College Playoff

[SloopyHangOn]

I'm not sure that the fact that FBS football is owned, governed and promoted by those with deep pockets is native to either argument.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

And a playoff does give a more legitimate champion, I don't know how you can deny that. No one tries to say that about any other sport. There's a reason why every other league has a playoff. Play it out on the damn field at the end of the year.

Wrong. Here's how I'll prove it to you.

The BCS has been in force since 1998. Name 1 BCS National Champion which has been illegitimate. Just one. I'm not asking if other teams out there might have a bitch to pitch... I'm asking you to identify any illigitimate champion... a team which we all know was crap.

Next, for a playoff, I'll point to the New York Giants over the New England Patriots. Not only were the Pats 18-1 that year, while the Giants were 14-6, the Pats beat the Giants 38-35 on December 29 that season already. So... the Giants were better on some day while the Pats were better on some other day... Yet it's the Giants who got the ring.

Want more? Villanova beat Georgetown for the NCAA championship in 1985. Villanova had a record of 1-3 against Georgetown that season and lost about 10 more games than did the Hoyas over all. But... because Nova beat the Hoyas in March, and not January, that makes them Champion?

Come on....

Playoffs are not more legitimate. Again... I'll say they are a legit way to crown a champ, but don't bullshit me with "more legit" It's easily denied, and I don't give a shit who says what about other sports. As above... "but, every one else does it" didn't work as an argument when we were 10 and it doesn't work now.

 

[BB73]

. As above... "but, every one else does it" didn't work as an argument when we were 10 and it doesn't work now.

That doesn't work?

How about "47 different talking heads at ESPN can't be wrong!!"?










OK, I'll withdraw that one.

 

[JBaney45]

Wrong. Here's how I'll prove it to you.

The BCS has been in force since 1998. Name 1 BCS National Champion which has been illegitimate. Just one. I'm not asking if other teams out there might have a bitch to pitch... I'm asking you to identify any illigitimate champion... a team which we all know was crap.

Next, for a playoff, I'll point to the New York Giants over the New England Patriots. Not only were the Pats 18-1 that year, while the Giants were 14-6, the Pats beat the Giants 38-35 on December 29 that season already. So... the Giants were better on some day while the Pats were better on some other day... Yet it's the Giants who got the ring.

Want more? Villanova beat Georgetown for the NCAA championship in 1985. Villanova had a record of 1-3 against Georgetown that season and lost about 10 more games than did the Hoyas over all. But... because Nova beat the Hoyas in March, and not January, that makes them Champion?

Come on....

Playoffs are not more legitimate. Again... I'll say they are a legit way to crown a champ, but don't bull[censored] me with "more legit" It's easily denied, and I don't give a [censored] who says what about other sports. As above... "but, every one else does it" didn't work as an argument when we were 10 and it doesn't work now.

A playoff would be MORE legitimate in college football then it is in the NFL..there is much less overlap in the schedules when you only play 12 or 13 teams out of 120. Auburn and Oregon didn't have to play anyone from the Big 12 or Big Ten let alone the best teams. You institute a playoff and let the winners (or extremely high finishers) do their thing. You are still going to have to play at a tremendously high level to get into say a top 8 in the rankings, you aren't going to have 14-6 teams winning it all, there is a difference.

You could theoretically have a rematch between 2 teams that have already played, but to earn the title they still have to get past those other teams

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Why... no... if Ohio State and Wisconsin were both still alive for a National Championship via a playoff, I would think that particular game would be meaningless in retrospect.

I remember Ohio State being ranked #1 and in the drivers seat for a trip to the title game if they won out. But... they blew it. Hard to argue it was meaningless in the current BCS format.

In your lawyer world, you are trying to assign meaningfullness to every single game. Just not possible. How meaningful was our loss at Illinois at The Shoe in 2007? It was very meaningful until everyone else started losing "meaningful" games...except for the two games that LSU lost that season.

 

[Meyer]

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nba/news/story?id=5924399

Mark Cuban for President!!!!!!

Death to the BCS!

 

[SloopyHangOn]

As much as I realize that private ownership of such a system is really the only logical way to expect it to happen, I sure as shit don't trust Mark Cuban to do it correctly. Hopefully there's a large group of people with money who are willing to get behind him. Whatever consultants he hires need to have some sort of grip on both tradition and reason, but not too tight that they bottleneck whatever playoff idea Cuban has (assuming he really does have an idea and isn't just playing with his money).

I could envision the BCS becoming the NIT of college football. Glorious.

 

[Mrstickball]

To those arguing about the Wisconsin game:

What would of happened if we won against Wisconsin and we lost ground in the polls due to SoS and they picked the same teams to play in the championship game, relegating us to the Rose Bowl? Would you be telling us that the system was totally fair?

Bring on Cuban's playoff system. I rust Mark more than I do the NCAA. No, thats not a lot of trust, but I'd still take his profit motive over NCAA's me-first motive. Playoffs could help out struggling teams if they were able to earn multiple payouts in the playoffs. A system would generate massive incomes, which would help out colleges, and also get rid of all the BCS-buster talk.

Under a playoff system, the arguments about the best conference would invariably be settled, with each conference bringing their best of the best to the table. I want to cheer for Ohio State more than 12-13 games a year. I want to cheer them as they play their way through the best teams in the nation, under one of the greatest playoff coaches in history, Jim Tressel.

 

[Zurp]

What would of happened if we won against Wisconsin and we lost ground in the polls due to SoS and they picked the same teams to play in the championship game, relegating us to the Rose Bowl? Would you be telling us that the system was totally fair?

I'm on the BCS side of the line, though I've been inching closer and closer over the past couple of years. But I'll give you my answer.
1. If Ohio State had beat Wisconsin, but ended #3 or #4 in the BCS standings, then you know what? Too bad, so sad. There's no crying in baseball (football). I said the same thing to Auburn in 2004, and I'm not going to change my mind just because the teams change. It's not a fair system, but I don't think anyone ever claimed it was supposed to be fair. The BCS "committee" simply said they simply wanted to match the number 1 team with the number 2 team, based on the regular season. We can only assume that they meant the best 2 teams. And under their formula, they consider Auburn and Oregon to be the top 2 teams.

But now I'll ask you a question. And I have never ever heard a good answer for it. I've gotten many answers, but never one that I liked. So I'd like for someone to give me a good answer. Let's say we change it from a 2-team play-off (which is really what a 1-game championship game is) to a 4-team play-off. 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3. We'd have Auburn, Oregon, TCU, and Stanford. That's "fair" to TCU - people say that TCU did everything they could, and now they have a chance to get a championship. Same with Auburn and Oregon. Sounds good to me. But Stanford DIDN'T do everything they could. They lost to Oregon. Why should they get a chance to get a championship? And if you put Wisconsin in that spot, I'd still be asking that question.

Some answers I've already gotten:
- 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2008 (8 of 13 years) had teams with at least 1 loss in the national championship game. Why am I not bothered about that? My answer is.. well, I don't know. It's a good question. But at least (in my opinion) no team ever squeaked in there to steal the 2nd spot from a team that I thought was more deserving and then won the national championship.
- Every other sport has a play-off, and lower-ranked teams often win the play-offs. Yeah, and I'm not crazy about that. I think the St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series one year after losing 77 or 79 regular season games. That's barely .500. And I'm supposed to believe that that's the best team in the league? I think the Steelers won the Super Bowl a few years ago after being the #6 seed. It made for a hell of a Super Bowl game, and I'm not taking anything away from them. But, in my opinion, it diminishes the regular season if a team can lose that many games and then win the championship because they got hot at the right time.

Anyway, like I said, I'm inching closer to the "play-off" side of the line, mainly because I think teams like TCU and Boise State and Utah have been screwed the past few years. We say a team just needs to go undefeated and they're in, and apologize to Auburn in 2004, but we neglect those teams. I don't think it really matters how good they are - we'll never know. And the only solution may be that some teams get another shot at it just to give the "mid-majors" their rightful chance.

 

[OSUScoonie12]

I highly doubt Mark Cuban gets anywhere with this, but i would love to see some type of playoff system happen. The BCS has gone too far and it needs to be stopped.

 

[OH10]

Playoffs are not more legitimate. Again... I'll say they are a legit way to crown a champ, but don't bull[censored] me with "more legit" It's easily denied, and I don't give a [censored] who says what about other sports. As above... "but, every one else does it" didn't work as an argument when we were 10 and it doesn't work now.

It is more legitimate, in my opinion, because teams have more control over the outcome in a playoff. As an example look at the 2007 and 2010 Ohio State Buckeyes:

The 2007 team lost an ultimately meaningless game at home to decent, but not great, Illinois team. They somehow made it to the national title game in spite of that fact because of the luck of everyone else losing. Ohio State didn't have any control over that. They got lucky.

The 2010 team lost what ultimately amounted to an elimination game in October to a pretty damn good Wisconsin team on the road. This was not a loss to be embarrassed about. And yet they never came close to sniffing the national title game because the teams in front of them kept winning. They didn't get lucky. And yet, had Ohio State actually beat Wisconsin, you would have three undefeated BCS conference teams. One left out, similar to 2003, which would be decidedly unlucky. No control over that outcome.

And that's ultimately the problem with a two-team playoff (BCS). Teams lack the control to be able to determine the outcome. Its a system that requires luck to obtain any sense of legitimacy. And that's not a system that works. Its a system where a team can lose a tough game on the road mid-season and be eliminated; a system where a team could blow a game at home and still be a contender; and a system where a team can go undefeated and be a non-factor.
.............................................................

The problem is compounded further in the context of college football because of the necessity of turnover in the roster. You begin the season with a very new team than the season before. Therefore, even moreso than in the NFL or pro sports in general, the teams improve as the season goes along, as the young players get more acclimated. The Ohio State team at the beginning of the season is not the same as the team at the end. But yet they can be eliminated at the beginning all the same. That's silly.

Its a system that places far too much emphasis on the regular season. And the regular season in college football is a joke. Ohio State played ultimately more than half of the season against teams that didn't have a realistic chance of beating them, so it was hard to get excited about those games. And once they lost in Madison, you knew their BCS chances went out the window. It was probably the most boring Ohio State season I've seen in years. Maybe that's because of my age and day-to-day responsiblities distracting me or possibly because Jim Tressel is a victim of his own success. But I, and many others I know, really lost interest in college football after that day.
...........................................................

I define the term "legitimacy" to mean that a champion is more accepted or understood to be deserving. You point to the Pats-Giants SB as an example of a playoff being no more legitimate. Where was the outcry about the legitimacy of NY's championship? Did anyone on the Patriots even complain about how they were more deserving? They knew the system, the rules. And they had complete control, at the end no less, to determine the outcome.

The reason playoff proponents say "every other sport has a playoff" is to point out the decided lack of controversy over those playoffs. No one is arguing that the NFL should just match the AFC team with the best record against the NFC team with the best record. In those sports that have a playoff, its a generally accepted system of crowning a deserving champion. Thus, the champions are considered legitimate because no one else has an argument. Its not the same with the BCS. Just look at the length of this thread, which gets longer every year. Its not a generally accepted system, and therefore, its legitimacy can certainly be questioned.
.............................................................

I obviously want a playoff, but I don't care what system they put in place. Anything is better than 2. It would make the regular season more exciting. It would add more control to the teams. It would encourage teams to schedule less cupcakes at the beginning of the year.

And if the powers that be are still stubborn about a playoff, then I say scrap the BCS and go back to the old bowl system. At least then, New Year's Day was fun. We had the Rose and Fiesta at 4; and the Orange/Sugar at 8. This year, we have Oklahoma and UConn as the nightcap on 1/1/11. That's depressing. The whole damn system is depressing and anti-climactic.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'm with Zurp. If Ohio State had gone 12-0 and that wasn't enough to get them to the title game, then I'd say Ohio State should do a better job scheduling.

I'd rather have a 12-0 big school not get a shot at a NC than I would allow some 2nd tier, 8th ranked (or worse, 16th ranked) team get a shot or actually win the title. Sorry - Villanova 1985 was not the best team in College Basketball. Georgetown was. Georgetown beat the Cats 3 times out of 4 games that season. Georgetown was 10+ games better in the win loss column. But, Nova is the Champ? And you ask about "fairness?" What the hell is fair about Georgetown having to play Nova for a 4th time that season, having won the 1st 3 contests?

I'm more interested in my CFB champion being the best team over the course of a season, not the "hottest" at the end of it.

 

[OH10]

I'm with Zurp. If Ohio State had gone 12-0 and that wasn't enough to get them to the title game, then I'd say Ohio State should do a better job scheduling.

How does Ohio State have any control over whether Miami is going to have a down year when they schedule these high-profile games years in advance? How does Ohio State have any control over how strong the rest of the Big Ten teams are or whether they played MSU this year?

That argument just seems a little too convenient since it didn't happen that way. If it had, I wonder what your tune would be.

I'd rather have a 12-0 big school not get a shot at a NC than I would allow some 2nd tier, 8th ranked (or worse, 16th ranked) team get a shot or actually win the title. Sorry - Villanova 1985 was not the best team in College Basketball. Georgetown was. Georgetown beat the Cats 3 times out of 4 games that season. Georgetown was 10+ games better in the win loss column. But, Nova is the Champ? And you ask about "fairness?" What the hell is fair about Georgetown having to play Nova for a 4th time that season, having won the 1st 3 contests?

I'm more interested in my CFB champion being the best team over the course of a season, not the "hottest" at the end of it.

Is the logical extension of your argument that college basketball should scrap its popular and well-accepted tournament? I suppose we need a thread for that, don't we? Any other specific examples in the last 25 years of college basketball where you want raise a question about the legitimacy of the champion?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Is the logical extension of your argument that college basketball should scrap its popular and well-accepted tournament? I suppose we need a thread for that, don't we? Any other specific examples in the last 25 years of college basketball where you want raise a question about the legitimacy of the champion?

SD - I was going to respond to your previous post, but decided not to because I really only wanted to mention one thing rather than repeat myself as I have in previous years on this topic. But, considering the above quoted text.....

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT PLAYOFFS ARE ILLIGITIMATE! I HAVE NEVER MADE THAT CONTENTION AND I TIRE OF HAVING TO EXPLAIN THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

How does Ohio State have any control over whether Miami is going to have a down year when they schedule these high-profile games years in advance? How does Ohio State have any control over how strong the rest of the Big Ten teams are or whether they played MSU this year?

That argument just seems a little too convenient since it didn't happen that way. If it had, I wonder what your tune would be.

They don't have control. Neither does Oregon. Neither does Auburn. It is what it is. You either go undefeated against a good schedule or you do not. What can I say? I didn't cry for Auburn in 2004, I'm not crying for TCU this year, and I sure as shit won't cry for Ohio State if they get "fucked"

You can wonder about my "tune" all you want.