Possible Boise State/Nebraska series stalled because...

[FedEx227]

Ball State played a horrendous schedule that year: Northeastern, Navy, Akron, Indiana, Kent State, Toledo, Western Kentucky, Eastern Michigan, Northern Illinois, Miami (OH), Central Michigan, Western Michigan, Buffalo and Tulsa.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Ball State played a horrendous schedule that year: Northeastern, Navy, Akron, Indiana, Kent State, Toledo, Western Kentucky, Eastern Michigan, Northern Illinois, Miami (OH), Central Michigan, Western Michigan, Buffalo and Tulsa.

Then why play at all, if you cant win the championship? What is the point?

And it supports my point that most college football games are pointless exhibitions.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I've yet to hear why college football is the only sport in the world where a playoff wont work.

Unless you support arbitrarily picking two teams in other sports too, gtfo. It's ridiculous.

 

[NAHSTE]

In college football two losses should eliminate your season.

:smug:

 

[FedEx227]

Other sports don't allow the individual team to pick/pay their out of conference opponents though.

 

[FirstTimer]

Then why play at all, if you cant win the championship? What is the point?

.

Because it beats having to study?

I've yet to hear why college football is the only sport in the world where a playoff wont work.

I don't think anyone is saying a playoff idea won't work. I think most people are saying certain playoff ideas are retarded/illogical

 

[FedEx227]

Then why play at all, if you cant win the championship? What is the point?

Because you're Ball fuckin' State. If you go to Ball State thinking you're going to win the National Championship you're an idiot.

Just like if you go to Quinnipiac to play basketball, you shouldn't realistically think you're going to end the year with a national championship. Perfect season or not. You may go to March Madness, you may make a little run but at the end of the day you'll more than likely lose to one of the big college basketball powers that have largely dominated the sport's titles for the past 50-60 years.

 

[SHOGUN]

Am I the only one who DOESN'T want the system to change?

NCAAF is my favorite sport because of how exciting 12 games are. I don't want that to change.

Nope. I like the current system as well.

I'm not against a playoff, but a lot of the playoff ideas I've heard have been retarded and doesn't really change anything.

 

[JeremyHight]

I'm not against a playoff either, but the current system is a million times better than a 8, 16, or (god help me) 32 team playoff.

The importance of the regular season is what makes college football unique. People who aren't college football fans think "Oh, just plug in a ____ team playoff and it will work", but in reality, it would completely destroy the sport we all love. I'm fine with a 4 team playoff, especially one that rewards conference champions, but having anything more just makes the regular season a waste and rivalries much less important.

 

[FirstTimer]

Nope. I like the current system as well.

I'm not against a playoff, but a lot of the playoff ideas I've heard have been retarded and doesn't really change anything.

Agreed. I think what the "playoffs work in every other sport" people overlook sometimes or don't give enough attention to is how different college football is as an institution from almost any other sport out there. You have a massive amount of teams(aprox 120) playing fewer games(12-13,) in order to try and narrow down a field to a certain amount of teams form a playoff or for a bowl game. You can't treat college football the same...because it's not. In most every other sport you are able to play enough games against a smaller population of teams in order to give yourself objective and result based wild cards, at larges, etc. College football doesn't lend itself to that.

So if your entire point is being pissed at the BCS, or the pollsters, or rankings for not giving every team a chance most/all playoff systems won't allow for that with the way college football is structured currently. In order to get any sort of even comparable playoff to most other sports you'd have to have every team join a conference, eliminate rankings/polls, eliminate OOC (as they won't matter with no polls and a schedule size too small for them to matter), and just have basically a conference schedule, then a conference championship to see who will go on to play in the Championship Playoffs. IMO you'd have to change the entire landscape/set up of college football for a playoff of any kind to make any sense. If you're not willing to do that..quit wasting my time with half cocked ideas and just go back to pre-BCS set ups.

 

[NAHSTE]

Yeah, college football is different than other sports because it's 120 teams who only play 12 games. So there's no way to ensure everyone is playing an even schedule. Even if you wanted to, each team can only play 10% of the possible teams in a full season. It's very hard to standardize scheduling conventions when they've been left up the to the schools for so long.

There is nothing saying a playoff can't work, but in order to preserve the sanctity of the game (ie, please the blue bloods, alums, and rabid fans that make college football what it is) it has to be the right system.

We're still searching IMO.

 

[FirstTimer]

Yeah, college football is different than other sports because it's 120 teams who only play 12 games. So there's no way to ensure everyone is playing an even schedule. Even if you wanted to, each team can only play 10% of the possible teams in a full season. It's very hard to standardize scheduling conventions when they've been left up the to the schools for so long.

There is nothing saying a playoff can't work, but in order to preserve the sanctity of the game (ie, please the blue bloods, alums, and rabid fans that make college football what it is) it has to be the right system.

We're still searching IMO.

We'll never find it. Each system will be some ridiculous combination of failed previous systems that hold people over for a few years until they come up with some even more contrived idea.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

An imperfect playoff is better than what we have now. What we have now is the absolute worst.

 

[FirstTimer]

An imperfect playoff is better than what we have now. What we have now is the absolute worst.

No it's not.

Again, I'd rather have pre-BCS set up than the shit we have now or some imperfect playoff.

 

[JeremyHight]

An imperfect playoff is better than what we have now. What we have now is the absolute worst.

An 8+ team playoff is significantly worse than what we have now.

 

[Liquidrob]

Just start the season as a single elimination tournament, take the 100 and whatever teams and play, you lose and you're out, season over once you lose

Pride Never Die!

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

An 8+ team playoff is significantly worse than what we have now.

I will never understand this mindset.

Eh, forget an exciting playoff season, let's let computers decide, and then sit around for two months and wait for the game to be played.

This is more appealing to you? Absurd.

 

[Atlas]

whats wrong with taking what FCS, D-II and D-III do to determine and implementing it into the Bowl system we have currently???

 

[FirstTimer]

whats wrong with taking what FCS, D-II and D-III do to determine and implementing it into the Bowl system we have currently???

Because at large bids are gay...and would use the BCS rankings..or polling...which playoff proponents think are "broken" but are more than willing to use to select teams for a playoff.

Logic fail.

:smug:

 

[NAHSTE]

whats wrong with taking what FCS, D-II and D-III do to determine and implementing it into the Bowl system we have currently???

Those used to be 16-team models, which most agree is too many for FBS. Now they've expanded to 24 (because, naturally, teams complained about being left out) which most agree is way too many for FBS.

I think the "slippery slope" argument applies here. The furthest I would ever be willing to see the FCS go is 8 teams.