Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2009/10 College Football Thread

Tomorrow said:
Your wish is my command!

I present to you...The BCS!
Click to expand...

No matter how you try to twist it, it's not a playoff. Sorry.

And no, I'm not joking. The procedure is exactly the same as the other NCAA sports, except for the size of the bracket.
Click to expand...

You understand that it's only a bracket if the winner of one game advances to play the winner of another, right? The problem with college football and using something like the BCS to determine who deserves to be in the championship is that the top 8 or so teams usually don't play each other during the season so it's hard to gauge merit in terms of putting teams at specific ranks. For that reason alone there's far too much subjectivity not to have a real playoff system.

And frankly, I'll take a one-round playoff any day over the possibility of having a #8 team winning the National Championship.
Click to expand...

A playoff having the number 8 team winning the championship proves that the previous ranking was inaccurate and that the team previously ranked number 8 actually is the best team in the country. It also gives the opportunity of teams who don't have the hardest strength of schedule in the world (Boise St.) to prove their worth.
 
Tomorrow said:
And frankly, I'll take a one-round playoff any day over the possibility of having a #8 team winning the National Championship.
Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is in thinking that there is a dramatic difference between #1 and #8 and that a bunch of people in a room can determine what will happen when the games are played. A playoff is the only objective way to determine who is the best and who is the eighth best.

Just take a look at last year's final (pre-bowl) BCS standings, and the results of the bowls. #6 Utah thumped #4 Alabama, #3 Texas squeaked past #10 Ohio State, #7 Texas Tech lost to #25 Mississippi, #1 OU lost to #2 Florida, #9 Boise lost to #11 TCU, etc. Pretty much the only game that went "as expected" (according to the BCS) was #5 USC whipping #8 Penn State.

Or look at the NCAA Basketball Tournament. Sure there are upsets every year. But it's very, very rare that the Final Four doesn't contain 2-3 teams universally considered to be the top teams, and even rarer for the national champion to be thought of as a lesser team that got "lucky" or even "hot" for a few weeks.
 
IgnatiusTheKing said:
The problem with your argument is in thinking that there is a dramatic difference between #1 and #8 and that a bunch of people in a room can determine what will happen when the games are played. A playoff is the only objective way to determine who is the best and who is the eighth best.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, that's the strength of my argument. Every year people complain about how the BCS selected a team that wasn't as worthy as another; but how many people argue that the #8 team is the one that shouldn't have been passed over? That right there shows that people aren't jumping all over themselves to let a #8 team win the NC.

Badandy said:
No matter how you try to twist it, it's not a playoff. Sorry.
Click to expand...

In what way is it not a playoff? A committee selects a pre-determined number of teams to play each other in a single-elimination bracket? The fact that it's a single round does make it a playoff with a smaller field, but not any less of a playoff.

You understand that it's only a bracket if the winner of one game advances to play the winner of another, right?
Click to expand...

On what overwhelmingly irrational basis did you arrive at that weak and misguided conclusion? :rolleyes:
 
Tomorrow said:
On what overwhelmingly irrational basis did you arrive at that weak and misguided conclusion? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Overwhelmingly irrational? What? Heh.

A playoff bracket is when multiple teams play through different rounds to advance to the next.

The college football season would be a playoff bracket if, say, Boise State advanced to the second week (round) of the season to play USC, and so forth.

As it is, how can you possibly argue that the college football season is a bracket when all teams play games independently of each other and "advance" regardless of how many losses?

It's just silly. ;)
 
evilgEEk said:
As it is, how can you possibly argue that the college football season is a bracket when all teams play games independently of each other and "advance" regardless of how many losses?
Click to expand...

Go back and read it again - I argued that the BCS - its process of selecting two teams to play for the NC - is a playoff bracket of a single round. It looks like this:

Code: 
BCS #2
--------------------
                    |
                    |  National Champs
                    ------------------------
                    |
BCS #1              |
--------------------

Just because it's small doesn't mean it isn't a bracket, and just because it's only one round doesn't mean it isn't a playoff.
 
Tomorrow, I see your point and I won't argue that the BCS bowl series and the college football schedule isn't "good for college football". By doing things the way they do they maximize the importance of every game each week because the only way to play for a title is to go undefeated or lose early in the season. And, of course, the bowl games are huge money makers. I know families who save up every year to go to whatever bowl game their team ends up in. Could they afford to travel to 2 or 3 games if there was a playoff, I don't know, but I doubt it? Not to mention the simple buzz about the polls that comes from all the conflict and differing opinions. The controversy alone keeps college football in the spotlight on a more regular basis.

So, from a bottom line money, marketing, and exposure perspective I understand that the BCS is good for college football. However, the competitor and ethicist in me just feels that the only way these matters are truly decided is through direct competition on the field. I agree that every team can't play every other team in some national round robin and that at some point there will be decisions on who "makes the playoffs". However, at present there is no way for some of the smaller schools to be given consideration due to the "strength of schedule" argument. The potential for upset and the "cinderella stories" is part of what makes the NCAA tournament so great and I think it would be just as beneficial in football as well. We also can't forget that not everyone plays the same number of games due to some conferences having a conference championship. Those teams are at a huge risk because of the extra game at the end of the season against what will undoubtedly be a tough and possibly high ranked opponent.

And c'mon, the fact that there have been years with "co-national champions" is a joke. A system that even has this end result as a possibility is flawed to start with.
 
Tomorrow said:
but how many people argue that the #8 team is the one that shouldn't have been passed over? That right there shows that people aren't jumping all over themselves to let a #8 team win the NC.
Click to expand...

Were you paying attention last year? The #6 Utes spanked Alabama who was ranked #1 for most of the season. After the game, Utah was mighty upset that we didn't even get a shot at the title. In fact, the whining was so great that MacDawg left the board and I haven't seen him back since. :( A playoff would have solved this issue nicely.

Same thing happened to the Utes in 2004, except it was even more intense then. In 2004, the Utes never even played a close game, but blewout everyone they played. And what's the best they could possibly end up with? #4 in the AP poll? With no chance of getting higher at all, I don't know how you could possibly regard that as fair.

P-Worm
 
In addition to the snubs of non-BCS teams like Utah in 2004/2008 and Boise in 2006, there were also the ridiculous "championship" games in featuring a two-loss LSU team (2007 season), an OU team coming off a beatdown by K-State (2003), a Nebraska team coming off a beatdown by Colorado (2001) and the exclusion of a consensus #2 Miami team (2000).

So semantics can be argued all day long (and Tomorrow, too), but the bottom line is that the BCS is fraught with controversy every year because it's not a legitimate way to decide a champion. And even if everyone can agree that eight teams is too many (and we can't), even a four-team playoff would be a dramatic leap in the right direction.
 
P-Worm said:
Were you paying attention last year? The #6 Utes spanked Alabama who was ranked #1 for most of the season. After the game, Utah was mighty upset that we didn't even get a shot at the title. In fact, the whining was so great that MacDawg left the board and I haven't seen him back since. :( A playoff would have solved this issue nicely.
Click to expand...

Would it have solved the issue if only the top 4 teams were selected for the playoff and Utah was still left out at #6? Somebody's always going to be left out, whether you select 2 teams or 16; someone's always going to be the first team on the outside looking in, so there's always going to be whining.

I can't stand to watch the NCAA basketball tournament, mostly because it's too bloated. There's no reason to have that many teams. In my opinion, it dilutes the meaning of the regular season to have seven teams from a 12-team conference make the tournament. I'd rather not see something like that happen to college football, even on a smaller scale.

I actually enjoyed the old system with the conference tie-ins and no BCS, but I think the current system does more to settle it on the field than the old (non-) system did.
 
Tomorrow said:
Would it have solved the issue if only the top 4 teams were selected for the playoff and Utah was still left out at #6? Somebody's always going to be left out, whether you select 2 teams or 16; someone's always going to be the first team on the outside looking in, so there's always going to be whining.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would much prefer having a 4 team playoff to the system we have now. But even then, a 4 team playoff isn't much of a playoff. I think there should be at least 8 teams in the running and then let them decide it on the field.

Sure there's going to be whining by the team that just barely doesn't make it in, but at least it gives the lesser teams a chance. With the situation we have now, I'm not sure if a non-BCS team can ever play for the championship, no matter how good they are.

P-Worm
 
I'd rather have an eight team playoff than what we have now. A crying #9 is likely to have a lot more warts than a crying #3. Plus it gives the non-BCS schools a shot at it.

But I do agree with Tomorrow in that if we don't get an expanded playoff, I'd rather it just go back to the way it was, with the bowl tie-ins. New Year's Day was awesome back then.
 
dmr727 said:
I'd rather have an eight team playoff than what we have now. A crying #9 is likely to have a lot more warts than a crying #3. Plus it gives the non-BCS schools a shot at it.
Click to expand...

Nailed it.

dmr727 said:
But I do agree with Tomorrow in that if we don't get an expanded playoff, I'd rather it just go back to the way it was, with the bowl tie-ins. New Year's Day was awesome back then.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly with both of you on this.
 
To anyone dissing Alabama

At the Tenn. game If Cody missed that block Juilo would have hit it. Just look at the next SI.
 
Tomorrow said:
Go back and read it again - ...
Click to expand...

I thought you were arguing that the entire season was a playoff, not just the last game.

So, you're absolutely correct! It is a teensy-weensy-itsy-bitsy miniature playoff. ;)

For what it's worth, I'm perfectly content with the system as it is now. Mainly because I don't want to waste my breath (or fingertips) on clamoring for a playoff system when it will likely never happen.

Just let my Broncos get in to a BCS Bowl every year and get that money pumping in to the school and I'm perfectly content.

BCS Bowls = money = facility upgrades = more exposure = better recruits = more BCS Bowls = more money!

It's a wonderful circle. Something all you fancy BCS schools have been enjoying for years.
 
evilgEEk said:
I thought you were arguing that the entire season was a playoff, not just the last game.

So, you're absolutely correct! It is a teensy-weensy-itsy-bitsy miniature playoff. ;)

For what it's worth, I'm perfectly content with the system as it is now. Mainly because I don't want to waste my breath (or fingertips) on clamoring for a playoff system when it will likely never happen.

Just let my Broncos get in to a BCS Bowl every year and get that money pumping in to the school and I'm perfectly content.

BCS Bowls = money = facility upgrades = more exposure = better recruits = more BCS Bowls = more money! = Better/harder Schedule??

It's a wonderful circle. Something all you fancy BCS schools have been enjoying for years.
Click to expand...

Had to do it.
 
This USC vs. Oregon game is great so far. Texas looks to be handling their business.

Oregon is taking the hammer to USC. Over 300 yards rushing it's looking like. Oregon looks very, very good. BCS? Not really a USC fan here but I follow as I live here and root for them. But boy is it nice seeing Pete Carrol getting his ass handed to him with all the smug success he's had here over the years. Don't think I've ever seen a worse loss in his era. The media here will run with this :D

47-20 is the final. The most points ever given up by his teams. A thorough thrashing. Oregon is a serious team with over 600 yards of offense. Oregon vs. Florida in the BCS? I can see it, easily.
 
jecapaga said:
This USC vs. Oregon game is great so far. Texas looks to be handling their business.

Oregon is taking the hammer to USC. Over 300 yards rushing it's looking like. Oregon looks very, very good. BCS? Not really a USC fan here but I follow as I live here and root for them. But boy is it nice seeing Pete Carrol getting his ass handed to him with all the smug success he's had here over the years. Don't think I've ever seen a worse loss in his era. The media here will run with this :D

47-20 is the final. The most points ever given up by his teams. A thorough thrashing. Oregon is a serious team with over 600 yards of offense. Oregon vs. Florida in the BCS? I can see it, easily.
Click to expand...

I think Pete Carroll may try to lobby to never play in the state of Oregon again. :) When was the last time we saw USC get whipped like that? Wow.

Anyway, I don't think Oregon will jump over Texas in the polls. I think if Texas wins out, they make it to the BCS title game. And honestly, given the sad state of the Big 12 this year, I don't see anybody beating them. Similarly, if Florida and Alabama win out, the SEC winner plays Texas. LSU may be the only roadblock in Alabama's path, and I don't think anybody will top Florida, although FSU's offense may cause problems for them.
 
steve2112 said:
When was the last time we saw USC get whipped like that? Wow.
Click to expand...

Don't think it's ever happened. Not even close. I think their loss margin is by 3 points or less for the most part. A serious correction in the standings. I never thought USC should be rated that high and tonight is further proof.

Not sure it's possible for Oregon to get to the final BCS game but they are very good. Good to see Carroll humbled even though he is a great coach and extremely active in the community.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back