A playoff will be the worst thing to happen to a program like CU. It would become exponentially harder for CU to win another national title. Though it seems improbable now, all we'd need to do now to get a title shot is go 12-0. But in a playoff, we'd have to go 12-0, then play one or two play-in games against Top 10 teams to still get that shot. I fear this scenario.
I disagree. If we are not the best team, then we do not deserve to win the national title.
That is a naive statement. Under the current BCS system, to get a title shot we'd have to not only be 12-0, we'd also have to be ranked in the top two of a completely subjective voting process. Ask Auburn, Boise State, Utah, TCU, and several others how going undefeated worked out for them in their quests for a MNC. In a playoff system, you have to prove you're the best by beating the best, not by winning the beauty contest and then playing against the first runner-up in said beauty contest.A playoff will be the worst thing to happen to a program like CU. It would become exponentially harder for CU to win another national title. Though it seems improbable now, all we'd need to do now to get a title shot is go 12-0. But in a playoff, we'd have to go 12-0, then play one or two play-in games against Top 10 teams to still get that shot. I fear this scenario.
I disagree. If we are not the best team, then we do not deserve to win the national title.
That is a naive statement. Under the current BCS system, to get a title shot we'd have to not only be 12-0, we'd also have to be ranked in the top two of a completely subjective voting process. Ask Auburn, Boise State, Utah, TCU, and several others how going undefeated worked out for them in their quests for a MNC. In a playoff system, you have to prove you're the best by beating the best, not by winning the beauty contest and then playing against the first runner-up in said beauty contest.
All I am saying is that under a playoff system, even MORE things would need to fall perfectly in place for CU.
Taxes are how they got Al Capone, why not the BCS?
CU has won the Big 12 once since the formation of the league, that didn't result in a "shot" at national title in the BCS system, but it would in a playoff.
Throw in top 8 finishes in 1989, 1994, 1995, and 1996 that might have resulted in an "at-large" bid and we would have far more opportunities in a playoff than without.
CU has won the Big 12 once since the formation of the league, that didn't result in a "shot" at national title in the BCS system, but it would in a playoff.
Throw in top 8 finishes in 1989, 1994, 1995, and 1996 that might have resulted in an "at-large" bid and we would have far more opportunities in a playoff than without.
CU has won the Big 12 once since the formation of the league, that didn't result in a "shot" at national title in the BCS system, but it would in a playoff.
Throw in top 8 finishes in 1989, 1994, 1995, and 1996 that might have resulted in an "at-large" bid and we would have far more opportunities in a playoff than without.
Going 12-0?So assume we go 12-0 next year, under the current BCS format. Barring an Auburn-like fluke, it is safe to assume that we'd be invited to the BCS title game. Win that game and we are champs.
Meanwhile, if we were under a playoff, we'd go 12-0, and likely have to win TWO more playoff games, against very stiff competition, to get the title.
Which is harder?
... BCS Bowl organizations using their charitable funds to enrich Bowl executives, pay registered lobbyists without disclosure, fund political campaigns, and heap frivolous benefits on Bowl insiders.
So assume we go 12-0 next year, under the current BCS format. Barring an Auburn-like fluke, it is safe to assume that we'd be invited to the BCS title game. Win that game and we are champs.
Meanwhile, if we were under a playoff, we'd go 12-0, and likely have to win TWO more playoff games, against very stiff competition, to get the title.
Which is harder?
Of course, it all depends.
What is your pre-season ranking, strength of schedule, other top teams' records, etc etc etc (none of which the players on the field control).
So, you say "harder" to win 2 or 3 games of a playoff, but I say "harder" to get all the above stars to align on a perfect season.
Would it not also be "easier" to win your conference, either going 9-3 or 10-2 (in which case we would have no shot at a MNC BCS title game berth) then catching the ACC champion in round 1 and the other semifinal winner for the title?
But at least it would be "easier" for the players to control.
And yes, 2001 we were "locked out" of the BCS due to losses, but why does that negate anything? In a playoff with conference champions, we would get in because we won the game that mattered: the Big 12 Championship. Maybe we still play Oregon in a playoff and lose, but that opportunity would have at least given us a chance to play for a title, whereas before we had NO such opportunity the moment the L's were in the books in the BCS system.
Then again, anything can happen. Just look at the end of the '01 season. We turned a good season into a great season just by beating NU and UT. So a team can get hot and run the table come playoff time, I suppose.
Looking back on that year, it is interesting to me that CU fans were clamoring for us to have a national title shot. Sure, that's classic homerism there. But it was also absurd. We lost to Fresno Freaking State, which should have disqualified us for the get-go. We also got waxed by Texas. The only solid regular season win was over NU, though it was a major pasting.
If anything, Oregon should have got the title shot.
Then again, anything can happen. Just look at the end of the '01 season. We turned a good season into a great season just by beating NU and UT. So a team can get hot and run the table come playoff time, I suppose.
Looking back on that year, it is interesting to me that CU fans were clamoring for us to have a national title shot. Sure, that's classic homerism there. But it was also absurd. We lost to Fresno Freaking State, which should have disqualified us for the get-go. We also got waxed by Texas. The only solid regular season win was over NU, though it was a major pasting.
If anything, Oregon should have got the title shot.
By your logic we should just step down to the FCS that way we can play cupcakes every week. First of all, playoff or no playoff, I don't see us in this conversation either way for a while. Secondly, a point to ponder...what is better, winning a championship in a flawed system based on politics and the judgement of people that know little about college football or winning a championship based soley on the performance of your team (ie winning 4 games in a playoff against solid opponents)? I really do get tired of the pussification of this program which is now apparently spreading to the fans.