College Playoff

[GulfScott]

Would it suck as much as 2007, when 2 loss LSU beat 1 loss Ohio St?

Well, you are right that Ohio St was a 1 loss team before the game, but after the game, LSU and Ohio St were both 2 loss teams.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

What difference does seed make? I probably undercut the value of seeding more than most, but.. really.. who cares what seed you are? This is exaggerated in your hypo by including the bowl structure. So, Ohio State gets to wear Scarlet in the Cotton Bowl instead of White? Big fuckin deal.

You're a lawyer? Seriously? And you can't fathom the value of seeding position? You know, playing a #16 seed vice a #9 seed, or getting to play the first round of playoffs at home vice on the road (if the system doesn't use bowls for the first-round). Here's an easy, black-and-white clear-cut example:

If we didn't lose at Wisconsin, we'd likely remained at #1 since we won out. Thus, we would play the #16 team (at home if system doesn't use bowls for first-round games), and would play the lowest remaining seeds throughout. With our loss, now we're #6 in the BCS rankings, and while we'd still play at home for the first-round game, we're now playing the #11 seed, and would most likely have to face higher-seeded opponents as we progress. Say all the highest seeds win their first-round games. If we were #1, we'd play #8 in the semi-finals. If we were #6, we'd play #3 in the semi-finals. And so forth. The road through the playoffs is much harder due to the loss at Wiscy.

So, your argument that a loss would be meaningless since we would still make the playoffs is as weak as the Michigan secondary.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You're a lawyer? Seriously? And you can't fathom the value of seeding position? You know, playing a #16 seed vice a #9 seed, or getting to play the first round of playoffs at home vice on the road (if the system doesn't use bowls for the first-round). Here's an easy, black-and-white clear-cut example:

If we didn't lose at Wisconsin, we'd likely remained at #1 since we won out. Thus, we would play the #16 team (at home if system doesn't use bowls for first-round games), and would play the lowest remaining seeds throughout. With our loss, now we're #6 in the BCS rankings, and while we'd still play at home for the first-round game, we're now playing the #11 seed, and would most likely have to face higher-seeded opponents as we progress. Say all the highest seeds win their first-round games. If we were #1, we'd play #8 in the semi-finals. If we were #6, we'd play #3 in the semi-finals. And so forth. The road through the playoffs is much harder due to the loss at Wiscy.

So, your argument that a loss would be meaningless since we would still make the playoffs is as weak as the Michigan secondary.

Mili, a couple things...

First, yes I can fathom the value of seeding. My being a lawyer doesn't play a role in that, but whatever. If you read carefully, you'll see that I freely admitted up front: "I probably undercut the value of seeding more than most" But, yes... I know playing a team rated 16 is "easier" than playing a team rated 4... at least in a vacuum. I remember #1 Ohio State losing to #18 Wisconsin, so... seeding maybe isn't as much a "gimme" (unlike the NCAA basketball tournament - and even then you still have the occasional 15 over 2 upset).

Second, you'll also be able to read that I said seeding was especially unimportant in your hypo where the bowls would be the locations for the games - and now you're changing the hypo. I will agree that seeding is a tad more important if home field is on the line.. but.. again, that wasn't your hypo... using the bowl structure was.

But, even then.... when Ohio State goes to Iowa, I expect Ohio State to win. When Ohio State goes to Wisconsin, Michigan, Texas... name it... I expect Ohio State to win. I don't give them a mulligan if they lose an away game... "Oh... that's OK. It's tough to play on the road." boo fuckin hoo. And... more often than not the Bucks do win. That's why I undercut seeding. Yeah... I get it... it plays a role on some level... I think that role is exaggerated. Just my opinion. (For what it's worth the addition of "at night" also does not move me much. Line up and play the fucking game. You're either better than them or you're not.)

And finally.... your conclusion....

So, let me understand you. If Ohio State had beaten Wisconsin, and was BCS 1 they'd draw Alabama (16). That's an easier game than Ohio State (7) v. Boise State (10)? What's as weak as the Michigan Secondary is your using ranks (and consequently seeds) as some kind of unilateral indicator where it is clearly NOT so in college football.

Easy roads... hard roads... it's a fuckin crapshoot. There's no magic to it when you actually examine the situation rather than talk in subjective generalities.

 

[zincfinger]

...the current system does reward who is playing the best at the end of the year, because teams who lose early have an advantage in the human polls over teams who lose late.

I agree, the current system gives some degree of reward to superior late-season play as opposed to superior early-season play. My point is, the advent of a playoff would dramatically enhance this preference for superior late-season play. If you don't particularly care about this factor, it's not a reason for preference for one championship system over another. If you do prefer that late-season play not be further prioritized over early-season play, it is a reason to dislike proposed playoff implementation.

One other problem: How do you know who played the best football, on average, over the course of an entire season?

You don't "know" the answer to that with or without a playoff. This goes, to some extent, to the point about the impossibility of determining a "true" champion from among 120/65 teams in ~15 games, assuming you don't flat-out dissolve conferences altogether. But the real point is that the current system (and moreso the previous system) at least were predicated on making this subjective determination, as opposed to any proposed expanded playoff system, where total-season performance becomes officially a largely secondary consideration.

What I vehemently disagree with is the argument that interest in the regular season would decline substantially. In what tangible way would this occur? Who is going to stop watching/attending/talking about games?

You're going back to the marketing/money-making argument. I'm not concerned with Nielsen ratings or "water cooler discussion" here. I'm concerned with September-through-January entertainment value.

I personally will watch college football with or without a playoff. What I'm saying is that, with a playoff, the outcome of the regular season objectively becomes less critical. And for me, that detracts from the entertainment value of the regular season. I mentioned this earlier with a specific example here (in the event you're interested).

 

[JXC]

Why don't they just try it for a few years...and if it sucks, go back to the bowl system. If it's better...keep it.

I do feel though that any playoff system needs homefield advantage to work on many levels. If they ever come up with a playoff, and don't have that, that will be a big mistake.

 

[zincfinger]

Why don't they just try it for a few years...and if it sucks, go back to the bowl system. If it's better...keep it.

Because bureaucratic expansion is always permanent. A "let's try it, and if it doesn't work, we'll revert" argument is a false enticement to attract the gullible. Because in reality, if it doesn't work, that will only lead to further ways to expand it in the illusory quest for something that "works".

Many, if not most, people are dissatisfied with the BCS, and feel that it hasn't furthered its stated goal. Has that led to any serious effort to return to the pre-BCS system? No. It's only led to discussions that what the BCS started should be furthered. Similarly, if we "test" a playoff system and find the result unsatisfactory (which I believe is inevitable), whatever damage is done will be irrevocable, and the only option toward "fixing" it will be to do more of the same.

 

[Steve19]

We're not going to have a playoff because that means it becomes an NCAA tourney. Less money for the universities and more for the NCAA. It ain't never gonna happen.

I'd have some sympathy for playoffs, except for this point. After Reggie Bush and now Cam Newton, to hell with the NCAA.

 

[mross34]

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.

BKB, I think you've made the best possible argument you could make for a playoff. I've found it admirable and it's been highly persuasive, but you haven't persuaded me enough to push me over to your side.

In short, here's why: what you're looking for in a playoff, is not what I'm looking for in a playoff. You seem to be arguing against the concept that a playoff ensures a title for the best team, or at the very least does so better than the BCS. Whether a playoff or a BCS would be better at crowning the best team could be argued endlessly with neither side getting anywhere.

But here's what a playoff does ensure: the debate is settled on the field. After a playoff, there are no excuses. If a team gets knocked out, it gets knocked out. The fact that a team didn't walk home with a crown can be attributed to their own performance. They just didn't live up to the moment.

So the Pats beat the Giants in the regular season. The stakes on the line there were enormous for the Pats: the first 16-0 regular season in NFL history. The Giants had some serious reasons to come to play too, but the Pats won. Come Super Bowl Sunday? The Patriots couldn't win the game they needed to win to take home the Lombardi Trophy. But at least it was settled on the field.

Same thing with the Georgetown-Villanova matchup. Georgetown won the match-ups in the regular season. As a result of their wins, they went on to grab the Number 2 seed in the Big East Tournament, a tournament they went on to win. But when the NCAA championship was on the line, Villanova stepped up and won. It was settled on the court.

A playoff might not crown the very best team every single year, but it will ensure that the championship debate is settled on the field.

 

[Muck]

Less money for the universities and more for the NCAA

A point that is stressed nearly often enough.

A playoff might not crown the very best team every single year, but it will ensure that the championship debate is settled on the field.

Tell that to Miami (2002) fans.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Why don't they just try it for a few years...and if it sucks, go back to the bowl system. If it's better...keep it.

I do feel though that any playoff system needs homefield advantage to work on many levels. If they ever come up with a playoff, and don't have that, that will be a big mistake.

Because once you give the mid-majors their equal status in a playoff format, it's for life. I don't see any way to subsequently kick them out and go back to the bowl system without massive lawsuits and payoffs.

And once you give it to them, don't expect them to sit quietly. There will always be something more they want (bigger slice of the pie, doing away with home field advantages, mandated home and home series during the regular season, tv revenue sharing on a national basis and so on and so forth).

 

[zincfinger]

But here's what a playoff does ensure: the debate is settled on the field.

Of course, the counter-point is that a playoff ensures no such thing. It ensures that, according to arbitrary definition, the team that wins the right games will be champion, with at best partial regard to how many of the wrong games they failed to win.

 

[mross34]

Of course, the counter-point is that a playoff ensures no such thing. It ensures that, according to arbitrary definition, the team that wins the right games will be champion, with at best partial regard to how many of the wrong games they failed to win.

Please clarify.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

We're not going to have a playoff because that means it becomes an NCAA tourney. Less money for the universities and more for the NCAA. It ain't never gonna happen.

A point that is stressed nearly often enough.

Not sure how you gentlemen arrive at this conclusion. Monies derived from all rounds of the playoffs--from the first round all the way through to the NC game--should be distributed just as they are for bowl games. Let's look at the payouts from the last BCS bowls (ref link):

The Bowl Championship Series will distribute $142.5 million of revenue from its five bowl games, with 81 percent of it ? $115.2 million ? going to the big six conferences.

The majority of the rest ? $24 million ? goes to the coalition conferences: Mountain West, Western Athletic, Conference USA, Mid-American and Sun Belt. Notre Dame, as an independent member of the BCS, takes $1.3 million

$142.5 mil - 115.2 mil - 24 mil - 1.3 mil = $2 mil remaining

Even if the NCAA gets the entire remaining $2 mil, that's only 1.4% of the bowl revenue. I have zero problem with that. Now, assuming the current BCS bowls are incorporated into the quarter-finals, semi-finals, and title game, there's still the eight opening round games and several quarter-final game that aren't covered by the BCS bowls. That's a shit-load more money to be made for the conferences.

 

[Steve19]

Not sure how you gentlemen arrive at this conclusion. Monies derived from all rounds of the playoffs--from the first round all the way through to the NC game--should be distributed just as they are for bowl games. Let's look at the payouts from the last BCS bowls (ref link):



$142.5 mil - 115.2 mil - 24 mil - 1.3 mil = $2 mil remaining

Even if the NCAA gets the entire remaining $2 mil, that's only 1.4% of the bowl revenue. I have zero problem with that. Now, assuming the current BCS bowls are incorporated into the quarter-finals, semi-finals, and title game, there's still the eight opening round games and several quarter-final game that aren't covered by the BCS bowls. That's a shit-load more money to be made for the conferences.

There was an interview recently with the new NCAA head. He mentioned that he was in favor of a national playoff and NCAA championship, IIRC. He also noted that the NCAA doesn't get enough of the money generated by bowls and that they want a lot more of it. Too busy to look it up, Mili, but I hope someone else will.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BKB, I think you've made the best possible argument you could make for a playoff. I've found it admirable and it's been highly persuasive, but you haven't persuaded me enough to push me over to your side.

In short, here's why: what you're looking for in a playoff, is not what I'm looking for in a playoff. You seem to be arguing against the concept that a playoff ensures a title for the best team, or at the very least does so better than the BCS. Whether a playoff or a BCS would be better at crowning the best team could be argued endlessly with neither side getting anywhere.

But here's what a playoff does ensure: the debate is settled on the field. After a playoff, there are no excuses. If a team gets knocked out, it gets knocked out. The fact that a team didn't walk home with a crown can be attributed to their own performance. They just didn't live up to the moment.

First, Thanks.

As to your contention that a playoff ensures that the debate is settled on the field - I guess that depends a good deal on what the parameters of the debate are. To illustrate what I mean, in 2008 there were probably three teams in that debate; Texas, Oklahoma and Florida. In 2002, there were only two teams in the debate; Ohio State and Miami. In 2001, there were no teams in the debate; it was Miami.

So, what I mean to say is - every season has been "settled on the field" as it were. If a team didn't walk home with the crown, it's usually because they lost, and if they didn't lose (Auburn, 2004) then it's because 2 other teams were more impressive over the course of the season.

And really, that last line, is the most important part as far as I'm concerned. The season matters in college football. People always remark how "silly" it is that college football is the only sport that doesn't have a playoff.... and those same people don't seem to acknowledge that CFB is also the only sport which has a regular season that counts for anything.

I'd also observe "Settling it on the field" is a bit of a bullshit idea. I've illustrated this before using Stanford over USC when Stanford was 41.5 point dogs. Stanford settled it on the field, did they not? But.. they weren't really better than USC - and if there were a playoff, Stanford would not have been in it, while USC would have none-the-less. That said, I don't have a problem with "settling it on the field" I just recognize that this idea isn't really as air tight an idea as a lot of folks want us to think it is. Upsets happen - that doesn't mean anything for or against a playoff, or the current system. It's just a comment on the nature of "settling it on the field" not really having much meaning.... or at least some sort of "absolute" meaning... or maybe even meaning worth striving for. I mean... taking 2001 again... how many playoff games would Miami have to win to prove that which they had already proven? No team was even close to the 01 Canes... and now they've gotta "Settle it on the field" 3 or 4 more times?

So the Pats beat the Giants in the regular season. The stakes on the line there were enormous for the Pats: the first 16-0 regular season in NFL history. The Giants had some serious reasons to come to play too, but the Pats won. Come Super Bowl Sunday? The Patriots couldn't win the game they needed to win to take home the Lombardi Trophy. But at least it was settled on the field.

But it wasn't. The teams were 1-1 "on the field" The Giants won their game on some Sunday and the Pats on some other Sunday.

Same thing with the Georgetown-Villanova matchup. Georgetown won the match-ups in the regular season. As a result of their wins, they went on to grab the Number 2 seed in the Big East Tournament, a tournament they went on to win. But when the NCAA championship was on the line, Villanova stepped up and won. It was settled on the court.

Except it wasn't settled. In fact, if anything had been settled, it's that Georgetown had demonstrated 3 previous times that they were the better team head to head against Nova. And ... they were made to "prove it" a 4th time. And they failed. Even taking the Championship games as even attempting to settle anything, all Nova settled was that they could win 1 in 4 games.

A playoff might not crown the very best team every single year, but it will ensure that the championship debate is settled on the field.

I can't really argue against the conclusion - it's true, it'll be settled on the field. I'm just not real sure that phrase has any particular meaning, and I would argue its suggested meaning is A) a matter of perspective and B) over-emphasized.

It seems to me this debate comes down to what our preferences are.

Do we want the team that is Champion to have been "the Best" team? or
Do we want the team that is Champion to have been the "Hottest at the right time?"

I don't know that either is "better" than the other. I do know I prefer statement 1 to statement 2. But, I know a lot of people who prefer 2 to 1. I am far more impressed with a team that goes 18-1 than a team that goes 14-5.

To be honest, they could get rid of playoffs altogether and I'd be generally happy with it. Don't get me wrong - brackets make for good gambling, fun games to watch many times, and so on. But... what they don't do for me is "prove" anything. They are an arbitrary selection of dates when the games are considered "more important" and I just don't buy it.

So, as it is - I'm basically just saying this: Have your playoffs. They're coming to CFB eventually, and there's not a lot people like me can do about it. But, don't pretend they are something they're not.... It's enough to say "I like playoffs better" and leave it at that. Because claiming they solve controversy, claiming they are "more exciting," claiming they settle it on the field, claiming they reveal a more true or legitimate champion is pure bullshit. (Not that you've made all these claims, just saying generally).

Actually, as I've considered the issue over the years, the strongest position in favor of playoffs actually appears to be "people think they're more legit, so they're more legit" That is, the "perception is reality" argument.