College Playoff

[BB73]

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

Accusing knapplc of being completely biased toward the Univ. of Nebraska, I see.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Define "more important." That's a tremendously subjective term, and I'll just about guarantee that mine is a different definition than yours.

For me, those Sunbelt games on Tuesday nights are great TV, and I watch them every chance I get. So that's important to me. The worst of the bowl games is "important" because it's football.

Even if we go to a playoff system like D2 (or the FCS or whatever they're calling it these days), I want to have the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl and the Beef 'O' Brady bowl.

But for the championship, a seeded tournament is less flawed than computers and voters amalgamating their opinions in an evil brew of money and bias.

Then you disagree with Mili's selection process? It seems to me that using the BCS to determine who plays only invites the "flaws" of both systems. (Yeah, I could have phrased that as "maximizing the advantages of both" but I'm not arguing from that side ) But.. it's a serious question, none the less...

I'm with you on "more football is better"

But... when I say "more important" I'm talking about big boys.. Name me one sport where losing 1 game ends you having control of your destiny. That's pretty high level stress, no? Gotta win EVERY week....

 

[knapplc]

Accusing knapplc of being completely biased toward the Univ. of Nebraska, I see.

I keep telling you - we're NU, not UN.





Errr... well, we would be, if we had beaten Northwestern this year. Sucks that I have to call them NU for a year now. :vomit:

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Accusing knapplc of being completely biased toward the Univ. of Nebraska, I see.

Everyone knows the N in Nebraska stands for Knowledge. :p

 

[BB73]

NASCAR actually used to have the fairest way to crown a champion. 36 races, each one awarding the same number of points to the drivers, and the guy with the most points at the end of the year was the champion.

They put in the bullshit 'Chase' concept a few years ago, in order for the last 10 races to be similiar to a playoff format, and mostly ruined races 2 through 25.

I realize most folks don't care. I'm just mentioning it to show that there used to be an example of another sport where the entire 'regular season' was used to crown a champion, without playoffs, which have apparently been around for millenia.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

NASCAR actually used to have the fairest way to crown a champion. 36 races, each one awarding the same number of points to the drivers, and the guy with the most points at the end of the year was the champion.

They put in the bullshit 'Chase' concept a few years ago, in order for the last 10 races to be similiar to a playoff format, and mostly ruined races 2 through 25.

I realize most folks don't care. I'm just mentioning it to show that there used to be an example of another sport where the entire 'regular season' was used to crown a champion, without playoffs, which have apparently been around for millenia.

Baseball was in good shape too when they would take the AL champ and the NL champ (without any other divisions) and say, "have at it"

But.. even then... when you've got 162 friggin games to evaluate... I figure the team that wins the most has pretty much demonstrated that they are "entitled" to the trophy. Seattle won 116 games once. All they got was a "participation" ribbon

 

[Bucknut24]

NASCAR actually used to have the fairest way to crown a champion. 36 races, each one awarding the same number of points to the drivers, and the guy with the most points at the end of the year was the champion.

They put in the bullshit 'Chase' concept a few years ago, in order for the last 10 races to be similiar to a playoff format, and mostly ruined races 2 through 25.

I realize most folks don't care. I'm just mentioning it to show that there used to be an example of another sport where the entire 'regular season' was used to crown a champion, without playoffs, which have apparently been around for millenia.

agreed, all came down to TV ratings and $$$$, the championship was usually locked up with 3 races or so left

 

[knapplc]

Then you disagree with Mili's selection process? It seems to me that using the BCS to determine who plays only invites the "flaws" of both systems. (Yeah, I could have phrased that as "maximizing the advantages of both" but I'm not arguing from that side ) But.. it's a serious question, none the less...

I'm with you on "more football is better"

But... when I say "more important" I'm talking about big boys.. Name me one sport where losing 1 game ends you having control of your destiny. That's pretty high level stress, no? Gotta win EVERY week....

I am not well-versed enough with Mili's selection process to have an educated opinion. And I don't disagree with your phrasing "invites the 'flaws' of both systems" because that's exactly what it would do. In our current 120+ team division, there will have to be a ranking system, and using the system currently in place is the most palatable to those in opposition - a presumption on my part based on past conversations, of course.



Regarding the other sport where losing one game loses control of your destiny, that happens all the time late in the season in MLB, the NBA, even the NFL. Any sport with a playoff has teams that have to earn their way in to the postseason - including the 2007 Jints. Sure, they weren't undefeated at the end of the post-season, but their regular season earned them a spot in the post-season, and affected their seeding.

The argument seems to be that playoffs eliminate the drama of the regular season. This is untrue. There isn't no drama, there's just different drama. And late-season races are every bit as exciting as NCAA conference football games. They're far more exciting than non-conference games, that's for sure.

 

[buchtelgrad04]

But... when I say "more important" I'm talking about big boys.. Name me one sport where losing 1 game ends you having control of your destiny. That's pretty high level stress, no? Gotta win EVERY week....

I agree here, but one could argue that none of the teams are really in control of their own destiny when there's voters who can be swayed and ESPN. I firmly believe if that 2002 OSU team played the same exact way in 2011, they would've been #3. They just weren't sexy enough, and as good as the defense was, Bama's defensive numbers were better.

 

[knapplc]

I agree here, but one could argue that none of the teams are really in control of their own destiny when there's voters who can be swayed and ESPN. I firmly believe if that 2002 OSU team played the same exact way in 2011, they would've been #3. They just weren't sexy enough, and as good as the defense, was Bama's defensive numbers were better.

2001 Nebraska was an absolute travesty inflicted on college football. Certainly 2001 Miami deserved the title, but in no way, shape or form should Nebraska have been in that game. We may have had the same result (Miami winning) but the method of getting there stunk.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I agree here, but one could argue that none of the teams are really in control of their own destiny when there's voters who can be swayed and ESPN. I firmly believe if that 2002 OSU team played the same exact way in 2011, they would've been #3. They just weren't sexy enough, and as good as the defense was, Bama's defensive numbers were better.

That's a problem with ESPN and its influence, not the BCS.

 

[knapplc]

That's a problem with ESPN and its influence, not the BCS.

Come now. ESPN didn't influence anyone into putting Nebraska into the 2001 title game.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Then you disagree with Mili's selection process? It seems to me that using the BCS to determine who plays only invites the "flaws" of both systems.

The BCS isn't flawed in the way in racks and stacks teams (it usually does a pretty decent job of ranking the teams)...it's when the top three, four, five, or even six teams are so closely ranked (and when there is some disagreement by the human polls) that the system picking only two teams to play for the national title is what is flawed. Having a team one position higher or lower than it theorectically should be could cost it a chance at the title under the current system, whereas in a playoff system it would only cost it a seed position (provided it isn't the 17th-ranked team), which in a 16-team field isn't that big a deal.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

They're far more exciting than non-conference games, that's for sure.

Balance the schedules!

That's why the "every conference champion gets selected" idea sucks. (and no one seriously advocates for this "fairness") Troy v. LSU sucks in September, and it'll suck in December/January.

That's a bit of a coup by the NCAA BBall tourney... they've been able to be "fair" without actually being fair. East Nobody State gets "in" their "just happy to be there" they take they 40 point drubbing and go back to East Nobody State...

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The BCS isn't flawed in the way in racks and stacks teams (it usually does a pretty decent job of ranking the teams)...it's when the top three, four, five, or even six teams are so closely ranked (and when there is some disagreement by the human polls) that the system picking only two teams to play for the national title is what is flawed. Having a team one position higher or lower than it theorectically should be could cost it a chance at the title under the current system, whereas in a playoff system it would only cost it a seed position (provided it isn't the 17th-ranked team), which in a 16-team field isn't that big a deal.

I'd be happier with a 4 team playoff than your 16 team field, though. Sorry, but 9-3 West Virginia just doesn't "deserve" the same chance as 11-1 Texas...