Mark Cuban working on a playoff system

[SoonerPride]

I ask that for college football right now. A regular season in college is meaning less and less because 60% of the teams are going to bowl games.

Then don't watch.

I like it as it is.

[Caboose]

I like football period but the regular season in college football only matters for a hand full of teams.

No, every teams regular season matters in college football. 0-12 matters just as much as 13-0. Every team's performance over the course of the year determines thier chances of competing for the national championship. Your team is 8-4 while another team is 13-0? Well thats why your team isn't playing for a championship. Your performance MATTERS.
The NFL is the opposite. Your team is 9-7 while another is 16-0? Thats cool. It doesn't matter. You can still play in the Super Bowl. How can you possibly say the regular season "matters" in the NFL when a team with a losing record can make the playoffs?


NFL every team is close to even. There's only a few that are really bad every year. You have teams that were terrible just a few years ago going to super bowls and winning(Arizona, New Orleans)

You have teams that have the most talent but don't always win. Dallas and Indy come to mind this year. Minnesota is another one.

That has nothing to with the playoffs. NFL parity is because of the draft system and free agency.

[IndySooner]

Then why do you guys keep comparing them? "ALL these other sports have a playoff? Are you telling me they got it wrong?"

And yes you can compare them because your proposed playoff adds the same element of inclusion that the NFL playoff has.


Let me make this simple for you.

OU is playing Florida State in football. At the end of the 4th quarter the score is OU 41 - Florida State 7. Inexplicably the head official proclaims that there will now be a 15 minute overtime period and whoever scores the most in that period wins the contest. Florida State scores 10 in the overtime, OU scores 7.

So what does that do to the regulation period of the game? What did OU 41- FSU -7 mean at that point? NOTHING. The reality is that OU outscored Florida State 48 to 17 over the course of the ENTIRE contest. But due to someones borderline retarded idea of adding an unneeded overtime period to "settle it on the field" at the end of regulation, we the fans must literally deny reality and pretend that FSU outperformed OU in order to reconcile what we saw happen with what the new system says happened.


In this analogy the regulation period of the game represents the regular season of college football. The unneeded overtime represents your ridiculous playoff idea. By inexplicably letting UConn, for example, play Auburn in an unneeded playoff you have explicitly proclaimed that what happened in the regular literally means NOTHING.

This concept is not hard to grasp. Why are you and jk pretending to be so daft that you can not get it?

I almost didn't reply as this is an asinine example.

I do want, though, for you to show me where I ONCE said that college football should do it because everyone else is. I've said that it is possible, using others as an example. I've also used others as an example of how it can enhance things. The status quo is getting less and less exciting every year. OU has sold 8000 of its 17500 tickets to the Fiesta Bowl. The current system needs a pick me up. A playoff is needed. Not because of anything other than the good of the sport.

[IndySooner]

I still think we're headed toward something like this:

Pac 16: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Texas, Texas Tech, UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington, Washington State

Big 16: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Wisconsin

SEC: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St., South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

ACC: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticutt, Duke, Louisville, Maryland, Memphis, Miami, North Carolina, North Carolina St., Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, West Virginia

8-team playoff starting with conference championships.

All other schools drop down to IAA.

Obviously, there are political and logistical issues with this, but I truly think this is where we're headed.

[MeMyself&Me]

I thought you only watched games with national title implications?

When did I say that? All I've said is that playoff changes the dynamics of the regular season and that I'd watch less of the regular season as result.

[Caboose]

I almost didn't reply as this is an asinine example.

No, you didnt respond to the analogy because you can't defend your ridiculous idea. You can't think of a way to justify asking people to deny reality and pretend something that happened didnt, like the NFL asked us to with the Giants/Patriots Super Bowl.


Again, I will ask you flat out. Stop ducking it.

Justify why we as fans should pretend that 7-5 is better than 13-1 and more deserving of a National Championship just to satisfy your silly whims?

Yeah man, lets all pretend that we don't know that Auburn has had a better season than UConn this year so we can have them play each other. And if Uconn happens to win the playoff game against Auburn, let's all pretend that it somehow "decided it on the field" and that 7-5 REALLY is better than 13-1 and UConn really deserves to advance. Yes, let's pretend all of this just so IndySooner can feel like his stupid playoff idea is actually working.

You dont need "playoffs" between two teams that arent tied just like you dont need overtime when one team is ahead by 35 points at the end of regulation. Stop asking college football fans to pretend otherwise.



I do want, though, for you to show me where I ONCE said that college football should do it because everyone else is.

I dont know or care if you said it personally. I have heard it hundreds of times from playoff supporters. Some were saying it on this very thread. The point is you cant have it both ways. You cant use other sports having playoffs to justify your desire to ruin college football then turn around and say that we cant compare the NFL to a college playoff when we point out scenarios that make your idea look like the retarded tripe that it is.


I've said that it is possible, using others as an example. I've also used others as an example of how it can enhance things. The status quo is getting less and less exciting every year. OU has sold 8000 of its 17500 tickets to the Fiesta Bowl. The current system needs a pick me up. A playoff is needed. Not because of anything other than the good of the sport.


The status quo IS playoffs. Every other sport has one and it doesnt work.
There may very well be a case for improving the current system, but none of you have explained how a playoff would do anything but ruin college football. Your idea especially.

[MeMyself&Me]

I still think we're headed toward something like this:

Pac 16: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Texas, Texas Tech, UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington, Washington State

Big 16: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Wisconsin

SEC: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St., South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

ACC: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticutt, Duke, Louisville, Maryland, Memphis, Miami, North Carolina, North Carolina St., Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, West Virginia

8-team playoff starting with conference championships.

All other schools drop down to IAA.

Obviously, there are political and logistical issues with this, but I truly think this is where we're headed.

That's the kind of thing that would only happen if Congress was able to force the NCAA to do something because no one is dropping down to IAA unless they are forced to.

[bigfatjerk]

I think anyone that argues a bowl system makes college football better needs to look at the Big East this year. Their best team wasn't as good as the 2nd best team in the MWC this year. That's why the system right now sucks. It doesn't even put the best 8 teams in the BCS right now.

Also the number of bowl games hurts the regular season because 7-5 and 6-6 teams are celebrating a good season. I'm sorry but 7-5 and 6-6 teams shouldn't be practicing after November. Their season should be over.

I'm for making the season matter more not matter less like everyone here in favor of bowls. The regular season in college football becomes irrelevant at a certain point because it's easy to make bowl games and get in the post season. Going to a post season should be a reward for a really good season. Not a lousy season.

[IndySooner]

No, you didnt respond to the analogy because you can't defend your ridiculous idea. You can't think of a way to justify asking people to deny reality and pretend something that happened didnt, like the NFL asked us to with the Giants/Patriots Super Bowl.


Again, I will ask you flat out. Stop ducking it.

Justify why we as fans should pretend that 7-5 is better than 13-1 and more deserving of a National Championship just to satisfy your silly whims?

Pretty simple. It ends ALL conference arguments. The SEC is NOT the best conference in the country every year. They're not. They don't deserve an automatic bid to a championship game every year. It creates an uneven playing field and in a year, the Big 12 will start getting screwed by the system.



I dont know or care if you said it personally. I have heard it hundreds of times from playoff supporters. Some were saying it on this very thread. The point is you cant have it both ways. You cant use other sports having playoffs to justify your desire to ruin college football then turn around and say that we cant compare the NFL to a college playoff when we point out scenarios that make your idea look like retarded tripe that it is.




The status quo IS playoffs. Every other sport has one and it doesnt work.
There may very well be a case for improving the current system, but none of you have explained how a playoff would do anything but ruin college football. Your idea especially.They don't work? The TV ratings would argue with you, too.
:(

[MeMyself&Me]

I think anyone that argues a bowl system makes college football better needs to look at the Big East this year. Their best team wasn't as good as the 2nd best team in the MWC this year. That's why the system right now sucks. It doesn't even put the best 8 teams in the BCS right now.

That has more to do with selection criteria and methods. You can fix that without a playoff. In fact, if there ever is a playoff, I bet we'll still have these issues. At least now, this year's Big East champion has no chance a national title as they shouldn't.

Also the number of bowl games hurts the regular season because 7-5 and 6-6 teams are celebrating a good season. I'm sorry but 7-5 and 6-6 teams shouldn't be practicing after November. Their season should be over.

The number of bowl games doesn't have anything to do with bowl vs playoff argument. Just don't watch the ones you think are too many. Problem solved.

I'm for making the season matter more not matter less like everyone here in favor of bowls. The regular season in college football becomes irrelevant at a certain point because it's easy to make bowl games and get in the post season. Going to a post season should be a reward for a really good season. Not a lousy season.

How does allowing a team into a playoff that doesn't deserve to win the national title make the regular season mean more? It just adds more wait to the post season.

;)

[Caboose]

:(

Post an answer that makes sense next time. How is 7-5 better than 13-1?

How were the 14-6 Giants better than the 18-1 Patriots?

And again popularity and TV ratings != working, correct or right.

[bigfatjerk]

Post an answer that makes sense next time. How is 7-5 better than 13-1?

How were the 14-6 Giants better than the 18-1 Patriots?

And again popularity and TV ratings != working, correct or right.

Maybe the schedule was harder for the Giants. Let's compare it to College. That's why TCU who is undefeated isn't playing for an NC. LSU a couple years back is an example of a 2 loss regular season team that won it all.

I don't think a big playoff works in college football because there's not that many teams that can win a national title. But I think giving automatic bids to conferences that suck needs to be done with. The ACC and Big East in recent years has been horrible. I'm not sure they deserve an automatic bid in the BCS. In fact no conference deserves auto bids. It should be based on actual rankings.

[Caboose]

I think anyone that argues a bowl system makes college football better needs to look at the Big East this year. Their best team wasn't as good as the 2nd best team in the MWC this year. That's why the system right now sucks. It doesn't even put the best 8 teams in the BCS right now.

Also the number of bowl games hurts the regular season because 7-5 and 6-6 teams are celebrating a good season. I'm sorry but 7-5 and 6-6 teams shouldn't be practicing after November. Their season should be over.

I'm for making the season matter more not matter less like everyone here in favor of bowls. The regular season in college football becomes irrelevant at a certain point because it's easy to make bowl games and get in the post season. Going to a post season should be a reward for a really good season. Not a lousy season.


We must have different definitions of the word "matters".

In college football if you want to play for the NC you better win all of your games or pretty damn close to it. Your performance over the course of the season directly determines your ranking the BCS. Teams that are 5-7 have ZERO chance of playing for an NC. Therefore their record and performance
mattered. Teams that are 13-0 against quality competition have a GREAT chance of playing for the NC. Their record and performance over the ENTIRE season mattered.

In the NFL you can be freaking 6-10 in the regular and play for the "championship" while another team that was 16-0 in the regular season is sitting at home watching. How can you possibly say the regular season in the NFL matters more than in college football? The fact that they have a playoff literally makes 16-0 records equal to 6-10 records. It doesn't matter what you do in the NFL regular season as long as you make it to the playoffs.

Please explain.

[Caboose]

Maybe the schedule was harder for the Giants.

It wasn't, and the Patriots already beat the Giants in the regular season.



Let's compare it to College. That's why TCU who is undefeated isn't playing for an NC. LSU a couple years back is an example of a 2 loss regular season team that won it all.

I don't think a big playoff works in college football because there's not that many teams that can win a national title. But I think giving automatic bids to conferences that suck needs to be done with. The ACC and Big East in recent years has been horrible. I'm not sure they deserve an automatic bid in the BCS. In fact no conference deserves auto bids. It should be based on actual rankings.

*shrug* not really relevant to what we are talking about. No one is saying the BCS is perfect. I am just saying the playoff proposals I have seen so far are worse. Not only do they not correct the supposed problems with the BCS, they create new worse ones while at the same time failing to "decide it on the field" or "crown a true champion" or whatever the current catchphrase is.

[IndySooner]

In the NFL you can be freaking 6-10 in the regular and play for the "championship" while another team that was 16-0 in the regular season is sitting at home watching. How can you possibly say the regular season in the NFL matters more than in college football? The fact that they have a playoff literally makes 16-0 records equal to 6-10 records. It doesn't matter what you do in the NFL regular season as long as you make it to the playoffs.

Please explain.

Only two NFL teams have EVER made the playoffs with a losing record, both in a strike shortened season. Try again.

[LASooner]

Cuban, who is reading the book "Death to the BCS," said he thinks it would take about three or four years of planning before enacting the playoff system. He believes it's a better business opportunity than owning a baseball team, and he admits he's intrigued by the idea of revolutionizing a major sport.

All this Playoff talk will go away when Cuban starts reading curious George, then he'll investigate the monetary advantages of owning a curious monkey.
:texan:

[IndySooner]

All this Playoff talk will go away when Cuban starts reading curious George, then he'll investigate the monetary advantages of owning a curious monkey.
:texan:

Playoffs aren't going away. It gets louder and louder every year.

[85sooners]

:texan:

[Caboose]

Only two NFL teams have EVER made the playoffs with a losing record, both in a strike shortened season. Try again.

It doesnt matter how many have done it. What matters is that with the NFL playoff system they can. You cant tell me the regular season matters in the NFL.

Again, Giants/Patriots. The Giants were 10-6 in the regular season and the Patriots were 16-0... and ALREADY beat the Giants. Why was there even a playoff? Oh, because the regular season didnt matter.

[pphilfran]

That's your argument? Wow.

I can't name five games I'm excited about watching. On the other hand, if we had a playoff, I'd be excited about matchups like:

1st round:
OU/LSU
Boise/tOSU
Michigan St./Arkansas

2nd round:
OU/Oregon
Auburn/Michigan St.
Ohio St./TCU
Wisconsin/Stanford

3rd round:
Oregon/TCU
Auburn/Stanford

Champion:
Oregon/Auburn

So, we still get the potential exciting matchup, with 9 other great matchups that we don't get right now. Instead, we get September games against East Popcorn State, since the regular season is SO great!

Where are you going to play the games?

Highest rated team gets a home game? You do that and you decimate the major bowl games.....the Orange or Rose ain't gonna be happy with second tier teams every year...

Use the bowls? You will be moving some of the games away from the prime holiday vacation time...the reason the major bowls were started....the reason they bring millions to their community each and every year...

A plus one is about the best you will every see....

Like I have said....you don't seem to understand all of the problems with putting in a playoff...

[TopDawg]

As to a playoff being the better way to go, that's really a matter of opinion.

Well, yeah. That's what this whole debate is about.

[SoonerPride]

All this Playoff talk will go away when Cuban starts reading curious George, then he'll investigate the monetary advantages of owning a curious monkey.
:texan:

hahahahaha

[MeMyself&Me]

Well, yeah. That's what this whole debate is about.

I know that but the big I quoted had said that it was definitely better. Just felt it needed to be pointed out. Playoff is different. Not necessarily better. Depends on how you like your football.

[MeMyself&Me]

Playoffs aren't going away. It gets louder and louder every year.

Just because people like you keep talking louder each year. I think those of us that do like it the way it is need to speak up more so that playoff people realize that not 'everyone' wants a playoff.

[jkjsooner]

Then why do you guys keep comparing them? "ALL these other sports have a playoff? Are you telling me they got it wrong?"

And yes you can compare them because your proposed playoff adds the same element of inclusion that the NFL playoff has.


Let me make this simple for you.

OU is playing Florida State in football. At the end of the 4th quarter the score is OU 41 - Florida State 7. Inexplicably the head official proclaims that there will now be a 15 minute overtime period and whoever scores the most in that period wins the contest. Florida State scores 10 in the overtime, OU scores 7.

So what does that do to the regulation period of the game? What did OU 41- FSU -7 mean at that point? NOTHING. The reality is that OU outscored Florida State 48 to 17 over the course of the ENTIRE contest. But due to someones borderline retarded idea of adding an unneeded overtime period to "settle it on the field" at the end of regulation, we the fans must literally deny reality and pretend that FSU outperformed OU in order to reconcile what we saw happen with what the new system says happened.


In this analogy the regulation period of the game represents the regular season of college football. The unneeded overtime represents your ridiculous playoff idea. By inexplicably letting UConn, for example, play Auburn in an unneeded playoff you have explicitly proclaimed that what happened in the regular literally means NOTHING.

This concept is not hard to grasp. Why are you and jk pretending to be so daft that you can not get it?


We get it but we don't agree. For starters, you use an analogy where a team performs really poorly in the game (i.e. season) yet still makes it to overtime (playoff). I think you can see that's a bad analogy.

What I'm saying is that an 8 team playoff would still keep the regular season extremely interesting. Most teams could only lose one game and still be alive. Some (TCU/BSU) could not survive a single loss. Let me repeat that because you just don't seem to get it. Most teams could only lose one game and still be alive.

This is the reason you can't compare it to the NFL or MLB or NBA. We're not talking about 9-7 teams making the playoff here. We're talking about 11-1 and maybe some 10-2 teams who played very tough schedules.

And since you obviously don't really care about college football outside of the national title chase, well, you'd have a few more teams to keep track of at the end of the season.

Would you have an occasional rematch? Of course. Hell, every other sport has that possibility and frankly so does conference championship games.

Unless things work out just right we have a crapshoot on who makes it into the championship game. I'd rather be a little inclusive with a plus 1 game or an eight team playoff because I have no faith in the system picking the top two teams.

I completely disagree that adding a team that you don't think is deserving (and by deserving I assert you use some traditional standard that I don't subscribe to) is a bigger problem than leaving out a deserving team.

Why even have a national title game anyway? I mean, you could have a rematch in that game as well? You could also match up a 12-0 team with a 10-2 team in that game so according to your logic we should be less inclusive and just pick a champion.

[IndySooner]

Where are you going to play the games?

Highest rated team gets a home game? You do that and you decimate the major bowl games.....the Orange or Rose ain't gonna be happy with second tier teams every year...

Use the bowls? You will be moving some of the games away from the prime holiday vacation time...the reason the major bowls were started....the reason they bring millions to their community each and every year...

A plus one is about the best you will every see....

Like I have said....you don't seem to understand all of the problems with putting in a playoff...


I care MUCH more about Norman than I do Phoenix, Miami, LA, etc. I understand EXACTLY why the playoff hasn't been instituted. It's all about fat cats getting paid.

[MeMyself&Me]

We get it but we don't agree. For starters, you use an analogy where a team performs really poorly in the game (i.e. season) yet still makes it to overtime (playoff). I think you can see that's a bad analogy.

What I'm saying is that an 8 team playoff would still keep the regular season extremely interesting. Most teams could only lose one game and still be alive. Some (TCU/BSU) could not survive a single loss. Let me repeat that because you just don't seem to get it. Most teams could only lose one game and still be alive.

This is the reason you can't compare it to the NFL or MLB or NBA. We're not talking about 9-7 teams making the playoff here. We're talking about 11-1 and maybe some 10-2 teams who played very tough schedules.

And since you obviously don't really care about college football outside of the national title chase, well, you'd have a few more teams to keep track of at the end of the season.

Would you have an occasional rematch? Of course. Hell, every other sport has that possibility and frankly so does conference championship games.

Unless things work out just right we have a crapshoot on who makes it into the championship game. I'd rather be a little inclusive with a plus 1 game or an eight team playoff because I have no faith in the system picking the top two teams.

I completely disagree that adding a team that you don't think is deserving (and by deserving I assert you use some traditional standard that I don't subscribe to) is a bigger problem than leaving out a deserving team.

Why even have a national title game anyway? I mean, you could have a rematch in that game as well? You could also match up a 12-0 team with a 10-2 team in that game so according to your logic we should be less inclusive and just pick a champion.

You're right THIS year in that only 1 loss teams got in. But even accepting that, there is a difference in needing a lot of help to win a championship after a loss versus still having a good chance of winning a championship after a loss.

Anyway, you have a good point. You seem very worried about teams being excluded from the national title hunt in the post season. Not having a national title game and going back to the old way would solve that! Oregon plays Wiscy in the Rose Bowl, Auburn plays an at large in the Sugar, and TCU plays whoever in the MWC tie in bowl (don't what that is off the top of my head). Then, each has a shot at winning a title. The only way another team could win the title would be if all three lost and even then whoever was crowned in the finish would have deserved it for whatever happened over the course of the entire season.




...ducks for cover...

[bigfatjerk]

I would be just fine with an And 1 but you shouldn't be rewarded for 6-6 seasons. I don't get why people think if these games don't matter don't watch them. But that's just stupid logic. I grew up with bowl games meaning a lot. This changed somewhere in the 90s I think. Now teams are rewarded for bad seasons. That should offend everyone that goes to a bowl season. It's not about having to watch the games. It cheapens the regular season because teams with 6 wins are considered to have a great year.

[SpankyNek]

I dont just want to know who was the best in September.. I want to know who was the best for the ENTIRE year. A playoff doesnt tell me that.

So you would have voted for * to go to the CCG?



A playoff doesnt tell who the best team is... it only tells you who won the playoff. If that is all you wanted to know to begin with then why even have a regular season? Just have a big *** playoff that starts in September.

Many of the Pro BCS folks claim this is what we already have, which is untrue.




Whether the current system works is debatable. For anyone to take you seriously you are going to have specifically itemize the problems the current system has then specifically show how your proposed system would not only resolve those problems but not create additional problems to go along with them. So far none of you have come close to doing either of those things. All we get is generic catch-phrases on both ends. Instead of identifying an actual problem with the current system we get such tripe as "The BCS is like figure-skating". Instead of explaining how your system will solve any problem we get such idiocy as "a playoff decides it on the field!".
I have attempted to bring to light two scenarios..

1)The +1 model (what are the additional problems created here?)
2)The conference realignment to divisional play, which is summarily discounted by many that are not willing to take the time and think about how it would improve the game.







Wrong. That completely devalues the regular season. It means that 13-0 with the #1 SOS means NOTHING because some 9-3 or 8-4 also ran gets the same opportunity as the undefeated team. Again, refer to the Miami/Clemson scenario jk has been ducking this entire thread. Refer to the NFL in 2007 (or was it 2008?) when the Patiots were freaking 16-0 and and the 10-6 Giants were named champions. That ONLY flies if you define champion as some inane mindless phrase like "whoever wins the playoff". And by stooping to such idiocy you have in effect declared the regular completely meaningless.


Again the regular season is meaningless for all but 2 of all the teams in FBS as it is.

And if you are going to use extreme examples like the one above, what would the current system do to make meaning out of a regular season that produced 8 undefeated conference champions?

[MeMyself&Me]

I agree there are too many bowls but that doesn't effect how I view the regular season. Nor does it effect the balance of the of the season as a whole they way a playoff would.

[SpankyNek]

Then why do you guys keep comparing them? "ALL these other sports have a playoff? Are you telling me they got it wrong?"

And yes you can compare them because your proposed playoff adds the same element of inclusion that the NFL playoff has.


Let me make this simple for you.

OU is playing Florida State in football. At the end of the 4th quarter the score is OU 41 - Florida State 7. Inexplicably the head official proclaims that there will now be a 15 minute overtime period and whoever scores the most in that period wins the contest. Florida State scores 10 in the overtime, OU scores 7.

So what does that do to the regulation period of the game? What did OU 41- FSU -7 mean at that point? NOTHING. The reality is that OU outscored Florida State 48 to 17 over the course of the ENTIRE contest. But due to someones borderline retarded idea of adding an unneeded overtime period to "settle it on the field" at the end of regulation, we the fans must literally deny reality and pretend that FSU outperformed OU in order to reconcile what we saw happen with what the new system says happened.


In this analogy the regulation period of the game represents the regular season of college football. The unneeded overtime represents your ridiculous playoff idea. By inexplicably letting UConn, for example, play Auburn in an unneeded playoff you have explicitly proclaimed that what happened in the regular literally means NOTHING.

This concept is not hard to grasp. Why are you and jk pretending to be so daft that you can not get it?
Now pretend that after the regulation period, the game is suspended pending a review of computers, coaches, and football legends, to determine whether your game was going to count or not.

That is analogous to the current situation.

[IndySooner]

I agree there are too many bowls but that doesn't effect how I view the regular season. Nor does it effect the balance of the of the season as a whole they way a playoff would.

How would a playoff effect the balance of the season as a whole?

[SpankyNek]

We must have different definitions of the word "matters".

In college football if you want to play for the NC you better win all of your games or pretty damn close to it. Your performance over the course of the season directly determines your ranking the BCS. Teams that are 5-7 have ZERO chance of playing for an NC. Therefore their record and performance
mattered. Teams that are 13-0 against quality competition have a GREAT chance of playing for the NC. Their record and performance over the ENTIRE season mattered.

In the NFL you can be freaking 6-10 in the regular and play for the "championship" while another team that was 16-0 in the regular season is sitting at home watching. How can you possibly say the regular season in the NFL matters more than in college football? The fact that they have a playoff literally makes 16-0 records equal to 6-10 records. It doesn't matter what you do in the NFL regular season as long as you make it to the playoffs.

Please explain.
a 6 - 10 team has never played for a championship in the NFL.

[MeMyself&Me]

So you would have voted for * to go to the CCG?

I don't see why you would based on what he said. OU was better over the season than *.

[TopDawg]

I know that but the big I quoted had said that it was definitely better. Just felt it needed to be pointed out. Playoff is different. Not necessarily better. Depends on how you like your football.

Actually, I said "A playoff isn't perfect (like Caboose said, it allows a team to win who may just get hot at the right time) but in my opinion, it's better"

Then you pointed out that it was just an opinion. ;)

[MeMyself&Me]

Actually, I said "A playoff isn't perfect (like Caboose said, it allows a team to win who may just get hot at the right time) but in my opinion, it's better"

Then you pointed out that it was just an opinion. ;)

There was another part in your overly long post besides that one.

[MeMyself&Me]

How would a playoff effect the balance of the season as a whole?

We've covered that several times. Please keep up.

[MeMyself&Me]

a 6 - 10 team has never played for a championship in the NFL.

His point was that they could, of course. Not that they have.

[MeMyself&Me]

Again the regular season is meaningless for all but 2 of all the teams in FBS as it is.

Only in hindsite. And that's the way it is every season. We don't know which two teams until the end of the regular season.

[SpankyNek]

I don't see why you would based on what he said. OU was better over the season than *.

But the Patriots (Insert *) had already beaten the Giants (Insert OU).

This is where I got the notion.

And according to the human element (I am assuming he is human ;) ) * had a better season than OU did (albeit by a very slim margin) entering the CCG.

[IndySooner]

We've covered that several times. Please keep up.

Actually, we haven't. You keep saying the same thing, but there's never anything to back it up. So, if you're going to keep using that, please back it up.

Thanks.

[TopDawg]

Just for the record, I'd like to point out that I don't have a problem with awarding a national title to a 6-10 team that makes the playoffs and then beats a 15-1 team in the first round, a 13-3 team in the second round and a 14-2 team in the title game.

If the 15-1, 13-3 and 14-2 teams feel like they were wronged, I feel much better telling them "If you wanted a national title, you should've beaten the 6-10 team" than telling TCU "You should've known 3 years ago when you scheduled a 9-4 Oregon State team that by the time you played them this year, they were going to suck."

[SpankyNek]

Only in hindsite. And that's the way it is every season. We don't know which two teams until the end of the regular season.
Isn't that the case in every sport.

Then let's just say it's meaningless for all but about 8 teams.

[Scott D]

Just curious:

Those of you that support the current system, are you happy that Texas will probably make MORE money than OU from this year's bowl season?

Texas will make as much money this year as Baylor has in years past....wrap your mind around that.

[bigfatjerk]

I agree there are too many bowls but that doesn't effect how I view the regular season. Nor does it effect the balance of the of the season as a whole they way a playoff would.

I agree with a bigger playoff. But to me an 8 or 4 team playoff, changes nothing in that angle. It would basically be the system we have now where the top 10 go to a BCS bowl which somehow means more. Everyone else goes to a Bowl game. It's the same system we have now really. I don't really get a big difference between some of the BCS Bowls and say the Cotton Bowl. The OU/UConn game may be the worst bowl game out there on paper and it's a BCS game. But I think we just need to do this system right. I don't really want a playoff. I would like one but I think doing these things could help just as much.

First off change the BCS

Here's your automatic bids. You have to A) win your conference, and B) be in the top 15 to get an automatic bid.

This year the automatic bids would be Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Boise, and Virginia Tech.

Then you fill out the rest with the top ranked teams left. Stanford, Arkansas, and Ohio State.

Then you fill the rest up by ranking not by conference affiliation.

Auburn Oregon 1vs 2.

TCU/Stanford 3 vs 4

Wisconsin/Ohio State 5 vs 6

Oklahoma/Arkansas 7 vs 8

Boise State/Va Tech 10 vs 15.

To me this would be a lot more compelling than what we get some years. Although this years bowls are pretty interesting outside of our game. But I think that actually shows the balance at the top. If we just basically kept the Big East out we would be facing Boise State instead of UConn. Which would be a far more compelling game.

The second thing

Cut the number of bowl games as I've said numerous times. Make it a reward to get to a post season in college football. Not a reward for basically playing a season in a big conference.

[TopDawg]

I also don't buy into the fear that a playoff will ruin the college football season. The OU/OSU game this year was still plenty exciting and it had no national title implications. Now imagine if we have an 8-team playoff and the winner of that game is still alive and the loser isn't. Now a playoff has added MORE excitement to the regular season.

Would the Missouri loss have been less devastating? Yes. But does that mean we wouldn't have cared about that game heading into it? Absolutely not. It would've only meant that Soonerfans.com wouldn't have been such an absolute cluster after the game.

See, there's another reason to want a playoff.

[Scott D]

See, this thread continues to prove why a playoff won't work.

1. Playoff people can't agree on how many teams
2. Playoff people can't agree on criteria
3. Playoff people can't agree on format
4. Playoff people can't agree on location/final destination

I could probably continue this list if I wanted, but those four reasons alone are a strong enough case closed argument as to why changing something for the sake of change is a terrible idea.

That doesn't even take into account the fact that for every season where you have 3 undefeated teams clamoring they should be playing for the title having that season where you have one undefeated team and one one loss team and a bunch of teams with 2-4 losses filling out the rest of the Top-25.

[Scott D]

I also don't buy into the fear that a playoff will ruin the college football season. The OU/OSU game this year was still plenty exciting and it had no national title implications. Now imagine if we have an 8-team playoff and the winner of that game is still alive and the loser isn't. Now a playoff has added MORE excitement to the regular season.

Would the Missouri loss have been less devastating? Yes. But does that mean we wouldn't have cared about that game heading into it? Absolutely not. It would've only meant that Soonerfans.com wouldn't have been such an absolute cluster after the game.

See, there's another reason to want a playoff.

"Rivalry game" trumps title implications nearly every time.

[bigfatjerk]

You can pretty much say the same thing with the problems with the current system.

[bigfatjerk]

"Rivalry game" trumps title implications nearly every time.
OU/OSU has become more of a rivalry game but I still barely see it as a rivalry game.

[MeMyself&Me]

But the Patriots (Insert *) had already beaten the Giants (Insert OU).

This is where I got the notion.

And according to the human element (I am assuming he is human ;) ) * had a better season than OU did (albeit by a very slim margin) entering the CCG.

The Pats also had a much better record if you recall, that was part off what he was saying. You're latching onto one part and ignoring the other. Also, his reference to having already beaten NY was in relation to the fact they ended up playing twice and negating the first win. OU and Texas were never going to play twice. A different argument entirely.


Actually, we haven't. You keep saying the same thing, but there's never anything to back it up. So, if you're going to keep using that, please back it up.

Thanks.

It seems me and others have repeatedly said that if you have a playoff and simply crown whoever is hot in the playoff as the champion, you cheapen the accomplishments of the regular season. I won't go so far as say games become meaningless. That's for other people to say. I simply say it changes the balance by putting more wait on the postseason than there should be. So yeah, it's been covered. You just don't want to here it.


Just for the record, I'd like to point out that I don't have a problem with awarding a national title to a 6-10 team that makes the playoffs and then beats a 15-1 team in the first round, a 13-3 team in the second round and a 14-2 team in the title game.

If the 15-1, 13-3 and 14-2 teams feel like they were wronged, I feel much better telling them "If you wanted a national title, you should've beaten the 6-10 team" than telling TCU "You should've known 3 years ago when you scheduled a 9-4 Oregon State team that by the time you played them this year, they were going to suck."

I think Joe C has shown that you can schedule a strong SoS consistently enough that I don't mind telling TCU that. Their AD is either not as good at doing it... or more likely is scheduling for money rather than national championships. In either case, I don't have much pity.

With the college football is now, the 15-1 team has proven by the end of the regular season it is better than the 6-10 team from your example and shouldn't have to take a chance in that game. I prefer it that way. I understand that you don't. That's fine.

[Scott D]

OU/OSU has become more of a rivalry game but I still barely see it as a rivalry game.

that's why I used quotation marks.

[SpankyNek]

See, this thread continues to prove why a playoff won't work.

1. Playoff people can't agree on how many teams
2. Playoff people can't agree on criteria
3. Playoff people can't agree on format
4. Playoff people can't agree on location/final destination

I could probably continue this list if I wanted, but those four reasons alone are a strong enough case closed argument as to why changing something for the sake of change is a terrible idea.

That doesn't even take into account the fact that for every season where you have 3 undefeated teams clamoring they should be playing for the title having that season where you have one undefeated team and one one loss team and a bunch of teams with 2-4 losses filling out the rest of the Top-25.
The problem is, there are to many folks here ready to claim victory for their belief based upon what they hold sacred.

There will be a compromised plan that will come about in my lifetime. I hope that it doesn't ruin it for all of you guys, but I guess that just means more tickets for the rest of us.

Again, I bring up the +1 model, which is pretty hard to dismiss, IMO.

If there is only one undefeated team at the end of the season, should we just crown them?

If the BCS was able to be formed, someone like Cuban can set up a post season exhibition.

It won't take everyone agreeing...just one or two jumping on board and the rest scurrying for inclusion.

[SpankyNek]

The Pats also had a much better record if you recall, that was part off what he was saying. You're latching onto one part and ignoring the other. Also, his reference to having already beaten NY was in relation to the fact they ended up playing twice and negating the first win. OU and Texas were never going to play twice. A different argument entirely.




There actually was a pretty good chance for it to happen that year...there was not much difference between uf and * in the final poll.

[MeMyself&Me]

There actually was a pretty good chance for it to happen that year...there was not much difference between uf and * in the final poll.

Ahhh yes, I remember there being talk that if the voters tried to punish OU in favor of Texas that OU would still get and play Texas and Florida would have been left out.

Yeah, I've said before I don't like the rematches and wouldn't have liked it here if it had happened. BUT, you asked about the CONFERENCE championship game, of which there was not going to be a rematch with Texas.

[jkjsooner]

See, this thread continues to prove why a playoff won't work.

1. Playoff people can't agree on how many teams
2. Playoff people can't agree on criteria
3. Playoff people can't agree on format
4. Playoff people can't agree on location/final destination

I could probably continue this list if I wanted, but those four reasons alone are a strong enough case closed argument as to why changing something for the sake of change is a terrible idea.

1. Nothing this big is ever settled at this stage. Do you actually expect a unanimous opinion on every detail at this stage? Was the U.S. Constitution a bad idea because not everyone agreed on every detail from the very beginning?

2. We're not changing for the sake of changing. We think the system is broken. In many years we pick a team to play in the title game among several with identical records and the choice is made with little evidence (few OOC games) and a lot of bias. As I've said many times, if we're having to arbitrarily pick a few teams it's better to be a little more inclusive than exclusive.

[MeMyself&Me]

As I've said many times, if we're having to arbitrarily pick a few teams it's better to be a little more inclusive than exclusive.

If you're worried about inclusion, the old way is better. All teams that deserve a shot still have chance going into the post season and all the teams that don't deserve a shot don't have a chance going into the post season. Your happy, I'm happy, we're all happy... well maybe not ALL. I think most of the playoff proponents really just want a playoff because it simply would be fun to watch come December and don't care about the inclusion vs exclusion argument.

[silverwheels]

I'm more in favor of inclusion, although trying to implement a playoff with the current alignment and overall culture of Div-1A would be a cluster****. The only way a playoff would truly work would be to shrink the top division, even out the conferences in number of teams and quality, and get rid of the polls. Not gonna happen.

[IndySooner]

See, this thread continues to prove why a playoff won't work.

1. Playoff people can't agree on how many teams
2. Playoff people can't agree on criteria
3. Playoff people can't agree on format
4. Playoff people can't agree on location/final destination

I could probably continue this list if I wanted, but those four reasons alone are a strong enough case closed argument as to why changing something for the sake of change is a terrible idea.

That doesn't even take into account the fact that for every season where you have 3 undefeated teams clamoring they should be playing for the title having that season where you have one undefeated team and one one loss team and a bunch of teams with 2-4 losses filling out the rest of the Top-25.

Since the BCS started, there have been:

4 years with 3 or more undefeated teams
2 years with two clear cut undefeated teams
3 years with two undefeated teams, one of which doesn't qualify for title
1 year with two undefeated teams, both of which don't qualify for title
2 years with one undefeated team and multiple one-loss teams fighting
1 year with no undefeated teams and 6 one-loss teams fighting
1 year with one undefeated team that doesn't qualify and instead a 2-loss team wins the title

So, I don't see your scenario EVER happening since the BCS started.

[OULenexaman]

I would love to see a playoff format....if we had one this year we could have a shot at Oregon or Auburn. I say BRING IT!!

[jkjsooner]

If you're worried about inclusion, the old way is better. All teams that deserve a shot still have chance going into the post season and all the teams that don't deserve a shot don't have a chance going into the post season. Your happy, I'm happy, we're all happy... well maybe not ALL. I think most of the playoff proponents really just want a playoff because it simply would be fun to watch come December and don't care about the inclusion vs exclusion argument.

The old way is better? Sure, you have a shot but you can't control your own destiny. That is absurd. I can't believe anyone would think that was a good situation.

[TopDawg]

See, this thread continues to prove why a playoff won't work.

1. Playoff people can't agree on how many teams
2. Playoff people can't agree on criteria
3. Playoff people can't agree on format
4. Playoff people can't agree on location/final destination

I could probably continue this list if I wanted, but those four reasons alone are a strong enough case closed argument as to why changing something for the sake of change is a terrible idea.

Seriously, Scott? Because some message board folks can't come to a 100% consensus on the details of an idea, it won't work?

And you know better than to think this is changing it just for the sake of change.

[jkjsooner]

Since the BCS started, there have been:

4 years with 3 or more undefeated teams
2 years with two clear cut undefeated teams
3 years with two undefeated teams, one of which doesn't qualify for title
1 year with two undefeated teams, both of which don't qualify for title
2 years with one undefeated team and multiple one-loss teams fighting
1 year with no undefeated teams and 6 one-loss teams fighting
1 year with one undefeated team that doesn't qualify and instead a 2-loss team wins the title

So, I don't see your scenario EVER happening since the BCS started.

And this just underscores the cluster f*** that is our current system.

[MeMyself&Me]

The old way is better? Sure, you have a shot but you can't control your own destiny. That is absurd. I can't believe anyone would think that was a good situation.

You're the one that wants to make sure every one with an argument is included. I simply don't care that TCU got left out this year.

[Caboose]

And this just underscores the cluster f*** that is our current system.

Even more so it underscores that both your 8 team playoff proposal and Indy's 16 team proposal are woefully inadequate to deal with unpredictable and wildly varying regular season results.

[TopDawg]

I think Joe C has shown that you can schedule a strong SoS consistently enough that I don't mind telling TCU that. Their AD is either not as good at doing it... or more likely is scheduling for money rather than national championships. In either case, I don't have much pity.

The problem, though, is that you can schedule a strong SOS and it just not be strong enough. You could play the 3rd toughest schedule and still be left out. In fact, with this system, you could go undefeated through the toughest schedule and still be left out because the voters thought there were two other teams better than you.


With the college football is now, the 15-1 team has proven by the end of the regular season it is better than the 6-10 team

That's arguable. Did Nevada prove they were better than us because they had a better record?

[Caboose]

Now pretend that after the regulation period, the game is suspended pending a review of computers, coaches, and football legends, to determine whether your game was going to count or not.

That is analogous to the current situation.

Not at all because in the current system your game counts. The voters watch it. The computers factor in wins and losses, etc. Everyone's regular season record and performance counts whether you are 0-12 or 12-0. What you did matters. Not so with a playoff.

[Caboose]

a 6 - 10 team has never played for a championship in the NFL.

Irrelevant. A 6-10 team CAN play for championship in the NFL. This makes it impossible for anyone to claim that in the NFLthe regular season matters.

[IndySooner]

Even more so it underscores that both your 8 team playoff proposal and Indy's 16 team proposal are woefully inadequate to deal with unpredictable and wildly varying regular season results.

Actually, I'm researching right now, and as far as I can see, no undefeated team would EVER have gotten left out of the fray back to 1950. Also, no team with a losing record would have EVER gotten into a playoff system since 1950.

Let's not let the facts get in the way, though.

[silverwheels]

The voters don't always watch the games. The coaches sure don't.


And not every game matters. Mid-majors are eliminated from playing for the national title before their seasons even start. Tell me how their seasons "matter" in that context.

[bigfatjerk]

Irrelevant. A 6-10 team CAN play for championship in the NFL. This makes it impossible for anyone to claim that in the NFLthe regular season matters.
Has this ever happened? Okay I'll play too, 4 loss team can probably play for a national title if everyone sucks one season.

[IndySooner]

Irrelevant. A 6-10 team CAN play for championship in the NFL. This makes it impossible for anyone to claim that in the NFLthe regular season matters.

There are 60+ seasons worth of data that say you're wrong, yet you continue to spout the argument.

[IndySooner]

Just in case you all were hoping Cuban would just go away:

http://blogmaverick.com/2010/12/17/starting-the-process-college-football-playoffs/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogmaverick%2FtyiP+%28blog+m averick%29&utm_content=Twitter

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/pages/HDNet-CFB-Playoff-Series/171212686252635

[MeMyself&Me]

The problem, though, is that you can schedule a strong SOS and it just not be strong enough. You could play the 3rd toughest schedule and still be left out. In fact, with this system, you could go undefeated through the toughest schedule and still be left out because the voters thought there were two other teams better than you.

If someone else's AD did a better job of setting up a schedule for a championship run, then the other team deserves it more.

As far as the voters, that's simply a selection criteria issue that has nothing to do with playoffs vs bowls. If you still have voters, you still have that problem in the playoffs.

[MeMyself&Me]

That's arguable. Did Nevada prove they were better than us because they had a better record?

You'd say a 15-1 vs a 6-10 team is arguable? That's what was in the quote there. Not a team with 1 loss versus a team with 2 losses.

[Caboose]

So you would have voted for * to go to the CCG?


No clue how you could have gotten that out of my post. OU's overall body of work was better than *. The Giants overall body of work was inferior to the Pats.


Many of the Pro BCS folks claim this is what we already have, which is untrue.

Irrelevant. Are there "Pro BCS" people? Stop confusing me saying your playoff idea doesnt work with me bing pro-BCS.




I have attempted to bring to light two scenarios..

1)The +1 model (what are the additional problems created here?)
2)The conference realignment to divisional play, which is summarily discounted by many that are not willing to take the time and think about how it would improve the game.

1. The problem of exclusion still exists. The problem of inclusion is increased.

Year 1 -

#1 Miami - 13-0
#2 Ohio State 12-0
#3 Oklahoma 13-0
#4 Alabama 13-0
#5 USC 12-0

The + 1 model fails to correct the problem of exclusion it was set up to correct.

Year 2 -
#1 Miami 13-0
#2 Ohio State 12-0
#3 Oregon 11-2 (lost to Ohio State already)
#4 Oklahoma 11-2 (lost to Miami already)

The +1 model fails to correct the problem of inclusion.



2. You'll have to expand on that.





Again the regular season is meaningless for all but 2 of all the teams in FBS as it is.

Incorrect. As I have already stated every teams regular season record and performance means something.


And if you are going to use extreme examples like the one above, what would the current system do to make meaning out of a regular season that produced 8 undefeated conference champions?

It would be a cluster f*ck for the current system. So what? Ironically this extreme example is the ONLY scenario that would work for an 8 team playoff.

It doesn't matter how large you decide to make your playoff field. Whether it is 2 teams or 8 or 16 or 64...... unless ALL of the teams that make the field are exactly equally deserving of being there then it fails. The BCS (2 team playoff) failed in 2000 when OU won. It only looks like it got one right superficially because OU happened to win. If Florida State had one it's failure would have been readily apparent. There would have then been four 1 loss teams all with valid claims that they had the best overall season.

[TopDawg]

Irrelevant. A 6-10 team CAN play for championship in the NFL. This makes it impossible for anyone to claim that in the NFLthe regular season matters.

Wrong.

They still had to win those games to get in. And because they didn't win more, it meant that they had to go on the road to get to the title game.

So not only is it possible for someone to claim that the NFL regular season matters, it is an actual fact that the NFL regular season matters. The pre-season doesn't matter. The regular season does.

Did you happen to watch the San Diego game last night? They had a few fans show up. I'm pretty sure I even heard them cheer. They weren't just waiting for the postseason to start.

[silverwheels]

The voters are my primary beef with the current (and old) system(s). It just doesn't make any sense to me to have champions voted upon. The play on the field should be the only determining factor. That said, I still don't think you can just give college football an objective playoff without tinkering with the conferences and schedules way too much. Some major contraction and realignment would most likely have to occur.

[IndySooner]

If someone else's AD did a better job of setting up a schedule for a championship run, then the other team deserves it more.

As far as the voters, that's simply a selection criteria issue that has nothing to do with playoffs vs bowls. If you still have voters, you still have that problem in the playoffs.

TCU's AD couldn't have scheduled ANYONE that would have kept up with our schedule. Not only that, but no one wants to play a home and home with TCU. Their stadium isn't big enough and they are too dangerous.

Before you say tough cookies, the issue is that they don't have the opportunity to build the facilities without the money and exposure that inclusion allows. This is the biggest problem with the way things are set up. No more Miami's. Boise State will never be a national powerhouse. Florida State would have never risen from nothing. The way it's set up today keeps the little guys down forever.

[TopDawg]

If someone else's AD did a better job of setting up a schedule for a championship run, then the other team deserves it more.

As far as the voters, that's simply a selection criteria issue that has nothing to do with playoffs vs bowls. If you still have voters, you still have that problem in the playoffs.

This is actually a good point. A playoff isn't going to solve the voter issue. My bad.

But to the first point, you don't have a problem with a team going undefeated through the toughest schedule in the nation and still not playing for a national title?

[Caboose]

There are 60+ seasons worth of data that say you're wrong, yet you continue to spout the argument.

Are you telling me that a 6-10 team cant make the playoffs in the NFL. Is that your final answer?

[bigfatjerk]

Are you telling me that a 6-10 team cant make the playoffs in the NFL. Is that your final answer?

In theory they can. Just like theory a 4 loss or 5 loss team can make the national title game. A lot of stuff has to happen.

[IndySooner]

In theory they can. Just like theory a 4 loss or 5 loss team can make the national title game. A lot of stuff has to happen.

This.

[IndySooner]

Are you telling me that a 6-10 team cant make the playoffs in the NFL. Is that your final answer?

I can't believe you keep making this the crux of your argument.

[TopDawg]

You'd say a 15-1 vs a 6-10 team is arguable? That's what was in the quote there. Not a team with 1 loss versus a team with 2 losses.

Well, are you saying that having a better record proves that one team is better than another?

Here are situations where a team with a 15-1 record could arguably be better than a team with a 6-10 record:

Team 15's only loss came against Team 6. Team 15's 15 wins came in the Sun Belt and against FCS teams while Team 6's wins came against the Top 5 teams in the country (and Team 15) and the 10 losses came while their starting QB was injured.

See, as long as we're pretending (as if a team with a losing record would ever make an 8-team college football playoff), then we can draw up the most unrealistic scenarios imaginable...even one where it would be conceivable that a 6-10 team was better than a 15-1 team.

But if you really want to claim that record "proves" which team is better than another, then we're back on point with the discussion. Do you feel that way about records?

[Caboose]

Wrong.

They still had to win those games to get in. And because they didn't win more, it meant that they had to go on the road to get to the title game.


Wrong. It means the regular season doesn't matter. 6-10 is the same as 16-0. It also means having a 10-10 season (6-10 team after winning the Super Bowl) is somehow better than having an 18-1 season (16-0 team losing the Super Bowl.)

[MeMyself&Me]

The voters are my primary beef with the current (and old) system(s). It just doesn't make any sense to me to have champions voted upon. The play on the field should be the only determining factor. That said, I still don't think you can just give college football an objective playoff without tinkering with the conferences and schedules way too much. Some major contraction and realignment would most likely have to occur.

The issue of voters has nothing to do with bowls vs playoffs


TCU's AD couldn't have scheduled ANYONE that would have kept up with our schedule. Not only that, but no one wants to play a home and home with TCU. Their stadium isn't big enough and they are too dangerous.

Before you say tough cookies, the issue is that they don't have the opportunity to build the facilities without the money and exposure that inclusion allows. This is the biggest problem with the way things are set up. No more Miami's. Boise State will never be a national powerhouse. Florida State would have never risen from nothing. The way it's set up today keeps the little guys down forever.

Probably couldn't have kept up with OUR schedule. Ours was one of the toughest, if not the toughest, in the country. They weren't far off of Oregon's though. If we could get rid of these pesky voters, then they very well could have passed Oregon this year with just a slightly better schedule which would have put them in the title game. But like I said before, issues with human voters has nothing to do with this debate.


This is actually a good point. A playoff isn't going to solve the voter issue. My bad.

But to the first point, you don't have a problem with a team going undefeated through the toughest schedule in the nation and still not playing for a national title?

Actually, if we were only using records and SoS, then an undefeated team with the toughest schedule would play for all the marbles every time that combination happened. But the selection criteria is another debate that doesn't have anything to do with playoffs vs bowls.

[bigfatjerk]

Wrong. It means the regular season doesn't matter. 6-10 is the same as 16-0. It also means having a 10-10 season (6-10 team after winning the Super Bowl) is somehow better than having an 18-1 season (16-0 team losing the Super Bowl.)

That's s stupid argument because of something happens in college football and somehow every team sucks for a year there can be in theory a team near .500 playing for a national title. It's not likely to happen just like 6-10 teams don't win divisions then win in the playoffs. I think the worst record to make a playoff is still either 7-9 or 8-8.

[Caboose]

I can't believe you keep making this the crux of your argument.

I cant believe you are arguing such a minor point that you are incorrect on.

You are the one that keeps challenging it, yet you cant fathom why I keep defending it?

You are factually wrong. A 6-10 team can win thier division and get into the playoffs. Period. Math. Get over it. You are wrong.

The examples are endless. 6-10. 7-9. 8-8. 9-7. 10-6... take your pick. Any of those teams can make the playoffs and play a 16-0 team. And any of those examples illustrate the utter failure of the NFL playoff system.

[silverwheels]

The issue of voters has nothing to do with bowls vs playoffs

Without an objective playoff, apparently we need polls to decide anything, more specifically the national title game, which is a bowl. So it does.

[IndySooner]

That's s stupid argument because of something happens in college football and somehow every team sucks for a year there can be in theory a team near .500 playing for a national title. It's not likely to happen just like 6-10 teams don't win divisions then win in the playoffs. I think the worst record to make a playoff is still either 7-9 or 8-8.

8-8. Two 4-5 teams made the playoffs in the 1982 strike shortened season. 8-8 is the worst to make it in a full season, and it hasn't happened often.

[Aldebaran]

Are we there, yet?

[Scott D]

1. Nothing this big is ever settled at this stage. Do you actually expect a unanimous opinion on every detail at this stage? Was the U.S. Constitution a bad idea because not everyone agreed on every detail from the very beginning?

2. We're not changing for the sake of changing. We think the system is broken. In many years we pick a team to play in the title game among several with identical records and the choice is made with little evidence (few OOC games) and a lot of bias. As I've said many times, if we're having to arbitrarily pick a few teams it's better to be a little more inclusive than exclusive.

yeah...if it's still at 'this stage' for over a decade, then it's safe to say that it'll never progress beyond 'this stage'.

[MeMyself&Me]

Well, are you saying that having a better record proves that one team is better than another?

Here are situations where a team with a 15-1 record could arguably be better than a team with a 6-10 record:

Team 15's only loss came against Team 6. Team 15's 15 wins came in the Sun Belt and against FCS teams while Team 6's wins came against the Top 5 teams in the country (and Team 15) and the 10 losses came while their starting QB was injured.

See, as long as we're pretending (as if a team with a losing record would ever make an 8-team college football playoff), then we can draw up the most unrealistic scenarios imaginable...even one where it would be conceivable that a 6-10 team was better than a 15-1 team.

But if you really want to claim that record "proves" which team is better than another, then we're back on point with the discussion. Do you feel that way about records?

Whoa there! I never said a team with a losing record would make an 8 team playoff. What I have said is that if it were an 8 team playoff, I can't think of ever a time when I thought the 8th ranked team deserved a shot at the national title at the end of the regular season.

Also, I've said that it won't be an 8 team playoff. Anything at 6 or more and the 'big 6 conferences' are going to want automatic inclusion. With only 2 spots left, that's not a lot and no one is going to be happy, big conference or small. I could see a plus one, and a 4 team before I see that and I could see a 16 team before I see that too.

[silverwheels]

Whoa there! I never said a team with a losing record would make an 8 team playoff. What I have said is that if it were an 8 team playoff, I can't think of ever a time when I thought the 8th ranked team deserved a shot at the national title at the end of the regular season.

Should have nothing to do with how a national champion is determined.

[IndySooner]

I cant believe you are arguing such a minor point that you are incorrect on.

You are the one that keeps challenging it, yet you cant fathom why I keep defending it?

You are factually wrong. A 6-10 team can win thier division and get into the playoffs. Period. Math. Get over it. You are wrong.

The examples are endless. 6-10. 7-9. 8-8. 9-7. 10-6... take your pick. Any of those teams can make the playoffs and play a 16-0 team. And any of those examples illustrate the utter failure of the NFL playoff system.

Sure, it's possible. It's also possible that I have relations with one of the Desperate Housewives. It's never happened and it most likely will never happened. There's 35 years of data to back up my situation and 40+ years to back up the NFL situation.

Twice 9-7 teams have made it. They lost both times. 10-6 is the worst record to win the Super Bowl.

[jkjsooner]

You're the one that wants to make sure every one with an argument is included. I simply don't care that TCU got left out this year.

If you don't care then why are you confusing the topic by bringing up a terrible inclusion scheme? I really don't understand your point here. It's like saying that we should roll a five sided dice to determine who is the champion out of the top five. Yes, it's more inclusive but not in the way I was referring to. Please stick to the topic or at least if you bring up something like the old system have the guts to defend it.

[Caboose]

That's s stupid argument because of something happens in college football and somehow every team sucks for a year there can be in theory a team near .500 playing for a national title.

What does that have to do with whether or not a playoff works? So what if that happened? In the current system every teams record and performance would still matter and the top two would be selected for the NC game. Now if the #1 team was 13-0 and the #2 team was 6-5 then you would have a point, and I would agree with you. AND IT FURTHER SUPPORTS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.

When you have a system that matches up two unequal teams for a "playoff" it FAILS. It doesnt matter if its a 2 team playoff or a 128 team playoff. The participants have to be equal for it work. If they aren't equal it isn't even a playoff by definition.




It's not likely to happen just like 6-10 teams don't win divisions then win in the playoffs. I think the worst record to make a playoff is still either 7-9 or 8-8.

A 6-10 team can win their division and that puts them in the playoffs in the NFL.

[TopDawg]

This is really all about balance.

Caboose appears to be comfortable with the balance that we currently have between CFB regular season and post-season. If he really wanted to maximize the importance of the regular season, he would be arguing for either NO postseason or for the champion to be decided before any post-season games are played. But he's not...at least not yet...so all this means is that he's comfortable with the balance.

It seems to me that he (and others) are afraid that the regular season will lose all (or most) of its importance and the excitement will be sucked out of college football if we go to a playoff. I don't see it. This fear makes absolutely no sense to me.

The NFL has 32 teams and 12 of them make the playoffs...that means 38% of the teams make the playoffs. For college football to have that same percentage of teams making the playoffs, we'd have to have a 46-team playoff. I could buy that with a 46-team playoff, the CFB regular season would be as exciting as the NFL regular season (which, to me, is still pretty exciting, but not as exciting as college football's).

But since only 7% of college football teams would be making the playoffs in an 8-team tournament, I think the regular season would be much more exciting than the NFL's. In fact, I think it would be MORE exciting than the one we have now (as I've demonstrated before).

Nobody has really ever been able to explain to me how an 8-team playoff would have any perceptible negative impact on the regular season. They keep saying it will, but nobody's really been able to demonstrate HOW it will.

[jkjsooner]

yeah...if it's still at 'this stage' for over a decade, then it's safe to say that it'll never progress beyond 'this stage'.

Dude, we're on a message board. If we discussed the parts of our new constitution it would never get beyond this stage either. To really resolve the issues those who can actually change the system will have to get together and compromise. I'm not going to compromise what I think is the best system on a message board because there's no point in it.

[TopDawg]

Actually, if we were only using records and SoS, then an undefeated team with the toughest schedule would play for all the marbles every time that combination happened. But the selection criteria is another debate that doesn't have anything to do with playoffs vs bowls.

Well, part of my reason for wanting a playoff is because of the flawed selection criteria so it actually DOES have something to do with this debate.

[Scott D]

Seriously, Scott? Because some message board folks can't come to a 100% consensus on the details of an idea, it won't work?

And you know better than to think this is changing it just for the sake of change.

we've had this difference of opinion how many years now? And it gets rehashed every year nonetheless. The general flinging of poop at the wall in terms of showing why "playoff version X" will work isn't just a message board thing. There's no overall general consensus for the people with actual perceived clout on a format for a playoff. What we see here is just a microcosm of the overall big picture, and is proof that there isn't a real viable alternative to the current system that isn't going to cost schools money they now get via the current system.

Saying something doesn't work, and not having a solid defined plan as to how changing it would work is pretty much "Hope and Change" except you're hoping for change that isn't going to come.

[bigfatjerk]

A 6-10 team can win their division and that puts them in the playoffs in the NFL.

A 4 or 5 loss team can win a national title too.

[Scott D]

In fact I'll take it a step further. There is a better likelihood that Barack Obama wins Oklahoma in the 2012 Elections than there being a FBS playoff by the end of the ESPN BCS contract.

[silverwheels]

Well, part of my reason for wanting a playoff is because of the flawed selection criteria so it actually DOES have something to do with this debate.

Yep.

[Caboose]

Sure, it's possible. It's also possible that I have relations with one of the Desperate Housewives. It's never happened and it most likely will never happened. There's 35 years of data to back up my situation and 40+ years to back up the NFL situation.

Twice 9-7 teams have made it. They lost both times. 10-6 is the worst record to win the Super Bowl.

So now you are changing your response from "cant" to "not likely" and still inexplicably bringing the point up... and probably still shocked that we are still talking about it?

[Caboose]

A 4 or 5 loss team can win a national title too.

And it would be fine, if there were no better team. It would be ridiculous if some other team was 13-1... wouldnt it?

Patriots/Giants

[silverwheels]

In fact I'll take it a step further. There is a better likelihood that Barack Obama wins Oklahoma in the 2012 Elections than there being a FBS playoff by the end of the ESPN BCS contract.

Most likely, but that doesn't mean a playoff will never happen. If the schools and conferences can figure out a way to make way more money with a playoff than what we have now, it will happen.

[TopDawg]

I could see a plus one, and a 4 team before I see that and I could see a 16 team before I see that too.

Well of course a plus one will probably be first and then a 4-team. I'd be happy with that.

But that's a different point (i.e. - what WILL happen). I'm talking about why a playoff is better than no playoff. We were arguing about a 6-10 team as if it was ever really going to have any bearing on the issue at hand (and I know we hijacked Caboose's record to get there so maybe that was the mistake...confusing the arguments).

But you seemed to state that record is a way to "prove" that one team is better than another. Do you really think that?

[jkjsooner]

we've had this difference of opinion how many years now? And it gets rehashed every year nonetheless.

Again you should expect this until those who are in a position to compromise and make actual changes start talking. Is that so hard to understand?

And somone brought up a good point. I think a playoff will come when some major powers and/or conference decide it's in their own best interest and revolt. They will either threaten to leave the conference or the NCAA. Once this happens the ball will start rolling and others will join (and the conferences and NCAA will relent). It probably won't be a nice negotiated agreement - or at least it won't start that way.

[TopDawg]

Saying something doesn't work, and not having a solid defined plan as to how changing it would work is pretty much "Hope and Change" except you're hoping for change that isn't going to come.

Well, people never thought the BCS would work and the idea that they had for it wasn't perfect, but they tweaked it as they went.

It's all fine and dandy for us to each be satisfied that what we want is actually going to happen (you think I'm hoping for the impossible, I think you're trying to prevent the inevitable). I'm really not interested in the argument about what will or won't happen...since none of us knows...I'm more interested in the reasons why someone thinks it will or won't be better.

I've heard decent reasons for why it won't be better, but none of them have anything to do with the regular season being devalued. That's why I chimed in here...that seemed to be the general direction of the debate.

[IndySooner]

What does that have to do with whether or not a playoff works? So what if that happened? In the current system every teams record and performance would still matter and the top two would be selected for the NC game. Now if the #1 team was 13-0 and the #2 team was 6-5 then you would have a point, and I would agree with you. AND IT FURTHER SUPPORTS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.

When you have a system that matches up two unequal teams for a "playoff" it FAILS. It doesnt matter if its a 2 team playoff or a 128 team playoff. The participants have to be equal for it work. If they aren't equal it isn't even a playoff by definition.



Then let's call it a tournament. Whatever. Semantics.

A 6-10 team can win their division and that puts them in the playoffs in the NFL.Yet, it's never happened.
:mad:

[Caboose]

:mad:

Relevance? I have never encountered someone who so lacks the ability to understand what an example is.


You: This two foot fence will keep every animal out of my yard.

Me: A puma could get over it easily.

You: A puma could NEVER happen so therefore this two foot fence will keep EVERY animal out of my yard.

Me: Incorrect. Pumas are real.

You: Pumas are non-existent. I cant believe you are relying on this point. Therefore NO animal can get over my two foot fence

Me: You are factually incorrect. Pumas exist. You are wrong. And you keep challenging that example thats why I keep defending it. There are a number of animals in this area that can get over a two foot fence. I thought that by giving you an obvious example (even if unlikely) you could see the point and parse out the others.... like dogs, raccoons, coyotes, deer, foxes, etc. I am sorry I overestimated your mental capacity.

You: A puma is not likely to happen. Therefore no animal can get over my two foot fence.

[IndySooner]

Relevance? I have never encountered someone who so lacks the ability to understand what an example is.


You: This two foot fence will keep every animal out of my yard.

Me: A puma could get over it easily.

You: A puma could NEVER happen so therefore this two foot fence will keep EVERY animal out of my yard.

Me: Incorrect. Pumas are real.

You: Pumas are non-existent. I cant believe you are relying on this point. Therefore NO animal can get over my two foot fence

Me: You are factually incorrect. Pumas exist. You are wrong. And you keep challenging that example thats why I keep defending it. There are a number of animals in this area that can get over a two foot fence. I thought that by giving you an obvious example (even if unlikely) you could see the point and parse out the others.... like dogs, raccoons, coyotes, deer, foxes, etc. I am sorry I overestimated your mental capacity.

You: A puma is not likely to happen. Therefore no animal can get over my two foot fence.

:confused: :eek:

[IndySooner]

Relevance? I have never encountered someone who so lacks the ability to understand what an example is.


You: This two foot fence will keep every animal out of my yard.

Me: A puma could get over it easily.

You: A puma could NEVER happen so therefore this two foot fence will keep EVERY animal out of my yard.

Me: Incorrect. Pumas are real.

You: Pumas are non-existent. I cant believe you are relying on this point. Therefore NO animal can get over my two foot fence

Me: You are factually incorrect. Pumas exist. You are wrong. And you keep challenging that example thats why I keep defending it. There are a number of animals in this area that can get over a two foot fence. I thought that by giving you an obvious example (even if unlikely) you could see the point and parse out the others.... like dogs, raccoons, coyotes, deer, foxes, etc. I am sorry I overestimated your mental capacity.

You: A puma is not likely to happen. Therefore no animal can get over my two foot fence.

So what you're saying is that ANY system that COULD POSSIBLY allow an "undeserving" team to win a championship team is wrong.

11-2 LSU in 2007?
BYU in 1984?

[Scott D]

Again you should expect this until those who are in a position to compromise and make actual changes start talking. Is that so hard to understand?

And somone brought up a good point. I think a playoff will come when some major powers and/or conference decide it's in their own best interest and revolt. They will either threaten to leave the conference or the NCAA. Once this happens the ball will start rolling and others will join (and the conferences and NCAA will relent). It probably won't be a nice negotiated agreement - or at least it won't start that way.

The money is too good for that. Really, who would get upset if Boise threatened to take it's ball and go play elsewhere? Nobody.

[Scott D]

Well, people never thought the BCS would work and the idea that they had for it wasn't perfect, but they tweaked it as they went.

It's all fine and dandy for us to each be satisfied that what we want is actually going to happen (you think I'm hoping for the impossible, I think you're trying to prevent the inevitable). I'm really not interested in the argument about what will or won't happen...since none of us knows...I'm more interested in the reasons why someone thinks it will or won't be better.

I've heard decent reasons for why it won't be better, but none of them have anything to do with the regular season being devalued. That's why I chimed in here...that seemed to be the general direction of the debate.

My whole initial direction was that Mark Cuban needs a hobby that isn't the Dallas Mavericks more than prostitutes need HIV tests on a regular basis.

[Caboose]

This is really all about balance.

Caboose appears to be comfortable with the balance that we currently have between CFB regular season and post-season. If he really wanted to maximize the importance of the regular season, he would be arguing for either NO postseason or for the champion to be decided before any post-season games are played. But he's not...at least not yet...so all this means is that he's comfortable with the balance.

Well... lets just say uneasily. I fully recognize the limitations of the BCS. And I also think there are some seasons the champion SHOULD be crowned prior to post season play. But since we can not predict them I can live with the current set up.


It seems to me that he (and others) are afraid that the regular season will lose all (or most) of its importance and the excitement will be sucked out of college football if we go to a playoff. I don't see it. This fear makes absolutely no sense to me.

Not quite. I know (not "afraid") that the regular season will lose some of its meaning with each spot you add to a post season playoff field. This isnt speculation or conjecture. This is common sense and can be charted on a graph or expressed in a mathematical formula.

Imagine a league with 64 teams. They play 10 games each in a regular season.

Year 1 - No post season - The champion is crowned purely on the basis of the regular season results (in whatever manner they decide to do it).
Then imagine they started a 2 team playoff in year two and then started adding more teams to the playoff field each year. By year 10 they just said "F it" and just let all 64 teams in the field.

That would be expressed like so:

Year - Teams in field - Importance of regular season
1 - 0 - 100%
2 - 2 - 95% (est)
3 - 4 - 85% (est)
6 - 32 - 50% (est)
10 - 64 - 0%

It is a sliding scale. The more teams you allow into the post season the less meaningful their regular season becomes. Year 1 all we had to base it on was the regular season.. so it was at 100% importance. Year 10 EVERY team in the league made the playoffs.. so it literally didnt matter what they did in the regular season... the regular season importance was 0%. You can estimate the years between.

I didn't say anything about the excitement.




The NFL has 32 teams and 12 of them make the playoffs...that means 38% of the teams make the playoffs. For college football to have that same percentage of teams making the playoffs, we'd have to have a 46-team playoff. I could buy that with a 46-team playoff, the CFB regular season would be as exciting as the NFL regular season (which, to me, is still pretty exciting, but not as exciting as college football's).

But since only 7% of college football teams would be making the playoffs in an 8-team tournament, I think the regular season would be much more exciting than the NFL's. In fact, I think it would be MORE exciting than the one we have now (as I've demonstrated before).

Nobody has really ever been able to explain to me how an 8-team playoff would have any perceptible negative impact on the regular season. They keep saying it will, but nobody's really been able to demonstrate HOW it will.

See above. It is not about "excitement". It is about preserving the meaningfulness of the regular season and crowning the champion based on their performance over the entire season, not a tiny segment of it. See the scale above. In year 10 an 0-10 team could go 6-0 in the playoff and win the championship. That means the basis for awarding them the title was 100% based on the post season.
This is the crux of the argument that the playoff people can't/refuse to get. College football IS the regular season. When we crown a champion we are proclaiming that team was the best team and had the best season over the course of the ENTIRE season. The more games you add to the post season, the less the regular season factors in to that equation. The more teams you allow to participate in the post season the less important their regular season results are rendered. It isn't an opinion. It isn't a wild claim. Its freaking math for crying out loud.

The entire reason we name a champion is so that when someone is told Team X won the National Championship in 1987 they immediately know that Team X was the best team and had the best season and demonstrated excellence over the course of that season.

That is why the Patriots/Giants Super Bowl is continually brought up as an argument against an expanded playoff. Everyone knows that the season that most encapsulated sustained excellence was that of the 18-1 Patriots. But the playoff system allowed the 14-6 Giants to be crowned champions anyway, thus ignoring what happened for 95% of the season and awarding the championship based on 1 single game.

This is why Indy's 16 team playoff idea is so comically stupid. It is why jk's 8 team playoff also will not work (not to the degree that Indy's wont). They don't tell us who was the best team for the entire season or which team demonstrated sustained excellence over the course of the entire season because they allow teams that do not deserve to be in the playoff field a spot. They literally by definition are not even "playoffs". They aren't "playing" anything "off". They aren't settling a dispute. They aren't breaking a tie.

For an 8 team playoff to work, like jk wants, all 8 teams must be exactly equally deserving of being there. And there cant be a ninth or tenth team out there that was also equally deserving that was left out. This is why I kept challenging him with the Miami/Clemson scenario that he can't find a way to rationalize his way out of. If Clemson wins the first round game in that scenario, especially if it is close, then we as fans are supposed to just accept that Clemson's 10-3 season is better than Miami's 13-1 season despite being 1-1 against each other and Miami blowing Clemson out. The only justification for such an absurdity is that Clemson "won when it counted" which is not only weak and pathetic, but at the same time solidifies the sentiment that the regular season doesn't count... which is what the playoff proponents insist wont be the case.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the regular season counts then turn around and justify absurd playoff results by saying "Team X won when it counted".

[Caboose]

So what you're saying is that ANY system that COULD POSSIBLY allow an "undeserving" team to win a championship team is wrong.

11-2 LSU in 2007?
BYU in 1984?

I am saying that any system that allows an undeserving team to compete in the post season does not "work" in any meaningful way. For example, If your idiotic 16 team playoff allows 10-5 UCONN to be crowned champion over 16-1 Auburn then it does not work. 10-5 is NOT better than 16-1 no matter how you try to rationalize it. Why does your system ask us to believe otherwise? Why was a 6-5 team allowed to compete for championships with two 13-0 teams with tougher strength of schedules?


We already know the answer. I don't know why you are still bothering trying to rationalize it. You think a 16 team playoff would be fun and neat and exciting to watch. That is the beginning and end of it. That is your prime and sole reason. Anything else you bring up is just pretense.

[jkjsooner]

The money is too good for that. Really, who would get upset if Boise threatened to take it's ball and go play elsewhere? Nobody.

The money for who? Have you seen OU's ticket sales for the Fiesta Bowl? Don't you think seven additional/meaningful games, six of which being played at the higher seed's own field would generate a lot of interest and money?

When I mentioned powers I wasn't talking about Boise...

[jkjsooner]

We already know the answer. I don't know why you are still bothering trying to rationalize it. You think a 16 team playoff would be fun and neat and exciting to watch. That is the beginning and end of it. That is your prime and sole reason. Anything else you bring up is just pretense.

That's complete B.S. You are lying now. We've given plenty of reasons other than simple excitement. I've given the exclusion argument about 10 times. I've mentioned how choosing only two teams is filled with error and bias.


I'm sorry if you choose ignore it.

[IndySooner]

There are about five really loud posters arguing against a playoff. I promise you the majority of the board is on our side.

It's going to happen. It's just a matter of time. It's going to change the landscape of college football for the better.

[bigfatjerk]

I'm for a playoff. But why not make some realistic changes to the current system to make it matter even more.

[MeMyself&Me]

That's complete B.S. You are lying now. We've given plenty of reasons other than simple excitement. I've given the exclusion argument about 10 times. I've mentioned how choosing only two teams is filled with error and bias.


I'm sorry if you choose ignore it.

If exclusion/inclusion is going to be your reason, we should have stuck with the way it was before the BCS/Bowl Coalition. No I don't need to defend it like you mentioned back a page or two back. It's just that it solves what you are complaining about when all you're worried about is exclusion and inclusion.

Like Caboose said, you want a playoff cause it would be fun to watch at the end of the year. It has nothing to do with any sort of fairness. Otherwise, all you'd need to do is try to get the voters hands out of it and let a simple objective selection criteria. No playoff needed.

[bigfatjerk]

Right now the bowls are doing their job making the regular season mean less in college football. The NFL right now is more compelling than most of college football was late this year.

[I Am Right]

Relevance? I have never encountered someone who so lacks the ability to understand what an example is.


You: This two foot fence will keep every animal out of my yard.

Me: A puma could get over it easily.

You: A puma could NEVER happen so therefore this two foot fence will keep EVERY animal out of my yard.

Me: Incorrect. Pumas are real.

You: Pumas are non-existent. I cant believe you are relying on this point. Therefore NO animal can get over my two foot fence

Me: You are factually incorrect. Pumas exist. You are wrong. And you keep challenging that example thats why I keep defending it. There are a number of animals in this area that can get over a two foot fence. I thought that by giving you an obvious example (even if unlikely) you could see the point and parse out the others.... like dogs, raccoons, coyotes, deer, foxes, etc. I am sorry I overestimated your mental capacity.

You: A puma is not likely to happen. Therefore no animal can get over my two foot fence.

Wow!

[I Am Right]

Well... lets just say uneasily. I fully recognize the limitations of the BCS. And I also think there are some seasons the champion SHOULD be crowned prior to post season play. But since we can not predict them I can live with the current set up.



Not quite. I know (not "afraid") that the regular season will lose some of its meaning with each spot you add to a post season playoff field. This isnt speculation or conjecture. This is common sense and can be charted on a graph or expressed in a mathematical formula.

Imagine a league with 64 teams. They play 10 games each in a regular season.

Year 1 - No post season - The champion is crowned purely on the basis of the regular season results (in whatever manner they decide to do it).
Then imagine they started a 2 team playoff in year two and then started adding more teams to the playoff field each year. By year 10 they just said "F it" and just let all 64 teams in the field.

That would be expressed like so:

Year - Teams in field - Importance of regular season
1 - 0 - 100%
2 - 2 - 95% (est)
3 - 4 - 85% (est)
6 - 32 - 50% (est)
10 - 64 - 0%

It is a sliding scale. The more teams you allow into the post season the less meaningful their regular season becomes. Year 1 all we had to base it on was the regular season.. so it was at 100% importance. Year 10 EVERY team in the league made the playoffs.. so it literally didnt matter what they did in the regular season... the regular season importance was 0%. You can estimate the years between.

I didn't say anything about the excitement.





See above. It is not about "excitement". It is about preserving the meaningfulness of the regular season and crowning the champion based on their performance over the entire season, not a tiny segment of it. See the scale above. In year 10 an 0-10 team could go 6-0 in the playoff and win the championship. That means the basis for awarding them the title was 100% based on the post season.
This is the crux of the argument that the playoff people can't/refuse to get. College football IS the regular season. When we crown a champion we are proclaiming that team was the best team and had the best season over the course of the ENTIRE season. The more games you add to the post season, the less the regular season factors in to that equation. The more teams you allow to participate in the post season the less important their regular season results are rendered. It isn't an opinion. It isn't a wild claim. Its freaking math for crying out loud.

The entire reason we name a champion is so that when someone is told Team X won the National Championship in 1987 they immediately know that Team X was the best team and had the best season and demonstrated excellence over the course of that season.

That is why the Patriots/Giants Super Bowl is continually brought up as an argument against an expanded playoff. Everyone knows that the season that most encapsulated sustained excellence was that of the 18-1 Patriots. But the playoff system allowed the 14-6 Giants to be crowned champions anyway, thus ignoring what happened for 95% of the season and awarding the championship based on 1 single game.

This is why Indy's 16 team playoff idea is so comically stupid. It is why jk's 8 team playoff also will not work (not to the degree that Indy's wont). They don't tell us who was the best team for the entire season or which team demonstrated sustained excellence over the course of the entire season because they allow teams that do not deserve to be in the playoff field a spot. They literally by definition are not even "playoffs". They aren't "playing" anything "off". They aren't settling a dispute. They aren't breaking a tie.

For an 8 team playoff to work, like jk wants, all 8 teams must be exactly equally deserving of being there. And there cant be a ninth or tenth team out there that was also equally deserving that was left out. This is why I kept challenging him with the Miami/Clemson scenario that he can't find a way to rationalize his way out of. If Clemson wins the first round game in that scenario, especially if it is close, then we as fans are supposed to just accept that Clemson's 10-3 season is better than Miami's 13-1 season despite being 1-1 against each other and Miami blowing Clemson out. The only justification for such an absurdity is that Clemson "won when it counted" which is not only weak and pathetic, but at the same time solidifies the sentiment that the regular season doesn't count... which is what the playoff proponents insist wont be the case.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the regular season counts then turn around and justify absurd playoff results by saying "Team X won when it counted".

What?

[Leroy Lizard]

Playoffs aren't going away. It gets louder and louder every year.

Actually, I'm starting to think it's dissipating. A few years ago I was almost alone in here in my opposition to playoffs. Now I notice a lot more people aligning against one.

Not scientific, just a gut feeling.

[texaspokieokie]

Actually, I'm starting to think it's dissipating. A few years ago I was almost alone in here in my opposition to playoffs. Now I notice a lot more people aligning against one.

Not scientific, just a gut feeling.

i'm aligned with you.

this stupid thread is gonna go on forever !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Leroy Lizard]

See, this thread continues to prove why a playoff won't work.

1. Playoff people can't agree on how many teams
2. Playoff people can't agree on criteria
3. Playoff people can't agree on format
4. Playoff people can't agree on location/final destination

It's worse than that. They not only cannot agree, but they base their desire for a playoff on the supposition that their own playoff system will be implemented.

For example, a playoff proponent could be trashing the BCS and demanding a playoff because he wants the little teams to get a chance to play for a national title. In his mind, he's thinking that teams from minor conferences will get benefit from the playoff.

But what if the scheme is designed to benefit the major powers instead?

If playoff proponents can't even settle on the most basics, such as the four points you outlined in your post, why should we take their arguments seriously? Do they even know what they want?

[Leroy Lizard]

Well, people never thought the BCS would work...

The BCS had a system in place to rank teams and to choose the top two.
What was not to work?

[Leroy Lizard]

Right now the bowls are doing their job making the regular season mean less in college football. The NFL right now is more compelling than most of college football was late this year.

Then go here for all your sports entertainment needs: www.nfl.com

Just leave my favorite sport alone.

[PLaw]

A lot of thoroughbreds look great in the paddock area, but when they get to the track they have lead hooves.

Bring on the playoffs - NOW.

Boot the NCAA and the old bowl dogs off of the planet. Like the article said, college football is a business - like it or not.

BOOMER

[Leroy Lizard]

A lot of thoroughbreds look great in the paddock area, but when they get to the track they have lead hooves.

Bring on the playoffs - NOW.

Boot the NCAA and the old bowl dogs off of the planet. Like the article said, college football is a business - like it or not.

BOOMER

Wow, your post just oozes with persuasive powers. :rolleyes:

[MeMyself&Me]

Leroid, I'm not aligned with you. I remember you arguing. That whole argument was about whether a playoff could work or not. I think that's a stupid argument.

I simply don't want it to work because I think the college football regular season is unique and worth preserving. I don't think a playoff really makes the regular season 'meaningless' either... just that it changes what it is and the balance of the season shifts to the post season. I like what the regular season is now and don't want to lose it. That's a completely different statement than saying a playoff wont work.

I will say that I'm learning a lot of what playoff proponents hate about the BCS through this discussion and that seams more to do with subjective selection criteria than anything else. I keep seeing people mention it over and over and over. Switching to a playoff and keeping the subjective selectors doesn't fix that problem. That would be a bit like using a shotgun to remove an appendix. You can remove the subjective selectors in the current system in favor of objective selectors... you just have to accept that they are right instead of making arguments about whether the BCS "got it right" when they don't agree with the subjective human polls.

[Leroy Lizard]

Leroid, I'm not aligned with you. I remember you arguing. That whole argument was about whether a playoff could work or not. I think that's a stupid argument.

I'm not sure what you mean by "work"? Will it make fans happy? No.

Will it make college football better? No.

Will it "work"? :confused:

[bigfatjerk]

Then go here for all your sports entertainment needs: www.nfl.com

Just leave my favorite sport alone.

I've been giving solutions to solve the current problems using the current system by not adding a playoff. You really think 6-6 and 7-5 and 8-4 teams deserve rewards?

[SpankyNek]

It's worse than that. They not only cannot agree, but they base their desire for a playoff on the supposition that their own playoff system will be implemented.

For example, a playoff proponent could be trashing the BCS and demanding a playoff because he wants the little teams to get a chance to play for a national title. In his mind, he's thinking that teams from minor conferences will get benefit from the playoff.

But what if the scheme is designed to benefit the major powers instead?

If playoff proponents can't even settle on the most basics, such as the four points you outlined in your post, why should we take their arguments seriously? Do they even know what they want?

And the opponents do the same..they all claim that we will end up with over 60 teams in a playoff or some such garbage.

Are you opposed to a final four or +1 game?

What I want:

For there to be an equal chance for every team to become national champions at the beginning of the season (I think it best to get rid of about 1/4 - 1/3 of the FBS as they only suck revenue from deserving schools)

For teams in the upper division to no longer be allowed to play ANY teams from the lower divisions.

For the human element to be eliminated from the criteria in designating a champion, and a formula of sorts to be agreed upon prior to competition to be implemented.

However those opposed to a playoff can make this happen is fine with me.

[Leroy Lizard]

And the opponents do the same...

.
.
.

However those opposed to a playoff can make this happen is fine with me.

We're not the ones demanding change, so we are under no obligation to settle on a solution.

[Leroy Lizard]

I've been giving solutions to solve the current problems using the current system by not adding a playoff.

I don't recall seeing any of your solutions.

If the number of bowl games is a problem, that is easy to solve. No playoff needed.

[MeMyself&Me]

And the opponents do the same..they all claim that we will end up with over 60 teams in a playoff or some such garbage.

Are you opposed to a final four or +1 game?

What I want:

For there to be an equal chance for every team to become national champions at the beginning of the season (I think it best to get rid of about 1/4 - 1/3 of the FBS as they only suck revenue from deserving schools)

For teams in the upper division to no longer be allowed to play ANY teams from the lower divisions.

For the human element to be eliminated from the criteria in designating a champion, and a formula of sorts to be agreed upon prior to competition to be implemented.

However those opposed to a playoff can make this happen is fine with me.

Wow, we're getting somewhere now.

For your first request on reducing the size of the subdivision, I wish it could happen too but think it's too late now. I know the NCAA has taken measures to make it more difficult for a 1aa team to migrate up to 1a but they still do it. We'll have even more next year. Perhaps the NCAA should take even more measures to prevent the migration up divisions but once they're here (and we have 120 now) I don't see how the NCAA can force them back down to a lower division. I would imagine that there would be quite a bit of time in the court system if they tried.

For your second point, I couldn't agree more. I HATE it that teams schedule games with 1aa opponents. Never mind that those opponents are actually good enough to pull of the surprise upset from time to time... those games should not be played given the way college football is put together now. It also makes the objective selection models (computer polls) harder to work. This would be an easy thing for the NCAA to do too. Just pass a rule.

I couldn't agree more with your third request. I hate human polls and the politics that come with them. Unfortunately, whenever objective criteria (computer polls) don't agree with subjective criteria (human polls), the loudest voices (the media) cries so hard that the objective criteria is wrong that everyone believes it. The general fan base of the sport needs to learn that the media is wrong here. Objective is better and when they hear someone on the TV/Radio say otherwise, they need to switch it off or turn the channel because that guy is a buffoon.


If we could do those things, and I think the first one can't be done, I think we both would be happier with college football.

Now I'll add a fourth. Only take conference champions for the national title game. The top two conference champions from a single objective poll. I think most fans would find that would have solved the issues they had with the 2003 and 2001 seasons and I think it preserves the integrity of the sport better.

[SpankyNek]

We're not the ones demanding change, so we are under no obligation to settle on a solution.
Only because you were born a Sooner by the grace of God.

Some of us can imagine a reality where we were born into families that loved the Horned Frogs, a reality that says you might as well be investing your money into a competitive basket weaving team....both teams fielded would have had the same chance to win a national title in football.

Obviously, others of us have a bit of difficulty with the size of the other man's shoes.

[Leroy Lizard]

For there to be an equal chance for every team to become national champions at the beginning of the season (I think it best to get rid of about 1/4 - 1/3 of the FBS as they only suck revenue from deserving schools)

Not possible given the huge disparity in abilities between teams in FBS. There is just no way that Akron will play a comparably difficult schedule than OU.


For teams in the upper division to no longer be allowed to play ANY teams from the lower divisions.

If Alabama wants to play Alabama State, and Alabama State wants to play Alabama, who are we to tell them they can't? And what's the harm?


For the human element to be eliminated from the criteria in designating a champion, and a formula of sorts to be agreed upon prior to competition to be implemented.

I would be wholeheartedly in favor of using computers to rank teams for purposes of bowl selection or (God forbid) a playoff is implemented.

[Leroy Lizard]

Only because you were born a Sooner by the grace of God.

Some of us can imagine a reality where we were born into families that loved the Horned Frogs, a reality that says you might as well be investing your money into a competitive basket weaving team....both teams fielded would have had the same chance to win a national title in football.

Obviously, others of us have a bit of difficulty with the size of the other man's shoes.

Most playoff schemes that I have seen would actually hurt a team like Florida Atlantic. Sure, we can devise one to benefit TCU now that it has elevated its play comparable to the big shots, but it is much tougher to help the truly downtrodden.

The very fact that a playoff would threaten the future of minor bowls would, in turn, threaten the livelihood of the weak programs in FBS. Playoff proponents don't really care, however. They play the Florence Nightingale card only to score points toward achieving what they really want: A cut-throat, winner-take-all, scheme designed purely for their entertainment.

If you go into past playoff threads, you will notice one poster that mentions programs like Akron, their desires and needs, and how the playoffs will adversely affect them. And that poster is me.

So spare me this concern for North Texas and Kent State. This isn't about helping them.

[IndySooner]

Most playoff schemes that I have seen would actually hurt a team like Florida Atlantic. Sure, we can devise one to benefit TCU now that it has elevated its play comparable to the big shots, but it is much tougher to help the truly downtrodden.

The very fact that a playoff would threaten the future of minor bowls would, in turn, threaten the livelihood of the weak programs in FBS. Playoff proponents don't really care, however. They play the Florence Nightingale card only to score points toward achieving what they really want: A cut-throat, winner-take-all, scheme designed purely for their entertainment.

If you go into past playoff threads, you will notice one poster that mentions programs like Akron, their desires and needs, and how the playoffs will adversely affect them. And that poster is me.

So spare me this concern for North Texas and Kent State. This isn't about helping them.

How would getting a share of the revenue generated by a playoff be bad for Florida Atlantic? Their share alone, this year, would be more than anything they've seen as a program. Small and large programs would all benefit financially, which should allow the smaller schools to become more competitive.

[SpankyNek]

For your first request on reducing the size of the subdivision, I wish it could happen too but think it's too late now. I know the NCAA has taken measures to make it more difficult for a 1aa team to migrate up to 1a but they still do it. We'll have even more next year. Perhaps the NCAA should take even more measures to prevent the migration up divisions but once they're here (and we have 120 now) I don't see how the NCAA can force them back down to a lower division. I would imagine that there would be quite a bit of time in the court system if they tried.


Maybe instead of forcing a certain number of teams down, we establish a higher division to move up to. Essentially, this is what the superconference movement would do. If this were to happen, It would obviously (IMO) be better if those teams only played each other during the regular season.

And I guess that if Tennessee wants to play Chattanooga, they could do so in an exhibition event that would not be counted.

The disparity provided by having 571 teams split into only 4 divisions (FBS, FCS, Div II, and Div III) is equivalent to the state of Oklahoma operating with only 2 classes in High school football.

[Leroy Lizard]

How would getting a share of the revenue generated by a playoff be bad for Florida Atlantic? Their share alone, this year, would be more than anything they've seen as a program. Small and large programs would all benefit financially, which should allow the smaller schools to become more competitive.

Pffffft... your entire notion rests on the assumption that the playoff money will be divided in such a way that the weakest teams will receive something substantial. But you can't guarantee that. And I highly doubt the major schools will allow that to happen.

Teams like OU will not settle for any playoff that doesn't give the playoff participants a lion's share of the revenue. Once the 8 participating teams get paid off, and you split the remainder among the 100 remaining teams, there won't be much left.

Besides, an eight-team playoff would only add three additional games to the mix. That isn't going to generate enough additional revenue to elevate the financial health of 100 non-participating teams. While at the same time, you have created a system that could eventually shut them out of any post-season play.

No AD or president of a school like Akron should fall for it. Fortunately, they're usually smart enough to know better, which is why they tend to oppose playoffs.

[soonerinkaty]

Leroy, are you arguing with everyone in the thread? Dude I'm impressed.

[Leroy Lizard]

Maybe instead of forcing a certain number of teams down, we establish a higher division to move up to. Essentially, this is what the superconference movement would do. If this were to happen, It would obviously (IMO) be better if those teams only played each other during the regular season.

This coming from the same poster that wrote:


Only because you were born a Sooner by the grace of God.

Some of us can imagine a reality where we were born into families that loved the Horned Frogs, a reality that says you might as well be investing your money into a competitive basket weaving team....both teams fielded would have had the same chance to win a national title in football.

Obviously, others of us have a bit of difficulty with the size of the other man's shoes.


So one one hand, we cry crocodile tears for those poor, downtrodden teams like TCU that (sniff) have been dealt a poor hand. :(

But on the other hand, we suggest creating a super division solely to shut weaker teams out of post-season play. :mad:

This is why I say that playoff proponents are the ultimate phonies. "Poor Akron! Poor New Mexico State! Boo hoo hoo! We must help them!"

[Leroy Lizard]

Leroy, are you arguing with everyone in the thread? Dude I'm impressed.

I tend to think of it that the everyone else is arguing with me. :D

[SpankyNek]

This coming from the same poster that wrote:




So one one hand, we cry crocodile tears for those poor, downtrodden teams like TCU that (sniff) have been dealt a poor hand. :(

But on the other hand, we suggest creating a super division solely to shut weaker teams out of post-season play. :mad:

This is why I say that playoff proponents are the ultimate phonies. "Poor Akron! Poor New Mexico State! Boo hoo hoo! We must help them!"
Actually, it would benefit Akron and New Mexico state to play in a division in which they can compete. It would INCREASE their chance at post-season play, not the other way around.

I am not a phony. Ultimately it would help Akron to get a championship if they began the season in a league suited to them (Like the current FBS minus the super conference teams, or in the FCS)

One of my stated goals is to make opportunity equal, something you obviously care little about. I am not surprised you had difficulty with such a point of view.

[Leroy Lizard]

Actually, it would benefit Akron and New Mexico state to play in a division in which they can compete. It would INCREASE their chance at post-season play, not the other way around.

If this were true Akron and New Mexico State would simply drop down to the FCS level.

If I was the AD for Akron, I would ask you, "Whose side are you really on?" :rolleyes:

Ha! Ha! I love it! I can just see the ADs of the major powers now explaining to Akron that they are leaving them in the dust to "help" them. How patronizing.

[silverwheels]

Leroy, are you arguing with everyone in the thread? Dude I'm impressed.

That's what he does. I bet if someone changes his/her stance and starts to agree with Leroy, Leroy will change his stance just to keep the argument going.

[Leroy Lizard]

That's what he does. I bet if someone changes his/her stance and starts to agree with Leroy, Leroy will change his stance just to keep the argument going.

People always say that, but when I ask they can't provide any examples.

Essentially, I'm not one to voice agreement. If I don't respond, it means I probably agree.

So why am I always considered over-argumentative? Because I tend to take unpopular stances, mostly because I have an academic background and not your typical sports meathead.

Sports meatheads love playoffs. I don't.

Sports meatheads think coaches should be able to treat players however they wish. I say bull****.

And on and on and on.

I'm one of the most consistent posters in here. If you disagree, kindly point to examples.

[PLaw]

Wow, your post just oozes with persuasive powers. :rolleyes:

Lizard - this whole debate has grown very tired over the years.

Just align the 119 schools in 12 team conferences and take the champions plus six at large and be done with it.

Jeez

Boomer

[jkjsooner]

This coming from the same poster that wrote:




So one one hand, we cry crocodile tears for those poor, downtrodden teams like TCU that (sniff) have been dealt a poor hand. :(

But on the other hand, we suggest creating a super division solely to shut weaker teams out of post-season play. :mad:

This is why I say that playoff proponents are the ultimate phonies. "Poor Akron! Poor New Mexico State! Boo hoo hoo! We must help them!"

No sport at any level locks out 30-40% of the teams from championship contention prior to playing a single game. That is a joke and is not in the spirit of competition.

I'm not necessarily in favor of having a super division but it would be preferrable to allowing teams in but telling them they can't really compete.

It's like allowing class B schools into the 6A division but telling them they have no chance to play in the playoffs. If you're going to do that you might as well leave them in class B.

[jkjsooner]

If exclusion/inclusion is going to be your reason, we should have stuck with the way it was before the BCS/Bowl Coalition. No I don't need to defend it like you mentioned back a page or two back. It's just that it solves what you are complaining about when all you're worried about is exclusion and inclusion.

No it doesn't. Being undefeated yet stilll not being able to control your own destiny is not inclusive. The old system had fail written all over it.

[MeMyself&Me]

No sport at any level locks out 30-40% of the teams from championship contention prior to playing a single game. That is a joke and is not in the spirit of competition.

I'm not necessarily in favor of having a super division but it would be preferrable to allowing teams in but telling them they can't really compete.

It's like allowing class B schools into the 6A division but telling them they have no chance to play in the playoffs. If you're going to do that you might as well leave them in class B.

I don't think those schools are that worried about being locked out of the title game (they're actually not locked out). Teams keep moving up from FCS to FBS all the time and I doubt any of them are doing so with dreams of competing for a national title. You may want everyone to compete for a national title but most of those bottom teams aren't even thinking about that.

Why do they move up? I'm guessing for money and exposure but I don't really know. I just know it's certainly not to compete for a national title. If that were a real concern for even some of those bottom teams, you'd see them chose to move down a division at least occasionally.

Just another reason I don't really have much pity for the 'have nots' and that that line of argument doesn't really move me that much.

[MeMyself&Me]

No it doesn't. Being undefeated yet stilll not being unable to control your own destiny is not inclusive. The old system had fail written all over it.

You seem really big on the controlling your own destiny yet, if I remember right, you only wanted an 8 team playoff. You do realize the only way to actually guarantee every team controls their own destiny to start the season is to include all conference winners in a playoff right? Last I checked, there are more than 8 conferences.

[pphilfran]

No sport at any level locks out 30-40% of the teams from championship contention prior to playing a single game. That is a joke and is not in the spirit of competition.

I'm not necessarily in favor of having a super division but it would be preferrable to allowing teams in but telling them they can't really compete.

It's like allowing class B schools into the 6A division but telling them they have no chance to play in the playoffs. If you're going to do that you might as well leave them in class B.

30 or 40% of the teams are not locked out...

Win your conference and there are two at large births that could be available to them...

Play a tough out of conference schedule to improve your chances...

If you want to play big time football you better have the bucks and the fan support...

Look at UConn...full member of Div 1 in 2002....began play in the Big East in 2004...this year all of their hopes and dreams have come true...a Big East championship and a trip to the Fiesta Bowl...yet they will lose their azz...fans aint' gonna travel...but it was their choice to move up to big time football even though they shouldn't be in the top division...

There are far too many teams in Div 1 or whatever it is called these days...

[jkjsooner]

It's worse than that. They not only cannot agree, but they base their desire for a playoff on the supposition that their own playoff system will be implemented.

For example, a playoff proponent could be trashing the BCS and demanding a playoff because he wants the little teams to get a chance to play for a national title. In his mind, he's thinking that teams from minor conferences will get benefit from the playoff.

But what if the scheme is designed to benefit the major powers instead?

If playoff proponents can't even settle on the most basics, such as the four points you outlined in your post, why should we take their arguments seriously? Do they even know what they want?

Again, Leroy, it serves no purpose for soonerfans.com playoff proponents to come up with some type of compromised solution.

There are things about other's plans I don't like but most of them are preferrable to our current system.

I prefer a 4 or 8 team playoff. IMO, eight is a good number that leaves the essential elements of the regular season in place. Eight would still differentiate college football from other sports in that every game is still very meaningful. (In fact, I think it makes late season games for teams with one loss much more meaningful.)

If the powers that be wanted a 16 team playoff it wouldn't be my choice but I would still think it was an improvement on the current system. I wouldn't want BCS conference winners to have automatic bids but if it must be that way I'd still consider it an improvement on the current system.

BTW, I doubt we will have a 16 team playoff as I don't think presidents and AD's would want to extend the season by four games. I think the largest we'll see is 8 teams. Those who use the bball tourney as an argument that it will continue to grow ignore the fact that you can't keep expanding a football season like you can a basketball season. There is too much of a toll on the body. I do think they will at some point expand the season by 1 game (4 team playoff) or maybe 2 games.

[pphilfran]

Again, Leroy, it serves no purpose for soonerfans.com playoff proponents to come up with some type of compromised solution.

There are things about other's plans I don't like but most of them are preferrable to our current system.

I prefer a 4 or 8 team playoff. IMO, eight is a good number that leaves the essential elements of the regular season in place. Eight would still differentiate college football from other sports in that every game is still very meaningful. (In fact, I think it makes late season games for teams with one loss much more meaningful.)

If the powers that be wanted a 16 team playoff it wouldn't be my choice but I would still think it was an improvement on the current system. I wouldn't want BCS conference winners to have automatic bids but if it must be that way I'd still consider it an improvement on the current system.

BTW, I doubt we will have a 16 team playoff as I don't think presidents and AD's would want to extend the season by four games. I think the largest we'll see is 8 teams. Those who use the bball tourney as an argument that it will continue to grow ignore the fact that you can't keep expanding a football season like you can a basketball season. There is too much of a toll on the body. I do think they will at some point expand the season by 1 game (4 team playoff) or maybe 2 games.

How will you use the BCS bowl games in an 8 team playoff?

[bigfatjerk]

How will you use the BCS bowl games in an 8 team playoff?

Pretty easy. First round is in the top 4 teams home stadiums. 2nd round and the championship game are in bowl stadiums. And we can rotate the bowls for these games every year. And still keep the bowl system and it means just as much as it does now. Which is nothing for most bowls.

But I think we need to make changes to the Bowl system to make it better.

For example why is UConn in a BCS Bowl? Because they are in a conference that forced them in a system. Why not take that system out and just put the top 10 teams in Bowls or make it to where you have to be ranked in the top 15 and win a conference to be in a BCS Bowl. I think that would be more fair than just giving every conference an automatic bid.

The only drawback in this senerio is it might take away from the conference championships some years. But it would make the BCS so much more important and a lot better. If a conference has a down year it won't send a team into the BCS. But no one ever complains about this with the WAC or MWC so why complain about it in a major conference? Winning a conference championship is important. But it doesn't really mean anything now in the national title picture. It didn't mean anything in the national title picture in 03 when we got whipped by KSU.

Also in a change with the BCS do the entire BCS by rating. 1 vs 2 is already done right now. 3 vs 4, 5 vs 6, and so on. This year the match-ups are actually pretty good outside of one game in the BCS. But that doesn't happen every year.

Cut the number of bowl games to about 20. This would make it important to be in a bowl game instead of standard every year practice for most BCS conference teams. The post season in college football needs to be more important not less important.

Right now the post season in college football makes the regular season not matter as much. You don't need a playoff to change this. All you need is to make fixes to the current system.

[pphilfran]

With your method one of the major bowls will be left with a meaningless game....

Quarters at home...Semis in two bowls...finals in a third...

Do you think the Rose will take a bowl similar to the Gator every fourth year? Will they still offer a multi million dollar payoff for that lesser game?

Five bowls built the current system...Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Cotton/Fiesta...those bowls spent decades building their brand...building the ties to the host city...

Their goal is to get fans to come and spend four or more days in the host city...preferable during the Christmas/New Year weeks...spending money and making contacts...that will be impacted with your proposal...

You tend to overlook or at least undervalue the concerns of the BCS bowl game committees and the initial reason the bowls were put into place...

[bigfatjerk]

I don't really see the difference between the Rose and say the Cotton or Capital One or other new years day Bowls right now. I think we've already deluted the BCS Bowls by playing all these stupid bowls after new years.

Northwestern plays Texas Tech
Middle Tennessee plays Miami Ohio
Pitt plays Kentucky
Nevada plays Boston College
Mississippi State plays Michigan

I understand having elite bowls and semi elite bowls after new years. But all these games above are after new years and none of them are really worthy of it. I remember growing up New Years bowls were the thing. Now they are pretty much just another run of the mill bowl game. Why do we keep making our post season in college football mean less?

[pphilfran]

I don't really see the difference between the Rose and say the Cotton or Capital One or other new years day Bowls right now. I think we've already deluted the BCS Bowls by playing all these stupid bowls after new years.


Then you would be wrong...ratings and tv revenue are much higher...payouts are much higher...

[bigfatjerk]

Then you would be wrong...ratings and tv revenue are much higher...payouts are much higher...

Payouts are higher in most. Although I think the Cotton Bowl and Capital One Bowl are almost as high. But still the fans aren't getting payouts from bowls.

Don't you remember when New Years Bowls were the thing? I understand drawing out the BCS Bowls now. But why play 6 or 7 other bowls past New Years that are better off being played before January and leave the post New Years bowls to the elite bowls.

[pphilfran]

Payouts are higher in most. Although I think the Cotton Bowl and Capital One Bowl are almost as high. But still the fans aren't getting payouts from bowls.

Don't you remember when New Years Bowls were the thing? I understand drawing out the BCS Bowls now. But why play 6 or 7 other bowls past New Years that are better off being played before January and leave the post New Years bowls to the elite bowls.

No problem with that...

New Years Day used to be the best sports day of the year....

To my liking there are too many bowls and too many Div 1 teams...

[bigfatjerk]

No problem with that...

New Years Day used to be the best sports day of the year....

To my liking there are too many bowls and too many Div 1 teams...

Get rid of about half the bowls and you would be fine with the number of teams. This year 70 out of 120 teams are going to the post season in college football.

[Leroy Lizard]

BTW, I doubt we will have a 16 team playoff as I don't think presidents and AD's would want to extend the season by four games. I think the largest we'll see is 8 teams. Those who use the bball tourney as an argument that it will continue to grow ignore the fact that you can't keep expanding a football season like you can a basketball season. There is too much of a toll on the body.

Fans don't care.

[Leroy Lizard]

I understand having elite bowls and semi elite bowls after new years. But all these games above are after new years and none of them are really worthy of it. I remember growing up New Years bowls were the thing. Now they are pretty much just another run of the mill bowl game. Why do we keep making our post season in college football mean less?

Because the fans want those games.

Fans want more and more games. They want bigger and bigger tourneys. They don't care about issues with academics, or injuries, or any adverse effects on smaller teams. They just want the entertainment.

So if a player blows a final exam because he had to play a playoff game two days prior, you think anyone in here is going to care?

[bigfatjerk]

Fans really care about Miami Ohio vs Mid Tennessee?

[Leroy Lizard]

Pretty easy. First round is in the top 4 teams home stadiums.

That's a money loser. Bowls pay money to bring in tourists.

[Leroy Lizard]

Fans really care about Miami Ohio vs Mid Tennessee?

They turn on the game, don't they?

If they didn't, they wouldn't play the game.

[silverwheels]

People always say that, but when I ask they can't provide any examples.

Essentially, I'm not one to voice agreement. If I don't respond, it means I probably agree.

So why am I always considered over-argumentative? Because I tend to take unpopular stances, mostly because I have an academic background and not your typical sports meathead.

Sports meatheads love playoffs. I don't.

Sports meatheads think coaches should be able to treat players however they wish. I say bull****.

And on and on and on.

I'm one of the most consistent posters in here. If you disagree, kindly point to examples.

LMAO. Way to over-respond to a post that was in jest. Saw that coming.

[jkjsooner]

You seem really big on the controlling your own destiny yet, if I remember right, you only wanted an 8 team playoff. You do realize the only way to actually guarantee every team controls their own destiny to start the season is to include all conference winners in a playoff right? Last I checked, there are more than 8 conferences.

I think eight teams is plenty to allow everyone a chance at a national title. Very rarely is a team undefeated and not in the top 8. I'm not against locking out a team that plays a horrible schedule so long as they have a chance at upgrading their schedule. I think both TCU and BSU (had they remained undefeated) easily played a tough enough schedule to qualify for an eight team tournament.

Right now it's virtually impossible for TCU and BSU to make a schedule that would satisfy voters. Even when they play VT or OU their wins get discredited.

And that brings up my main problem that I've stated before. There just isn't enough OOC matchups in the regular season to determine with any clarity who the best two teams are. It's a crapshoot and is full of bias.

We'll never get the benefit of the doubt again over an SEC team like we got in 2004. The media has placed the SEC on such a pedistal that an undefeated SEC team will always get the nod. That's the crap I'd like to avoid. Let's allow enough teams in that would convince us that the winner has won the game on the field.

[jkjsooner]

How will you use the BCS bowl games in an 8 team playoff?

I wouldn't. Like I said, this will probably happen after some major powers realize the money they're forfeiting by the current system and threaten to leave. Then all of the others will fall in line or risk being left out in the cold (as happened with the PAC10/Big10 after they realized they left themselves out in the cold by not joining the Bowl Alliance).

If that happens the major bowls will either try to compromise on getting the title game every four years or be locked out. At some point they'll realize their bargaining power is lost and take the best situation that they can get.

[jkjsooner]

Do you think the Rose will take a bowl similar to the Gator every fourth year? Will they still offer a multi million dollar payoff for that lesser game?


They would if the only alternative was to get locked out. College football is not owned by the bowls. At some point they will realize this and the bowls will be scrambling to get the best situation they can possibly get.

Do you think the Cotton Bowl liked being left out of the BCS? Crap happens and they had to deal with it as best as they could. If it can happen to the Cotton Bowl it can happen to the BCS bowls.

[MeMyself&Me]

I think eight teams is plenty to allow everyone a chance at a national title. Very rarely is a team undefeated and not in the top 8. I'm not against locking out a team that plays a horrible schedule so long as they have a chance at upgrading their schedule. I think both TCU and BSU (had they remained undefeated) easily played a tough enough schedule to qualify for an eight team tournament.

Right now it's virtually impossible for TCU and BSU to make a schedule that would satisfy voters. Even when they play VT or OU their wins get discredited.

And that brings up my main problem that I've stated before. There just isn't enough OOC matchups in the regular season to determine with any clarity who the best two teams are. It's a crapshoot and is full of bias.

We'll never get the benefit of the doubt again over an SEC team like we got in 2004. The media has placed the SEC on such a pedistal that an undefeated SEC team will always get the nod. That's the crap I'd like to avoid. Let's allow enough teams in that would convince us that the winner has won the game on the field.

I used to think it was unlikely they could get in too. I didn't mind that though but after this year, I think it's been shown that they can schedule tough enough to get in... if you remove the subjective human element. Boise State's SoS was stronger than Oregon's. If BSU had actually won all their games, they would have been ahead of Oregon in an objective system. Also, we've seen news stories that have shown that BSU turns down opportunities to play big time opponents so their schedule could even be better than it was.

You don't need to go to 8. You can leave it at 2 and remove the subjective element. Accept that scheduling is a part of the programs responsibility and leave it at that. No need to expand to a bigger playoff.

[jkjsooner]

Leroy, if we had message boards back in the 1780's and we were discussing a potential constitution do you think all of our ideas would align? Have you ever heard of the word compromise? Do you think the larger states were initially in favor of the Great Compromise of 1787? Do you think members of a message board (with no real authority) would have come up with the necessary compromises? Of course not because there is no incentive to compromise on soonerfans.com.

So far you haven't answered any of my posts dealing with your unreasonable expectation of some type of unified solution from soonerfans.com members. I take it that your silence indicates that you know your expectations are unreasonable.

[silverwheels]

So if a player blows a final exam because he had to play a playoff game two days prior, you think anyone in here is going to care?

The other divisions seem to make it work. So do the other sports that occur during Finals week. Not an issue.

[Leroy Lizard]

LMAO. Way to over-respond to a post that was in jest. Saw that coming.

People cry about this all the time.

[silverwheels]

People cry about this all the time.

Tell it to them, then.

[jkjsooner]

Also, we've seen news stories that have shown that BSU turns down opportunities to play big time opponents so their schedule could even be better than it was.

You don't need to go to 8. You can leave it at 2 and remove the subjective element. Accept that scheduling is a part of the programs responsibility and leave it at that. No need to expand to a bigger playoff.

1. To be fair to Boise State, they have refused to play a game that doesn't require a return trip to Boise. Frankly, I think they have a point. I'd be pissed if people criticized OU because we wouldn't go to Ohio State or USC or Alabama without a return trip to Norman.

I know money plays a role in it (BSU has a small stadium afterall) but I wouldn't criticize them too much for demanding some fairness.

2. There is a lot of variability in SoS. You can schedule a VT or Miami and find out that they're not as good as they were when the schedule was made. Again, a little more inclusivity would mitigate this variable.

[bigfatjerk]

School is basically over by now. And it won't be back for another 3 or 4 weeks. School isn't an issue. The only real issue I can see a problem with is fan support for going to back to back games. But I think that's only an issue for smaller fan bases. If there's good matchups the bigger schools will always sell tickets.

[Leroy Lizard]

Leroy, if we had message boards back in the 1780's and we were discussing a potential constitution do you think all of our ideas would align?

I would expect some basic principles to be laid down. You don't even have that. You can't even establish who you're fighting for.

Rather than a Constitutional Convention, playoff proponents remind me more of the counter-culture Utopia builders of the 1960s. They can't agree on a plan because they can't even agree on what they want. And they are totally disingenuous in their regards for the little people.

"We'll just get rid of the police, man. We don't need no police."

"We'll just make all teams join a conference, man. We don't need no independents."

[Leroy Lizard]

School is basically over by now. And it won't be back for another 3 or 4 weeks. School isn't an issue.

Sure, school isn't an issue. Let's just overcome our hurdles by pretending they aren't even there.

School IS an issue. Talk to the powers that be and they will tell you it is an issue.

[silverwheels]

Message board posters aren't the ones in charge making the decisions, so I don't see how it matters whether or not they can all agree on a single playoff system proposal.

[Leroy Lizard]

The other divisions seem to make it work. So do the other sports that occur during Finals week. Not an issue.

What other sports host playoff games during Finals week?

[silverwheels]

Sure, school isn't an issue. Let's just overcome our hurdles by pretending they aren't even there.

School IS an issue. Talk to the powers that be and they will tell you it is an issue.

It's not any more of an issue for the FBS programs than it is the lower divisions and other sports who still play games during Finals week.

[silverwheels]

What other sports host playoff games during Finals week?

The lower divisions in college football. Other sports are not having playoffs, but they still play during Finals week.

[Leroy Lizard]

Message board posters aren't the ones in charge making the decisions, so I don't see how it matters whether or not they can all agree on a single playoff system proposal.

The ones in charge don't want it. So you're ****ed.

Now if you want to change their mind, you had better start nailing some principles down. Otherwise this is all a waste of time.

[jkjsooner]

So if a player blows a final exam because he had to play a playoff game two days prior, you think anyone in here is going to care?

I'm heading to the baseball board to find your posts denouncing college baseball for taking student athletes away from the classroom so much during the spring semester.

When school presidents make this argument they are simply lying. Otherwise they would change the way baseball (and to a lesser extent basketball) operates. Few college sports allow the players to attend as high of a percentage of classes as college football.

There is easily time to fit a playoff between semesters. At worst you would extend the playoffs a little into the spring semester - which is already done in some bowls anyway. As it is, the presidents don't mind the baskeball team being gone during finals...

[bigfatjerk]

Why is school not an issue for the regular season or conference title games? Football probably misses more school than any of the other sports combined. They have to leave for road games earlier. Why play football because it gets in the way of education. We should just not even play the sport anymore.

[silverwheels]

The ones in charge don't want it. So you're ****ed.

Now if you want to change their mind, you had better start nailing some principles down. Otherwise this is all a waste of time.

They would only listen to the average person if the average person spoke to their wallets. That's the bottom line.

And for the record, I'm fine with not having a playoff and keeping the bowls, as long as we get rid of the polls and do not award a national champion.

[Leroy Lizard]

The lower divisions in college football. Other sports are not having playoffs, but they still play during Finals week.

All the other sports avoid playing playoff games during Finals week. All of them.

And lower divisions in football avoid Finals week too.

The problem with FBS is the longer season and the conference championship games. FBS is not FCS. Therefore you've got a problem.

[bigfatjerk]

They would only listen to the average person if the average person spoke to their wallets. That's the bottom line.

And for the record, I'm fine with not having a playoff and keeping the bowls, as long as we get rid of the polls and do not award a national champion.

Which will never happen. I think the bowls are fine if we just get rid of about half of them. And put emphasis on the regular season. Right now the regular season in college football is the worst of all sports. If we keep the system the same but tweak it a bit it'll be better for the sport WITHOUT A PLAYOFF. I don't know why some of you anti playoff guys think I'm wrong on this.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm heading to the baseball board to find your posts denouncing college baseball for taking student athletes away from the classroom so much during the spring semester.


Does baseball host its playoffs during Finals Week?

NO.

[Leroy Lizard]

They would only listen to the average person if the average person spoke to their wallets. That's the bottom line.

And for the record, I'm fine with not having a playoff and keeping the bowls, as long as we get rid of the polls and do not award a national champion.

If a newspaper wants to vote on which team is best, they can do that, right?

[silverwheels]

All the other sports avoid playing playoff games during Finals week. All of them.

And lower divisions in football avoid Finals week too.

The problem with FBS is the longer season and the conference championship games. FBS is not FCS. Therefore you've got a problem.

It still happens. And they can wait until after Finals week, if necessary. It's not like there's not a long gap between the end of the regular season and the BCS title game now. Before long, that game will be in February as a doubleheader with the Super Bowl at the current pace.

[Leroy Lizard]

Which will never happen. I think the bowls are fine if we just get rid of about half of them. And put emphasis on the regular season. Right now the regular season in college football is the worst of all sports. If we keep the system the same but tweak it a bit it'll be better for the sport WITHOUT A PLAYOFF. I don't know why some of you anti playoff guys think I'm wrong on this.

I'm not opposed to raising the ante on hosting a bowl game to reduce the numbers a little. But keep in mind that to some teams a post-season bowl game is about all they got. Reducing the numbers of bowl games doesn't exactly help them.

[silverwheels]

If a newspaper wants to vote on which team is best, they can do that, right?

Why stop with newspapers? Why not let every single individual declare a national champion? I want to have my own poll that only I can vote on and find someone to make a trophy for whomever I decide is the national champion.

[MeMyself&Me]

1. To be fair to Boise State, they have refused to play a game that doesn't require a return trip to Boise. Frankly, I think they have a point. I'd be pissed if people criticized OU because we wouldn't go to Ohio State or USC or Alabama without a return trip to Norman.

I know money plays a role in it (BSU has a small stadium afterall) but I wouldn't criticize them too much for demanding some fairness.

2. There is a lot of variability in SoS. You can schedule a VT or Miami and find out that they're not as good as they were when the schedule was made. Again, a little more inclusivity would mitigate this variable.

BSU has effectively turned down 2 for 1s by demanding way too much money. Enough money to make the college football world laugh. Yes, 2 for 1 is unbalanced but it does bring them a home game AND they would have gotten paid for the imbalance as well... just not what they're demanding.

Also, if you're scheduling purely for a championship run from a weak conference, road games are a good thing as I'm pretty sure some of those SoS computers takes into account the location.

The bottom line is that these 'lesser schools' aren't scheduling to be a national champion. They're scheduling for money. I can't pity complaints about not getting to a championship game for that.


I will agree that you're right that there is a lot of variability in scheduling and you never know exactly what a team is going to do by the time you play them. However, I think Joe C. has shown that you can schedule a strong SoS pretty consistently. Some teams aren't as good as you expect them to be but that also works both ways in that some teams are better than you expect them to be. In then end, if you are scheduling for a championship run, you want a strong but doable schedule. If it works out that it wasn't strong enough then the AD screwed up. If it works out that it was too strong to handle, the AD screwed up. Scheduling is a part of it. The NCAA doesn't create those schedules and didn't even make BSU move up to FBS level.

[Leroy Lizard]

It still happens. And they can wait until after Finals week, if necessary. It's not like there's not a long gap between the end of the regular season and the BCS title game now. Before long, that game will be in February as a doubleheader with the Super Bowl at the current pace.

Tell that to a college president and you will lose all support. College presidents do not want games played during the spring semester, and for good reasons.

[Leroy Lizard]

Why stop with newspapers? Why not let every single individual declare a national champion? I want to have my own poll that only I can vote on and find someone to make a trophy for whomever I decide is the national champion.

That's the situation we have now. What's the beef?

[silverwheels]

Tell that to a college president and you will lose all support. College presidents do not want games played during the spring semester, and for good reasons.

If someone proposed it with 8 or 9 figures behind a dollar sign, they'd support it.

[jkjsooner]

Why is school not an issue for the regular season or conference title games? Football probably misses more school than any of the other sports combined. They have to leave for road games earlier. Why play football because it gets in the way of education. We should just not even play the sport anymore.

Actually, that's wrong. While they try to schedule three day series over Friday-Sunday, baseball players end up missing much more school than football players.

[silverwheels]

That's the situation we have now. What's the beef?

The beef is it's a ridiculous way to determine a national champion. Why should the opinions of anyone determine who is a "national champion"?

[Leroy Lizard]

If someone proposed it with 8 or 9 figures behind a dollar sign, they'd support it.

No they wouldn't, unless you guaranteed that their university would make the money regardless of how their team played. Good luck with that one.

[Leroy Lizard]

The beef is it's a ridiculous way to determine a national champion. Why should the opinions of anyone determine who is a "national champion"?

They don't. That's why they call them "mythical" national titles.

[IndySooner]

That's a money loser. Bowls pay money to bring in tourists.

Right. Norman would hate to have extra home games. Doesn't make money at all.

[silverwheels]

No they wouldn't, unless you guaranteed that their university would make the money regardless of how their team played. Good luck with that one.

Texas is guaranteed a slice of the BCS paycheck that we'll be bringing home this year, even though they're not playing in a bowl game. I don't see how it would be that hard to guarantee a bigger check if the total money amount were bigger.

[Leroy Lizard]

Right. Norman would hate to have extra home games. Doesn't make money at all.

You don't understand. The money I'm talking about is that which would be given to the general pot for the right to host the game. Sure, NORMAN would make money if the game was played in Norman. But that does little good for the other teams in FBS.

[silverwheels]

They don't. That's why they call them "mythical" national titles.

Tell Alabama fans that their 371 national titles are "mythical."

[Leroy Lizard]

Texas is guaranteed a slice of the BCS paycheck that we'll be bringing home this year, even though they're not playing in a bowl game. I don't see how it would be that hard to guarantee a bigger check if the total money amount were bigger.

Exactly how are you going to generate such huge revene for non-participating teams with the addition of only three extra games?

Besides, why don't we have a playoff now if the money is hard to resist? College presidents sure haven't been swayed so far.

[jkjsooner]

However, I think Joe C. has shown that you can schedule a strong SoS pretty consistently.

That's a lot easier to do when you're in a BCS conference. BSU would gladlyy join the PAC 10 if given the chance. TCU would gladly join the Big 12 (and they did the best they could by joining the Big East).

Our OOC schedules have not been strong enough to gain respect had we not been in a BCS conference. Look at our big games recently - Miami and FSU were both down when we played them.

BSU schedule VT and Oregon State. They did about as much as they could do to improve their scheduling. The powers aren't exactly knocking at BSU's door to play them.

[IndySooner]

What other sports host playoff games during Finals week?

There would not be games during finals week. This is a falsehood that the Bowl Alliance has spread thick.

It would be EASY to play the first round right after the conference championships, then play the last three after Christmas.

I guess academics don't matter at Oregon and Auburn since they'll be playing the championship game while school is in session.

The academic argument is a weak one. Football players miss less school than any other sport.

[silverwheels]

Exactly how are you going to generate such huge revene for non-participating teams with the addition of only three extra games?

Besides, why don't we have a playoff now if the money is hard to resist? College presidents sure haven't been swayed so far.

Keep the bowls as the NIT of college football for teams not making the playoff. Their original purpose was to provide an end-of-the-year vacation, anyway. And I think a big corporation (or multiple ones) would love to step up and sponsor a playoff.

Just because we don't have one now, it doesn't mean that it will never happen and college presidents' minds can't be changed.

[IndySooner]

Tell that to a college president and you will lose all support. College presidents do not want games played during the spring semester, and for good reasons.

BS. The BCS Championship Game is being played during the spring semester. Try again.

[IndySooner]

You don't understand. The money I'm talking about is that which would be given to the general pot for the right to host the game. Sure, NORMAN would make money if the game was played in Norman. But that does little good for the other teams in FBS.

I understand completely. You're wrong. A playoff would generate 5x the amount of revenue that the bowl system does. This can be divided the same way the bowl revenue is. Schools would make more money in a playoff system.

[Leroy Lizard]

Keep the bowls as the NIT of college football for teams not making the playoff. Their original purpose was to provide an end-of-the-year vacation, anyway. And I think a big corporation (or multiple ones) would love to step up and sponsor a playoff.

Just because we don't have one now, it doesn't mean that it will never happen and college presidents' minds can't be changed.

The money is there right now. If college presidents are not pro playoff, then obviously it takes more than money.

[IndySooner]

Exactly how are you going to generate such huge revene for non-participating teams with the addition of only three extra games?

Besides, why don't we have a playoff now if the money is hard to resist? College presidents sure haven't been swayed so far.

You haven't read any posts in this thread, have you? The presidents listen to the conference commissioners and AD's who are getting their pockets stuffed by the bowls. Hell, the presidents probably are, too. It's pretty simple as to why this won't even get brought up for discussion, and it has EVERYTHING to do about money, just not the way you think it does.

[Leroy Lizard]

I understand completely. You're wrong. A playoff would generate 5x the amount of revenue that the bowl system does.

Saying it doesn't make it true. You have three additional games, yet you are generating 5 times as much money?

[IndySooner]

The money is there right now. If college presidents are not pro playoff, then obviously it takes more than money.

Schools are LOSING MONEY on the bowls right now. Presidents, AD's and coaches are making bank, though, so nothing changes.

[IndySooner]

Saying it doesn't make it true. You have three additional games, yet you are generating 5 times as much money?

In a 16-team playoff, there are 9 extra games. The TV contract alone would dwarf the $150 million in revenue that the bowl games produce. The conferences and the BCS have all agreed that the figure is somewhere between $600 and $750 million in revenue for a playoff system.

Seriously, if you're going to argue, do some research so you have a clue what you're talking about.

[Leroy Lizard]

You haven't read any posts in this thread, have you? The presidents listen to the conference commissioners and AD's who are getting their pockets stuffed by the bowls. Hell, the presidents probably are, too. It's pretty simple as to why this won't even get brought up for discussion, and it has EVERYTHING to do about money, just not the way you think it does.

Okay... then the bowl system brings in more money than the playoff system?

So we need a playoff because of the huge money it would bring schools, but college presidents don't want a playoff because of the huge money they get from the bowl system?

Sure, that makes sense. :rolleyes:

[silverwheels]

The money is there right now. If college presidents are not pro playoff, then obviously it takes more than money.

We'll see what the landscape of college football looks like in 10 years, then, I guess.

Again, the bowls are not a problem for me. It's the polls.

[Leroy Lizard]

Schools are LOSING MONEY on the bowls right now. Presidents, AD's and coaches are making bank, though, so nothing changes.

How are ADs and presidents making money when the school isn't? These are salaried positions.

[Leroy Lizard]

In a 16-team playoff, there are 9 extra games..

Okay, so we jump to a 16-team playoff when discussing additional revenue, but back to an 8-team playoff when discussing adverse effects on minor bowls and academics.

So which is it? 8 teams or 16 teams?

[IndySooner]

How are ADs and presidents making money when the school isn't? These are salaried positions.

Nevermind. It's not worth it with you. Now I know why you're on everyone's ignore list.

[Leroy Lizard]

Nevermind. It's not worth it with you. Now I know why you're on everyone's ignore list.

You can't answer the question, can you?

[jkjsooner]

The ones in charge don't want it. So you're ****ed.

Nice way to change the subject. Again, you realize that your expectations on soonerfans.com posters is unreasonable and impractical but rather than admitting it you change the subject.

Maybe it's true that the ones in charge don't want it. That has nothing to do with the fact that it would be virtually impossible for members of soonerfans.com to come up with a unanimous/unified playoff scheme.

If (or when) those in power decide they want a playoff then they will be able to come up with a compromised solution. Our inability to do so on soonerfans.com (mainly because there is no incentive to compromise) has nothing to do with it. I'll await some other comment that has nothing to do with this matter since you are incapable of admitting that one of your arguments is based on unreasonable expectations.

[IndySooner]

Okay, so we jump to a 16-team playoff when discussing additional revenue, but back to an 8-team playoff when discussing adverse effects on minor bowls and academics.

So which is it? 8 teams or 16 teams?

I've said NUMEROUS times that the only system that would work is a 16-team system. All conference champions and five at-large teams. All games are hosted by the highest seed until the championship game.

It's inclusive, it's going to generate cash and it will be done to accommodate the academic needs of the universities.

The only way this isn't coming is if the conferences combine into 4 16-team conferences in order to create a 64-team division and that would only require an 8-team playoff starting with the conference championships.

[IndySooner]

You can't answer the question, can you?

Presidents get wined and dined. And by the way, I said "probably" when I referred to the presidents.

AD's get bonused for bowl apperances.

It's too simple of an answer for you to understand, though.

[Leroy Lizard]

Nice way to change the subject. Again, you realize that your expectations on soonerfans.com posters is unreasonable and impractical but rather than admitting it you change the subject.

It's right on subject.

You said that it wasn't up to SF posters to come up with a plan, but rather those that have real power.

Those that have real power don't want it.

So unless those who don't have the power can come up with a plan and prepare a persuasive proposal, you're not going to get anywhere.

It's like wanting to declare independence from England and not even being able to establish common principles. "We'll leave that up to King George to decide."

[IndySooner]

It's right on subject.

You said that it wasn't up to SF posters to come up with a plan, but rather those that have real power.

Those that have real power don't want it.

So unless those who don't have the power can come up with a plan and prepare a persuasive proposal, you're not going to get anywhere.

It's like wanting to declare independence from England and not even being able to establish common principles. "We'll leave that up to King George to decide."

Why do you think Cuban, Congress, etc., are getting involved? The powers that be don't have any incentive to change. They're about to get some.

[Leroy Lizard]

Presidents get wined and dined.

They get whined and dined all the time, and they often have nearly unlimited expense accounts. They're not going to be persuaded on such an important subject because they got some free wine and cheese.



AD's get bonused for bowl apperances.

Since bowl committees don't actually pay ADs, your argument is baseless.
Besides, ADs would simply write a similar clause in their contracts for playoff appearances.


It's too simple of an answer for you to understand, though.

Your argument is not simple, it's simplistic. It's simplistic because you don't have a clue about these matters.

[Leroy Lizard]

Why do you think Cuban, Congress, etc., are getting involved? The powers that be don't have any incentive to change. They're about to get some.

All Congress will accomplish is to set college football back to 1980 in regards to bowl games.

[IndySooner]

Your argument is not simple, it's simplistic. It's simplistic because you don't have a clue about these matters.

I'm curious, and I know the answer, but how much actual research have you done on this subject?

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm curious, and I know the answer, but how much actual research have you done on this subject?

I know college presidents. I've been to parties with them. Believe me, they're not worried about the expenses accrued from partying. And they're certainly not going to deny their schools millions of dollars because they get to drink free wine.

The parties they attend thrown by bowl committees are second hat to these guys.

[jkjsooner]

It's right on subject.

You said that it wasn't up to SF posters to come up with a plan, but rather those that have real power.

Those that have real power don't want it.

So unless those who don't have the power can come up with a plan and prepare a persuasive proposal, you're not going to get anywhere.

It's like wanting to declare independence from England and not even being able to establish common principles. "We'll leave that up to King George to decide."

It's not right on subject. You implied that the presidents/AD's/NCAA could never devise a playoff because people on message boards and newspapers have a wide range of ideas.

Whether those in power choose to do so is another matter. The fact is that if they choose to do so their success rate has nothing to do with soonerfans.com members' ability to come up with a unanimous solution.

You know you changed the subject rather than admitting your expectations were unrealistic yet you are so arrogant that you refuse to admit it.

I'll use your analogy. The Articles of Confederation have been a failure. Newspapers from around the country post ideas about a new constitution but none of them align. There is no incentive for columnists to compromise on a unified solution. Those who can make changes don't want to but in time when they decide to do so they will be able to compromise and agree on a solution. The fact that the ideas written in newspapers vary does not imply that a compromise is impossible. In fact, only a fool would assume that these ideas would not vary significantly.

I don't know what you teach but I'd hate to have you as a professor. You have an overinflated opinion of yourself and you refuse to admit when you are wrong. Plus, you assume all others are "meatheads" when in fact many of them have advanced degrees. All of that adds up to a real a-hole of a teacher.

I do think you are a smart guy and add a lot to the discussion but your flawed personality gets in the way of a meaningful debate.

[IndySooner]

I know college presidents. I've been to parties with them. Believe me, they're not worried about the expenses accrued from partying. And they're certainly not going to deny their schools millions of dollars because they get to drink free wine.

The parties they attend thrown by bowl committees are second hat to these guys.

Well, they're passing up hundreds of millions for some reason. That's for sure. And I don't believe you "party" with college presidents.

[IndySooner]

Tell that to a college president and you will lose all support. College presidents do not want games played during the spring semester, and for good reasons.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/17/hypocrisy-investigation-college-bowl-games-and-aca/

Yeah, the presidents are really concerned about playing during the spring semester.

[Leroy Lizard]

Well, they're passing up hundreds of millions for some reason. That's for sure. And I don't believe you "party" with college presidents.

I don't "party" with them but I attend their functions.

Tell me, what do bowl committees provide college presidents that they couldn't just purchase and write up on their expense account?

[IndySooner]

I don't "party" with them but I attend their functions.

Tell me, what do bowl committees provide college presidents that they couldn't just purchase and write up on their expense account?

Good question. You know a bunch of them, why don't you ask them? There's obviously some reason that they are turning down hundreds of millions of dollars that would help the tax burden in quite a few states.

[jkjsooner]

Leroy, I'm going to paraphrase something you said earlier. You said that the "moving target" presented by soonerfans.com posters shows why we will never have a playoff system.

I've argued why this is an unrealistic expectation you put on us and you have never responded to that argument.

Your statement had nothing to do with whether those in power want a playoff. Whether those in power want a playoff is relevant to the general discussion but it is not relevant to my criticism of your previous statement.

[MeMyself&Me]

That's a lot easier to do when you're in a BCS conference. BSU would gladlyy join the PAC 10 if given the chance. TCU would gladly join the Big 12 (and they did the best they could by joining the Big East).

Our OOC schedules have not been strong enough to gain respect had we not been in a BCS conference. Look at our big games recently - Miami and FSU were both down when we played them.

BSU schedule VT and Oregon State. They did about as much as they could do to improve their scheduling. The powers aren't exactly knocking at BSU's door to play them.

Our OOC schedule would not have been strong enough if we were in the WAC for sure. They don't have to be because our conference is strong. Boise IS in the WAC, they must schedule stronger than we are OOC. They should schedule every one of there non conference games with powers. They sorta did with Virginia Tech but I wouldn't agree with Oregon State. Yeah, they're in a BCS conference but I don't think you'd expect them to be good most of the time.

No, powers aren't knocking on their door to play them but there's enough that would. Nebraska and OU were ready and both of those included a game in Boise.

Even given that, Boise DID have a better SoS than Oregon, one of the two teams playing for it all. So the 'system' didn't exclude BSU, Nevada did.


Edit: Actually, just scanning through Colly's Matrix which lists the SoS rank next to the teams, there a BUNCH of non-AQ teams with a better SoS than Oregon. TCU wasn't one of them.

[Leroy Lizard]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/17/hypocrisy-investigation-college-bowl-games-and-aca/

Yeah, the presidents are really concerned about playing during the spring semester.

Big difference though between playing a game on Dec. 1 and waiting until Jan. 10 to play one game then playing weekly for three straight weeks after Christmas, as some are proposing.

[Leroy Lizard]

Good question. You know a bunch of them, why don't you ask them?

If you can't think of anything, how can you go around accusing them of it?

[Leroy Lizard]

It's not right on subject. You implied that the presidents/AD's/NCAA could never devise a playoff because people on message boards and newspapers have a wide range of ideas.

Whether those in power choose to do so is another matter. The fact is that if they choose to do so their success rate has nothing to do with soonerfans.com members' ability to come up with a unanimous solution.

You know you changed the subject rather than admitting your expectations were unrealistic yet you are so arrogant that you refuse to admit it.

I don't see anything unrealistic about asking proponents of an idea what it is that they actually want.


I don't know what you teach but I'd hate to have you as a professor. You have an overinflated opinion of yourself and you refuse to admit when you are wrong. Plus, you assume all others are "meatheads" when in fact many of them have advanced degrees. All of that adds up to a real a-hole of a teacher.

Actually, I have quite commendable evalutions. It turns out that asking people with lofty ideas to defend their ideas is okay in the eyes of students.