College Playoff

[BB73]

Thanks, BB73...

"We're not the BCS, where the polls and the power ratings and all of that ridiculous stuff matters. This is a legitimate sport."

I'm sure you know I was being sarcastic with Van Gundy's quotes.

In the NBA, Van Gundy doesn't have to convince voters about anything. But in one playoff series he'll complain about the opposing coach lobbying for calls from the refs between games, and in the next series he does the same thing.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

From a statistical point of view, a playoff really isn't appreciably better than the BCS. The sample size of head-to-head matchups isn't sufficient to determine which team is truly the "best". That's a red herring. The advantages of a playoff are 1) perceived legitimacy and 2) more awesome, Armageddon-type games around New Years. At worst, a playoff is as good as the BCS; at best, we get a few more cataclysmic showdowns between mega-programs (who wouldn't have wanted to watch a playoff with Oklahoma, USC, Florida, and Texas?).

Even if we had a playoff, people would complain about the seeding or game location or weather or color of the grass. On the other hand, it could potentially be much more entertaining. That's where I find the appeal.

I figure you're right with the "perceived legitimacy" argument. But, I would also point out you should also put "perceived more awesome Armageddon-type games" too since the scenarios I ran didn't really produce any that were appreciably better than the current bowl system. But, I only ran 3 scenarios, and there are other ways to put them together which might yield such results. Really, though, that just amounts to the same unprincipled arbitrary set of contestants than is the current BCS (which limits the set to 2).... I mean, taking the top 4, and then playing winners take all the following week, would yield the "great match-up" you're talking about... but... of course, how are we to decide which 4 "deserve" it...

And,... really... is a 4 team playoff really what playoff folks are asking for?

And, BB73, yeah, I'm aware..

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

If Texas deserves something, show me how we can accommodate them without inviting ... Sun Belt Champion Troy.... etc..

It's always a matter of preference. Some people would be willing to abide by SunBelt Champion Troy (or more realisitically, 4-loss ACC champion VPI) in order to ensure that any team that has a legitimate claim for a spot in the title game can play for it.

The idea of a 4-loss team being shown the door in the 1st round of a 16-team playoff bothers me far less than the fact that one of Texas or Oklahoma ends up not in the championship game based on an admittedly imperfect system.

I will never say that playoffs are a perfect system. There will blowouts in the 1st round. There will be blowouts in the 2nd round. Hell, there would eventually be a 3 or 4-loss national champion one year. I just find these faults less undesirable than the flaws in the current setup.

I still don't care all that much. I'll wait until OSU gets left out before I really get fired up.

 

[ScriptOhio]

In reality, the college football does use the "hottest team" equation in picking the BCS teams. If a team loses the second or third week of the season, that team has time to win the rest of their games and get into the BCS title game. Therefore they "got hot" and went on a winning streak. Now take a team who loses a game late in the year. They have no chance of getting into the BCS game.

I think that's a pretty loose definition of "hot" teams... if you lose in the third week of the season, and it's your only loss, I'm more likely to credit a season long "body of work" and not "being hot" for the last 8 weeks....

You guys have it all wrong, here's my definition of a "HOT" team:

 

[blueinfla]

And,... really... is a 4 team playoff really what playoff folks are asking for?

I don't want a 4 team playoff. I'd accept it, but I'd rather have 16. I like the Wetzel Plan that takes the 11 conference champions and 5 at-large.

There's the proposed Wetzel plan for 2008.

 

[TheIronColonel]

What, no Michigan?

 

[blueinfla]

I don't want a 4 team playoff. I'd accept it, but I'd rather have 16. I like the Wetzel Plan that takes the 11 conference champions and 5 at-large.

There's the proposed Wetzel plan for 2008.

Okay, so..... there are a couple intriguing matchups in that list. Well, the Boise St vs. Penn St game for one. Any other sound intriguing in the first round?

Second round could be really good. USC vs. Bama could be a great game.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Okay, so..... there are a couple intriguing matchups in that list. Well, the Boise St vs. Penn St game for one. Any other sound intriguing in the first round?

Second round could be really good. USC vs. Bama could be a great game.

I'd boycott any tournament format that gives an automatic bid to the Sun Belt and Conference USA champs. That is absurd.

 

[blueinfla]

I'd boycott any tournament format that gives an automatic bid to the Sun Belt and Conference USA champs. That is absurd.

Do you really think any of those lower tiered schools have a chance of beating a top 5 team at their home stadium? The addition of those small schools rewards them for a good season, and also gives the top 3 or 4 teams an "almost" automatic bid into the second round. I don't see any harm in letting those teams get a chance to play. The biggest problem with the BCS is that it excludes. If nothing else, no one will be able to say that this playoff structure excludes. And, in this structure, something like the top 8 ranked teams make the playoff, which is more than enough to account for the BCS schools. Anyone outside that top 8, really doesn't have a legitimate claim for the title.

 

[blueinfla]

I'd boycott any tournament format that gives an automatic bid to the Sun Belt and Conference USA champs. That is absurd.

From the Wetzel Plan:

Even the lousy conferences. While no one would argue that the Big South champ is one of the top 16 teams in the country, there are multiple benefits of including champions of low-level leagues. First is to do what the apologists claim a playoff would ruin ? maintain the integrity and relevancy of the regular season. While the idea that the season is a four-month playoff is both inaccurate and absurd, there should be a significant reward for an exceptional season.

The chance for an easier first-round opponent ? in this case No. 1 seed Oklahoma would play No. 16 Buffalo ? is just that. Earning a top two or three seed most years would present a school a near breeze into the second round, a de facto bye.

Drop to a four seed in this year?s scenario and you are dealing with a pretty tough Virginia Tech squad.

On the flip side, it brings true Cinderella into the college football mix for the first time. Is it likely that Tulsa could beat Oklahoma? Of course not, but as the men?s basketball tournament has proven, the mere possibility (or even a close game) draws in casual fans by the millions.

Perhaps the most memorable college football game of the last few years was Boise State-Oklahoma, in part because Boise was the unbeaten underdog that wasn?t supposed to win. When it did, in dramatic fashion, it became the talk of the country. There would?ve been historic interest in seeing if the Broncos could do it again the following week.

Why wouldn?t college football want that?

 

[BUCKYLE]

Do you really think any of those lower tiered schools have a chance of beating a top 5 team at their home stadium? The addition of those small schools rewards them for a good season, and also gives the top 3 or 4 teams an "almost" automatic bid into the second round. I don't see any harm in letting those teams get a chance to play. The biggest problem with the BCS is that it excludes. If nothing else, no one will be able to say that this playoff structure excludes. And, in this structure, something like the top 8 ranked teams make the playoff, which is more than enough to account for the BCS schools. Anyone outside that top 8, really doesn't have a legitimate claim for the title.

If no one outside of the top eight have a legitimate claim, then they shouldn't be included. The sun shines on a dog's ass somedays. Try to rationalize it any way you'd like, but the third place team in the SEC, B10, B12 all would have a more legit claim to being included in the tournament than any team from the Sun Belt or C-USA. What if either of those two end up with a conference championship game? Can you imagine a four loss team from the fucking sun belt being allowed to participate?

 

[buckeyemania11]

Do you really think any of those lower tiered schools have a chance of beating a top 5 team at their home stadium? The addition of those small schools rewards them for a good season, and also gives the top 3 or 4 teams an "almost" automatic bid into the second round. I don't see any harm in letting those teams get a chance to play. The biggest problem with the BCS is that it excludes. If nothing else, no one will be able to say that this playoff structure excludes. And, in this structure, something like the top 8 ranked teams make the playoff, which is more than enough to account for the BCS schools. Anyone outside that top 8, really doesn't have a legitimate claim for the title.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I'd boycott any tournament format that gives an automatic bid to the Sun Belt and Conference USA champs. That is absurd.

Bing-fucking-o. Fuck "automatic" bids. You put the top 16 teams ranked under the current BCS system or facsimile thereof. Granted, many of the the otherwise "automatic bid" teams will get in, i.e., the champs of the major conferences, but the idea of Puxantawny Central Catholic Tech getting in because they won the Buttfuck Central Highlands Conference is bullshit.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I don't want a 4 team playoff. I'd accept it, but I'd rather have 16. I like the Wetzel Plan that takes the 11 conference champions and 5 at-large.

There's the proposed Wetzel plan for 2008.

First, thanks, because you're the first playoff proponent in recent memory to actually post a fucking plan rather than anecdotes and mindless "mantra"

But, you're about 3 weeks to a month late See:

click the little arrow to go to this post

I think the first round in this proposal is shit. But I do agree that the 2nd round games and beyond, on paper, look pretty good. I'd have to run the scenario for more seasons than just last to have a better feel for the proposal and its advantages and disadvantages, of course, but as you see from folks like Kyle.... football fans aren't particularly thrilled with the prospects of a Sun Belt Champ Troy getting a shot at being National Champion.

The "true cinderella" argument.... Is he serious?

Wetzel seems to think people tuned in to the Boise OU game because they thought Boise had a chance.... to the contrary... people tuned in late in the 4th when it looked like Boise might pull it off... no one, before the game, said "Well, I'm gonna be all over the Fiesta Bowl Boise v. OU is HUUUUGEEE puset potential!" Thus his assumption that millions of viewers would watch East Shitsandwich State v. Southern Cal is a bit misuided if you ask me.

Likewise, the "cinderella" angle is pretty over played. One of these days Cinderella's gonna win it... that's a great story, of course.. But, I'm not in the business of manufacturing stories. Interestingly enough, Wetzel is... do the math. Regardless, you're kidding yourself, I think, if you don't believe there would be much yelling and screaming if one day 7-5 Upper Nobody State does the unthinkable and becomes your champion... (again, this is not an argument about a playoff's legitimacy... the 7-5 Champion would still be legit.... I'm talking about the consequences of an argument advanced by Wetzel not being all sunshine and roses as he advances.)

or worse... 6-6 Notre Dame.

 

[BUCKYLE]

As much as everyone likes to point to the popularity of March Madness, I just wanted to add that I think it's total bullshit that about ten of the teams in the tournament every year are even there. You can't convince me that the 7th/8th team from the ACC/B10/Pac10 wouldn't smash the sixteen seeds every year. When tOSU won the N.I.T. two seasons ago, they should've been in the NCAA instead of those sorry ass 16th seeds imo. It's the one major complaint I have with the basketball tourney. I'd hate to see the sport I love far more than college basketball head down the same path.