get butt hammered in the title game two years in a row... this time by a Big East School...

 

[ColonialHead]

I have no interest in college basketball whatsoever until March. I know a ton of guys like me... in fact most of the people that I end up participating in a bracket with every year during March Madness is exactly like that. They could care less until the bracket starts.

I agree with ACamp on this one, I don't want college football turning into a meaningless season the way college hoops is.

 

[Freeman Ara]

I have no interest in college basketball whatsoever until March. I know a ton of guys like me... in fact most of the people that I end up participating in a bracket with every year during March Madness is exactly like that. They could care less until the bracket starts.

I agree with ACamp on this one, I don't want college football turning into a meaningless season the way college hoops is.

I don't think the BBall regular season is meaningless at all (ask a team that gets an 8 seed what the chances of getting past the first weekend is.) In fact I think the regular season would be even better, face it, the month of September means absolutely nothing to about 90 percent of the teams in CFB. Lots of teams play there cupcakes in September tuning up for the conference schedule. Those days would be gone. You could see ALOT more good football during the regular season without to much penalty for a loss (more games like OSU vs. Texas a few years ago.) Plus, the whole month of December would be more exciting. The bowl games are a joke the only reason anybody watches is because they bet on the games. People complain about teams like CMU or Hawaii playing in a playoff? Well those are the teams your watching play in mid December bowl games anyway, why not have the games mean something. And as far as people saying that the major bowls games wouldn't matter anymore, well they don't matter now anyway. If you wanted the Rose, Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar Bowls to still mean something just go back to the pre-BCS system, hell we argued about the best teams then and guess what? Your doing the same thing now. Back to CBBall for a sec, you guys say you don't watch until March anyway. Ok well what makes the tourney great? The intrigue of a the little guy beating the national powerhouse. It would be the same in CFB. Think if Hawaii got in as a 16 and then played OSU and threw it 100 times and puilled of the upset. That would be great for the game. And when it comes down to it if you win 4 games to win it all you have proven you are the best team and on the field no less. In general I think a playoff is better because your taking the human decision out of play. If you win your conference your in with a chance and no one can take that away from you, thats better then anything going now.

 

[irish4ever]

If going to a play off system, I would not have 16 teams, i would only go with 8, for many of the reasons mentioned by NDSMC78.

I agree. I've always been in favor of a playoff, but 16 teams (4 weeks) is too many in my mind. I say go w/ 8. The 1st round could be played at the top seed's home field (#8 @ #1, #7 @ #2, etc.), then the semi rounds and the nat'l championship played at designated neutral sites.

Forget the bowl crap, this tournament would supplant those as a fan base interest.

There is always going to be bitching going on as to which teams made it in the final 8 and which ones didn't, yet that hasn't stopped the college basketball tournament from being a success!

 

[connor_in]

on espnradio (i can't remeber if cowherd or sportsbash), the suggestion was made for 6 team playoff..the top 2 get a bye first week...and use the biggest bowls for the 5 games...I guess its as good as anything...what do you guys think?

 

[connor_in]

I was just re-reading a few of the posts and wanted to point out a MAJOR FACT...the champion is not always the best team, especially if it is a tourney. Ususally it is one of the best ones, but anyone can go on a run. Do you seriously think the steelers were the best team in the nfl a few years ago when they won it all? Playoffs and tourneys allow the element of chance a lot more...except in the case of MLB or NBA where chance has a harder time of it...anyone can beat anyone once, but to win a multi-game series is exponentially harder

 

[Freeman Ara]

Fair enough... but I honestly doubt your statement... and it's conjecture... all I'm saying...

Even if tOSU falls into the title game... the two teams that have ended up in the BCS title game have been better representatives of the "best of their sport" than than the average Super Bowl or NCAA Championship in Basketball IMO... AND we still have the rich history of the bowls intact... those two are all I need and care about... BCS for me

I just don't see how the BCS is better then the NFL playoffs or the NCAA tourney. In the last 11 NCAA tourneys you've had 6 number 1 seeds win, 2 number 2's , 2 number 3's seeds and a 4 seed.

2007 Florida=1 seed
2006 Florida=3 seed
2005 UNC=1 seed (beat 1 seed Illinois for the title)
2004 Uconn=2 seed
2003 Syracuse=3 seed (beat 2 1 seeds and number 2 Kansas for the title
2002 Maryland= 1 seed
2001 Duke= 1 seed
2000 Mich St.= 1 seed (played every highest seed to get to final 4. i.e. 16,8,4,2)
1999 Uconn= 1 seed
1998 Kentucky= 2 seed( beat the 1 seed in the elite 8)
1997 Arizona= 4 seed (beat 3 number 1 seeds on way to title)

And as far as the NFL goes I think they get it right the majority of the time. Everyone wants to talk about the Steelers but they beat their own Division winner(Bengals) and the two best teams in the AFC plus the number 1 seed in the NFC to win the Superbowl. Whats the old saying,to be the best you have to beat the best? Well, they did that (with every game on the road) so how can you say they weren't the best team?Plus you look back at other Superbowls, they usually get it right. But the great thing is its not decided by voters, each team earned their way into the playoffs and did what they had to do to win the Championship.

Wasn't the BCS designed to name an out right champion? Well atleast three times I can think of there has been doubt after all was said and done, including a split national title. So what has it really accomplished?

 

[connor_in]

I just don't see how the BCS is better then the NFL playoffs or the NCAA tourney. In the last 11 NCAA tourneys you've had 6 number 1 seeds win, 2 number 2's , 2 number 3's seeds and a 4 seed.

One point to note...in the NCAA tourney, there are 4 #1 seeds, 4 #2 seeds, etc...so a #1 seed could be the best of the teams or the fourth best

 

[Freeman Ara]

One point to note...in the NCAA tourney, there are 4 #1 seeds, 4 #2 seeds, etc...so a #1 seed could be the best of the teams or the fourth best

Yeah I know, but ACamp said that the BCS represented " the best of its sport" more fairly then all the rest..while in general the playoff systems are set up to showcase the best of their sport. Besides the number 1 overall seed supposedly isn't that much better then the fourth 1 seed which would general be the 4th best team in the country. Kind of splitting hairs.

 

[connor_in]

Yeah I know, but ACamp said that the BCS represented " the best of its sport" more fairly then all the rest..why in general the playoff systems are set up to showcase the best of their sport. Besides the number 1 overall seed supposedly isn't that much better then the fourth 1 seed which would general be the 4th best team in the country. Kind of splitting hairs.

agreed...i too disagree w/ ACamp

 

[piyachi]

There is no way that a panel of voters with outside motivations and biases could do a better job than a playoff. Isn't it Spurrier who always votes Duke in? People complained about the Cardinals winning the world series the other year - well guess what, they beat the teams that had better records, hence better. Whats sitting on paper shouldn't make a champion - it should be settled on the field in a playoff.

The devil is just in the details, but that is why people are paid to work for the NCAA.

 

[NDSMC78]

People complained about the Cardinals winning the world series the other year - well guess what, they beat the teams that had better records, hence better. Whats sitting on paper shouldn't make a champion - it should be settled on the field in a playoff.

No, the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals were not a better team. If they were a good team, they would not have finished with a record of 82-79. They just happened to get hot at the right time.
As for deciding it on the field, we do have #1 playing # 2 on the field. Even if we had a 4 team playoff, I could live with that. But once you go to 8 or 16 teams, then you are getting automatic conference champions and teams with 3 and 4 losses playing for the NC. No thanks.

 

[KamaraPolice]

It amazes me that every sport at every level has playoffs and yet college football fans don't think it can work for college football.

 

[KamaraPolice]

No, the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals were not a better team. If they were a good team, they would not have finished with a record of 82-79. They just happened to get hot at the right time.
As for deciding it on the field, we do have #1 playing # 2 on the field. Even if we had a 4 team playoff, I could live with that. But once you go to 8 or 16 teams, then you are getting automatic conference champions and teams with 3 and 4 losses playing for the NC. No thanks.

I can make the argument that the team they beat just so happened to also get hot and win their division (or wildcard, dont remember) and that they should not have even belonged in the playoffs to begin with. it goes both ways. one team can get hot in the regular season and be the "favorite"; doesnt mean they are the best team. it was settled on the field; what more can you ask for?

 

[ACamp1900]

No, the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals were not a better team. If they were a good team, they would not have finished with a record of 82-79. They just happened to get hot at the right time.
As for deciding it on the field, we do have #1 playing # 2 on the field. Even if we had a 4 team playoff, I could live with that. But once you go to 8 or 16 teams, then you are getting automatic conference champions and teams with 3 and 4 losses playing for the NC. No thanks.

I'm a life long Angels/Cardinals fan and the Cards BARELY had any right TALKING about the playoffs last year... yet they were crowned champs over far better teams because a playoffs failed... BCS fails too, but SO DOES A PLAYOFF... so give me the Rose Bowl on New Years day and leave it alone... both ways are flawed...

It amazes me that every sport at every level has playoffs and yet college football fans don't think it can work for college football.

It can work... I just don't like playoff systems in most cases...

 

[ACamp1900]

I can make the argument that the team they beat just so happened to also get hot and win their division (or wildcard, dont remember) and that they should not have even belonged in the playoffs to begin with. it goes both ways. one team can get hot in the regular season and be the "favorite"; doesnt mean they are the best team. it was settled on the field; what more can you ask for?

162 games????? That is a pretty good measure... also... this statement drives me nuts... since when has the BCS NOT been settled on the field???? Always has, always will... and ALWAYS between two teams worthy of a title shot... is it inclusive of ALL teams worthy?? Not all the time... but I'll take that over Champs who long should have lost their chance then get hot in the playoffs

 

[piyachi]

How do the playoffs fail? People act as if a team is better because they won more games during the season.... NEWS FLASH - it doesn't matter if you can't pull it together in the end.

That is why a 1-loss team can win in the BCS championship.
Why they allow wild card teams in playoffs.
Why you play 60 minutes, because it matters right up until the last second.

You play to win the game, not vote on it.

 

[ACamp1900]

What's more just... a team that BARELY finishes .500 being crowned champ

or a team that has one loss not getting their chance over other one loss teams...???

to me that's a no brainer

 

[ACamp1900]

Why do people hate a vote so much... epec. when we are voting between ONLY top level teams... better than an average team knocking off the best team ALL YEAR record wise when they should NEVER have had the shot to do so that's ALWAYS been my thought on that... I truely believe if polls were used in most sports the majority would call for polls in all sports... it's not about fair, it's about normalcy... We like what we are used to... playoffs have ended up being pretty unfair a number of times... nobody cries b/c it's what's excepted... BCS and playoffs are both pretty flawed in their own way(s)

 

[KamaraPolice]

What's more just... a team the BARELY finishes .500 being crowned champ

or a team that has one loss not getting their chance over other one loss teams...???

to me that's a no brainer

we meet again.

look at the ncaa basketball playoffs. there was a team under .500 a couple years ago; they lost by 40 or 50 points. it is fair, because it makes that first round game for #1 that much easier.

btw, there will NEVER be an undeserving champion with a playoff. earning it in the playoffs is better than "earning" it against Youngstown State, Central Michigan, Memphis and Tulane.

 

[ACamp1900]

we meet again.

look at the ncaa basketball playoffs. there was a team under .500 a couple years ago; they lost by 40 or 50 points. it is fair, because it makes that first round game for #1 that much easier.

btw, there will NEVER be an undeserving champion with a playoff. earning it in the playoffs is better than "earning" it against Youngstown State, Central Michigan, Memphis and Tulane.

There will never be an undeserving champ in the BCS... sorry winning 11-12 games in big boy CFB and winning the title game is deserved... that's why no one had a legit gripe about ND in the BCS the last two years... you don't win 9-10 games and not "earn it"...

one thing about a playoff is you ask teams that HAVE earned it to do it time and time again with NO error... AFTER they have proved their worth all year... I have issue with that...

94 Seattle Sonics
93 Pittsburgh Penquins
How Many Atlanta Braves teams??
How may #1 seeds lose to 8 and 9's???

Always sat wrong iwth me and always will... you talk about "earning it"... yep they sure do... and they don't get it in a playoff.

Oh, and LOL at your first statement... I thought that too...

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

This thread should die a painful death. But instead, it'll be around for a long time, and rehashed every winter.

 

[ACamp1900]

This thread should die a painful death. But instead, it'll be around for a long time, and rehashed every winter.

more like bi-monthly

lol

 

[mbooch]

Check this out guys. What do you think?

The Wetzel plan - NCAA Football - Yahoo! Sports

This isn't a prediction, but the problems with a "play-off" are numerous, and, to my mind, too serious to dictate a change. Look at Wetzel's article for PROBLEM #1: The dumbass conferences will each demand an automatic berth. Therefore, the concept of running a tournament to find "the best team" is compromised at the get-go.

PROBLEM #2: FOUR weeks of play-offs ?? AFTER Thanksgiving? Ever heard of "finals"? These ARE college kids, aren't they?

PROBLEM #3: That's a SIXTEEN GAME SEASON for the Final Two. This is college?

Problem #4: "Seeding" the teams, instead of taking the top X teams and that's that re-introduces subjectivity into the matchups, and will quickly degenerate into the "seeding" being used to "set up" "entertaining" match ups in Rounds Two and Three.

There are certainly problems with the BCS, but honestly, they play-off idea doesn't really stand to solve them. Anyway, given the topsy-turvy life in the Top Five this year, who's to say WHAT is the "right" match-up for the BCS game?