Why are people so into playoffs?

[ramblinwise1]

If you don't want a playoff for football then we should not do them for the other sports either. For example in basketball and baseball, just let the sportwriters/coaches pick 2 teams in a poll for a natty champ game. See how stupid that is?

Actually, Danny Hall might make a championship game that way...

 

[Legal Jacket]

If you don't want a playoff for football then we should not do them for the other sports either. For example in basketball and baseball, just let the sportwriters/coaches pick 2 teams in a poll for a natty champ game. See how stupid that is?

Actually, Danny Hall might make a championship game that way...

Plus football seems like its much more appropriate sport for a playoff. The best team in baseball probably wins about 2/3 of the time it is supposed to. Those odds are higher in basketball, and I think a lot higher in football. It's much easier to determine the best team in football by matching teams up head to head.

 

[Jacket59]

Right now, we could go undefeated and not get a shot at the National Championship. Or we could lose 1 game along with a bunch of others who lose 1 game (or even 2) and no undefeated teams, and not get a shot at the National Championship.

/end debate. .......... No, seriously, end debate.

 

[B]

Right now as it stands if we were to get into the MNC game the other team would have a month and a half to prepare.

wouldn't we also get the same month and a half to prepare for whomever? Doesn't this imply it's a "gimmicky" scheme that only works due to the element of surprise. I bet CPJ would argue that point.

Given the same time frame, the team with the best players and coaches win. See Auburn over Oregon.

 

[TenaciousBuzz]

Right now, we could go undefeated and not get a shot at the National Championship. Or we could lose 1 game along with a bunch of others who lose 1 game (or even 2) and no undefeated teams, and not get a shot at the National Championship.

/end debate. .......... No, seriously, end debate.

Bingo. Any Tech fan that is not for a playoff needs take a serious, soul-searching trip and reconsider their opinion.

 

[Jacket59]

wouldn't we also get the same month and a half to prepare for whomever? Doesn't this imply it's a "gimmicky" scheme that only works due to the element of surprise. I bet CPJ would argue that point.

Given the same time frame, the team with the best players and coaches win. See Auburn over Oregon.

It's not the preparation time thing, it's that we just don't execute nearly as well offensively when we have a long layover ... (see all bowl games and first few games of the regular season each year)

Look at Ugag and Clemson and several good defensive teams who have had 2 weeks to prepare for us and we still destroyed them offensively because it was late in the season and we were hitting the offense on all cylinders.

That's why the option doesn't really start humming until the leaves turn. It doesn't have nearly as much to do with preparation time for the opponent.

 

[GTSaxophone]

wouldn't we also get the same month and a half to prepare for whomever? Doesn't this imply it's a "gimmicky" scheme that only works due to the element of surprise. I bet CPJ would argue that point.

Given the same time frame, the team with the best players and coaches win. See Auburn over Oregon.

He has actually said as much regarding our bowl losses. However, the talking heads are always quick to point out the extended time to prepare thing. Everyone who even mentioned the Orange Bowl said it. I think someone posted our record against teams with extra prep time (bye weeks, etc), and it was mediocre, if not poor.

 

[stinger78]

If you don't want a playoff for football then we should not do them for the other sports either. For example in basketball and baseball, just let the sportwriters/coaches pick 2 teams in a poll for a natty champ game. See how stupid that is?

Actually, Danny Hall might make a championship game that way...

This.

I want a playoff for football. Wasn't always that way. In fact, it wasn't until fairly recently that I wanted one. I have gotten tired of some formula put together by the BCS to spit out an SEC team every year no matter what to play in the NC game.

Come to think of it, I think it was 2007. That was the year that LSU had 2 bad losses, yet still got the nod in the BCS, and I really just turned my back on the BCS and began to consider it for what it is: a tool of Delaney's Big Ten and Kramer's SEC to make sure they get the shot at the MNC every year.

Trivia:
Q: Which conferences have the three best BCS winning percentages?

A: The three below

MWC 3-1 (.750)
SEC 15-6 (.714)
WAC 2-1 (.667)

 

[AE 87]

I prefer the ambiguity of bowls and voting (1990 not withstanding) to the current pseudo-championship game. Given what we have now, I would prefer a conference-championship-based playoff. The playoffs would only determine MNC, not the final top 8. I would prefer the playoff because it makes the post-season more interesting. I prefer the old bowl system because it made New Years Day a great day, final day, for major college football.

 

[midatlantech]

Bingo. Any Tech fan that is not for a playoff needs take a serious, soul-searching trip and reconsider their opinion.

I do not believe a playoff is good for Tech. Although the argument can be made that our offense is hard to defend with one's week time, who ever said a playoff will only give a team one week.

Secondly, I don't think that LSU, Iowa, et al has beaten us in recent bowl games because they had time to learn our offense. I think we lost because they had big stout athletic and strong linemen.

And if you can accept that notion, understand that we'd have to beat four or five teams with big stout athletic and strong linemen. Tech's weakness is and always will be depth and linemen. I do not believe at all that we are capable of beating good lines four or five times in a row.

The argument that we would do well in a playoff is partially defended by how GSU did under PJ. But GSU had impressive athletes, linemen and depth as compared to the rest of D1AA. We don't.

Additionally, the assumption is made that a playoff would begin just after the season ended, as in D1AA. I don't believe that will happen at all. Teams will still get plenty of time to learn our offense.

All totalled, I do not believe at all, that the best way for us to win a NC is in a playoff. We're much better off in a one game championship even with some added odds of occassionally not getting in the final two.

 

[TenaciousBuzz]

The issue isn't with the time to prepare for the opponent, it's that we can go 13-0 or 12-1 and it will be highly likely we will be ditched in favor of an SEC school or USC or Texas/Oklahoma if they are 12-1 or even 11-2. We wouldn't even have a chance at the title.

If we're sitting at 13-0 and Texas is 13-0 and USC or Florida is 12-1 with a close loss to a highly ranked team, we're out. No shot.

 

[GTDan21]

Utah, Boise, etc. should just go join 1-AA and enjoy their playoff. If you did that in big college football you would lose a lot of the regular season. The only thing I would put in is that you have to win your conference to be eligible to play in the national championship game.

As for the "if you're a real GT fan you want a playoff," it would surely be bad for us. We aren't one of the top 6 conferences but we're still considered with the big boys, so until us and the ACC start playing better and getting more respect the less change the better.

Another solution would be to have FCS, FBS, and a BCS division. Four conferences, 12 teams, 4-team playoff. The problem is we'd be close to the cut and that would obviously be awful...

 

[a5ehren]

Utah, Boise, etc. should just go join 1-AA and enjoy their playoff. If you did that in big college football you would lose a lot of the regular season. The only thing I would put in is that you have to win your conference to be eligible to play in the national championship game.

It would be more fun for me as a fan if there were more than 3-4 teams playing meaningful games at the end of November.

As for the "if you're a real GT fan you want a playoff," it would surely be bad for us. We aren't one of the top 6 conferences but we're still considered with the big boys, so until us and the ACC start playing better and getting more respect the less change the better.

This doesn't make any sense...under the current system, we have no chance of playing for a MNC. Under a legit NCAA playoff, all conference champions (plus however many at-larges) have to have a chance.

Another solution would be to have FCS, FBS, and a BCS division. Four conferences, 12 teams, 4-team playoff. The problem is we'd be close to the cut and that would obviously be awful...

This is probably closer to what will actually happen. The top however many teams will create a national super-conference and then that super-conference will have a "Conference Tournament" that will determine the de facto National Champion.

 

[MtownJacket]

This doesn't make any sense...under the current system, we have no chance of playing for a MNC. Under a legit NCAA playoff, all conference champions (plus however many at-larges) have to have a chance.

This is not true. If we are one of two undefeated teams we will play for the national championship no matter what.

 

[gt7282c@prism]

[y]p3-eavMSBnk[/y]

 

[B]

I do not believe a playoff is good for Tech.
Secondly, I don't think that LSU, Iowa, et al has beaten us in recent bowl games because they had time to learn our offense. I think we lost because they had big stout athletic and strong linemen.

And if you can accept that notion, understand that we'd have to beat four or five teams with big stout athletic and strong linemen. Tech's weakness is and always will be depth and linemen. I do not believe at all that we are capable of beating good lines four or five times in a row.

The argument that we would do well in a playoff is partially defended by how GSU did under PJ. But GSU had impressive athletes, linemen and depth as compared to the rest of D1AA. We don't.

Excellent points that you make and certainly ones that I had never before considered. it would take a physical team to survive and advance and I'm not sure that we have ever been physically dominant team (outside of the "lightning in a bottle" 1990 squad).

 

[Legal Jacket]

This is not true. If we are one of two undefeated teams we will play for the national championship no matter what.

I don't agree with that. If you have, say, an Alabama and a Florida who play each other early on. Say Florida beats Bama. Neither team loses again in the regular season and they face each other in the seccg. #4 Bama stomps #1 Florida in the dome. Guess who #4, one-loss Bama is gonna leapfrog on the way to #2? That's right, undefeated #3 GT.

The only way that doesn't happen is if we play a top 5 (and undefeated or one loss) FSU or Clemson in the ACCG

 

[stinger78]

The BCS is based on two major criteria:
1) W/L - Several (sometimes many) teams have a superior W/L (0-2 losses) at the end of the season. What determines what's the better program?

2) SOS - Which conferences are generally considered to be the toughest in existence? That's right, the SEC and the Big Ten. Who's gonna win that toss up with equal (or better) records? The SEC or Big Ten.

To wit, 2007-08 final BCS poll:

Of the thirteen 0-2 loss teams, three of the top five are SEC/Big Ten teams (VPI and OU being the others), and 2-loss BYU and BSU were not even in the top 20.

Of the twelve 3-4 loss teams, again 3 of the top 5 were SEC/Big Ten teams, including a 4-loss UT ahead of two 2-loss teams and 6 other 3-loss teams from other conferences.

LW TW
Team W-L 3 1
Ohio State 11-1 7 2
LSU 11-2 6 3
Virginia Tech 11-2 9 4
Oklahoma 11-2 4 5
Georgia 10-2 1 6
Missouri 11-2 8 7
USC 10-2 5 8
Kansas 11-1 2 9
West Virginia 10-2 12 10
Hawaii 12-0 13 11
Arizona State 10-2 10 12
Florida 9-3 15 13
Illinois 9-3 11 14
Boston College 10-3 16 15
Clemson 9-3 14 16
Tennessee 9-4 19 17
BYU 10-2 18 18
Wisconsin 9-3 20 19
Texas 9-3 22 20
Virginia 9-3 21 21
USF 9-3 23 22
Cincinnati 9-3 24 23
Auburn 8-4 25 24
Boise State 10-2 **** 25
Connecticut 9-3

Now, look at the final Coaches Poll:
USA Today Coaches College Football Top 25 Poll

(One loss, two losses, three losses, four losses)

1. LSU (60) 12-2 1,500 2
2. Southern California 11-2 1,380 6
3. Georgia 11-2 1,370 4
4. Ohio State 11-2 1,287 1
5. Missouri 12-2 1,241 7
6. West Virginia 11-2 1,239 9
7. Kansas 12-1 1,217 8
8. Oklahoma 11-3 1,016 3
9. Virginia Tech 11-3 979 5
10. Texas 10-3 924 17
11. Boston College 11-3 898 14
12. Tennessee 10-4 826 18
13. Arizona State 10-3 635 11
14t. Auburn 9-4 624 21
14t. Brigham Young 11-2 624 19
16. Florida 9-4 567 12
17. Hawaii 12-1 427 10
18. Illinois 9-4 416 13
19. Michigan 9-4 413 NR
20. Cincinnati 10-3 376 23
21. Wisconsin 9-4 333 15
22. Clemson 9-4 319 16
23. Texas Tech 9-4 242 NR
24. Oregon 9-4 192 NR
25. Penn State 9-4 127 NR

A) Of the 2 one-loss teams, neither was ranked in the top 5 in the final poll.
B) Of the 7 two-loss teams, 3 of the top 4 were SEC/Big Ten teams (including the NC - LSU), and the fourth was USC.
C) There were no SEC/Big Ten of the 6 three-loss teams.
D) Of the 10 four-loss teams, the top 5 were SEC/Big Ten teams. The top 3 were SEC teams, with UT, AU and UF all finishing above a one-loss Hawai'i and two-loss Cincinnati.

 

[GTDan21]

2) SOS - Which conferences are generally considered to be the toughest in existence? That's right, the SEC and the Big Ten. Who's gonna win that toss up with equal (or better) records? The SEC or Big Ten.

I guess the point of the table was to show bias? I mean why even look at who teams beat, the champion should be the one with the best record. If there are no undefeated 1-A schools then a 1-AA can win the championship if they're undefeated

 

[AmpuTECHture]

playoffs would be good but nothing over 8 teams. In my opinion, any team thats not in the conversation at all about whether they deserve to be in the NC game shouldn't be considered at all. Ideally, I would say a 4 team playoff with the winners in the NC game and the losers in a bcs bowl. I'd be fine with an 8 team playoff, especially if theres a year where there are lots of 1 loss teams.

Say theres an 8 team playoff,
The argument I hate is the 9 and 10 ranked teams all whine and complain about not getting in, when no one would have even considered them to be in contention for a national championship.

oh every team's season shouldnt end in a playoff, the playoff should serve as a way to place teams in bowls. I hate the idea of using bowls as part of the playoff. No one gives a shit if you won the rose bowl if the rose bowl was just a semifinal.