Darian3Hagan
'89 Player of the Year
I would rather CU get the extra time in the weight room instead of wasting it in a playoff.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Larry Scott Discusses Pac-12's Favored Playoff Model
- Thread starter Darth Snow
- Start date
With an 8 team playoff,
1. You don't think LSU would have sat EVERY starter for their SEC title game? Come on.
2. Ok State sits Wheeden for the Bedlam game because they know even with a loss, they are in the playoff: the incentive is reduced to blow the doors off OU for the first time in ages.
3. Oregon blew their season finale at home against USC: at that point, Oregon doesn't deserve to play for the NC.
Don't dilute what makes college football so great. 4 team playoff at most.
Last edited:
I don't know why so many people want to fix what isn't broken. In the current system if a team wants a legit shot at the NC they do have to worry about every game. Lose an OOC game and you aren't dead but you are in a situation where you have no margin for error and you have to pay attention to what everyone else is doing.
As it stands every Saturday in the fall is special. There are games every week that have implications for the NC and as stated earlier even if your team is down you are still hoping to move up into a bowl game that may not matter to the rest of the country but does matter to that teams fans, if you are in the bowl then you want a better one.
I enjoy the NFL but it doesn't grab me like the college game because in the college game every game is in ways all important. In the NFL you expect to loose certain weekends, you accept that you will lose a certain number of road games, and if you are good enough or in a weak enough division to have meaningless games at the end.
A four game I could accept, anything past that is simply trying to copy the NFL and losing some of what makes the college game magic in the process.
As it stands every Saturday in the fall is special. There are games every week that have implications for the NC and as stated earlier even if your team is down you are still hoping to move up into a bowl game that may not matter to the rest of the country but does matter to that teams fans, if you are in the bowl then you want a better one.
I enjoy the NFL but it doesn't grab me like the college game because in the college game every game is in ways all important. In the NFL you expect to loose certain weekends, you accept that you will lose a certain number of road games, and if you are good enough or in a weak enough division to have meaningless games at the end.
A four game I could accept, anything past that is simply trying to copy the NFL and losing some of what makes the college game magic in the process.
im pro 4 team playoff if you get to a 14 game schedule... otherwise i want an 8 team
And yet we have like 3 separate threads analyzing RPI, NCAA Bracketology and even NIT Bracketology to death.
dply
Doble hoja
Only cause we're good now. Those threads didn't really exist before Boyle.
Also big thanks to Goose and Nik for getting me interested in CU basketball.
somebody
Well-Known Member
The is the most horrible part of all of your posts. The one goal of any new or modified system should be to get opinions out of the national championship, to the greatest extent possible. So an interim solution would be to use rankings to seed a 4 or 8 team playoff, but in the long run, only the results on the field should matter.
The idea that you should be in the MNC because you improved during the season is also ridiculous. For all we know, some 4-8 team could have beaten Alabama at the end. We'll never know, because at least the results on the field counted for that much.
Unless by doing so you create another problem. In which case you have to weigh pros and cons. The biggest con with excluding rankings completely (or only using them to seed) is that math (at least at the level of math we're talking about) is absolute. Take USC last season. Pretend they were eligible for the title game. Tell them all that matters is if they win their conference - rankings mean nothing. Do ya think they slow play Oregon in the second to last game of the season?
I don't love the ranking system. I just think there will be a myriad of unintended consequences if you throw it out - and exhibit 1 on that list is turning a certain subset of what are currently huge November games into meaningless sideshows. Only conference champions get in, rankings mean nothing: congratulations, you just made what was one of the biggest upsets of this last year, if not the biggest upset, a pointless asterisk that no one would even remember (Iowa State over Okie lite). That upset wouldn't have mattered. In fact, it probably wouldn't have even been considered an upset, because OSU wouldn't have even had their starters on the field after the first quarter.
I'm with mountain: don't fix what ain't broken. The current system is messy, it never cleanly answers the question, it leaves enormous room for argument. But, well, that's the way most things are in life. But damn, it sure is fun!
Last edited:
If we had a 16-team playoff last year, would Ohio State-Michigan have been any less significant? Ohio State wouldn't have been in consideration for the playoffs, where as Michigan would have been in contention. We were terrible last year--were our November games meaningless? Of course not.
My biggest issue is that I think too many National Champions have been decided by the ballot box instead of being determined on the field. I think a playoff (of at least 8 teams) solves that issue.
Skibum - it is more than broken, it is completly ****ed.
The epistemic question we are all so deeply focused on is also "answered" with rankings + playoff. (I'm done pretending games in November won't matter and that schools are going to sit their starters after the first quarter. No one will intentionally lose a game no matter what.)
Use the rankings to set up the playoff. If a team is overrated because of the popularity contest they'll get their ass kicked in the first round. It sucks for the team that may have been left out, but gives them plenty of motivation to win the consiliatory game/tournement and prove what could have been.
Imagine we already had a playoff for a second. Then think about arguments to axe it and set up a bunch of random bowl games with one nat'l championship, or even just a plus-one. That would sound crazy and boring as hell! I still am missing how the current system is more "fun."
A college playoff will be AWESOME. That is the most important part. We are fans, and we want to watch fun games.
The epistemic question we are all so deeply focused on is also "answered" with rankings + playoff. (I'm done pretending games in November won't matter and that schools are going to sit their starters after the first quarter. No one will intentionally lose a game no matter what.)
Use the rankings to set up the playoff. If a team is overrated because of the popularity contest they'll get their ass kicked in the first round. It sucks for the team that may have been left out, but gives them plenty of motivation to win the consiliatory game/tournement and prove what could have been.
Imagine we already had a playoff for a second. Then think about arguments to axe it and set up a bunch of random bowl games with one nat'l championship, or even just a plus-one. That would sound crazy and boring as hell! I still am missing how the current system is more "fun."
A college playoff will be AWESOME. That is the most important part. We are fans, and we want to watch fun games.
Okay, quick without looking, on November 21 of this season two top 20 teams played each other, the same night two other top 25 teams escaped with 2 point wins and another couple of top 25 teams escaped with wins by less than 4 points. Who were these teams, does anyone (outside the immediate program) even care. Of course not. Every one of these teams will still end up in the tourney, even had they lost they still would end up in the tourney.
The NCAA tourney which granted is a great event gets tremendous ratings, so do the bowls. The difference is that nobody really cares about NCAA basketball until halfway through January and then for the most part games aren't that big a deal. You can get what should be a very interesting matchup and the country doesn't care. Winning and losing doesn't mean much, it may be the difference between a 3 seed and a 4 seed, it may mean you play a 13 seed instead of a 14 seed in the first round, big whup.
And look at our last series of NCAA basketball champions. Very rarely is the team that was best all year the champ, instead we get the team that got hot at the end, to me that isn't an answer other than who got hot.
There is no perfect system, a playoff in college football wouldn't be perfect either, not even close. I don't want to see a two loss #8 seed jumping up and down with a trophy. Keep what makes college football special.
The NCAA tourney which granted is a great event gets tremendous ratings, so do the bowls. The difference is that nobody really cares about NCAA basketball until halfway through January and then for the most part games aren't that big a deal. You can get what should be a very interesting matchup and the country doesn't care. Winning and losing doesn't mean much, it may be the difference between a 3 seed and a 4 seed, it may mean you play a 13 seed instead of a 14 seed in the first round, big whup.
And look at our last series of NCAA basketball champions. Very rarely is the team that was best all year the champ, instead we get the team that got hot at the end, to me that isn't an answer other than who got hot.
There is no perfect system, a playoff in college football wouldn't be perfect either, not even close. I don't want to see a two loss #8 seed jumping up and down with a trophy. Keep what makes college football special.
?????
Again, I disagree and I fail to see any valid point in the first half of your argument. The games will be fun and awesome, regardless of month.
Football is not basketball, there is a reason the NBA has series and not just one game to decide who's best. The football game is a battle (like chess or war,) and the final winner should be considered the better of the two (is anyone calling LSU a co-nat champ?) I can't understand how a playoff could suddenly yield a fluke winner in your mind. If the underdog wins the trophy that's fine, especially if their losses during the season were in close away games. Using your logic, a long season provides plenty of chances for fluke wins and losses throughout, so there would seem to be a bunch of teams that could be "the best" without ever getting the chance to prove it (OK State.) And that doesn't mean they'll lay down in any game leading up to it.
Again, I disagree and I fail to see any valid point in the first half of your argument. The games will be fun and awesome, regardless of month.
Football is not basketball, there is a reason the NBA has series and not just one game to decide who's best. The football game is a battle (like chess or war,) and the final winner should be considered the better of the two (is anyone calling LSU a co-nat champ?) I can't understand how a playoff could suddenly yield a fluke winner in your mind. If the underdog wins the trophy that's fine, especially if their losses during the season were in close away games. Using your logic, a long season provides plenty of chances for fluke wins and losses throughout, so there would seem to be a bunch of teams that could be "the best" without ever getting the chance to prove it (OK State.) And that doesn't mean they'll lay down in any game leading up to it.
Maybe not. But, can you really, honestly say that the Okie lite and ISU would have been important? Really?
About the only regular season games that you can point to that *might* be "more exciting" would be the games for the 10-20 teams during November. I just looked at #'s 10-20 from last season, and... without exception these were teams that were, *in the current system*, desperately trying to A. Win their conference AND B. Get into a BCS game. Or, in other words, they were playing really damn hard, and it's hard for me to imagine that they would be playing any harder in your 16 team playoff scenario.
A "serious playoff" system will make the regular season less important. I, and others, can point to several games every single season over the past 20-30 years and show that not only were they some of the very best and most exciting games of the entire season, but also they would have been boring, pointless exercises in joint football scrimmaging under a playoff system. That's a real impact - it's not hypothetical: you've detracted from the system.
So, weigh that negative against the hypothetical benefits of a playoff system. You're adding 13 games, 13 games that only involve 16 teams. (And don't try and sell the bull**** that any sort of bowl system would survive a serious playoff structure - that's pure bs, and anyone who tries to sell that is full of ****.) Now, for various competitive reasons, all of those games would be played on Saturday and maybe Sunday. So, first weekend = 8 games. Look at time zones, remember the no fun league is playing games too, and then try and tell me how you could schedule it so that even a die hard (let alone a casual) fan could watch all 8 games live. Hrmm, yeah, some of that "excitement" is being deflated... And, let's be honest, how exciting would a matchup between VaTech and the game****s or between Houston and the ecoKat's be? (that was the 5 vs 12 or 6 vs 11 based on BCS rankings before Conference Championships last year) Really, you think a lot of people would have tuned into that ****? You don't think a certain, probably large, group of fans would be turning on the Tebow game instead? Even so, I will grant that you'll be adding some excitement as the bracket plays out.
Yeah, but "Bubble teams" games will be exciting in November too!!!! Um, they're not already? Those teams are already playing for conference championships and/or BCS berths. Those games may be marginally more exciting, but not by much.
Yeah, but you would have a non-controversial champion! Whoopti-****ing-do. Sports is 10% about watching the actual games, and 90% about discussion and arguing about what did, can, should or will happen in the games. I don't think you improve the 10% with a playoff system, and sure as hell know that you decrease the 90%...
And Timmy:
Then I'm done "pretending" that some teams/coaches think that winning a national championship is their most important goal for the season. :thumbsup:
EVERY single sports league that has a real playoff has one or two teams each year (and always the best teams too) that rest key players the last game or two of the regular season. NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NCAA DII, MLS, etc, etc. "We're not like them, our sport has more 'respect for the game'" is expecting a bit much of a sport where we all basically agree that the top tier programs regularly violate and/or stretch the rules, don't you think? I mean sure, Ohio State is probably never going to blow off Michigan, but I wouldn't have thought the Broncos would sit starters for half a game against the Raiders either. And, how many matchups are OSU vs MI? It's the ISU vs OSU type of matchups that I'm worried about.
Last edited:
:huh:
NFL teams sit key players because they're GUARANTEED a spot in the postseason standings, i.e. the Packers were going to finish #1 in the NFC regardless of the outcome of their last game; this is NOT true for NCAA. For example, Let's say we have an eight-team playoff and Alabama is ranked #1. Do you think they would jeopardize their ranking by sitting players against Auburn or in the SEC championship game? Why would they do that? There is no GUARANTEED spot in the playoffs, i.e. their ranking will slip with a loss.
Whoa nellie! So you're saying to use rankings? Wait, what?
Ok, seriously, you apparently are. Several people are saying "no." (Incidentally, it almost looks like that's what Larry Scott is saying too.) You've got to use rankings. That's one of my points (and one with which you apparently agree). (In my original post on the subject I said any playoff system needed to have two things: 1. very limited numbers (no more than 4) and 2. be based on rankings. You're apparently agreeing with #2 - lots of people aren't - they're just completely wrong
.I think we're disagreeing on my #1, which is different. I think that if there's 8 or more playoff teams, even if you use rankings, that you'll occasionally have teams slow-playing. It's not as pronounced a problem, but I think it's there (and I think the problem increases exponentially as you up the number of playoff teams). I also think that 8 is the playoff number where the bowl system is seriously endangered - and removal of the bowl system really lessens the quality of the games, not for the top 25 teams, but for the teams in the 25-80 range.
Take a team like Wyoming, my wife's alma mater. The team went to one bowl game while she was a student - the Las Vegas Bowl. Big deal, right? Actually, yes, it was a big deal. The students who were there remember that, it was something special. They are proud of it - here we are, little ol' Wyoming, and we went to a bowl game. Here's the thing: with a serious playoff system, Wyoming never even sniffs a playoff berth during the stretch of time those students were there. In fact, they may only sniff a playoff berth maybe once or twice in their entire history, and they may never actually play a post-season game. But, in the current system, they do go to bowl games a couple times a decade. This is good. Playoffs with 8 or more teams threatens, and eventually destroys this. That's not good.
Whoa nellie! So you're saying to use rankings? Wait, what?
Ok, seriously, you apparently are. Several people are saying "no." (Incidentally, it almost looks like that's what Larry Scott is saying too.) You've got to use rankings. That's one of my points (and one with which you apparently agree). (In my original post on the subject I said any playoff system needed to have two things: 1. very limited numbers (no more than 4) and 2. be based on rankings. You're apparently agreeing with #2 - lots of people aren't - they're just completely wrong
I think we're disagreeing on my #1, which is different. I think that if there's 8 or more playoff teams, even if you use rankings, that you'll occasionally have teams slow-playing. It's not as pronounced a problem, but I think it's there (and I think the problem increases exponentially as you up the number of playoff teams). I also think that 8 is the playoff number where the bowl system is seriously endangered - and removal of the bowl system really lessens the quality of the games, not for the top 25 teams, but for the teams in the 25-80 range.
There has to be some way of ranking for seating in a playoff system; however, I also think that you should be guaranteed a spot if you win a BCS conference. I think an 8-16 team playoff solves a lot of the issues that many fans gripe about: 1) if you win your conference you get an automatic berth; this negates the subjective rankings based on perceived conference strength that we have with the BCS currently. (Note: I thought the SEC was the best conference last year; however, that doesn't necessarily mean they have the best team), 2) it allows for mid-majors that are highly ranked and deserve a chance to prove it on the field, yet aren't ever going to be ranked 1 or 2 in the BCS (see: Boise State or Utah in past years), and 3) there is still room for multiple teams from the same conference.
I couldn't care less about Wyoming. :smile2:
If you have 8-16 teams you still are crowning the team that got hot at the end, not the team that was best throughout the year. It may be subjective, so is a playoff seating. With 16 teams you are going to end up eventually with a "champion" that lost at least 2 games in the year. To me that's a joke, not a champion.
There is no perfect system but compared to the options I will take the one we have. It makes college football fun from week 1 to the very end. It also allows a lot of other schools to have a "great" season even if they don't win the championship. It is a big part of what makes college football special.
dply
Doble hoja
I mostly agree with you but I think there is room for both. A plus 1 would be a nice stopgap until we come up with something better.
College football is special to me. Changing things even if it is for the perceived better kind of scares me. I don't want CFB to turn into the NFL.
dply
Doble hoja
please
dply
Doble hoja
Change scares me. Last time I voted for change a Russian agent took over the white house.
the chocolate baby says it is okay.
Last edited:
I could live with a plus one. I can see years in which 3 or even 4 teams have a legitimate argument that over the entire year they were the best team. We have had years in which 3 teams playing legitimate (major conference) schedules were undefeated or like this last year in which we had 3 teams with one loss. Had Oregon gone undefeated in the PAC we would have had 4 teams with a legit arguement. I don't ever see a case where we have 8 teams who can legitimately claim to have had the best overall year. The plus one would let you answer the question without starting to get into the "second chance" mentality that makes games meaningless.
In order to make an 8-16 team playoff you're going to have to play pretty consistent football throughout the year. This isn't baseball and the '91 Twins.
LSU was a two loss team when they beat Ohio State for the title. Are they not a champion to you? I'm not following your logic.
You know what I dislike about the current system? Writers and coaches and algorithms deciding which two teams out of five with 11-1 records will play for the title. Just settle it on the field.