College Football 2007

[ice grillin you]

so because the two best teams rarely play each other in other sports means we should make the last sport that innacurate as well?

makes sense


and even if you think that most years the best college team doesnt win at least it has a regular season that is off the hook...so instead you wanna institute a playoff that will water down the regular season and still not have the best team win

again where do the positives outweigh the negaitves?



The scenario I describe above has one team that is not a conference champ.  I went with the current rules, but there is no reason that could not be remedied.


conference champ is about the worst way to determine how good a team is in cfb...again this is not cbb where you have dozens of teams that can win it all...football is not nearly as tightly knit...you have a clear two or three teams a year that deserve a title shot...this year being an exception...now if we start having years liek this all the time rather than once every 100 years then perhaps a plus game would be necessary...but a full scale playoff never will be

[ice grillin you]

Because there is no objective way to choose two teams.  If the pick were that obvious, there would be no debate.

Exactly.  If year in and year out the Nat Champ Game was being played by the only 2 unbeaten teams in the country then there wouldn't be as much room for debate.  But when you've got 2 loss teams playing in a title game instead of other 1 loss or 0 loss teams then I think it's a flawed system.

then you have a problem with the bcs system not the fact that there isnt a playoff

[Sgt PSN]

and even if you think that most years the best college team doesnt win at least it has a regular season that is off the hook...so instead you wanna institute a playoff that will water down the regular season and still not have the best team win

again where do the positives outweigh the negaitves?

That's the thing.....a playoff system is not going to water down the regular season or make the games any less significant because 1 or 2 losses could still knock you out of the race.  

[ice grillin you]

i dont undertsand how you could possibly think that having a playoff wouldnt water down the regular season


baseball is the only sport where expanding the playoffs has improved the quality of the regular season...and even at that its only done so in the last two weeks

college football is the onyl sport on the planet where a week 1 game can be gigantic and the only sport where every game is potentially an elimination game

[Sgt PSN]

Because there is no objective way to choose two teams.  If the pick were that obvious, there would be no debate.

Exactly.  If year in and year out the Nat Champ Game was being played by the only 2 unbeaten teams in the country then there wouldn't be as much room for debate.  But when you've got 2 loss teams playing in a title game instead of other 1 loss or 0 loss teams then I think it's a flawed system.

then you have a problem with the bcs system not the fact that there isnt a playoff

Yes, I have a problem with the BCS.  And yes, I have a problem with them not having a playoff.  I don't care how the rankings are determined, be it by a computer or coaches voting or media voting or simply drawing names from a hat.  It still doesn't change the fact that unless the regular season final standings only have 2 teams finishing with better records than everyone else, then it's not fair to those other top teams that they don't have a shot to play for the national title.  But that rarely happens in college football.  

Just take the top 6 or 8 or 10 or 12 or however many teams you want and put them in a playoff and let them duke it out for the title.  Last team standing wins.  
 

[reese125]

since when do the 2 best teams in any sport ever play in the final game?  rarely if ever


it's about putting the best teams, proven by a regular season, together at the end and letting them play it out to determine a champion.  who gives a farg about the 2 best teams...the best team doesn't always win

correct.

Its all about profit for the NCAA and they will ultimately IMO go to a playoff. Just like NCAA men's basketball tournament, champions of all the conferences (all 11 of them) should earn an automatic bid to the field, even the lousy conferences.

No one would argue that the winner of the Mid-American Conference is one of the top 16 teams in the country. There are multiple benefits of including champs of low-level leagues. First and foremost is to maintain the integrity and relevancy of the regular season. There should be a significant reward for an exceptional season.

Whats wrong with a No. 1 playing a No. 16? There is your big reward for a great regular season. Earning a top-three seeding would present a school a near breeze into the second round. If you drop to a sixth-seed, you would be dealing with the likes of a Florida (this year). It brings true Cinderella into the college football mix for the first time. If that teams pulls off an improbable win, they deserve it

For even lower-rated conferences like the Sun Belts and the MACs,  that would not only set off celebrations on small campuses but it would encourage investment in the sport at all levels. Now, you have a reason for teams in those leagues to really care. This would improve quality throughout the country. What you would have gone is the days of an unbeaten Auburn in the 2004 season not getting a chance at the title or the 2003 season where nearly everyone thought USC was the best team but got left out anyway.

[ice grillin you]

yeah because having alabama birmingham in a ncaa football playoff but not a tenn georgia florida usc michigan miami florida state ect who didnt win their conefernce would be more fair than it is now

not to mention that the 7th best team in the better bcs conf is better than every mac or sun belt team every single year

and thinking those lower level teams would ever be able to compete is a pipe dream...there arent enough good football players to go around..again its not basketball and shouldnt be treated as such...hell there arent even enough good players to make all the bcs conferences good...the big east for example is a joke compared to the sec pac 10 or big 12


well just have to agree to disagree...college football is definitely my favorite sport and its specifically because of a 13 week regular season that is essentially 13 weeks of playoffs...i hope that never changes...its the best sport out there and if it aint broke why fix it is the way i look at it

[SunMo]

it's not a 13 week playoff, the sooner you realize that, the better off you are

[Sgt PSN]

college football is the onyl sport on the planet where a week 1 game can be gigantic and the only sport where every game is potentially an elimination game

How would that be any different with a playoff?  This year was kind of freaky because almost every team in the top 10 had 2 losses.  But here's the top 10 from last year at the end of the reg season:

1.  OSU 12-0
2.  Florida 12-1
3.  Michigan 12-1
4.  LSU 10-2
5.  USC 10-2
6.  Louisville 11-1
7.  Wisconsin 11-1
8.  Boise St 12-0
9.  Auburn 10-2
10.  Oklahoma 11-2

Why is there 2 unbeaten teams and only 1 is playing for the national championship?  Why was there 1 unbeaten team this year and it didn't even get a chance to play for the title?  And don't give me the "they play in a weak conference" crap either.  You play the games on your schedule.  

Why was Florida given the nod to play for the title last year over Michigan?  Did they not have identical records?  

Bottom line is that having a playoff isn't going to water down the reg season or make the games any less significant.  The teams in the top 10 will all typically have identical records.  So again, unless you have 2 teams finishing every season with better records than everyone else, there is no fair way to determine which 2 get to play for the title unless they all have to go through each other.  

[SunMo]

all you have to do is look at LSU...they got to play for the title after they lost their last regular season game of the year...yeah, that screams playoffs to me

[ice grillin you]

it's not a 13 week playoff, the sooner you realize that, the better off you are

numerous playoff type games every week say      


a small but perfect example this year was the pitt west virginia game...where the train wreck scenario was in full effect...west virginia had a win and in scenario and gagged it...it was amazing televison...and theres games like that every week

now imagine in a playoff scenario where you have west virginia in the backyard brawl sitting pat white and steve slaton and the rest fo their starters because they know they are in some sort of playoff because they had the big east won.......what a disagrace that would be...the minute you had any team clinching a playoff spot you have week 17 in the nfl all over the place......cant think of anything worse than that in cfb

[SunMo]

win and in scenarios...yeah, that never happens in the NFL

[Sgt PSN]

win and in scenarios...yeah, that never happens in the NFL

The final 3 or 4 weeks of the season were playoff type games for the Browns, Racists, Titans, Saints and Vikings.  The final month was totally watered down with ACTION!!

[ice grillin you]

actually win and in and lose and out scenarios rarely happen in the nfl...usually its depends on what six other teams have to do

and then when it deos happen sometimes you get have teams sitting starters and essentially throwing games...even in games that mean something to other teams....that skins dallas game this year was a travesty

not hating on the nfl system its good for that particular league...but it would make college football far worse

[ice grillin you]

anyway im done...im not gonna change your minds and youre not gonna change mine

i will say tho that its a nice debate albeit a useless one since a playoff isnt going to happen in our lifetimes that plus the fact i was able to  change ff's mind on the issue = i win