College Football Playoff

Playoffs suck. If we're going to extend the season 3 or 4 games, let's do it for everyone instead of for a chosen few.
 
GTSaxophone said:
2. The point of college athletics should be to prepare athletes for the next level of competition.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this. Some people look at it like that, but they are a small minority. I don't mind if a college athlete uses his time spent to prepare himself for the next level, but the minute that athletic departments all over the world treat student athletes like they're pieces of meat for the next level, I hope I never see that.
 
BarrelORum said:
I don't agree with this. Some people look at it like that, but they are a small minority. I don't mind if a college athlete uses his time spent to prepare himself for the next level, but the minute that athletic departments all over the world treat student athletes like they're pieces of meat for the next level, I hope I never see that.
Click to expand...

This is one point I agree with you on, BoR, except that athletic departments everywhere except the US already do this. In other countries kids who show top-level athletic potential don't even go to school...they either sign with pro teams or go into developmental programs. I don't really want to see that in the US.
 
BarrelORum said:
I don't agree with this. Some people look at it like that, but they are a small minority. I don't mind if a college athlete uses his time spent to prepare himself for the next level, but the minute that athletic departments all over the world treat student athletes like they're pieces of meat for the next level, I hope I never see that.
Click to expand...

I personally don't think that athletic departments use student athletes as "pieces of meat" (although I do believe college basketball comes damn close). However, I do believe that the reason most, if not all college athletes are at major institutes in particular is for the chance to move to that next level. The proof for that is in recruiting. How many guys do option-based offenses lose because they don't feel they will be prepared for the NFL? That kid Pryor from OSU comes to mind.
 
16 team playoff

* drop the 12th regular season game
* drop conference championship games
* automatic berths to conference/division winners
* selection committee seeds the tournament and picks at-large teams to fill out field of 16
* 1 v 16, 2 v 15, etc; higher seed gets home field
* single elimination
* Start playoffs 2nd Saturday in December, one game per week

Champion & runner-up would play 15 games (at least six teams will play 14 games this season).
 
I swear that the next person who claims that people getting screwed by the BCS year in and year out is the "beauty" of college football will catch a foot up their ass!

The constant failure of the system is not the "beauty" of the system. It's the unsightly mole on the face of this otherwise smoking hot chick. She could get the thing removed, but she keeps making excuses as to why she can't/won't. Jesus Christ people. I can deal with people who don't think a playoff is totally practical. At least with that, you can discuss logistics. But people who think that what we have now is more appealing are absolutely nuts. Period.
 
GTSaxophone said:
I swear that the next person who claims that people getting screwed by the BCS year in and year out is the "beauty" of college football will catch a foot up their ass!
Click to expand...

+1000

I agree totally with this. I find it ironic that each year more people are on the playoff wagon because each year more and more people are getting screwed. Mack Brown was all for the BCS a few years ago, but this year he said that he has changed his opinion on the matter. It is happening with coach after coach. Who is to say that Texas, USC, Texas Tech, or Penn State aren't worthy 1 loss teams? They are all from BCS conferences. Wait, I forgot, the SEC is in a class to itself. Over the past few years, the SEC has created an unwritten bowl tie-in with the National Championship game and everyone is A-OK with it. So that free pass for UF makes sense [sarcastically speaking], but why OU and not UT/Texas Tech/Penn State/USC?

I would be eager to see next year if we have only 1 loss (wishful thinking), a team has 0 losses (USC, Ohio State, someone like that) and an SEC team has 1 loss. When the SEC team goes to the National Championship over us to play the 0 loss team, people may start to understand how it feels to be screwed over by the current system as was Texas and the rest of the 1 loss squads. I don't quite understand how the system is still be accepted after the 3 undefeated team debacle that occurred a few years back (Auburn, Oklahoma, USC).

One last thing. Under the current system, a team will not be able to emerge like Gonzaga did in basketball. That is what takes away from college football. The reason college football bowl season has far less excitement than March Madness is because of this elitism. Just because we represent a historic top 25 football program, doesn't mean we should forget about the little guy. What is everyone excited about in March Madness? UPSETS. Those cannot occur in the current system because even if the underdog wins in a bowl game, it is not that big of a deal because it isn't like a 15 over a 2 it is more like a 9 over an 8. Plus it doesn't carry over into a subsequent round of some sort, so no one is interested in any post season streak that one of the cinderella teams can potentially create.

In other new, the majority of the country thinks that the BCS didn't get it right this year .... imagine that
http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/poll/index?pCat=46&sCat=242
Do you find it odd that they never ask this question after March Madness? Maybe because 0.0001% would think that they didn't get it right and that is the way it should be when finding a champion.
 
Last edited:
refrigeratormover said:
8 super conferences, take the champions, rank them and then do the playoff.
Click to expand...



That works best if you can realign. It is perfect because every team has a chance and isn't shut out just because OPINION is that it comes from a weak conference. (The top team could possibly come from the weakest conference.) It also works because no team is penalized for having a worse record because they happen to be in a tough conference.

The best route to a BCS championship in the current system is to be the best team in a bad BCS conference. Then you only have to win one tough game. The conference must be BCS but if it is too tough then you can't get enough wins.

If you can't realign, then I like the 16 game proposal with all conference winners and top ranked (or selected) teams as at-large. Once again, everyone gets a shot and top teams get an easy first round game (in theory) as a reward.

Chop the meaningless regular season games
(the schedule fodder games) to make room for the extra weeks.

Another advantage to either system is that teams can load up the OOC schedules without fear.
 
The premise of the BCS, that there are 2 and exactly 2 teams worthy of playing for the national championship every year, is retarded beyond belief.
 
lonestarjacket said:
That works best if you can realign. It is perfect because every team has a chance and isn't shut out just because OPINION is that it comes from a weak conference. (The top team could possibly come from the weakest conference.) It also works because no team is penalized for having a worse record because they happen to be in a tough conference.

The best route to a BCS championship in the current system is to be the best team in a bad BCS conference. Then you only have to win one tough game. The conference must be BCS but if it is too tough then you can't get enough wins.

If you can't realign, then I like the 16 game proposal with all conference winners and top ranked (or selected) teams as at-large. Once again, everyone gets a shot and top teams get an easy first round game (in theory) as a reward.

Chop the meaningless regular season games
(the schedule fodder games) to make room for the extra weeks.

Another advantage to either system is that teams can load up the OOC schedules without fear.
Click to expand...

8 teams is not enough and 16 is too much. Go with my plan for 12 teams and reward the best four conferences. This rewards playing well in a tough schedule. Shorten the season one game. BUT NEVER EVER EVER have a selection committee!

p.s. I'm against a playoff. It is most definitely not good for Georgia Tech.
 
midatlantech said:
p.s. I'm against a playoff. It is most definitely not good for Georgia Tech.
Click to expand...

I've never been able to understand this sentiment. Why wouldn't it be good for Tech? Do you think that we wouldn't be able to string together wins against top competition? If so, then in that case, we don't deserve to be the champions. With a playoff format, we would stand a much higher chance of getting in the playoffs. Hell, with the way this year is going, we would have an outside chance of getting in a 16 team playoff (I know you oppose a 16 team playoff, as do I, but this is just for sake of argument). We would most likely be compared to TCU, OK St., and maybe Oregon. I'm confident in putting our resume up against all three of them.
 
GTSaxophone said:
I've never been able to understand this sentiment. Why wouldn't it be good for Tech? Do you think that we wouldn't be able to string together wins against top competition? If so, then in that case, we don't deserve to be the champions. With a playoff format, we would stand a much higher chance of getting in the playoffs. Hell, with the way this year is going, we would have an outside chance of getting in a 16 team playoff (I know you oppose a 16 team playoff, as do I, but this is just for sake of argument). We would most likely be compared to TCU, OK St., and maybe Oregon. I'm confident in putting our resume up against all three of them.
Click to expand...

Like it or not, but Tech has always had a problem with enough top level depth to compete nationally. We lose to UGA more because the season takes its toll and we don't have the same depth than just pure top 22 v top 22 talent.

If you can accept this, then understand that historically we would not have the depth to compete through 3 or 4 more games against nationally ranked teams (at the season's end).

This does not mean that I am trying to avoid playing the best teams. In fact I am all in favor of it. But it is not in Tech's best interest. Bring on Alabama and USC and Ohio State. I'd love playing them.

But if you want to win NC's, then on paper at least, our depth would just not traditionally hold up. (ask Chan about our late season prowess)
 
midatlantech said:
Like it or not, but Tech has always had a problem with enough top level depth to compete nationally. We lose to UGA more because the season takes its toll and we don't have the same depth than just pure top 22 v top 22 talent.

If you can accept this, then understand that historically we would not have the depth to compete through 3 or 4 more games against nationally ranked teams (at the season's end).

This does not mean that I am trying to avoid playing the best teams. In fact I am all in favor of it. But it is not in Tech's best interest. Bring on Alabama and USC and Ohio State. I'd love playing them.

But if you want to win NC's, then on paper at least, our depth would just not traditionally hold up. (ask Chan about our late season prowess)
Click to expand...

That is a fair point, and it is something that I've wanted to see change along with the attitude of our program. Those teams with greater depth did something to get there, and I question why we can't get to that level. True, we may not have been able to in the past, but if we expect to become national title contenders, that is something that needs to change for the better IMO.
 
God question BOR. I have my own opnion, and don't have time to read all the replies so if it seems I am plagarizing some one, it is not intentional.
My system is based on 2 premises:
1) No more games, except for the teams playing in the NC game, who would play a maximum 15 games!
2) Though 4 team playoff would be easy to do, it would not settle all arguments (eg this year USC, TT, and PS would be left out)

First off, everyone would schedule 12 games as they do now. The first 11 games of regular season, plus a conference championship game for some teams, would count in establishing the 8 playoff teams (POT's). All conference games would be scheduled within the first 11 weeks of the season. Rankings would be determined by a tweaked BCS type system after the first 11 games plus a week for conference championships. POT's would NOT play their 12 scheduled regualar season games.
Bowl games would be selected for non (POT's). The non POT's would then play their normal 12th scheduled game after conference championship week, and would be just a fun game with nothing riding on it but pride, since the POT's and bowl games will have been decided. The 8 POT opponents teams not would be assigned their 12th game among all the other opponents of the POT's, which could provide some unusal & interesting matchups.
4 bowl games would be chosen to hold the first round of playoffs between Dec 17- 23, and would count as the 12th game for teams with no conference game playoff (13th for conference championship teams). Matchups would be according to seed in the rankings, 8-1, 7-2, etc.
2 bowl games would be selected for the semis to be held January 1, with the final game held January 8 as now.
NOTES:
1. The POT's would have some kind of revenue sharing program designed to make sure all the POT opponents get a fair shake financially for rescheduling their 12 game and maybe losing one home game. With the extra TV money from the playoffs, this should be no problem. Would require some detail and hairy scheduling at the last minute but would be nothing like the basketball playoffs scheduling complexity.
2. Scheduling of the 12th game will have to have some extra thought since this game will not count in the playoff system or bowl assignments. For instance, Tech may want to play Georgia Southern or Georgia State.
3. One can argue that this sytem could be implicated with the present 12 game schedule as it is. But this would mean squeezing in an extra game for teams playing in the semis, and 2 extra games for teams playing in the NC game, which I do not agree with.

I have emailed these thoughts to Barack Obama and he approves this message.
:laugher:
 
GTSaxophone said:
I've never been able to understand this sentiment. Why wouldn't it be good for Tech? Do you think that we wouldn't be able to string together wins against top competition? If so, then in that case, we don't deserve to be the champions. With a playoff format, we would stand a much higher chance of getting in the playoffs. Hell, with the way this year is going, we would have an outside chance of getting in a 16 team playoff (I know you oppose a 16 team playoff, as do I, but this is just for sake of argument). We would most likely be compared to TCU, OK St., and maybe Oregon. I'm confident in putting our resume up against all three of them.
Click to expand...

Because the only way for GT to assure itself a spot is by winning the ACC CG every year. You can kiss goodbye getting an At Large birth. If you don't understand that, you're blind.
 
BarrelORum said:
Because the only way for GT to assure itself a spot is by winning the ACC CG every year. You can kiss goodbye getting an At Large birth. If you don't understand that, you're blind.
Click to expand...

As opposed to now? Let's be honest, do you think Tech has much more of a chance to get to the title game now outside of an undefeated season? If we were a one loss ACC champion with only one loss to Florida State (same record as Ole Miss, I believe), Do you think we would get consideration over Oklahoma and Florida? What about 2006? If we only had the climpsun loss on our resume and were a one loss ACC Champion, do you think we would have jumped over Florida? A playoff system would help us much more because we wouldn't have to fight the names as well as the resume of the traditional powers at the end of the year as long as we win our conference. Depending on what system is in place, getting an at-large bid would possibly still be eaiser due to how many teams already have their spot, and are therefore not schools we have to compete with for that bid.
 
I like a modified plus one system.

Take the top 4 ranked "Conference Champions" this keeps the people that want the regular season to stay so important happy. If you can't win your conference then you don't deserve to go.

Seed them 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 with a championship game to follow. That takes 3 bowl games.

If there is one undefeated team from a "non major" conference they get the 4 seed. If there are more than one undefeated "non major" schools then take the top 2 ranked of these and let them play in the first bowl game of the year to see who gets the 4 seed.

This year Boise and Utah would play to see who the #4 seed is that would play Oklahoma (#1 BCS)

Florida would be #2 and play USC #3. The winners would play in the national championship game.
 
I bet we would've won any playoff format in 1990, or at least we would have kicked Colorado's ass all over the field. Miami would have been difficult, to say the least.

How about this system? Have a two-team playoff and coaches who don't watch the games, ex-coaches and ex-ADs with varying biases and computers with varying algorithms decide the two teams. The system could, say, pick two of five one-loss teams and two undefeated teams with complete fairness and no bias at all. In fact, the system would look at two of the one-loss teams who played each other in the regular season and even pick the team for the playoff which lost the head-to-head matchup of the two teams, which of course makes the most sense.

In other words, unless the playoff system is run by Bobby Lowder himself, ANY playoff would produce far less controversy than the BCS could ever hope for. To say it matter, that it's just a part of college football, well, just look to 1990 to see that clarity does matter, or 2003, or Texas/USC/Penn St./Utah this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top