NCAAF Playoffs

[clake]

I am not trying to defend Hawaii in terms of playing in a National Championship game but they're situation is very unique this year because they couldn't find anyone to play them after MSU backed out of the game.

http://uhfootball.blogspot.com/2007/03/ ... lelie.html

I think they were able to get Florida on their schedule for the opener next year, though.

All of this w/ Hawaii certainly makes an argument for a playoff system... Let them prove it over the course of a 4 game (16 team) play-off. I don't think they'd last more than a game but I don't see why they don't deserve a shot.

Again, I don't see how it can work for 1-AA w/ an 11 game season and 16-team playoff but it won't for D1. How hard is it to take away one of the cupcake games?

[GatewaySnayke]

How hard is it to take away one of the cupcake games?

Not hard at all. But those cupcake teams don't want to lose those games either. We mock teams playing the MAC's, CUSA's and Sun Belt's of the college football world, but the small schools pocket big money for those games. I think it was on OTL a year ago when they were doing something about Buffalo playing Auburn. They lost by 40+ points but made a good fortune on that game.

I wouldn't fret if there were a playoff, but I won't fret if the BCS continues. In a perfect world, we'd get non-conference matchups like USC-Florida, LSU-Ohio State, Michigan-Texas, etc. But one of the BCS's big flaws is that you can run the table on a soft schedule and move up big in the rankings, assuming you play in a BCS conference (Ohio State/Kansas). On the other hand, if you are a non-BCS school like Hawaii, you have to get big schools on there or you can dominate a soft schedule and not be anywhere close to contention. It's paradoxical (?).

The BCS is all about one thing: getting the best matchup possible for the national championship and preferrably a school with a big-time fanbase. It's a lot easier to get ratings when you put Ohio State up against Florida rather than run the risk of a Boise State sneaking in there.

[kscardfan]

To me, the last two years have spelled out why they do NOT need a playoff system in college football. Look at what is going on during the regular season, you lose that drama with a playoff system.

I hear this all the time, but it's BS. You'd have to play your arse off to win your conference championship, otherwise it's pretty hard to crash the party. Right now, there's little incentive to even win your conference. Oklahoma and Nebraska have both played in the national championship game (and got blown out) despite losing their conference championship game. Last year, Michigan nearly got invited to the championship game since their only loss was to the #1 team. Then we got to the bowls and found out that maybe the Big Ten was a bit weaker than we thought.

And it's BS that Hawaii will get no chance to play in the championship game, despite going undefeated, while two teams with at least 1 loss duke it out. How can a coach in a non-BCS conference even recruit? "Hey, come play for us. You'll never have a chance to win a title because of the conference we're in, but you can't beat the Boise weather in the fall."

--P--

Why stop at 16, why not 32? Or 64? Where do you stop?

Adding 3 games on to an 18 year old kids plate is not responsible. They should go back to 10 regular season games if you ask me.

Jim have you seen a College Baseball or Basketball schedule. This is not about number of games played.

[Socnorb11]

How hard is it to take away one of the cupcake games?

Not hard at all. But those cupcake teams don't want to lose those games either. We mock teams playing the MAC's, CUSA's and Sun Belt's of the college football world, but the small schools pocket big money for those games. I think it was on OTL a year ago when they were doing something about Buffalo playing Auburn. They lost by 40+ points but made a good fortune on that game.

I wouldn't fret if there were a playoff, but I won't fret if the BCS continues. In a perfect world, we'd get non-conference matchups like USC-Florida, LSU-Ohio State, Michigan-Texas, etc. But one of the BCS's big flaws is that you can run the table on a soft schedule and move up big in the rankings, assuming you play in a BCS conference (Ohio State/Kansas). On the other hand, if you are a non-BCS school like Hawaii, you have to get big schools on there or you can dominate a soft schedule and not be anywhere close to contention. It's paradoxical (?).

The BCS is all about one thing: getting the best matchup possible for the national championship and preferrably a school with a big-time fanbase. It's a lot easier to get ratings when you put Ohio State up against Florida rather than run the risk of a Boise State sneaking in there.

I think it's quite a stretch to compare Ohio State's "soft" schedule to Hawaii's "soft" schedule.

The worst part about the BCS is that it's not so much about whether you lose a game, but WHEN you lose a game. Missouri lost a game early, and then got hot. Ohio State was hot early, and then lost a game. So Missouri controls their destiny but Missouri doesn't, based solely on when they lost their games.

I'd prefer a playoff.

[GatewaySnayke]

I think it's quite a stretch to compare Ohio State's "soft" schedule to Hawaii's "soft" schedule.

I wasn't comparing them, but OK.

What I said was that a BCS school can load up a soft schedule and be in contention for the national championship. Non-BCS schools can do the same, but the most that will happen is an outside chance at getting a BCS bid.

[Socnorb11]

I think it's quite a stretch to compare Ohio State's "soft" schedule to Hawaii's "soft" schedule.

I wasn't comparing them, but OK.

What I said was that a BCS school can load up a soft schedule and be in contention for the national championship. Non-BCS schools can do the same, but the most that will happen is an outside chance at getting a BCS bid.

That sounds an awful lot like a comparison to me, and I don't think it's fair.

Hawaii played 2 teams all year that had winning records. Ohio State played 4 or 5 ranked teams, and most of their games were against teams with winning record. Ohio State didn't load up a "soft" schedule.

[GatewaySnayke]

Hawaii played 2 teams all year that had winning records.

Hawaii also plays in a substandard football conference. Ohio State plays in the Big Ten...

Ohio State played 4 or 5 ranked teams,

No, they played three. #23 Purdue, #23 Michigan and #24 Penn State. Illinois and Wisconsin were unranked.

and most of their games were against teams with winning record.

Again, Hawaii plays in a substandard conference. Ohio State is in the Big Ten. Of course Ohio State is going to play more winning teams.

Ohio State didn't load up a "soft" schedule.

They didn't? Okay. So, Division II Youngstown State, 4-8 Akron, 4-8 Washington and 3-9 Kent State isn't soft? You're right -- that they were able to beat those four powerhouses is a testament to their greatness.

[Socnorb11]

Hawaii played 2 teams all year that had winning records.

Hawaii also plays in a substandard football conference. Ohio State plays in the Big Ten...

Ohio State played 4 or 5 ranked teams,

No, they played three. #23 Purdue, #23 Michigan and #24 Penn State. Illinois and Wisconsin were unranked.

and most of their games were against teams with winning record.

Again, Hawaii plays in a substandard conference. Ohio State is in the Big Ten. Of course Ohio State is going to play more winning teams.

Ohio State didn't load up a "soft" schedule.

They didn't? Okay. So, Division II Youngstown State, 4-8 Akron, 4-8 Washington and 3-9 Kent State isn't soft? You're right -- that they were able to beat those four powerhouses is a testament to their greatness.

When I said "ranked" teams, I meant teams that were ranked at some point during the year. You see my point...... they played a "real" schedule, while Ohio State didn't. I'm not sure why you're comparing Hawaii's schedule to Ohio State's. That's the part that I'm not comprehending. Ohio State didn't play the New England Patriots every week, but they certainly didn't play a "soft" schedule. Hawaii did. Missouri and Kansas "loaded up" a soft schedule just as much as Ohio State did. I'm not sure why you're picking on Ohio State (or maybe you're just using them as an example).

[GatewaySnayke]

When I said "ranked" teams, I meant teams that were ranked at some point during the year. You see my point...... they played a "real" schedule, while Ohio State didn't. I'm not sure why you're comparing Hawaii's schedule to Ohio State's. That's the part that I'm not comprehending. Ohio State didn't play the New England Patriots every week, but they certainly didn't play a "soft" schedule. Hawaii did.

Hawaii CAN'T play Ohio State's schedule. There are not 3-4 major schools that are going to play against Hawaii.

Ohio State played a "real" schedule relative to their conference. It breaks down like this:

Winning Teams
Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue, Penn State

Losing Teams
Youngstown State, Northwestern, Minnesota, Akron, Washington, Kent State

They played five abysmal teams -- one not even in the same division. What I've been arguing all along is that a team like Ohio State can put patsies on their schedule (which they did) and then dominate a weak power conference (which they did) to put themselves in position for a national championship. Hawaii can't afford that luxury. Soft schedule + WAC = borderline at-large BCS team. I don't think this is even debatable.

We agree on the same thing that there needs to be a playoff to let the smaller schools get a chance. I'm not sure why you're arguing that the current BCS set-up DOESN'T give schools like OSU this advantage. It's clear as day that it does.

[Radio_Bugtussle]

To me, the last two years have spelled out why they do NOT need a playoff system in college football. Look at what is going on during the regular season, you lose that drama with a playoff system.

I'm with you.
Louisiana State was eliminated by Arkansas.
Ohio State was done when they lost to Illinois.
Michigan beat the rush and checked out in their opener.