How The Hell Did We Get Here?

Sigh...Dan Wetzel is a douche bag. All he does is b!^@h about his playoff system. Everything gets spun to the playoff angle. I've emailed him before about some very real concerns about a playoff system and he chooses to answer in his articles only questions that he has fool proof answers for. It's one thing to support something and write an editorial on but the guy has a half dozen playoff rants every season. He rarely ever covers the negatives of a playoff. I wish he would be balanced or just say it once in a while and be done but it's overkill. I refuse to read his crap anymore...whatever he's writing about. We could cure cancer if we just had a damn playoff system. (breathes deeply....)

 
knapplc said:
CornHOLIO said:
knapplc said:
Out of curiosity, what are the negatives of a playoff?
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, what are the positives of a playoff?
Click to expand...
Hundreds of millions of dollars in extra revenue - according to one model up to $780 million more.

Having a true champion instead of this farce we have now.

Not being controlled by the BCS.

It is the most logical way to determine a champion.
Click to expand...
I just want to see a champion because of that teams play on the field...not some computer system or fan poll. Honestly, I wouldn't care if the BCS stayed in place just how it is now...only difference is that it would determine the top 8 (or whatever #) teams that make the playoff. We still get controversy over who gets in the playoff but in the end, WE HAVE AN ACTUAL NATIONAL CHAMP! The bowls don't have to change at all...keep them the same. Take the rotating BCS Champ game and rotate it in the playoff. Use the Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, Jerry-World, Orange, etc bowls as playoff stops. The Holiday bowl would mean the same in a playoff as it does now....pretty much nothing.

 
I believe I've stated this before somewhere but here goes...

You would still have conflict. Look at the basketball tournament this season...Duke wins....many argued that they were placed in the easiest or most favorable bracket and ku got eliminated by a small fry early on.

You make a 4 team playoff...ok what about team #5 who also has one loss from say the pac10? You take last season for example....bama undefeated against cincy, boise, tcu, texas....who gets left out? Hmmm? And why even let in boise or tcu after playing such a patsy schedule week in and out? bama and texass ran the gauntlet and deserved to face each other for the title. But cincy or boise or tcu could have one great game in them that robs bama and/or texass of this chance. The farther you expand the playoff the worse it gets and the less relevent the regular season becomes.

And let's say the playoff requires a team to play an extra 2 or 3 games in a bracket. Do you just extend the regular season and beat up on these kids for 15, 16, 17 games a year? Or do you cut back on regular season games in which case maybe nebraska doesn't get into a playoff due to an unfortunate injury to a qb or several close losses in a competitive year...suddenly we see our season end at 11 or 12 games. I'd feel cheated by that.

Go back to 2001. We didn't deserve to be in the big game but neither did the 2 loss big12 champ colorado. The flaw in the system should be simple... undefeated from major conferences get first pick then vote on lower undefeated with 1 loss majors. That's where things need to be tweaked. The point I was making with the 01 season is a playoff taking the best teams from that season still would've had the dilemma of choosing to take two big12 teams or just one and which one. The current system is flawed but a playoff doesn't guarantee perfection and that's why I get so upset with Wetzel because he's not being realistic about the whole thing. I'm sure there is more to say but I'm out of time at the moment. May add more later....a playoff would be fun but I still like the current system better. Football all holiday season with matchups all over the place with students getting rewards for getting to six wins is just cool.

 
ira, you're right that there would still be conflict. You will very rarely have a champion in any sport without some disagreement about something, somewhere.

The simple fact is that a tournament setting provides the least amount of error possible in picking a champion. Not no error, not perfect resolution, just the least amount. That's why nearly every major sport in the world, and most of the minor ones, use tournaments to determine champions. It's all about the least path of resistance, and that's what a tournament provides.

 
I respectfully disagree. I believe either method gives different problems that equally affect the outcome. It's just a personal preference and I don't find tournaments that exciting. I like the season long drama plus the bowl game drama...OMG kansas state has 6 wins but needs 7 because two were against d2 schools. Good stuff.

I also don't believe the other sports use a playoff for fairness...it's about revenue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
ira, you're right that there would still be conflict. You will very rarely have a champion in any sport without some disagreement about something, somewhere.

The simple fact is that a tournament setting provides the least amount of error possible in picking a champion. Not no error, not perfect resolution, just the least amount. That's why nearly every major sport in the world, and most of the minor ones, use tournaments to determine champions. It's all about the least path of resistance, and that's what a tournament provides.
Click to expand...
Knapp..

Didn't you already lose this argument in a couple of other threads?

Just kidding, even a lurker knows you'd never allow yourself to lose an argument.

But really...What's changed in the two months since the last four pager dealing with playoffs vs. BCS vs old Bowl system? The money promised by some really smart sportscaster (pardon the oxymoron) that makes the guys on ESPN sound like geniuses?

I can see what with the conference expansion thing being forced down or throats that we might be getting tired of it all and since we're already losing the last threads of any resemblance to old traditions...We might be more willing to just bend over and take it.

But still...

I guess, strike while the coffee iron is hot....And trade a "Whole Season" Champ for an end of the year "true?" champ.

 
irafreak said:
I respectfully disagree. I believe either method gives different problems that equally affect the outcome. It's just a personal preference and I don't find tournaments that exciting. I like the season long drama plus the bowl game drama...OMG kansas state has 6 wins but needs 7 because two were against d2 schools. Good stuff.

I also don't believe the other sports use a playoff for fairness...it's about revenue.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to try to tell you your opinion is wrong. You like what you like and that's cool. Sports do reap monetary rewards from tournaments, but they also do it because it's the best method. Your local beer league softball has a tournament at the end of their season, and that's not for money. I've played in dozens of volleyball leagues through city rec and private clubs, and you don't win anything but a plastic trophy when you take home the title. It's all about ease of determining the champion, and there's drama in tournaments like there is when KSU has to beat an actual football team to get voted into a bowl game. If you like that, that's cool, but it's not the method that most sports use.

The only other major sport I can think of that uses votes to determine a champion is figure skating, but they're making judgments based on skills, not head-to-head competition.

 
I really think other sports use the playoff (if not for money) because it's more appealing to the competitors. Gives them the feeling of having a shot. When I wrestled we had a regional tournament and got seeded according to our record. However I got better in my first year as the season went on and nearly beat the defending champ (damn buzzer on the other mat)...would it have been fair for me with my 3 wins all season to place higher than the guy who had only 3 losses?

 
irafreak said:
I really think other sports use the playoff (if not for money) because it's more appealing to the competitors. Gives them the feeling of having a shot. When I wrestled we had a regional tournament and got seeded according to our record. However I got better in my first year as the season went on and nearly beat the defending champ (damn buzzer on the other mat)...would it have been fair for me with my 3 wins all season to place higher than the guy who had only 3 losses?
Click to expand...
Why would it have been unfair? If he was so much better than you, shouldn't he have beaten you easily?

 
No he had more experience but he won most of his matches quickly and I was a little stronger and had much more endurance cause my matches usually went full time. All I'm saying is a playoff creates an opportunity for a team that has worked hard all season and earned a nice spot to have one poor performance or anomaly against an opponent that doesn't even deserve to be in the title run...

 
irafreak said:
No he had more experience but he won most of his matches quickly and I was a little stronger and had much more endurance cause my matches usually went full time. All I'm saying is a playoff creates an opportunity for a team that has worked hard all season and earned a nice spot to have one poor performance or anomaly against an opponent that doesn't even deserve to be in the title run...
Click to expand...
This is why it is always said that the MLB, NHL, and NBA playoffs are the perfect way to decide this because you can't "fluke" 4 wins out of 7 games against a team that is better than you. That just isn't possible.

However, I realize that is impossible in football.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top