Anybody else feel like this week was meaningless? (Playoff apologist thread)

• HitsRus

  

  Auburn would absolutely rest their starters for at least a half if they were trying to make a playoff. You are playing the #11 team in the country. Even if you lose...you fall to MAYBE 6.

  Allright...make it a six team playoff...that can be arranged. Seriously, are you really going to take a chance by sandbagging a game? And even if 'mathematically' you have a spot 'locked up' how many teams will that apply to?....maybe #1.
  

  Also, there is a huge difference between using the BCS to pick 8 spots vs using it to pick 2 spots. 8 spots gives you a much greater chance of actually crowning the best team as the national champion.

  This.
  Anybody who actually has a legitimate claim after the regular season is included. If you lost a game you are at the mercy of the BCS,... that's the penalty for not taking care of business.
• sherm03

  

  HitsRus;570596 wrote:Allright...make it a six team playoff...that can be arranged. Seriously, are you really going to take a chance by sandbagging a game? And even if 'mathematically' you have a spot 'locked up' how many teams will that apply to?....maybe #1.

  Six team playoff? LOL. Good luck getting the conferences to agree to that. This year...that would mean that nobody from the Big 12, Big East, ACC, or the Big 10 would make the playoffs. I would love to see the tone of this board if Ohio State was the #8 team in a 6 team playoff scenario. I doubt everyone would still be as high on the idea as they are now.
• j_crazy

  

  I had a blast at the Ole Miss LSU game.
  
  other than that i didn't really pay attention. i've come to grips that we are more than likely doomed to have an Oregon/Boise/TCU/Auburn title game and that if Auburn wins it will most likely be vacated in 18-72 months. once you get to that point it's fun to just watch any game.
• HitsRus

  

  Six team playoff? LOL. Good luck getting the conferences to agree to that

  ????well they are not getting in this year, are they?...and they agreed to that! All of those conferences regularly have teams in the top 8. On any given year, they could be shut out....but that's what the situation is now anyway.
• sherm03

  

  HitsRus;570713 wrote:????well they are not getting in this year, are they?...and they agreed to that! All of those conferences regularly have teams in the top 8. On any given year, they could be shut out....but that's what the situation is now anyway.

  
  That's not the situation now at all. That's why the AQ conferences have automatic bowl bids. The six conference champions are guaranteed a spot in the BCS Bowls...regardless of how they finish up.
• enigmaax

  sherm03;570727 wrote:That's not the situation now at all. That's why the AQ conferences have automatic bowl bids. The six conference champions are guaranteed a spot in the BCS Bowls...regardless of how they finish up.

  
  Exactly. If they went to a playoff, where would the money be coming from and who'd get it? The big money now comes from the BCS bowls and the major conferences are guaranteed a slice. The Big East and ACC wouldn't have had many playoff teams in recent history so their outlook wouldn't be good without a guarantee into the playoffs. Next, you have the Big Ten, who typically gets two BCS teams whether they deserve it or not because a school like OSU is going to draw money and the Rose Bowl will typically try to maintain its traditional matchup. A Big Ten champion would generally make a 6 or 8 team playoff, but leaving that second team at home leaves a shit ton of money on the table.
  
  So, half of the conferences lose a major piece of pie right off the bat. The argument is going to continue to be futile when your entire focus is on crowning one champion. College football is more about the greatest good for the highest number. The champion situation is addressed and other schools are still able to rake in the cash. Until someone has a reason and a way that is better than the current system on ALL fronts, it is pointless to try and debate it. More teams in a playoff doesn't make it a better system.
• BoatShoes

  sherm03;569995 wrote:This is my favorite argument that people clamoring for a playoff use because it is absolutely stupid. Basically, you are saying that the BCS is good enough to pick the top 8 teams...but not good enough to pick the top 2 teams. That makes no sense. If you the BCS doesn't work...you can't use it to decide your playoff teams. And how are you going to get all the conferences to sign off on the fact that their conference champion might not make the playoffs? Right now the playoffs would be nothing but PAC 10, Big 10, SEC, and Boise and TCU. So no Big 12 teams, no Big East, no ACC. Good luck getting those conferences to sign off on THAT deal!
  
  
  
  Yes, Saturday was not as exciting. But when was the last time the top 4 teams were all off on the same week this late in the season? I don't remember it happening in my lifetime.
  
  The regular season still means something. If Ohio State lost yesterday, they could punch their ticket to the Capital One bowl. Instead, they were in a must win to keep their hopes of a BCS bowl alive.
  
  On the other side of the coin. The Iron Bowl would be absolutely pointless this year if there were a playoff because Alabama probably wouldn't climb high enough if they won...and Auburn wouldn't fall enough if they lost.
  
  So yes, the regular season is still extremely important for the teams still looking for a big money bowl. A playoff would just mean that these last few weeks are completely pointless.

  
  I think it should be determined by conference champions. The argument is that a playoff system isn't necessarily better at determining who the "best" team is at the end of the season a metaphysical sense. Nevertheless, it does determine who is the champion. The best teams aren't always champions. Champions, who've proved it by conquering attackers from any corner of the country are what we value.
  
  Every Conference's champions battle it out against each other for the national championship.
• enigmaax

  BoatShoes;570786 wrote:I think it should be determined by conference champions. The argument is that a playoff system isn't necessarily better at determining who the "best" team is at the end of the season a metaphysical sense. Nevertheless, it does determine who is the champion. The best teams aren't always champions. Champions, who've proved it by conquering attackers from any corner of the country are what we value.
  
  Every Conference's champions battle it out against each other for the national championship.

  
  Every conference? Like, the Sun Belt champion gets equal billing as the SEC, Big Ten, etc. champion?
• BoatShoes

  enigmaax;570801 wrote:Every conference? Like, the Sun Belt champion gets equal billing as the SEC, Big Ten, etc. champion?

  
  Yes even the Sun Belt. Fwiw, I think it would allow those schools to be able recruit better. They're public institutions with a significant bargaining chip to be used against attracting the top talent completely off the table because they're blocked out of it by a Cartel. There's 11 Conferences. For good measure take 5 at large teams. 15 games over four weeks. Awesome. Winning your conference would mean something. Let's stop playing guessing games about who the best teams are with a couple weeks of non-conference play at the beginning of the year and really prove it on the field after you can get through your conference.
• jhay78

  

  THe "regular season is more exciting without a playoff" argument is so tired and old it's annoying.
  
  Guess what happens if you lose a tough road game early in the season? The rest of your games are MEANINGLESS. That goes for LSU, Stanford, Ohio State, Okie St., all of whom (if they stay at one loss) would do just fine in an 8-team playoff.
• BoatShoes

  jhay78;570889 wrote:THe "regular season is more exciting without a playoff" argument is so tired and old it's annoying.
  
  Guess what happens if you lose a tough road game early in the season? The rest of your games are MEANINGLESS. That goes for LSU, Stanford, Ohio State, Okie St., all of whom (if they stay at one loss) would do just fine in an 8-team playoff.

  
  I agree. Can you imagine if at this point in the year we were trying to win a big ten title, not so we can go to the fiesta bowl, play an exhibition game and go home, but to try to lock up the Big Ten's seed for a playoff spot? And then, the ensuing weeks when the games were being played? It would be unreal.
• Mulva

  

  enigmaax;568327 wrote:I understand that YOU want a playoff. But the "need" for a playoff isn't supported by your point that teams are playing for nothing. A lot of teams are playing for something, which is better than nothing even if it doesn't make YOU interested in those games.

  
  You could implement a playoff without eliminating lesser bowl games. I don't understand why some people can't grasp that concept.
  
  Example... there are 4 postseason tournaments in college basketball. It's not like you either make the NCAA tournament or you sit at home.
  
  If you don't make the playoffs you could still go to the Sun bowl and be in the exact same situation you would have been in before.
• SportsAndLady

  

  jhay78;570889 wrote:THe "regular season is more exciting without a playoff" argument is so tired and old it's annoying. .

  
  I do not think it is at all. You're telling me that all a team has to do is win their conference, teams would still schedule big time OOC games? Hell, if all you had to do is win your conference, OOC games would cease to exist. Why would teams risk injuries in a meaningless OOC games that could ruin their conference season? And take for example Auburn this week against Alabama. Auburn already has a conference title game locked up...so why should they care about Alabama? It is literally a meaningless game with a playoff system. But with the BCS system, it's one of the biggest games of the season.
• sherm03

  

  SportsAndLady;570933 wrote:I do not think it is at all. You're telling me that all a team has to do is win their conference, teams would still schedule big time OOC games? Hell, if all you had to do is win your conference, OOC games would cease to exist. Why would teams risk injuries in a meaningless OOC games that could ruin their conference season? And take for example Auburn this week against Alabama. Auburn already has a conference title game locked up...so why should they care about Alabama? It is literally a meaningless game with a playoff system. But with the BCS system, it's one of the biggest games of the season.

  Bingo.
• jhay78

  

  SportsAndLady;570933 wrote:I do not think it is at all. You're telling me that all a team has to do is win their conference, teams would still schedule big time OOC games? Hell, if all you had to do is win your conference, OOC games would cease to exist. Why would teams risk injuries in a meaningless OOC games that could ruin their conference season? And take for example Auburn this week against Alabama. Auburn already has a conference title game locked up...so why should they care about Alabama? It is literally a meaningless game with a playoff system. But with the BCS system, it's one of the biggest games of the season.

  sherm03;571114 wrote:Bingo.

  
  I don't think you necessarily have to win your conference- just take the top 8 in the BCS standings. OOC games would still be huge.
  
  As for Auburn-Alabama, yeah it wouldn't mean as much with a playoff, but for every one of those, you have about 10 games right now involving one-loss teams that have absolutely no bearing on a Nat'l championship. 2008 is a perfect example. USC, Texas, Penn St., etc. played half their seasons for nothing because some computers and polls thought Oklahoma & Florida were the best 2.
• enigmaax

  BoatShoes;570832 wrote:Yes even the Sun Belt. Fwiw, I think it would allow those schools to be able recruit better. They're public institutions with a significant bargaining chip to be used against attracting the top talent completely off the table because they're blocked out of it by a Cartel. There's 11 Conferences. For good measure take 5 at large teams. 15 games over four weeks. Awesome. Winning your conference would mean something. Let's stop playing guessing games about who the best teams are with a couple weeks of non-conference play at the beginning of the year and really prove it on the field after you can get through your conference.

  
  Well, that is ludicrous. IF you are going to sell a playoff, it is probably going to be on the premise that you are giving the best teams a chance to win it all. What you are saying dumbs down the playoffs beyond all reasonability and still doesn't necessarily reward the most deserving/best/whatever teams.
• enigmaax

  Mulva;570910 wrote:You could implement a playoff without eliminating lesser bowl games. I don't understand why some people can't grasp that concept.
  
  Example... there are 4 postseason tournaments in college basketball. It's not like you either make the NCAA tournament or you sit at home.
  
  If you don't make the playoffs you could still go to the Sun bowl and be in the exact same situation you would have been in before.

  
  It isn't that I can't grasp it. It is that it won't happen or won't allow the bowl system to remain sustainable. It is easy to say, "oh we'll keep them" but it isn't as easy to then make enough money selling them. You automatically shit on your money bowls with a playoff and those are the crux of the system.
• BoatShoes

  enigmaax;571155 wrote:Well, that is ludicrous. IF you are going to sell a playoff, it is probably going to be on the premise that you are giving the best teams a chance to win it all. What you are saying dumbs down the playoffs beyond all reasonability and still doesn't necessarily reward the most deserving/best/whatever teams.

  
  Is that right? So, in the NFL, it is dumb to reward the champions of their divisions with playoff births? What about in Major League Baseball? In those sports, the good teams that don't win their league have the opportunity to make it as a wild card. It seems that the scenario I have proposed is similar. Doesn't it follow, that if my proposal is ludicrous to the point of a complete lack of reason, than you are committed, if consistency is any guide, to believe that playoff systems such as those in the NFL or Major League baseball that reward league champions first and then good teams who fail to win their leagues second, are ludicrous and utterly unreasonable?
  
  Seems to me that most people don't find the playoff systems in those sports to be ludicrous.
• BoatShoes

  SportsAndLady;570933 wrote:I do not think it is at all. You're telling me that all a team has to do is win their conference, teams would still schedule big time OOC games? Hell, if all you had to do is win your conference, OOC games would cease to exist. Why would teams risk injuries in a meaningless OOC games that could ruin their conference season? And take for example Auburn this week against Alabama. Auburn already has a conference title game locked up...so why should they care about Alabama? It is literally a meaningless game with a playoff system. But with the BCS system, it's one of the biggest games of the season.

  
  If they lose to Bama and then lose their conference championship game they would risk not making the playoffs as an at large bid as well.
  
  As to early OOC games. tOSU this had the Miami Hurricanes scheduled and it was supposed to be a big game. It turns out that our biggest OOC game was really not that big of a game. To me, its problematic that we try to determine where teams stand cross-conference early in the season and it in many ways is of know epistemic value in determining who is really "better."
  
  I think it would be much more exciting to eliminate some of these overhyped early season out of conference games and push them to the end of the season in a playoff; this way you have out of conference games between teams that are the best of the best in their respective regions of the country. For instance, next year, the Buckeyes have Colorado scheduled. Who knows what kind of measure that says about cross conference strength if we're to suppose Colorado remains week. Now, imagine if, Colorado comes back to life and earns a spot in a playoff at the end of the year and the Buckeyes find themselves seeded against them. I know which game I would be more pumped up for.
• SportsAndLady

  

  BoatShoes;571209 wrote:Is that right? So, in the NFL, it is dumb to reward the champions of their divisions with playoff births? What about in Major League Baseball? In those sports, the good teams that don't win their league have the opportunity to make it as a wild card. It seems that the scenario I have proposed is similar. Doesn't it follow, that if my proposal is ludicrous to the point of a complete lack of reason, than you are committed, if consistency is any guide, to believe that playoff systems such as those in the NFL or Major League baseball that reward league champions first and then good teams who fail to win their leagues second, are ludicrous and utterly unreasonable?
  
  Seems to me that most people don't find the playoff systems in those sports to be ludicrous.

  
  So you're comparing a professional football league of 32 teams to a semi-voluntary association consisting of amateur participants with over 100 teams?
• enigmaax

  BoatShoes;571209 wrote:Is that right? So, in the NFL, it is dumb to reward the champions of their divisions with playoff births? What about in Major League Baseball? In those sports, the good teams that don't win their league have the opportunity to make it as a wild card. It seems that the scenario I have proposed is similar. Doesn't it follow, that if my proposal is ludicrous to the point of a complete lack of reason, than you are committed, if consistency is any guide, to believe that playoff systems such as those in the NFL or Major League baseball that reward league champions first and then good teams who fail to win their leagues second, are ludicrous and utterly unreasonable?
  
  Seems to me that most people don't find the playoff systems in those sports to be ludicrous.

  
  COMPLETELY different dynamics there. Although, the professional systems aren't perfect either - is there any reason an 8-8 division champion should be in the playoffs over an 11-5 team in a better division?
  
  Still, there's a relative equality at the professional level for many reasons, not the least of which is the smaller pool of teams and well, they're professionals. There is a wide discrepancy between talent levels even within the Football Bowl Subdivision. There is absolutely no way any playoff would ever or should ever involve an automatic bid for a 6-6 or 7-5 Sun Belt champion over any team from a major conference that has the same number of wins, let alone 9 or 10 wins. The record of that conference and the average scores over history offer a little insight into the discrepancy in talent. Not everything in life is equal and handling those inequities accordingly is not "unfair".
• enigmaax

  SportsAndLady;571240 wrote:So you're comparing a professional football league of 32 teams to a semi-voluntary association consisting of amateur participants with over 100 teams?

  
  Ha ha...hadn't read that far before I typed my response.
• BoatShoes

  SportsAndLady;571240 wrote:So you're comparing a professional football league of 32 teams to a semi-voluntary association consisting of amateur participants with over 100 teams?

  
  I feel like that is a strawman. 1. I don't see why professionals and amateurs need necessarily employ different methods of choosing champions. 2. The semi voluntary association with over 100 teams uses the same general concept of determining a champion as that 32 team professional league in every single sport except 1, the one sport that most closely mirrors that of the professional league you're citing.
  
  The playoff concept is a very general one applicable to all kinds of concepts from politics to American Idol.
• enigmaax

  BoatShoes;571443 wrote:I feel like that is a strawman. 1. I don't see why professionals and amateurs need necessarily employ different methods of choosing champions. 2. The semi voluntary association with over 100 teams uses the same general concept of determining a champion as that 32 team professional league in every single sport except 1, the one sport that most closely mirrors that of the professional league you're citing.
  
  The playoff concept is a very general one applicable to all kinds of concepts from politics to American Idol.

  
  So the college basketball tournament is stupid because they don't play a series, like the professional sport it most closely resembles - the NBA?
  
  And college football does have a playoff - they take the top two teams, who then play for a title...on the field...just like every other sport. You just want more teams in that playoff.
• SportsAndLady

  

  BoatShoes;571443 wrote:I feel like that is a strawman. 1. I don't see why professionals and amateurs need necessarily employ different methods of choosing champions. 2. The semi voluntary association with over 100 teams uses the same general concept of determining a champion as that 32 team professional league in every single sport except 1, the one sport that most closely mirrors that of the professional league you're citing.
  
  The playoff concept is a very general one applicable to all kinds of concepts from politics to American Idol.

  
  1) It's not a strawman argument. I can't counter your argument logically when your argument does not make any logical sense. You can't look at the 119 team field and compare it to a 32 team field, and that isn't even getting into the basics. You're gonna put a 7-5 MAC team in a playoff and leave out a 11-1 SEC team, and you'll see lawsuits flying all over the place. The amount of monetary compensation you are keeping from that 11-1 SEC team and offering it to a 7-5 MAC team is borderline theft.
  
  2) If you really want me to list the differences between the NFL and the NCAA, I will. But I would rather not, as it would be quite lengthy. "The semi voluntary association with over 100 teams uses the same general concept of determining a champion as that 32 team professional league in every single sport except 1, the one sport that most closely mirrors that of the professional league you're citing." I'm not sure what that even means. Seems like you left out a word or two, I don't know.
  
  3) The playoff concept is anything but a general concept. It's so complex I don't even know where to begin. The logistical issues alone would set a playoff back 2 or 3 years. It's not a general concept at all..to say it is is laughable lol <---see, I laughed.