<p>^ Texas lost to Texas Tech and barely beat tOSU.</p>
<p>How do you classify that as a "great season" and say USC had a "rusty season" (only loss to the other OSU)?</p>
<p>We could argue about who "really" deserves to be in the National Championship game all day. My personal thoughts are:</p>
<ol>
<li>Texas should be there instead of Oklahoma, simply based on their head-to-head match-up. BUT...</li>
<li>Texas' very close game against "lowly" Ohio State proves the Big 12 and Texas are not as good as they were hyped up to be, anyway.</li>
<li>Oklahoma will probably lose to Florida, whose best win was against an overrated Alabama team who got beat badly by "lowly" Utah, anyway.</li>
<li>USC would be favored against any team in the country, but it was still their fault for not showing up to Oregon State-- especially considering they'd had such similar losses to "lowly" Stanford, UCLA and again Oregon State in recent seasons.</li>
<li>If I had a vote, I'd vote for Utah as #1. Undefeated, with wins over ranked teams such as Oregon State, BYU, TCU and Alabama. </li>
</ol>
<p>The 2008-2009 college football season displayed a lot about what's wrong with college football. A lot of conference bias and parity, lousy playing based on the perceived strengths of one's opponent, a lot of MEDIA hype and hoopla and a National Championship Game which, despite whoever wins, should have one big asterisk next to it in the history books.</p>
<p>
[quote]
^ Texas lost to Texas Tech and barely beat tOSU.</p>
<p>How do you classify that as a "great season" and say USC had a "rusty season" (only loss to the other OSU)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Pretty simple really. How many of Texas' losses were to unranked opponents? And how many of their wins were over ranked opponents?</p>
<p>
[quote]
USC would be favored against any team in the country,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That doesn't matter. It's what takes place on the field that matters.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Pretty simple really. How many of Texas' losses were to unranked opponents? And how many of their wins were over ranked opponents?
[/quote]
But you can see that the rankings were flawed after more teams played each other. Who cares if half the Big 12 was ranked at some point in the top 10...where are they ranked after all the games are played.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That doesn't matter. It's what takes place on the field that matters.
[/quote]
Right. USC defeated tOSU by a much wider margin than UT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
where are they ranked after all the games are played.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Still higher than the Washington, Washington State, etc of the Pac-10.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Right. USC defeated tOSU by a much wider margin than UT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Umm... okay?</p>
<p>And Penn State beat Oregon State by more than USC beat Penn State and oh yeah Oregon State beat USC. What does that mean?</p>
<p>^ To be fair, when USC played tOSU, tOSU had QB problems (Boeckman isn't very good and Pryor was just getting his feet wet) and an injured Beanie Wells.</p>
<p>That being said, USC's only loss was to Oregon State, who played a very good running back that USC had never seen (and thus couldn't have prepared for). And Oregon State consistently ranks 3rd in the Pac-10, they're just sleepers. They start out slow every year and get better with time (hence losing 3 out of the first 5 games, including Penn State).</p>
<p>Playoffs would pretty much settle the issue.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Playoffs would pretty much settle the issue.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's the only way to settle the issue and, hopefully, the "asterisk" season will push college football in that direction. Plus the fact that so many bowls lost mucho money this year and TV rankings for most games were dismal! There are too many bowl games with too many "no name" teams that have no meaning other than to the students and alumni of that particular school.</p>
<p>A playoff system, like the college basketball playoffs, would be much more enjoyable to watch and follow. </p>
<p>I mean really, who on this board is going to watch Tulsa vrs. Ball State tonight? Personally, I'm going to watch my tevo'd premier of the Bachelor ;)</p>
<p>Really? I think people just bash the bowl system and call for a playoff because it's the trendy thing to do. I just don't think playoffs would really significantly change our perceptions of 'champions.'</p>
<p>Why is that? The main purpose of playoffs would be, presumably, to settle everything on the field. But that clearly wouldn't happen; there are over 100 teams in FBS, and there are going to be gaping holes no matter how you schedule it. In virtually every other sport with playoffs, teams play each other multiple times (NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, etc.). This obviously doesn't happen in college football, and makes scheduling impossible. </p>
<p>But assume that somehow, you can schedule the regular season fairly. Then what? How do you decide who makes the playoffs? How do you do this? You can't realistically have more than sixteen teams MAX - eight would probably be big enough by itself. But then the same issues as the BCS arise - which eight teams? Does a mid-major champion like Utah take precedence over the #2 team from a big conference? There are going to be controversies no matter what, especially with so few teams in the playoffs. Maybe the #2 team in the SEC was actually better than the #1 that season, but got snubbed because of a fluke in their head-to-head matchup, and missed out on the playoffs. Maybe that team is, by consensus, the best team in the country, but misses out. It's only a tad better than the BCS NCG - which is just like a two-team playoff. I mean, realistically, playoffs aren't any better than the bowl system at settling things on the field, especially since you can only play games up until mid-January. </p>
<p>But assume that's not the point. Maybe the point of the playoffs system is to legitimately determine the best team in the country. If that's the case, it definitely fails more than the bowl system. If the best team in the country has an X% chance of winning against any team in the country, its chance of going undefeated and winning the national championship is going to go down with every game. Clearly, we're not pushing playoffs to find the best team in the country.</p>
<p>Honestly, as maligned as the current system may be, it works fine for the most part. The bowl system at the moment puts lots of attention on regular season games, makes even single losses significant (just like playoffs would!), and in general makes for an exciting postseason. You want to say that the bowl system makes bowl wins meaningless? Tell that to Boise State, when they beat Oklahoma. Or tell that to Cal, when they win their first Rose Bowl in 50+ years (it'll happen!). The bowl system doesn't detract from 'importance' at all, unless you're strangely obsessed with rankings and being 'clearly' (but not really, because the only way it would be clear would be through a round-robin of some sort) best.</p>
<p>And honestly, would it really make it that much more interesting? Sure, there are some boring bowls, but I think it's doing fine as it is. There are lots of great matchups, and the bowl system lets brilliant games really shine. A playoff would have diminished Boise State-Oklahoma by SO much--the bowl system lets single, scintillating moments like that really count. There's more emotion and color in the bowl system than would ever exist in a playoff system.</p>
<p>There are controversies in the 65 team basketball tournament, but if you're #66, that's just too bad. If you're #9 with an eight team tournament, that's too bad. Better to exclude #9 or #17 than #3.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In virtually every other sport with playoffs, teams play each other multiple times (NFL...)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>wat</p>
<p>The NFL and NCAA tournament are by far the two best playoff systems we have. And they both feature a single-elimination bracket. This is perfect. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe that team is, by consensus, the best team in the country, but misses out.
[/quote]
Somehow, I think the "consensus" #1 team missing the top 8 spots seems like a huge fail on the voters' part. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But assume that's not the point. Maybe the point of the playoffs system is to legitimately determine the best team in the country. If that's the case, it definitely fails more than the bowl system. If the best team in the country has an X% chance of winning against any team in the country, its chance of going undefeated and winning the national championship is going to go down with every game. Clearly, we're not pushing playoffs to find the best team in the country.
[/quote]
The playoffs would give worse schools a chance of winning, but I don't see how this is bad; learning to live through a playoff system is part of every other major college sport. Why can't it apply to football?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And honestly, would it really make it that much more interesting? Sure, there are some boring bowls, but I think it's doing fine as it is. There are lots of great matchups, and the bowl system lets brilliant games really shine. A playoff would have diminished Boise State-Oklahoma by SO much--the bowl system lets single, scintillating moments like that really count. There's more emotion and color in the bowl system than would ever exist in a playoff system.
[/quote]
If you want to argue about game quality, the playoffs would be amazing. Seven games with the top 8 teams > 4 games, and you'd likely get a lot more great games out of it. If littler bowl games were really a huge deal, you would probably cite more than one instance of a major upset.</p>
<p>Also, as a UT fan, I didn't really care too much about last night. Yes, it was nice to see the Horns win, but in the end what difference did winning or losing make? UT isn't going to be #1 at the end of the season. Colt McCoy is coming back, Quan Cosby isn't. This bowl game really didn't mean anything.</p>
<p>The only reason to really argue against the playoffs is that the vast majority of teams won't get to play in it (which is an incredibly valid concern). This makes be believe that the BCS Bowls should be replaced by a playoff system, keeping the lesser bowls in tact.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Better to exclude #9 or #17 than #3.
[/quote]
Sure, if all else is equal, that's the case. My thought is, however, that not all else is equal. While playoffs might directly include more teams in the title hunt, the bowl format offers more excitement and more opportunities for most teams.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The NFL and NCAA tournament are by far the two best playoff systems we have. And they both feature a single-elimination bracket. This is perfect.
[/quote]
Sorry, I was unclear here. What I meant was that it's much easier in the NFL to realistically gauge strength, since teams are playing each other multiple times. In college football, each team plays only ~10% of the other teams in the league once, and it's difficult if not impossible to fairly measure them against each other as a consequence.
[quote]
Somehow, I think the "consensus" #1 team missing the top 8 spots seems like a huge fail on the voters' part.
[/quote]
Okay, perhaps "consensus" is a bit strong. In any case, your comment seems to imply that these playoff teams would be picked on the basis of votes. But doesn't that just fall into an extended version of the 'problem' with the BCS right now - that some teams just don't have opportunities because of the rankings?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The playoffs would give worse schools a chance of winning, but I don't see how this is bad; learning to live through a playoff system is part of every other major college sport. Why can't it apply to football?
[/quote]
I'm not arguing that it's bad. But what tends to happen in playoff systems is that:
1) 'cinderella stories' lose their charm, quickly.
2) the best teams lose more than they should.
So the result is usually not exactly expected, but hardly exciting either. But this is moot, since this is from a fan entertainment perspective. Ultimately, whichever team wins is not really an issue.
The reason why this can't apply to football is because there aren't enough games to really effectively implement a playoff system. Other sports play much more, both in the regular season and in the postseason, than football does, and they're capable of doing so because it's not quite as injury-ridden. If FBS were half the size it is, then maybe a playoff would be viable; as it is, it's hard to say that a playoff would definitively and unanimously be able to select a national champion (and that's the primary issue with the bowl system, right? That it's impossible to tell who's the national champion?). No matter what method you use to select a national champion, there are going to be people that dispute it. And sure, while implementing playoffs would likely reduce the number of people disputing the national champion, I think the unique culture that you'd lose with the bowl system isn't worth that. Finding a national champion isn't, in my mind, the most important part of college football - it's the emotion and excitement and color in each and every game that makes it so fun.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want to argue about game quality, the playoffs would be amazing. Seven games with the top 8 teams > 4 games, and you'd likely get a lot more great games out of it. If littler bowl games were really a huge deal, you would probably cite more than one instance of a major upset.</p>
<p>Also, as a UT fan, I didn't really care too much about last night. Yes, it was nice to see the Horns win, but in the end what difference did winning or losing make? UT isn't going to be #1 at the end of the season. Colt McCoy is coming back, Quan Cosby isn't. This bowl game really didn't mean anything.</p>
<p>The only reason to really argue against the playoffs is that the vast majority of teams won't get to play in it (which is an incredibly valid concern). This makes be believe that the BCS Bowls should be replaced by a playoff system, keeping the lesser bowls in tact.
[/quote]
Sure, the playoffs would produce good matchups. So does the BCS system, for the most part. If we're talking about upsets - what about Utah-Alabama, just a few days ago? Why does this necessarily mean that other games don't matter? I'm inclined to think that games are important/entertaining beyond the fact that they take you toward #1.
I mostly agree with you here though. I think that yes, the biggest reason why so many people oppose playoffs is because there are fewer teams in them. College football is a very team-loyal sport - most viewers don't watch it because they love it so much as they watch because they love their team. Getting rid of so many games would definitely hurt (lots of) fans.
The suggestion to keep lower bowls might help, and I think with that suggestion, it really becomes a question of what you value more. The bowl games have more tradition and are (in terms of the experience) stronger. The playoff system would likely be less exciting (save the games themselves, maybe), but would lead to less controversial results. I value the former more, but many people disagree. My point remains, however, that playoffs aren't clearly the right choice for college football - it depends a lot on personal priorities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The reason why this can't apply to football is because there aren't enough games to really effectively implement a playoff system.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>NFL teams play 16 games against 13 different teams. Colleges play 12 or 13 games against 12 or 13 teams. The NFL's playoff system works nearly perfectly, with most deserving teams getting in every year. Why wouldn't it work in college, if they could put together a competent board of selectors (like the selection committee in basketball)?</p>
<p>And I don't get your argument about missing out on a special experience. For the good teams, instead of playing an exhibition game they have a chance at a lot more. If you keep the bowl games alongside, Cal doesn't miss out on going to the Nut Bowl, other teams don't miss out on their scintillating 3-0 victories and everybody wins.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The only reason to really argue against the playoffs is that the vast majority of teams won't get to play in it (which is an incredibly valid concern).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ummm.. so? In basketball 65 teams out of 300+ get into the NCAA tournament. What about the other 200 teams? In FCS football, only a select few get in. Why does the FBS have to be different?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The NFL's playoff system works nearly perfectly, with most deserving teams getting in every year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is getting offtopic, but the NFL's system is not the best either. 11-5 Patriots left out but at least 2 or maybe 3 8-8 or 9-7 teams got in? Can't quite say "most deserving" there...</p>
<p>And before USC people claim they are the best football team ever (just wait for it) they need to remember there's only been one team in major college football to win 3 National Championships in a row...</p>
<p>Wasn't from the Pac-10, wasn't from the Big 12, wasn't from the SEC...</p>
<p>"most deserving teams" = "most teams that are deserving" not "teams that are most deserving"</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is getting offtopic, but the NFL's system is not the best either. 11-5 Patriots left out but at least 2 or maybe 3 8-8 or 9-7 teams got in? Can't quite say "most deserving" there...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Taking records at face value is soooo misleading. The NFL playoffs are based upon teams winning their division. The Patriots couldn't do that. The division system acts as a semi-control; your division basically plays the same teams. If the Patriots could beat the Dolphins or Pittsburgh at New England, this wouldn't be an issue, but they couldn't and were the third best non-division-winner, so they're left out. There's no argument you can make that they were better or worse than the Chargers (other than the heads up game, which really doesn't tell the whole story). The Chargers really should have been 10-6 (with Carolina's miracle pass, and the referees' botched call in the first Denver game), so just going by record is a little trivial too.</p>
<p>Of all the major US sports, the NFL by far has the best playoff system, both in team selection (12/32 is perfect, so that some good teams will still miss the postseason), and in actual execution (single elimination). This isn't baseball where only four team per conference get in; and it's not like basketball where more than half do either.</p>
<p>The difference between the NFL and college football is that in the pros, they all play each other (for the most part). You play 13 teams out of 32 - compare with college, teams play 13 teams out of >119 (counting I-AA).</p>
<p>You end up with situations where, say, USC, Texas, Florida have no common opponents (until the postseason)</p>
<p>I say it's easy enough to at least remedy that part: only allow I-A (FBS) opponents. It increases the connectedness of the teams.</p>
<p>The next thing is to fix the conference championships. The BCS was not the one to screw over Texas this year - it was the Big-12. All the Big-12 had to do was choose its champion and it would have gotten sent to the BCS title game no questions asked. It was the Big-12 who chose to ignore the head-to-head and ask the BCS for its opinion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
there's only been one team in major college football to win 3 National Championships in a row...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What team was that?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The playoffs would give worse schools a chance of winning, but I don't see how this is bad; learning to live through a playoff system is part of every other major college sport. Why can't it apply to football?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It does in EVERY other division of college football! </p>
<p>For example, in D3, 16 games were played on November 22, so 32 teams competed in the playoffs, the next week 8 games, then quarter finals on December 6, semis on Dec 13 and the final game played on Dec 20.</p>
<p>As it stands now, the bowl season (imo) goes on for far too long, with huge breaks between the last game played and the bowl. UF and OU haven't played in over a month!! For teams like Texas, Alabama, Texas Tech, (the ones who were po'd about the bowl they ended up in) it is really hard to keep focus and drive during a month long practice period to play in a game they don't even want to be in. It is a testament to their coaches (why they're paid the big bucks) if the kids show up ready and fired up.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the bowl format offers more excitement and more opportunities for most teams
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That used to be the case when there were fewer bowls. Now every day there is some lame game on that dilutes the excitement (except for the current student and alumni of the schools involved) and sets up a feeling of bowl overdose. It used to be that we all looked forward to New Year's day to watch the bowl games. There weren't "motor city bowls" "Texas bowls" etc ad nausium. As I said in an earlier post, I read an artilcle about how much money most of the bowls lost this year because of major declines in attendence, sponsorship, tv revenues. There were too many scheduled with matchups that noone wanted to watch. By the time it was New Years this year, many were just plain sick of bowls... With the economy the way it is, I wouldn't be surprised if many bowls disappeared next year.</p>