Calling Out All Playoff Opponents: [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

Curly Bill

10/28/2007, 02:37 PM

No playoffs, why make games like OU vs. CU meaningless games?

I don't know what the answer is: playoffs -v- current system, but I do think if you create a playoff system you do take away from regular season games...such as that mentioned above.

I would also say that a playoff does not guarantee that you end up with the best team as the NC. What you likely end up with is a team winning the NC that gets on a hot streak at the end of the year, and rides that right through a playoff. How many times have we seen that in B-ball, and I love the NCAA tournament, where the team that won most likely truly wasn't the best team that year?

sanantoniosooner

10/28/2007, 02:40 PM

We have a 65 team basketball tourney and people still whine about not getting in.

I have no doubt that the people that want it would complain once they had it.

Curly Bill

10/28/2007, 02:41 PM

So, are you saying that OU or CU trying to get in the top 8 or 16 would have made that game meaningless?

Yes, it makes it more meaningless then it is under the sytem we now use.

We may see that play out: Provided we don't lose again we're gonna be in the top 8 even with the CU loss. We may very well not make it into the top 2 by the end of the seaon with that loss. So yes, a playoff were you invite in 8, or 16, or whatever number of teams would certainly make that game more meaningless.

okiewaker

10/28/2007, 02:47 PM

I don't know what the answer is: playoffs -v- current system, but I do think if you create a playoff system you do take away from regular season games...such as that mentioned above.

I would also say that a playoff does not guarantee that you end up with the best team as the NC. What you likely end up with is a team winning the NC that gets on a hot streak at the end of the year, and rides that right through a playoff. How many times have we seen that in B-ball, and I love the NCAA tournament, where the team that won most likely truly wasn't the best team that year?

By this theory the Rockies should beat the Red Sox. You can only have one or the other. You can have it played on the field or let computers tell you who is #1.

Curly Bill

10/28/2007, 02:50 PM

[QUOTE=okiewaker]By this theory the Rockies should beat the Red Sox. You can only have one or the other. You can have it played on the field or let computers tell you who is #1.[/QUOTE

It is played on the field...most teams will end up playing 12 or 13 games this year, and they're all played on a field - either theirs or their opponents.

TripleOption14

10/28/2007, 02:51 PM

To be honest, this is the only year I can remember where the BCS system is not gonna work in OU's favor. In past years the BCS has been VERY favorable for OU. So.....

Curly Bill

10/28/2007, 02:52 PM

We'll also have a NC game and it too played on a field.

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 02:54 PM

I don't see how you can say the regular season has so much meaning when so many teams are out of title contention before the season even starts.

SoonerBBall

10/28/2007, 02:55 PM

That argument would hold water if all the other divisions of the NCAA didn't use a tournament.

Just because the other divisions do it doesn't make it a good way to crown a champion.

okiewaker

10/28/2007, 03:00 PM

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 03:02 PM

Just because the other divisions do it doesn't make it a good way to crown a champion.

The post I quoted was arguing that college players play too many games already. The lower divisions have tournaments at the end of the season. Post-season tournament = more games than a bowl system. I was not arguing that a playoff would be better than the BCS, but since you brought it up, I will say that it is.

okiewaker

10/28/2007, 03:04 PM

Curly Bill

10/28/2007, 03:06 PM

If you have 117 teams trying to make the top 8 or 16, it would not lessen the importance of the OU VS CU game. As it stands now, for the most part, if a tema loses just one game you are done. Currently, there is no room for error, especially if you are a good team playing in a conference that is not strong.

If you are a good team playing in a conference that is not strong then don't make an error. I kind of like that: survival of the fittest. This is big-time college sports, not pee-wee soccer where everyone gets a trophy and gets to feel good about themselves, because their self-esteem is more important then winning is. I kind of like the fact that in NCAA football if you don't win each and every week out, at the end of the season it might come back to bite you in the butt.

Curly Bill

10/28/2007, 03:08 PM

[QUOTE=Curly Bill]

Isn't this an argument For the playoff system?

How do you freakin figure that? :confused: If I wanted to argue for a playoff system then that's what I would have said.

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 03:09 PM

This is big-time college sports, not pee-wee soccer where everyone gets a trophy and gets to feel good about themselves

Actually, it is. That's why roughly 50% of the teams make it to bowl games.

Curly Bill

10/28/2007, 03:11 PM

Actually, it is. That's why roughly 50% of the teams make it to bowl games.

But only two get in the game!

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 03:13 PM

But only two get in the game!

In a tournament, the championship would be one game, too. Only it would be determined by not just a strong regular season showing against teams on your schedule, but against other teams with strong regular seasons against different and incomparable schedules.

Curly Bill

10/28/2007, 03:13 PM

Actually, it is. That's why roughly 50% of the teams make it to bowl games.

On another point: 50% of teams (your stats) make it to bowl games because of money...the fact that the more teams playing in bowls the more money the NCAA stands to rake in, and the more money the schools stand to rake in.

usmc-sooner

10/28/2007, 03:16 PM

it will work itself out and like every year before the two best teams will be rewarded for the 2 best seasons.
Div 1 college football has produced IMO the most real champions of any college sport even those with a playoff.

okiewaker

10/28/2007, 03:17 PM

If you are a good team playing in a conference that is not strong then don't make an error. I kind of like that: survival of the fittest. This is big-time college sports, not pee-wee soccer where everyone gets a trophy and gets to feel good about themselves, because their self-esteem is more important then winning is. I kind of like the fact that in NCAA football if you don't win each and every week out, at the end of the season it might come back to bite you in the butt.

I get what you are saying, but you cannot dinstinguish who is a better team, for example OU or LSU, unless it is plalyed. You cannot tell me that you would rather a computer tell you who is better. By the way, remember BSU was undefeated last year and had no chance to play for the MNC. The computer decided who was going to play.

Curly Bill

10/28/2007, 03:17 PM

In a tournament, the championship would be one game, too. Only it would be determined by not just a strong regular season showing against teams on your schedule, but against other teams with strong regular seasons against different and incomparable schedules.

...and still the winner would just as likely not be the better team but just the team that got hot at the right time. If you are in favor of that then OK, but it's a problem that would be inherent in a playoff system...just like the current system has it problems too.

So...whatever system we use is gonna have problems. I just don't think a playoff system lessens them, it just changes them.

usmc-sooner

10/28/2007, 03:18 PM

...and still the winner would just as likely not be the better team but just the team that got hot at the right time. If you are in favor of that then OK, but it's a problem that would be inherent in a playoff system...just like the current system has it problems too.

So...whatever system we use is gonna have problems. I just don't think a playoff system lessens them, it just changes them.

exactly

Curly Bill

10/28/2007, 03:20 PM

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 03:20 PM

We have a 65 team basketball tourney and people still whine about not getting in.

I have no doubt that the people that want it would complain once they had it.Complaining isn't what a playoff would fix. This year, the top eight teams competing for the title game would fix the system.

I'm just not okay with handing the title to tosu just because theur toughest opponent lost to applachian state.

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 03:23 PM

On another point: 50% of teams (your stats) make it to bowl games because of money...the fact that the more teams playing in bowls the more money the NCAA stands to rake in, and the more money the schools stand to rake in.

119.5 FBS teams (WKU is probationary for this season and next). There will be 32 bowl games after the 2007 season. 32 bowl games = 64 teams. 64/120 to make it even = 53.33% of teams get to go to the post-season in college football.

You're right about the money issue, but if there's a way to get more money out of a post-season tournament for the NCAA, they'll switch in a heartbeat. It's not about tradition or which system is "better" anymore, it's about money.

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 03:25 PM

So...whatever system we use is gonna have problems. I just don't think a playoff system lessens them, it just changes them.

Both ideas have flaws and advantages. I prefer the playoff system because it includes teams that may be worthy instead of excluding them.

usmc-sooner

10/28/2007, 03:25 PM

a 12 loss KU won the NC in a tournament over OU who had beaten them 3 times already. I don't see how a team can go 1-3 vs a team and they are the NC.
and many basketball coaches have already said it's not the best teams that always win these tournaments.

Curly Bill

10/28/2007, 03:25 PM

exactly

Thank you.

Now that usmc-sooner has my back then I double-dog for sure know that I'm right. :D

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 03:26 PM

Give me the team that has played consistently well throughout it's season as the National Champion. Not the team that played barely well enough to get into a playoff tournament and then once in it got hot and won it.

Or you could just have a team play a weak schedule and finish in the top 2 in the human polls. Same thing.

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 03:26 PM

I like USMC-SOONER, the jury is still out on you Bill.

I can say that you're both defending the indefensible here.

usmc-sooner

10/28/2007, 03:27 PM

Or you could just have a team play a weak schedule and finish in the top 2 in the human polls. Same thing.

except that really doesn't happen

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 03:27 PM

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 03:27 PM

Or you could just have a team play a weak schedule and finish in the top 2 in the human polls. Same thing.tosu, BC, ASU, Oregon to some extent fall into this catigory.

sanantoniosooner

10/28/2007, 03:28 PM

Indefensible my ***

I think there are good points to be made on both sides of this issue.

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 03:28 PM

except that really doesn't happen

Except that it's happening right now. Ohio State and Boston College both have weak schedules. Had we won at Colorado, we would probably be #1, yet with a weak schedule.

Once again, neither side is "right". It's just about preferences.

Curly Bill

10/28/2007, 03:28 PM

Or you could just have a team play a weak schedule and finish in the top 2 in the human polls. Same thing.

Hey, I put a lot of faith in my fellow man. What can I say? :D

I'd just as soon have the human polls pick two teams to play for the NC, then have them pick 8 or 16 to play for it. Same thing.

usmc-sooner

10/28/2007, 03:29 PM

You're comparing apples to oranges.

why is it if you point out how flawed a post season tournament can be, then those who support the post season tournament want to say apples to oranges.

usmc-sooner

10/28/2007, 03:31 PM

Except that it's happening right now. Ohio State and Boston College both have weak schedules. Had we won at Colorado, we would probably be #1, yet with a weak schedule.

Once again, neither side is "right". It's just about preferences.

If tOSU or BC wins out including their NC BCS game they have earned the title. Mark me down as saying neither team will win the NC.

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 03:31 PM

Indefensible my ***

I think there are good points to be made on both sides of this issue.Well, it is the only sporting event determined by a poll. I guess the X games use a similar system...figure skating too.:O

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 03:31 PM

Hey, I put a lot of faith in my fellow man. What can I say? :D

I'd just as soon have the human polls pick two teams to play for the NC, then have them pick 8 or 16 to play for it. Same thing.

You're assuming that the human polls would still be the main factor in deciding who gets into an 8- or 16-team tournament. I would rather they weren't.

okiewaker

10/28/2007, 03:33 PM

It seems, we are for the most part, are all in agreement. Throw the computers in the trash and let the human polls figure it out

Curly Bill

10/28/2007, 03:33 PM

why is it if you point out how flawed a post season tournament can be, then those who support the post season tournament want to say apples to oranges.

The call for a playoff is the "hot thing" right now, and there has to be a way to justify that. To say that a playoff system would have it's problems, just as the current system does, doesn't do enough to justify changing what we have.

sanantoniosooner

10/28/2007, 03:34 PM

You're assuming that the human polls would still be the main factor in deciding who gets into an 8- or 16-team tournament. I would rather they weren't.
exactly. You will ALMOST get your way and then you'll have something else to complain about.

Right now I'd be happy using the bowls to play 1-4 and 2-3 and having one more game for all the marbles.

I think that's the easiest transition without screwing with tradition terribly.

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 03:34 PM

why is it if you point out how flawed a post season tournament can be, then those who support the post season tournament want to say apples to oranges.

Because it is apples to oranges. This argument has been beaten well past death already, but I guess I'll spell it out for you.

There are 320-ish teams in Div. 1 basketball. They all play roughly 30 games a season (including conference tournaments), then 65 make it to the post-season tournament. Basketball is not the same as football, therefore it is apples to oranges.

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 03:34 PM

It seems, we are for the most part, are all in agreement. Throw the computers in the trash and let the human polls figure it outWRONG!

That was the BS that led to the BCS with computers to help the biased voter get it right.

sanantoniosooner

10/28/2007, 03:35 PM

It seems, we are for the most part, are all in agreement. Throw the computers in the trash and let the human polls figure it out
are you kidding.

East Coast bias man...........then we'd whine about that.

Not that we don't already.

Curly Bill

10/28/2007, 03:36 PM

You're assuming that the human polls would still be the main factor in deciding who gets into an 8- or 16-team tournament. I would rather they weren't.

Maybe so, but then how would you pick those 8 or 16 teams? You still have the same problems as in the current system...but instead of picking two teams to play for the NC, you have to pick 8, or 16, or whatever. So you see: the same problems, just a different system.

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 03:37 PM

The call for a playoff is the "hot thing" right now, and there has to be a way to justify that. To say that a playoff system would have it's problems, just as the current system does, doesn't do enough to justify changing what we have.

It's been the "hot thing" for a long time. The BCS is a compromise between a true tournament and the old bowl system. The Bowl Coalition (BCS predecessor) was formed because people were tired of seeing split titles and other controversies with the polls, yet they didn't want a playoff or to go away from tradition. So 4 major conferences got together and said that the top 2 teams would play for a national title in a "2-team playoff". The system that started with the Bowl Coalition has been evolving ever since.

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 03:41 PM

Maybe so, but then how would you pick those 8 or 16 teams? You still have the same problems as in the current system...but instead of picking two teams to play for the NC, you have to pick 8, or 16, or whatever. So you see: the same problems, just a different system.

You keep saying "pick" like the voters are still the ones determining who gets in.

usmc-sooner

10/28/2007, 03:41 PM

Because it is apples to oranges. This argument has been beaten well past death already, but I guess I'll spell it out for you.

There are 320-ish teams in Div. 1 basketball. They all play roughly 30 games a season (including conference tournaments), then 65 make it to the post-season tournament. Basketball is not the same as football, therefore it is apples to oranges.

wasn't comparing basketball to football, just pointed out one of the many flaws of a tournament or playoff.

okiewaker

10/28/2007, 03:42 PM

WRONG!

That was the BS that led to the BCS with computers to help the biased voter get it right.

Well, now that I think about it, you are right. I stand corrected!:cool:

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 03:43 PM

wasn't comparing basketball to football, just pointed out one of the many flaws of a tournament or playoff.I think we can all agree there is no perfect answer but choosing who gets to play for it by a couple of polls and some computer geeks is getting to be a little ridiculous.

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 03:44 PM

wasn't comparing basketball to football, just pointed out one of the many flaws of a tournament or playoff.

Both systems have about the same amount of flaws and advantages. I can at least acknowledge that a playoff system isn't perfect, and I've never said it was. I just prefer the way it would operate to the BCS.

sanantoniosooner

10/28/2007, 03:44 PM

Lou Holtz and a ouija board is the way to go

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 03:45 PM

Well, now that I think about it, you are right. I stand corrected!:cool:What's really messed up is ever since they've been trying to figure out how to make the computers matter less and less.

Curly Bill

10/28/2007, 03:46 PM

So you see what we have here folks: if a group of intelligent, enlightened, and genuinely concerned peeps such as OUrselves find ourselves in this complicated and confusing argument, then how are the powers-that-be ever going to solve this? Can we keep working towards perfection? Sure we can. But the mere fact that we FB (and otherwise) intellectuals can't come to an agreement on the perfect solution, points out that it doesn't exist.

Now I have to go work out. :(

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 03:46 PM

Lou Holtz and a ouiji board is the way to goNot any crazier than what we have! ;)

Curly Bill

10/28/2007, 03:47 PM

You keep saying "pick" like the voters are still the ones determining who gets in.

I started talking about humans picking because that's what someone else brought up. I know we use computers and fancy gadgets like that these days.

:D

sanantoniosooner

10/28/2007, 03:50 PM

1st of all. Post season ball is for the players, not the fans IMO. We should do what is best for them, not us.

2nd of all. The bowl system allows half the teams to end with a win which translates to momentum for the team and for recruiting, and it is a nice send of for Seniors. Without bowls every team ends with a loss but 1.

IMO we should use two bowl games to seed 1-4 and play one game at the end for the championship. This would keep the bowl system intact and allow a team to get stiffed at #5 instead of #3. Which still sucks, but not as bad.

usmc-sooner

10/28/2007, 03:50 PM

sanantoniosooner

10/28/2007, 03:52 PM

people are quick to point out that half the college teams make bowls but they leave out that half the pro football teams make the playoffs.

they also point out that the lower levels of the college football have a playoffs. They fail to mention that the schedules in the lower levels of college football are very very regional. They also fail to mention these teams don't have the coverage of people that keep up with them. So yes a playoff is better for them but not for D1.
Half the teams that make bowls finish the season with a win. Not so in a playoff.

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 03:53 PM

people are quick to point out that half the college teams make bowls but they leave out that half the pro football teams make the playoffs.

they also point out that the lower levels of the college football have a playoffs. They fail to mention that the schedules in the lower levels of college football are very very regional. They also fail to mention these teams don't have the coverage of people that keep up with them. So yes a playoff is better for them but not for D1.

Playoff opponents are quick to point out that half the NFL teams make the playoffs (which isn't true...12 is not half of 32). The NFL is structured very differently than college football, so a playoff in college football would have to be structured to fit it correctly.

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 03:54 PM

:D
Half the teams that make bowls finish the season with a win. Not so in a playoff.We talking Futbal or football here? Sheesh, don't forget the orange wedges.

sanantoniosooner

10/28/2007, 03:58 PM

This is why I usually avoid these threads.

I'm not good at flow charts so the opposing people can connect dots.

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 03:59 PM

None needed, differing opinions are just that.

sanantoniosooner

10/28/2007, 04:01 PM

None needed, differing opinions are just that.
If you'll read a PRIOR post you'll see why ending on a win is a good thing. It has nothing to do with grade school "everybody is a winner" crap.

usmc-sooner

10/28/2007, 04:04 PM

Playoff opponents are quick to point out that half the NFL teams make the playoffs (which isn't true...12 is not half of 32). The NFL is structured very differently than college football, so a playoff in college football would have to be structured to fit it correctly.

technically 56 out of119 isn't half either :D

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 04:05 PM

If you'll read a PRIOR post you'll see why ending on a win is a good thing. It has nothing to do with grade school "everybody is a winner" crap.Oh, I read it. I just don't buy it.

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 04:06 PM

technically 56 out of119 isn't half either :D

64 out of 120 is, though. ;)

sanantoniosooner

10/28/2007, 04:07 PM

Oh, I read it. I just don't buy it.
your position is indefensible.

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 04:08 PM

your position is indefensible.Sure, at least it's not a pure opinion.

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 04:08 PM

My offense is indefensible.

sanantoniosooner

10/28/2007, 04:08 PM

just employing your own tactic against you;)

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 04:10 PM

just employing your own tactic against you;)I know, but using it in an analogous situation would have been better. ;)

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 04:13 PM

just employing your own tactic against you;)I should have just said...

That ain't true![hairGel]

sanantoniosooner

10/28/2007, 04:15 PM

I may be a man that's 40, but you don't wanna mess with me.

redblood

10/28/2007, 04:20 PM

I have to agree with Curly,the hottest team at the end would win not the best.

sanantoniosooner

10/28/2007, 04:22 PM

I have to agree with Curly,the hottest team at the end would win not the best.
well, I agree with Curly on several points, but I don't care if the best team wins.

some of the greatest stories are when the underdogs put a run together. I'm not for a playoff, but if I were, that would be one of the things I would look forward to.

redblood

10/28/2007, 04:27 PM

thats a good point also sananton.

okiewaker

10/28/2007, 04:37 PM

I prefer "got it all together" vs "hottest". But, that's me.

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 04:43 PM

I prefer "got it all together" vs "hottest". But, that's me.

That's nice, but that statement has been used in this thread as if the two can't be the same team.

usmc-sooner

10/28/2007, 04:50 PM

playoffs are for crack heads, retards, and Div II football

just kidding

let's bring it in, group hug, exchange pleasantries and then back out swingin.

sanantoniosooner

10/28/2007, 04:51 PM

That's nice, but that statement has been used in this thread as if the two can't be the same team.
Was Villanova the best team when they beat Georgetown?

A very good team played a perfect game. But they weren't the best team by a longshot. A playoff doesn't ensure the best team winning. It ensures that more teams will get a shot at it. That is all.

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 04:57 PM

Was Villanova the best team when they beat Georgetown?

To be fair, they beat some good darn teams to get there and then they won, so yeah.

A better argument would be KU in 88. Sure they were good, real good, but they were beaten by the team they beat in the Championship game twice before.

Again, I don't think playoffs are perfect but I do believe there are less mistakes possible in a playoff than in a system like we have.

okiewaker

10/28/2007, 05:00 PM

That's nice, but that statement has been used in this thread as if the two can't be the same team.

I agree with you. We have been beating this horse for a while now. I am in favor of an 8 team playoff, and somehow incorporate the bowls. Me, I don't care whose the hottest or got it together at the end of the season, I just want a legitimate crown! Computers may take out some of the biased voting, but it cannot legitimately give you 2 teams which are best to play for the NC without omiting others. This year may be a good example. IF, and I say if, OSU, BC, and LSU win out. IMHO OSU and LSU will play for the NC. LSU will have leaped BC. Anyway, we will see how it all plays out.

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 05:02 PM

Was Villanova the best team when they beat Georgetown?

A very good team played a perfect game. But they weren't the best team by a longshot. A playoff doesn't ensure the best team winning. It ensures that more teams will get a shot at it. That is all.

I would think that if a team compiled a good enough record to make the tournament (not 8-4 as some people here think would be the norm) and then beat 3 teams in the tournament, that they would be considered the "best" team. It's not like some 3rd place SEC team with 4 losses would be in the tournament.

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 05:17 PM

I would think that if a team compiled a good enough record to make the tournament (not 8-4 as some people here think would be the norm) and then beat 3 teams in the tournament, that they would be considered the "best" team. It's not like some 3rd place SEC team with 4 losses would be in the tournament.What if Notre Dame was 7-4? Would they make it?:D

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 05:18 PM

T.O.P. YO!

Stitch Face

10/28/2007, 05:19 PM

As has been stated several times: if you take the top 4 or the top 8 or the top 16 from our current crap system then you just get controversy over why numbers 5, 9, or 17 got left out. Scrap the whole thing.

I can fix it all:

There should be 8 division I conferences of 14-16 teams each (120 schools total), each split into two subconferences containing 7 or 8 teams each.

Each of the eight conferences plays out basically like the BigXII does now.

Then the 8 conference champs go into a playoff. The major bowl sponsors could sponsor the playoff games.

No polls, no opinions, no "making statements," no "marquee/signature wins," no "margin of victory," no "style points," no "east/west coast bias," no "deserves to be there/doesn't deserve to be there."

Just eight conference champions, the best of the best (as decided on the field by W/L records) from each part of the country battling it out until one remains.

The sportswriters and talking heads and pollsters and internet fanboys can then talk all they want, but the only thing that will matter will be Saturday.

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 05:22 PM

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 05:23 PM

What if Notre Dame was 7-4? Would they make it?:D

They actually get an auto-bid every year.

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 05:24 PM

They actually get an auto-bid every year.Oh, okay, thanks for clearing that up for me. ;)

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 05:27 PM

Oh, okay, thanks for clearing that up for me. ;)

I think it's only fair. They are Notre Dame. :D

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 05:28 PM

I think it's only fair. They are Notre Dame. :DNaturally.

:D

okiewaker

10/28/2007, 05:31 PM

Stitch, love it, but it would be easier to impregnate males than for that scenario to happen, but I love it.

stoops the eternal pimp

10/28/2007, 05:37 PM

You know, people on this board did not whine very much about the BCS when it worked for OU

silverwheels

10/28/2007, 05:43 PM

You know, people on this board did not whine very much about the BCS when it worked for OU

I didn't like it then and I don't like it now, whether it works for us or not.

Stitch Face

10/28/2007, 05:44 PM

Stitch, love it, but it would be easier to impregnate males than for that scenario to happen, but I love it.

Yeah, I know.

Stitch Face

10/28/2007, 05:45 PM

My plan would work well for us because OU seems to do alright at the whole 'conference champ' thing.

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 05:49 PM

My plan would work well for us because OU seems to do alright at the whole 'conference champ' thing.werd

Big Red Ron

10/28/2007, 05:55 PM

You know, people on this board did not whine very much about the BCS when it worked for OUIMHO, it's because those times were different. This system was set up to solve the two or three undefeated situation and it worked. 2003, we deserved to be there. The system did exactly what it was created for, split hairs. Then they changed the system to where it's basicly a little cover for the human polls choosing who plays.

The current system is screwed because it wasn't ment to handle ten, one loss teams and one undefeated teams.

SoonerMom2

10/28/2007, 06:04 PM

To be honest, this is the only year I can remember where the BCS system is not gonna work in OU's favor. In past years the BCS has been VERY favorable for OU. So.....

The reason is not working so well is that kept tweaking the computer system. When they took out margin of victory and strength of schedule as a major component, teams like Ohio State who played three Mid American cupcakes in the pre-Big 10 is ranked #1 even though the Big 10 is very weak this year.

Also if you play a D-1 louzy team it hurts you in the computers but if you play what used to be 1AA, there is no way to factor that into the computers. Also they took away if you played a 1AA two years in a row, you would need an extra win to get in a bowl game.

They have tweaked the system so much to get the mid majors into the system because of their lawsuit, that the whole BCS is a joke. No wonder AP pulled out of the BCS -- they could see the mess tweaking the system made. Why don't the top teams just schedule 1AA teams and see how fast the BCS changes.

Curly Bill

10/28/2007, 06:22 PM

I have to agree with Curly,the hottest team at the end would win not the best.

OMG, people are agreeing with me? Someone tell me: is that a good thing or a bad thing on here? ;)

Leroy Lizard

10/28/2007, 07:04 PM

Playoffs are great, until you dig into the details. Theory versus practicality.

Every time this issue comes up, the playoff proponents offer their ideas on how they want the playoff instituted, which in turn generates tons of arguments among the proponents.

No matter how you slice it, no one will be happy.

Want to only accept conference champs? Now you have 8-4 teams being picked over 11-1 teams, with the 8-4 team being considered only because it played in a conference with sorry teams. That's fair?

Want to go with 16 teams? Who picks them? If it's human voters, USC gets to play every year in which they can field at least a marginal team simply because voters will find it easier to justify giving a #16 ranking to a team that really belongs at #20. And who gets left out? A one-loss Hawaii team that probably deserves the shot more, but has fewer fans in the media. Shudder to think what would happen if Notre Dame finished 8-4. Every year, fans would scream "favoritism!"

The length of the season would be too long with a 16-team playoff as well.

Do conference champs get automatic bids? Which conferences? If all conferences, then the teams in the Sun Belt conference are getting far more ability to play for the national title than they deserve. If only a few conferences get automatic bids, the cries of "favoritism" will ring once again.

An eight-team playoff would be even worse because the stakes would be higher for fewer teams.

When will the games take place? Remember, you have conference championship games to contend with in early December. That doesn't leave much time.

Stitch Face

10/28/2007, 09:09 PM

Want to only accept conference champs? Now you have 8-4 teams being picked over 11-1 teams, with the 8-4 team being considered only because it played in a conference with sorry teams. That's fair?

If an 11-1 team isn't going it's because they lost to the 12-0 champ of their conference. Try harder next year.

A one-loss Hawaii team that probably deserves the shot more, but has fewer fans in the media.

Again, I don't think "deserving it" means anything if you can't win your conference. If Hawaii won their conference and USC won theirs then they might get a chance to prove themselves against each other on the field during a playoff. What are the odds of that happening today?

Do conference champs get automatic bids? Which conferences?

Yes. In my fantasy land they would be eight new 'superconferences' made out of the existing BCS and non-BCS conferences. And, yes, the little brothers would get beaten up a lot, but the Boise States and Hawaiis that everyone gets so enamored with every few years would have a chance to prove themselves.

When will the games take place? Remember, you have conference championship games to contend with in early December. That doesn't leave much time.

An eight-team playoff is only three sequential games (two, really, since the final game would be the NC game which already happens, like, in mid-February nowadays. You could easily fit two games for the eight playoff teams in the expansive void of time we have now between the CCGs and the BCS title game.) Shave a game off the regular season. The current biggest money bowls could then become sponsors of the seven individual playoff/title games. Other teams with winning records (not in the playoff) could still go to the other bowls for money and pride, etc.

Come on guys, let's, like, sign an innerweb petition! I bet Tom Osborne could make it happen.

goingoneight

10/28/2007, 09:37 PM

Check it OUt:

We love the BCS for one reason and one reason only. Every Saturady, from UTEP to Kansas State means something, right?

Right.

Are ya with me? These days if you say "Oh, yeah... well we won the BIG 12 Championship last year" to someone, their immediate response is "who gives a shat?"

I think every Saturday should mean something, every conference championship should mean something and only a league of the "best" should compete for all the marbles.

Case in point: Play everyone in yer conference. Win yer conference championship (whether by record or by title game rematch), send yer conference champ to the "BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES."

IOW, the "BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES" ends up being a series of bowls (playoffs) that work to determine the National Champion. Six major conferences, and give two wildcards for the whiny Notre Dames of the world. If you can't bring it all to the table when it matters, you don't deserve a National Title... period. If you choke up and lose to a Cinderella in the first game, you aren't exactly playing like a champion, am I right? If Cinderella goes all the way, good. If they are who we thought they were and USC hands them a lubeless bendover in the next game... well that's yer own damn fault.

Face it, if that's the way it ends up... then teams will start taking every snap of every game seriously if they know they have a chance.

A lot of people are scared of the BCS fading out because they think a team that "gets hot" suddenly will win it all. That doesn't happen when you have to win your conference just to get on the short list. Honestly, we had two MNC invites gift-wrapped all things considered. How many people felt like we were going to just turn the magic back on after K-State raped us in Arrowhead Stadium? I'm glad we made a game of it, but how would you like to see Texas get raped by say... Iowa State and then get a shot at the crystal ball? How would you feel if UCLA pasted USC, and the Trojans went on to lose in the title game? Every year the current system makes less and less sense. The only teams I can say I think so far would have gone all the way in a playoff are OU 2000, Miami 2001 USC 2004, Texas 2005. LSU 2003, UF 2006, Ohio State (both years the went), OU 2003 and 2004, Nebraska 2001... I can't guarantee any of those teams had all the pieces for success to win at the highest level. Bone-head coaching moves count as weaknesses (see: Chuck Long's Sugar Bowl playbook).

goingoneight

10/28/2007, 09:40 PM

Fans for a playoff Linky (http://www.fansforaplayoff.com/)

Leroy Lizard

10/28/2007, 09:57 PM

If an 11-1 team isn't going it's because they lost to the 12-0 champ of their conference. Try harder next year.

That isn't going to satisfy those that see an 11-1 Alabama team left out so that an 8-4 Tulane team (with just as many conference losses) can play for all the marbles. Such a system simply rewards teams for playing in bad conferences. Do you want such a reward?

You have highlighted the real problem: Such a scenario may not bother YOU any, but it will bother just about everyone else. Again, the problem with playoffs is the inability to come up with a fair system. Simply saying that an unfair system is okay isn't going to produce a playoff.

Again, I don't think "deserving it" means anything if you can't win your conference.

Based on what logic? I see no relationship between a conference championship and a national championship.

If Hawaii won their conference and USC won theirs then they might get a chance to prove themselves against each other on the field during a playoff. What are the odds of that happening today?

They may have already played each other out-of-conference. And more often than naught, the team from the superior conference decimated the other. So why should they have to compete once again to prove who is truly the best when they did so earlier in the year?

Yes. In my fantasy land they would be eight new 'superconferences' made out of the existing BCS and non-BCS conferences.

And there is one of the biggest problems with playoff proponents... as soon as you get into the details, they rely on fantasies.

Show me a system that will work that is practical and won't lead to more unrest than currently exists.

An eight-team playoff is only three sequential games (two, really, since the final game would be the NC game which already happens, like, in mid-February nowadays.

Mid-February? The national championship game is on Jan. 7. How is that mid-February?

Come on guys, let's, like, sign an innerweb petition! I bet Tom Osborne could make it happen.

Sure, give him a REASONABLE playoff format that will truly make the fans happy. Super-conferences? Riiiight.

FaninAma

10/28/2007, 09:59 PM

mdklatt

10/28/2007, 10:00 PM

If an 11-1 team isn't going it's because they lost to the 12-0 champ of their conference.

What was Kansas State's record in 2003? (Hint: It wasn't 12-0.)

Stitch Face

10/28/2007, 10:00 PM

These days if you say "Oh, yeah... well we won the BIG 12 Championship last year" to someone, their immediate response is "who gives a shat?"

As opposed to, say, "we won the Holiday Bowl?" Hot damn!!!

I have a feeling that guys like Paul Thompson, Mark Clayton, Jason White, Adrian Peterson, Nate Hybl, and Bob Stoops care a lot about winning the BigXII, actually.

FaninAma

10/28/2007, 10:01 PM

You know, people on this board did not whine very much about the BCS when it worked for OU

You know the bcs is a flawed, unfair system when fans realize it works for some teams and against others and when over 1/2 of D-1 teams have no shot to play for the NC before the season even begins.

And the argument that the BCS "worked" for OU in he past is bogus. OU would have made a 4 or 8 team playoff in 2003 and 2004. The only thing the BCS did is eliminate teams with legitimate claims that they deserved a chance to play for the national title. And in doing so the BCS fubared the whole process and caused those seasons to end shrouded in controversy.

What a great system.:rolleyes:

Stitch Face

10/28/2007, 10:06 PM

Mid-February? The national championship game is on Jan. 7. How is that mid-February?

It's called sarcasm, see, cuz the title game keeps getting pushed back more so they can advertise/hype it longer. Welcome aboard.

Leroy Lizard

10/28/2007, 10:09 PM

If you choke up and lose to a Cinderella in the first game, you aren't exactly playing like a champion, am I right?

Well, if you are Tulane and you get beat by (say) Auburn 34-0, Middle Tennesse State 24-3, and Rice 29-7, and then you go on to lose a conference game against Tulsa, you haven't exactly played like a champion either. But it is quite possible that such a Tulane team could be in your system championship-caliber. That is complete BS and fans won't go for it.

If the season stopped right now, Central Michigan, with blowout losses to Kansas, South Dakota State (yes, SOUTH DAKOTA STATE), Purdue, and Clemson would get to compete for the national title, while OU would stay home.

Suppose that OU loses to Kansas in the Big XII title game 30-28. Kansas beat Central Michigan 52-7.

Are you seriously suggesting that Central Michigan is more worthy of a playoff appearance than OU?

FaninAma

10/28/2007, 10:17 PM

Well, if you are Tulane and you get beat by (say) Auburn 34-0, Middle Tennesse State 24-3, and Rice 29-7, and then you go on to lose a conference game against Tulsa, you haven't exactly played like a champion either. But it is quite possible that such a Tulane team could be in your system championship-caliber. That is complete BS and fans won't go for it.

If the season stopped right now, Central Michigan, with blowout losses to Kansas, South Dakota State (yes, SOUTH DAKOTA STATE), Purdue, and Clemson would get to compete for the national title, while OU would stay home.

Suppose that OU loses to Kansas in the Big XII title game 30-28. Kansas beat Central Michigan 52-7.

Are you seriously suggesting that Central Michigan is more worthy of a playoff appearance than OU?

There is zero chance that any of your scenarios would play out in a playoff. Only BCS conference champions would get an automatic bid to the playoff with a couple of at-large teams. The at-large births would at least give the Boise States and Hawaii's of the world a shot at playing for the title....something they do not have under the current BCS.

Under the BCS Boise State had no chance to play for the title even though they hammered Oregon State the same team that beat USC who, in turn, would have played for the national title if they had not choked against UCLA.

Stitch Face

10/28/2007, 10:20 PM

I am building my fantasy playoff system out of Legos as we speak. This is gonna be awesome.

Suerreal

10/28/2007, 10:20 PM

If you really want a playoff, hope for Ohio State(11), Boston College(NR), Arizona State(36), and Kansas(NR) to end up undefeated. Hawaii(23), too, for that matter, but their case is weaker, due to lack of BCS conference opponents. Numbers in parentheses indicate pre-season AP ranking.

If those 4 BCS conference teams do all make it through undefeated, there may be a 4 team playoff created on the spot. (Ohio State-Arizona State in the Rose Bowl; Boston College-Kansas in the Fiesta or Orange Bowl; winners in the MNC game in New Orleans)

Much as I'd like to see a playoff, I don't know that I can hope for Kansas to go undefeated, though...

goingoneight

10/28/2007, 10:21 PM

Well, if you are Tulane and you get beat by (say) Auburn 34-0, Middle Tennesse State 24-3, and Rice 29-7, and then you go on to lose a conference game against Tulsa, you haven't exactly played like a champion either. But it is quite possible that such a Tulane team could be in your system championship-caliber. That is complete BS and fans won't go for it.

If the season stopped right now, Central Michigan, with blowout losses to Kansas, South Dakota State (yes, SOUTH DAKOTA STATE), Purdue, and Clemson would get to compete for the national title, while OU would stay home.

Suppose that OU loses to Kansas in the Big XII title game 30-28. Kansas beat Central Michigan 52-7.

Are you seriously suggesting that Central Michigan is more worthy of a playoff appearance than OU?

If the season stopped now, you wouldn't have conference champions in order for the system I mentioned to work.

Also of note: the champion is not decided by what fans want, or else we'd have one already in the bag for this year. The championship should have nothing to do with money or what is popular among spectators.

How would you feel if a team you thought was almighty went in and lost to said Central Michigan? Remember the Fiesta Bowl anyone? Remember Michigan's home opener this year? It rarely happens, I know... and most of the time, the first round is usually a warm-up for the best of the best in any playoff anyway, so no one would complain but the people who... I'm sorry... didn't get the job done.

Leroy Lizard

10/28/2007, 10:32 PM

From the web site:

Dear NCAA, Bowl Officials, Conference Commissioners, School Presidents & Athletic Directors:

Enough is enough. It’s time to change the bowl system to a 16-team playoff.

I mean, c’mon. Why are you all so stubborn?

Bwahahahahahahaha!! Oh yeah, real persuasive! That should really rock the NCAA boat. :D

Stitch Face

10/28/2007, 10:42 PM

DP

Hey, pal, this is a family forum!

Kinda.

Leroy Lizard

10/28/2007, 11:01 PM

There is zero chance that any of your scenarios would play out in a playoff. Only BCS conference champions would get an automatic bid to the playoff with a couple of at-large teams.

If you relegate some conferences as better than others, then that shoots the "level playing field" argument all to Hell. And it also nullifies any chance of a playoff being sanctioned by the NCAA. So the national title will still remain mythical.

Leroy Lizard

10/28/2007, 11:04 PM

If the season stopped now, you wouldn't have conference champions in order for the system I mentioned to work.

Central Michigan is in the lead for the conference championship. And if they win it, their blowout losses are not going to disappear. The scenario I painted could very easily play out and probably will.

Regardless, the winner of the MAC this year is going to have a horrible record, yet still be a conference champion. According to some people, being a conference champion is supposed to be meaningful when it comes to determing a true national champion, so how does that work?

Leroy Lizard

10/28/2007, 11:08 PM

How would you feel if a team you thought was almighty went in and lost to said Central Michigan?

Hell, for that matter Iowa State could beat LSU. Should we invite them too? How could we leave them out if it is possible they could win the whole thing?

It doesn't matter if it is POSSIBLE that Central Michigan could beat OU. What matters is if they are more WORTHY of playing for a national title. If we included every team into the playoff that COULD beat OU, we would have to invite every team except Notre Dame.

sooneron

10/28/2007, 11:31 PM

16 team playoff has to be the stupidest thing that I have heard of. Who here thinks that UTerus deserves to play for the marbles? Hint, not that many whorn fans either.

Leroy Lizard

10/29/2007, 12:50 AM

You couldn't fit a 16-team playoff into the season anyway. If a playoff is to occur, it will have to incorporate eight teams or less, which is where the real arguing will begin.

Sooner1979

10/29/2007, 01:27 AM

I would like to see a system in which every conference that was considered a "BCS" Conference has the same number of teams where they either have to play a Conference Championship, or where no team has to play a conference championship...It seems that no matter what year it is, our Conference Championship game can screw us more times than it can help us. For instance, if Missouri wins out and does beat Kansas, then we have to play them twice to decide who is better...

I also think that each school should still be in control of their schedule, but I think that each team that finishes in the Top 10 has to schedule one team from the previous years schedule the following year. It would in essence provide a more efficient way of tracking how teams are ranked compared to others besides saying "Well since Baylor beat Oregon State, and Oregon State beat USC and OU beat Baylor, then that means we are better than USC." - That philosophy is Garbage....

I also think that it would make College football more exciting if their was a guaranteed matchup of the previous year's Top 10 teams each year. For instance, since Florida won the National Championship last year, and finished at Number 1, they should have to schedule one game next year against the Number 10 team, and Number 2 team against the Number 9 team, and so on and so forth. It would make for a surprise matchup instead of knowing who plays who for the next 5 years...

Teams can still schedule their cream puffs, but now they are incorporating one game that is a good measuring stick of where the teams stand against other conferences instead of having an EaStPN bias towards the SEC...

Leroy Lizard

10/29/2007, 02:55 AM

I would like to see a system in which every conference that was considered a "BCS" Conference has the same number of teams where they either have to play a Conference Championship, or where no team has to play a conference championship...

Which means you are either going to have to force the Big XII and SEC to drop their conference championship games (fat chance) or force the Big 10 and Pac-10 to institute a CCG (even fatter chance).

I also think that each school should still be in control of their schedule, but I think that each team that finishes in the Top 10 has to schedule one team from the previous years schedule the following year.

Impractical. Scheduling is a two-way street. Sure, OU might want to schedule Tulsa again, but Tulsa does not have schedule OU. Are you going to penalize a team for not scheduling the proper teams when the proper teams refused to comply?

I also think that it would make College football more exciting if their was a guaranteed matchup of the previous year's Top 10 teams each year. For instance, since Florida won the National Championship last year, and finished at Number 1, they should have to schedule one game next year against the Number 10 team, and Number 2 team against the Number 9 team, and so on and so forth. It would make for a surprise matchup instead of knowing who plays who for the next 5 years...

Games are scheduled years in advance for a reason: It is a complicated process. Forcing teams to schedule certain teams the following year simply cannot work. While OU may have to schedule Florida, it may not be able to because Florida is locked into its own non-conference games. The only solution is to drag the NCAA into the scheduling game, but they will want no part of it.

rubyspirit

10/29/2007, 06:51 AM

16 game playoff is a joke. Football is a tough, hard game and we should consider the health of the kids. Stop being greedy. A 12 to 14 game season is more than enough.

I'm excited whenever OU wins the Big 12 Championship! You should be too!

soonersn2007

10/29/2007, 07:56 AM

Trim a couple of regular season games, have conference champions play each other the week after regular season to cull down to four teams..................then on Jan 1 have the 4 play and the 2 remaining the week after.

This is very doable and won't effect their "schooling"......it is only the good 'ole boys who want to fill their coffers with bowl money who are stopping this.

Or omg!! how about starting the season the last week of August when school hasn't even started......................those officials who say it can't be done are lying.

stoops the eternal pimp

10/29/2007, 10:40 AM

You know the bcs is a flawed, unfair system when fans realize it works for some teams and against others and when over 1/2 of D-1 teams have no shot to play for the NC before the season even begins.

And the argument that the BCS "worked" for OU in he past is bogus. OU would have made a 4 or 8 team playoff in 2003 and 2004. The only thing the BCS did is eliminate teams with legitimate claims that they deserved a chance to play for the national title. And in doing so the BCS fubared the whole process and caused those seasons to end shrouded in controversy.

What a great system.:rolleyes:

So it works for teams and against teams but not OU in 2003 and 2004

FaninAma

10/29/2007, 11:33 AM

So it works for teams and against teams but not OU in 2003 and 2004

The point is that some of you claim the BCS has been advantageous to OU in the past so we shouldn't bitch when it bites us in the @$$ this year. My point is that if we had a playoff OU would have been included in the playoff in both 2003 and 2004 and the Sooners and other deserving teams wouldn't get bit in the @$$ by a stupid, subjective, moronic, beaurocratic system.

Just off the top of my head, teams that have been screwed by the BCS include Miami in 2000, Oregon in 2001, USC in 2003, Auburn in 2004 and Boise State last year. And it appears this year their will be several candidates for the annual BCS reaming.

JohnnyMack

10/29/2007, 11:36 AM

I skipped the first 8 pages of this thread and will just offer:

+1.

YWIA.

Leroy Lizard

10/29/2007, 11:47 AM

Trim a couple of regular season games, have conference champions play each other the week after regular season to cull down to four teams..................then on Jan 1 have the 4 play and the 2 remaining the week after.

Trimming a couple of out-of-conference games will make the conferences very isolated, since almost no games will be played out-of-conference. Fine if you like that sort of thing. Frankly, I think it will take a great deal away from the regular season. And there are huge financial implications of doing this, since out-of-conference games are typically huge money makers for teams like Tulane.

This is very doable and won't effect their "schooling"......it is only the good 'ole boys who want to fill their coffers with bowl money who are stopping this.

Actually, it is doable but not very palatable. Why on Earth would college presidents support a system that trims out nearly 100 regular season games so that an extra seven games can be played? That would represent a large financial loss for the vast majority of athletic departments.

And what are these "coffers" you are talking about? College presidents don't get to keep any of the money that bowls pay their teams.

If you are talking about Athletic Dept coffers, then I don't understand your complaint.

Playoff proponents have never figured out the financial argument. On one hand, they claim that there are millions, even billions, of dollars to be made with a football playoff. But then they claim that college presidents don't want a playoff system because of all the money given to them by bowl committees. Either a playoff is more financially lucrative than a bowl system, or it isn't.

Or omg!! how about starting the season the last week of August when school hasn't even started......................those officials who say it can't be done are lying.

"Lying" is a pretty strong word. Most games began this year on September 1. While they started much earlier in some of the previous seasons, I doubt the college presidents want to go back to that schedule. That was a mistake they probably won't repeat.

OklahomaTuba

10/29/2007, 11:48 AM

I say we ditch this whole season thing, and just simulate the season using a combination of computer programs and the NCAA video game.

That way, we can totally remove all on-field play, which seems to be the goal of the BCS.

Leroy Lizard

10/29/2007, 11:52 AM

Stop being greedy.

You're talking to playoff proponents here. They only care about one thing: their own entertainment.

OklahomaTuba

10/29/2007, 11:57 AM

Playoff proponents have never figured out the financial argument. On one hand, they claim that there are millions, even billions, of dollars to be made with a football playoff. But then they claim that college presidents don't want a playoff system because of all the money given to them by bowl committees. Either a playoff is more financially lucrative than a bowl system, or it isn't.

That's the point, the college presidents are either lying or stupid if they don't think there is more money in having their school involved in a playoff than just a meaningless bowl game.

stoops the eternal pimp

10/29/2007, 12:00 PM

I m not saying you shouldnt gripe...But people should have been griping then too but its perceived different when things don't go the right away.

My points are

1. Should not have lost to Colorado. OU is not out of it because of the computers, they played lackluster football against an average team. I m not gonna get worked up about the BCS when OU plays like that.

2. The BCS is going to be around until 2010 regardless.

soonervegas

10/29/2007, 12:09 PM

I haven't read through this entire string, but a few thoughts:

#1 I don't want the regular season to become meaningless (and it would) Real college football fans will flip the 1st time a team "rests their starters" against Baylor to end the season. Every game currently means something. If you want to play for a natinal title it is pretty simple....beat Colorado.

#2 People who want a "16 team playoff" need to stop sniffing Craig Humphrey's jock. He is wrong, way wrong.

That is all.

usmc-sooner

10/29/2007, 12:11 PM

2. The BCS is going to be around until 2010 regardless.

even if we start a million threads about it?

OklahomaTuba

10/29/2007, 12:22 PM

#1 I don't want the regular season to become meaningless (and it would) Real college football fans will flip the 1st time a team "rests their starters" against Baylor to end the season. Every game currently means something. If you want to play for a natinal title it is pretty simple....beat Colorado.

Please.

People keep saying this, and its simply false. People rest their starters anyway.

No matter what format a playoff happens, you would STILL have to win your conference. Hell, win all your games and why not try to get home-field advantage for the first round??

Well, that is unless we keep the BCS around. Obviously we didn't have to win our conference in this POS system.

Leroy Lizard

10/29/2007, 12:23 PM

That's the point, the college presidents are either lying or stupid if they don't think there is more money in having their school involved in a playoff than just a meaningless bowl game.

Why would they lie? If there is more money available, why wouldn't they just go after it?

If college presidents are truly that greedy, then they would be the first to jump on the playoff bandwagon. But they tend to oppose playoffs. How is that?

You only have two choices:

1. There is more money in a playoff, but college presidents don't care about the money.

2. There is less money in a playoff.

Frankly, I think a playoff system is a loser financially compared to the bowl system. But I cannot know for sure.

Civicus_Sooner

10/29/2007, 12:25 PM

playoff please.

OklahomaTuba

10/29/2007, 12:27 PM

Why would they lie? If there is more money available, why wouldn't they just go after it?

If college presidents are truly that greedy, then they would be the first to jump on the playoff bandwagon. But they tend to oppose playoffs. How is that?

You only have two choices:

1. There is more money in a playoff, but college presidents don't care about the money.

2. There is less money in a playoff.

Frankly, I think a playoff system is a loser financially compared to the bowl system. But I cannot know for sure.

Why do you think this??

And why do you believe its one or the other? A playoff can exist with a bowl system. Its doing exactly that right now, as we have a 2-team playoff with one game.

Have the bowls+first round games at the upper seeds home fields(more attendence+more TV money).

Then, if you lose, go to a crappy bowl with the other 50% of the NCAA. If you win, advance to the BCS bowls and try to win a REAL championship.

aero

10/29/2007, 12:33 PM

I used to be a proponent of a playoff but no more. There are too many discrepancies between conferences. Some play everyone in their conference, some don't. Some have a conference championship, some don't. Some are split into division, some aren't. Some teams aren't even in a conference. It still comes down to WIN your games. Traditional powers and larger schools will always enjoy somewhat of an unfair advantage because they will start higher in the polls out of the gate than smaller, less traditional schools based primarily on history and recruits. And yes, while recruits don't always pan out and traditional powers with blue chips won't always beat lesser teams, more often than not they will. But just as this year, things will shake out. Teams that win will move up, teams that lose will move down. Then teams will only have to worry about strength of schedule and margin of victory, both which they have some control over. True, you won't know if the traditional power you scheduled will succ the year you play them but you would be better scheduling a Miami rather than, say, East Carolina State. Obviously Miami is down this year but I think we are still getting some credit for beating them. I would prefer a fifth and title game be added to the current system, rotating the title game between 5 major bowls. Yeah, yeah. There will be a 5th or 6th team bitching but when was the last time a 5th or 6th team had a legitimate argument? We almost always have a champ who we can agree had a good year and bowl game. The Villanovas and NCStates are great stories but is that what we really want for a D1 football champ? I'm more comfortable with a team who has won all or almost all of the games they played. And who cares if D1-AA has playoffs? "THIS IS DIVISION 1 FOOTBALL, THIS ISN'T INTRAMURALS". The current system gives us a champ, and most often a legitimate one, and generates tons of interest, talk, and yes, arguments. Its perfect in its imperfection.

TopDawg

10/29/2007, 12:35 PM

#1 I don't want the regular season to become meaningless (and it would) Real college football fans will flip the 1st time a team "rests their starters" against Baylor to end the season. Every game currently means something.

If Ohio State, BC, LSU and ASU hold on to the #1 and #2 spots let's look at how many games have championship implications in the final week of the regular season and the conference championship weekend. I'll be generous, too.

First, it would all depend on the ACC title game. If BC wins, then that's the only game that had any implications. But let's pretend it's the last game of the day to get as many games in the equation as possible.

The Arizona at Arizona State game in Week 14 could have championship implications if BC and LSU lose. Therefore, the LSU (SEC Championship) game also has implications. So now we're up to 3 games (BC, LSU, ASU). I'll even concede that there's an outside shot that the Oregon State/Oregon game could have implications if the other 3 teams lost. So 4 games have this extra weight of championship implications with them. That's without a playoff.

Let's look at how many games would have that extra weight to them if we had an 8 team playoff.

Well, to start with, I don't think any of those 4 games would lose any level of excitement. BC certainly can't feel confident that if they lose the ACC championship game, they'll still be in the playoff. Especially with teams like OU (Big XII title game), West Virginia (vs. Pitt), Kansas or Missouri (Big XII title game) and possibly Georgia (SEC Championship game) all right there in the mix.

So with the current system and being pretty generous, we've got 4 games that "mean something" in those last two weeks. With an 8-team playoff system, we've got an additional 2 games that mean something and an additional 4 teams with a playoff berth on the line.

I can easily see how a playoff system might devalue one or two games during the regular season. But doesn't it add value to so many more games throughout the season?

TUSooner

10/29/2007, 12:48 PM

In generral, I favor some kind of playoff How MUCH of a playoff?
Top 4 or 8? OK

More than that could cheapen the regular season too much. There is something to be said for having your ranking depend on a whole season of work, not just maybe squeaking into a playoff and getting "hot" at the right time.

At the other extreme: Total rearrangement of confernces into a massive D1 League with newly aligned conferences and divisions, and necessarily cutting D-! down in size? NO WAY

College football grew up naturally in the wild over decades. To suddenly hammer it into a nice, convenient NFL shape could kill the goose. Is it worth all that simply to have a less debatable champion?

I always thought a playoff sounded great playoff sounds

Sorry if this repeats what others have said. I'm too lazy to read the whole thread just now

Stoop Dawg

10/29/2007, 01:03 PM

The BCS makes the regular season meaningless.

Georgia has 2 losses and is ranked #10. Hawaii is undefeated and is ranked #12.

Georgia's two losses are meaningless. So are Hawaii's 8 wins. Every game that doesn't involve an undefeated or 1-loss team from here on out is meaningless. I think they should just cancel them.

Stoop Dawg

10/29/2007, 01:07 PM

I guess the Big 12 needs to go to a ranking system to determine our conference champion (like the Big 10 does). Let's abandon that stupid CCG thing and just use W/L and rankings. I mean, under the current system for determing a conference champion, the loss to CU is meaningless.

Stoop Dawg

10/29/2007, 01:08 PM

If BC or OSU loses a game, LSU's loss to unranked (and 3-loss) Kentucky will be rendered meaningless.

Stoop Dawg

10/29/2007, 01:13 PM

If we lose to ATM this weekend, I probably won't watch any of the rest of our games. They'll all be meaningless.

Saueyman

10/29/2007, 01:13 PM

OklahomaTuba

10/29/2007, 01:16 PM

soonervegas

10/29/2007, 01:46 PM

The amount of people wanting to ruin college football on here is terrifying.

r5TPsooner

10/29/2007, 01:57 PM

After what has transpired in D-1 college football this year how in the world can you still support the POS that is the BCS?

There are fans who still support the BCS? Say it ain't so.

TopDawg

10/29/2007, 01:57 PM

I can easily see how a playoff system might devalue one or two games during the regular season. But doesn't it add value to so many more games throughout the season?

The amount of people wanting to ruin college football on here is terrifying.

Is that your final answer?

silverwheels

10/29/2007, 01:57 PM

The amount of people wanting to ruin college football on here is terrifying.

I guess it's good for you that none of us have any power over it, then, huh? :rolleyes:

Curly Bill

10/29/2007, 02:01 PM

There are fans who still support the BCS? Say it ain't so.

Support the BCS?...not necessarily

Think playoffs are the magic elixir that some on here do....NOPE.

silverwheels

10/29/2007, 02:02 PM

Support the BCS?...not necessarily

Think playoffs are the magic elixir that some on here do....NOPE.

So should we go back to the old way where NCs where handed out before the bowls, then?

Curly Bill

10/29/2007, 02:04 PM

Nope, until someone can come up with a system that's better, not just different, then what we currently have I say we stick with what we have.

You know the old saying: Better the devil you know, then the one you don't.

Curly Bill

10/29/2007, 02:05 PM

Lets all just chant togeter now: playoffs, playoffs, playoffs, playoffs...no, the magic spell just isn't working.

silverwheels

10/29/2007, 02:07 PM

Lets all just chant togeter now: playoffs, playoffs, playoffs, playoffs...no, the magic spell just isn't working.

So instead of having a valid discussion, you're doing this. Awesome.

Curly Bill

10/29/2007, 02:08 PM

Apparently you don't remember my dozen or so other posts in this thread.

soonervegas

10/29/2007, 02:09 PM

Is that your final answer?

Here is my final answer. I know you and I (from your previous postings) are people who value both OU b-ball and football at about the same level. With that being said, how many times during the OU b-ball regular season are you truly sick to your stomach about what is going on the court? Against OSU, maybe Texas? The fact is we both know that OU wins 22 games and we have a shot to do damage in the NCAA tourney. fact is, you shake off a regular season b-ball loss pretty quick.

College football is 12 games of gut wrenching action in which your national title hopes could be flushed down the drain at any moment. What is not great about that? I just don't want football to be relegated to trying to get to 10-2.

Do I think the suspense around an 8-16 team playoff would offset the 12 games regular season of suspense we have now? In a word, no.

Curly Bill

10/29/2007, 02:10 PM

The way some on here are throwing around the word playoffs, and speak of it with such reverence I thought perhaps just chanting the word could make it magically happen.

silverwheels

10/29/2007, 02:11 PM

Apparently you don't remember my dozen or so other posts in this thread.

I do. It's just that it seems every time one of these threads comes up, playoff opponents run out of things to say pretty quickly and just resort to that, as if one of their siblings is telling them something they don't want to hear, so they just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALALA". It's pretty childish, really.

silverwheels

10/29/2007, 02:13 PM

The way some on here are throwing around the word playoffs, and speak of it with such reverence I thought perhaps just chanting the word could make it magically happen.

And yet, no playoff opponents can come up with a reasonable post-season option, either.

Curly Bill

10/29/2007, 02:16 PM

I do. It's just that it seems every time one of these threads comes up, playoff opponents run out of things to say pretty quickly and just resort to that, as if one of their siblings is telling them something they don't want to hear, so they just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALALA". It's pretty childish, really.

Kind of like the playoff proponents ignoring all arguments against it, as if anything else just couldn't possibly be the way to go, so they clutch onto that word as if it has some magical qualities, that when once and for all a playoff system is put into place all will be right with the world...sort of like a fairy tale...now that too is childish my friend.

Curly Bill

10/29/2007, 02:18 PM

And yet, no playoff opponents can come up with a reasonable post-season option, either.

Never said there was a reasonable post season option. But unlike playoff proponents that think there's some magic in a playoff, that it's the cure-all for D-1 football, I'll admit that.

silverwheels

10/29/2007, 02:20 PM

Kind of like the playoff proponents ignoring all arguments against it, as if anything else just couldn't possibly be the way to go, so they clutch onto that word as if it has some magical qualities, that when once and for all a playoff system is put into place all will be right with the world...sort of like a fairy tale...now that too is childish my friend.

I don't see anyone in this thread believing that just the word "playoff" is going to fix everything. Most people have at least come up with their own versions of a post-season tournament. I've said on multiple occasions that it's not a perfect system.

sooneron

10/29/2007, 02:30 PM

Decide which two bcs bowls will be the play in bowls. Winners play each other two weeks later. They can rotate kind of like the way they do now.

Curly Bill

10/29/2007, 02:32 PM

1. There are problems with the current system

2. There would be problems with a playoff system.

3. There is no perfect system

4. You won't convince me that a playoff is necessarily any better then the current system.

5. I won't convince you otherwise

6. Because of # 5 and # 6 I am retiring from this thread. It's been fun!

TopDawg

10/29/2007, 03:51 PM

Here is my final answer. I know you and I (from your previous postings) are people who value both OU b-ball and football at about the same level. With that being said, how many times during the OU b-ball regular season are you truly sick to your stomach about what is going on the court? Against OSU, maybe Texas? The fact is we both know that OU wins 22 games and we have a shot to do damage in the NCAA tourney. fact is, you shake off a regular season b-ball loss pretty quick.

But if there were only 12 regular season college basketball games and the goal was to get into an 8-team playoff, do you think we'd shake them off so quickly? If I was supporting a 30-game regular season and a 64-team playoff, this might be a good analogy...but these two sports are too different to compare the way we respond to the regular season.

College football is 12 games of gut wrenching action in which your national title hopes could be flushed down the drain at any moment. What is not great about that? I just don't want football to be relegated to trying to get to 10-2.

But it's only gut-wrenching action until your first loss. At that point, in most years, you're done. So, to use your own logic (that games with national title implications are more exciting), the games after the first loss are much less exciting. With an 8-team playoff, sure while you're undefeated your national title hopes probably aren't going to be dashed with your first loss, but they can be dashed at any moment after that.

Would this year's OU/Texas game have been more exciting if there were an 8-team playoff at the end of the year? It would've made the CU and KSU losses slightly less gut-wrenching (just slightly) but it would've made the OU/Texas game that much more exciting with almost certain playoff elimination on the line.

Like TU said, if you take it too far and allow too many teams in, then you end up with what you've got in college basketball. But an 8-team playoff? The amount of excitement you gain from adding national title implications to so many more games seems to far exceed the amount you lose from taking those same implications away from a few.

FaninAma

10/29/2007, 04:02 PM

TUSooner

10/29/2007, 04:13 PM

It's simple, really. A playoff = more teams playing on the field to decide the title = less input by the media talking heads, disinterested coaches and computers on deciding who is deserving of a chance at the title.

If you like beauty contests and tracking polls quit watching football and become a fan of ice skating or gymnastics.
More decisions made on he field with a real scoreboard is a good first principle. But you still cannot avoid a "beauty contest" unless you divide all the teams into nice, equally-populated divisions and conferences like a monster NFL (maybe killing a few century-old rivalries in the process.)
The idea is simple, the implementation is far from it.

JohnnyMack

10/29/2007, 04:15 PM

+1 makes the most sense.

Sincerely,

Those of us who would like to have our cake and eat it too.

TopDawg

10/29/2007, 04:22 PM

+1 makes the most sense.

Sincerely,

Those of us who would like to have our cake and eat it too.

I prefer +2 (or 6, depending on how you look at it)

Scott D

10/29/2007, 04:23 PM

It's simple, really. A playoff = more teams playing on the field to decide the title = less input by the media talking heads, disinterested coaches and computers on deciding who is deserving of a chance at the title.

If you like beauty contests and tracking polls quit watching football and become a fan of ice skating or gymnastics.

so how exactly are the teams going to be decided as to representation in the playoff?

how many teams are going to be in this playoff?

what will happen in regards to the argument over the teams who probably rate relatively even with the last team selected in the playoff?

what happens when there is a "wtf?" kind of selection or lack of selection? (similar to Syracuse not being picked in the field of 65 this past spring)

JohnnyMack

10/29/2007, 04:40 PM

Right now we'd have:

1. tOSU
4. Arizona State

2. Boston College
3. LSU

Then we could listen to WVU-fan, OU-fan, Oregon-fan and Kansas-fan going all OMGWTFTHISISTOTALBSARGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!BLAHBLAHBLAH!! !!!!!!!

Scott D

10/29/2007, 04:42 PM

don't forget Missouri-Fan, Hawaii-Fan, Alabama-Fan, Connecticut-Fan.

stoops the eternal pimp

10/29/2007, 04:45 PM

BUT IT WOULD STILL BE SO MUCH BEtTER to have a playoff :rolleyes:

TopDawg

10/29/2007, 04:47 PM

Connecticut-Fan.

hahahaha....good one

Scott D

10/29/2007, 05:07 PM

hahahaha....good one

I gotta throw all 5 of them a bone ;)

BarryStoops

10/29/2007, 05:16 PM

soonervegas

10/29/2007, 05:19 PM

+1 makes the most sense.

Sincerely,

Those of us who would like to have our cake and eat it too.

As a anti-playoff guy I could live with this scenario, but the problem is it would eventually be bastardized. Soon it would be an 8 team, then a 16 team playoff, then we could make it just a litte bit better by making it 24 teams and having play-in games.

We do NOT want to go down this path.

Stoop Dawg

10/29/2007, 05:40 PM

More decisions made on he field with a real scoreboard is a good first principle. But you still cannot avoid a "beauty contest" unless you divide all the teams into nice, equally-populated divisions and conferences like a monster NFL (maybe killing a few century-old rivalries in the process.)
The idea is simple, the implementation is far from it.

Exactly.

The ONLY valid reason AGAINST a "true" playoff is that it would require massive conference realignments. Or, the "demotion" of quite a few teams to the Div 1-AA level.

One *could* argue for dividing "Division 1-A" into 2 "sub-divisions", but *I* won't.

Unfortunately, the likely outcome is a 4 team playoff (or "Plus 1" game) followed eventually by a 6 or 8 team playoff with participants chosen "BCS-Style". While that is still better than a 2 team playoff, it's still not my personal favorite.

aero

10/29/2007, 05:41 PM

Why the proponents for a playoff? Most of the time its people crying whose team has lost a game. If we had taken care of business we wouldn't be talking about it. The BCS has been pretty favorable to us, primarily because we HAVE had good teams and the BCS is set up to figure that out without solely relying on human emotion. When we got to the Sugar, it was because we had a very good S.O.S. and we were duly rewarded. They have place less importance on the S.O.S., which I feel is wrong. However, by doing so, we are seeing a lot more lesser schools playing with the big boys, and doing fairly well. Not sure if that is a trend which will become the rule or the exception. Bottom line is if a team plays a decent schedule and wins, they will be rewarded. Lose and who do you have to blame. Schedule a bunch of pansies and try to find someone that will listen to your crying.

Leroy Lizard

10/29/2007, 05:53 PM

There is no way that anyone would say that the first team left out of the NCAA B-ball tournament was more deserving of the NC that the team that won it.

Because they were not allowed to compete in the first place. It is hard to deserve a title you were not allowed to compete for. The problem is that the #9 team was not even allowed to try, while in many instances a far less deserving #8 was.

Getting INTO the playoffs will become the big goal for teams at the beginning of the year. And with that, the same bellyaching will occur that we have now. But instead of just three or four teams crying, you could have a dozen. I see no improvement.

Leroy Lizard

10/29/2007, 05:56 PM

As a anti-playoff guy I could live with this scenario, but the problem is it would eventually be bastardized. Soon it would be an 8 team, then a 16 team playoff, then we could make it just a litte bit better by making it 24 teams and having play-in games.

We do NOT want to go down this path.

Bingo! And that is what really worries me, because the perpetually-unsatisfied sports meathead will always cry for more games, no matter the cost.

Scott D

10/29/2007, 06:43 PM

This is my first post, so I know what I think does not matter.

That said, why is it that most people opposed to a playoff say "Well #5 or #9 or what ever the first team left out would still be mad"?

There is no way that anyone would say that the first team left out of the NCAA B-ball tournament was more deserving of the NC that the team that won it.

I have had that thought a few times in the last few years about #3 in the BCS.

The semi-controversy of the NCAA B-Ball tournament are the teams with good records, that get left out in a numbers crunch because of the automatic bids given to tournaments of 'lesser' conferences. When a 14-17 mid conference finisher from say the Big Sky gets in over a 21-10 Syracuse because Syracuse didn't win the conference tournament is where the controversy comes in.

9 out of 10 times the team that wins the less prestigious NIT tournament is better than more than 1/3 of the 65 team NCAA tourney field.

sanantoniosooner

10/29/2007, 07:31 PM

And yet, no playoff opponents can come up with a reasonable post-season option, either.
BS.

The playoff lovers don't sound any more thought out. In fact, a lot of it sounds like whiney bellyaching.

We have these same discussions several times a year and the same crap gets thrown out by both sides and nobody has changed their mind.

silverwheels

10/29/2007, 07:36 PM

BS.

The playoff lovers don't sound any more thought out. In fact, a lot of it sounds like whiney bellyaching.

We have these same discussions several times a year and the same crap gets thrown out by both sides and nobody has changed their mind.

BS? Where is a post that an anti-playoff person has made where he/she has come up with a different post-season system that seems reasonable? Even anti-playoff people don't like the BCS.

Sooner_Havok

10/29/2007, 07:40 PM

BS? Where is a post that an anti-playoff person has made where he/she has come up with a different post-season system that seems reasonable? Even anti-playoff people don't like the BCS.

Um, I like the BCS. I gives people something to talk about, (or in this case argue bitterly over)and it gives us some pretty damn good match ups that we wouldn't have seen pre-BCS.

sanantoniosooner

10/29/2007, 07:40 PM

I've offered a plan already.

Every time a threrd like this comes up.

Forever. People have trouble reading.

silverwheels

10/29/2007, 07:42 PM

Um, I like the BCS. I gives people something to talk about, (or in this case argue bitterly over)and it gives us some pretty damn good match ups that we wouldn't have seen pre-BCS.

I didn't say "all" anti-playoff people.

And SAS, you're such a smartass it's hard to tell when you're being serious. If I missed your post...I'm not going back to read. I probably did the first time, but I forgot about it.

stoops the eternal pimp

10/29/2007, 07:53 PM

And SAS, you're such a smartass.

You were right SAS..Definitely some negative vibes going your way around here

silverwheels

10/29/2007, 07:54 PM

You were right SAS..Definitely some negative vibes going your way around here

Nah, I don't really have a problem with him. I am a smartass as well, but I haven't really been in this thread.

stoops the eternal pimp

10/29/2007, 07:58 PM

Nah, I don't really have a problem with him. I am a smartass as well, but I haven't really been in this thread.

Just messin...maybe of the nicer things I ve seen someone write about him:D

silverwheels

10/29/2007, 07:58 PM

Just messin...maybe of the nicer things I ve seen someone write about him:D

That might be true, actually. :D

Leroy Lizard

10/29/2007, 08:30 PM

Even anti-playoff people don't like the BCS.

Even if I didn't like the BCS, that doesn't make a playoff better.

sanantoniosooner

10/29/2007, 08:36 PM

I don't like politicians, but I still have to choose one.

Lesser of evils is how business is done these days.

Sooner_Havok

10/29/2007, 08:39 PM

Thats why I say go with the devil you know

Leroy Lizard

10/29/2007, 08:41 PM

If I was a college president, what would you do to convince me that I should support a playoff?

sanantoniosooner

10/29/2007, 08:42 PM

If you were a college president I'd call in bomb threats.

Leroy Lizard

10/29/2007, 08:46 PM

What a grouch.

Sooner_Havok

10/29/2007, 08:48 PM

If you were a college president I'd call in bomb threats.

Can we vote on the best soonerfans reply this year, because that was pretty darn good right there!:pop:

TopDawg

10/29/2007, 09:28 PM

If I was a college president, what would you do to convince me that I should support a playoff?

It's one way to make amends to the perpetually unsatisfied sports meatheads you insulted a few years ago on a message board.

TopDawg

10/29/2007, 09:33 PM

FWIW, I've got no problem with people who don't want a playoff...Lizard and I have gone round and round and he actually has some reasonable concerns... I just don't want to hear reasons that don't make sense. Regardless of how improbable, illogical or unsatisfactory you find an 8-team playoff, there's no argument I've heard that convinces me (or even makes me think twice about the possibility) that across the nation regular season games will become less meaningful. In fact, as I've stated many times, I think the opposite is actually true.

Stoop Dawg

10/29/2007, 09:37 PM

If I was a college president, what would you do to convince me that I should support a playoff?

President of which college? That makes all the difference in the world.

Stoop Dawg

10/29/2007, 09:39 PM

I've offered a plan already.

Every time a threrd like this comes up.

Forever. People have trouble reading.

It was obviously very memorable.....

OklahomaTuba

10/29/2007, 09:40 PM

That's cause its simply stupid to think games would mean less cause of a playoff.

the fact that most teams are only playing for a chance to play in one of the 30 something dumbass bowl games HURTs college football.

A playoff is the only way to decide a true champion.

Stoop Dawg

10/29/2007, 09:44 PM

Here's the main thing I like about a playoff. If someone can come up with an "easy" way to provide this without a playoff, I'm all ears.

AT THE START OF THE YEAR, EACH TEAM CONTROLS IT'S OWN DESTINY.

That's it. That's all I really want. At the beginning of the year, tell each team EXACTLY what they have to do to win a NC - then give them a NC if/when they do it.

sanantoniosooner

10/29/2007, 10:20 PM

It was obviously very memorable.....
nobody reads on this forum. They just pound their fist and type nonsense.

sanantoniosooner

10/29/2007, 10:22 PM

Leroy Lizard

10/29/2007, 10:48 PM

President of which college? That makes all the difference in the world.

Let's choose on the opposite sides of the spectrum: Michigan and Akron.

Sooner_Havok

10/29/2007, 11:06 PM

Just get rid of the OOC games scheduled, and use those four games for a 16 team NC tournament. You have 11 conferences, so you get 11 automatic bids, then you take the 5 highest ranked, non conference champions.

Leroy Lizard

10/29/2007, 11:26 PM

AT THE START OF THE YEAR, EACH TEAM CONTROLS IT'S OWN DESTINY.

That isn't possible even with a playoff.

Just get rid of the OOC games scheduled, and use those four games for a 16 team NC tournament.

So that would be getting rid of 200 games (four of which my team is guaranteed to play) to be replaced with 15 (which my team MIGHT play). Oh yeah, as a college president I am in full favor of losing revenue hand over fist. (And Athletic Directors are not going to support it either. They like money too.)

No one ever thinks of the financial ramifications of their playoff ideas. Just sweep away lucrative OOC and CCG games. Who needs money?

Sooner_Havok

10/29/2007, 11:38 PM

That isn't possible even with a playoff.

So that would be getting rid of 200 games (four of which my team is guaranteed to play) to be replaced with 15 (which my team MIGHT play). Oh yeah, as a college president I am in full favor of losing revenue hand over fist. (And Athletic Directors are not going to support it either. They like money too.)

No one ever thinks of the financial ramifications of their playoff ideas. Just sweep away lucrative OOC and CCG games. Who needs money?

Let the teams that don't make the playoff play eachother, and if they get to 6 wins, they get to play a bowl game against a team that doesn't make it to the NC game. It just takes flexible scheduling

Plus, I don't really want to go to a playoff, I like things how they are, so no, I haven't thought much into this system

Leroy Lizard

10/29/2007, 11:45 PM

Let the teams that don't make the playoff play eachother, and if they get to 6 wins, they get to play a bowl game against a team that doesn't make it to the NC game. It just takes flexible scheduling

That isn't flexible scheduling; that is impossible scheduling... every athletic director's nightmare.

And a money loser to boot.

Sooner_Havok

10/30/2007, 12:04 AM

At the start of the season, you assign each team 2 home games and 2 away games to be played OOC. Then, after you get the first round brackets set, you pair off the 104 remaining teams for 52 OOC games After week one of the play off, the available teams go up to 112, so 56 games that week. Next, 116 for 58 , and the final week of the regular season, 118 teams for 59 games. Bowls pick teams they want, and after all the bowls are done, you have the two remaining playoff teams play for the NC.

every team plays at least 12 games, bowl teams play 13, and NC contenders play 14. Not a big difference from now.

Every team gets a bye in between conference play and OOC play, giving the schedulers time to make the brackets and the non bracket games. you figure that with the initial 104 teams, you could schedule the bulk of the OOC games in the first week. Like I said, I like things the way they are, I am just trying to think of something that no one else has mentioned for a playoff system

Leroy Lizard

10/30/2007, 01:17 AM

At the start of the season, you assign each team 2 home games and 2 away games to be played OOC.

Big dogs won't go for it, because they make more money playing at home than they do on the road.

And little dogs won't go for it either for the same reason. Do you really want North Texas hosting OU? How much revenue will it cost both teams to play there?

Other than that, your idea is great! :D

Then, after you get the first round brackets set, you pair off the 104 remaining teams for 52 OOC games After week one of the play off, the available teams go up to 112, so 56 games that week.

Are you really advocating a season where fans only know where their favorite team is playing during the first four weeks, and of those first four weeks only two games are at home? My God, what a disaster!

Furthermore, your bracketing could end up forcing some teams to play every game except two on the road.

every team plays at least 12 games

Sure, just no one knows where. If OU wins the first round, I suppose they play in Norman against someone. Or maybe they play in Nashville. Who knows? How many fans will show up each week? 1,000?

I realize you are not really being serious here. But fans often don't take into account finances and tourism when they plan their playoffs. So the dream matchups are there, but no one gets to attend them.

Stoop Dawg

10/30/2007, 09:29 AM

That isn't possible even with a playoff.

Of course it is. Next.

Here's the main thing I like about a playoff. If someone can come up with an "easy" way to provide this without a playoff, I'm all ears.

AT THE START OF THE YEAR, EACH TEAM CONTROLS IT'S OWN DESTINY.

That's it. That's all I really want. At the beginning of the year, tell each team EXACTLY what they have to do to win a NC - then give them a NC if/when they do it.

*crickets chirping*

usmc-sooner

10/30/2007, 09:31 AM

JohnnyMack

10/30/2007, 09:31 AM

Stoop Dawg

10/30/2007, 09:33 AM

Would you like a side of ranch with that?

Then, the duck says "Just put it on my bill!"

Hahaha! "Put it on my bill!"

Get it?

Stoop Dawg

10/30/2007, 09:37 AM

that's basically the system we have in place now.

so there you go no need for a playoff

Ummm, yeah. And to win a NC a team needs to do what, exactly?

Win all of their games? (Boise State last year)

Schedule tougher opponents? (Who will schedule Boise State now? How do you know how good a team will be 5 years from now?)

Join a tougher conference? (Yeah, teams change conferences all the time. It's easy.)

C'mon, I'm trying to be serious.

JohnnyMack

10/30/2007, 09:42 AM

Dear Playoff Pushers,

Why not +1?

Sincerely,

Those of us who appreciate the tradition of College Football.

usmc-sooner

10/30/2007, 09:48 AM

Ummm, yeah. And to win a NC a team needs to do what, exactly?

Win all of their games? (Boise State last year)

Schedule tougher opponents? (Who will schedule Boise State now? How do you know how good a team will be 5 years from now?)

Join a tougher conference? (Yeah, teams change conferences all the time. It's easy.)

C'mon, I'm trying to be serious.

I am serious, I think the system we have now works out just fine

Stoop Dawg

10/30/2007, 09:51 AM

I am serious, I think the system we have now works out just fine

I'm sure that you do. And that's perfectly fine by me.

But the system we have now doesn't meet the requirements of my post - which you quoted. So, yours is an opinion, not an answer to my question.

Stoop Dawg

10/30/2007, 09:55 AM

Dear Playoff Pushers,

Why not +1?

Sincerely,

Those of us who appreciate the tradition of College Football.

It's a step in the right direction, and I'm all for it. But it's not the "final answer" in my book.

A full-blown playoff with automatic berths is extremely unlikely. A "Plus 1" game is very likely, and an eventual 8-team playoff with teams selected "BCS Style" is somewhat likely.

JohnnyMack

10/30/2007, 09:59 AM

It's a step in the right direction, and I'm all for it. But it's not the "final answer" in my book.

So, yours is an opinion, not an answer to my question.

TUSooner

10/30/2007, 11:15 AM

HOW TO MAKE IT ALL BETTER:
1. No team may receive any votes in any BCS poll until they have played 4 games (that does away with preseason polls that are based on...uh, what ARE they based on?)

2. After the regular season and CCGs, the top 4 teams will play "semifinal bowl games" in 2 major bowls (to be rotated). 1 week (or so) later, the winners of those semifinals will play in the BCSMNC game (game site rotated).
Personally, I prefer this to 2a or 2b, below, and I think this is likely to happen within 5 years.

ALTERNATIVE to #2:
2a. The playoff could include 8 teams, with an extra tier of "quarterfinal bowl games" a week (or so) before the "semifinal bowl games." Teams may have to drop a regular season game "just in case" ... or not.

2b The playoff could include 6 teams: byes for #1 and #2, and play-ins for 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5. Just a wrinkle for thise who want more than 4 teams, but not a full tier of quarterfinals.

The other bowl games could continue to exist as decent rewards for good but not excellent seasons and as a way to keep something decent on TV in December.

JohnnyMack

10/30/2007, 11:39 AM

HOW TO MAKE IT ALL BETTER:
1. No team may receive any votes in any BCS poll until they have played 4 games (that does away with preseason polls that are based on...uh, what ARE they based on?)

I'm sure Athlon et al will just stop printing preseason mags and we'll just be fine not having something to read on the crapper in late June and early July.

2. After the regular season and CCGs, the top 4 teams will play "semifinal bowl games" in 2 major bowls (to be rotated). 1 week (or so) later, the winners of those semifinals will play in the BCSMNC game (game site rotated).
Personally, I prefer this to 2a or 2b, below, and I think this is likely to happen within 5 years.

Me likee!

I think one of the main reasons we're never going to see a true Playoff in Div. 1 Football is that if we did, somewhere along the way someone would have to give up money. If we went to a true 8 team playoff system, you'd have to pare down the regular season to 11 games AND eliminate the CCGs which mean one less home game for Joe C. and his types to make money on and no CCGs mean no big time corporate dollars flowing into the conference coffers, good luck with that ever happening.

Nope, now that the AD's at the big schools have gotten their coveted 12th game (one extra home game a year for most big schools) I don't see them just saying, OK, we'll give it up so we MIGHT play in an 8 team playoff and we MIGHT finish in the top 4 (which is where you'd have to finish to in order to host a 1st round playoff game) and get the revenue from that.

Now granted if you went to an 8 team playoff you'd probably be able to get corporate sponsorship for that first round that would add SOME money, but the conferences would take a big lump off the top of that pile of cash and the schools wouldn't see all that much of it. The guaranteed cash schools like OU see from an extra home game with Utah State are more beneficial to them than the chance at getting an extra home game every few years at the end of the season.

Leroy Lizard

10/30/2007, 11:56 AM

Of course it is. Next.

It isn't possible to guarantee that a team that goes undefeated will get to play in the playoffs unless the rules specifically state that an undefeated team must be given a slot in the playoffs (which opens up another can of worms, since an undefeated Akron team that played absolutely no one would replace a more deserving team that played a much tougher schedule).

Even with 16 teams, a team like Akron that finishes undefeated could get left out. As you increase the number of teams in the playoffs, the fewer regular season games you can host, which results in more undefeated teams. So it's a Catch-22.

Stoop Dawg

10/30/2007, 12:02 PM

So, yours is an opinion, not an answer to my question.

The answer to your question is: "Plus 1" is better than what we have, but not as good as an 8 team playoff (with participants chosen "BCS Style") and certainly not as good as a 10 team playoff (with 1 participant from each "division").

The terms "better" and "good", as they relate to my opinion, refer to a team's ability to influence their own participation. The more influence they have, the better.

Leroy Lizard

10/30/2007, 12:04 PM

I think one of the main reasons we're never going to see a true Playoff in Div. 1 Football is that if we did, somewhere along the way someone would have to give up money. If we went to a true 8 team playoff system, you'd have to pare down the regular season to 11 games AND eliminate the CCGs which mean one less home game for Joe C. and his types to make money on and no CCGs mean no big time corporate dollars flowing into the conference coffers, good luck with that ever happening.

Nope, now that the AD's at the big schools have gotten their coveted 12th game (one extra home game a year for most big schools) I don't see them just saying, OK, we'll give it up so we MIGHT play in an 8 team playoff and we MIGHT finish in the top 4 (which is where you'd have to finish to in order to host a 1st round playoff game) and get the revenue from that.

Now granted if you went to an 8 team playoff you'd probably be able to get corporate sponsorship for that first round that would add SOME money, but the conferences would take a big lump off the top of that pile of cash and the schools wouldn't see all that much of it. The guaranteed cash schools like OU see from an extra home game with Utah State are more beneficial to them than the chance at getting an extra home game every few years at the end of the season.

Exactly!

The playoffs would probably lose money overall, because playoffs are bad for generating tourism. The bowl committees know this, which is why they oppose a playoff. And college presidents and athletic directors know this as well. Until college football fans understand that the length of time fans have to prepare their travel itineraries is important, they will continue to push for the impossible. An eight-team playoff MIGHT be doable, but a four-team playoff is much more attractive to colleges.

Playoff proponents would change their tune once they get behind the scenes and see what is at stake. From their view, all they can think about are these extra games they get to see on tv. But there is far more to it than that.

As for what the fans want, who cares? As long as they continue to watch the games and pay for tickets, the fans are satisfied in the eyes of the universities.

Stoop Dawg

10/30/2007, 12:06 PM

It isn't possible to guarantee that a team that goes undefeated will get to play in the playoffs

That depends ENTIRELY on how you structure the playoff. But you failed to even ask that question and went straight to "it's impossible". Good work.

I'm not even going to go down the road of how it *IS* in fact possible to make it work - because the reality is that no such system is going to be implemented. Not any time soon, anyway. So, in the mean time, my opinion will be that the more influence a team has over its own post-season play the better.

JohnnyMack

10/30/2007, 12:14 PM

The answer to your question is: "Plus 1" is better than what we have, but not as good as an 8 team playoff (with participants chosen "BCS Style") and certainly not as good as a 10 team playoff (with 1 participant from each "division").

The terms "better" and "good", as they relate to my opinion, refer to a team's ability to influence their own participation. The more influence they have, the better.

I think you're being naive if you think that Joe C. spends much time thinking about ensuring that OU has "more influence" over their championship destiny.

As long as you and I and 85,000 or so of our closest friends show up 6 or 7 Saturdays in the fall he's happy. Try and take that away for more smaller programs like KU and Hawaii to have "more influence" over their championship destiny and I think he might have something to say about it.