Morning Coffee Is Human Again
I hope those watching charged the meal to the Underhills. After a day to travel and another to sleep I re-emerged (human again) to find Texas and Georgia fans immersed in a massive open thread for the NCAA Tennis Championship, all of which I missed; as a fan and player of the sport, I would have loved to catch some of the action. Unfortunately, the 'Horns were bested in the national finals despite picking up the early doubles point. Congratulations to the 'Dawgs for the NCAA championship, and to our 'Horns, for the fantastic run in Tulsa.
EDSBS LIVE hitting its offseason stride. With the tennis open thread in full force, I didn't dare bump the main event down, not even for a late EDSBS LIVE promo post. Nonetheless, Orson and I did indeed have our weekly show last night, a 90-minute chat about the early Top 25 polls and where they seem on/off the mark. Podcast of the show is available both via the radio player in the left sidebar of this page and on the EDSBS Live show page itself.
On a related note, tentatively mark your calendars for the 10th of June, boys and girls, when the inimitable Phillip Steele is scheduled to join EDSBS Live for the summer preview spectacular. Last year's chat with college football's walking encyclopedia was probably the show's most thoroughly entertaining; there's something truly joyous about listening to a man so wholly devoted to the great game of college football.
Phil Steele returns to EDSBS Live.
Lacke... Leeche... Leike.... Just watch. The Temple tailback with the funny name made his way to the FanShots, courtesy of WorstFan. But Lache Seastrunk, a prospect in the 2010 class, is front page material. (Use a bib.)
Speaking of front page material... Fourteen members of the football team walked the stage this spring, including seniors Chris Ogbonnaya and Rashad Bobino, both of whom will contribute on the field this fall. Though so much of the material that fills up MB-TF.com is über-fluff, this is one article I happily urge everyone to read. Especially in the case of Bobino, who catches a lot of heat for his on-field performance, his story is one that's especially nice to root for. Congratulations to OG, Bobino, and all the spring graduates from the team.
Big 12 Baseball Tournament starts today. Texas enters the postseason tournament the hottest team in the conference, winners of 9 of the last 10, including a three-game sweep on the road of Big 12 regular season champion A&M. Along with joining us here at BON for open threads during each of Texas' games, you may want to check out the following sites for tournament updates:
* Corn Nation: Much more than 'Huskers coverage, CN has been the most consistent Big 12 baseball blogger around. Lots of useful info, including game times, radio, links, and more.
* Kansas blogger "JQ": Though mostly Kansas-centric baseball coverage, JQ is Big 12 baseball obsessed. Always worth catching the perspective of a fan who follows the conference as closely as does JQ.
* Big 12 Sports: The conference's official site looks like it's going to be buzzing with tourney activity. Notably, live audio for each game will be streaming at the conference headquarters, along with real-time gamecasts you can follow from work.
* Big 12 OKC Fan Guide: C&CM has a nice guide for anyone planning to attend this year's tourney.
Hit me with the good stuff. Those of you who frequent some of the other fine blogs of college football know that the playoff debate is once again raging along. I'm on the record countless times in favor of a playoff and would gladly support BZ's Flex proposal, Brian's eminently reasonable six-team system, or any number of similarly concocted schemes. So I won't rehash why I think a playoff system would so clearly be superior.
But I do have a word of advice for the anti-playoff crowd. The value-laden arguments animating resistance to playoffs, however floridly written, have and will continue to fall short in any discussion that's properly focused on champion-crowning. After however many years of reading and writing about the merits and demerits of a playoff, it seems to me that opposition to a reasonable playoff system is only available insofar as one's fandom is overwhelmingly animated by values more unrelated than not to crowning a champion; absent a deep attachment to such a value set, a college football playoff is far and away preferable.
At its essence, the playoff proponent's argument is simple: "Given how few college football teams play one another head to head, a reasonably constructed playoff would be superior to the current system." The anti-playoff proponent can attack that assertion at two points: (1) that a playoff would not be 'superior' to the system we have now, or (2) that a playoff system assembled by the powers that be would not be done 'reasonably'.
In terms of persuading a college football fan which postseason system he should embrace, attacks on (1) have proven ineffective. Why? In my view, because such anti-playoff arguments require a fan to share in a value set that is often tangential to the problem of 'how to crown a champion'. In contrast, all the playoff proponent must believe is that absent total agreement on the espoused value set, a playoff appears an objectively better way to crown a champion.
The point, then: If I were against a playoff for college football, my argument instead would hammer on point (2), a weakness that most playoff proponents acknowledge. Given the vast majority of fans who look at the champion-crowning issue and choose 'playoffs' as the best solution, why focus on a line of argument that succeeds only if a fan shares the entire set of values required to override the simple, predominant 'playoffs would be better' belief? Why not instead center the anti-playoff crusade on the argument that the men in charge are unlikely to put together a 'reasonable' playoff, then using that conceded problem to persuade the pro-playoff to consider the other values the anti-playoff proponent thinks important (but which are unessential to champion crowning)?
For most of us, arguments about the value of tradition, or long-standing debates about champions, or the sanctity of the regular season (to name but a few of the common value-arguments) are either outright rejected as irrelevant or dealt with, we contend, by the adoption of the right kind of playoff model. And though an anti-playoff advocate will never get me to reject the superiority of a playoff because the tradition of the bowl system needs to be protected, there's not much I can say to the criticism that the powers in charge are more likely than not to create a fatally flawed system.
I mention all this simply because every argument against playoffs I encounter does it the other way around - burying "They won't get it right" among the list of values that - if wholly embraced - are supposed to override the fundamental belief of 85% of college football fans that a playoff would better crown our national champion. For me and many like me, the big question is not whether a playoff will eventually come to being, but whether the playoff that's created is a myopic money grab or something reasonably well thought out.
Further Reading: Carolina March, Sunday Morning QB, MGoBlog, Garnet And Black Attack, DawgSports.
0 recs |
32 comments
Comments
"Lake"
Olin Buchanan of Rivals says Seastrunk’s first name is pronounced “Lake.”
I love watching all the misdirection and fake handoffs of the classic Wing T they run, but since the guy apparently only got about 10 carries a game, I’d tell my defense just to key on him. That way it doesn’t feel so bad watching him break off 30 yards runs.
Let’s just hope he doesn’t turn out like fellow Internet star Noel Devine and run off with Deion Sanders briefly before admitting he has multiple children before leaving high school.
by Year2 on May 21, 2008 7:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
One of his relatives posts on Hornfans
and she also said it is pronounced “Lake.” I think it’s his aunt or something.
For anyone who is able to watch, the Big XII tournament games are being webcast on big12sports.com. There is supposed to be some play-by-play with it, but there’s just some dude going “hello, hello, hello” every 30 seconds or so. Texas and Missouri are in the bottom of the first right now. Chance Ruffin is pitching for Texas, Rick Zagone for Mizzou.
by bassale47 on May 21, 2008 9:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seastrunk video
Watching it I thought how nothing on this earth could ruin this playstation kid’s running, but then as sure as you can count on the sun rising tomorrow, Creed comes in with their musical AIDs and destroys my commitment-hopeful immune system.
Good to see Rod “the Human Squirrel” Babers walk. Better 11 years then never, right?
by Tbone Stallone on May 21, 2008 12:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Who's number 25 at 0:55?
Big kid nearly ran Seastrunk down.
--Horn Brain--
by Horn Brain on May 21, 2008 12:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I can't find it...
... maybe someone with a Rivals subscription should search for players from RR Mcneil.
--Horn Brain--
by Horn Brain on May 21, 2008 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe it was 26?
No 25 is a 5’-9” WR.
If that was actually 26 (kind of looks like it at the beginning of that play), that would be Cerek Bedford (6’0” DB). Can’t find him on any recruiting site though.
http://www.mcneilmavericks.org/football_varsity.htm
by gwh65 on May 21, 2008 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Playoffs
I don’t think I buy the point you’re making about the playoffs, PB.
First, the argument you use depends on your audience. If you’re trying to persuade college football fans at large, then maybe you want to hit hard on number 2. But the conference commissioners have shown that they don’t much care about public opinion. Tranghese even said recently about renewing the BCS, "I know this is not what a lot of fans want to hear, but they’re not responsible for crafting what we have in college football." And you know my opinion on the matter. If your goal isn’t just to be popular then the opinions of college football fans generally don’t particularly matter. And an argument to the people making decisions that they will only screw up that decision likely wouldn’t be effective anyway.
Second, even if you are interested in changing the minds of “the fans,” I still don’t think this argument works. I am in agreement that this style of argument is generally much more effective than changing people’s value sets. I do not mean to get controversial here, but just by way of an example, I have strong moral feelings against the death penalty and when I talk to those who support it and try to convince them that they should not, I very specifically tell them that support for or against the death penalty in the abstract is a personal moral judgment and far be it for me to project my morals onto them. Instead, I try to show them that the death penalty as applied (and as could ever be applied) does not (and will not) work in practical terms. As long as humans are administering it, the system will be seriously flawed. Focusing in on practicalities rather than morals and values is a much bigger winner, which is part of the reason why these days, the death penalty debate is more about practicalities like deterrence than moral judgments on what criminals “deserve.” I’ve written a 45 page paper on the other reasons for why this is as well if anyone’s interested! [Crickets]
Regardless, I don’t think this line of argument you are proposing would work on pro-playoff fans, despite its more persuasive, practical nature. The reason is that their response to that argument would inevitably be, “Well, the same people who would screw up the playoff have already screwed up the BCS, so if we’re going to have a screwed up system, let’s at least have it be a playoff. If and when more competent people take over down the line, they can fix it.” That puts us right back in the place we started.
by billyzane on May 21, 2008 1:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps not
First, I wrote this thing tired and re-reading it, it’s pretty useless – two steps removed from the playoff debate! Arguments about arguments for/against playoffs! Yay!
But to your response, I get what you’re saying, but I do think that “They’ll f—k it up” is a powerful argument. My sense is that a lot of pro-playoff folks feel the same way I do – that a bungled system would be no upgrade at all.
Anyway, like I said, this is not even pro- or anti-playoff. This is an argument about how to argue against a playoff. I should be slapped for adding this to the discourse.
--PB--
by Peter Bean on May 21, 2008 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As an aside
I have mentioned this several times before, but I would like to lodge a formal complaint with pro-playoff people everywhere.
We already have a playoff. It’s a very small playoff and when they named the system 10 years ago the word “playoff” was not included in a nod to the history of the bowl system. But it’s a playoff. Two teams play on the field and the winner is declared champion. That’s a playoff. Every single problem that exists with the 2-team playoff that we currently have would exist with a 4, 6, 8, or 16 team playoff as well, except that you would have even more teams complaining about being left out because the more teams that would have a claim to the #8 or #16 spot than have a claim to the #1 or #2 spot. [As statistical evidence of that, see the last section of this post.]
I do not understand why anyone thinks this would be better unless you take it out to its logical end and say, “Let’s have a 120-team tournament that lasts the entire season and the “regular season” will be all those games plus a series of consolation games between the losers.” There is nothing fundamentally different about the system we have now and an 8-team of 16-team tournament. The only differences are in the side-effects of a larger tournament that would afflict college football generally, which I personally believe are mostly negative.
This, Peter, gets at why I personally focus in primarily on your argument number 1, above. I have explained in my above post why I don’t particularly care for argument number 2.
by billyzane on May 21, 2008 1:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I dont agree
by your rationale, there would be an equal amount of complaining in say NCAA basketball, if it was reduced from a 65 team playoff to a 2 team playoff. While there is still discussion and excitement about bubble teams, I think there would have been a little more bitching if they just had North Carolina and Memphis play one game and then declare them a champion.
by Wells on May 21, 2008 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i didn't say "amount" of complaining
i said there would be more teams complaining, which is true because more teams have a legitimate claim to the #16 spot in the rankings than have a claim to the #2 spot in the rankings. that’s what HB’s statistical analysis shows. the voracity of the complaining would be greater from the 1 or 2 teams with a valid claim to the top 2 that were left out, but there would only be 1 or 2 or (like in 2005) none. as an aside, this is why my flex system works. it limits the number of teams that get into the playoff to the teams with legitimate claims to the best season, based on their regular season results. This number is always small so it’s unlikely that any team with a legitimate claim will be left out.
regardless, the comparison you made isn’t a good one really because you’re going in opposite directions. sure there would be a lot of complaining if you went from 65 to 2 simply because you’re taking something away that currently exists. no one likes that, even if they shouldn’t have had that something in the first place (and I’m not necessarily saying they shouldn’t have). If the tourney had been 2 or 4 teams selected at the end of the season to play and then you moved it to a lot more, then that would be a viable comparison.
by billyzane on May 21, 2008 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The comparion is not good
because it is a little too apples to oranges, but the point that I was trying to make and I think you are missing is that in the current system the entrants are decide solely by human and computer polls. Because of this, and the amount of qualitative judgment that goes into those polls, there will always be more disagreement about who should be in the final game.
In a system like the NCAA basketball system, where entrants are decided by conference champions as well as qualitative judgements, there is less disagreement and disfranchisement because at the beginning of the season every team knows what it has to do to have a shot at the title, win their conference.
by Wells on May 21, 2008 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh, absolutely
a football playoff that took only conference champions has a completely different logic than a playoff of any size that takes teams based on rankings, which is what I’ve been talking about. I personally think that would be awful (even worse than an 8-team tourney based on rankings), but it’s at least different.
by billyzane on May 21, 2008 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not supporting only conference champions
I was just saying that is what makes the basketball tournament have less complaining.
Personally I think a tournament with the 5 BCS conference champions plus the highest ranked conference champion from the small conferences (not really fair to them, but I really don’t care about them anyway) and 6 at large bids (top four teams get a buy).
by Wells on May 22, 2008 8:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Without something close to a balanced schedule between the top schools, there is nothing about the current system that can reasonably say it picks out the best team every year. Blowing out a string of lesser teams is a lot different than beating a string of tough teams by a small margin, but those are equated in the current system. You saw that in the 4 BCS at larges last year, with Kansas and Hawaii representing the former and Georgia and Illinois representing the latter (albeit to varying degrees).
Conferences theoretically provide a balanced schedule, except that since no two conferences are the same you can’t completely accurately judge them against another. You go into an endless loop of “good offense vs. bad defense” and “good defense vs. bad offense debates,” and the small sample of inter-BCS conference games isn’t enough to make a precise yardstick.
The point of having a tournament is to smooth out the differences between unbalanced schedules. Giving teams a couple weeks off to rest, get healthy, and make schemes levels the playing field and removes any momentum-based complaints. After all, that time off accounted for the mammoth difference between LSU against Arkansas and LSU against Ohio State.
by Year2 on May 21, 2008 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's great
but how do you decide who gets into the tournament? based on regular season results, right? which amounts to unbalanced schedules. isn’t that EXACTLY what we do now, only on a smaller scale? what makes a bigger scale better? and if you believe a big scale is better, then why isn’t the biggest scale the best? 120-team tournament starting at the beginning of the season. that will really “smooth out the differences between unbalanced schedules,” which appears to be your main complaint with the current system.
by billyzane on May 21, 2008 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Using the current BCS system or a selection committee or however else you want to do it.
At the end of the year, the top 8 or so teams are fairly apparent. Kansas may have had a lousy schedule but overcame it and climbed up high by beating the tar out of most of its opponents. LSU had a tough schedule, but stayed up high by overcoming it and winning most of the games on it.
If you go back and look, there has been a noticeable to significant gap between #8 and #9 in 7 or 8 of the 10 final BCS polls. Sure #9 would complain, but #9 has a lot less ground to stand on about being left out than #3 does.
That was the point Wells was making about the college basketball bubble. If some team with a losing record in the ACC gets left out instead of being put in as an 11 or 12 seed, no one much cares but that team. The farther from the top you get, the less sympathy there is for the teams that get left out.
And I know mission creep is always the specter that floats over playoff discussions. However, if I-A football is pared down to a reasonable size then that concern gets mitigated right there. I mean, Div. I basketball has over 300 teams; if it was at a more reasonable size like 100 or so, then there’s no way we would have a 65-team tournament.
by Year2 on May 21, 2008 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If some team with a losing record in the ACC gets left out instead of being put in as an 11 or 12 seed, no one much cares but that team. The farther from the top you get, the less sympathy there is for the teams that get left out.
I thought the whole point of a big playoff (other than “it’s fun”) was the fact that it doesn’t restrict who can win the tournament to just a couple teams. But if no one really cares that #17 got left out of an 16-team tournament, then that means whoever’s #16 doesn’t really have any chance of winning it (or, perhaps more accurately, that no one thinks #16 or #17 is anywhere even remotely close to being the best team over the course of the regular season), which means the tournament shouldn’t be that big unless your only goal is to have fun (which indeed seems to be the only goal of the NCAA basketball tournament—in that regard, success!).
My point, essentially, is this: I believe that any playoff needs to be restricted to teams that have a claim to have had the best regular season. Once you move beyond that small pool of teams into, say, an 8-team tournament, the logic behind that 8-team playoff is EXACTLY the same as the logic behind a 120-team tournament (i.e. inclusion is good). Creep beyond 8 is inevitable because the logic of what you’re doing doesn’t have to change for it to happen, only an arbitrary number. On the other hand, if you keep entrance into the playoff restricted to only the teams that have a claim to have had the best regular season, then you’re actually solving the problem that the results of the regular season, while indicative of greatness, are not conclusive in that regard. Of course, the number of teams with a claim to have had the best regular season, while always small, varies every year; hence, my intricately crafted Flex System, which you can read about (if you haven’t already) under the BON classics box on the front page.
by billyzane on May 21, 2008 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
120 Team Tournament
In a bubble that may be the logical end, but in reality the reasons College Football exists are greater than deciding which team is the best, so using that argument does not really make much of a point.
by Wells on May 21, 2008 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is that exactly that “the reasons College Football exists are greater than deciding which team is the best.” That, in fact, was the major theme of the first half of my Flex System proposal. I believe that people who propose large playoffs are ignoring or minimizing the importance of those other reasons and so I use the 120 team playoff option as an extreme example to point that out (i.e. if you’re so gung-ho about inclusion and “settling it on the field” then surely you should be in favor of a 120-team tourney because that’s the ultimate realization of that desire. and if you come back with “well, that’s too much, there’s a happy medium where we can care about both” then I respond with “you’re right! it’s called the flex system. here’s 10,000 words on the subject.”)
by billyzane on May 21, 2008 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My response:
The farther removed a team gets from the crowning of a champion the less legitimate their complaints about lack of participation become.
Three undefeated BCS conference teams exist at the end of a football postseason. Two of them get to participate for a championship. The third wins its game in convincing fashion. What is to be done? This is a problem because the odd man out has a very legitimate, very appreciable complaint with what has happened to them.
You say, then, that such problems will persist even in a 4, or 6, or 8, or 16 team playoff. I disagree, but let me state out in the open, lest I ever be accused of trying to clandestinely sneak in a low playoff and then expanding it, that I support a THIRTY TWO team playoff effective immediately.
Back to my disagreement… The “problem” that will persist is that after [insert whatever system you have for deciding the field, I’d prefer simply using the current BCS rankings], the 17th team in a 16 team playoff would complain as forcefully and as loudly as the 3rd team in a 2 team playoff (current system). I say: bologna.
Remember that the odd man out only complains after the results; he wins his bowl game, someone else wins their bowl game, he says he should’ve PARTICIPATED. Alternatively, he says he should be crowned king of CFB.
The broader the field the weaker the argument that non-participants can make for their participation. There is little doubt that an unbeaten Auburn should’ve been able to participate in some kind of postseason with meaning. The 17th ranked team in the nation, on the other hand, has many blemishes. When they say “Well this is ridiculous, we’re better than the 16th team” the rest of the nation responds “Yea, but you lost five games? You have no one to blame but yourself.” Fast forward their complaint to the end of the tournament, and they look even more ridiculous, because now they’re arguing for the right to participate in a tournament that already crowned a champion who, NO MATTER WHAT (be it the 1st or 16th ranked team) has a much better resume than the 17th ranked team.
In other words, it is possible under the current system that a tournament (championship game, as you said, is a 2 team tournament) produces a champion AND a non-participant who has a legitimate claim to participation AND championship. A four team tournament, even better an eight team tournament, even better a sixteen team tournament, even better a thirty two team tournament, cannot possibly produce a championship winner AND a non-participant who has a legitimate claim both to participation AND the crowning achievement.
Can the 17th ranked team complain that they got left out? Sure, but who cares? The problems with the current system aren’t that they don’t get the right teams in the championship game (though that is a problem) it’s that they create situations where at least one non-participant has a more impressive resume than the person who won the championship/tournament. A large field makes such a result impossible.
by Skin Patrol on May 21, 2008 5:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Auburn...
used as an example of BCS screwery. Jason Campbell should’ve won a national champeenship.
by Skin Patrol on May 21, 2008 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Simply untrue
“Remember that the odd man out only complains after the results; he wins his bowl game, someone else wins their bowl game, he says he should’ve PARTICIPATED. Alternatively, he says he should be crowned king of CFB.”
If the #3 team in the BCS is undefeated, they will be bitching for the entire month of December about how they should have been included in the title game. Then, if they win their bowl game, they will bitch that they deserve a claim to the national title.
Same goes for the #17 team. They will bitch and moan about not being included in the playoffs, and as soon as ANY team loses, they’ll say they deserved to be there over that team.
by bassale47 on May 22, 2008 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't word that right...
I agree that teams will complain prior to the actual championship. But if that #3 gets destroyed in their bowl game then their complaint is moot. See, for instance, Cal complaining about UT getting into a BCS game in their stead; UT won, Cal lost (to Tech wooooo!) and that was the end of the discussion.
Regarding the #17 team, yea, I agree they will complain, but who cares? When the tournament is over they MAY be able to argue that they deserved the shot to play , but they couldn’t possibly argue (like an Auburn could have) that they deserved… to win.
Full circle, the main problem with the current system isn’t when all is said and done, there is a team on the outside looking in who can reasonably say both that they should have participated and that they are the rightful champion. The #17 team might be able to argue that they should’ve participated, but never can they argue, when all is said and done, that they deserve to be named champion.
In any event, CFB fans will have a much easier time telling the #17 team that they shouldn’t participate (because they will have some losses, will have effectively done themselves in) to a much greater degree than the #3 team on any given year, since there’s a much larger distinction between #1 and #3 than there is #1 and #17. In other words, a 16 team tournament might cull some worthwhile participants, but it never leaves on the outside worthwhile champions. A 2 team tournament, however, does.
by Skin Patrol on May 22, 2008 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please ignore the...
“Full circle, the main problem with the current system isn’t…” part of the above post. This keyboard is acting strange.
by Skin Patrol on May 22, 2008 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is all a moo point anyway.
there is no playoff system and won’t be any time in the near future. i wish there was. i’ll be in the stanwick’s bungalow until then. oh and some one bring me the head of alfredo garcia.
...and ou still sucks.
by UTHomeSearch on May 21, 2008 3:18 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
eh, everything's a moot point
it’s a blog. if we stopped discussing moot points, what would we do?
by billyzane on May 21, 2008 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Argue about the weather conditions in Colorado?
Oh, we do that anyway.
by billb on May 21, 2008 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1 UT HS
Paging Dr. Rosen Rosen
--PB--
by Peter Bean on May 21, 2008 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why don't you guys
go down to the gym and pump each other?
Wait, didn’t we just do this last summer?
So take that.
by Kahuna on May 21, 2008 11:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Never gets old
No need to feel repetitive, Kahuna. Especially now that your syphilis is clearing up and Mrs. Kahuna is out of Trembling Hills.
--PB--
by Peter Bean on May 22, 2008 12:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Better to just vote on it
The problem with ANY playoff system is the limited number of games that a team can play. Because of unbalanced schedules, simple criteria like W/L are highly inexact. Even the occult BCS formulas don’t get it right—and they leave everyone wondering what the hell they are playing for.
A proper playoff bracket (like basketball or baseball) needs to accommodate at least 25% of the field, but there just aren’t enough games to support a 32 (or 64) team field. What makes those work is that everyone who has a reasonable shot gets to play. In NCAA football that’s not so and can’t be without a 5 game bracket.
So what can you do? I think maybe the answer is something like the “mythical” national championships of yesteryear, but with a few refinements. First, wait till after the bowls before voting - that was just stupid before. Second, put the decision of who to crown as the champion in the hands of some highly respected, impeccably impartial person or persons - someone with a deep knowledge of the game and the integrity to put the good of the game above all else. And third, put the choice of pairings for bowls in the hands of the schools themselves. Then let the bowls bid for the games.
In short, there are bad playoff systems and worse playoff systems. So forget playoffs and go for an authoritative evaluation.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
by Caradoc on May 21, 2008 4:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs


























