Playoffs

[knapplc]

To compare the importance of NYG-Philly to Stanford-Oregon or Wisconsin-Ohio St. is absurd. Not even close. Everything was on the line in the latter games, which is why those games were so monumental. The NYG loss to Philly was just one of several and, while important, it pales in comparison.

There are far more zombies on the pro-big playoff side, mindlessly chanting "settle it on the field!", "screw the BCS!", etc. without even understanding how the BCS works or having any interest in discussing philosophically the nuances of each system and where value is placed in each.

As I've said countless times, I'm all for a 4-team playoff so that we can sort out among teams that are all deserving (TCU got left out this year, and I don't deny that's a shame). But college football, unlike many sports, has always been about having a national championship season. Sports with large playoff pools use the regular season as qualifying runs for playoff berths, and winning the playoff itself is where the value is placed. In college basketball or the NBA (even the NFL to a smaller extent) it would be more appropriate to call the winner the "playoff champion" as opposed to the "2010 National Champion". The winner is the team that put it all together for a 3-4 week stretch at the end of the season, and beat a series of several teams (although there's no guarantee those opponents were the best or most deserving). That doesn't guarantee that they had the most worthy season. But again, most people aren't interested in a nuanced debate. They love the thought of brackets and hate the BCS (regardless if they have a clue what it is or the history of how it came to be).

Here's another thing to consider. Any playoff system larger than four most likely includes automatic qualifiers for AQ conference champions. Well, you might as well call September the preseason then, because big non-conference games make very little difference to AQ schools with title aspirations. Let's say #2 Ohio State is set to play #4 LSU. From a national title perspective, what's the point? A loss doesn't hurt anybody, as winning their respective conferences is the only real goal. Might as well rest the starters.

Do you even realize what happened to the Jints yesterday? To say there was nothing on the line is just silly. They went from being in control of their division with a first-round bye in their pocket to needing to win out to even make the playoffs. There was everything on the line for NY, they blew it, and it was high drama - right down to Jackson's punt return. Pretending that was an unimportant game completely ignores reality.

And what are you talking about with the zombies comment? So everyone from the Greeks and the Olympics in 500 BC on up to today's playoff systems are zombies, and the BCS proponents are the only ones who understand the philosophical nuances of sport? Pardon me while I do a spit-take....

Most of the people supporting the BCS couldn't even tell you the formula they use. Heck, most of the people supporting the BCS couldn't even tell you the components of the system. Let's deal with reality, not some pretend fantasy-land where BCS proponents are some uber-educated group while us knuckle-dragging troglodytes mindlessly support a playoff. Believe me, I ain't your huckleberry in that scenario.

The national championship season you're talking about was dealt a death blow in 1995 when they limited scholarships. The genie is out of the bottle, J, and it's not going back in. The rest of your explanation misses the point - the regular season is for seeding, not just a berth. It's not like Boise St. is going to have the same road in the playoffs as Auburn or Oregon. For all your talk about nuances, you've utterly failed to grasp the point of the regular season in a playoff scenario.

 

[Hercules]

Here's another thing to consider. Any playoff system larger than four most likely includes automatic qualifiers for AQ conference champions. Well, you might as well call September the preseason then, because big non-conference games make very little difference to AQ schools with title aspirations. Let's say #2 Ohio State is set to play #4 LSU. From a national title perspective, what's the point? A loss doesn't hurt anybody, as winning their respective conferences is the only real goal. Might as well rest the starters.

In most playoff scenarios, seeds would be determined by polls, and higher seeds would receive home field advantage in the first few rounds of the playoffs. So, that non-conference schedule would still be pretty important. As important? No. But right now, while the regular season is very important, the post-season is 99% meaningless. If we could make the post season just 75% meaningless and change the regular season from 0% meaningless to 10% meaningless, I'd be more than ok with that.

 

[junior4949]

It's silly to think that playoffs destroy the importance of the regular season. Regular season games aren't minimized by playoffs, they just have different meaning. Instead of playing for that ridiculous two spots in the MNC game, you're playing for your playoff life and/or seeding.

Ask the New York Giants this morning how "boring" or "minimal" regular season games are. They went from winning their division and a first-round bye to having to win out to make the playoffs. Doesn't sound boring or minimal to me.

So many of the arguments against a playoff are so easy to skewer. It's like people don't even think before throwing these arguments out - they're just so ingrained to support the BCS that they toss out any old argument without bothering to look at the myriad examples we already have where playoffs work, and work well.

To compare the importance of NYG-Philly to Stanford-Oregon or Wisconsin-Ohio St. is absurd. Not even close. Everything was on the line in the latter games, which is why those games were so monumental. The NYG loss to Philly was just one of several and, while important, it pales in comparison.

There are far more zombies on the pro-big playoff side, mindlessly chanting "settle it on the field!", "screw the BCS!", etc. without even understanding how the BCS works or having any interest in discussing philosophically the nuances of each system and where value is placed in each.

As I've said countless times, I'm all for a 4-team playoff so that we can sort out among teams that are all deserving (TCU got left out this year, and I don't deny that's a shame). But college football, unlike many sports, has always been about having a national championship season. Sports with large playoff pools use the regular season as qualifying runs for playoff berths, and winning the playoff itself is where the value is placed. In college basketball or the NBA (even the NFL to a smaller extent) it would be more appropriate to call the winner the "playoff champion" as opposed to the "2010 National Champion". The winner is the team that put it all together for a 3-4 week stretch at the end of the season, and beat a series of several teams (although there's no guarantee those opponents were the best or most deserving). That doesn't guarantee that they had the most worthy season. But again, most people aren't interested in a nuanced debate. They love the thought of brackets and hate the BCS (regardless if they have a clue what it is or the history of how it came to be).

Here's another thing to consider. Any playoff system larger than four most likely includes automatic qualifiers for AQ conference champions. Well, you might as well call September the preseason then, because big non-conference games make very little difference to AQ schools with title aspirations. Let's say #2 Ohio State is set to play #4 LSU. From a national title perspective, what's the point? A loss doesn't hurt anybody, as winning their respective conferences is the only real goal. Might as well rest the starters.

I somewhat agree with your assessment. I would probably tweak it to eight teams making the playoffs rather than just four. Sixteen teams is too many. Alabama with three losses would get into the playoffs this year using a sixteen team scenario. They would play Auburn right off, and might very well beat them as they should have during the regular season. This would diminish the regular season having this many teams make a playoff. The reason I hang with eight is because we've seen too many years like last year where there are just too many zero to one loss teams. Last year, Boise State was the last of the undefeated teams, but they were down at six. In 2007, you had a one loss Ohio State followed by a slew of two loss teams. In 08' the top eight teams except for Utah all had one loss. Sixteen expands the pool too much, and I believe four keeps the pool to narrow.

 

[JTrain]

Do you even realize what happened to the Jints yesterday? To say there was nothing on the line is just silly. They went from being in control of their division with a first-round bye in their pocket to needing to win out to even make the playoffs. There was everything on the line for NY, they blew it, and it was high drama - right down to Jackson's punt return. Pretending that was an unimportant game completely ignores reality.

You missed when I said "...while important...". I didn't once deny that it was an important game. Just said it isn't anywhere near the importance of a big college football game between two title contenders. The Giants also have four other losses to point at for why they're in the current scenario.

And what are you talking about with the zombies comment? So everyone from the Greeks and the Olympics in 500 BC on up to today's playoff systems are zombies, and the BCS proponents are the only ones who understand the philosophical nuances of sport? Pardon me while I do a spit-take....

Probably 80% of fans support a playoff. I definitely think there are more uniformed fans in that mass than in those defending the current/historical system. Surely one is less likely to go against the grain without some justification, would you agree? And I'm sure you know I'm not insulting your intelligence personally, nor would I include you among the zombies, of course. But I have seen countless people online yell and scream about how terrible the BCS (they often cleverly refer to it as the BSC)-- whether it's on forums, Facebook or whatever-- when many of them could not even tell you the basic formula for the BCS.

Most of the people supporting the BCS couldn't even tell you the formula they use. Heck, most of the people supporting the BCS couldn't even tell you the components of the system. Let's deal with reality, not some pretend fantasy-land where BCS proponents are some uber-educated group while us knuckle-dragging troglodytes mindlessly support a playoff. Believe me, I ain't your huckleberry in that scenario.

Again, I disagree. Since those sticking up for the traditional bowl system are a pretty small minority among fans, I think they tend to be better informed than the average "BCS is the devil!" Mama Boucher-style BCS hater. Just as a general psychological principle, a person not well-informed on a certain issue is more likely to throw in with the majority. Of course there are plenty of exceptions. But the average black Obama voter is less informed than the average black McCain voter. That's not denying that their are plenty of very well-informed black Obama voters, but the uninformed are very likely to just go with the majority.

Unless one of us is willing to do an extensive survey, there's no point in arguing this further. We each have our observations.

The national championship season you're talking about was dealt a death blow in 1995 when they limited scholarships. The genie is out of the bottle, J, and it's not going back in. The rest of your explanation misses the point - the regular season is for seeding, not just a berth. It's not like Boise St. is going to have the same road in the playoffs as Auburn or Oregon. For all your talk about nuances, you've utterly failed to grasp the point of the regular season in a playoff scenario.

Apparently Auburn, Oregon, TCU and a whole bunch of other post-95 unbeatens missed this memo.

I can't get excited about a game for seeding. I just can't. You're going to tell Wisconsin fans, "Hey, you beat #1 Ohio State in possibly the biggest game in Madison history! Congrats, you get a higher seed than them in the playoffs, and if you meet again, you'll get them at home!" Umm, what's that? Our team just poured their heart and soul into upsetting the mighty Buckeyes, and it was all for getting a little better seed?

Or, hey Boise (and James Madison!), great job on knocking off VaTech. Well, the Hokies still get to play for the national title, but your huge victories mean they won't be playing at home!

Or, how about an example closer to home. 1971 Game of the Century. #1 Nebraska @ #2 Oklahoma. EVERYTHING on the line. Well, not really in a playoff system. Nebraska wins, knocking OU down to the #3 spot and thus the #3 seed. So hey, I guess that epic win means if they play in the playoffs, the game's in Lincoln! But... we already beat them... now we have to beat them again? Yeah, but you get them at home! Well, unless they're on the other side of the bracket (most brackets have #1 on the opposite side of 2 and 3) then we'd play them on a neutral field.

 

[VA Husker Fan]

I'd do 8, or 12 at the most. I like how 12 gives the top 4 teams a bye, which in a big way keeps games relevant. You lose a game and there's a good chance you have an extra game to make it all the way. You lose two, there's a good chance you'll be playing at someone else's home, if you even make it.

 

[deedsker15]

I like a 8 team system where if you have already played a team the only way you can meat them is in the title game. Also, then make it that no conference should send more than two teams to the bracket. All other bowls would be intact.

 

[Redmusky]

Most plans give to much credit to the non BCS schools. They get one team including the independents. Like the commissioner from the Big 10 stated you done zero to produce big payouts

 

[HUSKER 37]

Do you even realize what happened to the Jints yesterday? To say there was nothing on the line is just silly. They went from being in control of their division with a first-round bye in their pocket to needing to win out to even make the playoffs. There was everything on the line for NY, they blew it, and it was high drama - right down to Jackson's punt return. Pretending that was an unimportant game completely ignores reality.

You missed when I said "...while important...". I didn't once deny that it was an important game. Just said it isn't anywhere near the importance of a big college football game between two title contenders. The Giants also have four other losses to point at for why they're in the current scenario.

And what are you talking about with the zombies comment? So everyone from the Greeks and the Olympics in 500 BC on up to today's playoff systems are zombies, and the BCS proponents are the only ones who understand the philosophical nuances of sport? Pardon me while I do a spit-take....

Probably 80% of fans support a playoff. I definitely think there are more uniformed fans in that mass than in those defending the current/historical system. Surely one is less likely to go against the grain without some justification, would you agree? And I'm sure you know I'm not insulting your intelligence personally, nor would I include you among the zombies, of course. But I have seen countless people online yell and scream about how terrible the BCS (they often cleverly refer to it as the BSC)-- whether it's on forums, Facebook or whatever-- when many of them could not even tell you the basic formula for the BCS.

Most of the people supporting the BCS couldn't even tell you the formula they use. Heck, most of the people supporting the BCS couldn't even tell you the components of the system. Let's deal with reality, not some pretend fantasy-land where BCS proponents are some uber-educated group while us knuckle-dragging troglodytes mindlessly support a playoff. Believe me, I ain't your huckleberry in that scenario.

Again, I disagree. Since those sticking up for the traditional bowl system are a pretty small minority among fans, I think they tend to be better informed than the average "BCS is the devil!" Mama Boucher-style BCS hater. Just as a general psychological principle, a person not well-informed on a certain issue is more likely to throw in with the majority. Of course there are plenty of exceptions. But the average black Obama voter is less informed than the average black McCain voter. That's not denying that their are plenty of very well-informed black Obama voters, but the uninformed are very likely to just go with the majority.

Unless one of us is willing to do an extensive survey, there's no point in arguing this further. We each have our observations.

The national championship season you're talking about was dealt a death blow in 1995 when they limited scholarships. The genie is out of the bottle, J, and it's not going back in. The rest of your explanation misses the point - the regular season is for seeding, not just a berth. It's not like Boise St. is going to have the same road in the playoffs as Auburn or Oregon. For all your talk about nuances, you've utterly failed to grasp the point of the regular season in a playoff scenario.

Apparently Auburn, Oregon, TCU and a whole bunch of other post-95 unbeatens missed this memo.

I can't get excited about a game for seeding. I just can't. You're going to tell Wisconsin fans, "Hey, you beat #1 Ohio State in possibly the biggest game in Madison history! Congrats, you get a higher seed than them in the playoffs, and if you meet again, you'll get them at home!" Umm, what's that? Our team just poured their heart and soul into upsetting the mighty Buckeyes, and it was all for getting a little better seed?

Or, hey Boise (and James Madison!), great job on knocking off VaTech. Well, the Hokies still get to play for the national title, but your huge victories mean they won't be playing at home!

Or, how about an example closer to home. 1971 Game of the Century. #1 Nebraska @ #2 Oklahoma. EVERYTHING on the line. Well, not really in a playoff system. Nebraska wins, knocking OU down to the #3 spot and thus the #3 seed. So hey, I guess that epic win means if they play in the playoffs, the game's in Lincoln! But... we already beat them... now we have to beat them again? Yeah, but you get them at home! Well, unless they're on the other side of the bracket (most brackets have #1 on the opposite side of 2 and 3) then we'd play them on a neutral field.

Well said!

Sometimes I even subconciously find myself using this BCS/Playoff debate as a "litmus test" on a persons ability to think ahead in "the long run".

Main reason I thought we were in big trouble when Obama started a crusade for the playoffs.

The only difference is that in a playoff scenario, you have a real bona-fide champion, not some beauty pageant winner.---Knapplic

I'd bet my BCS winner could beat your "real bona-fide" champion in the last game of the season.

It's foolish of me to expect many of you to feel the same way that some of us do about the playoffs..Probably none of you hate the NFL near as much as I do..It's not even so much "Hate" as apathy..I can't even remember (without googling) the one year the local team (cardinals?) made it to the SupperBowl.

I know there are other reasons besides playoffs' degredation of the regular season for this..Too many losses by your "favourite" team..Which usually have little meaning, because since the pool of teams is so small, you end up playing that team again at least once.

98% of my sporting attention is reserved for NCAA Div-1 Football.

Why would I want it to get anywhere near close to resembling the rest?

 

[Hercules]

Do you even realize what happened to the Jints yesterday? To say there was nothing on the line is just silly. They went from being in control of their division with a first-round bye in their pocket to needing to win out to even make the playoffs. There was everything on the line for NY, they blew it, and it was high drama - right down to Jackson's punt return. Pretending that was an unimportant game completely ignores reality.

You missed when I said "...while important...". I didn't once deny that it was an important game. Just said it isn't anywhere near the importance of a big college football game between two title contenders. The Giants also have four other losses to point at for why they're in the current scenario.

And what are you talking about with the zombies comment? So everyone from the Greeks and the Olympics in 500 BC on up to today's playoff systems are zombies, and the BCS proponents are the only ones who understand the philosophical nuances of sport? Pardon me while I do a spit-take....

Probably 80% of fans support a playoff. I definitely think there are more uniformed fans in that mass than in those defending the current/historical system. Surely one is less likely to go against the grain without some justification, would you agree? And I'm sure you know I'm not insulting your intelligence personally, nor would I include you among the zombies, of course. But I have seen countless people online yell and scream about how terrible the BCS (they often cleverly refer to it as the BSC)-- whether it's on forums, Facebook or whatever-- when many of them could not even tell you the basic formula for the BCS.

Most of the people supporting the BCS couldn't even tell you the formula they use. Heck, most of the people supporting the BCS couldn't even tell you the components of the system. Let's deal with reality, not some pretend fantasy-land where BCS proponents are some uber-educated group while us knuckle-dragging troglodytes mindlessly support a playoff. Believe me, I ain't your huckleberry in that scenario.

Again, I disagree. Since those sticking up for the traditional bowl system are a pretty small minority among fans, I think they tend to be better informed than the average "BCS is the devil!" Mama Boucher-style BCS hater. Just as a general psychological principle, a person not well-informed on a certain issue is more likely to throw in with the majority. Of course there are plenty of exceptions. But the average black Obama voter is less informed than the average black McCain voter. That's not denying that their are plenty of very well-informed black Obama voters, but the uninformed are very likely to just go with the majority.

Unless one of us is willing to do an extensive survey, there's no point in arguing this further. We each have our observations.

The national championship season you're talking about was dealt a death blow in 1995 when they limited scholarships. The genie is out of the bottle, J, and it's not going back in. The rest of your explanation misses the point - the regular season is for seeding, not just a berth. It's not like Boise St. is going to have the same road in the playoffs as Auburn or Oregon. For all your talk about nuances, you've utterly failed to grasp the point of the regular season in a playoff scenario.

Apparently Auburn, Oregon, TCU and a whole bunch of other post-95 unbeatens missed this memo.

I can't get excited about a game for seeding. I just can't. You're going to tell Wisconsin fans, "Hey, you beat #1 Ohio State in possibly the biggest game in Madison history! Congrats, you get a higher seed than them in the playoffs, and if you meet again, you'll get them at home!" Umm, what's that? Our team just poured their heart and soul into upsetting the mighty Buckeyes, and it was all for getting a little better seed?

Or, hey Boise (and James Madison!), great job on knocking off VaTech. Well, the Hokies still get to play for the national title, but your huge victories mean they won't be playing at home!

Or, how about an example closer to home. 1971 Game of the Century. #1 Nebraska @ #2 Oklahoma. EVERYTHING on the line. Well, not really in a playoff system. Nebraska wins, knocking OU down to the #3 spot and thus the #3 seed. So hey, I guess that epic win means if they play in the playoffs, the game's in Lincoln! But... we already beat them... now we have to beat them again? Yeah, but you get them at home! Well, unless they're on the other side of the bracket (most brackets have #1 on the opposite side of 2 and 3) then we'd play them on a neutral field.

This is partially why I'm for conference champions playing each other in a playoff, rather than having the top 8 or top 16 teams from the polls.

But, while you say you can't get excited about a game for seeding... All of these bowl games that are going on right now? They're COMPLETELY meaningless. They don't decide seeds, they don't decide champions, they don't decide anything. They mean nothing. Their reason for existence is soley to make money, and not even for the schools or teams. Every game except for the title game is completely worthless. If I could give up a little bit of the drama in the regular season for a bit more drama in the post season, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Also, just in response to your ohio state/wisconsin scenario... There are plenty of playoff scenarios where that win by Wisconsin would not only have gotten them a better seed than Ohio State, but it would have been the difference between making the playoffs and not making it. In that scenario, that game is even more meaningful, with a shot at the title at stake. This year, all it did was win them a conference championship (which a playoff wouldn't have changed), and it sent them to the Rose Bowl, where they're not even playing the PAC 10 champion. Instead, they're playing TCU - if Wisconsin wins, no big deal, TCU was obviously overrated. Oh, and by the way, win or lose, it's still just an exhibition game.

I have a pretty hard time in that scenario seeing how the current system is better than an alternative featuring a playoff.

 

[junior4949]

If I've said it once I've said it one hundred times: if Michigan would have been crowned the only NC in 1997, every anti playoff Husker fan would be singing a different tune. I know it sounds all well and good to be there now, but I'd be willing to bet most Auburn fans who got screwed in 2004 and most Penn State fans who got screwed in 1994 are a lot more friendly to playoffs than Nebraska fans. Nebraska really has never been screwed over yet with regards to playing for a NC. More than likely, we shouldn't have been playing for one in 2001. The way things are going, with the current system there really isn't a need to play a BCS NC game. Just hand the trophy over to the SEC Champ.

 

[gobiggergoredder]

An 8 team playoff would add 2 games to the season of the teams that played for the national championship if the bowl system was preserved. It would also mean another 2 games for the losers in the semis. That means that 4 other team would only have to play one more game in an eight team playoff system. I believe 16 or 12 is too many, but 4 is not enough.

Here is a theoretical using the current BCS standings. It assumes that the higher rank team wins out. It also allow for the AQ schools to be represented in the BCS bowls. Keep in mind that it may not always work that way for the AQ schools.

The BCS bowl game would be determined by the two teams that win out. The other BCS games could be picked just like they are now. I just filled them in.

We can have a playoff and preserve the bowls!

 

[mmmtodd]

its a slippery slope comparing the nfl with ncaa. well over 100 teams vs 32.

lets flip the switch. say the nfl used the bcs system. we'll use ESPN's NFL Power Rankings...and throw in current odds.

Super Bowl: Patriots vs Falcons.

we'll get back to this after the super bowl. because the season means nothing.

 

[CornHOLIO]

Bump (sorry, but it's the offseason)

 

[Blackshirt316]

4 is unbalanced and 10-12 is way too many.

Just do an 8 team tournament (the 6 conference champs from tbe B10, B12, P12, ACC, BE and SEC, and 2 at large bids - chosen from the pool of teams in those conferences who didn't win the conference title, the non-aq schools and Notre Dame)

B10 plays the P10 champ in the Rose Bowl, B12 and an at large play in the Fiesta, SEC plays the other at large in the Sugar, and the ACC and Big East meet in the Orange bowl. - Those all happen earlier in the bowl season (the 2nd Saturday after the CCG's)

Winners get seeded based on record and then you have a couple weeks to practice at your home stadium while the other bowls are played and then they go to the championship site and have 2 games one week and the championship game the following week.. basically the teams would be at the championship site for 2 weeks and fans who want to go to both are there for a week. Fans who only go to one game could go for fewer days. OR they could have the 2nd round games at the higher seed's home stadiums and have them played the last week of december with the title game 2 weeks later depending on travel/ticket issues.

Fans would know where the first round games are held all season so ticket sales won't be a problem.. then there will be plenty of time between the first weekend of games to order tickets to the other two as needed.

That adds 3 extra games total (mega games as far as interest and money is concerned as well) and still allows the other teams to do the regular bowl season.

 

[jsneb83]