College Playoff

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Auburn 2004 didn't stumble

Three words...

Cit A del.

 

[OH10]

Three words...

Cit A del.

Please. Ohio State played Youngstown State two years in a row. Buckeye fans would have been livid if they got shut out for those games.

Anyway to rationalize a broken system.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

Yes, some OSU fans would have been livid had OSU been shut out of the BCS CG because they played a I-AA team (yeah, yeah... FCS... whatever).

But the screams would have rung just as hollow as those of the Auburn fans, and so would have the faux NC rings.

I'm not a big fan of the system; but I'm less a fan of purely subjective arguments about fairness. You may say it was unfair that Auburn was shut out of the NC game for scheduling a lower division team, in a year when there were two teams that did not schedule a lower division team. I do not agree; but that isn't my point. Or maybe you are saying it's unfair that there is only one game in this "playoff". I still disagree, and that's still not the point. The whole argument is a waste of time because it is so purely subjective.

 

[buckeyesin07]

I'm not a big fan of the system; but I'm less a fan of purely subjective arguments about fairness. You may say it was unfair that Auburn was shut out of the NC game for scheduling a lower division team, in a year when there were two teams that did not schedule a lower division team. I do not agree; but that isn't my point. Or maybe you are saying it's unfair that there is only one game in this "playoff". I still disagree, and that's still not the point. The whole argument is a waste of time because it is so purely subjective.

Bingo. Sadly, there's still a bunch of people who insist on blindly tossing out catchphrases like, "the only fair way is to decide things on the field" and "the BCS is a broken system." A bunch of tired "arguments" (I'm giving them too much credit by labeling them as such), IMO.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Please. Ohio State played Youngstown State two years in a row. Buckeye fans would have been livid if they got shut out for those games.

Anyway to rationalize a broken system.

I don't know about the fans generally... you're probably right, since that's how Auburn fans behave... but... for my part, and I've said it repeatedly, if Ohio State schedules bullshit and gets shut out, then they have themselves to blame. As it is, Ohio State has to walk the line between quality games and cupcake wins. In your playoff system (apparently a non-broken system) you'll get more Ohio State v. Cupcake U because gaining enough wins to make the tournament becomes your focus.

 

[buckeyesin07]

In your playoff system (apparently a non-broken system) you'll get more Ohio State v. Cupcake U because gaining enough wins to make the tournament becomes your focus.

Yep. I often wonder what percentage of the pro-playoff folks have actually taken the time to intelligently weigh the positive aspects of a playoff against the negative ones (or, likely the more appropriate question, consider the negative aspects at all).

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Yep. I often wonder what percentage of the pro-playoff folks have actually taken the time to intelligently weigh the positive aspects of a playoff against the negative ones (or, likely the more appropriate question, consider the negative aspects at all).

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking a cheap shot at any posters on this thread, which is NOT my intent, it seems to be quite few. Like you said, most people's analysis doesn't move past catchphrases like, "the only fair way is to decide things on the field" and "the BCS is a broken system" like you said.

There have been some people on this thread who have been able to articulate the problems of the BCS and establish how a proposed playoff would address those needs without creating other problems... but.. at the end of the day.. no system is perfect. It all depends on what your goal is. In college football, the goal seems to me to be about finding the best team of the year.... in that respect, a playoff is a poor indicator of that. If Butler, for example, beat Duke (or like 1985 Villanova beating Georgetown (having lost two other times to GTown that year) they'd be your champ.. but they would not be the year's best team. (EDIT: Yes, everyone.. I know the real goal is MONEY... )

So.. anyway... in my view - until the goal changes (and maybe it has, I don't know), a playoff system is a poorly tailored way to achieve that end. Ironically... as faulty as polls are.. they are uniquely suited to obtain that very end.

 

[Ttown]

.

There have been some people on this thread who have been able to articulate the problems of the BCS and establish how a proposed playoff would address those needs without creating other problems... .

I haven't read any post which came up with a complete solution. Possibly I'm misreading this, But the whole problem in a nutshell is simply that; No one can find anything which gives a complete solution.
ergo no playoffs.

 

[zincfinger]

Auburn 2004 didn't stumble

I know that, and I discussed that earlier in the thread. But your point stands, that I shouldn't have said, "assure" your spot by avoiding defeat, rather I should have side, "assure it to within a very high degree of likelihood". And before anyone says, "What about BSU, TCU, etc", as I've stated repeatedly, I'm only considering BCS conference teams.

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.

But what we're talking about here is winning a national championship. If you're going to win a national championship, every game is critical (again, not necessarily terminal, but critical). So to your point, OSU was already pretty much out of the running for a national championship by the time they played Purdue, so that example isn't relevant to what we're discussing. And really, only in retrospect can you say that game wasn't critical for national championship hopes. At the time, it well could have been, and this is all that matters for purposes of creating the maximum excitement for each regular season game (which is my primary interest in all of this).

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.

It's a fundamental aspect of my opinion on this that mid-majors generally will not and should not play for the national championship. So to me, what you cite as "the problem", is not a problem at all.

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.

Obviously there are factors besides presence/absence of a playoff that impact interest in a sport's regular season, and obviously people would still be interested in the college football regular season even if there were a big playoff at the end. Football's generally a more popular spectator sport in the U.S. than basketball is. My point is, whatever the baseline spectator interest there is for a given sport, an inclusive post-season playoff removes some of that interest from the regular season and transfers it to the much-shorter post-season (with likely some net loss of spectator interest in the process). For a sport that has marginal spectator interest overall, concentrating that interest in a 4 week post-season at the expense of a 4 month regular season might make sense. In a sport like college football, where there's lots of interest spread out over 4 months, I don't think it does make sense.

 

[TheRob8801]

There have been some people on this thread who have been able to articulate the problems of the BCS and establish how a proposed playoff would address those needs without creating other problems... but.. at the end of the day.. no system is perfect. It all depends on what your goal is.

I haven't read any post which came up with a complete solution. Possibly I'm misreading this, But the whole problem in a nutshell is simply that; No one can find anything which gives a complete solution.
ergo no playoffs.

I don't think that anyone in favor of a playoff system who understands all of the pieces of the puzzle really believe that there IS a system that would address ALL of the issues that would arise because of it. It's more or less a "lesser of two evils" sort of thing. The current system has a lot of flaws when speaking on relative fairness, fan enjoyment and that ever so elusive semblance of parity. Anyone who feels as if a playoff is the correct answer understands that there are sacrifices that need be made in order to provide something that in the long run will hopefully prove less controversial and more respectable.

In college football, the goal seems to me to be about finding the best team of the year.... in that respect, a playoff is a poor indicator of that. If Butler, for example, beat Duke (or like 1985 Villanova beating Georgetown (having lost two other times to GTown that year) they'd be your champ.. but they would not be the year's best team. (EDIT: Yes, everyone.. I know the real goal is MONEY... )

You're right, the current goal of college football is to put together the "two best teams" at the end of the season and have them play for the national championship. Now, to make that same comparison to basketball...that would be like the committee forgoing placing a field of 65...and simply picking two teams out of the ENTIRE country to play for the national title.

You and I both know that in this hypothetical world, the two teams that would've been picked are Kansas and Kentucky...we see how great those picks would've been.

I highly disagree that the goal of any tournament is to determine the "best team". If that was the goal, there wouldn't BE a tournament...there'd be a beauty contest and people would vote on who the best team was, and simply hand them the championship (sound familiar?). The goal of a tournament is to determine a champion...in a scenario where ultimately all participants have equal shot at taking home a title...Right now we're stuck between point A and point B in terms of HOW to determine a champion...

So.. anyway... in my view - until the goal changes (and maybe it has, I don't know), a playoff system is a poorly tailored way to achieve that end. Ironically... as faulty as polls are.. they are uniquely suited to obtain that very end.

The goal definitely needs to change...unfortunately the goal hasn't changed from what it was in the 80s and earlier...but the system has...football has changed...fans have changed...everything has changed but the goal...and the goal won't change because the goal is currently conducive to producing the maximum amount of income.

Yep. I often wonder what percentage of the pro-playoff folks have actually taken the time to intelligently weigh the positive aspects of a playoff against the negative ones (or, likely the more appropriate question, consider the negative aspects at all).

As mentioned above, to intelligently weight the pro's and the con's of such a matter would present a scenario where one would have to simply pick the lesser of two evils, so to speak. When there are so many moving pieces, you have to work from back to the front...from the results to the causes...

...the largest issue presented is that the goal of the NCAA football season is to make yourself "look" like the best team in the country so you'll get picked to be homecoming king and queen and then have an opportunity to snatch the crown from your given opponent.

Of course if the system changed, the season would change...and some of the negative aspects presented in this thread, such as teams scheduling more "cupcake" teams would present themselves...but, to me, that doesn't seem as major as some may think...

If a playoff system was in place, instead of having to beautify yourself to be picked as one of the top 2 teams in the country, you'd be beautifying yourself to be picked as one of the top 4/8/14/16/etc... teams in the country, so you couldn't simply schedule the entire WAC and waltz into the playoffs without having to play someone worth their weight in salt.

There are plenty of ways to institute a playoff that doesn't "ruin" the regular season...but of course in that same respect there are obviously NO scenarios where a playoff can be instituted that doesn't CHANGE the regular season in some way...

There isn't any singular solution that's going to please all the people all the time...but that doesn't mean that those types of solutions should be ignored...

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Anyone who feels as if a playoff is the correct answer understands that there are sacrifices that need be made in order to provide something that in the long run will hopefully prove less controversial and more respectable.

Not true. Most playoff people have no idea what the consequences of the idea are. Most stop at "Texas got screwed" as if we could just add Texas to the deal without bringing along any other teams. Likewise, as I've outlined repeated on this thread, playoffs aren't less controversial. The easiest way to see that is simply by looking at how the NCAA bubble teams react when they're not in the top 65.

As for respectable.... well.. that's an opinion thing, I guess. However, I don't see anything inherently not worthy of respect in the BCS. I asked many pages ago... what team won a BCS championship which you believe was not a legitimate champion? (To be clear, I'm not asking what other teams "deserved" a shot... I want to know when the BCS crowned a team that didn't "deserve" the title).

And... a word on "Fair" If you want "fairness" then you need to invite Sunbelt champs, Mac champs, etc.. USC v. Middle Tennessee St. is a snoozer... whehter it's a simple OOC game in September or a playoff game in December.

In any case, and I'm not going to rehash the same argument over again ... as I've done it now for 2 or 3 years... playoffs aren't magic. They are a fine way of crowning a champion... but they're not inherently better.. and they're not even designed to be for th purpose of determing a champ in the first palce (they were originally set up as a exhibition between two competeing professional leagues, not to determine some "true" champion of something).

Edit: Here's a link to a Post I made on a different thread which talks about the genesis of the playoff format, and it's design.

 

[Bestbuck36]

The BCS isnt completley terrible. Its pretty much the closest we've been yet for sure. What would take a great deal of the problem out would be not to count any "Polls" before the 3rd week of the season. The pre-season rankings cause a major problem for teams not initially ranked high and vice versa.

Wait a few weeks to put out rankings and people might, not definitely, have a better view on just how good a team is instead of guessing how good they might be. (See - Clemson, Michigan and Notre Dame on an annual basis).

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The BCS isnt completley terrible. Its pretty much the closest we've been yet for sure. What would take a great deal of the problem out would be not to count any "Polls" before the 3rd week of the season. The pre-season rankings cause a major problem for teams not initially ranked high and vice versa.

Wait a few weeks to put out rankings and people might, not definitely, have a better view on just how good a team is instead of guessing how good they might be. (See - Clemson, Michigan and Notre Dame on an annual basis).

The simplicity in this fix makes me wonder why the talking heads haven't figured it out yet... they all talk about polling transparency instead. I completely agree polls should not come out until games have been played (I'd draw the line at somewhere aroun week 8, actually).

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I don't know about the fans generally... you're probably right, since that's how Auburn fans behave... but... for my part, and I've said it repeatedly, if Ohio State schedules bullshit and gets shut out, then they have themselves to blame. As it is, Ohio State has to walk the line between quality games and cupcake wins. In your playoff system (apparently a non-broken system) you'll get more Ohio State v. Cupcake U because gaining enough wins to make the tournament becomes your focus.

Not even close. You'll still have to finish in the top 16 of the BCS rankings (in a 16-team format anyway) to qualify. More importantly, you'll want to finish ranked as high as possible to play the most home games. Under the current I-AA (FCS) system, every game except the national title game is played at the higher-seeded team's home field. So there's a huge incentive to finish ranked as high as possible...beating multiple I-AA teams isn't going to accomplish that.

 

[buxfan4life]

The simplicity in this fix makes me wonder why the talking heads haven't figured it out yet... they all talk about polling transparency instead. I completely agree polls should not come out until games have been played (I'd draw the line at somewhere aroun week 8, actually).

Your opening words are exactly why it is not being considered. The talking heads wants the formula to be a complicated, massive cluster fuck that brings on controversy, otherwise they have nothing to talk about in regards to it.

I agree that the polls which are used in the BCS formula should not be produced until at least mid year. The current system gives preference to teams that are perceived to be good before the ball is even snapped, and it has been proven that these preseason polls are crap (i.e. #5 scUM losing to App State, i just love bringing that one up!!) because perception and reality can be polar opposites.