College Playoff

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Interesting assumption. Not sure the Bowls would exist with the implementation of a playoff. Certainly not in the form they do now. If the best team a Bowl game could get is #17, I'd make the prediction that very few Bowls would survive, if any...

I think that some bowls probably would survive... maybe not... But.. I do think that the pool of bowl teams would certainly be worse. I mean.. what is it.. 70 teams out of 120 are going bowling? If you take the top 16 out of that pool, that number becomes 86 of 120. I'm not sure there are even 86 bowl eligible teams out there, so you'd have to have a reduction in the number of bowl games, or change the eligibility rules....

But.. either way, not a lot of folks lining up for tickets to watch East Nobody State (6-6) against Upper Midwest Technical Institute of Hula Hooping (7-5) knock skulls in the Iodized Salt Bowl.

 

[Mrstickball]

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.

Here is the simple fact about why picking 4 teams for the national championship is better:

The BCS provides the most lop-sided national championships of ANY football division. Look at the past scores in the BCS national championship vs. the Super Bowl. Only one BCS game has been decided by less than a TD since they started these games. Comparatively, five of the past ten Super Bowls were decided by less than a TD.

D1-AA is better. They've been decided by about 2pts less per championship than the BCS. 3 games were decided by less than a TD.
The NAIA is better. They've been decided by 3pts less per championship than the BCS. 3 games were decided by less than a TD.
D-3 is better. They've been decided by 3pts less per championship than the BCS. 3 games were decided by less than a TD.

Those kinds of stats are damning for the way they choose the participants in the BCS championships. If scores are being decided in blowout wins, can you honestly tell me that is the right way to decide the winner? Speaking of the 2004 Auburn team, no one mentions that Oklahoma lost in the worst blowout in BCS history, by a score of 55 to 19. Can anyone honestly believe that Auburn deserved it less than the Oklahoma team?

How is 4 teams fair? It gives twice as many teams a chance to prove they are the best. Even if other teams get snubbed, it is a much better system that gives great teams a chance of showing they are indeed the best. The scores prove that the best 2 teams are rarely in the championship game.

 

[Zurp]

Interesting assumption. Not sure the Bowls would exist with the implementation of a playoff. Certainly not in the form they do now. If the best team a Bowl game could get is #17, I'd make the prediction that very few Bowls would survive, if any...

I disagree with the "if any" part. I think they'll be OK. Many would fail, but as it is, there are something like 35 bowl games. The best some of these bowls can hope for is #50, and they aren't even guaranteed that. 35 bowl games and I think that number is increasing every year.

With 16 teams in a playoff, that's 15 games. I can see 15 bowl games getting eliminated pretty quickly. Then maybe 5 more over 5 years. But I'd see 10-20 bowl games surviving, similar to the way the NIT has survived over the years.

 

[Saw31]

The assumption was based upon not having a playoff system, not not making the playoffs.

12 (maybe 13) regular season games + 1 bowl = 13 (or 14) games.
12 (maybe 13) regular season games + 4 playoff games = 16 (or 17) games.

3 extra in either case.


In regards to whether or not the bowls would survive, I feel like they'd definitely survive. They wouldn't be NEARLY as large at the top, but they'd definitely survive. I could picture them cutting back to 20 or so bowls, which would then leave the top half of the bowl picture not that far from the bottom half and still having one hell of a TV deal.

It would be like the NIT of college football.

Schools are not on the hook to sell 17,000 tickets to NIT games. NIT tickets may get you in the door for 4 games on the same day. Apples and oranges. Bowl are about filling stadiums and hotel rooms. That's why the sponsors are there. The major Bowls would die for sure. TV money is not in endless supply. That money would go to the playoffs, not the "NIT of football". A playoff completely changes the economic system of the college post season and I would never assume any of these Bowls would survive.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Stickball -

Where your argument concerns the pollster's "love affair" with this team or that, you have identified a legitimate problem (in my opinion). But, what I don't understand is then saying that letting these same pollsters pick 16 teams makes the situation any better. It seems to me, the better solution to the specific problem of pollsters is to change the way polls are run - whether it's saying "we won't have a poll until week X" or "pollsters are required to consider A, B, and C" or whatever ... I voted in the BP poll, and frankly, if you're trying to be serious, it's not easy to vote on these things. It becomes easier, though, when you have some principles to base your vote on. Of course... who can "police" this? No one... Frankly, I think the "poll problem" is just the nature of the beast - and having a large number of voters does a reasonably decent job of limiting voter bias.... the inclusion of computers also helps. You could take only conference champs, rather than rely on a poll...but.. Troy v. Auburn is a snoozer in September, and it's a snoozer in December.

Your score analysis is interesting, but it should have some sort of acknowledgment that NCAA football scores tend to not be similar to NFL football scores. In other words, blow outs in CFB are, I think, far more common. Likewise, there's only speculation that a playoff would generate a more "balanced" championship game. I mean.... take Miami 2001... do you think they wouldn't have blown the shit out of virtually any contestant? We can't say for sure, of course.... but... it's not self evident, in any case, that a playoff would have produced a more compelling contest.

EDIT: This post was prior to Stickball's edit.

 

[Zurp]

Want proof that the BCS doesn't work? Look at the scores from the past few national championship games:

I guess I disagree that 1 vs. 2 should always be a close game. Maybe number 1 is that much better. Who knows?

You say College NC games margin of victory have been around 14 points, and Super Bowl margin of victory has been around 10 points. I'd be interested to see what the overall NFL margin of victory has been for all regular season games has been over that time. And what the overall college football margin of victory has been. And maybe limit that to just games between teams both ranked in the top 25.

 

[BrutusBuckeyeAZ]

What I said about 3 more games a year is OSU goes to a bowl game almost every year. That said it would be up to 3 extra games a year. Sloopy said it exactly as I was thinking.:osu:

 

[Saw31]

I think that some bowls probably would survive... maybe not... But.. I do think that the pool of bowl teams would certainly be worse. I mean.. what is it.. 70 teams out of 120 are going bowling? If you take the top 16 out of that pool, that number becomes 86 of 120. I'm not sure there are even 86 bowl eligible teams out there, so you'd have to have a reduction in the number of bowl games, or change the eligibility rules....

But.. either way, not a lot of folks lining up for tickets to watch East Nobody State (6-6) against Upper Midwest Technical Institute of Hula Hooping (7-5) knock skulls in the Iodized Salt Bowl.

Yes, I'm not making my assumption because of the number of teams available. But where the money goes. It will follow the playoffs.

Once you've shifted the focus to a national playoff, the Bowls will have a much less valuable product to sell. There would be some sort of value of investment threshold that would have to be met for the sponsors to stay involved with the Bowls. The big Bowls would surely die because you would be left with teams/programs (UConn this year) who could never fill their allotments to places like the Rose Bowl. Many of those tickets are bought up by corporate partners now, who would surely leave to the more prestigious playoff games, meaning schools would be on the hook for even more tickets and hotel rooms then they are now. How many of these smaller programs would just decline bowl invitations because it made no financial sense, once the $17mil payouts are gone? In my guesstimation, a playoff kills the Bowls, probably completely...

And someone will, at some point, mention "using the Bowls" for the playoffs. Well then, out goes the "regular season is not made meaningless because you're fighting for home field" argument...

 

[Saw31]

Stickball -

Where your argument concerns the pollster's "love affair" with this team or that, you have identified a legitimate problem (in my opinion). But, what I don't understand is then saying that letting these same pollsters pick 16 teams makes the situation any better.

Simple. 12 SEC teams and 4 at large...

:p

 

[SloopyHangOn]

Basically, it comes down to just wanting someone to identify a problem that the BCS has and explain how a playoff limits that problem (if not eliminates it) while also not coming with consequences which are a bigger problem (or as big a problem). It has always been my biggest "beef" with playoff proponents that they, for the most part, start with the premise "Playoffs are better" as if it's self evident. It's not. Likewise, I've invited people to give me one example of a BCS era Champion which is illegitimate and no one has, to my knowledge, been able to identify even one. To be clear, that's not to say people havent pointed to other teams which might have also been good enough to win (ie Auburn, 2004) - just that the inescapable fact is (or so it seems) - the BCS has given us legitimate champions since its inception.... Paired with the Villanova 1985 argument, I must confess, I am reasonably sure there is few arguments out there that will persuade me ... but... again.. I'm still open to a reasoned view.

I see.

Well, I personally would like to see a playoff. I'm in no position to suggest that it would be in any measurable way "better" by any metric, but I don't think anyone really could. The only way to really compare the success of a playoff in FBS college football (monetarily and by ratings to name a few) to the current BCS system is to actually have one to compare. It's literally the ONLY way to make a non-speculative (and thus factually based) comparison. So for anyone to really convince you that a playoff would reduce one of (in my opinion) the BCS's many flaws without bringing up new ones, there would actually have to be a playoff. I've read some well reasoned speculation on this subject on both sides of the coin in this thread, but you're not looking for a "can" you're looking for a "will". That's fair.

Conclusion: Can't argue for a "will" only for a "can". Stalemate.

In terms of the BCS eliciting an illegitimate champion, that's sort of a pointed debate, don't you think? Is the logic that if the BCS has never elicited an illegitimate champion (which is true) then there is nothing inherently wrong with the way the BCS crowns a champion and therefore no way to imply another method would be "better"?

That's sound reasoning, but as you've stated about Villanova in '85, during many years there are multiple teams capable of winning a playoff tournament and thus ALSO being crowned a legitimate champion. The BCS is designed to "place the best two teams in the title game". The legitimacy of that has been and is currently still up for debate. A playoff is designed to "place the best 4, 16, 64, etc. teams in contention for the title". The legitimacy of that has been and is currently also up for debate.

What is NOT up for debate, is the fact that both systems elicit legitimate champions.

Conclusion: In regards to legitimate champions, playoff = BCS. Stalemate.

I believe that you're capable of being persuaded, as any rational person would be. My only point is that many (if not all) of your main points of contention place you as an immovable force. That's the best position to debate from, but in my opinion not the greatest position to truly discuss from. That's all I'm sayin'.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Yes, I'm not making my assumption because of the number of teams available. But where the money goes. It will follow the playoffs.

Once you've shifted the focus to a national playoff, the Bowls will have a much less valuable product to sell. There would be some sort of value of investment threshold that would have to be met for the sponsors to stay involved with the Bowls. The big Bowls would surely die because you would be left with teams/programs (UConn this year) who could never fill their allotments to places like the Rose Bowl. Many of those tickets are bought up by corporate partners now, who would surely leave to the more prestigious playoff games, meaning schools would be on the hook for even more tickets and hotel rooms then they are now. How many of these smaller programs would just decline bowl invitations because it made no financial sense, once the $17mil payouts are gone? In my guesstimation, a playoff kills the Bowls, probably completely...

And someone will, at some point, mention "using the Bowls" for the playoffs. Well then, out goes the "regular season is not made meaningless because you're fighting for home field" argument...

I think you're probably right about that. Still, the NIT survives, so I figure there would probably be a handful of bowl games that make it.

As it concerns the original remark (which implied there being even more CFB to watch), though, I think a playoff would actually reduce the number of post season games.

 

[Mrstickball]

I guess I disagree that 1 vs. 2 should always be a close game. Maybe number 1 is that much better. Who knows?

You say College NC games margin of victory have been around 14 points, and Super Bowl margin of victory has been around 10 points. I'd be interested to see what the overall NFL margin of victory has been for all regular season games has been over that time. And what the overall college football margin of victory has been. And maybe limit that to just games between teams both ranked in the top 25.

FWIW, I edited my statement to include D-1AA, NAIA and D3 championships. Although they aren't as close as championship games, they are still between 2-3 points less than BCS games. I'd argue that the other college divisions are indeed a better comparison. They still prove my point.

Where your argument concerns the pollster's "love affair" with this team or that, you have identified a legitimate problem (in my opinion). But, what I don't understand is then saying that letting these same pollsters pick 16 teams makes the situation any better. It seems to me, the better solution to the specific problem of pollsters is to change the way polls are run - whether it's saying "we won't have a poll until week X" or "pollsters are required to consider A, B, and C" or whatever ... I voted in the BP poll, and frankly, if you're trying to be serious, it's not easy to vote on these things. It becomes easier, though, when you have some principles to base your vote on. Of course... who can "police" this? No one... Frankly, I think the "poll problem" is just the nature of the beast - and having a large number of voters does a reasonably decent job of limiting voter bias.... the inclusion of computers also helps. You could take only conference champs, rather than rely on a poll...but.. Troy v. Auburn is a snoozer in September, and it's a snoozer in December.

I agree that picking 16 teams for a playoff would be subject to politics, imperfections, and problems. However, I would rather them make a decision among 16 teams, and let these 16 teams (which at 16 teams, you'd arguably get the best of the best in college football), than hope they made the right decision with picking the best 2 out of 120.

No system will ever be perfect. To get a truly good system, you'd need too many games (probably a 24 or 32-team playoff...Which would likely be too many). However, any number of teams more than 2 will invariably produce a better champion.

And to add to that (to show my playoff bias), I would pay good money to see an SEC team play at Camp Randall in December. It would really make the SEC put up or shut up when they have to play NFL-caliber football that requires teams to play all over the country, unlike the SEC who gets bowl trips within their temperature zone every year.

 

[BB73]

Only one BCS game has been decided by less than a TD since they started these games.

OK, the USC-Texas was the one that ended up less than 7 points.

I imagine you turned off the 2003 Fiesta Bowl since the 31-24 final in 2OT was so one-sided and boring.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Is the goal to make money? Yes? Well, you answered it yourself, "college sports' biggest revenue generator."

No, the goal is not to make money, it's to play the game, represent your university in the best possible light, and to crown a champion in the best manner possible. Football just happens to be the biggest revenue generator because it's the most popular college sport.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I agree that picking 16 teams for a playoff would be subject to politics, imperfections, and problems. However, I would rather them make a decision among 16 teams, and let these 16 teams (which at 16 teams, you'd arguably get the best of the best in college football), than hope they made the right decision with picking the best 2 out of 120.

No system will ever be perfect. To get a truly good system, you'd need too many games (probably a 24 or 32-team playoff...Which would likely be too many). However, any number of teams more than 2 will invariably produce a better champion.

And to add to that (to show my playoff bias), I would pay good money to see an SEC team play at Camp Randall in December. It would really make the SEC put up or shut up when they have to play NFL-caliber football that requires teams to play all over the country, unlike the SEC who gets bowl trips within their temperature zone every year.

I think LJB has the best proposal of all of them... not sure it's "perfect" but it's about as close as you can get.

LJB's proposal, in case anyone missed it, was to cut the fat. Get rid of teams that aren't really competing for the NC. I mean, let's face it... Toledo is never going to play for the National Title. New Mexico? No. Utah State? No. Let's stop playing pretend and cut the fat.

Once that's done, and you have 64 or so teams left at the big boy table (and to be clear, if Boysee qualifies for a seat at this table, so be it), you divide them up in to otherwise equal conferences. The NFL works in part because the leagues hardest schedule and the leagues easiest schedule aren't that far apart. In CFB the SOS of schools are wildly different.

So... anyway, all things being equal, the SOS consideration goes away. It doesn't matter if Auburn or USC or OU played a harder schedule on the way to 12-0. The schedules are, more or less, equal. Then you take X amount of teams. I suppose ideally, you'd have nothing but conference games and then take the conference champs, but I don't know that those numbers work out.

In that case, I could 'get behind' a playoff. You did something to earn it, the games still matter (you have to win your conf. afterall) and one Conf. is, for all intents and purposes, the same as any other.