ESPN Writer Begging for a Playoff!

[AZGrizFan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=3138383&sportCat=ncf&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos1


There's no disputing it: The just deceased college football regular season was crazier than ordering a chocolate martini at a biker bar.

No. 1 Missouri lost the Big 12 bakeoff to favored Oklahoma, and No. 2 West Virginia absolutely shanked its national championship chances to four-touchdown mutt Pittsburgh. And that's just part of what happened this past Saturday. How about the previous 14 weeks?

Appalachian State over Michigan. USC, Boston College, Cal, Kansas, South Florida, Oregon and West Virginia all yakking away their No. 2 rankings. Oregon's DayGlos. Mike "I'm a man!" Gundy. Notre Dame and its bungee jump into oblivion. I could go on.

But, sorry, crazy isn't good enough. College football deserves better than simple bedlam. Chaos doesn't legitimize ignorance or stupidity.

[AZGrizFan]

Stoops is anti-playoff. Too many moving parts, he said. His reasons: the regular season would become less important … fans would have difficulty traveling from playoff site to playoff site … regular-season attendance might suffer … the bowls might be adversely affected. Anyway, he said, the status quo is "sort of a like a playoff."


This quote I also felt was worth mentioning. Why ANYONE thinks a playof makes the regular season less important is beyond me. Was there ANYONE here whose team was in the hunt for an auto-bid who felt the regular season held little importance? Was there anyone here whose team was on the bubble for an at-large bid who felt the "regular season was less important" somehow? That has got to be the lamest excuse YET for not insituting a playoff...and the whole "the fans would have trouble traveling..." thing is also lame. They manage to travel during the REGULAR season, don't they??? And if USC was at Oklahoma for a playoff game, does Stoops actually believe the stadium would NOT be full? It's all really a smokescreen for the bolded statement. The bowls might be adversely affected. WAFJ. xsmhx xmadx xnonono2x

[OB55]

Same as the Herbstreit take. What a crock, better to have a passle of barely over 500 teams play in the billabog bowl, and watch gobs of TV commentators arguing with each other over this and that and making their predictable homer picks for the next month. xcoffeex

[mlbowl]

Appalachian State beat Michigan???xconfusedx xlolx

[Appaholic]

Same as the Herbstreit take. What a crock, better to have a passle of barely over 500 teams play in the billabog bowl, and watch gobs of TV commentators arguing with each other over this and that and making their predictable homer picks for the next month. xcoffeex

I think Herbstreit and the rest of the bowl apologists have been dulled into complacency.....they actually think the regular season will matter less with a playoff. It will if you allow the same number of teams into playoffs as you do bowls.....or if the same criteria used to get in a bowl is used to get in the playoffs (6-5 anyone?). However, if you have a 16 team playoff like, oh, I don't know, the FCS division, then the regular season will be every bit as meaningful and you get a more true champion.....seriously, is there anybody out there who thinks USC wouldn't make it to at least the championship game with the way they are currently playing? Yet, they aren't even given the chance......

Personally, I kind of enjoy watching all of the BCMess year-in, year-out....just validates we got the best thing going in the FCS.....Marc Madness mentality with a better sport....xthumbsupx

[brownbear]

I think Herbstreit and the rest of the bowl apologists have been dulled into complacency.....they actually think the regular season will matter less with a playoff. It will if you allow the same number of teams into playoffs as you do bowls.....or if the same criteria used to get in a bowl is used to get in the playoffs (6-5 anyone?). However, if you have a 16 team playoff like, oh, I don't know, the FCS division, then the regular season will be every bit as meaningful and you get a more true champion.....seriously, is there anybody out there who thinks USC wouldn't make it to at least the championship game with the way they are currently playing? Yet, they aren't even given the chance......

Personally, I kind of enjoy watching all of the BCMess year-in, year-out....just validates we got the best thing going in the FCS.....Marc Madness mentality with a better sport....xthumbsupx

Good point. The current bowl system lets in 64 teams. And that's out of 119 eligible teams in FBS. If only 16 teams made the postseason, then only the teams with three losses or fewer (which means 9 wins or better) will make the postseason. If you had seeding involved and homefield on the line, you can bet that teams will care just as much if not more about the end of the season than they do now. Currently, many teams that make bowls, even BCS ones, don't care at all about the bowls and go into the game and lose. If you gave teams a shot at a national title, you know the number 3-16 teams will come out ready to play and will care about the games.

[Grizalltheway]

I think Herbstreit and the rest of the bowl apologists have been dulled into complacency.....they actually think the regular season will matter less with a playoff. It will if you allow the same number of teams into playoffs as you do bowls.....or if the same criteria used to get in a bowl is used to get in the playoffs (6-5 anyone?). However, if you have a 16 team playoff like, oh, I don't know, the FCS division, then the regular season will be every bit as meaningful and you get a more true champion.....seriously, is there anybody out there who thinks USC wouldn't make it to at least the championship game with the way they are currently playing? Yet, they aren't even given the chance......

Personally, I kind of enjoy watching all of the BCMess year-in, year-out....just validates we got the best thing going in the FCS.....Marc Madness mentality with a better sport....xthumbsupx

Not to mention Oklahoma. xnodx

[Thunderstruck84]

"National Championship Game? Not this year.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=keown/071204&sportCat=ncf

Yet another example of the worldwide leader (in slurping the FBS) overblowing the clusterf*BLEEP* that is the BCS.

Luckily, I was able to inundate the poor misinformed author to let him know that there is a championship game being played this year. It's December 14th in Chattanooga betweeen two deserving teams. I also let him know that he could check out what happened and collegesportingnews.com since I'm sure ESPN will have their entire staff writing 25 articles previewing Allstate Verizon Wireless Enron Wachovia Fedex Microsoft Ford GoDaddy.com Bowl.

[CrackerRiley]

The Enron bowl? ...I may check that one out.

[Thunderstruck84]

The Enron bowl? ...I may check that one out.
Yeah, I think Ken Lay is chairman of the BCS.

[kardplayer]

This quote I also felt was worth mentioning. Why ANYONE thinks a playof makes the regular season less important is beyond me. Was there ANYONE here whose team was in the hunt for an auto-bid who felt the regular season held little importance? Was there anyone here whose team was on the bubble for an at-large bid who felt the "regular season was less important" somehow? That has got to be the lamest excuse YET for not insituting a playoff...and the whole "the fans would have trouble traveling..." thing is also lame. They manage to travel during the REGULAR season, don't they??? And if USC was at Oklahoma for a playoff game, does Stoops actually believe the stadium would NOT be full? It's all really a smokescreen for the bolded statement. The bowls might be adversely affected. WAFJ. xsmhx xmadx xnonono2x

Look, a playoff is definitely better, but it definitely will weaken/cheapen the regular season - at least part of it. The Stanford/USC game - and all the other upsets - were that much more exciting because it cost teams a shot at the national championship. With a playoff, and being able to lose 2 games and still have a shot, there will be a lot less meaningful games.

As for the FCS regular season, its got a lot of meaningless games too. Any game with a DII/DIII/NAIA school is meaningless since it can't help playoff chances. Most games against FBS schools are meaningless since most are losses. In conferences that get few at large bids (PL, MEAC, Southland), OOC games are meaningless since going undefeated or going winless has little to no impact on chances to get into the playoffs. And in all conferences except the vaunted CAA, half the conference games are meaningless to playoff contenders, since the Indiana State/Northern Colorado/Georgetown/etc. crew isn't even scaring playoff calibur teams most Saturdays.

Nonetheless, a playoff is still infinitely more fair and would be better for the sport, but lets not pretend its not going to weaken the regular season a little bit.

[AZGrizFan]

Look, a playoff is definitely better, but it definitely will weaken/cheapen the regular season - at least part of it. The Stanford/USC game - and all the other upsets - were that much more exciting because it cost teams a shot at the national championship. With a playoff, and being able to lose 2 games and still have a shot, there will be a lot less meaningful games.

As for the FCS regular season, its got a lot of meaningless games too. Any game with a DII/DIII/NAIA school is meaningless since it can't help playoff chances. Most games against FBS schools are meaningless since most are losses. In conferences that get few at large bids (PL, MEAC, Southland), OOC games are meaningless since going undefeated or going winless has little to no impact on chances to get into the playoffs. And in all conferences except the vaunted CAA, half the conference games are meaningless to playoff contenders, since the Indiana State/Northern Colorado/Georgetown/etc. crew isn't even scaring playoff calibur teams most Saturdays.

Nonetheless, a playoff is still infinitely more fair and would be better for the sport, but lets not pretend its not going to weaken the regular season a little bit.

Really? Tell that to LSU this year. And apparently Illinois beating Ohio State didn't hurt them too much either. Whether you're positioning for a playoff bid, or positioning for # 1-2 in the BCS, the results are the same. And what it comes down to, is that the season is REALLY meaningless for 85% of the FBS before the season even starts. Any NON BCS conference school (i.e., Hawaii this year, Boise State last year, Utah recently) has NO shot at the BCS title game, even running their table. So, once you've lost (usually), the rest of the season don't mean *****. And if you happen to lose 2 of your first 4, then the remaining 7-8 don't mean *****. So, how does THAT make every game meaningful? It's only meaningful for the 5-6 teams that have a realistic shot going into November for the BCS title game. For everybody else, they're positioning themselves for the Gator Bowl, the GMAC Bowl, the Sun Bowl, the Emerald Bowl, etc., etc., etc. xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex

And I'd wager money that USC and/or Georgia would ROLL Ohio State right now, but they'll never get the shot. So, we have a paper champion made up of the "best" 1 or 2 loss teams....just a complete joke.

[kardplayer]

Really? Tell that to LSU this year. And apparently Illinois beating Ohio State didn't hurt them too much either. Whether you're positioning for a playoff bid, or positioning for # 1-2 in the BCS, the results are the same. And what it comes down to, is that the season is REALLY meaningless for 85% of the FBS before the season even starts. Any NON BCS conference school (i.e., Hawaii this year, Boise State last year, Utah recently) has NO shot at the BCS title game, even running their table. So, once you've lost (usually), the rest of the season don't mean *****. And if you happen to lose 2 of your first 4, then the remaining 7-8 don't mean *****. So, how does THAT make every game meaningful? It's only meaningful for the 5-6 teams that have a realistic shot going into November for the BCS title game. For everybody else, they're positioning themselves for the Gator Bowl, the GMAC Bowl, the Sun Bowl, the Emerald Bowl, etc., etc., etc. xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex

And I'd wager money that USC and/or Georgia would ROLL Ohio State right now, but they'll never get the shot. So, we have a paper champion made up of the "best" 1 or 2 loss teams....just a complete joke.

First, remember I said I agree a playoff is better, and determines a better champion.

Second, I'm still not sure how your argument is different than FCS...

First, in FCS, there are MANY teams that are eliminated before the season starts. The Ivy opts out, the SWAC basically does the same, except in very rare circumstances like we almost had this year. Most of the Big South (for now) is basically done on day one, as are the NEC squads.

I don't see how an undefeated (or even 10-1) Pioneer squad and Hawaii are any different. Both beat everyone (or almost everyone) - albeit with a considerably weaker schedule than the rest of the teams in the subdivision who have playoff hopes.

In FBS, most years, the first loss puts you on the edge of elimination, the second loss knocks you out. Thus, the entire season is like a big double elimination tournament. This year was an anomaly for sure.

In FCS, most of the time, the second OOC loss basically makes you have to run the conference table. And for those schools that schedule FBS (usually losses) and DII schools (don't count), again the FIRST set of games are meaningless (in your example, you had the last set of games).

Also, what's the goal of the regular season, to be the best all year, or the best at the end of the year? The fact is, USC and Georgia already lost their two games, so they had their shot.

What I like about a playoff that is largely built around conference autobids is that it should encourage more difficult regular season OOC games, since those games are relatively "meaningless" for a playoff shot, while winning them can help teams get a better chance at an at large.

The current format has pushed teams to schedule tons of "should win" games, so even though they are meaningful (since losing them would knock a team out), they aren't competitive (usually). I'll trade competitive for meaningless any day.

[kardplayer]

Note - as I reread that last line... it should read that I'd rather have competitive, meaningless games instead of non-competitive, meaningful games...

[Hammerhead]

Funny stat of the day heard on the Mike Tarico show:

Notre Dame has a longer winning streak than both teams playing for the BCS championship (which is not a national championship game).

[AZGrizFan]

First, remember I said I agree a playoff is better, and determines a better champion.

Second, I'm still not sure how your argument is different than FCS...

First, in FCS, there are MANY teams that are eliminated before the season starts. The Ivy opts out, the SWAC basically does the same, except in very rare circumstances like we almost had this year. Most of the Big South (for now) is basically done on day one, as are the NEC squads.

I don't see how an undefeated (or even 10-1) Pioneer squad and Hawaii are any different. Both beat everyone (or almost everyone) - albeit with a considerably weaker schedule than the rest of the teams in the subdivision who have playoff hopes.

In FBS, most years, the first loss puts you on the edge of elimination, the second loss knocks you out. Thus, the entire season is like a big double elimination tournament. This year was an anomaly for sure.

In FCS, most of the time, the second OOC loss basically makes you have to run the conference table. And for those schools that schedule FBS (usually losses) and DII schools (don't count), again the FIRST set of games are meaningless (in your example, you had the last set of games).

Also, what's the goal of the regular season, to be the best all year, or the best at the end of the year? The fact is, USC and Georgia already lost their two games, so they had their shot.

What I like about a playoff that is largely built around conference autobids is that it should encourage more difficult regular season OOC games, since those games are relatively "meaningless" for a playoff shot, while winning them can help teams get a better chance at an at large.

The current format has pushed teams to schedule tons of "should win" games, so even though they are meaningful (since losing them would knock a team out), they aren't competitive (usually). I'll trade competitive for meaningless any day.

Nice post. Just a few points of disagreement. The Ivy's and SWAC CHOOSE to opt out. The WAC (and other non-BCS) champs have not CHOSEN to opt out. They've been told "thanks, but no thanks". They get the crumbs,while the 6 "power" (and I use that term loosely when applied to Big-10 and Big East football) conferences get to lap up the money associated with BCS bowls.

The other flaw in your argument is that ALL I-A schools play with the same number of schollies, so it should theoretically be a level playing field. Not so in the FCS. The NEC and the PFL do NOT have 63 schollies....there IS a difference (albeit a technical one) between those conferences and the autobid conferences. I'm all for letting every conference with 63 schollies have an autobid, and making the rest at-larges. Then your scenario would play out just fine and would, in fact, contribute to more competitive scheduling. But I think there are enough 8-3 squads in the playoffs each year (and successful to boot) that I could successfully argue against your 1 or two loss elimination theory in the FCS. xpeacex

[Franks Tanks]

Nice post. Just a few points of disagreement. The Ivy's and SWAC CHOOSE to opt out. The WAC (and other non-BCS) champs have not CHOSEN to opt out. They've been told "thanks, but no thanks". They get the crumbs,while the 6 "power" (and I use that term loosely when applied to Big-10 and Big East football) conferences get to lap up the money associated with BCS bowls.

The other flaw in your argument is that ALL I-A schools play with the same number of schollies, so it should theoretically be a level playing field. Not so in the FCS. The NEC and the PFL do NOT have 63 schollies....there IS a difference (albeit a technical one) between those conferences and the autobid conferences. I'm all for letting every conference with 63 schollies have an autobid, and making the rest at-larges. Then your scenario would play out just fine and would, in fact, contribute to more competitive scheduling. But I think there are enough 8-3 squads in the playoffs each year (and successful to boot) that I could successfully argue against your 1 or two loss elimination theory in the FCS. xpeacex

Please the Big 10 is just having a bad year. The ACC is terrible as well this year, and in most years the Big 12 is just like the Big 10 with Texas, Oklahoma and everybody else. The PAC-10 stunk for years, in the 90's USC wasnt even good, but now thay are strong. Basically everything is cylical but I would assert thet the Big-10, Pac-10, ACC, and Big-12 are pretty much on even footing--with up and down cycles. The SEC is usually the best and Big East the worst, with the other 4 in the middle and changing constantly.

[Thunderstruck84]

Please the Big 10 is just having a bad year. The ACC is terrible as well this year, and in most years the Big 12 is just like the Big 10 with Texas, Oklahoma and everybody else. The PAC-10 stunk for years, in the 90's USC wasnt even good, but now thay are strong. Basically everything is cylical but I would assert thet the Big-10, Pac-10, ACC, and Big-12 are pretty much on even footing--with up and down cycles. The SEC is usually the best and Big East the worst, with the other 4 in the middle and changing constantly.
I agree, the SEC is always one of the top 2 conferences with any of the other 4 usually challenging and the Big East usually the weakest. But the Big 10 wasn't that bad this year, they've got 10 bowl eligible teams and 5 teams with 8+ wins. Of the other 5 BCS conferences only the SEC has more of either with 10 bowl eligible teams and 6 teams with 8+ wins. I think they just get bad pub because of some of their bad losses and because they don't play a championship game.

[Franks Tanks]

I agree, the SEC is always one of the top 2 conferences with any of the other 4 usually challenging and the Big East usually the weakest. But the Big 10 wasn't that bad this year, they've got 10 bowl eligible teams and 5 teams with 8+ wins. Of the other 5 BCS conferences only the SEC has more of either with 10 bowl eligible teams and 6 teams with 8+ wins. I think they just get bad pub because of some of their bad losses and because they don't play a championship game.

I agree about the Big 10--- but the argument always is well they got bowl eligible by beating each other. Yes Ohio State got crushed by Florida last year, but Wisconson beat Arkansas and Penn State beat Tennesseee in bowl games-- The SEC is better overall but the Big 10 is usually sold. I can conceded that 2007 was not one of the best years for the conference however.