Why college football is better off without the BCS

[tschu]

So you can write "American History" on the list of things you don't understand. Right below "College Football".

 

Step 1: Make a stretch that would challenge most gymnasts. (college football to slavery)

Step 2: Allow connotations to do the rest. (no playoff=slavery)

Step 3: Profit.

 

Well done, sir.

Chalk another one up to the list that didn't get my satirical "comparison" not in order to make a point, but in order to illustrate that using such logic as "CFB was fine for 100 years with an archaic joke of a championship system" and "America was fine for 80 years with slavery" is BAD BAD LOGIC

[tschu]

Yeah...Sure you were....Except that you chose an example tailored to your argument versus his, although it was a poor example and it doesn't really fit at all......

I did that on purpose to make fun of his argument. I mean I didn't think that would be so hard to comprehend. See above.

[dutch91701]

College football can prosper by imitating the NFL about as well as college baseball can the MLB. BTW, should FSU have to wait behind Purdue to draft the best high school athlete?

 

As for the 12-0 teams that didn't get a national title, I don't see why a 9-7 team that ran hot in the playoffs is any better. It was an arbitrary decision to declare the games in January more important. At least in the former case the players and fans get to talk about that year for the rest of their lives.

Are people who are against the idea of a playoff incapable of figuring out that there will never be a 9-7 team in the playoffs - or, adjusting for a 12 game schedule, a 7-5 team? We've already been over this once (at least).

You're right. We're incapable. We're stupid because we don't see how arbitrarily inviting four teams is better than arbitrarily inviting two. That was the point to his post. Clearly you missed it.

[tschu]

With the easier-to-comprehend, straightforward point being, just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't mean that it should always be done that way. We should always look for a way to improve things.

 

(The obvious counterargument here is "Well, it was just done for money" which is partially true)

[dutch91701]

Yeah...Sure you were....Except that you chose an example tailored to your argument versus his, although it was a poor example and it doesn't really fit at all......

I did that on purpose to make fun of his argument. I mean I didn't think that would be so hard to comprehend. See above.

I get what you were trying to do, I really do. It wasn't a joke though. You were saying that saying CFB was fine with a playoff is like saying America was fine with slavery. However the two don't even match up for satirical purposes, at least the way you presented it. List item #3: Satire.

[tschu]

Anyways...

 

We reach the playoff conclusion for several reasons

 

1. The inherent *need* to crown a champion on the field. Sports in this country (in general, really) are about the draw of competition, of winning and losing. It brings about closure to the season and a resolution to the season-long conflict that has been playing out on the field. Any champion who is determined by a series of direct wins and losses in a playoff-type system which includes as many championship-caliber teams as possible (I put 8 as the perfect number, but that's up for debate) will be viewed as a more legitimate champion.

2. The fact that schedules are massively unbalanced in college football. If every single team played a 120-game round robin with each other team, it would be quite easy to crown a champion without a playoff (Just take the team with the best record!). But prior to the BCS even, situations would arise between an undefeated team who clearly played an inferior schedule to a 1-loss team with a very good loss. How do you decide a fair winner there?

3. The variance that exists in football means that the best team in the nation can lose 1 or two games just on how the ball bounces on a particular day, where a team like Notre Dame in 2012 can squeak out a couple of lucky wins and finish undefeated even though they are clearly not a strong team. For this reason, including more teams is better because it includes any teams who may have been on the wrong side of the bounce of the ball once or twice (or officiating, like Michigan State this year!)

4. The business that is college football is gigantic at this point, and a big extravagant playoff series will create huge attention, viewership, advertising opportunities, ticket sales, TV contracts, you name it. Money is certainly part of the equation.

 

Of course, that same variance means that the winner of the playoff will be more variable than crowning one team by a vote after the season. The 4-seed might knock off the 1-seed. It could happen! And probably will at some point! But that's outweighed by the fact that deciding the winner on the field gives greater legitimacy to the eventual champion. If that 4-seed Michigan State had knocked off 1-seed Florida State this year, we couldn't really question that result. They won on the field, fair and square. If somehow MSU's 12-1 season was massively more illigitimate than FSU's 13-0 regular season and the regular season is rendered inconsequential by such a possibility in your mind...well I don't know what to tell you. You probably won't be happy with any system.

 

Plus the playoff will be fun!

[tschu]

What do we lose?

 

A) 2 Bowl games, sort of. They'll still be played, but they'll be for bigger stakes.

 

B) ??

[Mavric]

College football can prosper by imitating the NFL about as well as college baseball can the MLB. BTW, should FSU have to wait behind Purdue to draft the best high school athlete?

 

As for the 12-0 teams that didn't get a national title, I don't see why a 9-7 team that ran hot in the playoffs is any better. It was an arbitrary decision to declare the games in January more important. At least in the former case the players and fans get to talk about that year for the rest of their lives.

Are people who are against the idea of a playoff incapable of figuring out that there will never be a 9-7 team in the playoffs - or, adjusting for a 12 game schedule, a 7-5 team? We've already been over this once (at least).

You're right. We're incapable. We're stupid because we don't see how arbitrarily inviting four teams is better than arbitrarily inviting two. That was the point to his post. Clearly you missed it.

Right. So the point of mentioning it again was ... what exactly?

[dutch91701]

College football can prosper by imitating the NFL about as well as college baseball can the MLB. BTW, should FSU have to wait behind Purdue to draft the best high school athlete?

 

As for the 12-0 teams that didn't get a national title, I don't see why a 9-7 team that ran hot in the playoffs is any better. It was an arbitrary decision to declare the games in January more important. At least in the former case the players and fans get to talk about that year for the rest of their lives.

Are people who are against the idea of a playoff incapable of figuring out that there will never be a 9-7 team in the playoffs - or, adjusting for a 12 game schedule, a 7-5 team? We've already been over this once (at least).

You're right. We're incapable. We're stupid because we don't see how arbitrarily inviting four teams is better than arbitrarily inviting two. That was the point to his post. Clearly you missed it.

Right. So the point of mentioning it again was ... what exactly?

Read your post. You took part of his post and went kinda strawman with it.

[dutch91701]

What do we lose?

 

A) 2 Bowl games, sort of. They'll still be played, but they'll be for bigger stakes.

 

B) ??

The uniqueness of college football, tradition, and meaningful regular season games (just watch, "they can still probably get into the playoffs" will be used multiple times this season). It's change that doesn't solve anything; change for the sake of change. You post definitively saying "all of the fans of the sport want playoffs". Really? How many of those fans wanted a playoff before ESPN told them they wanted it? Enjoy being a mouthpiece.

[Mavric]

Read your post. You took part of his post and went kinda strawman with it.

So no answer? That's fine.

 

And I think you need to investigate the definition of a straw man argument. Hint: it's the opposite of dealing directly with what someone actually said.

[tschu]

What do we lose?

 

A) 2 Bowl games, sort of. They'll still be played, but they'll be for bigger stakes.

 

B) ??

The uniqueness of college football, tradition, and meaningful regular season games (just watch, "they can still probably get into the playoffs" will be used multiple times this season). It's change that doesn't solve anything; change for the sake of change. You post definitively saying "all of the fans of the sport want playoffs". Really? How many of those fans wanted a playoff before ESPN told them they wanted it? Enjoy being a mouthpiece.

I post definitively because that's how I always make my arguments. I don't pretend or think that I'm speaking for anyone else.

 

And I'm hardly alone. People have been complaining about the BCS since it began and had been complaining about the previous system before that. And people will likely complain that the playoff doesn't include enough teams! I am not a mouthpiece for ESPN; I hate ESPN. I've already refuted pretty much everything you can say about the regular season, the only argument left is some vague "soul of college football" intangible stuff that people like to poetically speak about, as if THIS will be the thing that destroys the soul of CFB - not conference realignment or Nike or ESPN or recruiting scandals or the thousands of alternate uniforms or overly-corporate attitude of athletic departments and media.

[dutch91701]

Read your post. You took part of his post and went kinda strawman with it.

So no answer? That's fine.

 

And I think you need to investigate the definition of a straw man argument. Hint: it's the opposite of dealing directly with what someone actually said.

Ok.....So nobody thinks a 7-5 team is going to be in the 4 team playoff. You took one issue he raised as an example and turned it into " the anti-playoff crowd is so stupid that they think 7-5 will get you into the playoffs" except you worded it in a question, obviously. You tried to discredit an argument that was never raised.

 

What didn't I answer? I've responded appropriately twice and your counters have been:

 

"Right. So the point of mentioning it again was ... what exactly? "

and

"So no answer? That's fine."

 

I can't help you if you refuse to read my posts.

[dutch91701]

What do we lose?

 

A) 2 Bowl games, sort of. They'll still be played, but they'll be for bigger stakes.

 

B) ??

The uniqueness of college football, tradition, and meaningful regular season games (just watch, "they can still probably get into the playoffs" will be used multiple times this season). It's change that doesn't solve anything; change for the sake of change. You post definitively saying "all of the fans of the sport want playoffs". Really? How many of those fans wanted a playoff before ESPN told them they wanted it? Enjoy being a mouthpiece.

I post definitively because that's how I always make my arguments. I don't pretend or think that I'm speaking for anyone else.

 

And I'm hardly alone. People have been complaining about the BCS since it began and had been complaining about the previous system before that. And people will likely complain that the playoff doesn't include enough teams! I am not a mouthpiece for ESPN; I hate ESPN. I've already refuted pretty much everything you can say about the regular season, the only argument left is some vague "soul of college football" intangible stuff that people like to poetically speak about, as if THIS will be the thing that destroys the soul of CFB - not conference realignment or Nike or ESPN or recruiting scandals or the thousands of alternate uniforms or overly-corporate attitude of athletic departments and media.

You and other pedestrian fans. Changing to a 4-team playoff makes more money and appeals to people who wouldn't otherwise be interested.

 

Bowls:

"You gonna watch the Sugar Bowl?"

"No I don't really follow Team X and Team Y"

--------------------------------------

Playoffs:

"You gonna watch the NATIONAL SEMIFINAL!?"

"Yeah that's a huge game!"

 

It'll increase ratings among people who don't give a crap about college football and wouldn't normally watch it. It does away with tradition for a few extra bucks and WILL NOT solve anything.

4 teams? #5 will be pissed.

6 teams? #7 will be pissed.

8 teams? #9 will be pissed.

10+ teams? That's 17-18 games in a season for supposed student-athletes. But hey, let's just pay them all at that point. We're going that direction anyways.

[tschu]

It's like you didn't read any of my posts and then proceeded to call me a "pedestrian fan", followed by a bunch of made-up gibberish. Wait, that's precisely what you did.