USF vs. BC for NC FTW

[touchmyichi]

Angry that your LSU/Cal/USC/Oklahoma/Oregon/WVU/South Carolina/Kentucky is out of the NC race? Well here's the second best option:

Boston College Vs. South Florida

If this were to occur the glaring fallibility of the BCS system will be exposed. Until this point, we've always had pretty respected big name programs make it to the BCS by quite a bit of luck (note: I'm not saying that these programs are necessarily more deserving, but because they end up there people don't complain as much). However, these two teams could really convince people why it is so urgent to introduce a playoff system.

No offense to any USF or BC fans, in fact, I think your teams are both terrific. But, I don't think you can honestly say that either of your teams have gone through a schedule like LSU or is as good of a team. Yet, this is the entire point of a playoff. There would be no need to bicker about or argue if a 1 loss LSU team is more/less deserving, they would have the chance to prove it.

2 Things need to happen for this to occur:
1. Ohio State needs to lose
2. BC and South Florida win out

Go Bulls/Eagles!!!

 

[LS20]

1. no playoff. this isnt a tournament. the regular season IS a playoff. there are already too many games
2. usf is good. why would them being #1 expose anything? they beat auburn and wvu on the road. their resume is BETTER than lsu
3. the season is not over. bc is not escaping undefeated
4. no playoff.

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: LS20
1. no playoff. this isnt a tournament. the regular season IS a playoff. there are already too many games
2. usf is good. why would them being #1 expose anything? they beat auburn and wvu on the road. their resume is BETTER than lsu
3. the season is not over. bc is not escaping undefeated
4. no playoff.

The regular season is NOT a playoff.

 

[kalster]

oregon is gonna win the NC this year

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: LS20
1. no playoff. this isnt a tournament. the regular season IS a playoff. there are already too many games
2. usf is good. why would them being #1 expose anything? they beat auburn and wvu on the road. their resume is BETTER than lsu
3. the season is not over. bc is not escaping undefeated
4. no playoff.

Please.


How can the regular season be a playoff when the best teams from each conferences don't play each other?

How can it be a playoff when the two best teams from a conference may not play each other?

How can it be a playoff when you lose the last game of the year, don't win your conference, but still manage to backdoor your way into a championship game?

How can it be a playoff if more than two teams end up with zero regular season losses? What if Ohio State, USF, Boston College and Kansas all wind up undefeated? Four teams from four of the BCS conferences. How is it fair to the two teams that don't get to play of the "championship"?

How can it be a playoff if a team with zero losses who proves on the field that they are as good as any team in the country gets absolutely zero consideration for a national championship?

You can lose during the regular season in college football and still win a national championship. That right there tells me that the regular season is not a "playoff".

 

[imported_Devine]

Originally posted by: kalster
oregon is gonna win the NC this year

2nd . . . .. . if only this was true

 

[touchmyichi]

Originally posted by: LS20
1. no playoff. this isnt a tournament. the regular season IS a playoff. there are already too many games
2. usf is good. why would them being #1 expose anything? they beat auburn and wvu on the road. their resume is BETTER than lsu
3. the season is not over. bc is not escaping undefeated
4. no playoff.

1. Wrong, it creates a situation in which there's no accurate way to compare teams to each other, being that they play completely different teams. A playoff is the only way to lend some parity to the teams that emerge on top of this system, despite the setbacks.

2. I was very careful in wording this part. USF IS good, no disrespect to them at all. It's just that most media pundits/fans/etc would feel LSU deserves to be in it. What's the only way to stop this argument? (Playoff)

3. Yup, I'll give you this. Though I never said I thought they would both escape undefeated, which is why I said its something to cheer for.

4. You honestly wouldn't want one?

 

[oiprocs]

The problem with the playoff is that too many universities do not want to see it happen. You get money for winning a bowl game (not sure where it comes from, sponsors, tickets sales, etc.); if you introduce a playoff, those bowl games disappear, and thus the money that went to those winning teams disappear.

There are currently 33 bowl games. The least rewarded bowl is $325,000. Again, I'm not sure how that is split between the loser and the winner, but that means 66 universities will receive monetary compensation for their hard work of earning a spot in one of those bowl games.

Installing a playoff system would effectively remove that reward of money, prestige, pride, etc. Yes, you could have a bracket system where the longer you last in the playoffs, the more money you get, with the National Champion receiving the most money, but how would you structure that? A 66 team playoff bracket? Assuming you did a 64 team playoff, that would require 5 weeks of games (64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2). How tired would teams be? On top of their 12-13 game schedule, the national champion has to play an additional 5 games? What about school? These aren't the pros, these are college athletes that are (or should) be caring about their academics.

Money is really the bottom line. Those sponsors keep lining up to have their name on a bowl game, and they will keep pumping money into the system. Universities like that even though they may not be national champions, they can still savor a 7-5 season with a bowl win. I would LOVE to see a playoff system installed; as a fan, it really is the only way to see who the best is. But our (the fan) perspective is not the one that matters most in this case.

 

[miketheidiot]

i don't want a playoff.

 

[Excelsior]

I love how some people say there are already too many games. A typical NC team might have played a total of 14 games and you're telling me that another game or two would just be too much? If it comes to it, take away one of the non-conference games or use the conference championship game as part of the playoff system. But the fact is, something needs to be done to make the system more effective.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Oiprocs
The problem with the playoff is that too many universities do not want to see it happen. You get money for winning a bowl game (not sure where it comes from, sponsors, tickets sales, etc.); if you introduce a playoff, those bowl games disappear, and thus the money that went to those winning teams disappear.

There are currently 33 bowl games. The least rewarded bowl is $325,000. Again, I'm not sure how that is split between the loser and the winner, but that means 66 universities will receive monetary compensation for their hard work of earning a spot in one of those bowl games.

Installing a playoff system would effectively remove that reward of money, prestige, pride, etc. Yes, you could have a bracket system where the longer you last in the playoffs, the more money you get, with the National Champion receiving the most money, but how would you structure that? A 66 team playoff bracket? Assuming you did a 64 team playoff, that would require 5 weeks of games (64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2). How tired would teams be? On top of their 12-13 game schedule, the national champion has to play an additional 5 games? What about school? These aren't the pros, these are college athletes that are (or should) be caring about their academics.

Money is really the bottom line. Those sponsors keep lining up to have their name on a bowl game, and they will keep pumping money into the system. Universities like that even though they may not be national champions, they can still savor a 7-5 season with a bowl win. I would LOVE to see a playoff system installed; as a fan, it really is the only way to see who the best is. But our (the fan) perspective is not the one that matters most in this case.

Yep, thats the deal.

Except you're totally wrong about a 64 team bracket. This isn't basketball. At most, there would be a 16 team playoff..but a more realistic scenario would be an 8 team playoff. The ones who didn't make the 8 team playoff could maybe play in bowl games.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
I love how some people say there are already too many games. A typical NC team might have played a total of 14 games and you're telling me that another game or two would just be too much? If it comes to it, take away one of the non-conference games or use the conference championship game as part of the playoff system. But the fact is, something needs to be done to make the system more effective.

That and EVERY other collegiate division of football utilizes a playoff system and they don't have a problem with it.

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Excelsior
I love how some people say there are already too many games. A typical NC team might have played a total of 14 games and you're telling me that another game or two would just be too much? If it comes to it, take away one of the non-conference games or use the conference championship game as part of the playoff system. But the fact is, something needs to be done to make the system more effective.

That and EVERY other collegiate division of football utilizes a playoff system and they don't have a problem with it.

Well, that was a much easier argument.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: Oiprocs
The problem with the playoff is that too many universities do not want to see it happen. You get money for winning a bowl game (not sure where it comes from, sponsors, tickets sales, etc.); if you introduce a playoff, those bowl games disappear, and thus the money that went to those winning teams disappear.

There are currently 33 bowl games. The least rewarded bowl is $325,000. Again, I'm not sure how that is split between the loser and the winner, but that means 66 universities will receive monetary compensation for their hard work of earning a spot in one of those bowl games.

Installing a playoff system would effectively remove that reward of money, prestige, pride, etc. Yes, you could have a bracket system where the longer you last in the playoffs, the more money you get, with the National Champion receiving the most money, but how would you structure that? A 66 team playoff bracket? Assuming you did a 64 team playoff, that would require 5 weeks of games (64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2). How tired would teams be? On top of their 12-13 game schedule, the national champion has to play an additional 5 games? What about school? These aren't the pros, these are college athletes that are (or should) be caring about their academics.

Money is really the bottom line. Those sponsors keep lining up to have their name on a bowl game, and they will keep pumping money into the system. Universities like that even though they may not be national champions, they can still savor a 7-5 season with a bowl win. I would LOVE to see a playoff system installed; as a fan, it really is the only way to see who the best is. But our (the fan) perspective is not the one that matters most in this case.

The bowl system does not need to go anywhere. And I'm not sure how a three week playoff at the end of the year is going to affect the Meineke Car Care Bowl or whatever bowl that a fan or alumni is going to go see.

There have been BCS bowl games for going on 9 years and they have not affect the "lower tier" of bowls.

Fans and alumni of the #3 team in the Big Ten / SEC / etc are going to travel and see their team and I'm not sure how knowing that there is a playoff with the top 4 or 8 teams in the country (which your favorite team did not qualify for) would affect that decision.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Excelsior
I love how some people say there are already too many games. A typical NC team might have played a total of 14 games and you're telling me that another game or two would just be too much? If it comes to it, take away one of the non-conference games or use the conference championship game as part of the playoff system. But the fact is, something needs to be done to make the system more effective.

That and EVERY other collegiate division of football utilizes a playoff system and they don't have a problem with it.

WINNAR!

 

[oiprocs]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Oiprocs
The problem with the playoff is that too many universities do not want to see it happen. You get money for winning a bowl game (not sure where it comes from, sponsors, tickets sales, etc.); if you introduce a playoff, those bowl games disappear, and thus the money that went to those winning teams disappear.

There are currently 33 bowl games. The least rewarded bowl is $325,000. Again, I'm not sure how that is split between the loser and the winner, but that means 66 universities will receive monetary compensation for their hard work of earning a spot in one of those bowl games.

Installing a playoff system would effectively remove that reward of money, prestige, pride, etc. Yes, you could have a bracket system where the longer you last in the playoffs, the more money you get, with the National Champion receiving the most money, but how would you structure that? A 66 team playoff bracket? Assuming you did a 64 team playoff, that would require 5 weeks of games (64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2). How tired would teams be? On top of their 12-13 game schedule, the national champion has to play an additional 5 games? What about school? These aren't the pros, these are college athletes that are (or should) be caring about their academics.

Money is really the bottom line. Those sponsors keep lining up to have their name on a bowl game, and they will keep pumping money into the system. Universities like that even though they may not be national champions, they can still savor a 7-5 season with a bowl win. I would LOVE to see a playoff system installed; as a fan, it really is the only way to see who the best is. But our (the fan) perspective is not the one that matters most in this case.

Yep, thats the deal.

Except you're totally wrong about a 64 team bracket. This isn't basketball. At most, there would be a 16 team playoff..but a more realistic scenario would be an 8 team playoff. The ones who didn't make the 8 team playoff could maybe play in bowl games.

I agree with you completely. That was the point I was trying to make, is that right now 66 teams have a chance at enjoying victory in a bowl game, but you can't do the same in a playoff. You would have to decrease the amount of teams greatly.

I think you might have something with a playoff and bowl games. I think an 8 team playoff would work; I highly doubt more than 8 teams in a given year can/will go undefeated, which will deter any argument that one team deserved to go more than another.

 

[chuckywang]

My idea is to have the bowl system the exact same way it is now, but perhaps add on a flex game at the end of the season.

If there are only two teams above and beyond everybody else, such as Texas vs. USC in 2006 or Miami vs. Ohio State in 2003, then just keep everything the same.

If there are four teams above and beyond everybody else at the end, have those four teams play each other in the BCS bowls, and add on one game at the end of the season to decide the champion. This would have been useful in 2005 with USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and Utah all ending up undefeated.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: Oiprocs

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Oiprocs
The problem with the playoff is that too many universities do not want to see it happen. You get money for winning a bowl game (not sure where it comes from, sponsors, tickets sales, etc.); if you introduce a playoff, those bowl games disappear, and thus the money that went to those winning teams disappear.

There are currently 33 bowl games. The least rewarded bowl is $325,000. Again, I'm not sure how that is split between the loser and the winner, but that means 66 universities will receive monetary compensation for their hard work of earning a spot in one of those bowl games.

Installing a playoff system would effectively remove that reward of money, prestige, pride, etc. Yes, you could have a bracket system where the longer you last in the playoffs, the more money you get, with the National Champion receiving the most money, but how would you structure that? A 66 team playoff bracket? Assuming you did a 64 team playoff, that would require 5 weeks of games (64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2). How tired would teams be? On top of their 12-13 game schedule, the national champion has to play an additional 5 games? What about school? These aren't the pros, these are college athletes that are (or should) be caring about their academics.

Money is really the bottom line. Those sponsors keep lining up to have their name on a bowl game, and they will keep pumping money into the system. Universities like that even though they may not be national champions, they can still savor a 7-5 season with a bowl win. I would LOVE to see a playoff system installed; as a fan, it really is the only way to see who the best is. But our (the fan) perspective is not the one that matters most in this case.

Yep, thats the deal.

Except you're totally wrong about a 64 team bracket. This isn't basketball. At most, there would be a 16 team playoff..but a more realistic scenario would be an 8 team playoff. The ones who didn't make the 8 team playoff could maybe play in bowl games.

I agree with you completely. That was the point I was trying to make, is that right now 66 teams have a chance at enjoying victory in a bowl game, but you can't do the same in a playoff. You would have to decrease the amount of teams greatly.

I think you might have something with a playoff and bowl games. I think an 8 team playoff would work; I highly doubt more than 8 teams in a given year can/will go undefeated, which will deter any argument that one team deserved to go more than another.

First of all, read my post above. Why do you have to eliminate the bowls to implement a playoff system?

Secondly, wouldn't you feel better about leaving out a marginal 1 or 2-loss team that was 9th in the BCS standings than an undefeated team that was #3 at the end of the year?

 

[w3stfa11]

I doubt this will persuade them to adopt a playoff system, but one can hope...

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: chuckywang
My idea is to have the bowl system the exact same way it is now, but perhaps add on a flex game at the end of the season.

If there are only two teams above and beyond everybody else, such as Texas vs. USC in 2006 or Miami vs. Ohio State in 2003, then just keep everything the same.

If there are four teams above and beyond everybody else at the end, have those four teams play each other in the BCS bowls, and add on one game at the end of the season to decide the champion. This would have been useful in 2005 with USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and Utah all ending up undefeated.

The glaring problem with this idea is the ridiculous amount of pre-planning that is necessary.

At what point do you decide that the game will be necessary?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Excelsior
I love how some people say there are already too many games. A typical NC team might have played a total of 14 games and you're telling me that another game or two would just be too much? If it comes to it, take away one of the non-conference games or use the conference championship game as part of the playoff system. But the fact is, something needs to be done to make the system more effective.

That and EVERY other collegiate division of football utilizes a playoff system and they don't have a problem with it.

and every one of those teams wishes they could play for bowl games.

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: chuckywang
My idea is to have the bowl system the exact same way it is now, but perhaps add on a flex game at the end of the season.

If there are only two teams above and beyond everybody else, such as Texas vs. USC in 2006 or Miami vs. Ohio State in 2003, then just keep everything the same.

If there are four teams above and beyond everybody else at the end, have those four teams play each other in the BCS bowls, and add on one game at the end of the season to decide the champion. This would have been useful in 2005 with USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and Utah all ending up undefeated.

The glaring problem with this idea is the ridiculous amount of pre-planning that is necessary.

At what point do you decide that the game will be necessary?

You decide at the end of the regular season after all the conference championship games are played. Form a committee to decide how many teams deserve a shot at the championship, and use the current BCS standings to determine those teams.

You would have several weeks to plan for an extra game. There would be no rush.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Excelsior
I love how some people say there are already too many games. A typical NC team might have played a total of 14 games and you're telling me that another game or two would just be too much? If it comes to it, take away one of the non-conference games or use the conference championship game as part of the playoff system. But the fact is, something needs to be done to make the system more effective.

That and EVERY other collegiate division of football utilizes a playoff system and they don't have a problem with it.

and every one of those teams wishes they could play for bowl games.

I'm not sure how many times it has to be said, but the current bowl system and a playoff can very easily coexist.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: chuckywang
My idea is to have the bowl system the exact same way it is now, but perhaps add on a flex game at the end of the season.

If there are only two teams above and beyond everybody else, such as Texas vs. USC in 2006 or Miami vs. Ohio State in 2003, then just keep everything the same.

If there are four teams above and beyond everybody else at the end, have those four teams play each other in the BCS bowls, and add on one game at the end of the season to decide the champion. This would have been useful in 2005 with USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and Utah all ending up undefeated.

The glaring problem with this idea is the ridiculous amount of pre-planning that is necessary.

At what point do you decide that the game will be necessary?

You decide at the end of the regular season after all the conference championship games are played. Form a committee to decide how many teams deserve a shot at the championship, and use the current BCS standings to determine those teams.

You would have several weeks to plan for an extra game. There would be no rush.

A game of such magnitude would require the availabilty a large venue as well as a location that could easily accomodate the teams involved, the mass of media outlets that would be drawn to such a marquee event and 80,000+ fans. Putting all of that together in less than a month could prove nearly impossible to accomplish.

You are talking about planning a mini-Super Bowl. That type of an event requires a lot more than four weeks to plan. I like the idea but the fact that it is a "flex" and may not even be utilized creates a potential huge cost of planning an event that may not take place.

 

[touchmyichi]

^ Please, our country excels at creating hyped events like that. Trust me, when there is money to be made there is a way.