Choices Against it For a playoff, but only a four team playoff Would like to see more teams than a four team playoff Vote Comments Show All Comments Buckeyevstheworld 7 Feb 2012, 6:30 am Even with a playoff system you'll have whining from the teams that believed they deserved to get in. And this complaining would be far worse than the crap we hear during the NCAA tournament. I'm not at all suggesting that the BCS is perfect. Outside of the Rose and Fiesta it was pretty meh this year. But even if it is replaced, the complaining won't stop. "YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it. BucksfanXC 7 Feb 2012, 8:20 am Well stopping the complaining is not the goal. Stopping the injustice is. Because it wouldn't be fair to the ninth team left off doesn't make it more fair to the 6 we are currently leaving out to play a championship game without a playoff. “Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.” - Woody Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 10:31 am Well stopping the complaining is not the goal. Stopping the injustice is. Yes. Run_Fido_Run 7 Feb 2012, 10:44 am I agree with you that the goal is to correct the cause of the problem (which is, theoretically, injustice) rather than the symptom (complaining about perceived injustice). However, there is ultimately no way to correct the "problem" of perceived injustice - some teams/fans (that were on the cusp of NCG glory but were one of the last teams not to make the cut) will always feel that the system was unjust to them, regardless of what is the status-quo BCS/playoff format. You can't fix that, period, it simply goes with the territory. To make the case for a playoff, you demonstrate that a new format will do things like make more money for the schools, provide a more rewarding postseason for teams and fans, generate a national champion that is less likely to be controversial, etc. BucksfanXC 7 Feb 2012, 11:00 am Yes, right now, teams #3 thru X are left off. This is sometimes unfair, especially when they are undefeated. An 8 team playoff would leave off team #9 thru X. This is leaving off 6 fewer teams, since X will always be the same. Because it's still unfair to #9 doesn't it make it more fair to #3-8 now. I understand that there are other considerations besides including all deserving teams (money, time, schedule, etc.), but I think those things can be weighed and we'd have a fine system for 6 to 8 teams, with only 2 to 3 extra games over the same amount of time we take up for bowl games now. “Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.” - Woody SouthBayBuckeye 7 Feb 2012, 7:09 pm The whole "boo hoo no fair" argument has got to stop. Win your games and don't worry about it. life isn't fair... Banned from ATO since June 3rd 2PMish PST Another Jason 7 Feb 2012, 3:46 pm Eh. I don't hear anyone complaining that their team should have been in the NFL playoffs now that the Super Bowl is over and a 7-loss team won. In March, we hear all kinds of whining about the fringe teams that didn't make it in. There is rarely any further discussion of these teams come Final Four time. 38% of NFL teams get a shot at the title. 20% of college basketball teams get a shot. Currently, <2% of college football teams do. Even a 16-team playoff wouldn't be as "open" as those two, easily the most popular (and relatively uncontroversial) tournaments in sports. VestedInterest 7 Feb 2012, 6:41 am Not for any more than four. Hate all the claims that you can only crown a true champion by virtue of a tournament, it's simply a falsehood. Teams get hot and teams sustain injuries, less is more in this case imo. Agree that the complaints won't go away either despite the fact that a #16 has never defeated a #1 in the NCAA tourny. Crowning a true national champion won't happen until the NCAA sanctions it and that will not happen. The bowls simply have too much tradition and powah. NC_Buckeye 7 Feb 2012, 9:22 am Not for any more than four. So much this ^^^^. Plus conference champions only. Getting a second bite of the apple against a conference opponent who beat you during the season is the epitome of a flawed system. Love. Love. Love the idea of not using ANY existing bowl sites for the three games. Aesculus excellentium cum MCMLXV. BuckeyeJim 7 Feb 2012, 3:24 pm This could happen to the Bucks by playing ttun during the season and possibly in the conference championship game. This is the case if I am reading what you intended in your comment. cplunk 7 Feb 2012, 8:14 am Please limit it to conference champs as well. If you can't win your conference you aren't the best team. Period. I don't care who you beat in a single elim tournie at the end of the year. Buckeye in Illi... 7 Feb 2012, 1:03 pm What is the point of having wild card spots in the NFL then? I'm for an 8-team playoff decided by the current ranking system (with tweaks, no automatic bids, or maybe top four ranked conference champions - if they are in top 10 or 15 - get an automatic spot; if outside of top 15 and you win your conference, I'm sorry). Griping about being left out as the #9 team does not carry nearly as much weight as the griping about being left out as the #3 team in the current system. Columbus to Pasadena: 35 hours. "We're on a road trip through the desert looking for strippers and cocaine... and Rose Bowl wins!" cplunk 7 Feb 2012, 2:34 pm The NFL has 32 teams. It is relatively fair to have wild cards, as there are overlaps in who played whom. The NCAA has 117 teams. There is no fair way to determine wildcards- you end up with exactly the same arguments as the BCS because you have to devise a wacky poll or rating system. Conference champs only is the only fair way. faux_maestro 7 Feb 2012, 8:18 am Start the week after the conference championship games. 6 teams, top 2 seeds get 1st round bye. Seeds 3 and 4 host seeds 5 and 6. Winners of the first round games play at seeds 1 and 2. Bowls happen and can include the losers in the first 2 rounds, NC game happens the week after New Years. I'll take my multi million dollar consulting fee thank you very much. Your mom told me she wants a Dicken Cidar. cplunk 7 Feb 2012, 8:44 am You fool! The good consulting fees only come after the same company or organization has already let you go for not doing your job well. First get hired, then get fired then profit! faux_maestro 7 Feb 2012, 2:56 pm True. Your mom told me she wants a Dicken Cidar. hodge 7 Feb 2012, 10:54 am Haha, I literally just typed this up over in the Skull Session. Great minds think alike, I suppose. LouGroza 7 Feb 2012, 8:24 am We need the SEC in our back yard at that time of year for a game. Things would be very different than, say, playing the Gators in the Gator Bowl?? Doc 7 Feb 2012, 10:18 am I agree, but this year the Gators would have beaten us anywhere. CJDPHoS Member The Official DDS of 11W Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 10:35 am I'd like to see an 8-team playoff, but I'll take a Final Four with home field advantage at first offer any day of the week. And regarding the SEC teams playing up North, it isn't going to f'ing matter. Seriously. It's not like their players don't go to the NFL and suddenly suck in the cold weather. Football is football. These guys are working so hard they won't even feel the temperature unless it's a -30 wind chill. We need to stop saying sh*t like this, because if and when they do come up North and kick our butts, what are we going to say then? TheHumbleBuckeye 7 Feb 2012, 11:06 am It's not about the players, it's about the schemes. Southern teams have a distinct advantage in that they can build offenses around a pure spread since it is warmer year-round. It also makes a MUCH bigger difference running the spread in college versus the pros given the location of the hashmarks. Much harder to turn up-field on an end-around when there's frost on the field or dew at 6 oclock, or make the throw to the far sideline when you have 40 MPH gusts coming off the lake in Evanston. William 7 Feb 2012, 11:14 am I'd just like to see a SEC team play in a title game outside of their backyard, althought this only seems to happen with LSU, as Alabama and Florida both won them away from the Southeast. If you're trying to argue that they would perform fine in cold weather, that's a bit outlandish. Unless the players were given at least a week to acclimate to the weather, then yes, playing in a cold environment would affect the SEC teams as they are use to playing in warmer weather year round, the colder weather literally limits you physically. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 11:43 am So did Auburn...in Arizona. To both you and Humble, who don't seem to know how to avoid arguing with me about anything, saying the cold weather gives you an advantage means you have nothing else to bring to the table. If you were right, the Cleveland Browns would have never lost a home playoff game ever. In fact, it could be argued that weather played a large factor in Cleveland's loss to the Raiders at home in the 1980 playoffs, and that despite bad weather it played no factor in The Drive 7 years later (Except maybe Kosar's 3 turnovers?). The Bengals don't have an indoor practice facility, and play year-round outside. The only time that may have mattered was the Freezer Bowl against San Diego in 1982. But the truth is that virtually no one plays in weather like that...it's too rare. LSU and Alabama run pro-style power schemes. Cam Newton would not have been stopped by "6 o'clock dew" or whatever the hell you're making up as you go. Neither would have Tebow. Besides, the "speed" in southern football is not lateral speed or speed on the edge like you're describing with spread looks. That's not where their advantage is. It's speed on the D-line. It's pass rushing speed. Those D-lines are not going to be slowed by cold weather. The last time Florida played north of the Mason Dixon line was 1991, and they lost. It was against Syracuse - who plays in a dome. The last time LSU played in Columbus, they lost. Ohio State needed 3 scores in the 4th quarter, and 2 in the final 5 minutes to get the win. They needed to hurl the ball down the field, and got lucky. William 7 Feb 2012, 11:56 am Bucksfan, there's a difference between a professional athlete whose very living is made by playing a sport, and a college student. The professional athlete is also exposed to playing in different conditions, for not all of the teams in a NFL division play in the same conditions year round (AFC East, NFC West, AFC West), whereas the college student is limited to playing in their geographic conference. In the NFL you have to be able to play in cold or warm weather, and yes there is a difference. To argue that there isn't is just stupid. Running is different in cold weather, throwing is different in cold weather, the ball itself is affected by colder weather. You're going to argue that a team whose players are use to playing in 70 degree weather year round wouldn't be affected by 30 degree weather? Their very bodies would have to acclimate to the conditions, their muscle groups wouldn't work as effectively. It goes both ways, our players don't perform in the humidity and heat as well, and their players don't perform in the cold as well, because their bodies aren't use to it. Look at the Miami-Wisconsin game a few years ago, it was in the lower 40s that game. The Miami players weren't prepared for that type of weather, their muscle groups weren't prepared for that, they were sluggish, and didn't win because of it. The Wisconsin players were use to playing in weather like that, therefore their bodies and muscle groups were able to withstand the cold, and they ended up winning. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 12:10 pm To me, this is just a bunch of blah blah blah. Everything you're writing is hyperbole, it's exaggeration, it's nonsense. Your argument is an unprovable myth. You have zero basis for this opinion, because there is no information out there to justify it...because those teams do not come up north on a regular basis. Therefore, you have no real idea what's going to happen. And the part about it going both ways? Our players don't play well in the heat and humidity?! WTF?! Our team plays just fine in the heat and humidity. The temperature in Ohio is over 90 from about May until early October. Texas fans were saying the same thing in 2006 as you are saying now about Ohio State not being able to handle the heat and humidity. Our team put a spanking on the #2 Longhorns in Austin. Lame. Wisconsin-Miami?! That game's outcome was more due to the fact that the field was in deplorable shape than any other weather condition. But pretty much everyone on that Wisconsin D-line is playing in the NFL today. Look, there is plenty of evidence that warm weather teams can go to cold weather climates and play fine - that happens in the NFL. There is no evidence to support the notion that SEC teams can't come north and play well in cold weather. You have nothing to base that on. The opinion is weak. TheHumbleBuckeye 7 Feb 2012, 12:33 pm Ok.. you can disagree with William. But you still haven't addressed my point about the ability to build certain schemes. Southern teams can do this because they know they'll almost always play in warm weather, and as I stated before, it has more impact in the college game because of where the hashmarks are placed. And the long throw to the sideline is much tougher to make in poor conditions. And we're not talking about Aaron Rodgers zipping the ball with a tight spiral through the wind. We're talking about 20 year olds lobbing a snowy-slick fatter ball (the NCAA ball is slightly fatter and spirals less) with a slight wobble on a screen or a roll-out. If you don't think there's a difference, then you don't watch much football. Very few QBs in college can throw a perfect spiral on a rope to the far sideline in any condition. But if you know you'll never have to play in those conditions (or very rarely), then you don't have to recruit for that. You can go get a guy who throws armpunts but runs a 4.4 to play QB instead. Look at the QBs in the B1G versus the SEC right now. Look at the QBs in the B1G in the past two years: Tolzien, Webber, Stanzi, Chappell, Persa, Wilson, Cousins. All QBs who can make those "any weather" throws with a nice spiral. Saban wouldn't even let McCarron - a supposed pro-style QB - pull the trigger in the first game against LSU. The best passers in the SEC are Tyler Bray (who was hurt most the year) and Aaron Murray (who I think is slightly overrated as a passer... good deep ball... can't throw the rope to the sideline). After that, the SEC essentially has no reliable passers (though McCarron is developing, but doesn't really have a "big arm" kind of like McElroy). Also, you want to recruit these pass rushers that can just get in a track stance and blow you off the ball every down? Try doing that with snow on the ground or frost on the field. Not to mention your muscles tighten, your lungs are constricted by cold air. It's common sense man. Have you ever played football in the cold? It's an entirely different game. William 7 Feb 2012, 12:44 pm Bucksfan wants to argue against physiology. Leave him be. It's not like your muscle groups tighten due to the cold, which can lead to a higher chance in strains or tears unless you're acclimated or more prepared for such conditions, which Northern teams are. TheHumbleBuckeye 7 Feb 2012, 1:09 pm Despite the more streamline ball, narrower hashmarks, better receivers with bigger hands and better QBs with stronger arms and bigger hands, the cold apparently affects NFL players too: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870388690457603161179263800... Now you're a team from the South. Your QB is not Manning, Brady, or Brees, who all have lower ratings in the cold (check out the Mannings, both Eli and Peyton... considerable drop-off from their normal numbers). Your QB is Jordan Jefferson, Morgan Newton, or that dude from Mississippi State. And why did you recruit these guys? Because you wanted speed and athleticism and knew you could get away with having a marginal passer since they rarely have to play in tough throwing conditions. You took the guy that runs the 4.3 at receiver and cuts on a dime but has average hands instead of the sure handed 4.6 possession receiver and the big plodding tight end that is so clutch with short passes and power football. Put your track star receiver on the slick and windy field with your Arm Punting QB and try to throw that home run ball. Hell, even the quick slant comes out of your hands funny when it's nice and slick. And I'm not talking rain slick, where the cohesion of the water can actually provide some grip. I'm talking cold icy slick. The ball also has to cut through the cold and thicker air. It doesn't have the luxury of catching a plane of rising heat off of the turf. Every throw takes a little bit more strength. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 1:01 pm Humble, I already addressed the scheme argument. I said LSU and Alabama don't run the spread, they run a pro-style power offense. If anything, cold weather would help them. And the Cam Newton and Tim Tebow spreads wouldn't be slowed down by the "6 o'clock frost" thing that you made up on the fly. William 7 Feb 2012, 1:10 pm Alright Bucksfan, you wanted facts here you go. http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant475/heatcold/thermo.htm It takes more than 10 days to fully acclimatize to cold weather, therefore players who have not been training in colder weather are at a disdavantage when playing against a team that either plays, or practices in colder weather. Their muscle groups are more constricted, not as responsive, and therefore they are more sluggish. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 1:31 pm First, you presented no data, just what looks like a ppt presentation with no author and no references. Secondly, cold acclimitization studies are never performed on athletes during training or exertion. William 7 Feb 2012, 1:44 pm At the very top of the page it reads, Dr. Bindon, Anthropology, University of Alabama, at the bottom of the page are the selected references as well. Secondly the United States Military gathered the data for cold and heat acclimatization from soldiers in lab environments, training and in the field. Here you go. http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-076///MP-076-$KN4.pdf Thirdly, one of the references in that report directly deals with athletic training and cold acclimatization during training. So you're wrong Bucksfan, cold acclimatization studies are done during athletic training. Here's the cited source: Young, A. J. Energy substrate utilization during exercise in extreme environments. In Pandolf, K. B. and J. O.Hollozsy, eds., Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews. Baltimore, Maryland, Williams and Wilkins. 1990, 65-117 Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 2:42 pm "Americans native to Arctic regions and unacclimatized subjects do not differ in core temperature respnse to cold exposure (2,32,35,45,77)....Superficially, habituation may not seem beneficial since the thermoregulatory adjustments do not help maintain normal body temperature during cold exposure." - Sawaka, et al. Human Adaptations to Heat and Cold Stress. By the way, NONE of the studies this review references looked at stamina during exercise in the cold vs. thermoneutral or warm conditions. Regardless, that review concluded that cold habituation does not substantially impact your ability to maintain body temperature upon cold exposure, and they make no mention of how exercise impacts that. And I can't seem to access other the review you referenced. However, I found a paper by the AJ Young, the guy who wrote the review. His methods involve completely exhausting his subjects by over-exercising, underfeeding, and sleep-depriving them before exposing them to the cold. So, whatever he says has to be taken with a grain of salt considering the conditions he was using. http://jap.physiology.org/content/85/4/1210.abstract?ijkey=1fc0bc2389cfa... So, you were right. Someone has looked at it. However, according to what I have been able to find, exercise in the cold actually INCREASES energy utilization. Timmons, et al. M&S in S&E. 1985. And in this study, they further verified that exercise in the heat is harder because of vasoconstriction in the muscles. Fink, et al. EJ App. Phys. 1975. However, if someone has compiled data on standardized physical exertion tests on college players from cold environments vs. warm environments, I'd love to see it. Of course, it wouldn't necessarily apply to in-game situations where the athletes have free access to oxygen, heat generators, and exercise machinery to keep them loose. William 7 Feb 2012, 2:55 pm Of course exercise in the cold increases energy utilization, more energy is needed to use muscle groups in colder temperatures. Although you are right about AJ Young, as his methodology is quite extreme. My point is that acclimatization is required for cold weather training, exercise or in this case, football. Just as it would be for warm weather. Another aspect is that due to colder air, airway passages become more narrow. People who excercise in colder weather are more accustomed to this and are therefore more likely not to have as adverse effects from it. Whereas those that do not train in such conditions may be more likely to suffer from excercise induced bronchitis or even asthma. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 3:22 pm People who excercise in colder weather are more accustomed to this and are therefore more likely not to have as adverse effects from it. You cannot make this claim and back it up. The acclimitization effects of cold exposure in people has never been shown to increase athletic performance in the cold. No study has ever shown this claim you keep making. I'm not debating with you that acclimitization effects occur, believe me I'm well-aware of these phenomena. But though they are measurable, the extent to which they impact acute human athletic performance or metabolism has never been shown. Yes, it will be interesting to see Alabama play Michigan in the snow some day. But, if Alabama beats Michigan by 10 points, what are you going to say? It's just a single game. Saying before hand that Michigan had an advantage because they play in the cold doesn't make any sense considering the outcome. And since warm weather teams have NEVER played in the north late in the year, you can't even use the last 120 years of college football game history to really say whether it will have an impact. William 7 Feb 2012, 4:43 pm I never said it increases their athletic performance, I said it makes them more prepared to deal with the elements. Which it does, otherwise you're refuting the human body's ability to adapt. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 6:17 pm I never said it increases their athletic performance, I said it makes them more prepared to deal with the elements. Explain how you are defining the term "dealing with the elements" is if it ultimately does not translate to superior athletic performance, and winning the football game? I thought that's what we were arguing...that you were saying the bodies of southern athletes will fail under a cold stress because they're not used to it. You need to figure out what exactly it is you're trying to say. William 7 Feb 2012, 7:40 pm You're right, the fact that a Northern team's players have adapted to the cold, would in turn increase their bodies ability to perform, and in turn increasing their possible athletic performance. Also you were wrong about the UW-Miami game, (LSU-PSU game is the one you're thinking of.) That field was in perfectly fine condition. The Miami players succumbed to the cold, even though they had heaters, and ellipticals on the field which allowed them to stay loose and warm. They lost because their bodies were physically unprepared for the cold, whereas the Wisconsin players were physically more ready to deal with the cold. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 9:26 pm Prove it. Run_Fido_Run 7 Feb 2012, 4:59 pm I don't have the patience to dive into acclimitization studies, but your logic doesn't hold up. If Alabama is, theoretically, 30 points better than Michigan, but plays Michigan on a frigid day in Ann Arbor and only wins by 10 points, the weather might indeed have given Michigan an advantage - just not enough to make up the difference. The point is that a team's overall comfort-level (or lack thereof) with certain weather conditions can be one factor of many that might contribute to the outcome of a game - not that it will single-handedly decide an outcome. Bottom line: if there is to be a final four format, the B1G must insist that the first-round games be played at the home sites of the #1 and #2 ranked/selected teams. If the SEC ended up fighting that proposal, what would that tell you? If it does happen, I'll be curious to discover just how eager teams from the deep south are to play a playoff game on a freezing, blustery day up north. My guess is that they won't see it as the non-factor you seem to think it is. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 5:53 pm Fido, my logic holds up just fine. Yours doesn't: How are the Tide going to be favored by 30 if they're playing AT Michigan as the lower-ranked team? Besides, I never said Alabama was favored, because being favored doesn't pertain to my argument at all. If the SEC fights the proposal... They won't. They've been the biggest proponent of the plus-1 system for years. Again, where are you getting this? My guess is that they won't see it as the non-factor you seem to think it is. They may see it as a factor, but they won't consider themselves at a disadvantage. awwwwwwop 7 Feb 2012, 6:17 pm He means the home game proposal not the general playoff format. "Who cares? Go Bucks." - Aaron Untch Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 6:21 pm Why would they oppose that if they've had a #1 or #2 team in the final rankings the last 6 years. awwwwwwop 7 Feb 2012, 6:31 pm He is implying that SEC teams will oppose this because they do not want to have to travel to Wisconsin, Michign, Ohio, Washington, Oregon etc. to play in the cold and that they may think that it is better to play in Miami, Louisiana, Zona, and Pasadena even though it is not a home game because the advantage (staying in warm weather or domes) is better than the disadvantage (going to cold weather places) "Who cares? Go Bucks." - Aaron Untch Run_Fido_Run 7 Feb 2012, 6:44 pm It was using a hypothetical analogy to explain why your logic was flawed, not to suggest that the #3 ranked team would very often be 30 points better than the #2 ranked team. If you prefer, replace with the following scenario, which proves the point just as well: let's say FSU is hypothetically 30 points better than BC, but plays BC in blustery cold conditions in November and only wins by 10 points. By your logic (above), you'd conclude, "see, the weather was no factor." But you cannot (logically) reach that conclusion based on the "evidence" (or hypothetical example) you provided. Simply, your logic doesn't hold up. Secondly, I didn't state that the SEC would necessarily oppose the idea of playing the first round games at home sites. But, if they do, I was asking you, more or less, to speculate on why they'd oppose such an arrangement. If they do oppose it, I'll suspect that weather is part of their calcluation, but maybe you'll have another explanation? Thirdly, why would they contemplate the importance of a factor that provides no advantage or a disadvantage to either team? Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 6:51 pm Fido, first off, my logic cannot be flawed based on the hypothetical criteria that YOU decided to add to it retroactively. It would make no sense for them to oppose it. Based on the past half-decade, they'll have a 100% chance of getting home field advantage. If they opposed it, it might have something more to do with distance traveled or hostility of environment? Why are you asking me to answer a question with another question? I really don't think they're too worried about either at this point in history. There are big, hostile crowds in the SEC, too. Your third question I don't really understand. If it's cold, they'll pack heaters, heavy coats, make sure there are ways to stay loose on the sideline. They'll do everything northern teams do. If it's going to be windy, they'll scheme against it. Basically, the best 4 teams in the country are not going to look at weather.com and think they'll be at a disadvantage. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 1:06 pm Common sense tells me that cold weather doesn't impact the outcome of the game as much as you'd like to think it does...particularly amongst the nation's best players on the nation's best teams. TheHumbleBuckeye 7 Feb 2012, 1:29 pm And also Bucksfan, please don't act like some sort of victim just because William and I have disagreed with you on certain things. We're not ganging up on you. Hell, I have my disagreements with William on playoffs. Not everyone on here thinks exactly the same, and William and I don't just sit here and wait for you to say something and then take the contra position. We just both think it's absurd that you really don't think cold affects football games when the facts suggest otherwise, whether it's physiology or passer rating stats. Disagree if you'd like. But it tells me one thing: you've never played a football game in cold weather. Like a real game, full pads, full contact, with referees on a real field. I have. Most recently last year. And let me tell you something: the cold has a HUGE impact on the game. What I've also found is that the more someone relied on brute strength or speed instead of technique and fundamentals, the more the could would affect their game. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 1:41 pm when the facts suggest otherwise What facts? All you did was present a list of QB ratings in the cold. Those QBs just so happen to be the best QBs all year anyway. The data is meaningless. William 7 Feb 2012, 2:43 pm How is the data meaningless? This is essentially your defense Bucksfan: http://t.qkme.me/3559xp.jpg Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 2:52 pm Only 2 QBs saw their passer rating go up in the cold weather...Aaron Rogers and Ben Rothlisberger. However, at least half of all NFL teams play football in cold weather. So, how can you make such a sweeping statement about cold weather players playing better in cold weather when that only applies to 2 QBs that just so happen to be two of the best QBs in the league no matter what the weather is. Everyone else plays worse in the cold, EVERYONE, no matter if they play in the cold or not. Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, and Matt Ryan, are 5th, 6th, and 7th best on your list of top QBs in the cold, yet each play in a dome for more than half the year. So, what's your point? Did you read the article? William 7 Feb 2012, 3:01 pm Exactly everyone plays worse in the cold. The two quarterbacks that play outdoors in some of the most brutal weather (Roethlisberger, Rodgers), play better than those that play in domes (Manning, Brees, Ryan). You just proved Humble's point. Those that play in the cold are more accustomed to playing in it, and are at an advantage. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 3:07 pm 2 out of 32 QBs, William. 2 out of 32! I don't want to have to lecture you on sample size. Get yourself enrolled in a stats class. You can't use 2 examples and say they're better BECAUSE they play in the cold, if the other 14 QBs that play in generally cold weather get worse in the cold. TheHumbleBuckeye 7 Feb 2012, 3:44 pm And thus stick to running the football more... which our northern teams and NFL teams are built to do, but many Southern teams aren't built for two tight-end power football. Which was exactly my point. They don't have to build a power running game. Never do they have to worry about sacrificing just a little bit of speed for strength and depth up front and in the backfield. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 5:48 pm many Southern teams aren't built for two tight-end power football. How many times do I have to restate this. Alabama and LSU, both historically and recently, are built for power-I football. So are Tennessee, Georgia, and Auburn. Those just happen to be the top-5 winngest teams in the SEC. You're just don't know what you're talking about. William 7 Feb 2012, 5:53 pm Auburn built for two tight end power football? No, they'll be running the same offense they ran with Cam Newton, this time with Kiehl Frazier. Tennessee? No, they're much more pass happy with Tyler Bray. Georgia? Not necessarily, especially with Aaron Murray at Qb, and having Crowell and Marshall at RB. They'll have two speedsters at RB and a mobile Qb. You are right about LSU and Alabama though, they run Power-I. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 6:10 pm William, try for once to understand what I'm writing, instead of focusing in on one tiny detail and trying to de-rail everything we've already been through in this discussion. I said HISTORICALLY. Did you miss that? Cam Newton JUST left Auburn. 2-3 seasons isn't enough to say that they're not built to establish the run. They were running pro-style power football less than a decade ago with Cadillac Williams. I guess the Matt Stafford/Knowshon Moreno combination from a few years ago was in no way power-I football. Richt is most definitely a pro-style set coach. Besides, Newton would not have been stopped by the cold. That team was not built as a pass-first, pass 2nd, run 3rd team. They ran it and ran it often. We've already been over this. And if he wouldn't, then why would I agree with you that any other scheme they use down there would be? I don't. At the end of the day, you guys for some reason think that the southern schemes won't work under an accute cold exposure. I couldn't disagree more with such a preposterous sentiment. Football is football. And when the temperature drops 30 degrees, it doesn't stop teams from being able to execute. Wind? Maybe, but all top SEC teams have no problems running the football. You can't win SEC games by being pass-happy. Any zone-read option would work fine - it's really not that different from what Woody ran when he was coach...they're just variations of single-wing. If it wouldn't work in the Big Ten, you guys should be a lot more depressed that we have Urban Meyer as our football coach. William 7 Feb 2012, 7:36 pm First off, my statement wasn't wrong, I never addressed the teams historically, you were wrong in your comprehension of my statement. Of course with Georgia you point to Herschel Walker or with Auburn you could point to Cadillac Williams, and Jason Campbell. But your assessment of Power-I=Pro-Style is off in my opinion. Pro-Style has changed from a run first scheme to pass as often as you can. Look at the two teams in the Super Bowl, neither has an offense predicated on downhill running, they're both pass happy. I also never said anything about the cold stopping Newton or Tebow due to scheme. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 9:27 pm The Giants have one of the most classic downhill running offenses in the League. William 7 Feb 2012, 9:31 pm That's why the Giants attempted 131 passes in their last three games. Because they ran the ball so much. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 9:35 pm I didn't say it worked. I just said it's classically downhill rushing. William 7 Feb 2012, 9:37 pm Manning attempted 589 passes, whereas Bradshaw and Jacobs combined for 323 rushing attempts, averaging 3.85 YPC between the two of them, hardly downhill rushing. They threw first and threw often, their offense was not dependent on a decent rushing offense. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 9:41 pm William, you don't understand what the term "downhill rushing" means. It means running north-south between the tackles. Why are you even trying to argue with me anymore? William 7 Feb 2012, 9:44 pm I completely understand that. They run just as many plays to the outside with Bradshaw as they do inside with Jacobs, if anything Jacobs bounces his runs to the outside as much as he does in between the tackles. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 9:48 pm http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/sports/football/the-giants-offense-is-... Nope, wrong again. This is getting pathetic. William 7 Feb 2012, 10:14 pm Pathetic? Where's the breakdown of their runs to the outside vs. inside? Prove it. They were averaging 85.8 yards a game. What about that says downhill rushing attack, other than that misnomer of a title? They Giants couldn't even run the ball, let alone form a downhill rushing attack. Before you argue that they at least try to run the ball "North-South" realize that they don't even rush the ball, because they can't. Jacobs is constantly criticized for trying to bounce runs to the outside instead of running up the middle. This is of course the same "Downhill rushing attack" that couldn't convert a 4th and 2 against San Francisco. The Giants are not a downhill running team, because they can't even do it. Just because they run plays out of a two tight end formation, doesn't mean they run the ball. The Patriots do the same thing, they set up a two tight end formation and then pass from it. They don't run downhill. outdated 7 Feb 2012, 10:58 am I believe 8 teams would be enough. Making it to the championship game would be 3 games and 15 is enough for one season. RBuck Mod 7 Feb 2012, 11:33 am I really don't see anything more than four teams. Getting butts in the seats for any more than that would be a logistics nightmare. Long live the southend. Scott 7 Feb 2012, 12:34 pm Take the top eight teams and seed them in the Fiesta, Orange, Rose, and Sugar (rotate who gets to host the top seed). Those four games produce a final four (played at the higher seed's home stadium) then a championship game (neutral site?). All other bowls can stay intact and the top four can keep their prestige. ...That is my initial thought, but it would be difficult to have two neutral site bowl games that would be very expensive for fans... Definitely flawed. I'm probably focusing too much on maintaining the top four bowls. Class of 2008 unknownmusketeer 7 Feb 2012, 12:54 pm Preserving Bowl games and creating a playoff are incompatible ideas in my opinion. I think EVERY team should have week 10, 11 open (play 2 less non-conference games at the start of the year). After week 8, teams are paired with an appropriate non-conference foe based on rankings. After the 12/13 game season, the two highest ranked teams play for the championship. I call it Flex Scheduling. Perfect? Closer than the system we have now. M Man 7 Feb 2012, 1:00 pm "We would often be sorry if our wishes were gratified." Aesop, The Old Man and Death (c. 550 BC) per Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, Sixteenth Edition. Against it. Another Jason 7 Feb 2012, 4:36 pm Actually, in this case, the wish to maintain the "integrity" of the regular season and the "tradition" of the bowls while creating an opportunity for the subjectively selected "top two teams" to play each other is the one we should be sorry about having been gratified. The BCS is the result of our bitching about the old way, where champions were just voted for after bowl games that proved nothing. It was supposed to be (and admittedly is, albeit only a little) better. It was our wish ("Split titles? Those suck!") poorly gratified. This delusion of the "true champion" seems to only exist in the fantasies of college football fans. No one else cares. You win enough games or your division (or conference or whatever) and you get a shot at the title. Whoever wins it is the champion, even if they may not be "the best." Somehow, every single other sport on the planet has realized that there is no such thing as "the best." Maybe, finally, our time has come. OSUkid23 7 Feb 2012, 4:21 pm Is it possible for a four team playoff to determine the National Champion while the teams who didn't make the playoff play bowl games as usual? TheHumbleBuckeye 7 Feb 2012, 4:50 pm I'd like to see a breakdown of this poll by age. I feel like the older fans who have experienced both the pre-BCS and BCS eras are more against a playoff, and the younger fans who only know the BCS era are pro-playoff. I feel like the cutoff is age 32. If you entered college during the 1998 and have only experienced the BCS, it seems you're probably pro-playoff. If you're older than 32 and have experienced both systems, you prefer no playoff. If I had it my way, I'd just tweak the current system and say top two conference champs play for the BCS title game. That would have solved the major crises of 2003, 2006, 2008, and this past season. But I know playoffs are inevitable, so I'm in favor of a plus-1, but ONLY conference champs. Let's maintain some frickin tradition here please. I would like to spend New Years with my son in Pasadena some day and take him to the parade and all the pep rallies and what have you. If you get your stupid 16 team playoff, you'll kill that. unknownmusketeer 7 Feb 2012, 5:07 pm Under 32 and I definitely prefer the bowl games. The Rose Bowl is glorious. William 7 Feb 2012, 5:12 pm Under 32 and I'd like to see a playoff. faux_maestro 7 Feb 2012, 6:06 pm I'm 34, started at tOSU in 1996. I've payed attention to football since the '87 Michigan game. I've seen both sides. The BCS is .000000001% better than the previous situation (it would have been better than that without the Harris poll, and maybe even the coaches, and if the computers were allowed to use their "original" formula). A playoff is the way to go. AT LEAST 6 teams. Your mom told me she wants a Dicken Cidar. Et_Tu_OSU 7 Feb 2012, 7:56 pm Wow. I've been watching college football for a while now, and I can honestly say I have NEVER seen a year where more than 3 teams played well enough throughout the year to "deserve" a shot at the NC. I'd say half the time there are only two and there are plenty of years (like this year) where there's only one. Also, I think it's crap that a team that didn't win its conference could be NC. For me, a playoff is an excuse to have a cream-puff schedule, whether it be conference (mid-major) or non-conference (mid-major, bottom-feeding AQ, or I-AA). The old "they beat eveyone on their schedule" cliche is both old and cliche. If you want to be a champion, schedule like it or shut up. If schools played tougher schedules more regularly, the playoff would happen in the regular season - you'd see which conferences and schools were good and which were not pretty quickly. USC scheduling Minnesota tells us nothing - USC scheduleing tOSU tells us a lot. Screw playoffs that reward cowards - give me a regular season that reveals a champion. "The revolution will be televised." Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 11:10 pm William, you're wrong. Last word. William 7 Feb 2012, 11:12 pm You proved nothing in regards to the Giants, and in regards to your claim. Prove it. Wait, you can't. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 11:38 pm You've argued every single thing I've written today. So, even if I did prove it again, you'd just argue with me about it. Proving things is lost on your stubbornness to accept that you're wrong. If the first thing that popped in your head after reading the above comments was to hit Reply and tell me a) you haven't argued every point I made, b) that you aren't wrong, c) that you aren't stubborn, or d) that you can accept when you're wrong but you aren't, you can save it. William 7 Feb 2012, 11:42 pm No. If you can show me a detailed breakdown of the Giants ability to establish a downhill running game, and show me that Bradshaw and Jacobs were more successful at running the ball outside of the tackles than inside, I will applaud that effort. My point is that you can't, because they don't have a down hill running game. They're a pass happy team whose offense is predicated on the pass, not the run. Bucksfan 7 Feb 2012, 11:44 pm No. Yes.