If OU makes it and UT does not

[ReedFrawg]

1) Every other college sport at every level is decided by a playoff. Don't give me "these are college kids"...if so, eliminate all playoffs.

2) The bowl system is already crap - attendance stinks at most of the bowls and most of the non-BCS match-ups are crap. Do you think TCU gives a rats butt about that bowl win over Northern Illinois 2 years ago???

There would still be plenty of interest if Ohio State, Penn State, Okie State, Texas Tech, Missouri, Boise and others were battling to get into an 8 or 12 team playoff. A lot of these games would matter in a big way.

Patton:

I agree 100% with you. I am very anti-playoff for the reasons listed and the following two reasons:

1) These are college kids. Juggling classwork and a rigorous footballs schedule is unfair to them. If you can't decide the #1 and #2 teams in the regular season, something is wrong. Your team didn't make it? Tough sh-t. Better luck next year. Like PAtton said, it always works out for the best.

2) A playoff will kill the bowl system and all minor programs. Seriously, it's the same 10 teams every year out 119 playing for major BCS bowls. OU, USC, Texas, Florida, LSU, Ohio St., etc.. The BCS means a lot more to them than most of the other schools, ESPECIALLY the mid-majors like SMU. What happens if there is a playoff? Other bowls suffer. They drop bowls, attendance is low so money is lost, and nobody outside the school's fans care. So where is the incentive to play? Say SMU goes 8-4 during the year of a playoff, only to get shut out of a post season game because there aren't any. All that for nothing? Bowls may not mean a lot for most people, but for the schools, the host city and die hard fans like myself who watch most bowl games, it means the world. What I'm trying to say is that loss of bowls = meaningless seasons for the other 100+ teams who typically don't have a shot at a major bowl game each season. Bowls are a reward for a good season, even if it's the Emerald Nuts Bowl, it's still a sense of pride towards those schools playing.

[EastStang]

Div 1-AA (FCS) has a playoff. It includes such stallwarts as Ivy League Schools, CAA schools with high academic standing like W&M, Richmond, UMass, and lots of private schools like Villanova, Georgetown, etc. They seem to juggle playoffs and studies. Why can't the big schools? They have a 16 team playoff and have had it for 20 years. Works great. Regular season games mean a lot. Last week W&M played Richmond, the winner would go to the playoffs, the loser went home. Went to overtime, a great game. Same with Texas State and SHS. So, you have auto bids to all Division 1-A champions. Then you have the rest be at large. This year that would mean that OU, TT, UT, AL, FL, GA, PSU, Ohio St, USC, Ore. St., CUSA, Utah, Boise, Ball U, SBC, and Oky State.

Seeds: AL vs. SBC, UT vs. CUSA, OU vs. Ore. St., FL vs. Ball, USC vs. Boise, TT vs. PSU, Utah vs. Ohio St., Ga. vs. Oky State. Tell me that would not be a great playoff and each of the teams had to do well in the regular season to get there. And if that wasn't enough figure second round AL vs. Oky State. UT vs. Ohio State. FL vs. TT, OU vs. USC. Tell me those would not draw larger crowds and ratings than the Peach Bowl featuring Wake Forest against South Carolina.

[HB Pony Dad]

Div 1-AA (FCS) has a playoff. It includes such stallwarts as Ivy League Schools, CAA schools with high academic standing like W&M, Richmond, UMass, and lots of private schools like Villanova, Georgetown, etc. They seem to juggle playoffs and studies. Why can't the big schools? They have a 16 team playoff and have had it for 20 years. Works great. Regular season games mean a lot. Last week W&M played Richmond, the winner would go to the playoffs, the loser went home. Went to overtime, a great game. Same with Texas State and SHS. So, you have auto bids to all Division 1-A champions. Then you have the rest be at large. This year that would mean that OU, TT, UT, AL, FL, GA, PSU, Ohio St, USC, Ore. St., CUSA, Utah, Boise, Ball U, SBC, and Oky State.

Seeds: AL vs. SBC, UT vs. CUSA, OU vs. Ore. St., FL vs. Ball, USC vs. Boise, TT vs. PSU, Utah vs. Ohio St., Ga. vs. Oky State. Tell me that would not be a great playoff and each of the teams had to do well in the regular season to get there. And if that wasn't enough figure second round AL vs. Oky State. UT vs. Ohio State. FL vs. TT, OU vs. USC. Tell me those would not draw larger crowds and ratings than the Peach Bowl featuring Wake Forest against South Carolina.

Don't be so logical..

It makes my head hurt

[George S. Patton]

In this era of the BCS, I have yet to hear the argument where the WRONG team won the national title.

USC had no argument from a couple of years ago. Oregon's is argument was completely manufactured. That's BS and they know it.

In 2003 USC was No.1 in both polls at Seasons end, and gets effed by the computers which rank an OK team that lost it's conference championship to K State and a one loss SEC/Saban hyped LSU over them!

LSU allegedly won the 2003 BcS National Title after that 2004 Sugar Bowl farce.

So indeed the WRONG team was crowned NC!

Posted using

Yes, so why don't we walk down memory lane in 2003.

USC's only loss that year was to 8-6 CAL! LSU's only loss was at Florida. Oklahoma's only loss to 11-4 Kansas St. Who had the better season of those opponents? It wasn't CAL -- it was the mistake that USC kept paying for -- just like Oregon St. this year.

I hate this comparison business but since a moment of clarity is needed, it must be done.

One little note. Kansas St. beat CAL in the season opener. But don't worry about that. Cry all you want about USA Today and the AP polls who have built in biases in their voting, the process computer did its job by evaluating each program's season and decided that while USC was a great team, it just wasn't great enough to be at the level of LSU and OU.

So Indeed, the right champion was picked. And if you want to complain about Nick Saban hyping his team, then you better have a chat with Pete Carroll who apparently didn't have the computer's ear.

As an aside, does it make sense that the voters in the AP and USA Today jumped Oklahoma over Texas because they beat Texas Tech? No. Anyone remember how the game at the Cotton Bowl on Oct. 11 worked out?

That would be Texas 45, Oklahoma 35 -- with Texas kicking their [deleted] in the fourth quarter.

I would favor the elimination of the writer's and coaches polls because it does more to disrupt the process than to enhance it.

[ponyfan84]

[quote="ReedFrawg"]1) Every other college sport at every level is decided by a playoff. Don't give me "these are college kids"...if so, eliminate all playoffs.

2) The bowl system is already crap - attendance stinks at most of the bowls and most of the non-BCS match-ups are crap. Do you think TCU gives a rats butt about that bowl win over Northern Illinois 2 years ago???

There would still be plenty of interest if Ohio State, Penn State, Okie State, Texas Tech, Missouri, Boise and others were battling to get into an 8 or 12 team playoff. A lot of these games would matter in a big way.

quote]

Ok:

A) Football is the most physical of all major college sports and takes the biggest toll on ones body, so it's already a lot to ask for college kids to do that.

B) D1-AA has a playoff: but everyone has a shot to win it. The level of competition is pretty [deleted] compared to 1-A. A few years ago, Colgate, my brothers alma matter, a school of 1,200 kids makes it to the finals against Delaware, a state school and traditional D1-AA power. Delaware wins easy. Think that could happen in D1-A? All Mid-Majors would get shut out every year, and even if they were allowed in, you'd have to expand the playoff field, and 9/10 times they wouldnt stand a chance against schools like OU, UT, USC, etc... so what's the incentive? Like I said earlier, 100+ schools never have a shot at a championship, let alone the BCS, so these bowls gives them something worth playing for, not to go 8-4, win your conference then lose 65-10 to Oklahoma in round 1.

C) Does TCU care? Of course not. They think they're better than that bowl and that's their problem. Schools like SMU would give an arm and a leg to play for something, even if it's PapaJohns.com bowl. I remember 2 years ago being so excited at the prospect of the New Orleans Bowl. Like I said, most teams don't have a shot at any major bowl, so they play for pride in these games.

[PoconoPony]

Then all the talk about how with the BCS system the regular season is a playoff is bs! I keep Hearing about who will end up in the big 12 championship game from the south? Umm if it is between UT and Oklahoma UT beat OU at a neutral sight. Both have the same record. So there should be no discussion. I don't understand why people are even bringing up the subject. Because like I said. if OU went over Texas, then that would just prove that the BCS regular season is not a playoff!

Remember Texas decisively defeated Oklahoma at a neutral site and also hammered northern division champ Mizzou at home. Hence, your question is valid that there should be no question that Texas should be the logical representative. Lately, the sports announcers have been using the term "style points" and giving Oklahoma the edge because they have more "style points" which remains an undefined term. Based on "style points" Oklahoma jumped into the #3 in the polls today. Seems like "style points" are no more than short memories relating to the last team to appear in prime time and look good. Remember the 5th criterion Big XII tie breaker (when teams have the same record) is the team with the highest ranking in the polls. Right now Oklahoma is the south representative in the championship game merely because they have "style points" and thererfore a higher ranking in the polls.

[HB Pony Dad]

In this era of the BCS, I have yet to hear the argument where the WRONG team won the national title.

USC had no argument from a couple of years ago. Oregon's is argument was completely manufactured. That's BS and they know it.

In 2003 USC was No.1 in both polls at Seasons end, and gets effed by the computers which rank an OK team that lost it's conference championship to K State and a one loss SEC/Saban hyped LSU over them!

LSU allegedly won the 2003 BcS National Title after that 2004 Sugar Bowl farce.

So indeed the WRONG team was crowned NC!

Posted using

Yes, so why don't we walk down memory lane in 2003.

USC's only loss that year was to 8-6 CAL! LSU's only loss was at Florida. Oklahoma's only loss to 11-4 Kansas St. Who had the better season of those opponents? It wasn't CAL -- it was the mistake that USC kept paying for -- just like Oregon St. this year.

I hate this comparison business but since a moment of clarity is needed, it must be done.

One little note. Kansas St. beat CAL in the season opener. But don't worry about that. Cry all you want about USA Today and the AP polls who have built in biases in their voting, the process computer did its job by evaluating each program's season and decided that while USC was a great team, it just wasn't great enough to be at the level of LSU and OU.

So Indeed, the right champion was picked. And if you want to complain about Nick Saban hyping his team, then you better have a chat with Pete Carroll who apparently didn't have the computer's ear.

As an aside, does it make sense that the voters in the AP and USA Today jumped Oklahoma over Texas because they beat Texas Tech? No. Anyone remember how the game at the Cotton Bowl on Oct. 11 worked out?

That would be Texas 45, Oklahoma 35 -- with Texas kicking their [deleted] in the fourth quarter.

I would favor the elimination of the writer's and coaches polls because it does more to disrupt the process than to enhance it.

Perhaps your recollection is hazy as to what you think you believe or you're still miffed about the 28-14 win over Michigan at the Rose Bowl...

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ ... /index.htm

"Even after they had been hosed by computer geeks with pocket protectors and leapfrogged in the BCS rankings by LSU, self-pity was not an option for the USC Trojans. At least, not for very long. When word came down that they'd been denied a spot in the Sugar Bowl, the men of Troy had serious grounds for outrage . But instead of bellyaching, they followed the example of their head coach, Pete Carroll, and embraced their destiny."

[PoconoPony]

Patton:

I agree 100% with you. I am very anti-playoff for the reasons listed and the following two reasons:

1) These are college kids. Juggling classwork and a rigorous footballs schedule is unfair to them. If you can't decide the #1 and #2 teams in the regular season, something is wrong. Your team didn't make it? Tough sh-t. Better luck next year. Like PAtton said, it always works out for the best.

2) A playoff will kill the bowl system and all minor programs. Seriously, it's the same 10 teams every year out 119 playing for major BCS bowls. OU, USC, Texas, Florida, LSU, Ohio St., etc.. The BCS means a lot more to them than most of the other schools, ESPECIALLY the mid-majors like SMU. What happens if there is a playoff? Other bowls suffer. They drop bowls, attendance is low so money is lost, and nobody outside the school's fans care. So where is the incentive to play? Say SMU goes 8-4 during the year of a playoff, only to get shut out of a post season game because there aren't any. All that for nothing? Bowls may not mean a lot for most people, but for the schools, the host city and die hard fans like myself who watch most bowl games, it means the world. What I'm trying to say is that loss of bowls = meaningless seasons for the other 100+ teams who typically don't have a shot at a major bowl game each season. Bowls are a reward for a good season, even if it's the Emerald Nuts Bowl, it's still a sense of pride towards those schools playing.

Bowl games can be made part of a NCAA playoff system providing them with quality teams playing totally meaningfull games, prime time exclusive games delighting sponsors and tripling advertizing revenues, triple media coverage, huge market ratings, sellouts, higher payouts, huge viewer ratings for all games plus additional shared revenues for all conference teams. Yes, some bowls will need to change some dates or time slots;however, everyone wins and teams that had a glitch because of injuries, inexperience....etc. can recover and prove themselves. If lower NCAA divisions can have playoffs then there should be no valid arguments that should preclude the big boys from playing 1 or 2 extra games.

[HB Pony Dad]

[George S. Patton]

In this era of the BCS, I have yet to hear the argument where the WRONG team won the national title.

USC had no argument from a couple of years ago. Oregon's is argument was completely manufactured. That's BS and they know it.

In 2003 USC was No.1 in both polls at Seasons end, and gets effed by the computers which rank an OK team that lost it's conference championship to K State and a one loss SEC/Saban hyped LSU over them!

LSU allegedly won the 2003 BcS National Title after that 2004 Sugar Bowl farce.

So indeed the WRONG team was crowned NC!

Posted using

Yes, so why don't we walk down memory lane in 2003.

USC's only loss that year was to 8-6 CAL! LSU's only loss was at Florida. Oklahoma's only loss to 11-4 Kansas St. Who had the better season of those opponents? It wasn't CAL -- it was the mistake that USC kept paying for -- just like Oregon St. this year.

I hate this comparison business but since a moment of clarity is needed, it must be done.

One little note. Kansas St. beat CAL in the season opener. But don't worry about that. Cry all you want about USA Today and the AP polls who have built in biases in their voting, the process computer did its job by evaluating each program's season and decided that while USC was a great team, it just wasn't great enough to be at the level of LSU and OU.

So Indeed, the right champion was picked. And if you want to complain about Nick Saban hyping his team, then you better have a chat with Pete Carroll who apparently didn't have the computer's ear.

As an aside, does it make sense that the voters in the AP and USA Today jumped Oklahoma over Texas because they beat Texas Tech? No. Anyone remember how the game at the Cotton Bowl on Oct. 11 worked out?

That would be Texas 45, Oklahoma 35 -- with Texas kicking their [deleted] in the fourth quarter.

I would favor the elimination of the writer's and coaches polls because it does more to disrupt the process than to enhance it.

Perhaps your recollection is hazy as to what you think you believe or you're still miffed about the 28-14 win over Michigan at the Rose Bowl...

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ ... /index.htm

"Even after they had been hosed by computer geeks with pocket protectors and leapfrogged in the BCS rankings by LSU, self-pity was not an option for the USC Trojans. At least, not for very long. When word came down that they'd been denied a spot in the Sugar Bowl, the men of Troy had serious grounds for outrage . But instead of bellyaching, they followed the example of their head coach, Pete Carroll, and embraced their destiny."

Posted using

I wasn't that bent out of shape that Michigan lost because the Wolverines just ran out of time.

And that quote, wherever it came from, really did nothing to support USC's argument. Tough darts, Trojans. Beat Cal and you had nothing to worry about. But you didn't so there you go! The computer did its job.

So you USC people can have a big plate full of DEAL WITH IT!!

And if USC wants to scream to the highest mountain that it split the title that year, knock yourselves out. The current system awards a Crystal Football to the national champion. And Pete Carroll, didn't lift that one did he?

In fact, Pete Carroll has lifted the same number of Crystal Footballs as Mack Brown, Nick Saban, Mack Brown, Jim Tressel and Larry Coker have -- ONE!!

[HB Pony Dad]

The current system awards a Crystal Football to the national champion.

I believe you mean the current "BCS" system awards one of these...



Whereas the AP, with far more historical importance, currently awards these...



No matter how we debate the matter both Trophies represent NOTHING MORE than the

MYTHICAL NATIONAL FOOTBALL CHAMPION

So you USC people can have a big plate full of DEAL WITH IT!!

OK we'll struggle to bear the pain of it all...



PLAYOFF ANYONE?

[ozfan]

Div 1-AA (FCS) has a playoff. It includes such stallwarts as Ivy League Schools, CAA schools with high academic standing like W&M, Richmond, UMass, and lots of private schools like Villanova, Georgetown, etc. They seem to juggle playoffs and studies. Why can't the big schools? They have a 16 team playoff and have had it for 20 years. Works great. Regular season games mean a lot. Last week W&M played Richmond, the winner would go to the playoffs, the loser went home. Went to overtime, a great game. Same with Texas State and SHS. So, you have auto bids to all Division 1-A champions. Then you have the rest be at large. This year that would mean that OU, TT, UT, AL, FL, GA, PSU, Ohio St, USC, Ore. St., CUSA, Utah, Boise, Ball U, SBC, and Oky State.

Seeds: AL vs. SBC, UT vs. CUSA, OU vs. Ore. St., FL vs. Ball, USC vs. Boise, TT vs. PSU, Utah vs. Ohio St., Ga. vs. Oky State. Tell me that would not be a great playoff and each of the teams had to do well in the regular season to get there. And if that wasn't enough figure second round AL vs. Oky State. UT vs. Ohio State. FL vs. TT, OU vs. USC. Tell me those would not draw larger crowds and ratings than the Peach Bowl featuring Wake Forest against South Carolina.

EastStang

Dont you know the logic you are using will never work it is to easy.

[PK]

1) Every other college sport at every level is decided by a playoff. Don't give me "these are college kids"...if so, eliminate all playoffs.

2) The bowl system is already crap - attendance stinks at most of the bowls and most of the non-BCS match-ups are crap. Do you think TCU gives a rats butt about that bowl win over Northern Illinois 2 years ago???

There would still be plenty of interest if Ohio State, Penn State, Okie State, Texas Tech, Missouri, Boise and others were battling to get into an 8 or 12 team playoff. A lot of these games would matter in a big way.

Ok:

A) Football is the most physical of all major college sports and takes the biggest toll on ones body, so it's already a lot to ask for college kids to do that.

So why is it that the D-1AA football teams can do it?

B) D1-AA has a playoff: but everyone has a shot to win it. The level of competition is pretty [deleted] compared to 1-A. A few years ago, Colgate, my brothers alma matter, a school of 1,200 kids makes it to the finals against Delaware, a state school and traditional D1-AA power. Delaware wins easy. Think that could happen in D1-A? All Mid-Majors would get shut out every year, and even if they were allowed in, you'd have to expand the playoff field, and 9/10 times they wouldnt stand a chance against schools like OU, UT, USC, etc... so what's the incentive? Like I said earlier, 100+ schools never have a shot at a championship, let alone the BCS, so these bowls gives them something worth playing for, not to go 8-4, win your conference then lose 65-10 to Oklahoma in round 1.

If all the D-1 conferences had an equal chance like they have in D-1AA with each conference champion being in the playoff, in a matter of a few years, there would be a lot more parity between the conferences as recruiting would not be so controlled by the privileged few conferences and thus every one would indeed have a chance...unlike now. As for the bowls, they would be the sites for the playoffs. And don't forget all the "small" teams over the years in basketball that have made it to the finals of the NCAA Basketball Tournaments...that could happen in football too once the stranglehold on recruiting was taken away from the BCS schools.

[Big Hoss]

"Even after they had been hosed by computer geeks with pocket protectors and leapfrogged in the BCS rankings by LSU, self-pity was not an option for the USC Trojans. At least, not for very long. When word came down that they'd been denied a spot in the Sugar Bowl, the men of Troy had serious grounds for outrage . But instead of bellyaching, they followed the example of their head coach, Pete Carroll, and embraced their destiny."

Are we still talking football here? Because this response makes it seem like we are talking about mythical battles fought in the middle ages.

Anyway, even with a playoff, some team is going to be pissed. If you take 8 teams, the 9th place team will be pissed. If you take 16 teams, the 17th team will be pissed. And really, since the difference between some of the lower seeded teams is so minute, you probably will have 4 teams pissed for not making it instead of just 1 every other year or so. There is really no marvelous solution out there.

Ultimately, even though the BCS isn't perfect, there are maybe 3 schools every year that deserve to be in the NC game, and 2 of them will be chosen. I agree with the points Patton and ponyfan84 made about not having playoffs. It makes the regular season more interesting, and to be honest, I love having the last 2 weeks of the year off and watching parts of all the bowl games.

[RednBlue11]

i dont think UT will get jumped because even if OU beats zero state ...Texas beat Zero state when they were ranked in the top ten...they arent now so no matter how OU does them it wont be as quality a win as Texas had....only they human polls can make a jumps happen and if they are not separated by at least 2 ranking spots the computers will hold OU down, becuase ironically enough, the computers are impartial and account for the whole season not the "what have you dont for me latly" factor.