Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Playoffs

Canada_BUFF said:
Playing with the ESPN simulator had me salivating at the prospects of the playoffs. How soon do you think one will be implemented if at all? Did you guys hear about the proposed legislation aimed at promoting a playoff system?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/6157589.html
Click to expand...

No sour grapes here... :lol:

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, who represents the Sixth District near Dallas and is the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, didn't specify what sort of playoff he wants — only that the BCS should go.

Barton cited Southern California in 2003 and undefeated Auburn in 2004 as examples of worthy teams left out of the BCS national championship game.

"This year, we again have two teams with one loss each playing for the 'championship,' while two undefeated teams and four additional teams with only one loss will play in bowl games, but none can become 'champion,'" he said.
Click to expand...

Still, I hope he is successful becuase playoffs would be a lot more entertaining then the farce we have now.

Barton is Aggie too
 
it should be interesting to see how the impediments, most importantly money, are put aside in the interests of determining a champion. also, naturally if you have a playoff that is too limited there will still be intense debate about who belongs (just as there is about who belongs in the final two for the national championship race, except extended to four or eight teams). if there's a playoff system that's expansively longer than that, what would happen to the prestigious bowl games, and how many games would you place in a team's college football season? would teams cease to play a non-conference schedule or what?
 
It used to be that every team that won a bowl game was the "champion" of that bowl.

i.e. CU was the "Orange Bowl Champion" in 1991.

That may not be the case anymore, though.
 
JimMora.jpg

PLAYOFFS?!?
 
As long as morons like the idot that was interviewed at during the Big 12 CCG, Dan Beebe Big 12 Commish (?) are in charge there will never be a playoff. He obviously spent some time at one of the divisions with a playoff and was saying the players don't like playoff games!?!?!? Along with the rest of the lame excuses - season too long, would negate the regular season, etc. etc.
 
CUBUFF80 said:
As long as morons like the idot that was interviewed at during the Big 12 CCG, Dan Beebe Big 12 Commish (?) are in charge there will never be a playoff. He obviously spent some time at one of the divisions with a playoff and was saying the players don't like playoff games!?!?!? Along with the rest of the lame excuses - season too long, would negate the regular season, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

This is the worst of the excuses. It wouldn't negate the regular season, it would just give a little breathing room for one loss, maybe two. Tech, Texass, Bama, Penn St., USC all have one loss along with the two teams playing for the NC. All those teams including the two undefeated teams took care of business in the regular season and deserve a chance to earn the NC.
 
tv and commercial reasons aside, which are obviously huge factors, i don't think some of those commissioners' comments are that ridiculous. how long of a season would you have? what system would you use to decide who gets into the playoff? would you have a computerized system like the BCS again (i can't possibly see anyone complaining about computerized rankings), or would you leave it to the polls, have teams always trying to run up the score and deal with countless weeks of public lobbying? how many teams would be involved in the playoffs?

now obviously if you have a massive playoff with a bunch of teams then the regular season does become almost extraneous, because it isn't as difficult to qualify for the playoffs and because that's all that matters (for example if you had something implausibly ridiculous like a 32 or 16 team playoff). the only regular season games worth watching would likely be some of the rivalry games, and you'd have to believe the trend would vastly point towards teams scheduling easier opponents to try and fit the bill for the playoffs. i'd like to see more football and i'm sure most fans do, but should we have seasons that are closer to nfl proportions?
 
I don't think 16 teams is ridiculous. I think it's perfect. The existing bowl games could be used as preliminary rounds in the tournament. Long season? Yeah, for maybe four teams. Other than that, it's not any longer than a normal season. So that argument is utter garbage. Why 16 and not 8? Well, this is JMHO, but I think it's entirely plausible that the #9 team in the country could beat the #1 team. I don't think the #17 team would have that same chance. I also think there are times when the 1-12 teams are all about the same, but there's no way of determining which team is the best. A 16 team playoff would work fine. Maybe a 12 team playoff, with teams 1-4 getting a first round bye.
 
D1 (or whatever the hell it's called now) football is the only sport in America where there is no playoff. Is every other sport in the country (and world) off-base? Have their sports been ruined? Of course not, the dinosaurs clinging the meaningless bowl structure are totally off base. We need a playoff - end of subject.
 
buff80- i agree with you that there should be some sort of playoff system, but your using other sports as a comparison is not necessarily relevant in itself. in virtually no other major team sport is the level of physical toll, preparation, and recovery as intense as it is for each football game, a fact probably supported by the much lengthier regular seasons that exist for every other major team sport, and more viability of adding games.

sackman- that's potentially four extra football games for the two top teams. so would you continue to have everyone play their regular 12 game schedule, then a conference championship game (for some teams), then a bowl game as a first round (what about the more prestigious bowl games?), then up to three more games? including more teams in the playoffs certainly takes more heat off the selection process, as you mentioned a #16 overcoming a bona fide #1 seems somewhat remote. but then, if you consider the upsets that we've seen that happen to supposedly top teams every single year against even unranked opponents, sometimes these top teams get taken out of the title race in the current system because of these losses. would that really be significantly different than if a supposedly top team lost ONE game in the playoffs to a much lower seed?

i'm mostly just curious about your opinions as to the selection process for these teams, and if anyone is strongly against a playoff system or has relevant insider information about the objections in place (other than money), please post them
 
I´d be very happy with with a 4 team playoff for now. Baby steps, people, baby steps.
 
Djugashvili said:
sackman- that's potentially four extra football games for the two top teams. so would you continue to have everyone play their regular 12 game schedule, then a conference championship game (for some teams), then a bowl game as a first round (what about the more prestigious bowl games?), then up to three more games? including more teams in the playoffs certainly takes more heat off the selection process, as you mentioned a #16 overcoming a bona fide #1 seems somewhat remote. but then, if you consider the upsets that we've seen that happen to supposedly top teams every single year against even unranked opponents, sometimes these top teams get taken out of the title race in the current system because of these losses. would that really be significantly different than if a supposedly top team lost ONE game in the playoffs to a much lower seed?
Click to expand...

Those are two very long sentences.
 
the way to do the playoffs, by liver:

first, you have to decide how inclusive you want to be. i'd go with every bcs conference, plus maybe a few more. that dictates how big the playoffs should be.

so, if you go with a 16 team playoff, it might work something like this... every conference in the tourney system would have to have a championship game and every conference would have to have 12 teams. the p10 would need to add 2. the b10 would add one, etc.

the winners of the p12, b12, b10+2, sec, acc, and big east each get an automatic seed. that's 6 spots taken. then maybe you even add the wac, mac, and mwc (if each has 12 teams and a conf. champ game) and give each of their conf. champions a bid, too. that's 3 more for a total of nine slots.

for the remaining 7 slots, you do a tourney selection committee (like they do now for basketball) and you take the teams that maybe didn't win their conference but are definitely worthy of being in the playoffs... for example, this year, you'd have to think about texas and tech from the b12 and georgia and bama from the sec...

that's how you get your 16 teams. all teams that aren't in the tourney can get bowl bids (except for the bowl bids described below).

the first round of the playoffs is a homegame for the higher seeded team.

the round of 8 is played at "bowl games."

the round of 4 is played at bowl games.

the championship game is played at a bowl game.

that's 7 games at "bowls." you rotate among the rose, sugar, orange, fiesta, cotton, holiday, and one other so that each gets the championship game on a rotating basis.

next, you have to do something about the number of games. so, you take everyone back to an 11 game schedule in the regular season. the extra playoff money split among all the participating conferences will more than compensate for the loss of 1 regular season game.

that way, most teams will play only eleven games. if a team goes all the way, it will have, at most, played 11 regular season games, plus the conf. championship game, plus 4 playoff games (that's 16 total; some teams are already at 14 now, and if and "at large" playoff team goes all the way it is 15 games, just one more than many teams play now).

this would print money for everyone and it would be fantastic to watch.

think about this year: usc, texas, fla., bama, georgia, tech, ou, penn state, boise state, utah, etc. that would EXCITING!!!

finally, you have to do something for the players since you are adding to their season. so, put some $$ aside for their healthy and benefits so that they have some protection.

anyhow, this would work.
 
Djugashvili said:
buff80- i agree with you that there should be some sort of playoff system, but your using other sports as a comparison is not necessarily relevant in itself. in virtually no other major team sport is the level of physical toll, preparation, and recovery as intense as it is for each football game, a fact probably supported by the much lengthier regular seasons that exist for every other major team sport, and more viability of adding games.

sackman- that's potentially four extra football games for the two top teams. so would you continue to have everyone play their regular 12 game schedule, then a conference championship game (for some teams), then a bowl game as a first round (what about the more prestigious bowl games?), then up to three more games? including more teams in the playoffs certainly takes more heat off the selection process, as you mentioned a #16 overcoming a bona fide #1 seems somewhat remote. but then, if you consider the upsets that we've seen that happen to supposedly top teams every single year against even unranked opponents, sometimes these top teams get taken out of the title race in the current system because of these losses. would that really be significantly different than if a supposedly top team lost ONE game in the playoffs to a much lower seed?

i'm mostly just curious about your opinions as to the selection process for these teams, and if anyone is strongly against a playoff system or has relevant insider information about the objections in place (other than money), please post them
Click to expand...

I can point to every other level of football; HS, all other college divisions and the Pros. All have playoffs, D1 is run by a bunch of boobs that hide under their desks rather than making any meaningful decisions.
 
i like liver's relatively concrete ideas on the playoff system. the level of compensation for college athletes given the revenue that they generate (other than the "scholarship", which given graduation rates and actual volume of time spent attending to academics for a great many players is probably a farce) is a whole other topic!
 
yeah, just that those boobs feel they won't be able to afford the desks they hide under any longer without the status quo. sounds like certain layers of today's society as well. hmm i should cease with the digressions
 
Djugashvili said:
sackman- that's potentially four extra football games for the two top teams. so would you continue to have everyone play their regular 12 game schedule, then a conference championship game (for some teams), then a bowl game as a first round (what about the more prestigious bowl games?), then up to three more games?
i'm mostly just curious about your opinions as to the selection process for these teams, and if anyone is strongly against a playoff system or has relevant insider information about the objections in place (other than money), please post them
Click to expand...

I would let the conferences decide how they want to crown their champion. If they want a CCG, they can have one. Keep in mind the whole reason for the 12 team leagues is because the NCAA said only 12 team leagues can have a CCG. The CCG makes money for the conference, so naturally, they have them. If there were a 16-team playoff, there'd be no reason for an additional CCG. I suspect a lot of them would go away due to the fact that the loser might be disqualified from the 16-team tournament.

The selection process is already in place - the BCS computers. They do a decent enough job weeding out which are the best teams in the country, and if they were given a 16-team mandate, I'm pretty sure no deserving teams would be left out.
 
Djugashvili said:
it should be interesting to see how the impediments, most importantly money, are put aside in the interests of determining a champion. also, naturally if you have a playoff that is too limited there will still be intense debate about who belongs (just as there is about who belongs in the final two for the national championship race, except extended to four or eight teams). if there's a playoff system that's expansively longer than that, what would happen to the prestigious bowl games, and how many games would you place in a team's college football season? would teams cease to play a non-conference schedule or what?
Click to expand...

When I was a kid the Orange Bowl was played in the Orange Bowl. Now its the Fed Ex Orange Bowl played at Pro Player Stadium.

Sorry but that collegiate feel these games once had is now slipping away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top