College Playoff

[jwinslow]

Greatly diminished in comparison to what?

In comparison to a system that lets teams decide games, not popularity contests which are very controversial.

How many of the pollsters are:
a) Qualified to judge teams properly? Most media members drool over offense, which is why teams like Clemson 08 & Michigan 07 get overrated every preseason. That's just O vs D, let alone the intricacies of the game and comparing different leagues, schedules, personnel, injuries, etc.
b) Level-headed enough to understand a brutal October stretch can be as difficult/impressive as a brutal November stretch? Can they set aside the freshness of those wins?
c) Watching games of more than 5-7 games (if that) to evaluate their 30 or so teams in contention for top-25 recognition?
d) Unbiased enough to pick fairly?

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.

When was the last time a team in that system got "screwed" out of the title hunt?

In 2003 USC got royally screwed by the OU monopoly despite their meltdown. The AP poll had to scrap the system in place to fix it.
In 2004 Auburn never had a chance. The OU monopoly was rewarded.
In 2007 there wasn't any justification for a 2-team system. Nobody was worthy of that kind of exclusivity.
In 2008, Texas got screwed by the OU monopoly because they played too late.

There are 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.

Which is why I don't think many teams can complain about being left out of an 8 man playoff. The #3 ranked teams I listed above were definitely on par with the #1/2 NC invitees. The #9/10 ranked squads are not on that level, so their complaints about missing an 8 team playoff would be much more hollow.

So, no, the BCS does not produce perfect results in terms of selecting an objectively "best" champion.

That's a considerable understatement. It was a trainwreck in 03 & 07, and very controversial in 04 & 08. 1 in 5 is not a very good batting average.

To me, the only real difference, then, is what system will make the season as a whole the most entertaining.

The best system to decide a champ would be top-8 imo. The best balance of the two would be a 4 team playoff. I really don't think that would diminish the regular season much at all, and would more than compensate with a better postseason.

 

[Jaxbuck]

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.

and thats the point.

Some people define "best" as most consistent. Doing it week in and week out is no mean feat.

Why is a teams performance over 12 weeks less important than its performance over a select 2-3 games?

One thing I hate about the college basketball conference tournaments are that some shitty team that had done nothing all year can get hot for 4 days and steal a teams NCAA bid that had been consistently excellent all year long.

I'm not saying don't have a playoff. I'm just saying be aware of the potential consequences if you do.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

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.

I like post seasons just fine. I realize what they are, and what they are not. I've never argued that the playoffs are illegitimate I've just argued that there's no proof that the BCS is illegitimate and thus far no one has been able to come up with a "real" solution to any of the BCS' problems. You base your entire argument on an unproven premise. I've called you on it, and you still can't support how or why you think a playoff settles anything.

And, at this point I think it's time I let you in on a secret - Playoffs, like everything else, are about MONEY not determining a more or less legitimate champion. This fact is why your arguments are necessarily going to fail

Your anecdotal evidence about what Kobe thinks and what the Cavs think is absurd. I might as well say "Tim Tebow thinks he won a title or two" and hold that out as if the BCS was god's gift to sports.

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.

Yeah, and you want to ruin my favorite sport by allowing a team which clearly isn't "the best" be considered for Champion? No fucking thanks. Fact: The 07 NYGiants were NOT the best team in football. You said it yourself, they were just a 5 seed. But, your playoff system afforded them a chance to win a championship, which they won... and why? Because they won some handful of games at some point in time? Big fucking deal. Why not just pick a string of 4 games in the middle of November?

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?

What's fundementally wrong with it? First, it's got the precise same problems as simply choosing 2 out of the same system. If we believe polls are a poor way of picking two, we can't jump to "But picking 8 is cool"

Likewise, you've made no effort to establish what's fundementally right with it. If you want to chage the system, the onus is on you to establish how some change will solve some problem. Change for the sake of change is a tough sell. Address and solve a problem, then maybe I'll be convinced.

"Every other sport has a playoff...."

So what? Every other sport has a regular season that doesn't matter. Why should college football?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'm not saying don't have a playoff. I'm just saying be aware of the potential consequences if you do.

EXACTLY!

I don't have a real problem with Texas, for example, getting a chance to "prove it on the field" last year.... but... just because Texas may have deserved a chance does NOT mean some other team does too.

In my mind, when you start talking about the 8th rated team... well... you're talking about teams that don't "deserve" much by way of championships.

My real problem with playoff people is that they don't think past the point. They want Texas to get in, but they don't realize that giving Texas a chance may end up giving some completely different team a title.... there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it - but, the point is - it's not materially better than what we have now, plus it comes at the expense of hurting the importance of the greatest and most meaningful regular season in sports.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

In comparison to a system that lets teams decide games, not popularity contests which are very controversial.

Like Stanford proved it was a better team that USC?
Like Oregon State also proved?

Just wondering how far that line of reasoning goes...

I agree with most of your points re: pollsters. That's why the computers are there to "check" those biases. I don't pretend it's perfect... I just don't assume it's illegitimate.

Likewise, while I could argue with you re: who was "screwed" out of what (with considerations like schedule strength and noting that you just went off on the polls being "popularity" contests and come back with USC in 2003 based on the same popularity contest being a key factor (AP Champs!!)) but I won't quibble. There's always a "bubble team" getting screwed. Even in the playoffs. Hell, we can take 64 teams, and team 65 bitches. Playoffs dont' solve this problem, and it's a red herring.

The problem with your 4 or 8 team playoff is that it does nothing to address the Utah's and Boise States of the world (See my hypos for "proof").... and in fact hurts them. If any one seriously looks at the issue from the "small" conferences, there is no way they'd agree to such a system. You might as well forget it.

 

[jwinslow]

Why is a teams performance over 12 weeks less important than its performance over a select 2-3 games?

Those select 2-3 games is what put OU in the big dance.

One thing I hate about the college basketball conference tournaments are that some shitty team that had done nothing all year can get hot for 4 days and steal a teams NCAA bid that had been consistently excellent all year long.

March Madness involves 20% of all CBB teams. That number goes way up for the big conferences, where over half are invited at times. You're inviting teams with .500 records (conf play) over the span of many months.

A 4 man playoff would involve 3% of CFB teams.
An 8 man playoff would involve 6% of CFB teams.

y real problem with playoff people is that they don't think past the point. They want Texas to get in, but they don't realize that giving Texas a chance may end up giving some completely different team a title....

No offense, but so what? How is it a problem if Texas is given a shot but loses to Utah? Utah would have to beat 1 or 2 other quality opponents to claim their title.

there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it - but, the point is - it's not materially better than what we have now, plus it comes at the expense of hurting the importance of the greatest and most meaningful regular season in sports.

Having USC playing the number one team (in a 4 man playoff) is definitely materially better than watching them destroy some a second-place big ten team that is only there out because of favoritism & ticket sales.

Having LSU 06 playing for something is a lot more interesting than watching them beat up on Notre Dame and then fading into the distance. Same with OSU 05.

Utah - Bama is no longer a feel good story, it's David taking down Goliath and then trying to repeat that feat to take home the ultimate award, the one they aren't allowed to participate in despite humiliating the mighty SEC.

 

[jwinslow]

Likewise, while I could argue with you re: who was "screwed" out of what (with considerations like schedule strength and noting that you just went off on the polls being "popularity" contests and come back with USC in 2003 based on the same popularity contest being a key factor (AP Champs!!)) but I won't quibble. There's always a "bubble team" getting screwed. Even in the playoffs. Hell, we can take 64 teams, and team 65 bitches. Playoffs dont' solve this problem, and it's a red herring.

That's a very poor comparison, as I pointed out later in that post. Bubble teams are far more mediocre because they're letting in far more teams proportionally. There would be 'bubble teams', but they would be 10 win squads, not .500 ballclubs like Arizona.

2008
#3 Texas is comparable to #2 OU, better imo.
#9 Boise St or #10 Ohio State are not remotely comparable to OU.

2005
#3 Auburn is comparable to #2 OU.
#9 Boise St or #10 Louisville were not comparable to OU.

2003
#3 USC was better than both #1 OU & #2 LSU.
#9 Miami FL (2 loss) & KSU (3 loss) were not comparable to any of those three.


People complain about anything, but those teams outside the top-8 do not have a legitimate claim to be on equal footing with the top-2. We have seen a lot of #3 teams that were on equal footing with the #2 squad.

 

[Oh8ch]

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

Just shoot me now.

In CFB games have meaning in their own right more than in any other sport. For some of us that is the point.

But if your idea of a "Champion" is '85 Nova or the '03 Marlins - have at it.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

No offense, but so what? How is it a problem if Texas is given a shot but loses to Utah? Utah would have to beat 1 or 2 other quality opponents to claim their title.

The issue isn't if it's a problem, and I've already conceded that it's not illegitimate. But, you've yet to establish how it's materially better.

Having USC playing the number one team (in a 4 man playoff) is definitely materially better than watching them destroy some a second-place big ten team that is only there out because of favoritism & ticket sales.

Ah... so a Playoff would be better than certain select bowls which support your point, is your argument? I'll counter with Texas v. Ohio State wouldn't have happened... and maybe Texas smokes Utah 63-3 I realize I'm speculating here, but you're making an assumption and I'm not sure that assumption is as true as you tink.

And, lets look at PSU last year... in a 8 team playoff they'd be IN.. and yet we know they got the shit kicked out of them by USC... hmmm... maybe the playoffs don't automatically generate "great" games afterall.

Having LSU 06 playing for something is a lot more interesting than watching them beat up on Notre Dame and then fading into the distance. Same with OSU 05.

These teams did play for something, and you're kidding yourself now if you don't think it felt great to be a Buckeye when OSU kicked hell out of ND to win the Fiesta bowl. If they wanted to play for more, they should have won more of their games. Too bad, so sad. But, the regular season matters... Loose and you're out of control. Win, and you're in... assuming you didn't pad your schedule with shit (I'm looking at you Penn State, Texas Tech, etc.)

Utah - Bama is no longer a feel good story, it's David taking down Goliath and then trying to repeat that feat to take home the ultimate award, the one they aren't allowed to participate in despite humiliating the mighty SEC.

Put this game in a playoff format, hypothetically... Do you think bama shows up completely unispired? I doubt it.

Again, my issue is NOT that the playoffs are illegitimate.... they're just not better and as a consequence there's no need to make a change, especially at the expense of a devalued regular season.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

That's a very poor comparison, as I pointed out later in that post. Bubble teams are far more mediocre because they're letting in far more teams proportionally. There would be 'bubble teams', but they would be 10 win squads, not .500 ballclubs like Arizona.

2008
#3 Texas is comparable to #2 OU, better imo.
#9 Boise St or #10 Ohio State are not remotely comparable to OU.

2005
#3 Auburn is comparable to #2 OU.
#9 Boise St or #10 Louisville were not comparable to OU.

2003
#3 USC was better than both #1 OU & #2 LSU.
#9 Miami FL (2 loss) & KSU (3 loss) were not comparable to any of those three.


People complain about anything, but those teams outside the top-8 do not have a legitimate claim to be on equal footing with the top-2. We have seen a lot of #3 teams that were on equal footing with the #2 squad.

OK, let's just assume everything you say is true.

A) Where's the evidence #8 deserve anything? It's easy to say 2008 OSU wasn't in Florida's league... but... was #8 Penn State? #7 Texas Tech? Hell, we know TTU wasn't in OU's league, OU absolutely demolished TTU right?
B) What about the mid major?
Taking the top 8 gives your Big XII conspiracy even more money, inviting OU, Texas, and Texas Tech... SEC gets Florida and Bama... Big Ten gets squat. think they'll go for that on the day they sign the contract? No guaranteed money? Good luck

Utah would have made it last year, and they would have been the first ever to make an 8 team playoff format (I'm saying this without checking my work on my hypo thread. If I'm wrong, apologies. None the less, the evidence is still overwhelming that the Big Schools will get even MORE dollars in a playoff system)

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

I like post seasons just fine. I realize what they are, and what they are not. I've never argued that the playoffs are illegitimate I've just argued that there's no proof that the BCS is illegitimate and thus far no one has been able to come up with a "real" solution to any of the BCS' problems. You base your entire argument on an unproven premise. I've called you on it, and you still can't support how or why you think a playoff settles anything.

And, at this point I think it's time I let you in on a secret - Playoffs, like everything else, are about MONEY not determining a more or less legitimate champion. This fact is why your arguments are necessarily going to fail

Your anecdotal evidence about what Kobe thinks and what the Cavs think is absurd. I might as well say "Tim Tebow thinks he won a title or two" and hold that out as if the BCS was god's gift to sports.


Yeah, and you want to ruin my favorite sport by allowing a team which clearly isn't "the best" be considered for Champion? No [censored]ing thanks. Fact: The 07 NYGiants were NOT the best team in football. You said it yourself, they were just a 5 seed. But, your playoff system afforded them a chance to win a championship, which they won... and why? Because they won some handful of games at some point in time? Big [censored]ing deal. Why not just pick a string of 4 games in the middle of November?



What's fundementally wrong with it? First, it's got the precise same problems as simply choosing 2 out of the same system. If we believe polls are a poor way of picking two, we can't jump to "But picking 8 is cool"

Likewise, you've made no effort to establish what's fundementally right with it. If you want to chage the system, the onus is on you to establish how some change will solve some problem. Change for the sake of change is a tough sell. Address and solve a problem, then maybe I'll be convinced.

"Every other sport has a playoff...."

So what? Every other sport has a regular season that doesn't matter. Why should college football?

Playoffs settle the games on the field! That's what makes it better than the BCS.

"Yeah, and you want to ruin my favorite sport by allowing a team which clearly isn't "the best" be considered for Champion? No [censored]ing thanks."

So you like a sport in which the best team wins all the time every game? What kind of dull and listless crap is that? Sure they weren't the best team. But when the chips were down and the pressure was on they turned it on and outperformed everyone else. You are a very strange individual you seem to not only hate underdogs, but not even want them to get a chance. Sure, a team may be more talented, but if they don't win the game when it matters are they really the better team?

"What's fundementally wrong with it? First, it's got the precise same problems as simply choosing 2 out of the same system. If we believe polls are a poor way of picking two, we can't jump to "But picking 8 is cool"

Because choosing 8 teams lets you give the quality teams that have a legitimate shot at the title a chance to get what they earned during the regular season. Not just the 2 teams the media and some computers think is the best.

"Likewise, you've made no effort to establish what's fundementally right with it. If you want to chage the system, the onus is on you to establish how some change will solve some problem. Change for the sake of change is a tough sell. Address and solve a problem, then maybe I'll be convinced."

A problem with the BCS is only two teams get a shot at the title, when there maybe a few more teams that have a legit claim to be in that game. With an 8 team playoff any team with a legitimate argument to be considered the best gets there chance to prove themselves on the field. Sure you may have the best record, and the biggest names, but if you can't win when it matters your not the best.

"Because they won some handful of games at some point in time? Big [censored]ing deal. Why not just pick a string of 4 games in the middle of November?"

The thing you don't see here is that, those are just some games in November, they weren't against the best of the best. They didn't have the pressure of the playoffs. Like I said earlier,(this applies to a lot of your arguments) if you can't prove youselves against the elite teams when the pressures on, then your not the best team.

 

[Jaxbuck]

March Madness involves 20% of all CBB teams. That number goes way up for the big conferences, where over half are invited at times. You're inviting teams with .500 records (conf play) over the span of many months.

In the conference tourneys, especially the 1 bid conferences, it has already happened where a team that hadn't won a conference game all year ends up winning the conf tourney and taking the NCAA bid away from a team that had been consistently excellent all year long.

Thats just patently wrong imo.

The pro's of a CFB playoff just do not out weight the cons to me. I love CFB's regular season, its what makes it unique among sports. I do not want to see it screwed with so 8 teams can play in some kind of ESPN/NIKE sponsorship orgy that only shows who was playing the best of those 8 teams at that time of the year.

I'm not unilaterally opposed to a tourney but no one has shown me the goods to make me for one yet.

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

Why is a teams performance over 12 weeks less important than its performance over a select 2-3 games?

Because they are playing the elite teams when the pressure is on. If you can't win in that format your not the best.

 

[jwinslow]

These teams did play for something, and you're kidding yourself now if you don't think it felt great to be a Buckeye when OSU kicked hell out of ND to win the Fiesta bowl. If they wanted to play for more, they should have won more of their games. Too bad, so sad. But, the regular season matters... Loose and you're out of control. Win, and you're in... assuming you didn't pad your schedule with shit (I'm looking at you Penn State, Texas Tech, etc.

What was Utah playing for again, bkb? They simply beat up the Crimson Tide, yet they go home with a silly little consolation trophy and never had a prayer of making the big dance. This wasn't a victory over Pittsburgh or some suspect throw-in BCS team (like Illinois), this was the most powerful set of trenches in america, and then beat them up all day long.

Put this game in a playoff format, hypothetically... Do you think bama shows up completely unispired? I doubt it.

So the bama game doesn't count in the playoff hypothetical, but the PSU one does. Got it. :p I realize Bama would have more to play for, but they still could have easily overlooked the silly little Utes.

A) Where's the evidence #8 deserve anything? It's easy to say 2008 OSU wasn't in Florida's league... but... was #8 Penn State? #7 Texas Tech? Hell, we know TTU wasn't in OU's league, OU absolutely demolished TTU right?

The top-8 is the best way to determine a champion, the top-4 is the sweet spot imo. It accounts for the only accurately-claimed "snubs" (usually #3), retains most of the regular season glory, but doesn't include as much riff raff.

Taking the top 8 gives your Big XII conspiracy even more money, inviting OU, Texas, and Texas Tech... SEC gets Florida and Bama... Big Ten gets squat. think they'll go for that on the day they sign the contract? No guaranteed money? Good luck

I didn't say it would happen, I'm talking about what I thought would be better. It would be better if the NCAA was more than a hypocritical facade of rules, that accomplished something other than problems with the little action it does take. The fact that it will never actually police the rule-breaking in the NCAA doesn't mean we should just shrug it off.

BTW, what happened to #8 Penn State from two lines above?

Utah would have made it last year, and they would have been the first ever to make an 8 team playoff format (I'm saying this without checking my work on my hypo thread. If I'm wrong, apologies. None the less, the evidence is still overwhelming that the Big Schools will get even MORE dollars in a playoff system)

Utah 08, Boise 06, Utah 04 all make the top-8 cut.

 

[zincfinger]

When was the last time a team in [a playoff] system got "screwed" out of the title hunt?

You're talking about college here? If so, you're saying the fact that a playoff has never been used, and therefore has never given an unsatisfactory result, is evidence it's a good system. That wouldn't make any sense. Or are you talking about other sports that do utilize playoff systems? I would say that any time a wild-card team wins it's playoff championship, the other teams that won their divisions - certainly the team that won the wild-card's division - are getting screwed. Screwed because they already proved themselves better than the wild card, but they then are given the obligation to prove it again, and in a much more abbreviated format where aberrant outcomes are more likely. Someone brought up the Giants/Patriots super bowl from a couple years ago. The Patriots had amply proven themselves a superior team to the Giants over the course of the season, by winning their division, by winning every game they played, and by beating the Giants in Giants Stadium. Sure, they had an opportunity to prove it one last time, and didn't get it done. But why should a team that has proven itself superior to another multiple times and in multiple ways, have to prove it one more time, and then at the end of the day have it be said that only the last time really counted? Sounds like a screw-job to me.