College Playoff

[Jaxbuck]

That kind of example is an anti-playoff argument, not a pro-playoff argument. Sometimes the lesser team wins. This is indisputable. It happened in the Oregon St./USC game last year, and in countless other games in any year. This undercuts the core claimed benefit of a playoff, that it presumably yields a more meaningful championp. It does not.

Can I get an amen from the congergation??!!

Hot team at the end rewarded with Chamionship = less importance on regular season accomplishments.

I for one do not want to see CFB's regular season, especially the rivalry games, screwed with.

 

[Best Buckeye]

I think the only fair way to arrive at a playoff schedule is to use the moogoogaipan method of integer calculations that interact with every numerical value between 0 and a googol, and of course discounting 2.0076% if you lose to Appalachian State..

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

Hot team at the end rewarded with Chamionship = less importance on regular season accomplishments.

Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? I mean the goal of any sport is to win the championship, the regular season is just a means of getting there. It's like a playoff leading up to the playoffs. Regular season accomplishments are nice, but postseason accomplishments are leaps and bounds more important, so shouldn't they be done right? Shouldn't they be determined by a playoff against eachother? Not computers and media opinions

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

When this thread got started, I felt like I must be the only person on the planet who was ambivalent about the issue. I was leaning slightly toward the play-off camp; but I didn't really care much.

The more the play-off proponents talk, the less I agree with them. I still don't care much... but even that is beginning to change.

I will say though, something will eventually be done to bring a play-off to college football. It may not be in my lifetime, but it will eventually happen. It is this realization that makes me think that perhaps I should care; because I thoroughly expect the powers that be to screw things up. They will ruin what we have (The Game being priority 1) and will give us something less desirable in its place. I no longer have any doubt of this.

 

[Steve19]

When this thread got started, I felt like I must be the only person on the planet who was ambivalent about the issue. I was leaning slightly toward the play-off camp; but I didn't really care much.

The more the play-off proponents talk, the less I agree with them. I still don't care much... but even that is beginning to change.

I will say though, something will eventually be done to bring a play-off to college football. It may not be in my lifetime, but it will eventually happen. It is this realization that makes me think that perhaps I should care; because I thoroughly expect the powers that be to screw things up. They will ruin what we have (The Game being priority 1) and will give us something less desirable in its place. I no longer have any doubt of this.

Listen, all we need to do is sell a few bonds, provide a bit of stimulus, and this thing is off and running.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? I mean the goal of any sport is to win the championship, the regular season is just a means of getting there. It's like a playoff leading up to the playoffs. Regular season accomplishments are nice, but postseason accomplishments are leaps and bounds more important, so shouldn't they be done right? Shouldn't they be determined by a playoff against eachother? Not computers and media opinions

You ask these questions like the answer is self evident.
Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? No. It's only been in my lifetime (38 years) that Colleges started playing for something other than a League championship and a nice vacation exhibition game against some other college team.

Second, you make the assumption that regular seasons accomplishments are "nice" but post season is more important. This may be true... I don't know... prove it. For my part, I think winning 12 of 12 games is far more impressive than winning just your final few. But, what the fuck do I know.

What do you mean by "done right?" What's so magical about playoffs? What makes them "right?"

Who are these "each other" you talk about? Do you mean just the Ohio State's, USC, Florida and Texas' of the world, or are you tossing in your Sun Belt and Mac Champions too? What's so "right" about that? How do you plan on selecting your participants... there's 120 teams to choose from, and they don't play balanced schedules....

Computers and media opinions... These techniques are not without their problems, I admit.. especially the human polls (which is why we have the fucking computers in the first place, if you recall - the computers are meant as a check on human bias) But, take a look back at the BCS era... Find me a BCS National Champion that didn't "deserve" their title. Just one. Show me an illegitimate champ and I'm sold. Understand, I'm not asking "who else might have been champ" I'm asking for a single champion who shouldn't have been champion.
1998 - Tennessee
1999 - Florida State
2000 - OU
2001 - Miami
2002 - Ohio State
2003 - LSU
2004 - USC
2005 - Texas
2006 - Florida
2007 - LSU
2008 - Florida

I've looked.. I don't see any team on that list who benefitted from the current system in such a way that I shouldn't recognize them as champ. Your turn.

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

You ask these questions like the answer is self evident.
Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? No. It's only been in my lifetime (38 years) that Colleges started playing for something other than a League championship and a nice vacation exhibition game against some other college team.

Second, you make the assumption that regular seasons accomplishments are "nice" but post season is more important. This may be true... I don't know... prove it. For my part, I think winning 12 of 12 games is far more impressive than winning just your final few. But, what the [censored] do I know.

What do you mean by "done right?" What's so magical about playoffs? What makes them "right?"

Who are these "each other" you talk about? Do you mean just the Ohio State's, USC, Florida and Texas' of the world, or are you tossing in your Sun Belt and Mac Champions too? What's so "right" about that? How do you plan on selecting your participants... there's 120 teams to choose from, and they don't play balanced schedules....

Computers and media opinions... These techniques are not without their problems, I admit.. especially the human polls (which is why we have the [censored]ing computers in the first place, if you recall - the computers are meant as a check on human bias) But, take a look back at the BCS era... Find me a BCS National Champion that didn't "deserve" their title. Just one. Show me an illegitimate champ and I'm sold. Understand, I'm not asking "who else might have been champ" I'm asking for a single champion who shouldn't have been champion.
1998 - Tennessee
1999 - Florida State
2000 - OU
2001 - Miami
2002 - Ohio State
2003 - LSU
2004 - USC
2005 - Texas
2006 - Florida
2007 - LSU
2008 - Florida

I've looked.. I don't see any team on that list who benefitted from the current system in such a way that I shouldn't recognize them as champ. Your turn.

It's quite obvious that postseason accomplishments are more important. Would you rather be the patriots and have the best record in the NFL or be the Giants with the ring. When it all comes down to it thats the reason the game is played, to get championships and be recognised as the best, the regular season is just a means of seperating the best from the rest.

You decide the teams with polls. Sure, human and computer elements are still involved, but their impact is lessend (sp?) If your not able to crack the top group of teams in the polls, you didn't earn the right to get to the playoffs.

There isn't a BCS champion that didn't "earn it" per se. But look at how many teams that got left out, that were obviously in the same class as the teams that played for the championship (Auburn 2004-05 for instance). So there's always a bit of doubt to taint a teams championship, and thats not what you want. Having a playoff out on the field gives the teams that earned it a chance to play for the title. Sure the 2004 Auburn Tigers might not have won a playoff, but they were 12-0 after the regular season. You don't think they earned a shot?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

It's quite obvious that postseason accomplishments are more important. Would you rather be the patriots and have the best record in the NFL or be the Giants with the ring. When it all comes down to it thats the reason the game is played, to get championships and be recognised as the best, the regular season is just a means of seperating the best from the rest.

A) I'm far more impressed that the Patriots were the best team in the NFL even though they lost to the Giants on some particular day.
B) Your "obvious" conclusion is based upon a premise which you have ignored and needs to be established. Again, there's no real reason we need a post season at all. You assume there is. Prove it.

You decide the teams with polls. Sure, human and computer elements are still involved, but their impact is lessend (sp?) If your not able to crack the top group of teams in the polls, you didn't earn the right to get to the playoffs.

I see. Hope you're not a fan of the mid major, because with this strategy they lose money big time. If you want proof of that remark, check out my Playoff Hypothetical threads which establish that. Likewise, why should we give #8 "a shot" when the difference between 1 and 8 is usually pretty significant? What if you have a season like 2002 with 2 undefeated... and what if your 8th team is 2 losses? What's so great about giving the 2 loss team a chance? what did they earn?

There isn't a BCS champion that didn't "earn it" per se. But look at how many teams that got left out, that were obviously in the same class as the teams that played for the championship (Auburn 2004-05 for instance). So there's always a bit of doubt to taint a teams championship, and thats not what you want. Having a playoff out on the field gives the teams that earned it a chance to play for the title. Sure the 2004 Auburn Tigers might not have won a playoff, but they were 12-0 after the regular season. You don't think they earned a shot?

I don't feel like Auburn got jobbed at all in 2004. They played a soft schedule comparative to OU and USC. Tough. Likewise, we can't just invite 04 Auburn and no one else.... who else comes along? Do they deserve it? Probably not.

Like most other playoff proponents, it seems you're trying to put a band aid on specific "cases" and you don't have any real solution to the problem which is based on a principle and which serves to provide us with something materially different than what we already have.

 

[Zurp]

the regular season is just a means of getting there.

In my opinion, the regular season IS the season. And the post-season is the post-season. Sure, winning the post-season is great, but it isn't everything.

I live in Cleveland, and I'm surrounded by Cavs fans. I don't happen to care much for the NBA, so 11 months a year, I couldn't name a second player on the team (ok, with Shaq there, maybe I could. So when it comes to the Cavs, I feel like I'm outside the fan-base, looking in. And what I see from most people is that the Cavs' season was a failure. And I think, "Really? You think it was a failure? The best record in the NBA, only 2 losses at home all year, all kinds of great, positive points", but no championship = failure.

Is that the way you want college football to be?

 

[Jaxbuck]

Isn't that the way it's supposed to be? I mean the goal of any sport is to win the championship, the regular season is just a means of getting there. It's like a playoff leading up to the playoffs. Regular season accomplishments are nice, but postseason accomplishments are leaps and bounds more important, so shouldn't they be done right? Shouldn't they be determined by a playoff against eachother? Not computers and media opinions

BKB has stated far more elequently than I could everything I like to think I would have said. (does that make sense?)

The minute you start a playoff of any format you start the deemphasis of what I consider to be the greatest regular season in all of sports. The question can only be to degree.

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

A) I'm far more impressed that the Patriots were the best team in the NFL even though they lost to the Giants on some particular day.
B) Your "obvious" conclusion is based upon a premise which you have ignored and needs to be established. Again, there's no real reason we need a post season at all. You assume there is. Prove it.



I see. Hope you're not a fan of the mid major, because with this strategy they lose money big time. If you want proof of that remark, check out my Playoff Hypothetical threads which establish that. Likewise, why should we give #8 "a shot" when the difference between 1 and 8 is usually pretty significant? What if you have a season like 2002 with 2 undefeated... and what if your 8th team is 2 losses? What's so great about giving the 2 loss team a chance? what did they earn?


I don't feel like Auburn got jobbed at all in 2004. They played a soft schedule comparative to OU and USC. Tough. Likewise, we can't just invite 04 Auburn and no one else.... who else comes along? Do they deserve it? Probably not.

Like most other playoff proponents, it seems you're trying to put a band aid on specific "cases" and you don't have any real solution to the problem which is based on a principle and which serves to provide us with something materially different than what we already have.

There's no real reason with arguing this with you, you have some kind of unnatural disdain towards postseasons in general. Ask any player, they want a ring. I've seen interviews with cavs players after they got the best record in the NBA they mention that the best record is nice but they want the ring because it's more important. You don't see kobe after the finals saying he wished he would have had the best record in the NBA. I'm not saying regular season accomplishments aren't important, but the only reason they have regular seasons in sports is to decide who gets to the postseason.

"why should we give #8 "a shot" when the difference between 1 and 8 is usually pretty significant? What if you have a season like 2002 with 2 undefeated... and what if your 8th team is 2 losses? What's so great about giving the 2 loss team a chance? what did they earn?"

Hmmmm.... I don't know, why don't you ask the 2007 NY Giants if they should have deserved a shot, they were a 5 seed in the NFC and they went on to become the champions. So obviously they deserved a shot in the playoffs right? The #1 or #2 team doesn't always win. Two loss teams have been in the BCS championship before, so the system we're under doesn't exactley stop that does it? As i remember a 2 loss LSU team got a shot at the national championship, would you say they didn't earn it? If you're in the top 8 teams in the nation you deserve a shot at the championship in a playoff system. You can't just say a team didn't deserve it and not give them a shot at the title, because often times the best team during the regular season doesn't win the title.

"Like most other playoff proponents, it seems you're trying to put a band aid on specific "cases" and you don't have any real solution to the problem which is based on a principle and which serves to provide us with something materially different than what we already have."

You have an 8 team playoff with the teams decided by polls. What's fundamentally wrong with that? Every other sport has a playoff, why not college football?

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

BKB has stated far more elequently than I could everything I like to think I would have said. (does that make sense?)

The minute you start a playoff of any format you start the deemphasis of what I consider to be the greatest regular season in all of sports. The question can only be to degree.

That's just the thing, the regular season isn't supposed to be that important. The only reason the regular season is considered so great is because of the high stakes put on every game, you slip-up ONCE. And your chances at the title might be shot. It doesn't decide the best team, just the most consistent.

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

In my opinion, the regular season IS the season. And the post-season is the post-season. Sure, winning the post-season is great, but it isn't everything.

I live in Cleveland, and I'm surrounded by Cavs fans. I don't happen to care much for the NBA, so 11 months a year, I couldn't name a second player on the team (ok, with Shaq there, maybe I could. So when it comes to the Cavs, I feel like I'm outside the fan-base, looking in. And what I see from most people is that the Cavs' season was a failure. And I think, "Really? You think it was a failure? The best record in the NBA, only 2 losses at home all year, all kinds of great, positive points", but no championship = failure.

Is that the way you want college football to be?

That IS the way college football is. I've heard plenty of people discredit great OSU seasons because they didn't win the national championship. Florida and LSU anybody?

 

[jwinslow]

The regular season isn't the only thing that can be diminished. Every single NC the SEC has won this decade was a game where 1 or both did not do enough to dismiss the other contenders.

In 03, they had to beat an OU team which got destroyed by Kansas State one game before that.
In 06, they had to beat a good OSU team, but one that got there by beating a 3-loss Texas team and a UM team that got housed in the Rose Bowl. I'm not sure Florida was truly more worthy than Michigan, they just lost earlier.
In 07, they had to be the least unworthy squad in 07, which they did by beating another unworthy team in OSU. Neither of those squads were good enough to undoubtedly exclude USC from title contention.
In 08, Then last year, they beat a very good Oklahoma team, but one that was unworthy of excluding the other title contenders. They lost to the team others felt should go, Texas.

Not once has the SEC had to face USC, who has been one of the best teams in football every single year. Do you think they'd be 4 for 4 if they had to play against Matt Leinart & Mark Sanchez - particularly in the Rose Bowl - instead of Troy Smith (who never returned from the banquets/heisman) & Todd Boeckman?

In 05, they were not allowed to play USC. Instead, Oklahoma got the bid like they always seem to do in close polling.


LSU should have played USC. Auburn should have been given a chance vs the OU monopoly. Neither UF/UM could be distinguished from the other. Nobody in 07 deserved an exclusive shot at the title. Texas beat OU but played their tough schedule earlier, so attention-deficient america docked them for it.


The credibility and quality of the last 6 NC systems have been greatly diminished by the 2 team popularity contest.

 

[zincfinger]

The credibility and quality of the last 6 NC systems have been greatly diminished by the 2 team popularity contest.

Greatly diminished in comparison to what? You seem to be assuming some hypothetical counter scenario that gives a picture perfect objective champion, free of foibles. But even in a playoff system, sometimes the seemingly better team does lose, and sometimes the team that couldn't even win its own conference does win. There is no objective, perfect system that will ensure the "best" team is always champion. This is particularly true in a "league" in which you've got nearly 120 total teams (just shy of 70 if you only count BCS teams), and probably at most 15 games to sort it out. Not only is there no system capable of always and objectively choosing the "best" team, but most years, there is no objectively, clearly best team from gun to gun. There are typically 5 or so teams that are probably upper-echelon, who's playing best varies from week to week, and which of those teams winds up being champion is largely a matter of fortune. This will be true whether you have the BCS or a playoff, the only difference is in whether and to what extent you emphasize one portion of the season over other portions. So, no, the BCS does not produce perfect results in terms of selecting an objectively "best" champion. Neither would any other system. To me, the only real difference, then, is what system will make the season as a whole the most entertaining.