College football 2009

Originally posted by quackquack
There is no way that a playoff does not ruin rivalries and dilute the previously played games. I also think it would still cause a tremendous number of arguements. Take the USA today poll. If you had a 8 team play off based on their top eight. There would be three big 10 teams, 2 SEC teams, 2 non-BCS teams and one Big 12 team. Do you think the ACC an ...[text shortened]... hampion in which everyone who might have a claim to be the best gets their chance on the field.

Yes, a playoff would cause lots of arguments. That's part of what would make it so much fun. It's what makes the NCAA basketball season so much fun when "bubble season" starts a week or so before they release the brackets.

As for rivalries. There aren't as many of them as you think. There's plenty of room on everyone's schedule to maintain any true rivalries that a playoff system might endanger. Just get rid of Ghost Town St. and replace it with your rivalry of choice. Of course, THAT would generate lots of arguments. Fine. Let them whine.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Yes, a playoff would cause lots of arguments. That's part of what would make it so much fun. It's what makes the NCAA basketball season so much fun when "bubble season" starts a week or so before they release the brackets.

As for rivalries. There aren't as many of them as you think. There's plenty of room on everyone's schedule to maintain any true ri ...[text shortened]... ivalry of choice. Of course, THAT would generate lots of arguments. Fine. Let them whine.

I guess you think making college football more like college basketball is a good thing. I think the structure of college basketball is so foolish that I do not watch it when i otherwise would.
I am not going to waste time watching a Duke - North Carolina game if they will play again on the other teams floor. Then it is foolish to think that those two games were important if they play in the ACC tournament. The whole ACC tournament does not matter for those teams since they will be in NCAA tournament. I end up not really caring about the NCAA tournament because I never watched any games. In college football I will watch because you never get back the wins or losses of each week. To me that is just infinitely better.
Rivalries like Michigan- Ohio State or Texas - Oklahoma because the winner often gets to go to "Big game" and the loser doesn't. Putting both teams in a playoff (when both teams are good) is just another step towards deempahsizing regular season and putting all the weight on post-season.

Originally posted by quackquack
I guess you think making college football more like college basketball is a good thing. I think the structure of college basketball is so foolish that I do not watch it when i otherwise would.
I am not going to waste time watching a Duke - North Carolina game if they will play again on the other teams floor. Then it is foolish to think that those two another step towards deempahsizing regular season and putting all the weight on post-season.

The big problem with NCAA basketball is that they let way too many teams into the playoffs.

1. They should have some sort of a pre-playoff round where all of the winners of those podunk conferences (unless they get one of the "at-large bids" ) have to play a round amongst themselves to cut their number in half. (Maybe even a second round to cut their number in half again).

2. Greatly limit the number of at-large bids. Does the #8 team in the Big East really deserve to be playing for the championship?

If there were only 24 or 32 total teams invited to the Big Dance, you can bet those regular season matchups would mean something. You'd better win your conference, or have a nice portfolio of quality wins or you won't be going.

Likewise, an 8 team playoff in college football would still leave very little room for regular season error. Look at the list of the top ten teams at the end of any given year. How many of them have more than one loss? Maybe two losses if your team accidentally put together a high-quality schedule.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
The big problem with NCAA basketball is that they let way too many teams into the playoffs.

1. They should have some sort of a pre-playoff round where all of the winners of those podunk conferences (unless they get one of the "at-large bids" ) have to play a round amongst themselves to cut their number in half. (Maybe even a second round to cut their ...[text shortened]... n one loss? Maybe two losses if your team accidentally put together a high-quality schedule.

Actually, looking at the USA top 8, there are 3 Big 10 teams with two regular season losses. The top ranked ACC team has two regular season losses (plus their bowl game. The top ranked PAC 10 team has two losses plus their bowl game. I don't think you would be closer to satisfying anyone with your playoff but you certainly would make people wonder why the Big 10 gets three teams (with two regular season losses but bowl wins) but the PAC 10, ACC and Big East get zero.

Originally posted by quackquack
Actually, looking at the USA top 8, there are 3 Big 10 teams with two regular season losses. The top ranked ACC team has two regular season losses (plus their bowl game. The top ranked PAC 10 team has two losses plus their bowl game. I don't think you would be closer to satisfying anyone with your playoff but you certainly would make people wonder why ...[text shortened]... teams (with two regular season losses but bowl wins) but the PAC 10, ACC and Big East get zero.

as a Rutgers fan, I follow the Big East closely. Cincinnati was the only deserving team, and after it's embarassing showing in it's bowl game, I see no reason why this conference should deserve a playoff spot this year. The same goes for any other conference where all of it's teams have major flaws.

If in a given year, the Big 10 happens to have three of the top eight teams in the country, why shouldn't all three get to play? If the best teams in the ACC and Pac-10 each had it's top-ranked team ending up with a 10-3 record, then why should that conference have a team in the playoffs? - Even if you discount bowl games, two losses in the regular season gives you NO right to complain.

An 8-team playoff should feature the top 8 teams. There would be legitimate arguments about who gets in. But I would hate to have one of these "politically correct" systems where you get in even though your conference was lousy that year.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
as a Rutgers fan, I follow the Big East closely. Cincinnati was the only deserving team, and after it's embarassing showing in it's bowl game, I see no reason why this conference should deserve a playoff spot this year. The same goes for any other conference where all of it's teams have major flaws.

If in a given year, the Big 10 happens to have three ically correct" systems where you get in even though your conference was lousy that year.

Circular argument. Judging that a conference is "lousy" because you judge that none of its teams are worthy of being in the Top 8 is bootstrapping. In fact, the conference might be very evenly matched among its top teams but still superior to another conference. Three Big Ten teams in an 8 team playoff this year would be a travesty.

I'd rather just leave the ridiculous BCS system in place then have a playoff system with the same flaw i.e. the teams playing for the championship are decided solely by the subjective judgments of sportswriters and coaches.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Circular argument. Judging that a conference is "lousy" because you judge that none of its teams are worthy of being in the Top 8 is bootstrapping. In fact, the conference might be very evenly matched among its top teams but still superior to another conference. Three Big Ten teams in an 8 team playoff this year would be a travesty.

I'd ra ...[text shortened]... the championship are decided solely by the subjective judgments of sportswriters and coaches.

I would make sure that "strength of schedule" was a major component of any ranking system.

if you did have a "super-conference" of this sort, their superiority would be made abundantly clear when looking at how that conference's teams fared in out-of-conference play. Unless all the teams in the conference scheduled nothing but cupcakes for these games - in which case, these teams deserve their lousy fate.

The main problem with the current BCS system is that there is usually a team or two that gets left out that can make a legitimate claim to being the best team. An 8-team playoff would almost guarantee that all of these teams were in the mix. Yes, the same flaw would remain, but it involve arguing over whether a team like Oregon or Virginia Tech should've squeaked into the 8th spot. No one would be arguing that these teams were "the best".

The idea here is not necessarily to crown the team that's truly the best. After all, a team like Oregon could pull three upsets and win the playoff. The idea is ensure that the three, four, or five teams with a legitimate claim to being the best all have a chance to settle it on the field. And most important -- it would be FUN!! Seven games that count. Much better than having dozens of meaningless bowl games and only one game that counts.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I would make sure that "strength of schedule" was a major component of any ranking system.

if you did have a "super-conference" of this sort, their superiority would be made abundantly clear when looking at how that conference's teams fared in out-of-conference play. Unless all the teams in the conference scheduled nothing but cupcakes for these games ...[text shortened]... Much better than having dozens of meaningless bowl games and only one game that counts.

SOS based on what? How many wins the opponent had? That would reward teams who's opponents played lousy schedules.

The bowls aren't going to be abolished and the the major conferences aren't going to accept a system where their league champions might get left out and 3 or more teams from a possibly weaker conference get in. Nor should they. All the proposals made in this thread but mine are completely unrealistic or blatantly unfair or completely subjective or all three.

Originally posted by no1marauder
SOS based on what? How many wins the opponent had? That would reward teams who's opponents played lousy schedules.

The bowls aren't going to be abolished and the the major conferences aren't going to accept a system where their league champions might get left out and 3 or more teams from a possibly weaker conference get in. Nor should the ...[text shortened]... ut mine are completely unrealistic or blatantly unfair or completely subjective or all three.

Being that you consider the BCS rankings to be the best approach, we can use that to make the rankings (unless you wish to propose a better ranking system). And the major conferences seem to be perfectly happy with a two-team playoff system that leaves out ALL the other conference champions. Why would they suddenly get upset over adding six additional playoff slots.

But I do agree - there are probably a bunch of logistical hurdles to get a playoff system in place. Too much money and inertia is tied up in doing things the old way. So it probably will be many years before a playoff system gets put in. Finally in 2023, they'll do it, and after college football rakes in three times as much money as they ever did before, everyone will be blaming someone else for why it took so long.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Being that you consider the BCS rankings to be the best approach, we can use that to make the rankings (unless you wish to propose a better ranking system). And the major conferences seem to be perfectly happy with a two-team playoff system that leaves out ALL the other conference champions. Why would they suddenly get upset over adding six additional pla ...[text shortened]... h money as they ever did before, everyone will be blaming someone else for why it took so long.

I agree with you that a playoff will eventually happen, it will very lucrative and you and the majority of fans will love it. All I am saying is I personally won't enjoy it.

My objection is treating the one and eight team the same. I just think after a full season the #1 team deserves more than a possible home field advantge. I also think knowing you will make the playoffs effect wether you win a division. For example, the Red Sox only won the division once in the 2000s and if they had to win the division to make the playoffs I find it really hard to belive that they would only have made the playoffs once. Simply a playoff system makes teams care less, rest players more and set goals differently. People sort of laugh at division titles (it has even become a cliche to say "it is all about the championship). I think the cost of having a playoff outweighs the benefits of possibly having a Boise - Alabama game (because Boise's season does not merit the opportunity) and I understand that you'd rather have the games even if you have to make what I believe are sacrifices.

Originally posted by quackquack
I agree with you that a playoff will eventually happen, it will very lucrative and you and the majority of fans will love it. All I am saying is I personally won't enjoy it.

My objection is treating the one and eight team the same. I just think after a full season the #1 team deserves more than a possible home field advantge. I also think knowing ...[text shortened]... and that you'd rather have the games even if you have to make what I believe are sacrifices.

Regarding professional sports -- as I've said before -- IF the goal is simply to find out which team is the best, the ideal system would be to put all the teams into one or two gigantic conferences, have everyone play everyone else the same number of times, and whoever ends up with the best record wins the title (or you have a single championship matchup if you have two conferences).

So I fully understand your position on this.

But in sports, the goal is to entertain the maximum number of people to the greatest possible extent. Playoffs make the regular season interesting for a larger percentage of the fans, and post-season play has a certain magic to it that regular season games very rarely provide.

But I fully understand that one of the drawbacks is that you're giving Cinderella a chance to dance with a prince when she should be home mopping the floors after a less-than-great season.

I also understand your objection about giving the one and eight teams the same "chance". That's why I proposed the "bowling system" where #5 would play #4, winner playing #3, winner of that playing #2, and the winner of that playing #1. So #1 would only have to play (and win) one game to be champion, while #5 would have to win four in a row. (This system also eliminates the #8 team completely by having only five teams in it).

Originally posted by quackquack
There is no way that a playoff does not ruin rivalries and dilute the previously played games. I also think it would still cause a tremendous number of arguements. Take the USA today poll. If you had a 8 team play off based on their top eight. There would be three big 10 teams, 2 SEC teams, 2 non-BCS teams and one Big 12 team. Do you think the ACC an ...[text shortened]... hampion in which everyone who might have a claim to be the best gets their chance on the field.

Make up your own play off scenerio, then describe what's wrong with it. Classic way to try to 'win a point', but still pathetic.

I guess Pete Carroll is a friend of Will Ferrell, which would explain this:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/7178c18f5d/pete-carroll-s-new-job