What?????

[Cannon Shell]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4805271

I rarely believe that Congress should meddle in non-congressional type things like sports but after reading this idiocy there is no doubt that they should get involved. If you were caught in bed with the neighbor by your wife you could conjure up better reasoning than this...

More injuries? So those lower division players are more at risk because their games are called playoff games instead of bowl games?

Comparing attendance figures at Division 1AA and lower to what the big schools get is apples and oranges. Like comparing attendance at Thistledowns and Keeneland.

Final Exams? Yeah sure......academics!!! Give me a break.

Diminish the importance of the regular season? How exactly would it be diminished as compared to now? 10 teams get to go to BCS games, the rest live with the scraps. Who said we needed to get rid of the lesser bowls? Why are they relevant now?

If he believes college football has never been better he must not have watched the big 10 regular season outside of OSU, the entire ACC regular season, the Big 12 North or the Big East. Or watched the Sugar Bowl or most of the other mostly dull bowl games this year.

[31lengths]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4805271

I rarely believe that Congress should meddle in non-congressional type things like sports but after reading this idiocy there is no doubt that they should get involved. If you were caught in bed with the neighbor by your wife you could conjure up better reasoning than this...

More injuries? So those lower division players are more at risk because their games are called playoff games instead of bowl games?

Comparing attendance figures at Division 1AA and lower to what the big schools get is apples and oranges. Like comparing attendance at Thistledowns and Keeneland.

Final Exams? Yeah sure......academics!!! Give me a break.

Diminish the importance of the regular season? How exactly would it be diminished as compared to now? 10 teams get to go to BCS games, the rest live with the scraps. Who said we needed to get rid of the lesser bowls? Why are they relevant now?

If he believes college football has never been better he must not have watched the big 10 regular season outside of OSU, the entire ACC regular season, the Big 12 North or the Big East. Or watched the Sugar Bowl or most of the other mostly dull bowl games this year.

Most unfortunate. The BCS doesn't have to cease and desist. It would be great if the BCS games are the playoffs (6 teams). Conference Championship games already serve as a first round of sorts.

[miraja2]

I agree with Chuck that the arguments made about injuries and academics are nonsense.

I do, however, think that going to a playoff would greatly reduce the importance of the regular season. Remember a few years ago when Ohio State and Michigan were ranked 1 and 2 and met in the final game of the regular season? The winner got a shot at the title. The loser did not. If there was a playoff that year, both teams would have been in it regardless of the outcome of that game and the game may have resembled one of the final games of the Colts' season this year rather than the classic battle that it ended up being.
The current system severely punishes every loss a team suffers in the regular season in a way that an 8 or 16 team playoff never would. By definition that would mean that regular season games would be less important than they are now.

Clearly there would be things gained by going to a playoff - and those gains are obvious - but I also think there are some less obvious things that would be lost. It is pretty cool that the national championship is on the line every single time a team takes the field in the college football season. You never have a college football team with championship aspirations playing in a regular season game that means absolutely NOTHING the way you had the last couple of weeks in the NFL. If they do ever go to a playoff, I would hope that they do a 6-team playoff with the top 2 teams getting byes and then home-field advantage in the semifinal games in order to maintain the importance of the regular season. To me there would be something stupid about a 12-0 #1 seed getting no advantage over some 8-4 #16 seed. That would unquestionably hurt the greatness of the college football regular season.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I agree with Chuck that the arguments made about injuries and academics are nonsense.

I do, however, think that going to a playoff would greatly reduce the importance of the regular season. Remember a few years ago when Ohio State and Michigan were ranked 1 and 2 and met in the final game of the regular season? The winner got a shot at the title. The loser did not. If there was a playoff that year, both teams would have been in it regardless of the outcome of that game and the game may have resembled one of the final games of the Colts' season this year rather than the classic battle that it ended up being.
The current system severely punishes every loss a team suffers in the regular season in a way that an 8 or 16 team playoff never would. By definition that would mean that regular season games would be less important than they are now.

Clearly there would be things gained by going to a playoff - and those gains are obvious - but I also think there are some less obvious things that would be lost. It is pretty cool that the national championship is on the line every single time a team takes the field in the college football season. You never have a college football team with championship aspirations playing in a regular season game that means absolutely NOTHING the way you had the last couple of weeks in the NFL. If they do ever go to a playoff, I would hope that they do a 6-team playoff with the top 2 teams getting byes and then home-field advantage in the semifinal games in order to maintain the importance of the regular season. To me there would be something stupid about a 12-0 #1 seed getting no advantage over some 8-4 #16 seed. That would unquestionably hurt the greatness of the college football regular season.

You wouldn't trade a slightly diminished regular season for a badass and finally meaningful postseason? I'm pretty sure the ratings lost in the regular season would be more than made up for in the month of postseason games. That guy's arguments are ridiculous.

[Danzig]

regardless of what issues some have with the bcs, i completely disagree that congress needs to get involved.

[31lengths]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You wouldn't trade a slightly diminished regular season for a badass and finally meaningful postseason? I'm pretty sure the ratings lost in the regular season would be more than made up for in the month of postseason games. That guy's arguments are ridiculous.

Good points by both. I would trade. But I also think that the "post season" should consist of a 6 team only play off system. It's rare that someone ranked 7th or more can boast a record to play for a National title. So with an only 6 team play off system, it would almost insure that the regular season would NOT be diminished. I agree that most of that article was nonsense. I'd like to see something to the effect of -

On a rotating schedule.
Dec 24 Cotton #6 v #3
Dec 24 Orange #5 v #4
Dec 31 Fiesta #1 v Worst winner from the Coton/Orange
Dec 31 Rose #2 v Best winner from the Coton/Orange
Jan 7 Sugar Championship Game

While there would not be extra games (revenue), this system was meant more to determine WHO should actually play for the title. Which is what I think most fans would like.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I agree with Chuck that the arguments made about injuries and academics are nonsense.

I do, however, think that going to a playoff would greatly reduce the importance of the regular season. Remember a few years ago when Ohio State and Michigan were ranked 1 and 2 and met in the final game of the regular season? The winner got a shot at the title. The loser did not. If there was a playoff that year, both teams would have been in it regardless of the outcome of that game and the game may have resembled one of the final games of the Colts' season this year rather than the classic battle that it ended up being.
The current system severely punishes every loss a team suffers in the regular season in a way that an 8 or 16 team playoff never would. By definition that would mean that regular season games would be less important than they are now.

Clearly there would be things gained by going to a playoff - and those gains are obvious - but I also think there are some less obvious things that would be lost. It is pretty cool that the national championship is on the line every single time a team takes the field in the college football season. You never have a college football team with championship aspirations playing in a regular season game that means absolutely NOTHING the way you had the last couple of weeks in the NFL. If they do ever go to a playoff, I would hope that they do a 6-team playoff with the top 2 teams getting byes and then home-field advantage in the semifinal games in order to maintain the importance of the regular season. To me there would be something stupid about a 12-0 #1 seed getting no advantage over some 8-4 #16 seed. That would unquestionably hurt the greatness of the college football regular season.

Saying the regular season would be meaningless completely ignores the fact that there are these little things called conference championships. First off you need to have a 16 team playoff tht includes every conference champion like basketball. Add to that 5 at large teams which surely would include the top 12 teams in the country. Ply the first round at home fields, seed the playoff so that the at large teams go on the road so that the championship still means something. Eliminate one regular season game off of every teams schedule (I mean do we really need to see FL play 3 rollover teams a year?)

I'm surprised to see a bleeding heart like you not see the patent unfairness in a system that doesnt give every division 1 team a chance at winning. The regular season would be more important as virtually every team with more than 1 loss would be close to the edge. Your idea that a national championship is one the line everytime a team takes the field is not that accurate since as we have seen some teams losing means a lot less than others as evidenced by LSU a few years ago. Not to mention it favors teams that play a weak non conference schedule as to beat up on weak teams and not lose. There have been far too many seasons where you are left thinking that the team that is the national champion isnt the best team but the team that had the most fortunate timing. In hoops, you earn it. In football you play the system and then hope everything falls into place.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You wouldn't trade a slightly diminished regular season for a badass and finally meaningful postseason? I'm pretty sure the ratings lost in the regular season would be more than made up for in the month of postseason games. That guy's arguments are ridiculous.

I still dont see how the ratings in the regular season would be lost. It isnt as though 4 loss teams from the SEC would be qualifying. In a 8 tem playoff you would have pretty much the same teams as you already hve in the BCS.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

regardless of what issues some have with the bcs, i completely disagree that congress needs to get involved.

It is the only way these people will change. That or if someone does some investigating and someone gets indicted.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Saying the regular season would be meaningless completely ignores the fact that there are these little things called conference championships. First off you need to have a 16 team playoff tht includes every conference champion like basketball. Add to that 5 at large teams which surely would include the top 12 teams in the country. Ply the first round at home fields, seed the playoff so that the at large teams go on the road so that the championship still means something. Eliminate one regular season game off of every teams schedule (I mean do we really need to see FL play 3 rollover teams a year?)

I'm surprised to see a bleeding heart like you not see the patent unfairness in a system that doesnt give every division 1 team a chance at winning. The regular season would be more important as virtually every team with more than 1 loss would be close to the edge. Your idea that a national championship is one the line everytime a team takes the field is not that accurate since as we have seen some teams losing means a lot less than others as evidenced by LSU a few years ago. Not to mention it favors teams that play a weak non conference schedule as to beat up on weak teams and not lose. There have been far too many seasons where you are left thinking that the team that is the national champion isnt the best team but the team that had the most fortunate timing. In hoops, you earn it. In football you play the system and then hope everything falls into place.

I certainly see the points in favor of a playoff, and I'm not saying I am completely opposed to it, but I do think something would be lost. There is no doubt that the regular season would be less meaningful for the top 5 teams in the country under a playoff system. Your idea regarding conference championship has its merits, but obviously the big non-conference games that do exist (Alabama - Va Tech this year for example) would lose a great deal of meaning with regards to the National Championship. Under the current system the national championship was on the line that first game. Under your proposed playoff system, that game really wouldn't matter.

The thing I don't like about a 16-team playoff is this:
Let's say Florida goes undefeated through a regular season and beats LSU in the process. LSU finishes the regular season at....let's say...10-2. Then in the SEC championship game, Florida beats LSU again.
In a 16-team playoff they both make it in and have to win four games for the title. What is Florida's reward for their two victories over LSU? Just home field in the first round? I think that sucks. The business about "settle it on the field" sounds good - and there are good points about it - but I'm not sure that a system which gives a three-loss team an equal shot at the title as an undefeated team is really embracing a "settle it on the field" approach, because it is basically saying that none of those previous games matter.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I certainly see the points in favor of a playoff, and I'm not saying I am completely opposed to it, but I do think something would be lost. There is no doubt that the regular season would be less meaningful for the top 5 teams in the country under a playoff system. Your idea regarding conference championship has its merits, but obviously the big non-conference games that do exist (Alabama - Va Tech this year for example) would lose a great deal of meaning with regards to the National Championship. Under the current system the national championship was on the line that first game. Under your proposed playoff system, that game really wouldn't matter.

The thing I don't like about a 16-team playoff is this:
Let's say Florida goes undefeated through a regular season and beats LSU in the process. LSU finishes the regular season at....let's say...10-2. Then in the SEC championship game, Florida beats LSU again.
In a 16-team playoff they both make it in and have to win four games for the title. What is Florida's reward for their two victories over LSU? Just home field in the first round? I think that sucks. The business about "settle it on the field" sounds good - and there are good points about it - but I'm not sure that a system which gives a three-loss team an equal shot at the title as an undefeated team is really embracing a "settle it on the field" approach, because it is basically saying that none of those previous games matter.

I see what you are saying but FL's lack of reward for beating LSU cant supercede the common good of the entire sport. The VA Tech-Alabama game will still be important as winning big out of conference games will certainly help with seeding and for gaining an at large bid as well. The in your previous post you talked about #1 OSU and #2 Michigan. What what if they were #12 and number #14 with Penn State being number #1? That would effectively be a playin playoff game. There are a million scenarios. Think about the chase in the SEC alone? FL, Alabama, TN, GA, Miss, Ark etc all fighting for 2 spots in the playoff? The smaller bowls can still fill the midweek holiday football fix.

But if you got the 11 conference champions together with the 5 best at large teams and played a playoff you would have something far bigger and better than the current system

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I see what you are saying but FL's lack of reward for beating LSU cant supercede the common good of the entire sport. The VA Tech-Alabama game will still be important as winning big out of conference games will certainly help with seeding and for gaining an at large bid as well. The in your previous post you talked about #1 OSU and #2 Michigan. What what if they were #12 and number #14 with Penn State being number #1? That would effectively be a playin playoff game. There are a million scenarios. Think about the chase in the SEC alone? FL, Alabama, TN, GA, Miss, Ark etc all fighting for 2 spots in the playoff? The smaller bowls can still fill the midweek holiday football fix.

But if you got the 11 conference champions together with the 5 best at large teams and played a playoff you would have something far bigger and better than the current system

Your point about what if they were #12 and #14 is accurate. Your 16-team playoff would certainly make regular season games at the end of the season extremely important for teams in that situation, but I think it would tend to make it less important for teams in the top 5, which I think would be unfortunate.

There is one other thing that I personally kind of like about the current system. In every other sport there are pretty much only three scenarios for a team.
#1) You suck so bad that you don't make the playoffs.
#2) You have a good season, make the playoff in your sport, and then end the season with a loss at some point in that playoff.
#3) You win the championship.
Basically only one team gets to finish the season on a high note. I just kind of like that in the current system some other teams (like Iowa and Ohio State this year) get to finish with a big win too. It is nice for the seniors to finish their careers like that, etc. etc. Now, is maintaining that tradition as important as making sure that teams like TCU and Boise State get a legitimate shot at the national championship? Perhaps not. But it is one kind of cool (and unique) aspect of college football that would largely disappear.
As I've said there would be a lot of good things about a playoff, but I just don't think the BCS is as completely indefensible as the overwhelming majority of others seem to think. That being said, I certainly don't blame people for being frustrated when BCS proponents trot out ridiculous arguments about injuries and academics.