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!
Playoff Thoughts
- Thread starter Ralphandler1
- Start date
OUBuff
American
May I point out... Weekends.
Ralphandler1
Member
Actually if I am not mistaken TT was undefeated til they played OU. And as it stands now that game actually meant something. With a 8 or 16 team playoff both team would be in regardless so that game was completely meaningless.
Mr. Babar
I have no elephant books
Glad to see I'm one of the two voting for no playoff. I also like being in the minority - especially when I'm right. :smile:
Seriously, college football is unlike any major sport. You would have 117 teams competing for one of eight spots (16 would mean much shorter regular seasons and still 101 teams left out). The regular season would definitely lose some luster and the non-conference scheduling would get watered down.
I don't get too animated over this subject anymore - history is on my side. I was watching a game from 1983 on ESPN Classic and the announcers were discussing whether there should be a playoff and how it could happen in the near future. 26 years later and still no playoff.
Good debate, but pointless.
Seriously, college football is unlike any major sport. You would have 117 teams competing for one of eight spots (16 would mean much shorter regular seasons and still 101 teams left out). The regular season would definitely lose some luster and the non-conference scheduling would get watered down.
I don't get too animated over this subject anymore - history is on my side. I was watching a game from 1983 on ESPN Classic and the announcers were discussing whether there should be a playoff and how it could happen in the near future. 26 years later and still no playoff.
Good debate, but pointless.
unbiasedtruth
Well-Known Member
correct you are, had TTech won, they would have beenin 1st place all alone in the South division at 7-0. Once they lost to OU, a 3 way tie existed between TTech, Texas and OU all with 6-1 records with each team having one more game left, TTech/Baylor; Texas/A&M; OU/OSU.
Tech only dropped to 7th in the polls after the OU game
14ers4me
Member
My point was a regular season game between two highly ranked teams might not be as important if there was a playoff, but who cares? It would still be a good game and it would be important for seeding purposes because both teams would no doubt get in. But are a couple of games a year that meet that criteria going to offset the excitement that a playoff would bring? I don't think so. The momentum would build each week and the finale would truly be for the National Championship. Plus, you'd inject some life into all these bowls that no one cares about anymore.
The game would not have been meaningless. If the BCS system was used to seed teams in a bracket, Tech would have gone from a possible #1 or #2 seed down to a #7 or #8 seed. I can't recall which teams were ranked #16, #15, #7 or #8, but off the top of my head I'd suppose it would mean the difference between playing somebody like Penn State or Kansas.
Is it really so different that what is working for every other sport wouldn't work for it in some format?? That sounds like BCS propaganda
I'm with the camp that says use BCS rankings to seed a 10, 12 or 16 team playoff. Give the top two or four a first round bye, that would help to keep things interesting during the regular season
Ralphandler1
Member
But as it stands with our current system (or with a +1) that game meant everything to both schools. The hype and build up to big games in our current system is what makes college football great. The game still would have meant something to both schools in a playoff system... but I promise not as much. That game became basically a playoff for those 2 schools. So instead of worrying about setting up an official end of season playoff, why not just think of the entire regular season as a playoff? Then you don't give teams with 2,3 or 4 losses the opportunity to play for something they don't deserve.
You should read an article Phil Steele wrote about a while back (couldn't find a link) He argues that what makes college football so good now is the fact that the regular season IS essentially a playoff. Lose and you don't get the chance to play in the national title. You either put up or shut up all season. No excuses just win and you will get your shot. A playoff just lets teams who don't perform all year have a shot.
If the regular season were a playoff, as you argue, then Utah would have been the champion. The regular season is NOT a playoff and saying so doesn't even make sense. I've included a link to the definition of 'playoff' because I think you just haven't learned what it actually means--it's okay, it's not your fault. BTW, unicorns are not real.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/playoff?r=75
Yea, that's the same article I was referring to in one of my earlier posts, and that's the option I've always favored the most. He writes basically the same article every year in his preview magazine. His proposal is a 4-team playoff that incorporates 3 of the major bowls, and rotates them every year. This way we get an official playoff without compromising the regular season in any way.
:yeahthat:
The regular season is most certainly not a playoff. Having a 16-team playoff would not diminish the importance of the regular season. The only reason the basketball season is so diminished is because they allow 65 teams into that playoff. 16 teams is much more reasonable. It's exclusive enough to keep the regular season meaningful, and inclusive enough to ensure all the truly best teams get a shot at the championship.
87toInfinity
Well-Known Member
Except for the bball the season isn't ruined...after you take all of the regular season conference champs and then the conference tourney champs, there are only so many spots to fill and that's why there are always discussions on bubble teams, some get in, some get left out. That's why all the regular season games are important because Maryland might not get in as a bubble team even though they beat North Carolina, because they lost to Morgan State.
I didn't say it was ruined. I said it was diminished.
87toInfinity
Well-Known Member
My bad and maybe a little, but I haven't seen any team give up on games because they know they're in. They still fight for seeding.
somebody
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't favor ANY system that continues to reward Notre Dame for staying out of a conference and having a real schedule EVERY year.
Oh, you mean like Florida and Oklahoma last year? LSU/OSU the year before? etc. An undefeated champ is the exception, not the rule...
Ralphandler1
Member
That is what I favor as well. Just not a playoff
You and I must be 2 of the 3 that voted for BCS. :lol:
Junction
Club Member
With a 65 team bracket, teams will play for seeding. There's a HUGE difference between getting a #9 seed (Texas, maybe?) or a #16 (North Dakota State, for example). I wouldn't change the Bball tourney. The bubble talk is fun - you could argue it would be even more interesting if the #30 team in the country was in that position, but a smaller field would lose a lot of the appeal of the hoops tourney. In basketball there is always the chance an overmatched team can get hot and win on any given day, more than there is in football. To make the football playoff big enough that teams would really play for seeding, you'd end up with 1 or 2 rounds where a lot of underdogs would have virtually no hope of winning. OTOH, in a smaller field with a variety of 2-3 loss teams, just making sure you get in means you can't take games for granted.
The difference between Kansas and Penn State last year in football may not have been as dramatic as the difference between Texas and ND State in hoops, but on the other hand, Kansas is about as far down the CFB totem pole as you'd want to go and still get teams that have half a chance of winning. I really think both sports would be better with playoffs, but football would definitely need a smaller field. 8 teams, or 16 at the max...
14ers4me
Member
That arguement is Bull**** to me. Lots of one loss teams play and win the NC. LSU won it as a two loss team. It's when you lose that keeps a team out and that is crap. Texas beat OU, but lost late in the year and stayed out. As for the last remark, a team that doesn't perform "all year" isn't going to make the playoff anyway. If you took the top eight teams regardless of conference and had a playoff, chances are any of them would be good enough to win it. You'd inject some life into the other bowls (which are dead now) that could be used for the playoffs. Think of the first round matchups that would have been created last year if you'd have taken the top 8 from the BCS standings, or used any combination of the eight for matchups:
OU-Penn St
Florida-Texas Tech
Texas-Utah
Alabama-USC
USC-Penn St was an OK Rose Bowl, but if they played with a chance to move on the excitement and interest would have been much greater.