The Definitive NO PLAYOFF Thread

• sleeper

  

  Only ND and SEC fans want to keep this farce we call the BCS. Lord knows that if we had a playoff, the SEC would have ZERO championships because they'd actually have to travel north where they wouldn't win a game against a decent team. And ND? ND's only shot at an NC is to continue playing its powderpuff schedule and get lucky like Alabama did last year with Colt going down to injury.
• enigmaax

  trep14;476715 wrote:Don't like this logic at all. Whats the point of playing the games if you are going to dismiss the results of what happens? When Ohio State lost to Purdue last year, no one said "well Ohio State is actually better than Purdue, so lets just forget that happened and OSU will still be in the national title picture like they belong". Come on, its not like this problem is exclusive to playoff systems. It exists in sports period, and that is why they say you don't play games on paper.

  
  The point there is that a playoff doesn't do anything to get closer to a round robin. Someone was saying that since in a playoff you beat a team who beat a team who beat a team, you have beaten all teams de facto. It isn't true. It still just proves that you beat a particular team on a particular day.
  
  Seven teams beat Purdue last year. Does that make all of those teams better than Ohio State...or, does that mean that at least seven teams beat Ohio State de facto? No. So as Sherm was pointing out, if a team gets upset in one game in a playoff, does that mean that all teams who moved on are better or that the champion beat them de facto? No. It means the champion beat a team who beat a team who beat a team - the only difference is that in the playoff the quarterfinal game counted for more than any other game up to that point.
  
  So, a playoff isn't going to prove someone is a champion any more than what the BCS game does now.
• enigmaax

  sleeper;476729 wrote:Only ND and SEC fans want to keep this farce we call the BCS. Lord knows that if we had a playoff, the SEC would have ZERO championships because they'd actually have to travel north where they wouldn't win a game against a decent team. And ND? ND's only shot at an NC is to continue playing its powderpuff schedule and get lucky like Alabama did last year with Colt going down to injury.

  
  Why would the #1 or #2 team ever have to travel north? It isn't like if there was a playoff they'd be putting the championship game somewhere up north.
  
  What would be more likely to happen is that a second SEC team could earn its way to the title game for an all-SEC championship.
  
  And incidentally, a few SEC schools put together a playoff plan that the Big Ten and Pac 10 refused to even put on the agenda for discussion just a few years ago. Maybe they are afraid that their dominant teams would be exposed way before having the chance to play for a title?
• trep14

  enigmaax;476733 wrote:The point there is that a playoff doesn't do anything to get closer to a round robin. Someone was saying that since in a playoff you beat a team who beat a team who beat a team, you have beaten all teams de facto. It isn't true. It still just proves that you beat a particular team on a particular day.
  
  Seven teams beat Purdue last year. Does that make all of those teams better than Ohio State...or, does that mean that at least seven teams beat Ohio State de facto? No. So as Sherm was pointing out, if a team gets upset in one game in a playoff, does that mean that all teams who moved on are better or that the champion beat them de facto? No. It means the champion beat a team who beat a team who beat a team - the only difference is that in the playoff the quarterfinal game counted for more than any other game up to that point.
  
  So, a playoff isn't going to prove someone is a champion any more than what the BCS game does now.

  
  Please. Like I said, transitive logic doesn't work any sports, and a playoff system nor the BCS is going to solve it. And I never said a playoff system was perfect, but the idea that a team can beat multiple particular teams on multiple particular days definitely gives us a better idea of who the best team is than having Alabama and Texas play their regular season and then throwing them in a "national championship game" while Boise, Cincy, and TCU are sitting there unbeaten by anyone. If Alabama can't get up to beat Boise State or whoever in the first round, guess who doesn't deserve to go to the NC game? After all, its all about who "deserves" to go there, right?
• sleeper

  

  enigmaax;476737 wrote:Why would the #1 or #2 team ever have to travel north? It isn't like if there was a playoff they'd be putting the championship game somewhere up north.
  
  What would be more likely to happen is that a second SEC team could earn its way to the title game for an all-SEC championship.
  
  And incidentally, a few SEC schools put together a playoff plan that the Big Ten and Pac 10 refused to even put on the agenda for discussion just a few years ago. Maybe they are afraid that their dominant teams would be exposed way before having the chance to play for a title?

  
  All games would be played in professional stadiums north of the Mason Dixon line. The Championship can be played in the South to balance it out, because there won't be any southern teams left to give them the advantage they have enjoyed since the beginning of college football.
  
  The SEC's playoff plan was probably something like this "Play all the bowl games in the south for a playoff, and allow for our 12th to get an exception, because our worst team would win every other conference in the country". I'm joking, but its probably pretty close to that.
  
  And seriously, not to derail this thread, but there should be higher academic standards in college football. That would eliminate the entire SEC outside of Florida and Vandy.
• trep14

  sleeper;476751 wrote:All games would be played in professional stadiums north of the Mason Dixon line. The Championship can be played in the South to balance it out, because there won't be any southern teams left to give them the advantage they have enjoyed since the beginning of college football.
  
  The SEC's playoff plan was probably something like this "Play all the bowl games in the south for a playoff, and allow for our 12th to get an exception, because our worst team would win every other conference in the country". I'm joking, but its probably pretty close to that.
  
  And seriously, not to derail this thread, but there should be higher academic standards in college football. That would eliminate the entire SEC outside of Florida and Vandy.

  
  Wow, you sound a little bitter towards the SEC. You realize that teams from your conference don't win 4 national championships in a row solely because of geography, right? The SEC is good.
• enigmaax

  trep14;476742 wrote:Please. Like I said, transitive logic doesn't work any sports, and a playoff system nor the BCS is going to solve it. And I never said a playoff system was perfect, but the idea that a team can beat multiple particular teams on multiple particular days definitely gives us a better idea of who the best team is than having Alabama and Texas play their regular season and then throwing them in a "national championship game" while Boise, Cincy, and TCU are sitting there unbeaten by anyone. If Alabama can't get up to beat Boise State or whoever in the first round, guess who doesn't deserve to go to the NC game? After all, its all about who "deserves" to go there, right?

  
  Again, you were saying the same thing as sherm but you said you didn't agree with his logic.
  
  I do not agree with the thought that if Alabama doesn't win a first round game it means they don't deserve to go to the title game. That is one loss. Your playoff puts more stock in that one loss than any other game that any other team plays all season long. Every other team could have two losses, but you are saying that one loss means a team doesn't deserve it.
• trep14

  jordo212000;476522 wrote:
  My last point for this evening (I'll jump in again tomorrow sometime) is that I find it downright laughable that we are holding up change for the Meineke Car Care.com presented by Papa Johns Bowls of the world. That's a joke. Charlotte, NC will be just fine without a game that settles who sucks more. Really I find the whole "save my tradition" rhetoric stuff to be the real knee slapper.

  
  My favorite argument about how meaningful bowl games really are: What other sport do you have coaches deserting their teams right before their postseason game? Do you think Brian Kelly would have left Cincy high and dry right before the bowl game if their bowl game actually meant something?
• enigmaax

  trep14;476763 wrote:My favorite argument about how meaningful bowl games really are: What other sport do you have coaches deserting their teams right before their postseason game? Do you think Brian Kelly would have left Cincy high and dry right before the bowl game if their bowl game actually meant something?

  
  I don't know, I mean, Cincy wasn't the first team he dumped before a bowl game. Some might just say he is just a classless individual.
  
  One thing about bowl games is that it does keep the season interesting for many more schools than what any reasonable playoff system would do. I know some say keep the lower tier bowls and let the best teams fight it out in the playoffs...or use the top bowls as playoff games. It isn't the same and part of the lure is that it IS the system. You wouldn't want to tweak your system by eliminating the best part of it (top bowls) and sorry, but the Fiesta Bowl isn't going to be the same entity if it is merely a quarterfinal or semifinal game. It is pretty much one or the other (bowls or playoffs) and right now the bowl system rewards more student athletes. Still comes down to there's more than just the championship to consider.
• trep14

  enigmaax;476762 wrote:Again, you were saying the same thing as sherm but you said you didn't agree with his logic.
  
  I do not agree with the thought that if Alabama doesn't win a first round game it means they don't deserve to go to the title game. That is one loss. Your playoff puts more stock in that one loss than any other game that any other team plays all season long. Every other team could have two losses, but you are saying that one loss means a team doesn't deserve it.

  
  Like I said, a playoff system will determine who can beat multiple particular teams (quality teams, might I add) on multiple particular days. That team is going to have to be pretty darn good. Does that not give a better idea of who the best team is than a single game where the best two teams may not even be playing? Its not a one shot deal. No one would hand Boise State the championship if they beat Alabama in the first round. And guess what? If they beat Alabama in the first round of a win or go home playoff, that is a pretty strong endorsement of Alabama not being the best team in college football. We care about what happens in the postseason, right? Big time players make big time plays? For instance in the NFL, no one is going to remember the Colts rolling through the regular season and the only thing keeping them from going undefeated was Jim Caldwell holding the starters out in the last two weeks of the season. Everyone is going to remember the pick Peyton Manning threw in the fourth quarter to seal the Saints win. If you are one of the best teams, you need to show it in the playoffs. Period.
• Little Danny

  

  It is interesting to note those who generally favor no playoffs are fans of "traditional elite" schoosl while those who support it follow teams outside the norm. If many had their way, there would be a playoff but regardless of circumstance it should always include the following teams:
  
  1) USC
  2) Washington
  3) Texas
  4) Oklahoma
  5) Florida
  6) LSU
  7) Alabama
  8) ND
  9) OSU
  10) Michigan
  11) Penn State
  12) Florida
  13) Pitt
  14) Navy
  15) Miami (FL)
  16) Nebraska
  17) Stanford
  18) Florida State
  
  I am being facetious (well I do think there are people who think this way) but the fact remains. The traditional elite schools do not want to see anyone outside of their group have a shot at winning it all. The non-elites schedule is always subject to question and even when they do win a big game, they are told the other team was either really not any good or was not prepared for the game. Conversely, we are told when the elite teams play, everyone gives them their best shot. If an elite loses a game, it was the wear and tear of their tough schedule.
  
  Maybe all the hypocrisy should end and the elite schools form their own divsion and play amongst themselves.
• enigmaax

  trep - So, Alabama losing a first round game to maybe the #8 team in the country means they aren't as good as another team who may have lost two games to crappy teams but who happened to win a game on the same day Bama lost?
  
  And your references to the NFL don't really prove anything because I have already said that I don't agree that their system is the best. You are just falling back on the other-people-do-it-so-it-must-be-right argument. That doesn't work. No system is perfect and a playoff isn't some magic solution that fixes whatever people think is wrong with college football. Fact is, college football does pretty damn well for itself and it isn't really going to get much, if any better with a playoff system. So, there's no reason to change it.
• enigmaax

  Little Danny;476786 wrote:
  Maybe all the hypocrisy should end and the elite schools form their own divsion and play amongst themselves.

  
  Or if all the little guys want to be treated appropriately, they could choose the lower division that has a playoff. Oh wait, there's more money to be made by playing FBS? So really, the motivation for everyone is the same and they are all hypocrites.
• sleeper

  

  trep14;476755 wrote:Wow, you sound a little bitter towards the SEC. You realize that teams from your conference don't win 4 national championships in a row solely because of geography, right? The SEC is good.

  
  Not bitter. The fact remains the Big Ten still holds more championships in its history(with 38) to the SEC(with 36), and has a 16-15 record against the SEC since the inception of the BCS(let's not even get into the semantics of the better overall record too). I get tired of hearing about how great the SEC is, when in fact they are 2nd best, at best. This doesn't even include adding another national and prestigious program in Nebraska, or the fact that the SEC, pound for pound, is the WORST academic conference in the nation, constantly breaks NCAA rules by over signing players, and the fact that 95% of bowl games(and let's be honest almost 100% of their OOC games) are played in the south(and some even in the same city!).
  
  It sucks, largely because ESPN will play to the masses of ignorant and delusional fans, and those fans are largely in the SEC. If you're an SEC fan, you probably don't have a job with a salary, so you can spend all your time(and welfare dollars) at your local bar watching ESPN spew about how great the SEC is. You're being played like a fiddle, and the best part is, you don't even know it!
• trep14

  enigmaax;476787 wrote:trep - So, Alabama losing a first round game to maybe the #8 team in the country means they aren't as good as another team who may have lost two games to crappy teams but who happened to win a game on the same day Bama lost?
  
  And your references to the NFL don't really prove anything because I have already said that I don't agree that their system is the best. You are just falling back on the other-people-do-it-so-it-must-be-right argument. That doesn't work. No system is perfect and a playoff isn't some magic solution that fixes whatever people think is wrong with college football. Fact is, college football does pretty damn well for itself and it isn't really going to get much, if any better with a playoff system. So, there's no reason to change it.

  
  The idea is that the team who lost two games to crappy teams A) probably wouldn't make the playoffs, or B) if that team is as crappy as you say they are, they probably won't run a gauntlet against good teams in a playoff system. Likewise, if Bama is as good as you are making them out to be and they deserve to go to the championship game, they won't lose to the #8 team in the country.
  
  Its not just the NFL. Its literally every single other sport and every single level of football, including other NCAA divisions, that have a postseason tournament to determine a champion. Why? Because it is the closest way we can come to determining who the best team is on the field. And the idea of "everyone else does it so it must be better" is flawed? Not really. Just because college football's system is making money doesn't mean its model is a better indicator of who the best team is. So yes, that is a legitimate reason to change it. And who says that a playoff wouldn't be as lucrative? Haven't you seen the posts of other fans that are on this thread? Like a 3 week playoff at the end of the college football season would be anything but awesome?
• trep14

  sleeper;476809 wrote:Not bitter. The fact remains the Big Ten still holds more championships in its history(with 38) to the SEC(with 36), and has a 16-15 record against the SEC since the inception of the BCS(let's not even get into the semantics of the better overall record too). I get tired of hearing about how great the SEC is, when in fact they are 2nd best, at best. This doesn't even include adding another national and prestigious program in Nebraska, or the fact that the SEC, pound for pound, is the WORST academic conference in the nation, constantly breaks NCAA rules by over signing players, and the fact that 95% of bowl games(and let's be honest almost 100% of their OOC games) are played in the south(and some even in the same city!).
  
  It sucks, largely because ESPN will play to the masses of ignorant and delusional fans, and those fans are largely in the SEC. If you're an SEC fan, you probably don't have a job with a salary, so you can spend all your time(and welfare dollars) at your local bar watching ESPN spew about how great the SEC is. You're being played like a fiddle, and the best part is, you don't even know it!

  
  Since the BCS era, the Big 10 has exactly 1 (one) championship to its name. The last two times the Big 10 champion has been matched up against the SEC champion, the result has been embarrassing. Right now, the SEC, as a league, is better than the Big 10. Minus Utah beating the pants off of Bama, they have been lights out in BCS bowl games. I don't really care about what happened in the leather helmet days or when football footage is in black and white. Whens the last time Nebraska played in a BCS game? When they got stomped by the Canes in '01? I'm an Ohio State fan dude, I'm not a fan of a team in the SEC. That doesn't mean you can't admit that the SEC has been a superior football conference lately. As for academics, umm does anyone really care who has better academics when it comes to what happens on the football field. Its not like Ohio State, Iowa, and Michigan have a bunch of kids out there running around on the field that have 4.0's and 30+ ACT scores.
• sleeper

  

  trep14;476944 wrote:Right now, the SEC, as a league, is better than the Big 10.

  
  This statement is just blatently false. If the SEC is so great, why does it have a LOSING record against the Big Ten since the inception of the BCS?
  
  Having a team from your conference win a title just means you had the best team in your conference, it doesn't boost up the strength of your conference. You have to look at depth, and top to bottom, Big Ten is better than the SEC.
  
  Just the facts!
• Mooney44Cards

  

  trep14;476777 wrote:Like I said, a playoff system will determine who can beat multiple particular teams (quality teams, might I add) on multiple particular days. That team is going to have to be pretty darn good. Does that not give a better idea of who the best team is than a single game where the best two teams may not even be playing? Its not a one shot deal. No one would hand Boise State the championship if they beat Alabama in the first round. And guess what? If they beat Alabama in the first round of a win or go home playoff, that is a pretty strong endorsement of Alabama not being the best team in college football. We care about what happens in the postseason, right? Big time players make big time plays? For instance in the NFL, no one is going to remember the Colts rolling through the regular season and the only thing keeping them from going undefeated was Jim Caldwell holding the starters out in the last two weeks of the season. Everyone is going to remember the pick Peyton Manning threw in the fourth quarter to seal the Saints win. If you are one of the best teams, you need to show it in the playoffs. Period.

  
  I bolded the part that would ruin college football. Man how sweet would it be if Tressel rested Pryor for Iowa AND Michigan because he had already locked up a playoff spot! SOOOOO much more exciting!
• trep14

  Mooney44Cards;476959 wrote:I bolded the part that would ruin college football. Man how sweet would it be if Tressel rested Pryor for Iowa AND Michigan because he had already locked up a playoff spot! SOOOOO much more exciting!

  
  I already acknowledged that if you expanded the playoff system too much, you would devalue the regular season. Which is why I said that I think 16 teams is too big. That being said, I would still take the 16 team playoff over what we have now. I'd rather OSU rest their starters more towards the end of the season and have an opportunity to play for the National Championship than if they were to be shut out of the NC game for intangible reasons in a season.
• sleeper

  

  Mooney44Cards;476959 wrote:I bolded the part that would ruin college football. Man how sweet would it be if Tressel rested Pryor for Iowa AND Michigan because he had already locked up a playoff spot! SOOOOO much more exciting!

  
  This is delusional.
  
  8 team playoff, the 6 power conferences send their champion, and then you have 2 wildcards.
  
  These wild cards are given priority to the other non-power conferences given, 1)They have won their conference, 2)They are ranked in the top 8
  
  If no non-power conferences qualify, then the next 2 highest ranked teams NOT already in the tournament get placed accordingly. Seeding is done by poll rankings.
  
  Tressel would be stupid to throw away games at the end of the season, because even if you already have the conference locked up, you want to get a better seed.
• trep14

  sleeper;476953 wrote:This statement is just blatently false. If the SEC is so great, why does it have a LOSING record against the Big Ten since the inception of the BCS?
  
  Having a team from your conference win a title just means you had the best team in your conference, it doesn't boost up the strength of your conference. You have to look at depth, and top to bottom, Big Ten is better than the SEC.
  
  Just the facts!

  
  Like I said, even looking back at earlier this decade, the Big 10 was a stronger conference than what it has been lately. I know they made some strides this past year (winning two BCS games is impressive), but what happened in 1999 doesn't really impact the here and now. The fact of the matter is Big 10 teams have lost a lot of nonconference games lately, alot of those being on national TV and some of them being in an embarrassing fashion. That really doesn't make a good impression. The SEC, on the other hand, has won a lot of nonconference games lately, alot of those being on national TV and some of them being in a blowout fashion. That, coupled with the past 4 national championships and numerous BCS bowl wins, really reflects well on the SEC.
• sleeper

  

  All that and still a losing record against the Big Ten LOL
• trep14

  sleeper;476984 wrote:All that and still a losing record against the Big Ten LOL

  
  Yeah I guess when Wisconsin beats Tennessee in the Outback Bowl or whatever, its more impressive than Florida laying waste to Ohio State in the National Championship game.
• sleeper

  

  It counts the same. Look the SEC is a great conference, but its still 2nd best. Learn your place, the Big Ten is still on top.
• Mooney44Cards

  

  When did this thread turn into a Big Ten vs. SEC pissing match? Take it elsewhere.