OT: Wow (BCS Championship)

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

... is complete codswallop....

Hey, watch your phrase-ology, there kiddo! You're rising above your station a little, eh?

[Adam]

There's no reason they can't do a playoff of 4 or 8 teams. They could have had a 4 team playoff on New Year's Day, and followed it with the Championship game a week later. Oh, wait, that's kind of late in the year for a college football game; never mind.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There's no reason they can't do a playoff of 4 or 8 teams. They could have had a 4 team playoff on New Year's Day, and followed it with the Championship game a week later. Oh, wait, that's kind of late in the year for a college football game; never mind.

They could have a 4 team play-off on the 2nd Saturday in December. BCS 4 @ BCS 1 and BCS 3 @ BCS 2.

Winners play each other in the BCS championship, losers go to their regularly scheduled bowls.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There's no reason they can't do a playoff of 4 or 8 teams. They could have had a 4 team playoff on New Year's Day, and followed it with the Championship game a week later. Oh, wait, that's kind of late in the year for a college football game; never mind.

And what will that create....the number 5 team complaining that they should have been in!

Boise St. still wouldn't have been in a 4 team playoff or probably even an 8 team playoff.

Unless you go so deep that the first one not in knows they couldn't have possibly won it, you'll always have a what-if. How deep is that....16 at a minimum, 32 might be justifiable, 64 to be certain. Maybe each conference gets to send one?? The question then becomes, is that what the schools really want? Except for 1 or two, all of them are pretty happy with the bowl system. They get more money, half of them end their seasons with a bowl victory against what is usually a somewhat comparabe opponent.

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game. It's not like basketball. In football, 1 or 2 key plays burries a team in a big hole where in basketball, each possession starts out more-or-less the same....even if you get behind 3-4 scores.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And what will that create....the number 5 team complaining that they should have been in!

Boise St. still wouldn't have been in a 4 team playoff or probably even an 8 team playoff.

I do not know if that last statement is correct. Boise St. had to be in the top 8 to reach a BCS game. They did not play in a BCS game without being ranked pretty high.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Unless you go so deep that the first one not in knows they couldn't have possibly won it, you'll always have a what-if. How deep is that....16 at a minimum, 32 might be justifiable, 64 to be certain. Maybe each conference gets to send one?? The question then becomes, is that what the schools really want? Except for 1 or two, all of them are pretty happy with the bowl system. They get more money, half of them end their seasons with a bowl victory against what is usually a somewhat comparabe opponent.

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game. It's not like basketball. In football, 1 or 2 key plays burries a team in a big hole where in basketball, each possession starts out more-or-less the same....even if you get behind 3-4 scores.

The best team does not win any NC all the time. Was the Florida Basketball team the best before they played and won the NC last year? At least they got a chance to prove something on the field. You can still have a bowl system and a playoff system. A playoff system would only affect a small percentage of teams and programs.

Peace

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not know if that last statement is correct. Boise St. had to be in the top 8 to reach a BCS game. They did not play in a BCS game without being ranked pretty high.

Actually, I think they only had to be top 12 to get in.

[JRutledge]

Well they were in the Top 10 when the bowls were announced. Also Wisconsin could not play in a BCS Bowl because that would have been 3 Big Ten teams and that is not allowed. Then again, Wisconsin beat a big time SEC team in their bowl game and ended the season with one lost. I would have liked to see Wisconsin battle it out in a playoff.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well they were in the Top 10 when the bowls were announced. Also Wisconsin could not play in a BCS Bowl because that would have been 3 Big Ten teams and that is not allowed. Then again, Wisconsin beat a big time SEC team in their bowl game and ended the season with one lost. I would have liked to see Wisconsin battle it out in a playoff.

Peace

You mean Wisconsin (tied for 2nd in the Big Ten) beat the 2nd place team in the SEC??? by 3 points. Sounds like it was a good match up that could have gone either way. Perhaps both of them deserved a shot.

If you ask enough people, you could get reasonable arguments to put any one of 20+ teams in an 8 team playoff.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And what will that create....the number 5 team complaining that they should have been in!

Boise St. still wouldn't have been in a 4 team playoff or probably even an 8 team playoff.

Unless you go so deep that the first one not in knows they couldn't have possibly won it, you'll always have a what-if. How deep is that....16 at a minimum, 32 might be justifiable, 64 to be certain. Maybe each conference gets to send one?? The question then becomes, is that what the schools really want? Except for 1 or two, all of them are pretty happy with the bowl system. They get more money, half of them end their seasons with a bowl victory against what is usually a somewhat comparabe opponent.

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game. It's not like basketball. In football, 1 or 2 key plays burries a team in a big hole where in basketball, each possession starts out more-or-less the same....even if you get behind 3-4 scores.

So the SEC should get rid of it's post-season championship game and vote in its representative(s) to the BCS and Sugar Bowl?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And what will that create....the number 5 team complaining that they should have been in!

Boise St. still wouldn't have been in a 4 team playoff or probably even an 8 team playoff.

Unless you go so deep that the first one not in knows they couldn't have possibly won it, you'll always have a what-if. How deep is that....16 at a minimum, 32 might be justifiable, 64 to be certain. Maybe each conference gets to send one?? The question then becomes, is that what the schools really want? Except for 1 or two, all of them are pretty happy with the bowl system. They get more money, half of them end their seasons with a bowl victory against what is usually a somewhat comparabe opponent.

I think a playoff would lead to some freak upsets and teams that no one really thinks are the best will end up winning championships. The best teams would sometimes get beat by a longshot who then goes down big in the next game. It's not like basketball. In football, 1 or 2 key plays burries a team in a big hole where in basketball, each possession starts out more-or-less the same....even if you get behind 3-4 scores.

OK, Camron, you're starting to sound Old School when it comes to this subject. Don't have a play-off b/c somebody might suffer a freak, upset loss?
Where's is the logic in that statement?

So doesn't it mean it's possible for there to be an upset in the SEC championship game? If that happens, should the upset be ignored and the better team still represent the SEC in the BCS?

[Camron Rust]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I'm opposed to a playoff. I'm saying it will not solve the issues that exist. It will only move them around.

And, that a game that can often have as little as 1 score (and often only has 3-5) by both teams combined is far more likely to have fluke upsets than games with 70+ scores per game....where the statisitical probablilties are more likely to produce a winner that is the better team.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I'm opposed to a playoff. I'm saying it will not solve the issues that exist. It will only move them around.

And, that a game that can often have as little as 1 score (and often only has 3-5) by both teams combined is far more likely to have fluke upsets than games with 70+ scores per game....where the statisitical probablilties are more likely to produce a winner that is the better team.

You mean like the....um....NCAA basketball playoffs? A lot of statistical probabilities have gone right down the dumper in the first two rounds. And the public loves it.

Playoffs work for them.

And don't bring up what happened to my beloved Yankees in the playoffs the last few years....

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You mean like the....um....NCAA basketball playoffs? A lot of statistical probabilities have gone right down the dumper in the first two rounds. And the public loves it.

Playoffs work for them.

And don't bring up what happened to my beloved Yankees in the playoffs the last few years....

I generally like playoffs. I just don't they'll solve the problems as completely as the proponents claim or would like.

No matter what practical number you chose, someone is going to feel that were unfairly left out. A lot will whine about the seeding....just like basketball. How many times, due to the bracket ordering, has the "real" championship game been in the semis...you know...the two teams people really think are the best?

Football is just more likely to have more upsets than basketball due to the few number of scores in any given game.

No worry on the Yankees front, I couldn't care less about them or baseball.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And, that a game that can often have as little as 1 score (and often only has 3-5) by both teams combined is far more likely to have fluke upsets than games with 70+ scores per game....where the statisitical probablilties are more likely to produce a winner that is the better team.

There is a perfectly serviceable word to describe the team that gets beat in a fluke game during the playoffs: LOSER. Baseball and basketball lend themselves nicely to best-of-seven serieses and eliminate, to a large degree, the fluke factor. Football is an entirely different animal. You've got one shot to beat the other team, and if you're really the better team, you'll find a way to get it done. If not, you're not really the better team. Any whining to the contrary is just coulda, shoulda, wouldas.

[Jimgolf]

The old system was fine. The Rose Bowl is now an after-thought, when it used to be the biggest game of the year. The other bowl games have sold out to sponsors.

In 2010 they will probably have the Playtex Cross-Your-Heart Bowl and the Trojan-Enz Bowl added as the Semi-final games and the Listerine Mint Fresh Bowl for the national championship. Is that what we want?

Why do we need to have playoffs? Isn't the debate about which team is best half of the fun?

Is Florida really the best team in the country? Ask the Auburn players who's better.

People today can't stand to have anything unsettled. Too much effort, I guess.