College Playoff

[mross34]

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.

I would agree with this statement in 2001 and 2002 but I believe these years are the exception and not the rule.

2003 - Southern Cal (11-1)
2004 - Auburn (12-0)
2005 - Probably no other candidates that would have a great argument
2006 - Probably no other candidates that would have a great argument
2007 - Virginia Tech (11-2), Oklahoma (11-2), Georgia (10-2), USC (10-2), WVU (10-2), Hawaii (12-0)
2008 - Texas (11-1), Southern California (11-1), Utah (12-0), Penn State (11-1), Boise State (12-0)
2009 - Cincinnati (12-0), TCU (12-0), Boise State (13-0)
2010 - TCU (12-0)

These teams all had the same amount of losses or less than a team playing in a title game. I excluded teams that lost to a team who played in the national title game. This isn't even taking into account teams that had more losses than a team that played for the title but played a stronger schedule. I'm not arguing that these teams were as good as the teams that played in the title, just that they were subjectively excluded from title contention.

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.

There's an easy way to have a playoff and still make the regular season count: structure the playoff in a way that does so. For instance, a 12 team playoff where the top 4 seeds get byes and rounds 1 and 2 are played in the higher seeds home stadium. Or if that doesn't do it for you, have a 6 team tournament, where the top two seeds get a bye.

I'd also observe "Settling it on the field" is a bit of a bull[censored] 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.

Ah yes, but this elucidates one of the crucial points of my argument. USC sleepwalked through that game with Stanford. Would they be doing that in a national championship game?

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?

And if the 2001 'Canes were truly the best team in the country, they would have understood the importance of the games they were playing, played well in the clutch when it mattered most, and disposed of the clearly inferior opposition.

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.

The Giants won their game on Super Bowl Sunday. The Pats won their game on "some other Sunday." The Giants played better when it mattered most.

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.

These aren't simulated games. Players are fully aware of the stakes at hand. Nova settled that they played the better game when it mattered most.

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?"

To me this is a secondary question and doesn't have to be so polarizing. The way you structure a playoffs can have an influence on how much from each question you're drawing from. Furthermore, as I stated in my original post, I believe neither solution fully addresses your first question.

To me, the real analysis:

How do we crown a champion?
Current system: Is the championship going to be decided by being under-inclusive subjectively and leave teams out from proving their merit in an objective fashion?
Expanded playoffs: Or do we err on the side of being over-inclusive subjectively and allow all worthy teams (and perhaps an unworthy one or two) to prove their merit objectively?

Note: I used the word expanded in describing a playoff system because isn't the current system aren't we just using a one-round, two-team playoff where seeding is determined by the BCS?

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.

I'm more impressed with the team who rose to the moment (despite perhaps not being the "best") and lifted the title than I am with a team who didn't have to take on all worthy adversaries.

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.

I would agree with you if we were talking about a simulation. I have the same exact problems with fantasy football playoffs. The difference here is that players are well aware of playoff's games added importance. And to me, the way a player embraces or shies away from that moment is a huge part of sports. Without playoffs, Michael Jordan is just Karl Malone at the 2-guard.

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 bull[censored]. (Not that you've made all these claims, just saying generally).

I'm not saying they reveal a more true or legitimate champion. I'm just saying that it's a more true or legitimate process to go about crowning a champion. To have the two contenders for a championship be decided in 1/3rd by the coaches (a group of people who hardly take the time to watch national coverage) and 1/3rd by computer rankings that certainly aren't watching that games, certainly doesn't seem legitimate to me.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

mross - rather than quote you, I'll try to address your points without doing so (space saving attempt)

Your first point is about teams that were subjectively excluded from playing for the title. What I'm going to say here also goes towards one of your later points as well. The BCS process could be better. I agree with you that the coaches poll is not a particularly good way to go about it - and for the reason(s) you point out. The Harris poll is probably better, but even then, I'm surely not convinced those pollsters take their job as seriously as I do when I submit my BP poll ballot. But... in theory, it's a better approach. The AP? Well, let's just say I'm glad they're out. They could be a better source than the Coaches, but in today's age - they just don't seem to be interested in doing anything other than creating news... so...

But, anyway, having the Harris and the Coaches - and in as much as both polls are themselves made up of several voters - there's a bit of a check on the process. That is - if I think Boise State is #1 (and I would never think that ) my vote is offset by other votes and that tends to yield a more accurate rank. Of course, I admit that what is "accurate" is pure guesswork, but.. It's the nature of the beast when you're trying to find who's the "best" (Which, I do believe is the current goal of the system ... or was when it was originally introduced, anyway). For this reason, I also actually like the computers. To be sure, they have some fucked up rankings as far as I'm concerned, but they do offer another check on the human component.

In any event, after all that - I admit the process is not perfect and could be better even staying in the current BCS structure - but it's not subjective exclusion. Oh, maybe this voter or that voter says "I hate Auburn, I'm voting for TCU" but, over hundreds of voters... you have to believe there is an organized conspiracy to think teams are being subjectively excluded. I don't believe that.

As to your next point, I think 16 teams is too many. 12 is pushing it, in my opinion, but I think I could live with 8. I don't believe a team rated 8th has a "real" argument that it deserves a shot, but I'm not sure a 4 team tournament would do much for playoff proponents and it is just moving the line on "fairness" I mean - it's still not "fair" to the Sun Belt Conference or the MAC - but, no one is really worried about what's fair to them, I think we can agree. (leading me back to LJB's proposal of ending the charade and cutting the fat)

You and I will just have to agree that we are interested in different things for the other parts of your post. That's fine, there's no reason you need to approach CFB like I do, nor need I evaluate things the way you do. But, I simply cannot move past the concept that these games are "more important" than these other games. It, in my opinion, necessarily dilutes the process. Not sure that's the best way to say what I mean. I just mean, when it comes to playoffs - there's a necessary consequence built in - regular season games don't matter as much. I think you have to agree with me on that point, as I think you've argued as much in your post. We may disagree on the severity of that, but as to whether or not playoffs minimize the regular season to some degree, I think we have to agree it's true.... no matter what sort of incentives we might include - byes... higher seeds and home field, etc..

I earlier remarked how these incentives don't do it for me, and I won't restate those comments here. But, I will say, yeah.. I get that those things do play a role, and I admit I probably over minimize it... but... making the dance is the goal, HFA or a bye is... well... icing on the cake. I guess I look at it like this - if Ohio State makes the tourney as an 8 seed, do you think they'll take the tack "Well, we're just happy to be here" (ie a 16 seed in the NCAABB) or do you think they'll be of the mind, "we're here to win" Point being, who cares where they play.

You mentioned "when it matters most" a couple of times. I reluctantly concede you make a good point when you say pressure has a proper role in sports (your Jordan example) What I have a problem with, I guess, is moving "when it matters most" from every week to some set of weekends in December and early January. And... there's plenty of pressure in CFB as is... one might argue there is even MORE pressure because you have to perform every week to keep the dream alive, whereas in a playoff scenario, the emphasis is taken to a condensed number of weeks. I guess look at it like this - Jordan has to hit this shot to keep Chicago at the top of the national poll and in control of its destiny... and the date is November 3. How is that not more intense than if he misses that shot on November 3, no big deal... he'll still get a chance to do it in June (or whenever the hell NBA playoffs are... )

When Ohio State hit Holy Buckeye, it was a big big deal, right? And, yes, even if there were playoffs, we all would have really enjoyed that moment in time. But, if Ohio State lost that play, and the game, so what? It wouldn't have hurt as bad, that's for sure. And... maybe I'm wrong, but... what you have to lose is a big factor in pressure... probably more than what you have to gain.

Anyway... this has been a weird CFB season for me. The Auburn situation, how the NCAA dealt with it.... the media.... the politicking .... it's really turned me off of the sport I love most. Don't get me wrong, I still love college football, but this season.... well.. I have no confidence in the NCAA and I certainly don't trust the media's role in all this. So... the truth is, other than the "perception is reality" remarks I made earlier, the other reason I'd accept for a playoff is to take as much of that bulllshit out of the process as possible. Maybe I'm wrong on this point, but I do think the bigger the pool of teams eligible to play for the championship, the less influence the media can have over the process (they'd have to systematically and blatantly do the shit we think they do subtly now (say bad things about team A and good things about team B so as to influence their ranks)), though they'd still have an influence on the bubble.

For me... playoffs would be a failure... an admission that the system became so broken.... so... illegitimate (on an administrative level) that the only solution was to give in to playoff-mania.

 

[SloopyHangOn]

For me... playoffs would be a failure... an admission that the system became so broken.... so... illegitimate (on an administrative level) that the only solution was to give in to playoff-mania.

Yup. Lawyer.

 

[OSUScoonie12]

BKB, just a random question....what is your take on the NCAA Basketball tournament? Do you totally hate Cinderella teams because they aren't "the better team"? Just wondering since it is the same concept as a football playoff system.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Yup. Lawyer.

 

[mross34]

In any event, after all that - I admit the process is not perfect and could be better even staying in the current BCS structure - but it's not subjective exclusion. Oh, maybe this voter or that voter says "I hate Auburn, I'm voting for TCU" but, over hundreds of voters... you have to believe there is an organized conspiracy to think teams are being subjectively excluded. I don't believe that.

These people aren't being asked to vote based on what they think a reasonable person would vote for. They're being asked for their opinion of who is best. That, by definition, is subjective.

As to your next point, I think 16 teams is too many.

Agreed.

12 is pushing it, in my opinion, but I think I could live with 8.

I like 12 for the bye week structuring. I think it really provides an opportunity to incentivize the regular season.

I just mean, when it comes to playoffs - there's a necessary consequence built in - regular season games don't matter as much. I think you have to agree with me on that point, as I think you've argued as much in your post. We may disagree on the severity of that, but as to whether or not playoffs minimize the regular season to some degree, I think we have to agree it's true.... no matter what sort of incentives we might include - byes... higher seeds and home field, etc..

What about conference championships? One of the beauties of college football is the dual goal nature of the season: conference championship and national championship. Really the only aspect of college football I see this affecting is the life or death status of OOC matchups. Is it really so bad that teams wouldn't be afraid to schedule more big OOC matchups?

I guess I look at it like this - if Ohio State makes the tourney as an 8 seed, do you think they'll take the tack "Well, we're just happy to be here" (ie a 16 seed in the NCAABB) or do you think they'll be of the mind, "we're here to win" Point being, who cares where they play.

Is a team's state of mind really the issue here? Home field advantage is a huge advantage in college football regardless of whether the road team comes to play or not.

You mentioned "when it matters most" a couple of times. I reluctantly concede you make a good point when you say pressure has a proper role in sports (your Jordan example) What I have a problem with, I guess, is moving "when it matters most" from every week to some set of weekends in December and early January. And... there's plenty of pressure in CFB as is... one might argue there is even MORE pressure because you have to perform every week to keep the dream alive, whereas in a playoff scenario, the emphasis is taken to a condensed number of weeks. I guess look at it like this - Jordan has to hit this shot to keep Chicago at the top of the national poll and in control of its destiny... and the date is November 3. How is that not more intense than if he misses that shot on November 3, no big deal... he'll still get a chance to do it in June (or whenever the hell NBA playoffs are... )

Again this comes back to my conference championship argument. We're not talking about November games here. We're talking about September games. Personally, I would rather when it matters most to happen in December than in September.

When Ohio State hit Holy Buckeye, it was a big big deal, right? And, yes, even if there were playoffs, we all would have really enjoyed that moment in time. But, if Ohio State lost that play, and the game, so what? It wouldn't have hurt as bad, that's for sure.

Ohio State misses that play and Iowa wins an undisputed Big 10 championship.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

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.

yeah, but in fairness to CBB.........fuck Georgetown.

 

[Nicknam4]

I'd like an 8 or 6 team playoff. Nobody goes undefeated without being left out, the best teams with 1 loss also get a chance, and best of all, the regular season still matters.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BKB, just a random question....what is your take on the NCAA Basketball tournament? Do you totally hate Cinderella teams because they aren't "the better team"? Just wondering since it is the same concept as a football playoff system.

I neither hate nor love Cinderella teams. Butler making the finals moved me as far as Michigan State making the finals. In other words, it was a non-factor to me. As much as I use the Nova example, I don't hate Nova either. I just know they weren't better than Georgetown... and it so happens that the facts back me up on that as well. None-the-less, I "accept" Nova as the NCAA champ that year. It doesn't really matter what I think.

I don't care about CBB as much as I do CFB, but I think your remark about the "concept" being the same isn't quite accurate. CFB and CBB are different sports, with different goals/objectives, with different scheduling problems (due to limited # of games) etc.. I don't want to detail that again here, but wanted to mention that I reject the idea that CBB playoffs and CFB playoffs are conceptually the same. (Although, obviously they DO share similarities as well).

I'd like an 8 or 6 team playoff. Nobody goes undefeated without being left out, the best teams with 1 loss also get a chance, and best of all, the regular season still matters.

Nobody? How high do you think Ball State is going to be ranked if they run the table against some bullshit schedule?

 

[IronBuckI]

I'd like an 8 or 6 team playoff. Nobody goes undefeated without being left out, the best teams with 1 loss also get a chance, and best of all, the regular season still matters.

Undefeated Tulane gets left out in '98. Undefeated Marshall in '99. Undefeated Boise St. in '04 and '08. Undefeated Hawaii in '07.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

These people aren't being asked to vote based on what they think a reasonable person would vote for. They're being asked for their opinion of who is best. That, by definition, is subjective.

I agree, of course. My point is - to the extent that CFB is designed to crown "the best" as its champ - polling is consistent to that end. I agree also that it's subjective. Nature of the beast, in my opinion. So, those things I mentioned (internal/external checks and balances), I think, add a certain .... credibility? .... to the exercise.

I like 12 for the bye week structuring. I think it really provides an opportunity to incentivize the regular season.

Does 10-2 Mizzu (BCS 12th) really "deserve" a chance? Speaking of subjectivity, a couple of comments.
1) Where we draw any line is subjective. No way around it. Just saying, there's always subjectivity.
2) If we use the BCS ranks, we take along the same problems it has which the Playoff proposal is supposed to eliminate. I concede, however, that taking 12 (or 4, or 8, or even 16) would essentially operate as another "check and balance" on the polling system like I say above.

I don't say these things so as to "poo poo" the idea so much as to illustrate how I think playoffs aren't inherently better - just inherently different.

What about conference championships? One of the beauties of college football is the dual goal nature of the season: conference championship and national championship. Really the only aspect of college football I see this affecting is the life or death status of OOC matchups. Is it really so bad that teams wouldn't be afraid to schedule more big OOC matchups?

Well, as to conference championships, I think we can see even in todays BCS age, focus on a conference championship is not as important as the national title. Don't get me wrong, the conference champ thing is still important - and as Tress says, to win the NC you have to win the Big 10 too, so.. it's... still necessary, I guess (Although, in a Playoff situation not really).... But... and using basketball again... It's nice when Ohio State wins the B10 title and the B10 Tourney... but... unless a trip to the NCAA hangs in the balance... that's all it is.. "nice" I don't mean to under emphasize a championship.. I'm just saying there is an real effect on some level or another. I'm not sure how old you are, but I can remember when Ohio State played for a Big 10 title, and any national recognition was "icing" on the cake. As much as we make fun of the SEC for it - they still believe winning the SEC is more important.. and in that regard, are "appropriately old school" on the matter.

I can see teams scheduling one of two ways - A) as you suggest - not being afraid of one loss, a team might be more inclined to schedule a tough OOC game. and B) Needing as many wins as possible, and expecting tough conference play, teams will schedule cream puffs OOC so as to keep the winning .pct at 1.000. We can argue the costs and benefits of each theory, but it should come as no surprise I'm more inclined to think scheduling wins will be the paramount objective. But, Michigan State seems to load up on some quality teams in basketball and I have to think that a big reason for that is knowing that a loss doesn't kill em. The tolerances are different, between CBB and CFB, but.... I can still see your point, I just don't have much confidence that's the way it would play out in reality.

Is a team's state of mind really the issue here? Home field advantage is a huge advantage in college football regardless of whether the road team comes to play or not.

Yes, state of mind is an issue. My quarrel with HFA is probably more adequately outlined in your second sentence. "Huge advantage?" I just don't think it is. Again, I under value these factors (playing at home, playing at night, etc.) than most, but being as fair as I can, I can only say that these things play a minimal role. As I said to Mili - I don't give Ohio State a "break" because they lost to Wisconsin on the road (at night) It's not "ok" it's not "acceptable" and so on. I imagine it's more fun to play in front of your crowd... I imagine there's a coaching card to be played in the "protect this house" angle... but.. at the end of the day, the better team should win, regardless of location. It's not like Ohio State has to ride a bus or a train for 2 days to get to Pasadena. I can wake up in Columbus Ohio this morning, and by the time I go to bed, be in Europe none the worse for wear. Meaning, of course, HFA as effected by travel, is less a factor than the olden days where HFA had more "real world" effect.

Again this comes back to my conference championship argument. We're not talking about November games here. We're talking about September games. Personally, I would rather when it matters most to happen in December than in September.

And that's the thing I don't understand in your position. What difference does it make as to when we decide the games mean more? I mean, you're just drawing a line somewhere, aren't you? I like getting excited for Ohio State v. Miami, Fla in September and I don't think playing that game in November would change anything in and of itself. You might say, sure it does, because there's a season on the line at the point... and I'd say, there is a season on the line in September as well...and furthermore, moving... say... Illinois to September and Miami to November has a net effect of essentially zero. That is - a Nov. match-up v. Illinois has increased importance dependent on where OSU stands record wise that week.. making the Ill game "more important" in Nov. than it might be in Sept. I don't see the problem in that.

More to the point, I just don't understand the point in moving all the excitement to a handful of weeks at the end of the year, rather than having that excitement disbursed throughout the year. I prefer to "get up" for big, important games in Sept. It just makes the season more interesting, in my opinion (keep in mind, as I discussed above, I come from the angle that Playoffs will reduce OOC schedule, not enhance them).

 

[Nicknam4]

Undefeated Tulane gets left out in '98. Undefeated Marshall in '99. Undefeated Boise St. in '04 and '08. Undefeated Hawaii in '07.

...I stand corrected.

 

[CookyPuss]

When TCU has played in as many Rose Bowls as the team that has won at least a share of the last 6 Big 10 Championships, it's time for a playoff.

 

[OHSportsFan]

When TCU has played in as many Rose Bowls as the team that has won at least a share of the last 6 Big 10 Championships, it's time for a playoff.

It'd be quite the playoff run to be making right now.

 

[IronBuckI]

When TCU has played in as many Rose Bowls as the team that has won at least a share of the last 6 Big 10 Championships, it's time for a playoff.

Actually, the way to remedy a lack of Rose Bowls for the Big Ten Champion is to go back to the old Bowl System. That would have given Ohio State four Rose Bowl appearrances since the BCS has been in place, but likely zero national titles.