College Playoff

[zincfinger]

Alabama, Texas, Boise State, TCU, Cincinnati.

If you re-read my statement, you'll see that Boise State and TCU do not apply (and should not, for reasons I discussed earlier in this thread). I did forget about UC this last year, mainly because I view the current BigEast's BCS conference label is being a historical technicality, but yes: more than 2 undefeated BCS conference teams has happened 2 times in 12 years, rather than 1 time in 11 years, as I originally maintained. In either case, it's rare, and 5 undefeated BCS conference teams isn't going to happen.

edit: And maybe you didn't understand me. When I said "undefeated BCS teams", I meant, BCS conference teams, not BCS bowl teams. An undefeated mid-major is just about automatically going to a BCS bowl. But that doesn't put them on par with an undefeated BCS conference team, in my view.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

In college football, right now, every game is critical. That won't be the case if you play-off-o-philes have your way. It ain't more fair, and while it perhaps makes the end-of-season more interesting, it makes the early season less so to a far larger extent.

Wrong. LSU won the 2007 national title with not one but two losses. Undefeated teams (Hawaii, Utah, Boise State, TCU) have been left out while teams with a loss got in. Looks like those losses weren't all that critical, now, do they?

With the 16-team playoff that I-AA has successfully had for at least two decades, regular season games are still very important in that they determine not only if you make they playoffs but also where you get seeded. Teams should not be overly punished for losing a game. Just because a team goes undefeated doesn't mean they're more deserving than some teams with losses (see 2007 undefeated Hawaii who dominated the WAC but got jail-fucked by 2-loss Georgia in the Sugar Bowl).

 

[zincfinger]

Wrong. LSU won the 2007 national title with not one but two losses. Undefeated teams (Hawaii, Utah, Boise State, TCU) have been left out while teams with a loss got in. Looks like those losses weren't all that critical, now, do they?

With the 16-team playoff that I-AA has successfully had for at least two decades, regular season games are still very important in that they determine not only if you make they playoffs but also where you get seeded. Teams should not be overly punished for losing a game. Just because a team goes undefeated doesn't mean they're more deserving than some teams with losses (see 2007 undefeated Hawaii who dominated the WAC but got jail-fucked by 2-loss Georgia in the Sugar Bowl).

Your observation doesn't make me "Wrong", it merely highlights a particular point. That point is that it's implicitly built into the system that mid-majors are given less credence than BCS conference teams are given. You may think that shouldn't be the case, I personally think it should, and even think it should be formalized. In any event, the fact that a team has lost and still made the championship game in a season when all the other BCS team lost as well, does not mean that each regular season game isn't critically important. Of course, if your competitors stumble as much as you, you've still got a shot. The only way to assure your shot is not to stumble. That is critically important. If you do stumble, you can hope for some luck/help from your competitors.

Teams should not be overly punished for losing a game.

I find it hard to square this statement with your apparent support for a playoff, since there is nothing that punishes a team for losing a single game as much as does a single elimination tournament.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Your observation doesn't make me "Wrong", it merely highlights a particular point.

It makes your main point wrong.

I find it hard to square this statement with your apparent support for a playoff, since there is nothing that punishes a team more for losing a single game than does a single elimination tournament.

Being prevented from a chance at the national title just because of a loss was my point. Granted, a loss in the playoffs ends your season, but at least you were playing amongst a small subset of selected teams directly competing for the national title, since you still were playing in the playoffs despite (a) previous loss(es). Hell, out of Youngstown State's four national title seasons, two had two losses and a one had three losses.

 

[kn1f3party]

zingfinger,

As has been stated numerous times in this thread: basketball and football are two different sports. It is hard to argue what is good for one is good for the other or that in basketball the regular season being insignificant nationally would mean the same for football.

A great example of this is the NBA and NFL.

Far fewer people tune in to regular season NBA games or even care for that matter. The NBA playoffs get some attention however.

Conversely, the NFL is on in homes on Sundays throughout the season and the fans actually relish the playoffs if they get a few more weeks to see their team.

Big Ten expansion could shake things up enough to force a playoff and possibly split division 1 so the real players get a shot at a title while the posers get their own division so they don't have to get manhandled by d1 and pummell d2.

 

[zincfinger]

It makes your main point wrong.

My main point was that every regular season game is critical. I don't believe the fact that undefeated mid-majors have been bypassed makes that point wrong. Of course, that depends on your definition of "critical", and on an assumption of equality between mid-majors and BCS conference teams. As regards the former, a loss is very damaging, but it is possible to recover from it, depending on what your competitors do. That is the difference between "critical" and "terminal". A loss is not necessarily terminal, but it is critical. As regards the latter, I take it for granted that mid-majors are not and should not be accorded the same consideration as BCS conference teams are accorded. Your opinion on that may differ, but that's a separate topic.

Being prevented from a chance at the national title just because of a loss was my point. Granted, a loss in the playoffs ends your season, but at least you were playing amongst a small subset of selected teams directly competing for the national title, since you still were playing in the playoffs despite (a) previous loss(es). Hell, out of Youngstown State's four national title seasons, two had two losses and a one had three losses.

All you're saying is that a loss in the final 2-3 weeks of the season should count 100%, and a loss early in the season should count less than it currently does. There's no principle to what you're espousing beyond that. Pointing out that YSU has won championships despite multiple losses doesn't really support your point. I'm not all that familiar with the D-1AA format (maybe YSU lost fewer games than anyone else those years, I don't know), but I'm aware that playoffs make this possible. As evidenced by pro teams in multiple sports who failed to win their division in the regular season but nonetheless won a "World Championship". This doesn't really strengthen your fairness argument.

 

[kn1f3party]

My main point was that every regular season game is critical. I don't believe the fact that undefeated mid-majors have been bypassed makes that point wrong. Of course, that depends on your definition of "critical", and on an assumption of equality between mid-majors and BCS conference teams. As regards the former, a loss is very damaging, but it is possible to recover from it, depending on what your competitors do. That is the difference between "critical" and "terminal". A loss is not necessarily terminal, but it is critical. As regards the latter, I take it for granted that mid-majors are not and should not be accorded the same consideration as BCS conference teams are accorded. Your opinion on that may differ, but that's a separate topic.


All you're saying is that a loss in the final 2-3 weeks of the season should count 100%, and a loss early in the season should count less than it currently does. There's no principle to what you're espousing beyond that. Pointing out that YSU has won championships despite multiple losses doesn't really support your point. I'm not all that familiar with the D-1AA format (maybe YSU lost fewer games than anyone else those years, I don't know), but I'm aware that playoffs make this possible. As evidenced by pro teams in multiple sports who failed to win their division in the regular season but nonetheless won a "World Championship". This doesn't really strengthen your fairness argument.

Forget fairness. At this point nobody cares what is fair. Life isn't fair and nobody ever told me it should be. My primary motivation for supporting a playoff is the NCAA bowl subdivision national championship is a joke. Not just metaphorically, it literally is a joke. The school that wins gets to put up a banner and a crystal ball. But from my experience, each year the current system continues against what appears to be the will of the majority of the investors (the fans), the significance of the football championship means less and less. If anything I believe that when something like this happens, it will not happen in the context of the current system. It will happen when we're down to 64 teams in the top division with 4 conferences. Each division champ faces off in the first week of the playoff to narrow the field from 8 to 4, then 4 to 2, and finally a champion. No more bowls that run in the red, just big dollars to the conferences and schools involved. If you like bowls, tune in to the everyone-else division that is created for team 65 and beyond. I can't see how you can argue 8 divisional champs competing for 4 conference championships, 4 champions competing for a spot in the final, and then a champion. If anything that seems to underscore the importance of winning every game each season considering your school's popularity can't get you in if you don't win enough to even get out of your division. 2 losses like LSU's would likely not cut it in that kind of climate and if it did--they would, in my opinion, be proven champs over the remaining weeks.

 

[zincfinger]

Forget fairness. At this point nobody cares what is fair. Life isn't fair and nobody ever told me it should be. My primary motivation for supporting a playoff is the NCAA bowl subdivision national championship is a joke. Not just metaphorically, it literally is a joke. The school that wins gets to put up a banner and a crystal ball. But from my experience, each year the current system continues against what appears to be the will of the majority of the investors (the fans), the significance of the football championship means less and less. If anything I believe that when something like this happens, it will not happen in the context of the current system. It will happen when we're down to 64 teams in the top division with 4 conferences. Each division champ faces off in the first week of the playoff to narrow the field from 8 to 4, then 4 to 2, and finally a champion. No more bowls that run in the red, just big dollars to the conferences and schools involved. If you like bowls, tune in to the everyone-else division that is created for team 65 and beyond. I can't see how you can argue 8 divisional champs competing for 4 conference championships, 4 champions competing for a spot in the final, and then a champion. If anything that seems to underscore the importance of winning every game each season considering your school's popularity can't get you in if you don't win enough to even get out of your division. 2 losses like LSU's would likely not cut it in that kind of climate and if it did--they would, in my opinion, be proven champs over the remaining weeks.

As I've stated previously, I agree with, and in fact endorse the notion of "forgetting fairness". The only reason I refer to the fairness argument is that it seems to be the main argument put forth by the majority of playoff advocates. As for the rest of your comment, I don't think it's popularity that generally gets a team favorable treatment in the polls, it's the perceived strength of opposition that they play. Which, while not perfect, I think is generally just.

 

[Oh8ch]

As has been stated numerous times in this thread: basketball and football are two different sports. It is hard to argue what is good for one is good for the other or that in basketball the regular season being insignificant nationally would mean the same for football.

I have argued this again and again - but for this thread to be meaningful you need to define what you intend to accomplish with a college playoff.

If you want to have an exciting series of games at the end of the season there can be little argument that a playoff would deliver.

If you want to identify the best team in college football for that season a playoff is as meaningful for football as it is for basketball (and no, Duke was NOT the best college basketball team in the 09-10 season) and would be less meaningful than the beauty contest we had with pure voting prior to the BCS.

Unless you really believe in the idea of "magic" games that decide "on the field" what an entire season could not.

 

[OH10]

If you want to identify the best team in college football for that season a playoff is as meaningful for football as it is for basketball (and no, Duke was NOT the best college basketball team in the 09-10 season) and would be less meaningful than the beauty contest we had with pure voting prior to the BCS.

Who was and how did you make that determination?

 

[TheRob8801]

Who was and how did you make that determination?

Wrong thread for that mess...

...and we all know it'd be an ugly argument.

Might as well leave it alone.

 

[TheRob8801]

My main point was that every regular season game is critical. I don't believe the fact that undefeated mid-majors have been bypassed makes that point wrong. Of course, that depends on your definition of "critical", and on an assumption of equality between mid-majors and BCS conference teams. As regards the former, a loss is very damaging, but it is possible to recover from it, depending on what your competitors do. That is the difference between "critical" and "terminal". A loss is not necessarily terminal, but it is critical. As regards the latter, I take it for granted that mid-majors are not and should not be accorded the same consideration as BCS conference teams are accorded. Your opinion on that may differ, but that's a separate topic.

In the current climate of NCAA college football EVERY game is not critical in the sense that you're suggesting. CERTAIN games are critical, based upon who you play and when. Case in point. Ohio State's loss to Purdue this past season. That game was 100% inconsequential in terms of the team's final fate. If Ohio State won that game and finished the season the same way, they're still in the Rose Bowl.

Therein lies the problem. Mid-majors don't play the "critical" games every season, not because they don't want to...but because in many circumstances they can't. Now, I don't buy into the idea that teams like Boise State and TCU deserve the same sort of respect going undefeated in their respective conferences that teams going undefeated in the Big Ten, SEC, Big XII or even Pac-10 and Big East do...but if they win every game and are only rewarded with an inconsequential exhibition game at the end of the season, while another team from say the Pac-10 or Big East that played a stronger overall schedule but didn't play the top end quality teams that they played...why wouldn't they have a reason to complain?

Now, I agree that there's not nearly enough parity in college football to institute any type of playoff...but the disparity isn't between teams...it's between conferences...and that's not because of the teams in the conferences...it's because of some predetermined bias...

If you took the top 2 teams from EVERY D-1 conference, you'd get a HUGE disparity in talent and speed...but I don't think that you'd find that there isn't that big of a difference from the mean. Teams would be as evenly dispersed as they are in the current D-1 basketball tournament...and I don't see why giving those teams an arbitrary game that really doesn't make much different either way is such a big deal if we, in return, get to make better since of the middle...the teams like Boise State and TCU.

Would it be a watered down tournament? Absolutely. Would it promote just as many issues in terms of determining a "true" champion? Probably. But it isn't NEARLY as ridiculous of an idea as you're making it out to be.

 

[methomps]

The only way to assure your shot is not to stumble. That is critically important.

Auburn 2004 didn't stumble

 

[Buckeneye]

Auburn 2004 didn't stumble

And as a USC fan, do you feel the result would have been different had you played Auburn instead of OU?


- I doubt you guys would have scored 55, but I don't think the outcome would have changed much.

 

[methomps]

And as a USC fan, do you feel the result would have been different had you played Auburn instead of OU?


- I doubt you guys would have scored 55, but I don't think the outcome would have changed much.

Hard to say. It would be more interesting because we beat Auburn in 02 and 03, so the schools were a little more familiar with each other. I think SC wins because SC had the better coaching staff.