College Football

[drothgery]

So... how 'bout them Hawkeyes?

And, no, I am not very upset over the fact that no one in sports media outside of Iowa remembers that they were Big Ten Co-champs last year (No disrespect to the Buckeyes, the other Big Ten Co-Champ ). So, I am very happy they have again silenced their critics. 'Tis a shame that I am so far away from Home.

I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that after last year's bowl game, Hawkeyes fans probably reluctantly agree with everyone on the west coast about the Trojans. Ohio State and Miami were lucky there's not a playoff in I-A football.

 

[Krieg]

I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that after last year's bowl game, Hawkeyes fans probably reluctantly agree with everyone on the west coast about the Trojans. Ohio State and Miami were lucky there's not a playoff in I-A football.

If the Trojans wanted to play for it all they should have won the games they played. Teams with two losses have no business complaining.

 

[drothgery]

If the Trojans wanted to play for it all they should have won the games they played. Teams with two losses have no business complaining.

Under the current system, teams with two losses have no business complaining (at least, not if two major-conference undefeateds are playing for the whole thing, which they were last year). But any rational playoff would've involved at least 8 teams, which means that USC would've been in it. I have to think that USC would've been the favorite in an 8 team or 16-team playoff last year. There isn't a I-A playoff, and probably won't ever be, but if there were, teams that were hot late in the season would be dangerous.

Certainly Ohio State and Miami played better over the course of the entire season than USC. And it's possible that looks were decieving and that Miami or Ohio State would've beaten USC if they'd played. Two years ago, a one-loss Oregon team embarassed a two-loss Colorado team that was just as hot at the end of the year as last year's USC team. But USC didn't lose their bowl game; they blew out a one-loss co-champion of the Big 10 (with the Heisman runner-up at quarterback). So I don't think USC's late-season success last year was smoke and mirrors.

And I really don't like the polls & bowls method of determining a national champion. It doesn't give a team any chance to recover from a bad loss, injuries, or for young players to mature over the course of a season. This year's dangerous team with too many losses is probably Florida. I'd hate to run into them in a playoff, though they'd probably only get an invite in a 16-team affair.

 

[fett527]

you don't want to play OU. no sane team does.

Sounds a lot like Miami last year. They were invincible...

 

[Datt]

The best bet for a playoff system is if somehow they incorporate the current bowls into that playoff system. If you add three bowls to the major bowls so you have 7 major bowls, say the Sugar, Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Gator, Cotton, and Peach. Those 7 would rotate which one would hold the national championship, much like they do now. So you can start with either 8 or 16 teams. If you start with 16 you have 8 games played one weekend in other bowls, when they get down to 8 they would stat into the 7 bowls. That way we still have the bowls and we have a playoff system.

 

[Dimwhit]

The best bet for a playoff system is if somehow they incorporate the current bowls into that playoff system. If you add three bowls to the major bowls so you have 7 major bowls, say the Sugar, Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Gator, Cotton, and Peach. Those 7 would rotate which one would hold the national championship, much like they do now. So you can start with either 8 or 16 teams. If you start with 16 you have 8 games played one weekend in other bowls, when they get down to 8 they would stat into the 7 bowls. That way we still have the bowls and we have a playoff system.

I think the playoffs should be before the games, like the league champ games. Start the season a week earlier and don't have all the bye weeks. Most teams will end their seasons by the end of November. Heck, some already end by then anyway, like OSU, which ends this weekend. Then you have 3 to 4 weeks with no games before the bowls. Use those weeks to do a few playoff games among the top 16 or so. Then based on results of those games, shuffle teams to the major bowls and the championship bowl game.

Just a not-very-well-thought-out thought.

 

[Krieg]

Err... one more. And the ranked team USC beat (Washington State) is ranked higher than any team Ohio State has beaten.

Re-read the original post. He included a hypothetical win over Michigan. 3-1=2

The top of the Pac-10 is definitely stronger than the top of the Big 10 this year. Ohio State or Michigan might have a chance against USC or WSU at a neutral site, but it wouldn't be a good one. The bottom of the Pac 10 is definitely stronger than the bottom of the Big 10; Illinois and Indiana would get soundly thrashed by Arizona or Washington. The middle of the Big 10 is definitely better than the middle of the Pac 10.

"Definitely"?! lol sorry no dice. I've watched USC & Washington State a good bit over the past two years (including when Ohio State smoked a Washington State team that wasn't any worse than this years). While I don't doubt that USC & Washington State could beat the top two in the Big-10, I'd put my money on the Bucks & Wolverinees. USC & WSU just aren't physical enough at the point of attack right now to consistently hang with the Big Boys (and USC's D is VASTLY overrated).

That's nonsense. They're close because he's had a great defense and a mediocre offense (and given the talent he's had at WR, RB, and along the line, the lack of offensive production should be a major concern in Columbus). No one likes close games except fans; it's too easy for the ball bouncing the wrong way to decide a close game.

No, it isn't nonsense. It's been Tressell's modus operandi since he was at YSU. Many times he's called off the dogs when up by 10-14 pts. Does he want the game to come down to missed FGs by opponent's at the end of the game to win (PSU, PU)? No of course not. However he is VERY happy to get a 2 TD lead & sit on it while relying on ball control, field position & special teams to carry the day.

Take the time to look up Coach Ts stats in close games over his career, the numbers are mind boggling.

FYI Fans hate close games more than anyone (at least the fans of big time programs that expect to beat everyone by 50).

Under the current system, teams with two losses have no business complaining (at least, not if two major-conference undefeateds are playing for the whole thing, which they were last year). But any rational playoff would've involved at least 8 teams, which means that USC would've been in it. I have to think that USC would've been the favorite in an 8 team or 16-team playoff last year. There isn't a I-A playoff, and probably won't ever be, but if there were, teams that were hot late in the season would be dangerous.

"Rational" is certainly a matter of opinion here. A 4 team playoff would eliminate 90% of the criticism of the current system.

In 2002 that would have thrown USC & Georgia into the mix.

2001 - Oregon & either Colorado or FL would have been added (although it probably would have been better to add both & ditch the Nebraska debacle).
2000 - Washington & Miami
1999 - Nebraska & Alabama

Personally I'd rather just go back to the old bowl system & let the top two teams after the bowls play for it all. *shrug*

 

[drothgery]

No, it isn't nonsense. It's been Tressell's modus operandi since he was at YSU. Many times he's called off the dogs when up by 10-14 pts. Does he want the game to come down to missed FGs by opponent's at the end of the game to win (PSU, PU)? No of course not. However he is VERY happy to get a 2 TD lead & sit on it while relying on ball control, field position & special teams to carry the day.

He's also played in 13 games in two seasons that were decided by a touchdown or less. He's managed to win 12 of them, but counting on winning games by less than a touchdown is stupid, and if you're doing that consistently, it's a sign of a great defense and a bad offense, not coaching philosophy. One blown play and you've got a tie game.

FYI Fans hate close games more than anyone (at least the fans of big time programs that expect to beat everyone by 50).

If you're not a devoted fan of one of the teams involved, a close game is a lot more fun to watch. YMMV.

"Rational" is certainly a matter of opinion here. A 4 team playoff would eliminate 90% of the criticism of the current system.

In 2002 that would have thrown USC & Georgia into the mix.

2001 - Oregon & either Colorado or FL would have been added (although it probably would have been better to add both & ditch the Nebraska debacle).
2000 - Washington & Miami
1999 - Nebraska & Alabama

Personally I'd rather just go back to the old bowl system & let the top two teams after the bowls play for it all. *shrug*

A 4-team playoff would rarely catch all one-loss major conference teams and would never include a minor-confrence undefeated team. I don't think that solves any problems.

Incidentally, a post-bowls #1 v #2 game doesn't solve any problems either; it produces exactly the same problems as the current BCS. All it does is add one more tough non-conference game to teams' schedules. Hypothetical - last year Iowa beats WSU in the Rose (WSU wins the Pac-10 tiebreaker on head-to-head, and I think Iowa wins the Big 10 tiebreaker of time since last Rose Bowl trip), Georgia knocks off Miami in the Orange, Oklahoma beats Florida State in the Fiesta. USC wins a second-teir bowl games convincingly. Ohio State beats a good team by a field goal. Who plays in the #1 vs. #2 game?

 

[Dimwhit]

A 4-team playoff would rarely catch all one-loss major conference teams and would never include a minor-confrence undefeated team. I don't think that solves any problems.

I completely agree with you on this point. For a postseason to be fair, the non-BCS teams need a shot. Not all of them, but they need a chance to make that playoff. Personally, I like a top 16 tournament. Or take all the league champions and have wild-cards or something. This year, for example, TCU would need the opportunity to play in a playoff and (not to be biased) I think Boise State should also get a shot. Other than TCU, Boise is probably the best non-BCS team out there. At least give them a chance, even if they get blown out in the first round. Under the current system, they will never get that opportunity.

But the argument is probably moot. I doubt much will change. It will be interesting, however, to see what, if any, changes are made when the BCS contract runs out in '05.

 

[Datt]

I personally feel a 16 team playoff would be best. As how to include the non-BCS I don't know. I would say to maybe have the 11 Conference champs and then 5 wild card spots. But how to decide who gets those 5 I don't know. Of course I would have to say the first thing would be overall record.

Of course since there are more than 15 bowls and everyone wants to get some piece of pie, then you could also have another playoff that doesn't mean anything. Sort of like the post season NIT tourney in basketball.