- 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 7/15/09 at 8:58 am to Hot Carl
Posted on 7/15/09 at 8:58 am to Hot Carl
Mott, i guess every other sport in the entire world has it wrong.....as the previous poster replied, think of the excitement that a playoff would provide....les miles and nick saban have both publicly stated that they would love a playoff system....about the only people i know that are against it would be yourself and the pac 10 president....the whole issue is the fact that the schools like utah and boise st will never be allowed to play for the title....how can anyone truly say they are the best without playing for the title....decide it on the field like every other sport in the world does,and take politics out of the equation....let's face it that's what college football is all about!!!!!
0
Posted on 7/15/09 at 9:02 am to hojo
quote:
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.
The only problem is that your scenario has a near zero probability of being implemented. The BCS conferences will not sacrifice their self interest to implement this. And I guarantee you that when a team like the 2001 LSU team is excluded due to ranking, the screaming will be just as loud as any today.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 9:05 am to hojo
quote:
Wow, the pot calling the kettle black argument.
It has been my experience in this debate that the playoff proponents are typically the ones who have not thought out their stances. Especially the logistics of having such a big playoff. Are you going to ask fan-bases to travel 4 straight weeks? Etc...
quote:
Oh, and followed up by the "it ain't broke so don't fix it" argument.
I never said that either. I like a 4 team playoff. I think 4 is plenty inclusive. Any more and it would water down the regular season. I'm sorry, but there is never any reason a 3-loss team deserves a shot at the title. Especially the exact same shot as another team who went undefeated. Some have used the NFL as an example of how a playoff could work. Sure, but the NFL regular season games are pretty unimportant in and of themselves. It doesn't matter who wins each individual game, just your record at the end.
That is what makes CFB superior to me. It's not a measure of who was the best team during a 3-week stretch, but a measure of who was the best team over the course of the entire, 14-week season. You have to show up every single week. I realize there's subjectivity involved, but with 119 teams playing vastly different schedules, it's impossible to avoid. And that's fine by me. It's what makes it so unique.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 9:08 am to Indiana Tiger
My understanding of this debate was what we'd like to see implemented, not what was immediately most likely to happen. Of course a typical playoff isn't likely to be on the horizon because of the politics. Everyone knows that. But it doesn't mean we can't keep pushing for progress. Perfection in life and sports is simply not possible. Pursuit of that perfection is a worthy endeavor, however.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 9:14 am to hojo
quote:
Pursuit of that perfection is a worthy endeavor, however.
I'm glad you know what that perfection is. Somebody leave you some golden tablets or something?
Posted on 7/15/09 at 9:14 am to Hot Carl
I guess this is where we'll have to agree to disagree. First, I think it's ridiculous to think that fans wouldn't travel over a 3 week period. This is just patently false to me. College football fans are more rabid about their teams as any other fans in the world.
As for the 3 loss argument, I would argue for the cause. Schedule strengths are subjective to a point, and I'd be happy to argue that a 3-loss SEC team plays as tough if not tougher a schedule than a 1 loss USC team. The 10-team inclusion gives us the unique opportunity to give the 2 loss LSU or Georgia or Alabama team a chance to show they're better than the 1 loss USC or Oklahoma or Virgina Tech that would automatically be placed in the championship game because of they're record.
As for the 3 loss argument, I would argue for the cause. Schedule strengths are subjective to a point, and I'd be happy to argue that a 3-loss SEC team plays as tough if not tougher a schedule than a 1 loss USC team. The 10-team inclusion gives us the unique opportunity to give the 2 loss LSU or Georgia or Alabama team a chance to show they're better than the 1 loss USC or Oklahoma or Virgina Tech that would automatically be placed in the championship game because of they're record.
This post was edited on 7/15/09 at 9:16 am
Posted on 7/15/09 at 9:19 am to hojo
I think most "playoff" scenarios would totally destroy the regular season, and here is why:
1) I think there is something exciting about knowing that losing a game in early September might knock you out altogether. But more importantly...
2) I love the big non-conference match ups b/w BCS teams. But those not only become meaningless, but teams will stop scheduling them altogether. Why would USC risk losing to Ohio State (or injuring players) when all they need to do is march through the Pac10? This is especially true for the 8+ team playoff systems that require you to win your conference. OOC games are literally meaningless for BCS teams.
1) I think there is something exciting about knowing that losing a game in early September might knock you out altogether. But more importantly...
2) I love the big non-conference match ups b/w BCS teams. But those not only become meaningless, but teams will stop scheduling them altogether. Why would USC risk losing to Ohio State (or injuring players) when all they need to do is march through the Pac10? This is especially true for the 8+ team playoff systems that require you to win your conference. OOC games are literally meaningless for BCS teams.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 9:20 am to Indiana Tiger
Seriously, check out the out of conference schedules of teams back in the 1980s to now. Out of conference schedules are now absurdly easy. September used to be full of cross-regional matchups, now there are only a handful of decent OOC games, but the days of a killer OOC slate, particularly for an SEC or Big 12 team, is essentially dead.
College football is more popular than ever. But I wasn’t arguing against that. I was arguing against the notion that a playoff would somehow destroy the “every week a playoff” idea of the regular season. That idea is dead, unless you consider each major contender trying to rig as many 1-16 matchups as they can.
There is simply no incentive to schedule tough OOC games. The best strategy is to play three decent but not bad OOC games. It will help your SOS immeasurably while minimizing the risk of a loss. Call it the Big Ten strategy.
To argue against a playoff on the grounds it would lessen the value of the regular season is a patently absurd argument. The BCS has already done the job.
College football is more popular than ever. But I wasn’t arguing against that. I was arguing against the notion that a playoff would somehow destroy the “every week a playoff” idea of the regular season. That idea is dead, unless you consider each major contender trying to rig as many 1-16 matchups as they can.
There is simply no incentive to schedule tough OOC games. The best strategy is to play three decent but not bad OOC games. It will help your SOS immeasurably while minimizing the risk of a loss. Call it the Big Ten strategy.
To argue against a playoff on the grounds it would lessen the value of the regular season is a patently absurd argument. The BCS has already done the job.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 9:25 am to Baloo
quote:
There is simply no incentive to schedule tough OOC games.
That's not true at all. We have had several situations in the BCS where teams had similar records and SOS was the difference. USC continues to schedule a tough OOC schedule and that keeps them afloat. And had LSU not scheduled Va Tech in 2007, we never would have been in the NC game.
On the flip side, why would any team care about an OOC schedule when winning your conference is what gets you in the playoff?
Posted on 7/15/09 at 9:38 am to lsumatt
quote:
On the flip side, why would any team care about an OOC schedule when winning your conference is what gets you in the playoff?
Because if the loss has no negative impact, it would be like college basketball, in which tough cross regional matchups are common. Why wouldn't a team with title aspirations play a tough OOC opponent to get the team "game tested" for the conference slate? We also know teams would schedule those tough games BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DID prior to the BCS disincentive.
And while VT was a big game for us in 2007, Ohio St and Oklahoma make the title game consistently not through playing top ten teams OOC, but by playing lots of 6-5 teams. The VT-LSU game stands out because it was so rare.
Are you contending that OOC schedules have gotten tougher and we've had more cross-regional games among top 25 teams in the BCS era?
Posted on 7/15/09 at 9:43 am to lsumatt
No matter what we do there will always be controversy. Right now, the number 3 team (Texas last year, Auburn '04, USC '03) is the one getting screwed out of a national championship chance. If we had an 8 team playoff, there will actually probably be even more controversy because once you get to that range, you get more 2-3 loss teams, all of which will be bitching about how they got screwed out of the playoffs...so the argument about Texas and Auburn and USC is a bad one. Did they get screwed? yes. but someone is getting screwed either way, and with a playoff, possibly more teams will be complaining.
Also, the argument saying a playoff wouldnt put a damper on the season is just ignorant. Right now, when LSU loses a game, we all get extremely pissed and have the feeling that our shot at a NC are either gone or MUCH slimmer. And a second loss means (in most cases...'07 was an exception) no chance. This makes the season thrilling and intense. If LSU could lose 2 games and still have a shot at a NC the season wouldnt be nearly as exciting. When the Saints lose, were upset but its okay because we can have 5-6 losses and still make the playoffs. This factor is what makes college football the best season in sports. The intensity of the season and the drive to win every game and leave it all on the line because your fighting for one of two spots in the NCG, not one of 6 for the playoffs.
Also, the argument saying a playoff wouldnt put a damper on the season is just ignorant. Right now, when LSU loses a game, we all get extremely pissed and have the feeling that our shot at a NC are either gone or MUCH slimmer. And a second loss means (in most cases...'07 was an exception) no chance. This makes the season thrilling and intense. If LSU could lose 2 games and still have a shot at a NC the season wouldnt be nearly as exciting. When the Saints lose, were upset but its okay because we can have 5-6 losses and still make the playoffs. This factor is what makes college football the best season in sports. The intensity of the season and the drive to win every game and leave it all on the line because your fighting for one of two spots in the NCG, not one of 6 for the playoffs.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 9:54 am to Baloo
quote:
Because if the loss has no negative impact, it would be like college basketball,
So they would play those games, but I just wouldn't give much a shite because it didn't matter. Plus, the risk of hurting players and fatigue with a 13 game season these days (+ your 3 game playoff) wold make it so playing a directional school more worth while.
quote:
We also know teams would schedule those tough games BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DID prior to the BCS disincentive.
I think it has more to do with the 12 game season (we play more shitty OOC games, than big OOC have been dropped) and the championship games (those are defacto HUGE OOC games that you'll play of good enough to matter).
quote:
Ohio St and Oklahoma make the title game
Ohio State had a home at home with Texas and another with USC. Doesn't get bigger than that. Oklahoma scheduling top 15ish TCU and a solid Cuncy team is what got them in the title game (maybe they tried to schedule a cupcake with TCU,but they probably didn't expect Washington to suck arse)
Posted on 7/15/09 at 9:57 am to lsumatt
Come on, Oklahoma vs. Cincy and TCU? Edge of my seat.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 9:59 am to Baloo
quote:
Seriously, check out the out of conference schedules of teams back in the 1980s to now. Out of conference schedules are now absurdly easy. September used to be full of cross-regional matchups, now there are only a handful of decent OOC games, but the days of a killer OOC slate, particularly for an SEC or Big 12 team, is essentially dead.
Check out some of the preBCS mid-ninety schedules when economics dictated we needed x home games to be profitable. Schedules are driven by economics and playoffs will not change that equation. What's absurb is pulling out random data with no understanding of the underlying reason for that data and then blaming the BCS for changing it. If there is no incentive for improving SOS, why were undefeated teams excluding vs teams with losses? Until your bullshite can explain that, your argument is nonsense.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 10:04 am to Indiana Tiger
Exactly, which is why with a playoff a team like '04 Auburn would not be excluded but would also not be guaranteed a spot in the championship.
I mean, this BCS crap is infuriating. You can't tell me that 2 or even 3 SEC teams could be the best 2 or 3 teams in the country some years, but because of the BCS it makes sense that only 1 team from each conference even has a shot? And you're talking about bullshite stats.
I mean, this BCS crap is infuriating. You can't tell me that 2 or even 3 SEC teams could be the best 2 or 3 teams in the country some years, but because of the BCS it makes sense that only 1 team from each conference even has a shot? And you're talking about bullshite stats.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 10:07 am to hojo
the whole issue is that every conference is different, but the real problem is that every conference has different standards. here's the solution.
first and foremost, every conference plays an 8 game conference schedule followed by a conference championship.
next, a 12 team playoff.....10 conference champions and 2 wild cards (allows a legit 1 loss or 2 loss team and will keep notre dame from having to join a conference): sec, big 12, big 10, pac 10, acc, big east, wac, mountain west, conf. usa, and mac. the teams will be seeded according to their final rankings after championship week. the top 4 ranked conference champs will receive a first round bye.
the small conferences have a chance, the big conferences earn their keep, and if notre dame can manage to beat navy, air force, etc. they'll have a chance as well. everyone happy? almost.
the major bcs games will still take place in a tournament like setting. play the other bowl games during the week mid december through new year's and the bcs playoff on the weekend. the first week of the bcs playoff will consist of 4 games as well as the second. the third week will have a semi-final round. the fourth week will be a championship. 4 weeks, 4 bcs sites. let's say the championship is the sugar bowl so they will host the final week. that means orange will be 1st round, rose 2nd, and fiesta 3rd round. each site must have 2 stadiums to host a game on 2 different days to accomodate for the 4 games they may have to host.
sugar: superdome and LSU tiger stadium
orange: dolphin stadium and (orlando, tampa, take your pick).
rose: rose bowl stadium and memorial stadium (or oakland coliseum)
fiesta: sun devil and university of phoenix stadium
here is a chance for great teams to play in venues they may have never had the chance to like the rose bowl. here is a chance to compromise between a standard playoff and the parody of college football. everyone's got a shot. rankings still matter. bowls still exist.
first and foremost, every conference plays an 8 game conference schedule followed by a conference championship.
next, a 12 team playoff.....10 conference champions and 2 wild cards (allows a legit 1 loss or 2 loss team and will keep notre dame from having to join a conference): sec, big 12, big 10, pac 10, acc, big east, wac, mountain west, conf. usa, and mac. the teams will be seeded according to their final rankings after championship week. the top 4 ranked conference champs will receive a first round bye.
the small conferences have a chance, the big conferences earn their keep, and if notre dame can manage to beat navy, air force, etc. they'll have a chance as well. everyone happy? almost.
the major bcs games will still take place in a tournament like setting. play the other bowl games during the week mid december through new year's and the bcs playoff on the weekend. the first week of the bcs playoff will consist of 4 games as well as the second. the third week will have a semi-final round. the fourth week will be a championship. 4 weeks, 4 bcs sites. let's say the championship is the sugar bowl so they will host the final week. that means orange will be 1st round, rose 2nd, and fiesta 3rd round. each site must have 2 stadiums to host a game on 2 different days to accomodate for the 4 games they may have to host.
sugar: superdome and LSU tiger stadium
orange: dolphin stadium and (orlando, tampa, take your pick).
rose: rose bowl stadium and memorial stadium (or oakland coliseum)
fiesta: sun devil and university of phoenix stadium
here is a chance for great teams to play in venues they may have never had the chance to like the rose bowl. here is a chance to compromise between a standard playoff and the parody of college football. everyone's got a shot. rankings still matter. bowls still exist.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 10:08 am to hojo
quote:
You can't tell me that 2 or even 3 SEC teams could be the best 2 or 3 teams in the country some years, but because of the BCS it makes sense that only 1 team from each conference even has a shot? And you're talking about bullshite stats.
even if LSU, Florida, and Bama are the 3 best teams in the SEC in a particular year, all of them will eventually play head to head either during the year or in the SECCG. That game decides the winner of the conference. You cant possibly argue to have 2 SEC teams in the NCG. I would love to see that just as much as you but its not right. Example: last year Florida and Bama played in the SECCG and Florida won. They won the SEC. Theyre the best team in the SEC. Bama isnt. Why would you want them to rematch in the NCG. Yes, we may want that from the SEC but you have to look at this from the POV of college football, not the SEC. There's 5 other teams saying they can beat Florida, why would we give Bama another shot? They had their chance and lost.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 10:08 am to hojo
quote:
BCS it makes sense that only 1 team from each conference even has a shot
Many of the playoff situations I have seen require you to win your conference, so I don't know how 3 SEC teams would get a shot. Moreover, even if you have a playoff system you need some sort of ranking system to pick the "8" teams and seed them. If 3 teams aren't in the top 8 in the BCS, they probably won't in any other system either.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 10:10 am to tigers
quote:
My issue with this concept of best team or most deserving is that there is too much subjectivity involved. It's impossible to completely eliminate subjectivity, but a playoff (while not perfect) would help reduce it.
how does a playoff help?
is the "best team" the "best team for 1/6 of its schedule at the very end"
?
Posted on 7/15/09 at 10:13 am to Baloo
quote:
There is simply no incentive to schedule tough OOC games.
it would be worse with a playoff
then there would be ABSOLUTELY no incentive to schedule tough OOC games
tough OOC games do matter with the BCS to an extent (just ask 2004 AU or 2007 LSU)
quote:
To argue against a playoff on the grounds it would lessen the value of the regular season is a patently absurd argument. The BCS has already done the job.
it will get worse with a playoff
teams will know, especially with an 8-team mega playoff, that 2 losses in a BCS conference = playoff spot. teams will also know that 1 "wtf" loss is likely. why risk that 2nd loss on an OOC game when SOS would mean dick? teams will save their 2 losses for their real schedule. there would be NO REASON to risk it with an OOC game
Page 4 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News