Poll: College Playoff Yes or No?

[sandgk]

Some of the logistical assumptions folks make about playoff difficulty are real head-scratchers.

Fitting with the bowls? That is simple logistics. The big bowls get the finals, the Semis and the Quarter Finals, enough said.

You cannot have teams playing games two days apart?
Who says that you have to do that? Because the bowls start on December 21st? Break that mold! Have only the QF, SF and Final games played in the final three week session, the play-ins you run earlier than the current Bowl game start date of december 21st. Plenty of time after the regular season finishes, especially easy if all adhere to the Big 10 schedule and finish the 12 game regular season at or before Thanksgiving.

Ah well, enough on logisitics.

Philosophically I am opposed to a playoff. In fact, I favor the old mythical system over any other, but in its place the current flawed system is no better than a playoff - but it is not itself favored by any of the thin logistical arguments presented against a playoff.

 

[HailToMichigan]

I'm unequivocally anti-playoff here. One of the usual playoff arguments centers around the Auburn case a couple years ago, when Auburn was the odd team out of three undefeateds. The argument is that it would allow all deserving teams to play for the championship. But all that would do is expand the definition of "deserving" and then you'd have arguments about which 2-loss teams should be left out and so on. So it would solve nothing.

 

[Buckeye86]

That's the beauty of creating the a system in your mind. An undefeated team would automatically be in under the system I propose.

So which of these six teams is Boise State more deserving than to get a shot at the title (I'm sure the team and their fan base would have no problems stepping aside):
Ohio State (12-0)
Michigan (11-1)
USC (10-1)
Florida (11-1)
LSU (10-2)
Louisville (10-1)

not to mention:
Wisconsin (11-1)
Oklahoma (10-2)
Arkansas (10-2)
Auburn (10-2)
Notre Dame (10-2)
Rutgers (10-1)
Va Tech (10-2)

 

[berrienbuck]

I'm unequivocally anti-playoff here. One of the usual playoff arguments centers around the Auburn case a couple years ago, when Auburn was the odd team out of three undefeateds. The argument is that it would allow all deserving teams to play for the championship. But all that would do is expand the definition of "deserving" and then you'd have arguments about which 2-loss teams should be left out and so on. So it would solve nothing.

Yes it would solve something. If they get a shot and win, they deserved it. If they lose, the team that won deserved it. Simple.

 

[Saw31]

That's the beauty of creating the a system in your mind. An undefeated team would automatically be in under the system I propose.

So you are proposing playing the easiest schedule possible. That ought to be exciting...Notre Dame loves your idea...Brilliant...

 

[HailToMichigan]

Yes it would solve something. If they get a shot and win, they deserved it. If they lose, the team that won deserved it. Simple.

You're missing the point, I think. Under the current system, each year, only one team (if any at all) has ever been able to make a case that they were robbed of a chance to play for the championship.

But look what Buckeye86 said above. Look how many "deserving" teams would get snubbed in favor of equally deserving teams. If the top 6 BCS teams played in the playoff, it'd leave out one-loss Wisconsin, undefeated Boise State, one-loss Rutgers, and one-loss Arkansas. How would any of those teams not feel snubbed if two-loss LSU gets to play?

Or, even better, LSU plays for the championship while Arkansas does not? Most people say Michigan shouldn't play for the national title when they didn't even win their conference title. But under a playoff scenario this year, LSU would play for the national title without even winning the division title - while their division's champion gets snubbed.

Give me a playoff scenario and I can stir up controversy for it. The playoff is supposed to put a rest to controversy, but it would only create twice as much.

 

[Dryden]

Yes it would solve something. If they get a shot and win, they deserved it. If they lose, the team that won deserved it. Simple.

It's a good point, but I can't agree 100%. Sometimes the better team doesn't win. That's the problem with any single elimination playoff. There is nothing wrong with an honest, subjective measurement of team strength.

The issue I take with the 2004 Auburn argument is the same issue I take with any blanket "we're in the most difficult conference, the SEC, therefore we deserve it" argument. The SEC is two divisions, and SEC teams rarely play every single traditional power in the conference -- Florida this year is the exception, not the rule. Auburn, in 2004, didn't play Florida. They played Tennessee in the CCG, after they had already spanked them once before in the regular season. Yes, wins over LSU and Georgia were impressive, but beating Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi and Mississippi State carries as much weight as beating Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan State, and Purdue ... which is to say, not much. The non-conference schedule was an absolute joke to boot. Stop relying on the conferences' name cache in an attempt to dodge playing a decent OOC opponent, particularly on the road.

 

[sandgk]

My primary argument against the SEC's claim for primacy is precisely what you state Dryden about the OOC schedule. Too often they play really poor sisters of the poor OOC. If they have such faith in their primacy then demonstrate it dammit, on the field, during the regular season. Take on only D-1A opponents OOC, go on the road and try to handle tough gigs. There are a limited number of SEC teams that really try to do just this. It is instructive to look at what happens to them when they do.
2 years ago, the Vols take on a pretty damned poor ND team in Knoxville, and lose. They repeat the performance (of losing) the following year against an improved and inspired ND team in South Bend.
This year the prime examples would be the Vols taking on and spanking Cal in Knoxville. What they do next year on the road, who knows?
Then you have Arkansas, spanked, horribly, by a USC team that was at the time a development project. True, it was without the team set that was featured the majority of the rest of the year, but that comes down to coaching, period. Spring practice should have revealed everything to the Hogs that was laid bare by the Trojans. When the chips were down, USC went on the road and spanked a contnder for the SEC championship - and they did it with a team set that was not the one they themselves currently feature.
When they visit LA the Hogs should really consider themselves lucky if they are subjected to only the same spanking.
Meanwhile Florida hangs it hat on playing Free Shoes, but we know that does not cut it any more, Free Shoes is a spent force for the moment.
Should USC falter against the Bruins, and thus propel Florida into the championship game it will be a slaughter by Troy over the Gators, period.

 

[akronbuck]

If the top 6 BCS teams played in the playoff, it'd leave out one-loss Wisconsin, undefeated Boise State, one-loss Rutgers, and one-loss Arkansas. How would any of those teams not feel snubbed if two-loss LSU gets to play?


would have to kill/change the BCS style of ranking to create a playoff system. Thats the main problem

 

[Dryden]

sandgk, I wrote about this in another thread, but you need just look at the schedules. Since the formation of the BCS, 1998, the SEC has beaten ZERO non-conference teams of significant imporantance in a year that it has had a bearing on the national title, even including rivalries. Florida hasn't played an OOC game outside of their state since the BCS started. They've played 6 OOC road games: 5 in Tallahassee (they're 3-6 against the Noles since '98) and 1 in Miami (including Bowls, they're 0-4 against Miami since '98). Georgia has left the state of Georgia once, to play Clemson; hardly a "power," yet also still in the deep south. Auburn went to USC. Lost. Arkansas tried going to USC. Lost. Tennessee went to Notre Dame. Lost. The last OOC road win an SEC team has chalked up that mattered in the national title race was Tennessee over UCLA in 1997, which predates the BCS.

Incidentally, the SEC is 10-11 against the Big-10 since 1998 in bowl games, despite every single one being played in the deep south. The cumulative game score of those 21 bowl games pitting Big-10 vs SEC teams is 558-558, with 3 games being decided in overtime and more than half being decided by a single possession.

 

[OH10]

So which of these six teams is Boise State more deserving than to get a shot at the title (I'm sure the team and their fan base would have no problems stepping aside):
Ohio State (12-0)
Michigan (11-1)
USC (10-1)
Florida (11-1)
LSU (10-2)
Louisville (10-1)

not to mention:
Wisconsin (11-1)
Oklahoma (10-2)
Arkansas (10-2)
Auburn (10-2)
Notre Dame (10-2)
Rutgers (10-1)
Va Tech (10-2)

You must have missed me earlier when i said:

#7 would obviously bitch and moan (see #66 in college basketball), but again fuck 'em. Unless it is the strangest season in the history of college football, they'll have one, probably two losses, and no credible argument.

I'd love to see a team bitch about not getting in a playoff. It would be great comedy because you'd be talking about a team that wouldn't even have been able to sniff the unwiped asshole that is the BCS system for choosing champions.

So you are proposing playing the easiest schedule possible. That ought to be exciting...Notre Dame loves your idea...Brilliant...

That's nice in theory. But again, practically speaking, small schools make a lot of money traveling to play the big schools in their house. And, practically speaking again, it's extremely difficult to go undefeated uder any schedule. We're not talking about an influx of undefeated mid-majors here. You get one maybe every four years.

And wouldn't that be the situation now anyway that teams are fighting to play an easy schedule to go undefeated? (See West Virginia)

I mean, if Louisville hadn't choked against Rutgers, wouldn't they be playing Ohio State because of an easy schedule? (of course they thought Cryami would help out their strength of schedule when they scheduled them 5 years ago - pointing out another absurdity of the system... the requirement of foresight.)

That's the problem with any single elimination playoff. There is nothing wrong with an honest, subjective measurement of team strength.

The better team can lose in the regular season too. (See Ohio State vs. MSU '98). And there is something wrong with dishonest subjectie measurement of idiot writers and coaches that don't watch the games and make assumptions about who is better (again, why must I have to keep pointing to Miami vs. Ohio State?

 

[cincibuck]

Could you possibly see Ohio State scheduling a game to play the Broncos on the blue field? Not in a million years. If you answered 'yes' to that question, you lose all credibility.

The Buckeyes opened the season with the Wyoming Cowboys not so many years ago and with NIU this year... so, yes, it is a possibility.

And I say that in an 8 team tournament you're going to hear bitching like you've never heard it before. I was around when March Madness was 16 teams...

Once you move beyond 8 games like this year's OSU - Michigan game become significantly smaller in meaning and if the buck$ are big enough for getting in the tourney you won't see OSU scheduling anybody above UC... hell, if you know a loss to Michigan keeps you out why play them?

Or is everyone assumming that the bowls will continue with those teams that didn't make the big dance. That might work, but when was the last time you followed the NIT in March?

 

[cincibuck]

Fitting with the bowls? That is simple logistics. The big bowls get the finals, the Semis and the Quarter Finals, enough said..

You lost this vote right there. You want playoffs, you give up the warm weather sites. I want to see Miami come into Columbus in December. I want to see 60% of the tickets go to locals in Ann Arbor and Columbus while USC and Auburn get their 16,000. I flat out want to see an SEC/ACC team travel outside the South. I want equity.

 

[Saw31]

That's nice in theory. But again, practically speaking, small schools make a lot of money traveling to play the big schools in their house. And, practically speaking again, it's extremely difficult to go undefeated uder any schedule. We're not talking about an influx of undefeated mid-majors here. You get one maybe every four years.

And wouldn't that be the situation now anyway that teams are fighting to play an easy schedule to go undefeated? (See West Virginia)

Theory? I'll call your "theory" and raise you "your naive assumptions are ridiculus"...Practicality? Apparently you don't know what that word means...Let me explain what will happen, practically speaking of course...

You have it completely backwards. The money to be made by making it to the playoffs (an undefeated season in your proposal) would dwarf that of the payout to these little guys that come in to play the big boys. Take just a moment and do the math. $14 million for a BCS appearance compared to $500k to take a beating at some BCS school's home field. Hell, you'd only have to make the playoffs once a decade to make that up. Right now the little guys have to get some kind of "signature" win to get to the BCS. They need to try and knock off a quality opponent right now if they want consideration for the big money. That's what allows for these games. Auto bids for undefeated mid-majors ends every one of those games. Practically speaking, why the fuck would you risk millions by playing some powerhouse? This is not that difficult to understand...

And since I've noticed in other posts of yours, you have some sort of disdain for the money side of this...Get over it. These postseason games have always been about the money. You don't build 100,000 seat stadiums to go broke. What you will see with your plan is a mad dash to independant status so everyone can go undefeated every year to get into your playoff system. Don't think so? Stop being naive. It's about the money. Every schedule is difficult? That is as ridiculus a notion as has been posted in this thread. tOSU would go undefeated every year playing Tulane's schedule. And what happens with your playoff system when every other mid-major starts going undefeated every year? You still end up having to use some sort of human analysis or scheduling restrictions or whatever else. So what's the friggin point? Where's your "deciding it on the field" then? You seriously believe that changing the entire process for getting all that money won't effect everything from scheduling to conference memberships? This is not the NFL. There is not equity between the big boys and the little guys for a very good reason. The big boys have very big costs. They are not going to share this money with the little guys out of some sort of faux generosity. That is exactly why it is difficult to get into the money as a mid-major. Though you are not alone in this respect, you really need to put more thought into these playoff proposals, because on the face of it, they are not workable without completely changing the landscape of college athletics as a whole...And there's nothing theoretical about that.

I could go on and on about paying or not paying the teams that get byes in the first round of your playoff system, or the relative costs of an athletic department the size of tOSU vs. Wyoming and how football pays for them, etc., etc., but frankly I tire of this endless debate, that in the end is meaningless anyway. A playoff is not going to happen, exactly because of the money. If the big boys lose revenue or feel there's more money to be made elsewhere, they would just leave and start their own system. It's only practical after all...

 

[CookyPuss]

Quote:
The positive is one loss doesn't kill your regular season and the champ is truely settled on the field.

In other words, an "upset" during the regular season is an "upset", but an upset during the playoffs is somehow different? An undefeated OSU losing to a two loss Oklahoma in round one "proves" beyond all argument that Oklahoma had the better team because the game was played in December/January?

No, it is simply that only the games played in December/January 'count' - which is the crux of my problem with playoffs.

This particular argument fascinates me because there is no way to solve it. Some like Oh8ch will always say that the best team never loses. I agree. In 1998, tOSU did not deserve to win a National Championship after losing to Michigan State when there was an undefeated team for another major conference (Tennessee). However, FSU "earned" the right to play them by losing earlier in the year than tOSU to that power house known as NC State. Had FSU won, they would have been "National Champions" and finished with one loss just like tOSU and Tennessee. UCLA and K-State also had 1 loss going into the bowls. In fairness to the BCS this one worked out in the end. However...

We have a similar situation this year. 1 undefeated team and several one loss teams. How do you know who "deserves" to play for the NC. Currently, a team that lost to an unranked team has the edge over the team that lost to the #1 team and a team that lost to a ranked team in a close game on the road. I all depends upon which angle to look at it. Who played the toughest schedule? Who looks the best? Who had the "best" loss?

It appears that Florida "lost" its shot at the NC on October 14 with a loss to then #11 Auburn. USC lost to unranked Oregon State two weeks later. How do you quantify that loss against the losses of the other one loss teams? There is no objective way to do this. Jeff Sagarin would disagree with me, but I'm not buying into this computer formula nonsense.

What do playoffs give us that the current system does not? An objective way to determine which losses "count." I know that this argument is somewhat circular in nature. In an ideal world, we would have 2 undefeated teams at the end of the regular season who get to play for the national championship. Wish it would happen. That would be truly great. But it doesn't, so this whole argument exists around what criteria do we use to determine who "deserves" that opportunity.

This is where I think that a playoff has a clear advantage. If and only if, the playoff is small 4-8 teams and the criteria are very clear for who gets in. I agree with the bell curve and don't think the "average" folks should get in. I think those criteria would matter a great deal in whether or not the system is accepted as legit. It really all comes down to where you want to draw that line. It will always be an issue because in any given year, I think you would draw that line at a different place. This year its pretty easy, you draw it right behind tOSU and let everyone else play for 2nd place. Some years there may be 4 teams or 5 teams or 3 teams or 7 teams that are very close.

I think that drawing the line at 2 teams as the current BCS does leaves too much room for error. A small playoff would be more likely to guarantee that the true champion is in the pool of teams playing for it. Yes, this leaves the door open for a "non-deserving" team to win it, but I think that door is already open. I know it seems illogical, but I woud like to see it open wider because I want to make sure that in any given year everyone who "deserves" a shot, gets it.