Ohio State president E. Gordon Gee: TCU, Boise State not worthy of BCS title shot

[Meister]

I agree with a playoff, too. But there's still going to have to be subjectivity.

It starts and stops with the BCS rankings.....don't like it? See, you don't like voting and polls.

So what if there are 3 SEC teams in the BCS Top 8? Or, as it stands, if South Carolina wins the SEC Championship, they still wouldn't be in the BCS Top 8. They'd be left out.

The top 8 get in.....is that clear to you, or what aren't you understanding? South Carolina would get into another bowl game. Why are you playing the "what if" game? What if the world came to an end the night before the championship game....who would get the title? See how you can play the "what if" game?

 

[Meister]

South Carolina has lost 3 games.....they don't deserve to get into any playoff game.

 

[Paulie]

Every conference winner gets in.

So you think the winner of the ACC is more deserving than a second place 1-loss team in the Big 12 or SEC? I don't.

That's kind of like saying that even though the Twins won the AL Central, they weren't more deserving to be in the playoffs than a team like the Red Sox who can actually BEAT the Yankees.

The bottom line is that the Red Sox didn't make the cut in their league.

It would be the same way with the conference winner scenario. The only criteria for "deserving" is simply making the cut.

Just like in pro sports there are some divisions that are just stronger than others, it's the same way in college. You just have to be willing to open your mind up to it.

 

[Toro]

Every conference winner gets in.

So you think the winner of the ACC is more deserving than a second place 1-loss team in the Big 12 or SEC? I don't.

"Deserve" ain't got nothing to do with it.

The NFC was a more powerful conference than the AFC for 20 years, yet we didn't argue whether or not the AFC should be represented in the Super Bowl.

Also, there are more than 8 conferences. Who gets left out?

There are 12 conferences. All 12 winners get in. The strongest four conferences get a bye. You can determine that based on statistics, which is what UEFA and FIFA does to determine pairings and seedings in soccer.

Also, say South Carolina beats Auburn in the SEC Championship. South Carolina already lost to Auburn once. You think they deserve to be a playoff more than Auburn? I don't.

You don't award championships to the best team in anything. You award the championship to the team that wins what it has to win.

 

[Toro]

Every conference winner gets in.

So you think the winner of the ACC is more deserving than a second place 1-loss team in the Big 12 or SEC? I don't.

That's kind of like saying that even though the Twins won the AL Central, they weren't more deserving to be in the playoffs than a team like the Red Sox who can actually BEAT the Yankees.

The bottom line is that the Red Sox didn't make the cut in their league.

It would be the same way with the conference winner scenario. The only criteria for "deserving" is simply making the cut.

Just like in pro sports there are some divisions that are just stronger than others, it's the same way in college. You just have to be willing to open your mind up to it.

I think a college football playoff system would be huge. It would make the sport even bigger than it is now, which is why I think some sort of playoff is inevitable. But I think there is still a lot of resistance from college football fans wedded to the past.

 

[Paulie]

So you think the winner of the ACC is more deserving than a second place 1-loss team in the Big 12 or SEC? I don't.

That's kind of like saying that even though the Twins won the AL Central, they weren't more deserving to be in the playoffs than a team like the Red Sox who can actually BEAT the Yankees.

The bottom line is that the Red Sox didn't make the cut in their league.

It would be the same way with the conference winner scenario. The only criteria for "deserving" is simply making the cut.

Just like in pro sports there are some divisions that are just stronger than others, it's the same way in college. You just have to be willing to open your mind up to it.

I think a college football playoff system would be huge. It would make the sport even bigger than it is now, which is why I think some sort of playoff is inevitable. But I think there is still a lot of resistance from college football fans wedded to the past.

Look what it's done for NASCAR since they added the Chase.

As popular as it already was, it's gone far beyond that since then.

Like you said earlier, it's not about who's the "best", so to speak. Who's the BEST is ultimately the team that's left standing.

 

[Jon]

Just like in pro sports there are some divisions that are just stronger than others, it's the same way in college. You just have to be willing to open your mind up to it.

You're right, and teams that play in the stronger divisions should not be punished for losing more games than teams in weaker divisions. That's what strength of schedule means, and that's why the BCS uses computer rankings to make its rankings.

"Deserve" ain't got nothing to do with it.

The NFC was a more powerful conference than the AFC for 20 years, yet we didn't argue whether or not the AFC should be represented in the Super Bowl.

You're talking about 2 divisions where the winner of a playoff in both divisions goes to the championship. We're talking about 12 divisions where the champion of each division (however that title is decided) goes to a playoff. The best team in half the conferences out there aren't as good as half of the teams in the SEC or Big 12. Your system deliberately rewards teams like Boise St for playing in weak conferences by giving them a pass to the playoffs for being too afraid to join a real conference, while other teams like Vanderbilt who are clearly out of their league in the SEC have very little chance of every making the playoffs. Hell, it's hard enough for the best teams in the SEC to make the cut, given your criteria. Why should teams with weaker schedule get a free pass?

You can determine that based on statistics, which is what UEFA and FIFA does to determine pairings and seedings in soccer.

What do you think the BCS computer rankings do?

You don't award championships to the best team in anything. You award the championship to the team that wins what it has to win.

To which I call bullshit. If all you have to beat is a bunch of nobody teams to make it to the playoff, you don't deserve to be there more than teams that didn't win the SEC, Big 12, Big 10, ACC, or Pac-10 by 1 game.

Your system is fucked.

If the playoffs were based on BCS rankings, I'd see the validity of the system. Awarding third-rate conference champions with playoff bids is a joke to the sport.

 

[Paulie]

I'm admittedly not a big college sports fan, so help me out here.

I know that in pro sports, weak divisions do not necessarily have to always be weak divisions. Any season, there could be teams in 1st and 2nd that no one expected, because of free agency, and really just money in general.

With college, I assume that a weak conference is always a weak conference because there are always going to be the big schools that have the recruiting advantage, and that will never change.

More talent wants to go to Ohio St. than to Boise St.

So that being the case, that would be the only reason I might question the conference winner scenario, because of the seemingly perpetual disparity with strength of conferences.

I think this is what Jon is alluding to, basically.

 

[Paulie]

Couldn't it be something more along the lines of the basketball tournament?

Instead of only conference winners getting in, there are many more. I'm not a fan of the at-large system really, maybe something like all 1st and 2nd place teams get in, for a total of 24. The power rankings only really matter up to the first 25 teams anyway, so 24 teams get in.

If you can't make 2nd place in your conference, then maybe you really DIDN'T deserve to be in the tournament.

 

[Jon]

I'm admittedly not a big college sports fan, so help me out here.

I know that in pro sports, weak divisions do not necessarily have to always be weak divisions. Any season, there could be teams in 1st and 2nd that no one expected, because of free agency, and really just money in general.

With college, I assume that a weak conference is always a weak conference because there are always going to be the big schools that have the recruiting advantage, and that will never change.

More talent wants to go to Ohio St. than to Boise St.

So that being the case, that would be the only reason I might question the conference winner scenario, because of the seemingly perpetual disparity with strength of conferences.

I think this is what Jon is alluding to, basically.

You've hit the nail on the head. Conferences like the Sunbelt are absolute jokes. Their best team right now is 5-5, and Toro's system would reward that team with a playoff bid. Conference USA, Big East, Mid-American...all these conferences have very weak top teams. There's no logical reason why their "champion" deserves a playoff bid over a team like Alabama or Ohio State.

 

[Jon]

Couldn't it be something more along the lines of the basketball tournament?

Instead of only conference winners getting in, there are many more. I'm not a fan of the at-large system really, maybe something like all 1st and 2nd place teams get in, for a total of 24. The power rankings only really matter up to the first 25 teams anyway, so 24 teams get in.

If you can't make 2nd place in your conference, then maybe you really DIDN'T deserve to be in the tournament.

That would require way more time than the season allows. Football players can't really play multiple games per week like basketball players can, and I don't see them altering the sport so much that the football season runs into February of the next year.

 

[Revere]

If the playoffs were based on BCS rankings, I'd see the validity of the system. Awarding third-rate conference champions with playoff bids is a joke to the sport.

The conference powers-that-be would never throw in with a playoff system if there was a chance their entire conference would be skunked out of a playoff berth.

Doesn't happen in any sport where there are both conferences and playoffs.

 

[Paulie]

I'm admittedly not a big college sports fan, so help me out here.

I know that in pro sports, weak divisions do not necessarily have to always be weak divisions. Any season, there could be teams in 1st and 2nd that no one expected, because of free agency, and really just money in general.

With college, I assume that a weak conference is always a weak conference because there are always going to be the big schools that have the recruiting advantage, and that will never change.

More talent wants to go to Ohio St. than to Boise St.

So that being the case, that would be the only reason I might question the conference winner scenario, because of the seemingly perpetual disparity with strength of conferences.

I think this is what Jon is alluding to, basically.

You've hit the nail on the head. Conferences like the Sunbelt are absolute jokes. Their best team right now is 5-5, and Toro's system would reward that team with a playoff bid. Conference USA, Big East, Mid-American...all these conferences have very weak top teams. There's no logical reason why their "champion" deserves a playoff bid over a team like Alabama or Ohio State.

The only reason I have any disagreement with that sentiment, is that those weak teams still have to fight through the tournament to become champion.

Look at college basketball. Every once in a while, a "weak" team makes the elite 8, sometimes Final 4. An example would be St. Joes a few years ago, and Villanova. Those teams are certainly no Kentucky or NC, but had they won just 2 more games, they'd have been the champs.

 

[Jon]

If the playoffs were based on BCS rankings, I'd see the validity of the system. Awarding third-rate conference champions with playoff bids is a joke to the sport.

The conference powers-that-be would never throw in with a playoff system if there was a chance their entire conference would be skunked out of a playoff berth.

Doesn't happen in any sport where there are both conferences and playoffs.

And those same powers would never get behind a system that rewards a weak conference champion with a playoff berth over their much, MUCH better teams.

 

[Jon]

I'm admittedly not a big college sports fan, so help me out here.

I know that in pro sports, weak divisions do not necessarily have to always be weak divisions. Any season, there could be teams in 1st and 2nd that no one expected, because of free agency, and really just money in general.

With college, I assume that a weak conference is always a weak conference because there are always going to be the big schools that have the recruiting advantage, and that will never change.

More talent wants to go to Ohio St. than to Boise St.

So that being the case, that would be the only reason I might question the conference winner scenario, because of the seemingly perpetual disparity with strength of conferences.

I think this is what Jon is alluding to, basically.

You've hit the nail on the head. Conferences like the Sunbelt are absolute jokes. Their best team right now is 5-5, and Toro's system would reward that team with a playoff bid. Conference USA, Big East, Mid-American...all these conferences have very weak top teams. There's no logical reason why their "champion" deserves a playoff bid over a team like Alabama or Ohio State.

The only reason I have any disagreement with that sentiment, is that those weak teams still have to fight through the tournament to become champion.

Look at college basketball. Every once in a while, a "weak" team makes the elite 8, sometimes Final 4. An example would be St. Joes a few years ago, and Villanova. Those teams are certainly no Kentucky or NC, but had they won just 2 more games, they'd have been the champs.

You have to realize, though, that the best teams in some conferences (like the Sunbelt) have already been raped by most of the second-rate teams in the other conferences throughout the year. Why should they even be deserving of the chance if they can't prove themselves in the regular season?

 

[Revere]

If the playoffs were based on BCS rankings, I'd see the validity of the system. Awarding third-rate conference champions with playoff bids is a joke to the sport.

The conference powers-that-be would never throw in with a playoff system if there was a chance their entire conference would be skunked out of a playoff berth.

Doesn't happen in any sport where there are both conferences and playoffs.

And those same powers would never get behind a system that rewards a weak conference champion with a playoff berth over their much, MUCH better teams.

I never said I'd be opposed to a playoff system where more than one team from each conference could be invited.

Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Ohio State would merit that this year. Another year, maybe not.

 

[Revere]

Commit one conference winner to the tournament, then leave the rest to taffy pull that is the rankings system.

That won't kill the competition.

 

[Sheldon]

I think a playoff system based on BCS rankings would be the best way to attract the most viewers while ensuring that top talent gets recognized. A conference champion system would be affirmative action for the Sunbelt and Big East etc, while the better teams in tougher conferences get squeezed out. I think more people would watch big teams competitively play other big teams, than watch Auburn crunch FIU in a round one formality. Division/conference champ works for the NFL because the talent isn't as stratified as college ball. The caste system is just the nature of the game at college level.

 

[Jon]

A conference champion system would be affirmative action for the Sunbelt and Big East etc.

I don't think I could have put it any better than that. Thanks Sheldon!

Like I said, I'm not at all opposed to a playoff. I support the idea, because I think it would invigorate the sport. I just want a playoff system that recognizes the best teams overall, not the best team from whatever conference.

 

[Paulie]

I think a playoff system based on BCS rankings would be the best way to attract the most viewers while ensuring that top talent gets recognized. A conference champion system would be affirmative action for the Sunbelt and Big East etc, while the better teams in tougher conferences get squeezed out. I think more people would watch big teams competitively play other big teams, than watch Auburn crunch FIU in a round one formality. Division/conference champ works for the NFL because the talent isn't as stratified as college ball. The caste system is just the nature of the game at college level.

After putting more thought into it, I agreed with this viewpoint.

But I still see it work great in NCAA basketball. There's plenty of no-namers in the tournament, and sometimes one or two of them become a dark horse and it actually becomes semi-interesting. I'll personally watch the final rounds if there's a no-namer who's making a huge run. But I don't really care to watch NC win their 5 trillionth championship.

The argument that it'll take too long to complete a tournament with that many teams is not a good one, if it means the NCAA can make more money from it.