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!

Larry Scott Discusses Pac-12's Favored Playoff Model

I have been one who would say that the BCS should stay in place but that is a losing battle on my behalf so I'm going to say we need a 16 team playoff not a four team playoff. Given that there are 11 conference championships to be handed out, all conference championships should make the playoffs and that leaves five at large teams to be chosen by the BCS.

If we go to eight team playoffs, no at large teams should be allowed.
 
zbuff said:
In my mind, Sacky, your "best team in the country" lost their chance when they lost at home to their conference champion. Only the ****ed up BCS, the same BCS that sent a humiliated NU team to the MNC, could salvage Alabams's failure.

Nik, great idea, but it won't happen in my lifetime, and I figure I've got a good 25 years left.
Click to expand...

They then proceeded to shut out the team that beat them and beat them convincingly. Other teams had their chance, they ****ed it up, and Bama backed in and won it. If OSU wins at ISU they get in, but they didn't.
 
I was sent a Pr0n video the other day showing an Asian chick giving a dude a HJ. Right when he was about to blow she started punching him as hard as she could right in the testicles. Seems tame compared to the rehashing of the MNC game again and again.
 
This really is not that difficult... a plus one system will work but forget this conference bs. Its really simple- 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3 with the winners meeting a week later. Yeah it sucks to not win your conference and get a shot at the title.... but whatever it beats the hell outta an ACC or Big East team getting a shot.
 
sackman said:
Then, using your logic, there was nobody in the country good enough to play LSU. Everybody had at least one loss.
Click to expand...

True, if you choose to ignore both points made in my statement. 1) Lost at home 2) to their conference champ

In other words, to spell it out, you can overcome a loss by winning your conference. The combination of having lost to LSU (at home!) and then getting to play them again for even bigger stakes is, IMHO, just wrong. I realize that you disagree.
 
zbuff said:
True, if you choose to ignore both points made in my statement. 1) Lost at home 2) to their conference champ

In other words, to spell it out, you can overcome a loss by winning your conference. The combination of having lost to LSU (at home!) and then getting to play them again for even bigger stakes is, IMHO, just wrong. I realize that you disagree.
Click to expand...


Sooooo, losing to their conference champ (in overtime) is worse than losing to a dog sh*t Iowa State team?

Gotcha. Glad we cleared that one up.
 
College football is the last major sport where every single game matters. That makes it really special. The only way to preserve that is to 1. have a very limited number of "playoff" teams (2 or 4, but NOT 8 or more) and 2. have those 2 or 4 determined by rankings/polls, not "conference champions." Unless both of those conditions are fulfilled, you will have good/great teams "taking games off" late in the season (and sometimes early in the season as well). That would suck.

Just to make the point (presume USC wasn't banned from post-season this year): if you limit to "conference champions," then both Michigan State and USC "take off" the last game of the regular season this last year. If you have 8 teams in, then anyone who is undefeated and/or ranked in the top 3 will be tempted to take the last regular season game off (especially if they'll still get into their conference championship game, so they can "make up for" the late season loss with a quality win - and, hey, they're resting their bigs to ensure that win).

On the other hand, the current ranking system is biased towards winners of conference championship games (although not necessarily conference champions as Okie lite this year and the B10 in years past found out) so winning your conference is very important, and if there are very few playoff spots available, you can't afford to take a game off, ever.

The other problem with a "conference champions model" is that the college out of conference games become nothing more than NFL preseason. There would be little incentive (other than marginally more $) to ever play anyone of substance in the OOC. And even if you did play a real OOC schedule, you would still be better served by using those games to get your underclassmen actual game experience - winning those games would be much less important than "preparing for the conference schedule." Actually, the more I think about it - this would probably lead to "better" OOC scheduling match-ups in terms of big programs playing big programs, for $$$ reasons, but it would still be "our starters vs their starters for 1 to 1.5 quarters, and our back-ups vs their back-ups for the rest of the game."

To sum up: no more than 4, and rankings not conference champions.
 
sackman said:
Sooooo, losing to their conference champ (in overtime) is worse than losing to a dog sh*t Iowa State team?

Gotcha. Glad we cleared that one up.
Click to expand...

The difference would be actually being the conference champ, as again you've conveniently picked points to ignore. Glad to help you out.
 
skibum said:
College football is the last major sport where every single game matters. That makes it really special. The only way to preserve that is to 1. have a very limited number of "playoff" teams (2 or 4, but NOT 8 or more) and 2. have those 2 or 4 determined by rankings/polls, not "conference champions." Unless both of those conditions are fulfilled, you will have good/great teams "taking games off" late in the season (and sometimes early in the season as well). That would suck.

Just to make the point (presume USC wasn't banned from post-season this year): if you limit to "conference champions," then both Michigan State and USC "take off" the last game of the regular season this last year. If you have 8 teams in, then anyone who is undefeated and/or ranked in the top 3 will be tempted to take the last regular season game off (especially if they'll still get into their conference championship game, so they can "make up for" the late season loss with a quality win - and, hey, they're resting their bigs to ensure that win).

On the other hand, the current ranking system is biased towards winners of conference championship games (although not necessarily conference champions as Okie lite this year and the B10 in years past found out) so winning your conference is very important, and if there are very few playoff spots available, you can't afford to take a game off, ever.

The other problem with a "conference champions model" is that the college out of conference games become nothing more than NFL preseason. There would be little incentive (other than marginally more $) to ever play anyone of substance in the OOC. And even if you did play a real OOC schedule, you would still be better served by using those games to get your underclassmen actual game experience - winning those games would be much less important than "preparing for the conference schedule." Actually, the more I think about it - this would probably lead to "better" OOC scheduling match-ups in terms of big programs playing big programs, for $$$ reasons, but it would still be "our starters vs their starters for 1 to 1.5 quarters, and our back-ups vs their back-ups for the rest of the game."

To sum up: no more than 4, and rankings not conference champions.
Click to expand...

So your suggest we play all 11 Pac12 teams? I'd be down with that. Determine the real conference champ round-robin style
 
dio said:
Yes, all games matter..... except when they don't
Click to expand...
True, for Alabama, all games mattered. Except for one. (I know, I'm beating this into the ground, but Sacky/BCS defenders are being ridiculous on this point)
 
skibum said:
To sum up: no more than 4, and rankings not conference champions.
Click to expand...

The issue with rankings is that they are determined in large part by popularity measures (voting), and the Pac games are infrequently watched east of the Mississippi. If we're voting for the best let's just scrap the BCS and go back to the way it used to be. It worked just as well... But taking a team from another BCS conference over a team from the Pac with a better record potentially would be awful, and that's what will happen if voting is used... Over the past 10-15 years teams from the Pac have been routinely voted or ranked below teams from other conferences with the same record.

There is still way too much controversy with a 4 team playoff in most years IMO...

Determining who gets in to a playoff format should be decided as much as possible by the play on the field, and not by simply voting/rankings.
 
There will eventually be only 4 conferences that matter anyway. So having a four team play off makes sense

Big 10
Pac 12
ACC
SEC
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
There will eventually be only 4 conferences that matter anyway. So having a four team play off makes sense

Big 10
Pac 12
ACC
SEC
Click to expand...

So long as you're talking the conference winners, sure. No problem there. But not two from one conference while leaving out the conference winner of another BCS conference...
 
The whole notion of "every game counts and wouldn't if there was a playoff" is totally ludicrous. Every team will still play their asses off every single game no matter what. This is college football and players on every team are trying to hold up a legacy.

I think the current system also sucks because it doesn't leave any room for improvement. This is college...there is a lot of raw talent that comes in and teams that don't gel early, and yet get better and better by the end of the year. (Think CU in 2001.) I want to see the best teams at the end of the season play eachother. The teams with that early hiccup still deserves a chance at redemption if they are a better team than they were to start off.
 
Honestly when the 4 super conferences form, we will see an NFL type schedule with more meaning to each game.

Either there will be a 4 team play off for the conference title or a 2 team conference championship game. Either way each conference will have one conference champion and that team will then face off against the other 3 conferences in the National Tournament
 
skibum said:
College football is the last major sport where every single game matters. That makes it really special. The only way to preserve that is to 1. have a very limited number of "playoff" teams (2 or 4, but NOT 8 or more) and 2. have those 2 or 4 determined by rankings/polls, not "conference champions." Unless both of those conditions are fulfilled, you will have good/great teams "taking games off" late in the season (and sometimes early in the season as well). That would suck.

Just to make the point (presume USC wasn't banned from post-season this year): if you limit to "conference champions," then both Michigan State and USC "take off" the last game of the regular season this last year. If you have 8 teams in, then anyone who is undefeated and/or ranked in the top 3 will be tempted to take the last regular season game off (especially if they'll still get into their conference championship game, so they can "make up for" the late season loss with a quality win - and, hey, they're resting their bigs to ensure that win).

On the other hand, the current ranking system is biased towards winners of conference championship games (although not necessarily conference champions as Okie lite this year and the B10 in years past found out) so winning your conference is very important, and if there are very few playoff spots available, you can't afford to take a game off, ever.

The other problem with a "conference champions model" is that the college out of conference games become nothing more than NFL preseason. There would be little incentive (other than marginally more $) to ever play anyone of substance in the OOC. And even if you did play a real OOC schedule, you would still be better served by using those games to get your underclassmen actual game experience - winning those games would be much less important than "preparing for the conference schedule." Actually, the more I think about it - this would probably lead to "better" OOC scheduling match-ups in terms of big programs playing big programs, for $$$ reasons, but it would still be "our starters vs their starters for 1 to 1.5 quarters, and our back-ups vs their back-ups for the rest of the game."

To sum up: no more than 4, and rankings not conference champions.
Click to expand...

Well stated,

If I want to see a system full of "second chances," if I want to see a bunch of teams "included" I just watch Sundays instead.
 
I love watching college football.

I'd love watching the best teams play eachother at the end of the season.

If there was an 8 or 16 team playoff we would have some ridiculously awesome games every December/January and I'd be into watching each and every one of them way more than the ****** bowl season we have right now.

Oh, and it wouldn't affect your or my interest in the regular season, nor cause teams to slack off one bit.

If you are a football fan and you are against a playoff because of some divine belief it isn't right or won't call the correct team the best you are a ****ing moron.
 
MtnBuff said:
Well stated,

If I want to see a system full of "second chances," if I want to see a bunch of teams "included" I just watch Sundays instead.
Click to expand...
This argument sucks.

A 32 team league that allows 12 teams into the playoffs is going to allow a LOT more "2d chances" than a 120 team league with a 4 or 8 team playoff will.

And considering Bama just got a 2d chance, guess there is no difference between the leagues.
 
Last edited:
TimmyDUBs said:
If you are a football fan and you are against a playoff because of some divine belief it isn't right or won't call the correct team the best you are a ****ing moron.
Click to expand...

Whoa dude. That is easily argued by non-****ing morons.

I personally would like a 4 team playoff.
 
skibum said:
College football is the last major sport where every single game matters. That makes it really special. The only way to preserve that is to 1. have a very limited number of "playoff" teams (2 or 4, but NOT 8 or more) and 2. have those 2 or 4 determined by rankings/polls, not "conference champions." Unless both of those conditions are fulfilled, you will have good/great teams "taking games off" late in the season (and sometimes early in the season as well). That would suck.

To sum up: no more than 4, and rankings not conference champions.
Click to expand...

This is all the information you need to know right there.

/thread
 
neil29fp said:
Can we just stop with statements like this. Every game doesn't matter in the current system.
Click to expand...
Well, sort of right. How about this, fairly minor, modification: if you want a national championship, every game counts.

Yes, undefeated champions are actually fairly rare, but... remember that game they lost? If they had won it, they wouldn't have had to rely on someone else losing. It counted.

Not a single team that was in the title hunt last year played a single game that was a "throw away." They didn't "rest their starters," unless their starters had already forced the other team's starters to beg for mercy.

Look at the top 4-6 BCS teams from last year - would any of their games turning out differently NOT have really changed the standings at the end of the season? If Bama loses another game, any game - they're out. If we had beaten Stanford or Oregon, either of them would have instantly been eliminated from the picture. There is not a single game on any of those teams' schedules that a different outcome wouldn't have entirely altered the end of season picture. So yeah, every game counts.

Now, lower down the ladder, the bowl system is really very good at making the games count for teams. It is really late in the season until many teams are eliminated from bowl eligibility. And if you are eligible, you still want to win to get to a bigger, better bowl. There's only a handful of teams "playing for nothing but pride" late in November. That's really remarkable given how many teams play D1 ball...

The current number of teams and a 16 team playoff? Sure the playoffs would be absurdly exciting, but it would mean that about 60 teams would be playing for absolutely nothing but "pride" for the whole month of November. How many of them have coaching staffs that are good enough to keep their teams competing in every game after they've been eliminated? Think hard about the answer to that question...

So, we'll go to 64 teams overall. Ok, instead of 60 team eliminated by Nov 1, you have about 30. Same problem, different scale.

No more than 4 - and rankings are part of the picture...
 
skibum said:
The current number of teams and a 16 team playoff? Sure the playoffs would be absurdly exciting, but it would mean that about 60 teams would be playing for absolutely nothing but "pride" for the whole month of November. How many of them have coaching staffs that are good enough to keep their teams competing in every game after they've been eliminated? Think hard about the answer to that question...
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be. That is the whole point.

But to your argument, what is currently forcing so many teams to play for anything but pride in November? A bowl game? Your issue is not something that should prevent a playoff, it is something that can be worked out easily.

Make sure that you have rivalry games during November (already done.) Give teams left out of the big playoff their own bowls or their own tournement. I recall the NIT being pretty exciting last year for us, even despite it being teams left out of a field of 64! There were plenty of games that didn't mean anything in November, and I don't see that changing.

If you want to be a national champion every game will count, but an early slip up can be rectified if you can beat the best of the best. The team that can go undefeated and then run the table at the tourney may consider themselves among the best teams EVER!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top