College Playoff

[Jaxbuck]

You'd have a hard time convincing me that there's a bigger difference in NFL teams from the postseason to the regular season... and teams that take 4-6 weeks off in college football.

Wasn't trying to.

Just illustrating my point that the tourney winner isn't always the "best" team. The Steelers had better teams under Cowher that choked in the playoffs than the two teams that have won a SB here lately.

But you can not sit here and tell me that the BCS is better.

I for one am not trying to. I'm saying the CFB regular season is the best thing in sports and no one can show me enough good things about a playoff (reward) to outweight the risk to that system.

I'll put up with people arguing about polls and the occasional random injustices that occur if thats what it takes to keep the regular season as important as it stands right now.

 

[jwinslow]

No kidding. I saw the same thing when I did my hypos.

I don't have the time to hash it all out, but my utopian example would include an at-large team against the worst automatic bid. If they lose, they don't get an automatic bid for at least a year :p

 

[zincfinger]

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.

I don't think there's anything bizarre about it, and I think the two scenarios are much more similar than you're letting on. Texas was screwed by the team they beat, whereas the Patriots lost a football game? Texas lost a football game too, and if they hadn't they'd have played for the championship. Now, I only went with the word "screwed" to continue with your terminology. I think "unlucky" would fit my view better, but whichever word you choose, I think it's equally valid in both cases. You can make a case Texas proved themselves superior to Oklahoma, but you can make a stronger case that the Patriots had proven themselves superior to the Giants. But in both cases, the arguably stronger team lost a game they probably shouldn't have at the wrong time, and it cost them (If Texas had lost to anyone other than Texas Tech, there would have been no 3-way tie and the Longhorns would have played in the conference championship and likely the national championship). Unlucky or screwed, your choice, but equally applicable to both situations.

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).
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.

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "my scenario", but in answer to your question, I wouldn't have any problem with going back to the old bowl system and voting prior to the bowls. The reason being that I think all these systems are comparably imperfect when it comes to determining a champion. And to me, for any post-season elaboration scheme, there would have to be a clear, significant improvement in fairness and accuracy of determining the champion in order to justify the inevitable weakening of the regular season, and I don't think there would be.

As to whether OSU was screwed in jan '07, as I said above, I think it's more a question of unlucky than screwed, but I think they were unlucky in the sense that they played their worst game at the wrong time. Which isn't to say they'd have necessarily won if they'd played one of their better games, but I think they'd have had a shot. It happens, and it's going to happen whether you have a playoff system or not.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'll put up with people arguing about polls and the occasional random injustices that occur if thats what it takes to keep the regular season as important as it stands right now.

This post has beard.

 

[Jaxbuck]

I've been working on some scenarios... and the problem here isn't the 8 team scenario in my 5 BCS bowl system, it's that the ACC is atrocious.

No kidding. I saw the same thing when I did my hypos.

One thing I think you'd have to do if we just talking hypo's here is put ND either in the BE or better yet (for ease of formatting purposes) the B10.

That automatically makes all 6 BCS conferences determine an on the field champion (ACC, SEC, B12, B10 CCG's while the BE and Pac10 everyone plays everyone.)

Then you simply take the 6 Conf Champs and add as many wildcards as you want. At the very least it puts everyones fate in their own hands. As far as a certain conference sucking thats just part of the deal, every pro sport that has a playoff sees cycles where one conf or division sucks balls for a while. It all evens out.

Not saying I want any of that to happen but logically, at least to me, its the best way to start.

 

[jwinslow]

As to whether OSU was screwed in jan '07, as I said above, I think it's more a question of unlucky than screwed, but I think they were unlucky in the sense that they played their worst game at the wrong time.

This is why I find your word choice bizarre.

You aren't "unlucky" (or screwed) when you show up uninterested, out of shape and expecting to just show up and get your rings. You reap what you sow in that scenario, and that's exactly what OSU did.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

On Zinc's point... Suppose the Giants beat New England on December 29 2007 when they met during the regular season. (NE 38 NYG 35)

NE still makes the playoffs, with 1 loss. Suppose they go on to beat NYG in the Super Bowl...

Series is still tied, but we have a completely different champion. That's bullshit.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

One thing I think you'd have to do if we just talking hypo's here is put ND either in the BE or better yet (for ease of formatting purposes) the B10.

That automatically makes all 6 BCS conferences determine an on the field champion (ACC, SEC, B12, B10 CCG's while the BE and Pac10 everyone plays everyone.)

Then you simply take the 6 Conf Champs and add as many wildcards as you want. At the very least it puts everyones fate in their own hands. As far as a certain conference sucking thats just part of the deal, every pro sport that has a playoff sees cycles where one conf or division sucks balls for a while. It all evens out.

Not saying I want any of that to happen but logically, at least to me, its the best way to start.

I ran that idea, a 6+2 system. I do remember that doing that totally screws the mid major. Not that I have a problem with it, of course, I could give a shit about fair and I'm not fan of the mid major either.

But, it has it's problems too, is the point. I could live with it though, because at least you DO have to win your conference. So, our OOC would be shit, it almost is now anyway, I guess.... But, at least you'd have an important Big 10 Schedule (I'd be against a Big 10 Championship game, but that's another issue)

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

On Zinc's point... Suppose the Giants beat New England on December 29 2007 when they met during the regular season. (NE 38 NYG 35)

NE still makes the playoffs, with 1 loss. Suppose they go on to beat NYG in the Super Bowl...

Series is still tied, but we have a completely different champion. That's bull[censored].

Thats not bullshit NY won when it mattered, thats what made them the champions. I'm done with this topic because it's really just a matter of opinion, no one is wrong or right.

 

[BB73]

I understand everyones problems with the playoff system. NO ONE has ever said it was perfect. But you can not sit here and tell me that the BCS is better.

I may not be able to convince you it's better, but I'll sit here and tell you whatever the hell I want to.

I believe you're contending that an 8-team playoff would be a better postseason that the current bowl system. Some folks that are anti-playoff may actually concede that point, but that's an entirely different thing than saying that an 8-team playoff (or 6, 12, 16 teams - pick your number) would make the overall college football season better.

BTW, who had a better regular season record in 2007 - the NY Giants, who won the Super Bowl, or the Cleveland Browns, who didn't make the playoffs?

It's a trick question - they were both 10-6.

 

[muffler dragon]

FWIW, I thought I would note that the argument based on the NFL playoff system is a non sequitur. The numbers of teams, the levels of talent and competition, the scheduling, the histories that are accounted for or not, etc render the argument useless.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Thats not bullshit NY won when it mattered, thats what made them the champions. I'm done with this topic because it's really just a matter of opinion, no one is wrong or right.

If they had said that the Dec 29 game was the one that "mattered" then NE was your champ.

Sorry, but Playoffs don't solve anything. It's not personal, it's just true.

 

[Jaxbuck]

I ran that idea, a 6+2 system. I do remember that doing that totally screws the mid major. Not that I have a problem with it, of course, I could give a shit about fair and I'm not fan of the mid major either.

But, it has it's problems too, is the point. I could live with it though, because at least you DO have to win your conference. So, our OOC would be shit, it almost is now anyway, I guess.... But, at least you'd have an important Big 10 Schedule (I'd be against a Big 10 Championship game, but that's another issue)

Exactly why I agree with Delany that once you open this up its going to do nothing but expand.

If you were to do it though I say go NFL and make it 12 teams with the top 4 seeds getting a first round bye. That leaves room for 6 teams to pick from mid majors and BCS wildcards. One would hope that would be enough.

 

[zincfinger]

This is why I find your word choice bizarre.

You aren't "unlucky" (or screwed) when you show up uninterested, out of shape and expecting to just show up and get your rings. You reap what you sow in that scenario, and that's exactly what OSU did.

It's unclear to me how that could have been the reason you found my word choice (i.e. your word choice) bizarre given that you found it bizarre before I made that statement. But to your point, you're right: it's OSU's fault they played poorly that day. I'm not arguing otherwise. What I'm arguing there is that every team plays good games and bad games over the course of a season. Florida certainly played weak games that year. And I think it's substantially a matter of luck whether your bad games happen to fall on days when you can afford it (against a weak opponent) or on days which, by somewhat arbitrary definition, it only kind of counts.

Thats not bullshit NY won when it mattered, thats what made them the champions.

And this goes to that same point. No one's arguing that New England didn't lose when it counted. By definition, they did. And that's the point. It is a matter of definition, and a somewhat arbitrary one at that, that on one day it really, truly counts, whereas on a different day it only sorta, kinda counts.

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

If they had said that the Dec 29 game was the one that "mattered" then NE was your champ.

Yeah and what if Ulysses S. Grant would have dove in front the bullet that killed Abe Lincoln? What if the Broncos would have beat the chargers and made the playoffs? They could be the champs!! You can't just try and change history to make an argument for yourself, that makes no damn sense.