- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The BCS vs Playoff Debate
Posted on 7/14/09 at 3:09 pm to lsumatt
Posted on 7/14/09 at 3:09 pm to lsumatt
One of the stumbling blocks to implementing a playoff or a 'plus one' system is the potential revenue or lack thereof for some of the Bowls to draw a new fanbase(ie, Rose= Pac 10, Big 10, etc.).
0
Posted on 7/14/09 at 3:31 pm to tigers
Newsflash from radio Berlin:
The FCS is doing just fine with playoffs. They even have northern teams win national titles.
The whole argument against playoffs is silly. You really think small schools are doing something larger ones can't?
Or that LSU or tOSU would make more money from a bowl...factoring in travel and hotel costs...than they would hosting a playoff game?
Plus you would better prepare players for the NFL, since every team would have prepare for playing in every type of weather condition.
The FCS is doing just fine with playoffs. They even have northern teams win national titles.
The whole argument against playoffs is silly. You really think small schools are doing something larger ones can't?
Or that LSU or tOSU would make more money from a bowl...factoring in travel and hotel costs...than they would hosting a playoff game?
Plus you would better prepare players for the NFL, since every team would have prepare for playing in every type of weather condition.
Posted on 7/14/09 at 3:38 pm to LSU Red24
You’re not going to convince anyone so I’ve sort of stopped with the playoff debate, but I’ll give you my major arguments:
1. Win your conference or shut up. If the goal is to crown a national champion, if you lose your conference, there is one team better than you and your claim at the national title is tenuous. If the goal is to crown the national runner up, then you can include non-conference champs.
2. The BCS has destroyed the regular season. Anyone who argues against a playoff on the grounds of preserving the prestige of the regular season is too late to the party. The most important thing is not losing, therefore the cross-regional high profile matchup in college football is dead. There is no incentive for a team to play a tough team out of conference. A playoff would actually IMPROVE the regular season by encouraging teams to play tough teams again.
3. It’s a business. Anyone arguing about the poor student athlete or whatever should be completely and totally ignored.
4. A playoff would have no impact on the bowls, except the top few. Bowls are meaningless exhibition games between teams who have no shot at the national title. I fail to see how a playoff would impact most bowl games.
5. The BCS already killed New Years Day. It used to be a blessed day full of college football. Now there is only one major bowl game, and I actually spend part of the day watching hockey. That’s right, the college football powers have been outsmarted by the NHL, which is a special kind of stupid. They have given up their hammer lock on that holiday, which is tragic.
1. Win your conference or shut up. If the goal is to crown a national champion, if you lose your conference, there is one team better than you and your claim at the national title is tenuous. If the goal is to crown the national runner up, then you can include non-conference champs.
2. The BCS has destroyed the regular season. Anyone who argues against a playoff on the grounds of preserving the prestige of the regular season is too late to the party. The most important thing is not losing, therefore the cross-regional high profile matchup in college football is dead. There is no incentive for a team to play a tough team out of conference. A playoff would actually IMPROVE the regular season by encouraging teams to play tough teams again.
3. It’s a business. Anyone arguing about the poor student athlete or whatever should be completely and totally ignored.
4. A playoff would have no impact on the bowls, except the top few. Bowls are meaningless exhibition games between teams who have no shot at the national title. I fail to see how a playoff would impact most bowl games.
5. The BCS already killed New Years Day. It used to be a blessed day full of college football. Now there is only one major bowl game, and I actually spend part of the day watching hockey. That’s right, the college football powers have been outsmarted by the NHL, which is a special kind of stupid. They have given up their hammer lock on that holiday, which is tragic.
Posted on 7/14/09 at 9:20 pm to lsumatt
quote:
1. No I am not. For one, its the best record against a great schedule. Schedule matters.
Schedules mean nothing once the playoffs start. Tough schedules prepare a team mentally and physically for what they will face in a playoff atmosphere (see NFL for example)
quote:
2. I never said it should go to the best team. I think it should be the most deserving, but...
Shouldn't the most deserving team be the team that proves it on the field when it counts?
quote:
3. A team that wins 3 games at the end isn't necessarily the "best team" or
"most deserving" either
It is if it beats the best teams in 4 consecutive games.
Look, I understand that there are people who want the NCAA to maintain its current system or fear a playoff system like that of the NFL. That's fine. However, your 3 items would indicate that you feel that the NFL Playoff system - a system that draws garnishes millions of viewers, dollars and ratings - does not produce a true champion.
In the NFL Playoff system:
1. Regular season schedule determines where you start in the playoffs. (i.e. team with the best record has the easiest road to the superbowl)
2. The trophy goes to the most deserving team (i.e. the team that defeated all comers regardless of record, talent or homefield advantage - see 18-1 Patriots)
3. The team that wins 3 or 4 games in a row against the best of the best competition against all odds IS the most deserving because they performed when it mattered most.
This post was edited on 7/14/09 at 9:21 pm
Posted on 7/14/09 at 9:29 pm to PurpleKnight88
quote:
2. The trophy goes to the most deserving team (i.e. the team that defeated all comers regardless of record, talent or homefield advantage - see 18-1 Patriots)
Funny you cite that super bowl. That game made me NOT believe a playoff was needed. 18-0 Patriots, logically, had already proved themselves the best. They had beaten the Giants already. They beat everyone. And still, the 5-loss Giants got a second crack at them. And all the sudden the Giants, who won fewer games, lost more, and split the season series 1-1, are the champions. Dont make much more sense than the BCS system.
Posted on 7/14/09 at 9:59 pm to biglego
quote:
Funny you cite that super bowl. That game made me NOT believe a playoff was needed. 18-0 Patriots, logically, had already proved themselves the best. They had beaten the Giants already. They beat everyone. And still, the 5-loss Giants got a second crack at them. And all the sudden the Giants, who won fewer games, lost more, and split the season series 1-1, are the champions. Dont make much more sense than the BCS system.
The Patriots proved they had the best regular season. The Giants proved they could beat the best teams when it counted the most.
Posted on 7/14/09 at 10:09 pm to PurpleKnight88
quote:
3. The team that wins 3 or 4 games in a row against the best of the best competition against all odds IS the most deserving because they performed when it mattered most.
To me, it makes sense to give it to the team that consistently performed the best over 13 games the whole year, rather than 3 games, but maybe that's just me.
Posted on 7/14/09 at 11:25 pm to HeartOfGeauxld
quote:
The FCS is doing just fine with playoffs
I love when people use this argument for a playoff like they know jack shite about the 1AA playoffs. Please, if that system didn't work or had issues, none of us would know about it anyway.
quote:
You really think small schools are doing something larger ones can't?
I think the small school game is totally different than major college football and any comparison to each other is stupid.
quote:
Plus you would better prepare players for the NFL, since every team would have prepare for playing in every type of weather condition.
Speaking from the standpoint of the college football postseason question, who gives a shite about preparing anybody for the NFL?
Posted on 7/14/09 at 11:31 pm to Baloo
quote:
Win your conference or shut up
What about when there are multiple winners from a conference?
quote:
The most important thing is not losing, therefore the cross-regional high profile matchup in college football is dead. There is no incentive for a team to play a tough team out of conference. A playoff would actually IMPROVE the regular season by encouraging teams to play tough teams again.
Totally F A L S E. Have you seen the series that have been scheduled lately? Right now it may be risky to play a high profile game, but every major program is doing it because there is a HUGE upside to winning that game. LSU doesn't get to play for the title in 2007 if not for the VT game. On the other hand, if you schedule the little sisters of the poor and go undefeated, there is no way you would be left out of a playoff since multiple teams would be in. As it stands, if you schedule the little sisters of the poor you may be left out even if you are undefeated. Not a very strong argument on your part.
This post was edited on 7/14/09 at 11:34 pm
Posted on 7/15/09 at 12:04 am to MOT
i would propose a 24 team playoff. all 11 conference champions would go and 15 at large teams. the lower division has a 16 team playoff and has fewer scholarship athletes. i would base it using the bcs format. the top 8 seeds would draw a bye and the remaining would fill in the bracket. using the 2007 bcs standings, i came up with a 24 team bracket.
1. ohio st
2. lsu
3. va. tech
4. oklahoma
5. georgia
6. missouri
7. usc
8. kansas
the 1st rd games would be
16. tenn vs. 17. byu
9. w. va vs. 24. fla. atl.
12 fla vs. 21. usf
13. illinois vs. 20. va
14. b.c. vs. 19. texas
11. az. st. vs. 22. ucf
10 hawaii vs. 23. cent. mich
18 wisconsin vs. 15. clemson
All 1st and 2nd rd games will be played at the higher seeded teams home field.
2nd rd games
tenn vs. oh. st
w. va. vs. kansas
fla. vs. georgia
ill vs. oklahoma
texas vs. va. tech
az. st. vs. misouri
hawaii vs. usc
clemson vs. lsu
3rd rd games
tenn vs. w va
fl. vs. oklahoma
va. tech vs. missouri
usc vs. lsu
semi finals
w va vs. oklahoma
va tech vs. lsu
finals
w va vs. lsu.....champion lsu
you would need 3 additional bowl sites to play the qf games. 1 major bowl site would be used as a qf game. 2 other sites would be used for semis. 1 site would be used for championship. the bowl sites would be the easy part to determine. i even wonder if 24 is too many teams. 20 may be a better option. please give me your opinion on your thoughts. the other bowl games could still be kept in place. th excitement of the new orleans bowl and gmac bowl will not be taken away!!!!!!!!!
1. ohio st
2. lsu
3. va. tech
4. oklahoma
5. georgia
6. missouri
7. usc
8. kansas
the 1st rd games would be
16. tenn vs. 17. byu
9. w. va vs. 24. fla. atl.
12 fla vs. 21. usf
13. illinois vs. 20. va
14. b.c. vs. 19. texas
11. az. st. vs. 22. ucf
10 hawaii vs. 23. cent. mich
18 wisconsin vs. 15. clemson
All 1st and 2nd rd games will be played at the higher seeded teams home field.
2nd rd games
tenn vs. oh. st
w. va. vs. kansas
fla. vs. georgia
ill vs. oklahoma
texas vs. va. tech
az. st. vs. misouri
hawaii vs. usc
clemson vs. lsu
3rd rd games
tenn vs. w va
fl. vs. oklahoma
va. tech vs. missouri
usc vs. lsu
semi finals
w va vs. oklahoma
va tech vs. lsu
finals
w va vs. lsu.....champion lsu
you would need 3 additional bowl sites to play the qf games. 1 major bowl site would be used as a qf game. 2 other sites would be used for semis. 1 site would be used for championship. the bowl sites would be the easy part to determine. i even wonder if 24 is too many teams. 20 may be a better option. please give me your opinion on your thoughts. the other bowl games could still be kept in place. th excitement of the new orleans bowl and gmac bowl will not be taken away!!!!!!!!!
Posted on 7/15/09 at 12:11 am to farmer fish
quote:
i would propose a 24 team playoff
No way in hell that would work.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 12:17 am to MOT
if college basketball could propose a 65 team bracket and the smaller division could propose a 16 team playoff why couldn't we propose a 16, 20, 24, or 32 team playoff bracket. in case you didn't know, there are approximately 60 teams 1-5a in la h.s. football and they manage to do it. the state champ plays a scrimmage, a jamboree, 10 regular season games, and then has to win 5 games to win a state championship!!!
Posted on 7/15/09 at 8:02 am to farmer fish
quote:
college basketball
This isn't college basketball.
quote:
smaller division
This isn't small division football.
quote:
1-5a in la h.s
This isn't Louisiana high school football.
Anything else?
Posted on 7/15/09 at 8:23 am to MOT
The Playoff debate doesn't have anything to do with the student athlete, improving the game itself, crowning a true champion, making it easier for smaller schools to compete, or anything else along these lines. This debate boils down to money. Money is the reason why BCS officials and school presidents do not want to change the system. To make a change to the status quo means there's a risk involved. They are afraid that a playoff will result in a decline in revenue generated by the current BCS system when IMO it will more than likely create more excitement and increase profits in the long run.
Take our beloved LSU fans for example. If LSU was involved in a playoff format we would follow our Tigers until they are knocked out the playoffs no matter where the game is played.
College football fans around the country are pretty much all the same.
Take our beloved LSU fans for example. If LSU was involved in a playoff format we would follow our Tigers until they are knocked out the playoffs no matter where the game is played.
College football fans around the country are pretty much all the same.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 8:38 am to MOT
So, as I see it, these are the following reasons people don't want a playoff:
1. It's stupid (great logic)
2. It will never work (but no reasoning)
3. It decreases the significance of the regular season--really? Because the bowl system doesn't? Yeah, tell that to Texas last year, who did everything they were supposed to do in the regular season and still didn't sniff the national championship. Tell that to '04 Auburn, undefeated, sorry, can't help you. Tell that to USC in '03--what? Oklahoma lost the big XII by 28 to Kansas State? Too bad, they're in the championship game anyway. A playoff of 8-10 teams would make sure those teams would at least get a shot that, by the way, they deserve.
4. A playoff only glorifies a team that's playing the best at the end of the season? This is just the worst logic ever. Even if this was the case, in a 10-team playoff that "lucky" team that just happens to hit a hot spell would still have to win 3 in a row to pull it off (and would have to be in the top 10 just to qualify to ge t in) .
Every other argument to the contrary is contrived and just not thought out. Playoffs have worked in every other significant team sport in the history of the world, but hell no, it won't work in college football. Of course not.
1. It's stupid (great logic)
2. It will never work (but no reasoning)
3. It decreases the significance of the regular season--really? Because the bowl system doesn't? Yeah, tell that to Texas last year, who did everything they were supposed to do in the regular season and still didn't sniff the national championship. Tell that to '04 Auburn, undefeated, sorry, can't help you. Tell that to USC in '03--what? Oklahoma lost the big XII by 28 to Kansas State? Too bad, they're in the championship game anyway. A playoff of 8-10 teams would make sure those teams would at least get a shot that, by the way, they deserve.
4. A playoff only glorifies a team that's playing the best at the end of the season? This is just the worst logic ever. Even if this was the case, in a 10-team playoff that "lucky" team that just happens to hit a hot spell would still have to win 3 in a row to pull it off (and would have to be in the top 10 just to qualify to ge t in) .
Every other argument to the contrary is contrived and just not thought out. Playoffs have worked in every other significant team sport in the history of the world, but hell no, it won't work in college football. Of course not.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 8:40 am to PurpleKnight88
quote:
The Patriots proved they had the best regular season. The Giants proved they could beat the best teams when it counted the most.
At least you admit that playoffs significantly devalue the regular season.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 8:48 am to hojo
quote:
Every other argument to the contrary is contrived and just not thought out.
This is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
quote:
Playoffs have worked in every other significant team sport in the history of the world, but hell no, it won't work in college football.
There are those of us who think college football is the greatest sport in the history of the world. Why would we try to make it just like everything else?
Posted on 7/15/09 at 8:53 am to Hot Carl
Wow, the pot calling the kettle black argument. Not contrived at all. Oh, and followed up by the "it ain't broke so don't fix it" argument. Yeah, clearly no problems at all. College football is the greatest to me as well. And it can be even better.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 8:53 am to Baloo
quote:
2. The BCS has destroyed the regular season. Anyone who argues against a playoff on the grounds of preserving the prestige of the regular season is too late to the party.
Since the BCS, college football has never been more popular, had more billions invested in facilities and personnel, been more profitable, and been less regionalized.
quote:
The most important thing is not losing, therefore the cross-regional high profile matchup in college football is dead. There is no incentive for a team to play a tough team out of conference. A playoff would actually IMPROVE the regular season by encouraging teams to play tough teams again.
MOT responded well and I'll add the following. The number one factor in scheduling is economics. Playoffs will not encourage teams to not play home games. The BCS actually provides an incentive to play tough teams and several have paid the price for not doing so. To support your position you must explain how 2008 Utah and 2007 Hawaii were excluded if not losing is the most important thing. Regardless, I don't see many coaches agreeing with you that a tough OOC Sept game is going to be the key thing to prepare them for the playoffs when they still have to face their SEC schedule.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 8:57 am to Indiana Tiger
Your argument is valid except for that in my scenario, I'd use the BCS rankings to come up with the playoff teams, so this "incentive" to play tough teams would still be part of the ultimate equation.
Page 3 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News