I was listening to Mike and Mike in the Morning today and they said that Bill Curry made this argument against the playoff.
"It's the only regular season that actually means something. The players try harder because they know that in order to go to the championship game they need to win every game."
This is the craziest thing I have ever heard! I played college sports and I never thought once about playing harder one time than another. College athletes play hard every game because they love the game!!!!! But, what if what Bill said was true, does that mean that as soon as a team loses one game that they don't try hard to win (since they are practically out of the Nat. Champ. game)?????????????? At this point, according to Bill, your season would be over. If we had a playoff, teams with one loss would still be playing their butts off because they would be fighting for a good seed in the playoff!!!!!
Heard that to KMAN and I sort of agree. I like that OU games means something. USC too( people not UCLA-USC fans) S.Miss/TCU would mean nothing and now tonight it's a game we all will watch. I do think it is the best regular season in any sport. Although the NFL is similiar, since the parity involved. One thing I do think is why not use the bcs type system and just add 1 extra game. just 1. So this year you could have, providing they win out, which OSU won't. BUt OU/lsu USC/OSU winners in the big game. If classes are a issue, which they aren't, then make teams play 11 d-1 teams only plus any conf. playoffs, since every conf. in the next 5 years will have one. Screw the 16 team playoff, cause teams like Purdue, who are great, can say so we losta couple games, we still can run the table since we area 15 seed.
I would prefer to keep the regular season "sacred" as well .... but the way you do that is through the use of a MINI PLAYOFF
A 16 team playoff would be a joke! This far into the season, the cream has pretty much risen to the top ... and a team with 3 losses has NO BUSINESS in a playoff, IMHO
If the season ended today, I'd like to see one of the following scenarios:
-a 6 team playoff with the two top seeds getting a bye week
-an 8 team playoff
Both would use the BCS ranking for seedings
------------------------------------------------ SCENARIO #1
USC vs. UGA
LSU vs. TEX
Byes: Oklahoma, Ohio State
Oklahoma vs. lower seeded winner from week #1
Ohio State vs. higher seeded winner from week #1
two advancing teams in a winner take all championship game!
------------------------------------------------ SCENARIO #2
Cotton = Oklahoma vs. TCU
Outback = LSU vs. Texas
Fiesta = USC vs. LSU
Capital One = Ohio State vs. Tenn
Orange = winners of Cotton and Outback
Rose = winners of Fiesta and Capital One
Sugar Bowl = Orange Bowl and Rose Bowl Champs
-Orange, Rose, Sugar and Fiesta always rotated among quarterfinal, semi-final and Championship game
-Three of the following alternating each year as a quarterfinal game: Peach, Outback, Cotton and Capital One
[This message was edited by BigDaddyNole on November 20, 2003 at 11:42 AM.]
First off, a 16 team playoff is simply unworkable unless you reduce the number of games during the season, and that won't happen. So the biggest playoff would be 8 teams, and an even more plausable scenario is 4 teams (the teams that win their BCS games).
If this were the case, how exactly does a playoff system cheapen the regular season? There is no difference between the current system, where every team in the country is competing to get one of eight coveted spots in the BCS. If the BCS system was scrapped or modifued, there would still be 117 teams battling to get into an 8-team tournament.
Use this week-end as an example. Ohio State plays Michigan, and both teams probably need to win to make a BCS bowl game. If Ohio State loses, they are probably out of the BCS....just like they would be out of a tournement scenario. Everygame leading up to this week-ends game was important, just so they had this opportunity.
Too me it's easy. You play expand the BCS to seven bowls. The winners of the first four games play-off in a 4-team tournement...Bring in three of the lessor bowls, say the Cotton, Holiday, and Outback..whatever. Reduce the Fiesta Bowl to a preliminary round BCS bowl (lack of tradition). Seed the teams 1 through 8, 1 plays 8, etc. There will always be upsets (i.e., 8 beats 1..that's what makes the NCAA basketball tournemant so fun).
Then you let the Big Three Bowls (SUGAR, ORANGE, AND ROSE) rotate the final three games. Two more weeks of football, HUGE $$$$$$, and a true national champion.
Bill Curry's comments are rediculous. Let's assume USC, Ohio State, and LSU win out. Let's throw in another twist. Oklahoma loses to K-State. I could make an argument for any of the four teams to be eligible to play in the national title game, but since only two can play, there will always be controversy.
Just think back two years ago when Nebraska was destroyed by Colorado. They did not win their conference, did not play in their conference tournement, and was rewarded by this current system with the national championship game....HUH? By the way, the team that should have played Miami that year, Oregon, crushed Colorado, which was also ranked ahead of Oregon in the final BCS poll.
Under a 3-game playoff system after the initial BCS bowl games, the top 4 teams may still be the only teams standing and would have to play each other. That would be incredible.
Now some would say that this diminishes the initial round of BCS games, and further reduces the bowl games. I don't know how you can further diminish the lesser bowl games. Half of them have teams with five or six losses, and are played in stadiums that are half filled, and are watched primarily by alumni and gamblers. That won't change under a play-off system.
As far as diminishing the initial 4 BCS bowls, it would be the same as the NFL's 2nd round. Are these games any less important? Imagine this year seeing the following four games in the first round: Oklahoma (1) vs Miami (8), Ohio State (2) vs. Florida State (7); USC (3) vs. Tennessee (6), LSU (4) Vs. Texas (5). I'm pretty sure there would be quite a bit of interest to see these games, knowing the winners play-off for the NC.
It's time for a tournement. No more speculation, no more contraversy. The national champion has to play through the best teams in the country to win.
See I would be against that. In no way do I think FSU, Miami, Tenn should be in this. I am a Miami fan but screw them. Top 4 thats it--nothing else. Ya know Miami loses at Vtech fine, but at home to Tenn. No way should they get a shot at it all. FSU too.--Sorry Nole. 4 teams--nice and sweet
you didn't see me include FSU into my playoff scenario .... or Miami
like I said, use the BCS standings after the regular season is over for seeding the top 6 or 8 teams ... or even top 4 if you want to really simplify it
but I would be totally opposed to having any playoff system AFTER the bowls ---- the current bowls would need to be used or the season would be waaaaay too long (not that I get sick of college football!)
I agree Nole--rotate the big ones around every year.
I was just saying sorry cause I know you love FSU. I just can't see anything than the top 4. Tenn, Miami, FSU, Osu if they lost, texas don't deserve to be in this. there are 4 teams today that do OU USC LSU and OSU. OSU loses this weekend then see what happens. Thats it
You have to include conference winners, Unless we get to four power conferences, which is really not that far off. That is why I included Miami (assuming they win) and Florida State under this year's scenario.
It should not only be about "deserving" to be in it. Eppers, I generally agree with you about Miami and FSU, but if they win their conference, they have to be in it.
Think about it...that scenario would have excluded the hottest team in college football last year, USC. But they had two early losses which would have excluded them from a four team play-off. They fought back and won their conference and absolutely deserved a crack at a tournement entry.
Just like in the NFL...Cincinnati could win their division by going 9-7, even 8-8. Should we exclude them?
BDN, I agree, I say move the games up in December. I hate that some bowl games get played over a month or more after the regular season ends. That defeats the purpose of momentum. You could start an 8-team BCS series in mid-december and still finish the first week in January. Ask the kids involved if they would prefer to be playing football games in front of hundreds of millions of people (TV), or practicing for six weeks before their bowl game. Easy answer.
I say this..four guaranteed bids from the major conference winners (Big 12, Big 11, ACC, and Pac 10)...A guaranteed bid for a mid-major conference champion (Big East, Mac, Wac, MWC, Sunbelt, and/or independent), so long that the team is ranked in the top 10 of the BCS poll, and then three "at large" bids to the three top-ranked BCS teams.
The mid-majors can't bitch...If TCU win's out they would be in it no matter what. The downgrade of Big East is necessary, no offense to Syracuse and Pittsburg.
Start the 1st level BCS bowls (4 games) in the middle to late of December, Play the semi's on the Saturday between Christmas and New Years, and the championship game the first Saturday after New Years.
Someone give me a reason why this scenario does not work.
WC: the "problem" is that it makes TOO MUCH SENSE and these freakin' pinheads that are chairmen for the ACME Rubber Dogshit Bowl and the RotoRooter Clogged Bowl will pitch a fit because they think that their "importance" will diminish ... as if anyone (besides us 'cappers and football freaks) gives a sewer rat's hairy nut about them anyway!
Regarding the argument that the regular season would be cheapened if we had a tournament....... The argument can be made both ways. There are 95 out of the 120 D1 teams whose season meant nothing as soon as they lost their second game of the season. If we had a playoff the rest of the regular season would mean something to these teams. Now, who cares if they go 10-2 it's all for nothing.
It's because all of the bowl games all selected not according to who deserves to be there but according to how many fans are brought to that city. It's all about how many people will come to our city and how much money will they spend in OUR city.
If we have a playoff, the people in charge of the bowls won't go for this because they would have less say in who plays in their bowl.
The whole current system is a joke. The only reason you watch a bowl game on TV is if you have money on it or if it's the National Championship game.
you got it kman. Thats why the onlny way it would work is with 4 teams. anything longer or drawn out would not work. People would give up on it, but a 4 team playoff and higher BCS seed gets the bowl closest to it's school. SO now lets say usc-lsu--they play out west--rose won't do it, but lets say fiesta or something like that. These places want a teams that travel well. Why does the Fiesta alwasy want the big ten or ND--they travel. Bowls always love NEB or OU
There is also a problem with anything less than a 16 or maybe even a 24 team playoff.
No mid-majors, and after the stink that they raised this year, I don't see the NCAA doing anything to further exclude them.
Besides, 120 teams and only 4 make the playoffs? I'd just as soon not have one.
smilinjack - If you atleast allow the top 4 to play in a tournament you won't have any more of this "USC deserved to play in the NC game instead of OSU". Remember this tournament would be to determine the best team in the country, not the top 10. I think you can honestly say that every year there are more than 2 teams that deserve to play in the NC game. This would allow the top 4 teams in the country a chance to win it all.