Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by OKCBuff, Sep 23, 2010.
It's a very interesting point. If they can show that these bowls have done things that violate their tax exempt status, it's a major blow. I would think the IRS would love to get its hands into the bowl cookie jar.
Very interesting angle. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The IRS will investigate, that is guaranteed. They are focusing on high dollar audits right now. This would fall right in that wheelhouse.
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.
Taxes are how they got Al Capone, why not the BCS?
the NCAA TV monopoly was brought down by a Sherman Anti-Trust lawsuit in the 80's....that was considered a silly idea hatched over a steak dinner by a couple Norman attorneys....until it went to the Supreme Court and won. a landmark decision every college football fan should honor as they sit on the sofa for 14 hours of football on Saturdays. IRS, maybe?
I disagree. If we are not the best team, then we do not deserve to win the national title.
I'm with you here.
I don't see a playoff any time soon, though. The only way I see it happening is if we say 4 superconferences with 16 teams each. These superconferences would play a 2 round playoff and then the 2 winners would play a 2 round playoff. Outside of that, you could still have bowl games.
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.
Not going to happen. A) If this had been a valid argument the mid-majors would have gone after it a long time ago. These people are grasping at straws and while on the surface is sounds good and there is always a chance something will stick when thrown against the wall I don't see this happening. B) Even if it were valid, the states where BCS schools are important have enough influence in congress to adjust the law to maintain the system.
Take all the SEC states, Texas, Oklahoma, most of the Big X states including Nebraska, Arizona, and some more and you have enough politicians who are not willing to upset the fans of the teams in their states. Tax laws are pretty easy to create exemptions for and if this case had any traction I would see an amendment to a tax bill being passed before anyone knew what happened.
The best team does not win the NCAA Tournament every year. As a sport though, basketball is much more prone to upsets than football.
The only example that applies from your list below is Auburn. You can add '94 Penn State too.
All I am saying is that under a playoff system, even MORE things would need to fall perfectly in place for CU.
That's debateable. The number of things that have to go right to get into a playoff would be far less than the things needed to even play in the MNC game. Hell, just look at 2001 for an example of this.
Yeah. Getting the IRS involved in college football is a great idea! I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
They'll Never Take me Alive!!!!!!!
Hell, playing in the national championship game isn't that hard. You can lose your last regular season game by 26 points, giving up 62 in the process, and still make the game.
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.
Only because we had 2 losses that year.
Ok, if you consider an "opportunity" the chance to play two more games against Top 5 teams, an almost impossible gauntlet to survive. I'd say it would be easier to win all of your regular season games (surely not all against Top 5 teams).
We got boxed out in '01 because we had L's on the record.
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?
is it just me, or does any one else love the phrase "frivolous benefits?"
It's very rare for 3 teams from BCS conferences to go undefeated in the same season. It would certainly be easier to "fluke" a national championship under a playoff system than what we have now. But it would also be harder to win a national championship under a playoff system if we were truly the best team in country. Basically a larger sample size is better at determining the best team than a knockout tournament. Personally I'm pretty happy with the current format.
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.
Valid points. I guess what I'm thinking is that if we win the Pac 12 with a 9-3 or 10-2 record, the odds are low that we will make it through the playoff anyways. We'd likely get waxed by an undefeated SEC/Big Ten champ.
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.
In retrospect Oregon should have gotten the title shot. However, we had a much tougher schedule than Oregon did that year. Plus Fresno was a Top 10 team with David Carr. It was a tough argument before the championship game.
The only thing that was clear was that the system was fatally flawed because the Nubs, who we hung 62 on, limped into the championship game and got pummeled. The entire college football world knew the Nubs had no business in that game.
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.
You need to wake up to reality, brother. Either that or go root for a perennial winner like Alabama or Ohio State.
You need lots of luck in addition to skill to survive 4 rounds of a college football playoff. If the NCAA Tournament added a few more rounds, that would make it harder for everyone to make it all the way through to the Final Four. And it would serve to weed out all but the very best of programs. Sure, as a CU fan you want us to run the table over the Floridas and USCs of the world. But that would never happen these days because as it relates to football, CU is not on that elite level anymore. This means we'd be victims more than beneficiaries of a playoff system. So while it may have helped us in the late 80s / early 90s, I doubt it would going forward.
Separate names with a comma.