Does the #1 OSU SUCKEYES ranking = a reason for a playoff format in College Football?

Question

I believe it does!
If the SUCKEYES win the national championship this season, I think it will prove once and for all that the current BCS system is truly flawed!

Answer 1

I agree that Ohio State is a weak team and should not have the #1 ranking it does.

I also agree that the BCS is flawed.

I also agree that the best way to crown a national champion would be with a playoff format(or at least a +1), but I don't think that will happen. The Athletic Directors and the University Presidents are quite satisfied with the way things are. Wanna know why? Because the bowl games generate MONEY for the schools. It's a shame, but that's the way things work now a days. The Athletic Directors, The University Presidents, The NCAA for that matter, don't truly care about what the FANS want, they're concerned with "what idea will make us the most money?" And I for one think that's the wrong way to go about it.

Answer 2

Whatever Congress decides or doesn't decide, any legislation it tries to pass will be rendered moot. The mere attempt by legislators is nothing more than political grandstanding. It's like you saying you're against global warming. Sure, you're against it, but you can't make it change one way or another. Let's say such a bill does pass Congress. All the NCAA would have to do at that point is sue in the legislative branch and there the proposal will die. Congress would try to argue that the BCS is a living, breathing violation of existing anti-trust legislation but the fact is there is no violation no matter how anyone might try to spin the argument. However remote the possibility might be, every FBS team theoretically has a chance to play for the title. Thus, no anti-trust laws have been violated. And on top of that, there's nothing to stop any FBS team from dropping down to the FCS level where playoffs are in effect. Again, no anti-trust violation. It's not that I'm against a playoff but the financial reality of the situation is that the current bowl system without any doubt whatsoever generates more revenue than any 8 or 16 team playoff format ever could.

Answer 3

As a Buckeyes fan growing up in the 90's, I felt the same as you. When Miami and FSU were winning all of those years and the Big Ten had 5 or 6 teams in the top 25, I, too, used to cry, "They don't play anyone!". But, apparently, it's cyclical. I agree the BigTen is weak, but that's not OSU's fault.

I also agree the BCS is flawed, but it's better than what college football used to be (IMO). At least now, the #1 team plays the #2 team. In the 90's, it could be some unranked team.

It's tough to satisfy everyone in a sport when almost any team can beat another on any given day.

Answer 4

Am I the only person that remembers the years when every conference had their share of below anticipated results? Every conference goes through a period of lack luster results, but they always jump back. I quit reading football questions sometime ago because individuals would try to show their NCAAF intelligence by making ridiculous statements about their favorite team(s) or conference(s). It was nauseating at times.

As far as a teams schedule goes, they are prepared years in advance and usually when an opponent is having a period of winning seasons. Some teams due faulter after scheduling contracts are signed, and this should in no way reflect badly on either teams. I read everone bashing the Buckeyes schedule, which I agree is a little less than stellar, but not taking into consideration the other top ranked teams also. LSU, which is a good team, played Virginia Tech, Middle Tennessee, Tulane, Louisiana Tech as their non conference schedule. I think everyone would agree that three of these teams are less than desirable also. But you have to schedule who you can to fill a twelve game season. Oregon, which I also think is a good team, has played Houston, Michigan, and Fresno State as their non conference schedule. Again I think two of these teams are less than desirable. My point is that you never know the caliber of team your are going to play when you schedule them five to seven years in advance. In looking at other teams schedules, I noticed that Ohio State and Oregon were the only two teams(that I recall) that scheduled their non-conference games at the beginning of the season, which I believe is commendable. Also, I believe Ohio State is the only team to have scheduled twelve straights games without a buy week. I think this is a policy of the Big Ten and again deserves some recognition.

I am "on the fence" when it comes to a playoff system. I do think it would be great to watch, but no system is going to be completely fair. I like a 16 team system(11 conference champions plus 5 other highly ranked teams), with the first round being played at the higher seeded teams home field. This way warm weather teams would have to experience playing in colder climates, and vice versa. There is alot more money to be made in the current bowl system than what people believe. A playoff system would undoubtly change the scheme of television contracts, which is a huge money maker for bowls and many of the schools that play in them. Smaller bowls would be leftout and many smaller schools that rely on that bowl money would suffer. Like everyone has heard before, it all revolves around money. I also see that once again everyone is blaming the Big Ten and PAC Ten about the playoff system not moving forward. Doesn't anyone alse know that all conferences and school presidents signed off on the current system? It seems to me that I seen Urban Meyer and Mike Slive on television screaming that a playoff system was needed when it looked as if Florida was going to be leftout of a National Championship bid, only to recant it later a month or so after the game. I wonder if the same will happen by Les Miles and Mr. Slive, if it looks though LSU may be left out.

By now everyone is probably saying, "He just hates the SEC" or "Just another Buckeye upset about last year", but I will of course have to say it's not the case. I think college football is the most exciting sport to watch, and I spend ALL day on Saturday watching all conferences play and taking in as many games I can. It is by far the most diverse sport, and as we all know, any given Saturday your favorite team can get beat by a team you least expect. Gotta love those underdogs.

I hope I didn't offend anyone, but I thought it was time for me to speak and say what I see as the obvious.

Answer 5

let me see if i understand this correctly. you think the buckeyes should not be #1, even though they are undefeated. this means you dont want to use a teams record to determine who is the best in the country. if i may ask, how else do you determine it? with over 100 teams its not possible to play everyone. and the fact that you dont like it, is just your opinion. a playoff system gives 8 or 16 teams a chance to win a few games in a row. if a team with 3 losses wins the national championship, will you be satisfied? its obvious that they arent the best team in the country, they just put together a few wins in a row. you should respect and reward teams that win every week. regardless of the opponent. michigan and usc have shown that any school can be competetive with a major power on any given day. the other top schools losing handed osu the number one spot. until osu plays someone outside of the big ten. you will never know who is the best.

Answer 6

Well lets see, we already know that LSU is not the best team in the nation, casue they got beat by Kentucky. Oregon can't be the best team because they lost to California, which makes Cal. the better team. The same thing can be said about every 1 loss out there. So really, besides OSU, Kanas, and Hawaii no other team can claim they are the best, becasue they didn't back it up. A playoff will do nothing more to prove that one team is better then another, it will just prove that for those weeks and in those games they were better.

Answer 7

actually i think that osu is a very good football team but the problem is that, and i say this objectivly, they really havent played anyone of any substance this year. my problem is that lsu has played 4 or 5 ranked teams this year all in the top 25 when they played them and oregon has played 4 top 10 ranked teams this year. i just think that if a lot of weight is placed on strength of schedule then oregon should be the number one team in the country ( according to mike hugenin on yahoo sports the ducks play the 3rd toughest schedule in the country and lsu playes the 57th ohio state playes the 75th toughest) and lsu should be number 2 but thats not how it has worked out. i do think that ohio state will lose to someone this year and i wouldnt put it past illinois to knock them off... a longs shot its true, but look at oregon state usc last year. the real number 1 team in the country RIGHT NOW is oregon and lsu number 2 ohio state should be about number 5 oklahoma 3 and kansas 4. thats just the way i see it but i could be all screwed up as the sixties were real hard on me...lol.

GO DUCKS QUACK DAMNIT!!!!!!!!

Answer 8

No, the BCS itself is the #1 reason for a playoff format in NCAA football. Any time you have a rating system that is based on opinion it's going to be flawed, and that's all the BCS is -- the opinions of people who they claim understand the game and the system (we all know they don't). The NCAA needs a ranking system that is based on objective measures like win-loss record, total offense, total yards allowed by the defense, etc. You could factor in other things like strength of schedule or winning an upset game or things like that. Then bring in the top 16 teams for a single-elimination tournament. Whichever team winds up on top after all is said and done is #1.

Answer 9

Don't hate. Congratulate.
The Buckeyes are doing what other teams (for some reason) have not been able to do this season and that's win all their games....especially the ones they are SUPPOSED to win.

This just happens to be a chance situation and is totally the exception to the rule...the last two years OSU played a highly-ranked Texas team. Next year they will start a series with USC for their non-conference games. No one else in the Big Ten is ballsy enough to do that.

And if you're going to complain, complain across the board - I don't hear anyone saying bad things about U of M...they were #5, fell completely off ALL the polls and somehow, they are five slots above a 2-loss USC team in the BCS rankings. Now if you want to talk about a team that hasn't played anyone, look no further than the Wolver-weenies!

You're making a huge mistake by underestimating the Buckeyes. If I were you, I'd put down the Hater-ade and give credit where credit's due.
:-D

Answer 10

Yes, there should be a playoff. Ohio State is a good team, but they're not #1 in my eyes. And who knows, they may be the best team ever, but we can't know that until they prove it. Beating YSU and Akron doesn't prove anything.

The thing that bothers me the most is they can make it to the National Championship, finally play a good team, and get lucky. Anybody can win one game. App. State beat Michigan, but does anyone actually believe App. State is the better team? There has to be a playoff because anything can happen in a single game, and too many good teams get screwed out of a shot.