College Playoff

[AuburnBuckeye]

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.

If they are the better team shouldn't they have won that tourney? If the team is consistently excellent all year long and chokes in some weak ass conference tourney then they didn't deserve to make it to the big dance.

 

[jwinslow]

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.

Unless we're talking about a 16 team playoff with automatic and at-large bids, I don't really see how that's relevant (I'm talking about 4/8 team gigs).

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.

Are you opposed to 1 extra bowl game though?

Give the North a bowl for once (make Indy the locale for the 5th BCS bowl), and then use two of the bowl games as semi finals for the top-4. Rotate those locations like they do the NC game.

 

[Jaxbuck]

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

Ole Miss played UF, who was a heavyweight, and won in just one game. Are they better than Florida?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

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.

I love this one... Georgetown (35-3) beat Nova 2 out of 3 times they played in that season.... but, because Nova won a game in March, they get the title... Ridiculous.

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

Stanford settled it on the field against USC in 2007....
Oregon State settled it on the field against them in 2008....
Ole Miss settled it on the field with Florida last year too....

Nothing is "settled" and this is a red herring argument as well.

So you like a sport in which the best team wins all the time every game?

Um.... No. I like a sport where the best team is crowned champion.

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.

Right... the 8 teams the media and some computers think...

And, as I asked Jwins... what of the mid major? What about the money going to the Big XII and the SEC and not the Big Ten, Big East and ACC? Think they'll agree to that?

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.

Again, did more than 2 teams deserve a shot in 2002? You need to establish why 2 isn't enough better than that. And I've already killed the "on the field" argument, so try again.

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.

What? How do we know that those games in November aren't against the best? They could be.. all we'd have to do is schedule em that way.

the "pressure" of playoffs? Come the fuck on.... If 4 games in November made all the difference, the pressure would be just as great. Indeed, as it is now, there's pressure on every college team from opening kick to the last whistle... You want to use pressure to advance your claim that Playoffs are better? Find more pressure than "Lose once in 12 games and you're OUT"

And, as I already said... Lesser teams "prove" themselves against elite teams all the time. So what? Upsets happen.

 

[jwinslow]

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.

I think you have a very bizarre definition of the word screwed.

Texas was screwed over by the team that they beat. They had no control over playing their tough games in October instead of November like OU. They were left at home by factors out of their own control, largely tied to short term memory and popularity contests.

The Patriots lost a football game.


To me, your scenario would still hold true if the playoffs were 1 game long and they had to beat the Giants in a winner take all game. They were screwed because they proved they were better during the regular season (I moreso mean in terms of overall record... it would still hold true if they never matched up head to head that year).

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.

Then why even hold a bowl game? Why not just vote for the NC before the bowls? OSU proved themselves a superior team to the inconsistent Gators squad. I guess they got screwed that they had to prove it again after winning the defacto NC against Michigan.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

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.

They were playing for the Sugar Bowl trophy and the right to say "We beat Alabama." This used to be enough, but apparently if you're not playing for the crystal you might as well not play at all. Forgive me, but I disagree. If Ohio State had beaten Texas in the Fiesta, I would have been thrilled. I'm pretty sure you would have been too.

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

Was that before or after the bowls? I assume before, but just wanted to make sure.

 

[matcar]

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.

Agreed. And this is the essential truth of playoffs in football...they don't have a direct relationship to the "best" team...just the one that was on a roll at the right time. Single elimination playoffs is just one other means of producing a champion, but I don't think it necessarily produces the best team. You'll never convince me that the Giants were the best NFL team a couple years ago...but they were the team that won the SB.

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

Ole Miss played UF, who was a heavyweight, and won in just one game. Are they better than Florida?

That wasn't the playoffs, their wasn't a national title on the line. Besides i'm not talking about single games, I mean the playoffs as a whole. For instance lets say UF is #1 seed and Ole Miss is #8, and Ole Miss pulls the upset. That doesn't mean Ole Miss is better, it just means UF isn't the best. Whoever wins the tourney is the best.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Unless we're talking about a 16 team playoff with automatic and at-large bids, I don't really see how that's relevant (I'm talking about 4/8 team gigs).

I think as soon as you start with 4 or 8 teams the cry will go out to add more and more until we get to 16.

Are you opposed to 1 extra bowl game though?

Give the North a bowl for once (make Indy the locale for the 5th BCS bowl), and then use two of the bowl games as semi finals for the top-4. Rotate those locations like they do the NC game.

The things I would want to see are

1) that the existing Bowl structure for non playoff teams is kept in place.
2) regular season factored heavily by using seeding. People want CFB to become NFL light then fine, southern teams get to come up north and play out doors in Dec/Jan. I still want to tell USC or Miami fans that a Dec game in Cleveland is a neutral site for us.
3) Current BCS rankings to do the seeding.
4) Eliminate pre season rankings, don't have the first polls until after week 4.

I'm sure I'm not thinking of something but thats kind of my point. I don't want to see unintended consequences screw up CFB.

 

[jwinslow]

Um.... No. I like a sport where the best team is crowned champion.

How is beating up on an overrated 07 OSU team evidence of being the best team? Or beating a team that was housed 42-7 one game earlier?

02, 05 & 06 would all smoke that 07 OSU squad, probably 03 as well (with that mismatch up front). 07 proved nothing but who was the least unattractive cripple left standing in January.

And, as I asked Jwins... what of the mid major? What about the money going to the Big XII and the SEC and not the Big Ten, Big East and ACC? Think they'll agree to that?

You'd still invite them to BCS bowls, you'd just ensure that two of them involve the top-4 squads. Add a 5th Indy BCS bowl (and more revenue) if money is that big of a concern.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I think you have a very bizarre definition of the word screwed.

Texas was screwed over by the team that they beat. They had no control over playing their tough games in October instead of November like OU. They were left at home by factors out of their own control, largely tied to short term memory and popularity contests.

The Patriots lost a football game.

So did Texas. To a team that was absolutely crushed by the team that allegedly screwed them.

Personally, I think Texas was a better selection to face Florida in the BCS Championship. That is to say, I agree they "deserved" a chance... but... they were on the bubble, and it burst. Tough shit. This is football, not rec league T-ball.

 

[jwinslow]

The things I would want to see are

1) that the existing Bowl structure for non playoff teams is kept in place.
2) regular season factored heavily by using seeding. People want CFB to become NFL light then fine, southern teams get to come up north and play out doors in Dec/Jan. I still want to tell USC or Miami fans that a Dec game in Cleveland is a neutral site for us.
3) Current BCS rankings to do the seeding.
4) Eliminate pre season rankings, don't have the first polls until after week 4.

I'm sure I'm not thinking of something but thats kind of my point. I don't want to see unintended consequences screw up CFB.

Agree completely, jax.

Was that before or after the bowls? I assume before, but just wanted to make sure.

yes, before. Two #8 seeds and one #6.

They were playing for the Sugar Bowl trophy and the right to say "We beat Alabama." This used to be enough, but apparently if you're not playing for the crystal you might as well not play at all. Forgive me, but I disagree. If Ohio State had beaten Texas in the Fiesta, I would have been thrilled. I'm pretty sure you would have been too.

I would have been thrilled because it was a tremendous consolation prize. I realize that OSU can't be in the NC game every year (particularly with the issues they had).

I would not be merely 'thrilled' if OSU went undefeated but was left out of the big dance because b10 teams aren't worthy to play for titles, even when the contenders from better conferences make it with one loss.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

How is beating up on an overrated 07 OSU team evidence of being the best team? Or beating a team that was housed 42-7 one game earlier?

Give me something better, Jwins... (meaning a better idea than the BCS) You're cherry picking an argument, but it's not with consequence because your playoffs wouldn't have been any more impressive with the 2007 candidates.

You'd still invite them to BCS bowls, you'd just ensure that two of them involve the top-4 squads. Add a 5th Indy BCS bowl (and more revenue) if money is that big of a concern.

Hey, look at that... a possible solution! 'Bout friggin time... thanks...

But, as we've witnessed already, if we don't care about the Orange Bowl now, because of the BCS Championship game, why are we gonna care about it later if there's a playoff, especially when whoever gets the bid is necessarily no better than 9th in the nation... playing against - at best - #10.

 

[Jaxbuck]

That wasn't the playoffs, their wasn't a national title on the line. Besides i'm not talking about single games, I mean the playoffs as a whole. For instance lets say UF is #1 seed and Ole Miss is #8, and Ole Miss pulls the upset. That doesn't mean Ole Miss is better, it just means UF isn't the best. Whoever wins the tourney is the best.

No. Whoever wins the tourney is playing the best during the time of that tournament.


I'm a Steelers fan and will tell you that our 2 SB champions this decade were not our best teams.

 

[matcar]

They were playing for the Sugar Bowl trophy and the right to say "We beat Alabama." This used to be enough, but apparently if you're not playing for the crystal you might as well not play at all. Forgive me, but I disagree. If Ohio State had beaten Texas in the Fiesta, I would have been thrilled. I'm pretty sure you would have been too.

+11

Oh, I'm I'm a Steeler fan two..as also ditto Jax's comments. I just don't think a playoff crowns the "best" team either. I think that's not an accurate arguement. Now, if you feel that's still better than the current method...OK. And I might disagree, but stating that playing single elimination crowns the best team...well that's being intellectually dishonest.