🏈 7/2 Roundtable - There Shouldn't Be A Playoff

[252BAMA]

I say, "AMEN!" to the title of this thread. And taking liberty(inserting Alabama for Ohio State and Auburn for Michigan) with the following quote is why I say that.

"...you do not want to trample the importance of the regular season in college football, which could happen if the brackets are too large. How about this for a scenario? Having already clinched a playoff, Alabama decides to rest a dozen or so starters for the annual showdown with Auburn. You roll your eyes today, but it can and would happen with, say, a 16-team playoff."

What do you say?

7/2 Roundtable - Why shouldn't there be a playoff? It's the Thursday topic in the CFN Daily Roundtable Discussion.

http://cfn.scout.com/2/876507.html

 

[bamabarney]

All confereces need a conference championship game. Take the confernce champs rank them according to polls and play. All of the other teams put them in a bowl game so they can have postseason play as well. May be a stupid idea but you know.:dazed:

 

[252BAMA]

All confereces need a conference championship game. Take the confernce champs rank them according to polls and play. All of the other teams put them in a bowl game so they can have postseason play as well. May be a stupid idea but you know.:dazed:

All I want to see in the way of a playoff is the Plus One. When they added the NCCG I thought that is what they were doing.

 

[TerryP]

All I want to see in the way of a playoff is the Plus One. When they added the NCCG I thought that is what they were doing.

That I'm game for.

Anything else, no. It's not going to "settle" anything.

Most of all, considering the track record of the NCAA and money, I don't want them getting their hands on it...screw the non-BCS conferences.

 

[252BAMA]

That I'm game for.

Anything else, no. It's not going to "settle" anything.

Most of all, considering the track record of the NCAA and money, I don't want them getting their hands on it...screw the non-BCS conferences.

Exactly! You would have to have at least 16 teams to add them. Then there would be bitching and moaning for 32, then 64. Hell, you could start out with all 120 and somebody would pull out the Sagrin poll, which includes 1AA, and there would be bitching and moaning to include them!

 

[TheChief]

Yeah, I agree with you guys. Just leave it the way it is and let the really smart people, you know the sports writers and the computer people, decide who should play for the title. The SEC really doesn't have more than one team a year that should be in the hunt. I mean, a loss is a loss. If it happens in a year, you're out of the hunt unless it happens really early.

I guess we all agree that the NFL system doesn't work. In fact, every system in every sport at every level, none of them work because they ALL HAVE A FREAKIN PLAYOFF! The NCAA is the only one that doesn't.

But, don't let the NCAA get its hands on the revenue a playoff would produce, you say. Yeah, they're not making any money right now that's why they don't want to change, because they want to keep on making no money.

How stupid can someone be? Not want a playoff? Now that is stupid.

 

[252BAMA]

Yeah, I agree with you guys. Just leave it the way it is and let the really smart people, you know the sports writers and the computer people, decide who should play for the title. The SEC really doesn't have more than one team a year that should be in the hunt. I mean, a loss is a loss. If it happens in a year, you're out of the hunt unless it happens really early.

I guess we all agree that the NFL system doesn't work. In fact, every system in every sport at every level, none of them work because they ALL HAVE A FREAKIN PLAYOFF! The NCAA is the only one that doesn't.

But, don't let the NCAA get its hands on the revenue a playoff would produce, you say. Yeah, they're not making any money right now that's why they don't want to change, because they want to keep on making no money.

How stupid can someone be? Not want a playoff? Now that is stupid.

And who's going to determine which teams are in your playoff? The answer is in your second sentence.

Besides, I would rather argue about which team is the best. And have someone call me stupid about my choice.

 

[porkchop]

I do agree that all the major conferences should have a championship game. I know that the the 12-team conference is kinda the "default" for a championship game and conferences with fewer teams don't really have one, but I think that it would help if it was a standard practice across the board. In the past that has caused a lot of heartburn amongst fans and programs alike. To see a team like Ohio State or USC get in almost scott-free, while other teams like Florida seemingly have to "earn" their way in causes problems IMHO and it's a bit unbalanced.

On a related note; I do understand that the Pac-10 types argue that a championship game is nothing more than a money-making scam that they shouldn't be forced to adhere to, but if the NCAA really wants things to be level then it should mandate something one way or the other and be done with it.

 

[reger60]

I do not want to see a playoff system. A plus-one might be the simplest way to keep teams like last season's Texas from feeling like they were getting screwed, but for now I'm satisfied that the current system has consistently managed to determine the deserved national champion in recent years.

I also think that the annual "who should be number one and who should be number two" controversy heightens nationwide interest in last two or three games on the schedule as well as the conference championships.

Speaking of conference championships, I am in agreement with Barney. I do think that all BCS conferences should have a championship game. I think not having one actually puts Beg Ten teams at a disadvantage. Having 50 days off between the regular season and your bowl game can't be good for a team.

 

[TerryP]

I do agree that all the major conferences should have a championship game. I know that the the 12-team conference is kinda the "default" for a championship game and conferences with fewer teams don't really have one, but I think that it would help if it was a standard practice across the board. In the past that has caused a lot of heartburn amongst fans and programs alike. To see a team like Ohio State or USC get in almost scott-free, while other teams like Florida seemingly have to "earn" their way in causes problems IMHO and it's a bit unbalanced.

On a related note; I do understand that the Pac-10 types argue that a championship game is nothing more than a money-making scam that they shouldn't be forced to adhere to, but if the NCAA really wants things to be level then it should mandate something one way or the other and be done with it.

I see teams like USC who have lost to two teams from Oregon the last three years. Those losses, not necessarily in 2006 because they lost to UCLA as well, could have been rectified if they had a chance to play that team from Oregon who had beaten them in the season but lost in a Championship game.

I find their arguments hollow. Especially when given the fact there's a good chance they could end up with two BCS teams if they decided to go to a championship game.

 

[porkchop]

I see teams like USC who have lost to two teams from Oregon the last three years. Those losses, not necessarily in 2006 because they lost to UCLA as well, could have been rectified if they had a chance to play that team from Oregon who had beaten them in the season but lost in a Championship game.

I find their arguments hollow. Especially when given the fact there's a good chance they could end up with two BCS teams if they decided to go to a championship game.

That's true too.

 

[TerryP]

Yeah, I agree with you guys. Just leave it the way it is and let the really smart people, you know the sports writers and the computer people, decide who should play for the title. The SEC really doesn't have more than one team a year that should be in the hunt. I mean, a loss is a loss. If it happens in a year, you're out of the hunt unless it happens really early.

I guess we all agree that the NFL system doesn't work. In fact, every system in every sport at every level, none of them work because they ALL HAVE A FREAKIN PLAYOFF! The NCAA is the only one that doesn't.

But, don't let the NCAA get its hands on the revenue a playoff would produce, you say. Yeah, they're not making any money right now that's why they don't want to change, because they want to keep on making no money.

How stupid can someone be? Not want a playoff? Now that is stupid.

So, calling my opinion stupid is how you want this discussion to go. That's fine.

The key to successful sarcasm is to make a point — something you've failed to do in a style only described as grandiose.

The point you are clearly missing is this.

If the NCAA controls the playoffs, that means they also control all the bowl money.

If you put a system in place like some have proposed, it would mean that the monies the SEC received from the BCSNC and the Sugar Bowl last year wouldn't remain in the conference, it would be divided up between all the participants.

It means the SEC, and more importantly Alabama, losses money.

Here's a question I want you to consider.

Let's assume we went to a 16 team playoff. Give me one reason a team like Boise State deserves to have an equal share of the monies when they don't spend the same amount of money as we do? Hell, their expenses last year were a tad over 751K for their entire football program. Bama spends four times that much.

 

[252BAMA]

College football has the most exciting, dynamic,_______(fill in the blank with whatever you like as long as it is good), regular season of any sport. BAR NONE! END OF DEBATE! Anyone who thinks it would remain the same with a playoff system following it has not been paying attention to the regular seasons of other sports.

 

[TheChief]

Okay, so you guys don't want a playoff, but you do want a mandated system where all the conferences have a championship game. Why not just let the sports writers decide that too?

Why play any competitive event and have some arbitrary person, committee or outside system decide the winners and losers?

There is no reasoning involved in trying to convince you guys. This argument was taking place in the '60's, and it will be taking place fifty years from now.



Terry, your quote: The key to successful sarcasm is to make a point — something you've failed to do in a style only described as grandiose.

I have no idea what this even means. Please be succinct in your responses to me.

You also say that if the NCAA controls the playoffs they control the bowl money. Do you really think the NCAA gets nothing from the bowl money now?

You say that Alabama losses (sic) money. First of all, the word is loses, and secondly that's a pretty big leap. The playoff system would create MORE money. Look at how much money the SEC Championship game created. Why do you think everyone else wanted to do it?

Lastly, you mention Boise State and why they deserve money. I don't know where that random team came from this year, but I'll tell you who does deserve a playoff and money and anything else. Utah. Tell me how you know they weren't the best team in the nation last year. They spanked Bama up and down the field. They beat Bama worse than the so-called, mythical national champion Florida Gators. We'll never know. Tell me why we don't have a playoff system and decide who is REALLY the best.

And as for your opinion, it's like Forrest Gump says, "Stupid is as stupid does."

 

[TheChief]

College football has the most anti-climactic, disappointing,_______(fill in the blank with whatever you like as long as it is good), post-season of any sport. BAR NONE! END OF DEBATE! Anyone who thinks it would remain the same if Division I had a playoff system following it has not been paying attention to the post-seasons of other sports.

 

[TheChief]

Name one meaningful bowl game other than the championship game. A sixteen game playoff would have fifteen meaningful post-season games.

 

[Crimson13Tide]

Major CFB has the worst post-season in all of sports. Alabama has ZERO NCAA Championships in football. No team has one. Major CFB is the only sport on Earth that doesn't determine in "Champion" ON THE FIELD. I'm not calling anyone stupid, but if you have the opinion that major CFB doesn't need or should have a playoff, then yes, you have an absurdly stupid opinion.

I may be off count here, but there are 12 conferences in the FBS, no? If so, perfect. 16 team playoff, 12 conference champions, 4 at large invites=(A REAL)NCAA Champion. Over 100 years of major CFB & no team has won an NCAA Championship yet....that is just plain sad.

Terry, just to humor me & because I'm lazy, how would my 16 team playoff worked out last year? What 16 teams would have made it in? 3 of the 4 at-large invites surely would have gone to USC, Texas, & Alabama. Wait, Alabama having a shot at a REAL NC instead of having zero chance what-so-ever?? Sounds good to me!!

 

[TerryP]

Okay, so you guys don't want a playoff, but you do want a mandated system where all the conferences have a championship game. Why not just let the sports writers decide that too?

Why play any competitive event and have some arbitrary person, committee or outside system decide the winners and losers?

There is no reasoning involved in trying to convince you guys. This argument was taking place in the '60's, and it will be taking place fifty years from now.



Terry, your quote: The key to successful sarcasm is to make a point — something you've failed to do in a style only described as grandiose.

I have no idea what this even means. Please be succinct in your responses to me.

You also say that if the NCAA controls the playoffs they control the bowl money. Do you really think the NCAA gets nothing from the bowl money now?

You say that Alabama losses (sic) money. First of all, the word is loses, and secondly that's a pretty big leap. The playoff system would create MORE money. Look at how much money the SEC Championship game created. Why do you think everyone else wanted to do it?

Lastly, you mention Boise State and why they deserve money. I don't know where that random team came from this year, but I'll tell you who does deserve a playoff and money and anything else. Utah. Tell me how you know they weren't the best team in the nation last year. They spanked Bama up and down the field. They beat Bama worse than the so-called, mythical national champion Florida Gators. We'll never know. Tell me why we don't have a playoff system and decide who is REALLY the best.

And as for your opinion, it's like Forrest Gump says, "Stupid is as stupid does."

If you are going to move in the direction of using quotes why not expand your knowledge a bit and use something more than a fictional Hollywood character.

Take Stalin as example when he said, "Everyone has the right to be an idiot — some people just abuse the privilege."

As to Boise State used as an example, if was prefaced by the supposition we were discussing a 16 team playoff and by virtue of their ranking last year they would have been included in the picture.

No one knows who would have been the best team last year. I will not agree that Utah spanked us up and down the field. I will state that I believe if the game was played again, the same result wouldn't have happened.

I don't think there is anyone out there that would consider Utah to be a better team that Florida.

But, I digress. (I do find it somewhat peculiar that people now use Utah as a crutch to defend positions as if one game carries weight in the overall picture)

I make my statement about the NCAA getting their hands on the Bowl money due to where it is derived from — IE: the source...sponsors, specifically those coming from TV generated revenue.

There was a reason that a few schools led the way to create the CFA back in the early '80's. It was to separate themselves from the NCAA and retain the monies generated from what a few coaches foresaw in terms of TV rights.

The move to a NCAA proclaimed National Champion by a NCAA regulated playoff system would take that revenue and put it in the hands of those bureaucrats. You need example? See the NCAA basketball tournament.

There is no guarantee that a playoff system would increase revenue. There's only speculation.

 

[TheChief]

Your words Terry:

I do find it somewhat peculiar that people now (sic) use Utah as a crutch to defend positions as if one game carries weight in the overall picture.


Then why support a one game winner take all championship?

I think that is check mate, but I'll continue.

As far as me expanding my knowledge, I would pit my wits and intelligence about any wide array of topics against you on any day and any occasion and at any time.

And since you mentioned Boise State, check out this article from Boise State and see if they agree with your view of a playoff.
http://www.boisestate.edu/news/president_kustra_commentary.shtml




You say:
The move to a (sic) NCAA proclaimed National Champion by a NCAA regulated playoff system would take that revenue and put it in the hands of those bureaucrats. You need example? See the NCAA basketball tournament.

This taken directly from Wikipedia: The Division I Men's Basketball tournament is the only NCAA championship tournament (officially, the BCS Football Championship is not an NCAA event) where the NCAA does not keep the profits. Instead, the money from the multi-billion-dollar television contract is divided among the Division I basketball playing schools and conferences as follows:
1/6 of the money goes directly to the schools based on how many sports they play (one "share" for each sport starting with 14, which is the minimum needed for Division I membership).
1/3 of the money goes directly to the schools based on how many scholarships they give out (one share for each of the first 50, two for each of the next 50, ten for each of the next 50, and 20 for each scholarship above 150).
1/2 of the money goes to the conferences based on how well they did in the six previous men's basketball tournaments (counting each year separately, one share for each team getting in, and one share for each win except in the Final Four and, prior to the 2008 tournament, the Play-in game). In 2007, based on the 2001 through 2006 tournaments, the Big East received over $14.85 million, while the eight conferences that did not win a first-round game in those six years received slightly more than $1 million each.


Looks like to me you need to expand your knowledge just a bit.

 

[TerryP]

Let me go back to my first post in this thread. "Screw the non-BCS conferences." I don't have the least bit of concern what the President of Boise State has to say about the BCS system. I don't believe he belongs at the table by virtue of one win over Oklahoma a few years ago.

But, I'll use that commentary to illustrate a point.

The BCS is a fundamentally flawed system that is unfair in its access, governance and revenue distribution.

They want a share of the revenue. Yet, they are in no position to have a right to a share of that revenue.

It's quite ironic you have posts over on the political forum about the redistribution of wealth espoused by individuals you've openly criticized but in this situation you are all for allowing a team like Boise State, or Utah, to have their piece of the pie.

What does either team bring to the table other than a good season, a good team, every few years from a very weak conference?

Going back to Kustra's commentary...

The landscape of college football has changed dramatically over the years, especially for mid-major programs, due to the limitations on scholarships, increased marketing opportunities and the bounty of televised games that appear weekly as a result of the universities of Oklahoma and Georgia suing the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in 1984 over its television plan, because it violated antitrust laws. There is no question that parity among college football teams is greater than ever before in its modern history.

There isn't a thing that has changed since the 80's except the money is even bigger now than before.

Financially speaking, a team like Boise State doesn't bring enough to the table. They don't deserve to be in the picture.

Expanding my knowledge through Wikipedia? I'm leaving that one alone.

But, since you've brought it up...it goes to prove my point.

Who do you think came up with the plan to send 1/6th of the money here, another third here and the other half here? It was the NCAA.

What are they doing? Splitting the pie up in a lot of different ways so a lot of schools get some. Redistributing the wealth when only a few select schools are the ones generating the wealth.

Seriously...if you take the BCS revenue and use that system can't you see they are talking about taking that money and splitting it up between more than six conferences (assuming they were to use the plan in cited?)

Chief. If you split something up more times, people get less. How hard is that to comprehend?

Putting this in another light...

I work hard for my money and don't want to see it taxed more, then redistributed, so more people are "happy."

Alabama and other BCS schools have the done same. Worked hard to establish themselves and put their programs in the places they are now.

But, let's change the system because a school like Boise State gets left out...

Screw the non BCS conferences.