College Playoff

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

And if we never played, who is some bumfuck writer in a suit to tell me that another team "passes the eyeball test," so they get into the title game over me? To play a team they already lost to? If a team I beat 3 times already is the only thing standing in my way of the trophy, who's fault is it if I lose?

Being a championship team is just as mental as it is physical.

Or, being a championship team means you can lose 3 of 4 and still be "better"

I dunno... going 13-0 or even 12-1 seems to me to be more legit than going 10-3 or 9-4

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Actually, yes. When Texas came to The Shoe, Troy Smith was just coming off his two-game suspension. He was rusty and Justin Zwick wasn't exactly lighting it up either, and yet we still were a Hamby-drop away from winning. The team clearly gelled throughout the rest of the 2005 season under Smith, and were a totally different team at season's end. You mean to tell me that the Ohio State team that dismantled Notre Dame to the tune of 617 yards wouldn't have beaten Texas had they played the Longhorns instead of the Irish?

No.

I mean to tell you that Ohio State v. Texas counted in September of 2005.

And, I rather like that.

I have no idea if the Buckeyes would have beat Texas in January. All I know is they didn't get another shot. Tough shit.

All in all, I don't have any particular problem watching more football games pairing "highly ranked" teams. But, I don't pretend it's "better" than the BCS

 

[knapplc]

Or, being a championship team means you can lose 3 of 4 and still be "better"

I dunno... going 13-0 or even 12-1 seems to me to be more legit than going 10-3 or 9-4

I'm not denying that you have good points. The fact is that playoffs aren't a perfect system. They are the least flawed system. That's what I'm on about.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You can't parse my point into separate pieces. The regular season does not exist without a playoff, so winning the regular season head-to-head doesn't mean a thing for the question of "winning it on the field."

Why? Because you accept this arbitrary distinction and I don't?

It's not "my playoff system." It's the kind of round-robin/seeded tournament system that sports have been using for - literally - millennia. The bowl system has been around for what? Fifty years? It's such a wildly successful method of determining a champion that a grand total of zero other sports, worldwide, use a similar system. So it's not mine, it's yours. Or, rather, anyone who advocates this particular method of choosing a champion.

It's not a personal preference. It's the most logical system. And we know that because it's been used since.... forever.

Ah... the "lemming" argument. If the NFL jumped off a bridge, so should the NCAA?

 

[BUCKYLE]

I'm not denying that you have good points. The fact is that playoffs aren't a perfect system. They are the least flawed system. That's what I'm on about.

I'd argue that the "least flawed" system is the one that doesn't allow a clearly inferior team a shot at a NC. The one thing the BCS has not given us is a clearly inferior champ. Funny how when it's a playoff you say "four most deserving teams", but with the same people picking just two, it's all a bullshit popularity contest.

 

[Muck]

Which bowl games? The Poulon Weed-Eater bowl? The Meineke Car Car bowl? How do these help crown a realistic champion?

Wait, wait - are you talking about the consolation BCS bowls? The ones where the winner gets a little trophy and a participation ribbon? Those bowls help crown a champion?

Oh... wait. You're talking about that ONE GAME, between two teams, voted on by the media and some algorithms. That game.

And to you, that one game is all that's necessary to crown a champion because that's what the pundits and computers tell you.

I'll bet you just laugh and laugh and laugh at all those other silly sports that use a playoff to crown some hollow championship, while you sit back and watch college football and women's figure skating, secure in the knowledge that these sports - and these sports only - use a proper method for determining a champ.

Because whereas a single-elimination tournament takes the most-deserving four or eight or sixteen teams, the popularity contest takes two teams, and that's "better."

Totally see your point now. Thanks for clearing that up.

Wow a wall of text essentially illustrating my point.

Two quick questions:

1. Do you want to crown a national champion or do you want to identify the best team in the country?

2. Who is the 'real' Big Ten WBB champions? Penn State or Purdue?


In regards to the first question until playoff proponents understand that the two are very different things there is no point wasting time in discussion.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'm not denying that you have good points. The fact is that playoffs aren't a perfect system. They are the least flawed system. That's what I'm on about.

Well, that's your opinion... and it's supportable. It's just not self evident. I don't know what flaws you're talking about, however, since there hasn't been one BCS era champion which is "unworthy"

What's our goal here? I thought it was to determine a champion. Seems to me the BCS has done that.

Like I said to Mili - I don't have a problem seeing... #4 USC playing #12 Okie State, or whatever... I just don't pretend it's "better" than anything. It's just different. It is "accepted" by people...

But.. these half assed rationales kill me. Just say "I like playoffs better" and leave it at that. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's not falsifiable.. and it's certainly not self evident.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Muck's point about basketball tournaments is key. The fact that every team in the B1G has an equal chance to call themselves champion, should they "get lucky" and win 3 or 4 games in a row.. despite sucking pounds and pounds of ass for a whole season...

I dunno... winning 16 of 18 seems to me to be a better indicator of who "deserves" an invite to the "big dance" than winning 3 games...

 

[matcar]

I'm not denying that you have good points. The fact is that playoffs aren't a perfect system. They are the least flawed system. That's what I'm on about.

No, they are just differently flawed...

The last several years of NFL football have shown that single elimination playoffs do not determine the "best" team, merely the one that survived the gauntlet at the right time. That's fine/great and those teams that did so are no less worthy because of that statement, but that doesn't make them the "best" team that year.

As others have stated, the college football system has its own unique problems, but it is certainly a solid attempt at determining "best" based upon a season's body of work.

In the end, it's all what one prefers. And playoffs are coming whether some of us like it or not. And there will be MORE rematches, not less. Is that a good thing? I don't know...

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

Ah... the "lemming" argument. If the NFL jumped off a bridge, so should the NCAA?

No, but I wouldn't mind throwing both outfits off of a bridge.

Like I said to Mili - I don't have a problem seeing... #4 USC playing #12 Okie State, or whatever... I just don't pretend it's "better" than anything. It's just different. It is "accepted" by people....

Yeah, like USC will ever be eligible for post-season play.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I dunno... going 13-0 or even 12-1 seems to me to be more legit than going 10-3 or 9-4

So we should just fucking crown Boise State champion every year? I mean, it's obvious that their 13-0 record in the WAC trumps a 10-3 record in the SEC.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

No, they are just differently flawed...

The last several years of NFL football have shown that single elimination playoffs do not determine the "best" team, merely the one that survived the gauntlet at the right time. That's fine/great and those teams that did so are no less worthy because of that statement, but that doesn't make them the "best" team that year.

As others have stated, the college football system has its own unique problems, but it is certainly a solid attempt at determining "best" based upon a season's body of work.

In the end, it's all what one prefers. And playoffs are coming whether some of us like it or not. And there will be MORE rematches, not less. Is that a good thing? I don't know...

But there WILL be more football, and that is definitely a good thing.

Which is why I favor a playoff.

 

[knapplc]

Ah... the "lemming" argument. If the NFL jumped off a bridge, so should the NCAA?

I suppose you could label a working solution that has been deemed best by just about everyone for thousands of years as a "lemming" action. Kind of like how you drive a car to work (instead of a riding lawn mower) because, apparently, you're a lemming. Or how you eat with a fork instead of a wet noodle because, apparently, you're a lemming. Or how you wear a coat when it's cold because, apparently, you're a lemming.

Certainly you don't do any of those things because, over the course of time and many lives and many attempts to build a better mousetrap in any of the areas of eating, staying warm and commuting, the methods currently in use are used because they've proven to be the better system.

 

[matcar]

So we should just [censored]ing crown Boise State champion every year? I mean, it's obvious that their 13-0 record in the WAC trumps a 10-3 record in the SEC.

No, and since BSU has NEVER won the crown, I'd say the BCS is working in that regard.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Among those unique problems is wildly different strengths of schedule. No one argues friggin Ball State should be in the conversation if they go thru their schedule undefeated.

Frankly, the NCAA should end the charade that makes teams like Troy and San Jose State and Toledo think they're playing for the same championship Ohio State, Texas, Nebraska etc. are playing for.

Even out the schedules (and this is what I was referring to earlier re: BCS tweaks, SOS and MOV are important considerations when you have complete UNbalance) and then, all things being equal, a playoff makes more "sense" to me