|
Post by GEO on Aug 7, 2007 16:07:43 GMT -5
There's always a risk in football. That's no different if you're playing one extra game or three extra games? Does the risk go up? Not really. It's the same as any other game.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 8, 2007 0:45:55 GMT -5
ha.. playing one game or three games makes a difference. Why do you think NFL players hate the preseason? It's increased risk. Many players say 2 games would be enough, but 4 is just too many. Playing 3 extra games will take a toll on players.
"It's the same as any other game." That's completely wrong. In the NFL, the playoffs are where guys make names for themselves. Everyone plays harder. Look at the USC-Texas game. Reggie bush pitches the ball like a moron and ends a potential scoring drive which may have won them the game. Why would he do that? National spotlight. Guys try twice as hard in these games. Adding a playoff system would certainly add to the pressure to perform and boost the amount of effort guys put in. Playoff football is intense. Harder hits. Bigger plays. Bigger risks. Bigger rewards.
Playing football is very injury prone. Every team knows big name players may go out and have to plan for that. But say I'm a senior at USC next year. We run the tables, don't lose a game. We're number one. Unfortunately, Michigan hasn't lost either. But instead of us planning for two weeks, training for the National Championship, etc. We've got to play 2 other games just to play for the National championship. Hmm.. I could've played and beaten Michigan in 60 minutes, but instead I play too hard in my first playoff game, pull a hamstring in our second game, end up falling to the 4th round in the draft because of my injury. That costs me a lot of money. I'd be pissed.
I support the playoff system, but only in certain situations. Like if there are more than two undefeated teams, or if there are no undefeated teams, etc. But if the No. 1 team and No. 2 teams are clearly the best in the Nation, a playoff is not necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Master Shake on Aug 8, 2007 14:07:42 GMT -5
Are you kidding? The NCAA is endorsed by a TON of companies. If anything, companies will put more money on the line to sponsor a playoff game. It adds games to the season- thus adding sponsors. Plus, there are still bowls. A playoff system may change who plays in the bowls, but it doesn't take away the bowl. The top 4 (or 8 according to GEO) teams will play in a separately sponsored playoff games, while the Iowa's or Miami's or Florida States, who still have good records, play in the Sugar Bowl or the Orange Bowl, etc. I think the contracts and agreements between the NCAA and tropicana, tostitos, etc. will play a factor in this because it may be difficult to time the system change. But, if any money is taken away with this system, it will be replaced and eventually multiplied.. Then whats the point? Why would they add extra games to get to a bowl they could already be clinched in? Were talking playoffs were everyone gets a chance for the one game! THE COLLEGE CHAMPIONSHIP
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 9, 2007 1:31:29 GMT -5
Read the whole post. Playoffs should be situational. There are too many teams to have playoffs like the NFL. I think maybe top 4 teams, if there is controversy. But, as I said above, if there are two undefeated teams No. 1 and No. 2 and the teams below them have a loss, then playoffs aren't necessary. Playoffs should be a situational thing- voted on by coaches and media (to determine if they're necessary). If there are 6 undefeated teams and everyone is playing well, playoffs. But only under the right, necessary circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Aug 9, 2007 15:25:10 GMT -5
Would Boise St. have been in the National Championship game last year? They were undefeated.
What about a team whose strength of schedule is lower than Pacman's IQ?
You can't make Playoffs situational. It's either every year or no year. If the Patriots and Saints go undefeated, should we bother having the NFL Playoffs? I mean, it's clear who the best teams are.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 9, 2007 21:09:12 GMT -5
Ha. it's the NFL. that's been set for years. plus, there are only 32 teams. in college, there are like a billion. boise would be in a playoff. because there was controversy. i think whenever their is controversy come december, a playoff should be used. why can't it be situational? playoffs aren't even in effect right now. why not add them in slowly? and if situational doesn't work.. make it permanent. if not, take it away. but a full on, large scaled system is hard to adopt all at once.
|
|
|
Post by SportsFan508 on Aug 10, 2007 13:13:42 GMT -5
Nice debating. I am judging tonight so get your final words in.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 10, 2007 15:08:10 GMT -5
My thoughts are in the threads. So, re-read it I guess to recap, all I can say is adding a playoff system is very complicated. With the advertising, timing, scheduling, etc. There are many things that come into effect when trying to change such an established system. However, I think a gradually addition of a playoff system is a great idea. The only problem with the current BCS system (in my mind) is when there is controversy at the end of the season. If there is controversy, then a playoff should come into play. Whether it's 4 teams or 8 will be voted on. If there isn't controversy, there is no need for playoffs. This isn't the NFL. College ranking has been the same way for years. And there has been controversy for years. But no one complains during the season. Only at the end. That's why a situation playoff system works. Sure, you can argue that it's always or never, but.. why? It doesn't have to be all or nothing. The NCAA makes a lot of dumb rules, then changes them, then changes them back. That's it. Complicated, but great. Who doesn't love playoffs?
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Aug 10, 2007 15:14:37 GMT -5
This is an easy debate. Playoffs are the only fair way to decide which team or player is the best. No IFs, ANDs or BUTs. Even BWW thinks we should add a Playoff system...sometimes.
That's not how it works. You either add it or you don't. Lets say, hypothetically, you add it only for certain years (when there is no clear cut best team) but not in other years, then you'll get more complaining. If USC loses one game next season, does it mean they aren't the best? No. It means they are 12-1 instead of 13-0. But that one loss shouldn't cost you the season. If LSU and Penn State are 13-0 and truly are better than USC, then they should be able to prove it in a Playoff game.
And proving it is what this is all about. Proving your the best. Michigan lost to Ohio St. last year by a few points. It cost them their season. In a Playoff system, it would just cost them a seeding.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 10, 2007 22:36:36 GMT -5
But that's why college is so important. If you lose one game, it could cost you the season. NFL teams play for the playoffs and late games are meaningless to teams like the Colts, Pats, etc. But in the NCAA, every single game is important. And if LSU is number 2 and Penn State is number 3 (which is laughable) when Ohio State loses, then yes, there are two teams who haven't lost and deserve a shot at the title. That's what I think.
Plus- with coaches and media voting on when the playoffs are necessary and when they're not, it's unlikely they'll put a playoff when it's not necessary or not vote it when it is..
|
|
|
Post by SportsFan508 on Aug 10, 2007 23:48:28 GMT -5
Wow. Tough decision. You both had great points but there can only be 1 winner. And the winner is . . . . . . . . . . Geo.
BWW: I was going to pick you until I read Geo's last post. I agree with Geo that you either have a playoff setup or you dont. You can't just decide last minute to have a playoff series.
Geo: Congrats! You came through in the end and won.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 11, 2007 2:28:37 GMT -5
One post changes your decision? Hmm.. Can't say i'm not disappointed. But hey, it's always either me or GEO Congrats bud. With the football season so close, you should make the next topic about football.
|
|
|
Post by GEO's Backup Account on Aug 11, 2007 11:44:17 GMT -5
Thanks I worked hard for this one. This was actually a good debate. You fought hard on your points. And the next one will be about football. If you have suggestions, get them to me
|
|