TCU should get a real national championship game vs. Auburn/Oregon

[Warner2BruceTD]

And wouldn't "playing for seeding" make games between playoff bound teams more meaningful than playing for a Cotton or Gator Bowl bid?? Or even a BCS non title game bid?

Instead of focusing on the dozens of games with enhanced value, jeremy focuses on a few games of slightly decreased value.

 

[JeremyHight]

Again, I'm all for a playoff, I'm just not for a playoff so big as to make losses meaningless. Like it or not, if you take in 8 teams, you are saying Arkansas' losses to Alabama and Auburn were meaningless since they get into the playoff anyways and it makes the Auburn game even more meaningless since now they play in the first round at a neutral site.

Explain to me how the Arkansas/Auburn regular season game has more meaning now that they both get into a playoff and play in the first round?

Explain to me how the Oregon/Stanford regular season game has more meaning when they would rematch again if they won out again at a neutral site?

I'm not saying it won't make a few late year games more meaningful, I'm saying it will make many important games have less meaning during the course of the season.

 

[FirstTimer]

playoff so big as to make losses meaningless.

How are the teams that lose and have to go play road games or facing higher ranked teams earlier in the playoff process rendering losses "meaningless"?

Like it or not, if you take in 8 teams, you are saying Arkansas' losses to Alabama and Auburn were meaningless since they get into the playoff anyways and it makes the Auburn game even more meaningless since now they play in the first round at a neutral site.

Assumption.

Explain to me how the Arkansas/Auburn regular season game has more meaning now that they both get into a playoff and play in the first round?

Because in retrospect we now know that each is getting in however at the time the game was played neither team could know that they were assured to be in the playoff or that it might be only one of two losses that they would have.

It's pretty simple.

 

[Senser81]

Again, I'm all for a playoff, I'm just not for a playoff so big as to make losses meaningless. Like it or not, if you take in 8 teams, you are saying Arkansas' losses to Alabama and Auburn were meaningless since they get into the playoff anyways and it makes the Auburn game even more meaningless since now they play in the first round at a neutral site.

Explain to me how the Arkansas/Auburn regular season game has more meaning now that they both get into a playoff and play in the first round?

You are assuming that Arkansas knows they will only lose to Alabama and Auburn, and that they also know that despite these two losses they are assured a playoff spot.

I'm sure that in most seasons two losses will prevent you from making the 8-team playoff, and many one loss teams will also be shut out. So I doubt there will be this obsession with 'meaningless losses' and teams shrugging off defeats as if they were no big deal.

If the bottom line is that, in retrospect, the Auburn-Arkansas game was meaningless, then so be it. That is a 'sacrifice' I will make, even though I don't understand your outrage, because AT THE TIME of the game, the fans of Arkansas and Auburn cannot forsee the "meaninglessness" of the game.

 

[BrntO4Life]

So how long until Texas cancels Notre Dame?

:smug:

Give it 4-5 years. If Notre Dame and Texas are both competitive again, someone will probably back out.

 

[FirstTimer]

because AT THE TIME of the game, the fans of Arkansas and Auburn cannot forsee the "meaninglessness" of the game.

Or can they?

:acid:

 

[mgoblue2290]

I'm sure if an 8 team playoff was put in place, they'd do home-field advantage for the higher seeds. Their should be some reward for finishing higher than your opponent. Though I guess none of the big bowls would be cool that, but honestly, who gives a fuck about what college bowl president's think? I hate when people say oh but its tradition, ok well that worked just fine in 1975 but now people want something to different.

I also don't think a playoff decreases the meaningfulness of certain regular season games. In fact it would make them more meaningful because now you've got 6 more spots to fill so that would actually increase the number of meaningful games. Yes it would decrease the value of Stanford's loss to Oregon, but it immediately increases how meaningful every other game Stanford has left is.

 

[Hasselbeck]

I'm sure if an 8 team playoff was put in place, they'd do home-field advantage for the higher seeds. Their should be some reward for finishing higher than your opponent. Though I guess none of the big bowls would be cool that, but honestly, who gives a fuck about what college bowl president's think? I hate when people say oh but its tradition, ok well that worked just fine in 1975 but now people want something to different.

I also don't think a playoff decreases the meaningfulness of certain regular season games. In fact it would make them more meaningful because now you've got 6 more spots to fill so that would actually increase the number of meaningful games. Yes it would decrease the value of Stanford's loss to Oregon, but it immediately increases how meaningful every other game Stanford has left is.

I wouldn't oppose the first round being at the higher seeded teams own stadium. In fact that helps make these games that much more important in the regular season doesn't it?

However, I doubt the major bowl sites would allow that.. So you'd definitely have to host the games at the BCS sites.

Still, fans travel to these games and they'll definitely travel for a playoff game over a meaningless exhibition game.

 

[NAHSTE]

LSU is fine with letting the teams host first round games. :smug:

For one, it'd be awesome. For two, it'd reward the season ticket holders who have to pay 1,000 bucks for a ticket package that includes Louisiana-Monroe and McNeese State.

All 92,000 fans would say this: "You mean we get one more ranked opponent to play out our place? Fuck yeah!"

But yeah, the bowl presidents would crow, as would the host cities like Tampa and Orlando who bank on those travel dollars.

Since the NCAA cares more about making money than making awesome football games happen, we'd probably keep the bowl sites under the guise of "keeping some tradition rabble rabble rabble."

 

[Fox1994]

I like Deviant's idea a lot. And rivalries don't mean less in other sports because of playoffs. I can still be happy that the Raider swept the division and pissed that we got killed by the Steelers (and Oakland gets neither a bowl or a playoff).

To solve the home field advantage problem, you can sell 60-70% of the tickets to the higher-ranked team. It's not really fair, but that way you can assure the home field advantage (Why are we bringing this up this late in the argument? First a playoff's not okay, then a playoff without homefield advantage isn't okay?)

I'd advocate (in an eight team playoff) using the Fiesta, Cotton, Gator, and Orange Bowls in the first round, and the Rose and Sugar in the second round. And just the national championship for the final. Or you can rotate the bowls depending on which teams make it.

Even if you go with more than eight teams (16, 32, 64) - which is even more unlikely than just getting the playoff we want - you can use six bowls for the quarter- and semi-finals.