College Playoff

[Beaver]

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.

It's quite easy to finish in the top-16 with a poor schedule.

PSU not only accomplished this with a terrible schedule, but they did so while losing to the only decent opponents on their schedule.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

It's quite easy to finish in the top-16 with a poor schedule.

PSU not only accomplished this with a terrible schedule, but they did so while losing to the only decent opponents on their schedule.

But they named their stadium after you! Doesn't that count for something?

And... aren't you from Pennsylvania?

 

[zincfinger]

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).

I think this is an area where you'd probably find pretty broad agreement. Delaying polls until several weeks into the season would increase the fairness/accuracy of the system (true of the current system or any other which has any reliance on polls). On the other hand, pre-season polls are fun and a lot of fans are interested in them, so they're likely not going away anytime soon.

 

[TheRob8801]

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.

You could've quoted the other part of my post where I spoke on those folks that view it intelligently. Those are the people I'm referring to here. You know I wasn't talking about the same people you're talking about.

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.

Well, look at it this way. Currently in college football you have a 2 team tournament...which tends to always leave somebody as a "bubble" team... there's usually someone complaining at the end of the season that they should've been in the "tournament" for this reason, that reason, whatever...

In college basketball, you have a 65 team tournament...where every team has a theoretical shot at the championship... but anyone left out of this group, generally has an extremely MINUTE chance at realistically winning the allotted 6 games in a row necessary to take home the title. Therefore the teams left "on the bubble" are more or less just complaining that they don't get to carry the prestige, airtime and revenue that everyone else in the tournament is getting.

Teams left just on the cusp of being in the BCS Championship game have, in the past, been viewed as legitimate contenders to the title...but have had absolutely ZERO opportunity to prove themselves as such.

If the NCAA Tournament committee only chose the teams that the general consensus felt had a legitimate shot at winning the National Championship, they'd only pick about half of the current field...somewhere around 25-30 teams.

So if we're talking about what's LESS controversial, which is what I said...leaving teams out of a tournament that have NO true bearings on who the champion is going to be...and leaving teams out of the tournament that can legitimately compete with the eventual champion are two VERY different things. The latter is FAR more controversial.

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).

You're right, it's definitely an opinion thing...but to ask that question with that specific stipulation is skirting the issue. It's not a matter of what BCS champion didn't deserve the title...it's a matter of what BCS teams didn't get a shot at them.

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.

That goes back to what I said about the NCAA tournament...I think that if you asked most people whether they thought it was unfair that Buffalo (winners of the MAC) didn't get a shot at Florida there would be hardly ANY that said it was...but if you asked people if it was unfair that Texas didn't get a shot at them...well, you know how THAT goes...

Personally, I don't think that a playoff that includes every conference winner would be anywhere near a viable solution. I don't think that a tournament designed in the image of NCAA basketball would make much sense in the realms of NCAA football. I don't think that anyone pushing for a playoff is suggesting that they want to see USC v. Middle Tennessee St. in a playoff game...nor do I think that a playoff system which addresses the main issues would elicit such a game...

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.

That's understandable...but if the basics of your stance haven't changed enough in 2 or 3 years to continue to hold themselves up against those that have a legitimate dynamic opinion based upon solutions rather than arguing, I'd reassess that argument...

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).

Inherently better? No...

...and I don't even know how to respond to your suggestion that the intentions of the conception of the tournament format make tournaments any less valid as a means to an end.

Is there a better way to determine a champion in college basketball?

But all of the ancillary arguments aside...the real argument here is about the sanctity of the regular season and the sanctity of the post season and what's more important.

Your side of the coin values the "football value" of the regular season over the thought of an unnecessary post season.

My side of the coin values the "football value" of a proposed post season over the thought of an weakened regular season.

All in all, I'd rather see Ohio State play a USC or Texas or teams of the same stature in the post season, where a victory would have instantaneous benefit, rather than simply scheduling them in the regular season where a win means a lot, but could mean nothing if you lose elsewhere...and a loss could mean nothing, if the same team ends up losing down the road...

In the current system, more weight is placed on what the teams you play do in their season than what you yourself do. That's just crazy that that's what we accept as a reasonable way to determine who should play for the national championship.

OF COURSE I think that a playoff would change and invariably weaken the regular season...but the importance of the regular season would still be there...it would simply hold a different value.

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.

In reading this, you make some great points...but for the sake of using it as an argument against playoffs, there is far too much personal opinion and conjecture you've attempted to liaison as fact. The BCS system is not "better" than a playoff in the same regard that a playoff is not "better" than the BCS system...it's just a matter of producing parity. That should be the ultimate goal...not what generates the most revenue...

I'm not delusional enough to think that the system is going to change anytime soon, simply because it matters not what the fans want, it matters not what is better for the sport, it matters not what the principles of the issues are...it simply matters what generates the most cash...

...thinking that that is wrong doesn't make me ignorant to the fact that it exists

 

[TheRob8801]

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).

I agree 100% with this...

...the first polls shouldn't come out until around week 8 and even then, in order to preserve the legitimacy of said polls, they should do away with the AP and Coaches polls as entities among themselves...simply institute them into the BCS where they belong...

We've got the technology nowadays to produce a fairly accurate assessment of where teams should be placed in regards to each other that pre-season polls are absolutely unnecessary.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Rob, I have never argued that the BCS is better than a playoff. I have only argued that the BCS achieves its objective and a playoff does not achieve that objective, while creating problems which I find unacceptable (devauled regular season, for example). If you read back from page.. I don't know... 80 or so, you'll see what I'm saying.. I consistently have maintained Playoffs are a legitimate way to crown a champ.... But, they do not result in a materially better champion, are capable of producing cinderella champions (See, Nova) and come at the cost of risking the value of the regular season - among other things (like producing rematches of games like OU v. TTU 2007 (blow out for OU)) The BCS, in contrast, has never produced an illigitimate champion... and I like that. (and which is why I think your remark "That's just crazy that that's what we accept as a reasonable way to determine who should play for the national championship." falls flat on its face. The evidence, not my opinion, the evidence is that it has worked 100% of the time in crowning a deserving champion.)

I was a playoff proponent until I gave the issue consideration. I dont want to "rehash" what I've argued for 2 or 3 years only because I haven't seen any new argument which causes me to rethink my position. If you present one, I'll be happy to discuss the issue... but... for the most part, my position on this issue is clear and can be read on the pages before.

 

[TheRob8801]

I guess where we're not seeing eye-to-eye is that your personal opinion on legitimacy and what the NCAA's objective should be and mine are two very different things.

As with most issues that have two very different viewpoints, personal opinions make it impossible to actually break down the varying issues in attempt to solve them.

I'm not interested in changing your mind, I'm simply interested in coming up with a solution that solves the most issues...pleases the most fans...and generates the most beneficial outcome to players/fans/programs alike. Threads like this become more or less about "you're wrong because:" and "I'm right because:" than anything else. Issues like this can't be solved that way, the only way they can be solved is if somebody...somewhere...comes together and finds that middle ground...

...I don't see any reason why we, on this board, can't be those people that "figure it out".

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I guess where we're not seeing eye-to-eye is that your personal opinion on legitimacy and what the NCAA's objective should be and mine are two very different things.

Which is why I asked what BCS Champion is not deserving? I get that you're suggesting by not giving 2004 Auburn a chance, or 2007 Texas, that the respective champs from those years can be called in to question.... but.. that's beginning a big parade of hypothetical which makes the effort useless. You can't just add Auburn or Texas... someone else comes along too.. at least 1 other team... and.. who would that be? I don't hear alot of folks gnashing teeth over any other 2004 team but Auburn.. or any 2007 team but Texas... so.. even at 4 teams we've already introduced some team who shouldn't be there...

Life isn't fair... teams get screwed. This is college football, not Recreational T-Ball.

As with most issues that have two very different viewpoints, personal opinions make it impossible to actually break down the varying issues in attempt to solve them.

I'm not going to say I'm immune from my own opinions, but I assure you, I reached my position after a lengthy evaluation of playoff scenarios spanning from 1998 to 2008... Those threads are around here if you want to see them for yourself. Like I said, yes, I have my leanings, but... I also have reason. That's not to say you dont, but I take a slight bit of offense to the suggestion I'm merely spouting off my personal viewpoint when I have done a lot of work on this issue before reaching that viewpoint in the first place.

 

[mercurial1]

I agree completely.

It's like in college basketball for example, I'm like one of a many I've talked with that follow loosely until March and then we're all about the game.

I think a playoff system would have a similar effect in football.

But to be fair, I seem to be somewhat of a minority that's rather content with the way things are right now.

I have very little problem with the BCS format.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Just saw your edit....

Yeah, I don't think I can change anyone's mind either... My chief complaint about the playoff side is that so few people consider the consequences or accurately outline any real solution to BCS issues which doesn't create bigger problems, or fail to address the issue they claim is being addressed.

 

[TheRob8801]

Which is why I asked what BCS Champion is not deserving? I get that you're suggesting by not giving 2004 Auburn a chance, or 2007 Texas, that the respective champs from those years can be called in to question.... but.. that's beginning a big parade of hypothetical which makes the effort useless. You can't just add Auburn or Texas... someone else comes along too.. at least 1 other team... and.. who would that be? I don't hear alot of folks gnashing teeth over any other 2004 team but Auburn.. or any 2007 team but Texas... so.. even at 4 teams we've already introduced some team who shouldn't be there...

If that's the stance taken, I don't see any reason why the games should've been played in the first place...because the outcomes suggest that OU shouldn't have been there in '03-'04 or '08-'09. If we're going to play an arbitrary national championship game in the first place, why not toss in some extra games that add some legitimacy to final outcomes.

I'm not going to say I'm immune from my own opinions, but I assure you, I reached my position after a lengthy evaluation of playoff scenarios spanning from 1998 to 2008... Those threads are around here if you want to see them for yourself. Like I said, yes, I have my leanings, but... I also have reason. That's not to say you dont, but I take a slight bit of offense to the suggestion I'm merely spouting off my personal viewpoint when I have done a lot of work on this issue before reaching that viewpoint in the first place.

I apologize if that's the way you took that. I was simply saying that our "leanings" as you put them, are often all we need to stay with our decisions once we've come to them. No matter how much research/debate/theorizing we do...once we've determined our stance, our opinions tend to sway any further evidence in one direction or the other.

I've gone through this same mess on other boards in other places for the past few years making the same statements and the same arguments for a playoff system...and through all of that, I'm still unsure if it's the best solution...but I also know what the BCS lacks, and that currently there are too many things to simply overlook in regards to saying "well a playoff won't fix everything".

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

If that's the stance taken, I don't see any reason why the games should've been played in the first place...because the outcomes suggest that OU shouldn't have been there in '03-'04 or '08-'09. If we're going to play an arbitrary national championship game in the first place, why not toss in some extra games that add some legitimacy to final outcomes.

Was a time when the bowl games didn't count. Frankly, I'm fine with that solution.

It's easy to call any game arbitrary. The best example I can think of is the NY Giants over the NE Patriots. They split the series 1-1. The Pats won in the regular season, the Giants won in February. Extra games didn't "solve" anything... actually, it confused the issue, if you think about it. When the Pats were 19-0, they sure looked like a legitimate #1 team in the NFL... and then, they had to play game 20... like they had somehting else to "prove" after 19 games... and against a team they already beat...

and ...

of course, they lost. And what do they get?

Not a damn thing.

I'm no Pats fan (hate em, in fact), but they were the best team in the NFL that year, not the NYG.

I apologize if that's the way you took that. I was simply saying that our "leanings" as you put them, are often all we need to stay with our decisions once we've come to them. No matter how much research/debate/theorizing we do...once we've determined our stance, our opinions tend to sway any further evidence in one direction or the other.

Not a big deal, you weren't around to see all those posts, just wanted you to be aware that they are out there.

I'm willing to change my mind on the issue, but all the arguments in support of the playoffs have come up as unpersuasive. A couple have peaked my interest and I would find the proposals as "do-able" if they came to pass (there's one from Sepia, I think, many pages ago that I didn't find much problem with)... But, I'm not going to change my mind based on a rehash of the same shit I've seen before, which I think you can appreciate.

I've gone through this same mess on other boards in other places for the past few years making the same statements and the same arguments for a playoff system...and through all of that, I'm still unsure if it's the best solution...but I also know what the BCS lacks, and that currently there are too many things to simply overlook in regards to saying "well a playoff won't fix everything".

I also know what the BCS lacks. Balls and leadership. Fix the polls, and stop tweaking to solve last year's fiasco.

It's not as simple as saying "a playoff won't fix everything" It's that playoffs don't obtain any objective, so far as I can tell... other than the desire to have one.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

Since the only thing everybody agrees on is that the polls shouldn't come out until mid-season; let me add to this mess by saying that I don't believe that would fix anything.

The polls comprise votes from various people, many of whom publish their vote and talk or write about it at length. The College Football preview magazines all publish pre-season polls/rankings, and indeed some of the people responsible for these unofficial polls/rankings have votes in the official ones.

These unofficial rankings, both in pre-season and every week thereafter, will still be there. The NCAA can't stop them from posting/publishing/producing their rankings.

The reason I believe this to be relevant is because of what I've seen from the Harris poll.


When the Harris poll comes out, in mid-season, it looks very similar to the polls that have been running since pre-season. At times, I have thought that where the Harris poll was different that it was LESS accurate with respect to on-the-field results. Either the practice of starting in pre-season has less effect than widely thought; or the other published polls/rankings are affecting the Harris voters whether they realize it or not. Whichever of these is at work here is beside the point. The point is that there will still be other polls/rankings out there that will have a substantial impact on those who vote; or it doesn't matter anyway. Either way, it will not solve anything IMHO.

 

[TheRob8801]

I wholeheartedly agree with that statement...

...which is why the polls that should come out mid-season, should be based solely upon the team's record and SOS.

Rank the teams according to their W-L record, then break ties by their opponents cumulative W-L record, then break ties by points for, then break ties by points against. That's a perfect starting point for the polls.

By week 6 I would assume that this would elicit a relatively accurate assessment of the top 25.

 

[TheRob8801]

...which is why the polls that should come out mid-season, should be based solely upon the team's record and SOS.

Rank the teams according to their W-L record, then break ties by their opponents cumulative W-L record, then break ties by points for, then break ties by points against. That's a perfect starting point for the polls.

By week 6 I would assume that this would elicit a relatively accurate assessment of the top 25.

Gimme about an hour...I'm gonna work up what the polls would've looked like if this were how they were done last year...