The Definitive NO PLAYOFF Thread

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ The Definitive NO PLAYOFF Thread
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Sep 9, 2010 8:57 PM
jordo212000;477762 wrote:The key is to make the variables play a much lesser role. One of the biases is the "________ can't play with the big boys so they never make it past #5 in the polls." If a playoff were around the little guy (who has been Utah and Boise) gets their chance when the game matters. Both teams have been stellar in the BCS. Now you put them to the test and make them beat two big boys two weeks in a row. Now we know good/bad they really are. Which is much better than the little guy sitting around still undefeated saying "what if?" after the season

Boise State has won 2 BCS bowl games....and lost the other 4 of their last 6 bowls (including one to East Carolina). This is always the same crap - they've proven themselves by winning a couple games that I select. Well, they've also lost to Washington, got blown out by Georgia, and lost to non-BCS schools (something that doesn't happen to teams like Ohio State, Texas, Florida, etc.). They are 7-7 in the last several years against BCS schools. That is middle of the pack. Don't make too much of their two upsets in that time.
Sep 9, 2010 8:57pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Sep 9, 2010 8:58 PM
jordo212000;477766 wrote:There's no way the Sun Belt will get anywhere close to a playoff. Heck Boise has had enough trouble and they have had an actual argument for them being there. It took external pressure to get the Boises and Utahs of the world more opportunity

So...how are you going to choose playoff teams. And why shouldn't the Sun Belt get an autobid if we're deciding everything on the field?
Sep 9, 2010 8:58pm
sherm03's avatar

sherm03

I go balls deep.

7,349 posts
Sep 9, 2010 9:06 PM
enigmaax;477761 wrote:The thing I find funny about the polls argument is that the same people who say they shouldn't even start those until midseason are the ones who get pissed off when there's a mass change whether a team wins or loses. Like when LSU jumped some teams a few years ago or when Florida jumped Michigan. The only real vote that counts is the last one (regular season) and voters have proven that they are willing to evaluate the overall resume at that time and make the best decision. The whole preseason-polls-screw-teams argument is another lame one. I know Auburn will come up on this one and no one was going to vote Auburn ahead of those teams at any point, so no, their starting position did not screw them.

I agree with everything you've said except for this paragraph. I don't believe that the voters are willing to evaluate the overall resume. We've all heard numerous people say that it's better to lose early in the season so you have time to climb back up rather than later in the year with no chance to come back. If that's a rule of thumb, then it should be blatantly obvious that the votes after the final week are not indicative of the entire season.

Like I said, I think the current system is fine, it just needs tweaked. And one of the things that would help to lessen the arguments is getting rid of the preseason polls.
Sep 9, 2010 9:06pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Sep 9, 2010 9:12 PM
sherm - Two out of the last four years, a team has jumped other teams from the next-to-last to final polls either without the teams ahead losing or even playing. In the other two seasons the title game participants were clear cut. That shows me that the thinking is that last week's poll doesn't necessarily mean you are going to hold your spot just because that is where you were.
Sep 9, 2010 9:12pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Sep 9, 2010 9:15 PM

So...how are you going to choose playoff teams. And why shouldn't the Sun Belt get an autobid if we're deciding everything on the field?
There shouldn't be autobids, its that simple. Do the BCS, have the TV special, give away six spots (two byes) and take the best six teams.
Sep 9, 2010 9:15pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Sep 9, 2010 9:21 PM
jordo - So, your argument has just become that its okay to use the formula to select teams, you just want more teams because that is your preference? Because that is all you are doing. Why'd you draw the line at 6? Why not 4 or 8 to give everyone the same task and number of games to win?
Sep 9, 2010 9:21pm
T

trep14

Senior Member

842 posts
Sep 9, 2010 9:23 PM
jordo212000;477787 wrote:There shouldn't be autobids, its that simple. Do the BCS, have the TV special, give away six spots (two byes) and take the best six teams.

I think that it is very possible that we see the rise of super-conferences here soon. Which should negate the need for autobids.
Sep 9, 2010 9:23pm
sherm03's avatar

sherm03

I go balls deep.

7,349 posts
Sep 9, 2010 9:24 PM
jordo212000;477787 wrote:There shouldn't be autobids, its that simple. Do the BCS, have the TV special, give away six spots (two byes) and take the best six teams.

This will NEVER work...as stated earlier. No conference will ever sign off on this because it doesn't guarantee that at least their conference champion gets a shot.

And as Mooney pointed out, under your guidelines, Boise and Utah wouldn't have even made the playoffs most of the time.

So tell me again why that option is better than what we have?
Sep 9, 2010 9:24pm
sherm03's avatar

sherm03

I go balls deep.

7,349 posts
Sep 9, 2010 9:26 PM
enigmaax;477785 wrote:sherm - Two out of the last four years, a team has jumped other teams from the next-to-last to final polls either without the teams ahead losing or even playing. In the other two seasons the title game participants were clear cut. That shows me that the thinking is that last week's poll doesn't necessarily mean you are going to hold your spot just because that is where you were.

I see your point, and I agree, the last week poll doesn't guarantee that you'll hold your spot. But there is no denying that a favorable preseason ranking will help a team much more than an unfavorable preseason ranking.
Sep 9, 2010 9:26pm
T

trep14

Senior Member

842 posts
Sep 9, 2010 9:28 PM
enigmaax;477761 wrote:trep - You argument has a very narrow focus. There is a title game in the BCS system and in a playoff. Your whole drastic change revolves around one game that you'd like to see more teams have a different chance to make. It isn't a flaw in the system, it is just your opinion of how those two teams are selected. Overall, you'd like for 8 teams to play 7 games in a series that crowns a champion than have 35 games in a series that crowns a champion. You are excluding far more teams than you are including and ultimately there's still only going to be two teams that play for a title. How many times has there really been a huge controversy over who deserved to be playing in the title game? By and large teams know what they need to do and what they need to have happen and for the most part, the choices of who is and should be playing in the title game are pretty much a consensus.

The thing I find funny about the polls argument is that the same people who say they shouldn't even start those until midseason are the ones who get pissed off when there's a mass change whether a team wins or loses. Like when LSU jumped some teams a few years ago or when Florida jumped Michigan. The only real vote that counts is the last one (regular season) and voters have proven that they are willing to evaluate the overall resume at that time and make the best decision. The whole preseason-polls-screw-teams argument is another lame one. I know Auburn will come up on this one and no one was going to vote Auburn ahead of those teams at any point, so no, their starting position did not screw them.

How is it a narrow focus exactly? Because you don't agree? I think your argument has a narrow focus. See how easy that was? A playoff is a much better indicator of determining who actually deserves to be there. How is improving something a narrow focus? And yes the current system is much more flawed in comparison. A bunch of guys in suits are looking at several deserving teams that have very few common opponents and trying to determine who the best teams are. The fact that a team can do everything that is asked of it on the field and still be shut out is a flaw. Plain as day.
Sep 9, 2010 9:28pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Sep 9, 2010 9:34 PM
This will NEVER work...as stated earlier. No conference will ever sign off on this because it doesn't guarantee that at least their conference champion gets a shot.

And as Mooney pointed out, under your guidelines, Boise and Utah wouldn't have even made the playoffs most of the time.

So tell me again why that option is better than what we have?
Who said anything about Boise State needing to be in there? I've been of the opinion all along that randomly choosing two good teams is not good enough. Last year a playoff would have been a godsend. Get four to six of the best teams in the nation and let them settle it once and for all
Sep 9, 2010 9:34pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Sep 9, 2010 9:38 PM
trep - Your focus is narrow because you are honed in on one thing - the one or two teams that play crappy schedules and then complain about not being #1 or #2. The current system enables thousands of athletes to enjoy a postseason including two teams that play for the right to be champion after proving themselves over the course of the season. It isn't like one guy decides this. There's a little science and A LOT of opinions. And for the most part, those opinions are shared by a large majority of observers. You want to take 8 teams - a few hundred athletes - and let them play extra games just because you feel a little team who won a couple games over their heads might be better rewarded. You miss the big picture of the system vs. system comparison and THAT is why you have a narrow view.
Sep 9, 2010 9:38pm
sherm03's avatar

sherm03

I go balls deep.

7,349 posts
Sep 9, 2010 9:39 PM
jordo212000;477810 wrote:Who said anything about Boise State needing to be in there? I've been of the opinion all along that randomly choosing two good teams is not good enough. Last year a playoff would have been a godsend. Get four to six of the best teams in the nation and let them settle it once and for all

Fair enough. But the point remains that it still would not fly. Looking at the rankings last year before the bowl games, your idea means that nobody from the Pac 10, ACC, or the Big 10 get a chance to participate in the playoffs. Do you honestly think that would fly with the schools/players/fans of those conferences?
Sep 9, 2010 9:39pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Sep 9, 2010 9:40 PM
jordo212000;477810 wrote:Who said anything about Boise State needing to be in there? I've been of the opinion all along that randomly choosing two good teams is not good enough. Last year a playoff would have been a godsend. Get four to six of the best teams in the nation and let them settle it once and for all

I know, right, because everybody didn't know that Cincinnati was a fraud and was going to get exposed. Wasn't that hard to figure out who deserved to be in the title game last year.
Sep 9, 2010 9:40pm
Mooney44Cards's avatar

Mooney44Cards

Senior Member

2,754 posts
Sep 9, 2010 9:43 PM
jordo212000;477787 wrote:There shouldn't be autobids, its that simple. Do the BCS, have the TV special, give away six spots (two byes) and take the best six teams.

Good luck getting the Big East or any other BCS conference to sign off on a playoff where they may not even get a piece of the pie. I swear to god, every argument made on this thread FOR a playoff should be preceded with the words "In a perfect world..." because all the arguments speak of the way it SHOULD be and fail to take in any of the current realities of college football. In a perfect world, we would have had a playoff to begin with, but the system was never set up that way. The BCS works most years. Some years it doesn't. A 4-team playoff would work many years, last year it would not have worked. An 8 team playoff would work some years, many (recent) years it would not have. A 16 team playoff would work most years, but it would also devalue the regular season. Imagine #1Ohio State-#2Michigan from a few years ago with a 16 team playoff. Both teams would be guaranteed a playoff spot by virtue of their ranking and the game would mean the same as if the teams were both 6-5. Sure, it would still be OSU-Mich, but it would have no national title implications.
Sep 9, 2010 9:43pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Sep 9, 2010 9:49 PM


I know, right, because everybody didn't know that Cincinnati was a fraud and was going to get exposed.
Nobody knew for sure until Florida took their pants down and proved that they didn't belong. I will raise you Utah vs Alabama. You really have no clue how good anybody is until you see it on the field
Sep 9, 2010 9:49pm
T

trep14

Senior Member

842 posts
Sep 9, 2010 9:53 PM
enigmaax;477814 wrote:trep - Your focus is narrow because you are honed in on one thing - the one or two teams that play crappy schedules and then complain about not being #1 or #2. The current system enables thousands of athletes to enjoy a postseason including two teams that play for the right to be champion after proving themselves over the course of the season. It isn't like one guy decides this. There's a little science and A LOT of opinions. And for the most part, those opinions are shared by a large majority of observers. You want to take 8 teams - a few hundred athletes - and let them play extra games just because you feel a little team who won a couple games over their heads might be better rewarded. You miss the big picture of the system vs. system comparison and THAT is why you have a narrow view.
Playoffs wouldn't mean the death of the other bowls. The Meinke Car Care Bowl and Emerald Bowl can still exist. The players in those bowls can still get their gift bags. Meanwhile players of teams that make the playoffs will have a national championship opportunity. Why are you so narrow-minded that a playoff would destroy all of the bowls?
Sep 9, 2010 9:53pm
dazedconfused's avatar

dazedconfused

Senior Member

2,662 posts
Sep 9, 2010 10:15 PM
as much as i hate them, the bowl games are money-makers for the big schools. any sort of playoff would need to be worked around those and also keep the regular season as is because that's seven or eight big paydays/home games for these schools.

anything more than 4 teams is probably out of the question and even then it probably doesn't solve all the problems/bitching. i think the best we'll get is the plus one system with two of the bcs bowls being used as "play-in" games for a national championship game to be played at a later date (maybe the week before the super bowl at the same site).

doubt anything changes...as much as i'd like to see it
Sep 9, 2010 10:15pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Sep 9, 2010 10:24 PM
enigmaax;477767 wrote:Boise State has won 2 BCS bowl games....and lost the other 4 of their last 6 bowls (including one to East Carolina). This is always the same crap - they've proven themselves by winning a couple games that I select.

Lol. Careful what you say chief. Our Buckeyes have gone 3-3 during that same stretch. Ohio State has 2 wins in 5 BCS games during that same stretch. You wouldn't dare suggest that Ohio State isn't deserving would you?

Boise State has as many BCS wins as the entire ACC. Again, let's not make Boise out to be a patsy
Sep 9, 2010 10:24pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Sep 9, 2010 10:29 PM
dazedconfused;477891 wrote:as much as i hate them, the bowl games are money-makers for the big schools. any sort of playoff would need to be worked around those and also keep the regular season as is because that's seven or eight big paydays/home games for these schools.

anything more than 4 teams is probably out of the question and even then it probably doesn't solve all the problems/bitching. i think the best we'll get is the plus one system with two of the bcs bowls being used as "play-in" games for a national championship game to be played at a later date (maybe the week before the super bowl at the same site).

doubt anything changes...as much as i'd like to see it

Yeah that's true. There are a lot of moving parts. Some long discussions would need to occur. It's obvious that the easiest way for this to happen is just tossing the BCS in to the garbage can. Obviously the NCAA will be reluctant to do it, but with the BCS in play it causes many problems in setting a playoff up.

If the NCAA ever grows a set of stones, they can get rid of the BCS, create their own pseudo BCS by creating "computer formulas" with the existing polls, have a tv special, and then put 4-6 teams in a playoff. The NCAA is capable, they run the NCAA tourney in basketball.

And I really hope somebody doesn't make the patented "it's about education" argument. The NCAA already showed where they stand on that when they wanted to exponentially increase the amount of teams in the NCAA tourney
Sep 9, 2010 10:29pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Sep 9, 2010 10:32 PM
trep14;477846 wrote:Playoffs wouldn't mean the death of the other bowls. The Meinke Car Care Bowl and Emerald Bowl can still exist. The players in those bowls can still get their gift bags. Meanwhile players of teams that make the playoffs will have a national championship opportunity. Why are you so narrow-minded that a playoff would destroy all of the bowls?

Bowls have an identity because each is part of a larger system. Killing off the biggest part (major bowls) of your successful system leaves the small cogs even more meaningless than you are going to say they already are. How does the NIT do?

You've pointed out that every other sport does a playoff system. Only one other sport has a "consolation" prize for those that don't qualify for the tournament (and it doesn't do all that well and is probably on its last legs), so why would anyone think that would succeed?
Sep 9, 2010 10:32pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Sep 9, 2010 10:35 PM
jordo212000;477831 wrote:Nobody knew for sure until Florida took their pants down and proved that they didn't belong. I will raise you Utah vs Alabama. You really have no clue how good anybody is until you see it on the field

Yeah...and Utah, BYU, Boise, et al have the opportunity to show it on the field if they'd fill their schedules with those tests over an entire season. Sorry, I am no more sold by Utah's one upset than I am for anyone else's. Nobody was saying Alabama deserved to be in the title game that season and there wasn't a whole lot of noise in favor of Utah (and still isn't). Yeah, upsets happen. Still doesn't mean Utah earned anything up to that point.
Sep 9, 2010 10:35pm
dazedconfused's avatar

dazedconfused

Senior Member

2,662 posts
Sep 9, 2010 10:39 PM
enigmaax;477925 wrote:Yeah...and Utah, BYU, Boise, et al have the opportunity to show it on the field if they'd fill their schedules with those tests over an entire season. Sorry, I am no more sold by Utah's one upset than I am for anyone else's. Nobody was saying Alabama deserved to be in the title game that season and there wasn't a whole lot of noise in favor of Utah (and still isn't). Yeah, upsets happen. Still doesn't mean Utah earned anything up to that point.

yeah, utah just happened to be lucky enough to be from a big enough market to be the pac 10's option f in their expansion hopes
Sep 9, 2010 10:39pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Sep 9, 2010 10:42 PM
jordo212000;477907 wrote:Lol. Careful what you say chief. Our Buckeyes have gone 3-3 during that same stretch. Ohio State has 2 wins in 5 BCS games during that same stretch. You wouldn't dare suggest that Ohio State isn't deserving would you?

Boise State has as many BCS wins as the entire ACC. Again, let's not make Boise out to be a patsy
Well, I'm not a Buckeye fan so I hope that isn't what you meant. Still, I'm not the one who said winning a BCS bowl means you deserve to gain or lose anything in the following seasons. I merely pointed out how those touting Boise's bowl wins as proof of something conveniently leave out their multiple failures. Basically, winning a couple bowl games doesn't mean shit for this season and people who say Boise has proven itself THIS season because they won their two BCS games previously have a piss poor argument. Hell, if it was only about who won and lost bowl games, Boston College should've been playing for a national title for several years because we know they would win any bowl they played.

By the way, I'm a Florida fan and I happen to feel that Florida could've beaten anyone else and had a shot against Alabama in a rematch if there was a playoff. You have never and would never hear me say they deserved that shot and the system is flawed because they didn't really have the two best teams.
jordo212000;477916 wrote:
And I really hope somebody doesn't make the patented "it's about education" argument. The NCAA already showed where they stand on that when they wanted to exponentially increase the amount of teams in the NCAA tourney

Here is where we are always going to agree. It is about business and money, plain and simple.
Sep 9, 2010 10:42pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Sep 9, 2010 10:44 PM
enigmaax;477919 wrote:Bowls have an identity because each is part of a larger system. Killing off the biggest part (major bowls) of your successful system leaves the small cogs even more meaningless than you are going to say they already are. How does the NIT do?

You've pointed out that every other sport does a playoff system. Only one other sport has a "consolation" prize for those that don't qualify for the tournament (and it doesn't do all that well and is probably on its last legs), so why would anyone think that would succeed?

The bowl games are already meaningless. Coaches leave before their teams play all the time. Some coaches who join their new teams before the bowl games start coaching during bowl games to start getting momentum for next year (using it like a preseason game). Many of the early bowls are lightly attended and lots of schools lose money going to the bowl games. Why does a playoff make them more meaningless? How can you get any less meaningful than they already are. They don't solve anything, nor do they lead to anything. The main thing most of the early bowls decide is which 7-5 team sucks less.

I'm fine with keeping bowl games. I don't have a problem with them. I just shake my head when people try and say that bowl games are one of the reasons there shouldn't be a playoff. I really don't see how it is any different than it is now. Marshall and Ohio fans were aware that Alabama was going to be playing for the National Championship. Fans still went to the game and many still had a good time. Add a 4 game playoff and it's really not all that different.
Sep 9, 2010 10:44pm