Deadspin 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #collegefootballplayoff more → Let's Settle This College Football Playoff Problem Right Now
New York, 9:04 PM
Sun Nov 15
16 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@deadspin.com
Editor:
AJ Daulerio | Email
Senior Editor:
Dashiell Bennett | Email
Senior Writer:
Tommy Craggs | Email
Columnist/Deadcast:
Drew Magary | Email
Emeritus:
Will Leitch | Email
Live Blogger:
Matt Sussman | Email
Comments:
Comment Ninja Squadron | Email
Weekend writer:
Jack KOGOD | Email
Intern:
Ben Cohen | Email
| posts about #collegefootballplayoff more → |
Let's Settle This College Football Playoff Problem Right Now |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/17/08
11/17/08
Absolutely not. As someone who watched the top three teams in his conference have to play their post season games in 2008 against teams from the state in which the game was held*, it puts northern teams, built for the fact that we stand in 30 degree weather to watch a 3-7 team play a meaningless game because we love our team, at a distinct disadvantage. The first round, at the very least, must be a home game in mid-December. New Year's Day for the Semis, and the Saturday of the Super Bowl Bye week for the finals. It could work.
(*-Of Ohio State, Illinois, and Michigan, only Michigan won, and that wasn't even a BCS bowl game.)
11/17/08
11/17/08
Also: You need to be top-15 and not have more than 2 losses to be eligible.
11/17/08
11/17/08
THIS IS WHAT I'M FUCKING SAYING
11/17/08
11/17/08
Yeah, I kinda like having my regular season being the playoffs as it is.
11/17/08
This is, of course, absurd. The regular season isn't a "playoff" in any sense of the word.
What happens if Texas, Oklahoma and Texas Tech all finish with one loss, with Texas beating Oklahoma, Oklahoma beating Tech and Tech beating Texas? How do you pick one of those three as the winner of some "playoff"?
What happens if/when Alabama loses to Florida in the SEC Championship? That basically means that Florida's loss to Ole Miss was rendered utterly meaningless, meaning that Alabama could have lost to Mississippi State this weekend with no repercussions.
To wit - USC losing to Oregon State is no worse than Florida losing to Ole Miss, and USC has crushed everyone else in their path before or since (including Ohio State)...so why don't they get to redeem themselves from that one loss?
11/17/08
And this is a fact, unfortunately. USC is so good, it takes would-be first stringers from UCLA and they come to USC and they sit on the bench... and hasn't Florida crushed better teams than USC? Cal and Ohio State are the only good (so to speak, according to the BCS) teams that USC has beaten. Oh and Oregon...
/quack
11/17/08
So USC is punished because the teams on its schedule that it cannot change happen to be terrible this year? What are they supposed to do, beat them 67-0 every week? They're doing that already! Their non-conference schedule is Virginia, Ohio State and Notre Dame, all BCS schools including two traditional powers.
11/17/08
11/17/08
USC lost to Oregon State.
Florida lost to Ole Miss.
Which is worse?
11/17/08
11/17/08
11/17/08
11/17/08
11/17/08
11/17/08
11/17/08
So in this case, if you have an undefeated SEC/Big12/ACC school lose to another in the championship game, a 1 loss team from a major conference would get excluded for some chump from the Mountain West?
11/17/08
How about top taking the eight teams in the AP Poll. Oh, I'm sorry Big East and ACC, you fucking suck this year. Get better and get rewarded.
11/17/08
Possibly. But by adding the committee element (as opposed to computer rankings) those teams can still be rewarded for taking on tougher opponents. (Plus, the financial incentive is still there.) They're now competing against other mid-majors, with similar records so strength of schedule should help them.
Denying a playoff spot to one-loss teams that failed to win their conference is necessary in order to maintain the dramatic regular season everyone loves so much. Would the TT-OK game this week be nearly as interesting if Tech knew they could still make the playoffs even with a loss?
11/17/08
11/17/08
Why should the winner of the WAC be in the same tournament as the winner of the SEC/Big 12 when, in most years, they've demonstrated over the previous four months why they're (vastly )inferior? So that we can have the equivalent of Wichita State playing UConn in the NCAA basketball Tournament?
(Sorry, I like the BCS)
11/17/08
11/17/08
Obviously a piddly WAC school like Boise State could never beat a top Big 12 team like Oklahoma in a major bowl.
11/17/08
11/17/08
I think that's where the "the regular season in college football is more important" argument comes from.
11/17/08
Then schools who are in conferences that aren't permitted to compete for the championship shouldn't be considered Division I schools. If Boise State or Utah or whoever wins all their games and has no chance of possibly being declared national champion, they're not a Division I school.
11/17/08
11/17/08
The intent of the BCS is/was only to give us a game designed to match the two best teams (i.e. the two teams whose entire seasons are most deserving of consideration).
And in that respect, it has succeeded in giving us a "best team" more often than it has failed. Unlike, say, in basketball, when an entire season is played for a seed, and then more games are required to be played against teams whose seasons paled in comparison. (Last year, I was thrilled that the Final Four consisted of only the four #1 seeds.)
This basically skips everything between the end of the season and the finale - like if the Patriots and ______ (whoever had the best record in the NFC last year, I forget) were sent straight through to the Super Bowl instead of having to play 11-5 and 10-6 teams. So while I know it sounds stupid because the 11-5 Giants ended up defeating them in the Super Bowl, this method would at least reward the two teams whose seasons were the best from beginning to end. Sorry, Giants - you lost nearly a third of your regular season games.
I wouldn't mind maybe playing one extra college football game in instances where there aren't two clear-cut top teams, but in years like 2002 and 2005 it would have been unnecessary. Every other year, I've been satisfied.
There's my two cents.
/dick joke
11/17/08
The intent of the BCS is/was only to give us a game designed to match the two best teams (i.e. the two teams whose entire seasons are most deserving of consideration).
And in that respect, it has succeeded in giving us a "best team" more often than it has failed
How do you know who the "best team" is unless they play each other?
This isn't baseball where you have a 162 game regular season and everybody plays everybody tons of times. We're talking about 10 or 11 games here against entirely different opponents.
11/17/08
11/17/08
11/17/08
Your average SEC fan can't operate a bathroom stall door.