Dispatches: Talking Football With SMQ, Part 2

by Peter Bean on Nov 28, 2006 8:24 AM CST in Football Comment 21 comments

The following is the second volley in a series of back-and-forth dispatches between the venerable Sunday Morning Quarterback and I. The dispatches will be a running conversation that you're encouraged to participate in. Your comments, to be read diligently by each of us, promise to be an integral part of the conversation.

In my opening dispatch, I queried SMQ on how to sort out the top teams. In response, SMQ waxed philosophical on the rather arbitrary nature of the way we conceptualize "better," among other things. You're encouraged to read the preceding dispatches before continuing on.

Ah, semantics. A favorite subject of yours, no doubt, SMQ. I always chuckle when I read your work while envisioning your grammar school teachers grading your papers, thinking, "Jesus, SMQ. I just wanted to know about your summer vacation. Who said anything about Descartes? And ten pages, no less!"

Now, I do want to come back to the resume ranking methodology - a favorite subject of mine - but let's start with something that leapt out at me in reading your dispatch: If SMQ is the playoff proponent that he claims to be (and we have no reason to think otherwise) should SMQ be rooting for the following?

Arkansas defeats Florida in SEC Title Game
UCLA defeats USC
Michigan is ushered into the mythical title game
Michigan wins mythical title game

This unfortunate scenario, surely, would be the result most likely to result in the greatest amount of BCS-inspired teeth-gnashing.

But then as I thought through that a little bit more, I realized that raised a very legitimate objection, so allow me to play devil's advocate.

SMQ, you say that a Michigan-Ohio State rematch is undesirable because a Michigan victory would invalidate the result of the first game. But isn't this precisely what playoff objectors worry so much about? Say, for example, that this year featured a four-team playoff. And that #1 seed Ohio State defeated #4 seed Florida, while #2 seed USC lost to #3 seed Michigan. Here we are again, stuck at the undesirable result (Michigan-Ohio State rematch), with a potential invalidation of the first result? Haven't we just dulled the knife's edge - so to speak - that is regular season college football? And aren't rematches likely to pop up frequently in playoffs, resulting in a slow, torturous watering down of the excitement of the regular season clashes?

So goes the counter-argument. I didn't intend to open the playoff can of works just yet, but here we are. What do you think?

--PB--

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The short answer is

"A litle bit" Th regular season would be dulled a little with the institution of a playoff system. But not as much as the devil's advocates claim. Saying that a small (Say 4-8 team) playoff would dull down the season, is pretty rediculous.

I think it might at the very top end, but think of all the excitement it would generate about the regular season among teams ranked 9-25! Those teams are all playing dulled down games Now! They would be geared up for a chance to make that field with a strong end of season push under a Playoff system. And EVERYONE would be watching, and scouting out possible opponents of their team!

As for the rematch scenario, the difference between a playoff rematch and a rematch now, would be that Michigan would have EARNED it on the field. If Michigan beat USC on its way to the rematch, and better yet (Under an 8 team system) beat LSU and THEN USC to get to the rematch, no one would have a problem with it.

Right now, if the rematch happens, it will have NOTHING to do with Michigan, and therefore if they win, their will be problems because of the 1-game, any-given-saturday, they just got lucky argument. But if they took down LSU then USC to get there, no one complains.

To me, this is a no-brainer. I just don't understand the hold-out.

"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese

by SwimTexas on Nov 28, 2006 8:59 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think there's a big difference between...

...earning the rematch via playoff and just having it handed to you because everyone else fell apart. Obviously, there's still a chance that Michigan beats an undefeated Ohio State team that already beat them in the finals of a tourney, but we'd know that Michigan game was truly for real, and perhaps a better team on a neutral, non-slip n' slide field, at the time they won.

by CW on Nov 28, 2006 9:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

ah, the great playoff debate

anyone who missed it the first time around in October, check out: the beginning, the middle, and the end.

Also, let me reiterate that rooting for the worst possible thing for college football this year isn't going to make the BCS go away. It didn't go away after the debacles of '01, '03, and '04, and it actually got EXTENDED after those, so this year isn't doing anything. So why can't we just root for the best game, regardless of whether you think there should be a playoff or not.

by billyzane on Nov 28, 2006 9:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Pedantry, my friend

Pedantry...

Academic, I know. But it's fun to discuss, no?

by Peter Bean on Nov 28, 2006 10:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My Perfect Scenario

Take the five champions from the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, and Big XII. Then take three at large teams to round out a field of eight. If you're number 9 on the outside looking in, sorry, win your conference next year.

There are your eight teams. Seven games to decide the champion. Playoffs last three weeks. Start after finals and end on New Years day. Semifinals and championship games rotate between Fiesta, Rose, Sugar, and Orange so the bowls get to keep their money. All other teams not included in the playoff still get to go to their Weed Wacker Bowls.

Mike

Black Shoe Diaries

by PSUMike on Nov 28, 2006 10:29 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

Left PAC-10 off the list of eligible conferences with automatic bid.

Mike

Black Shoe Diaries

by PSUMike on Nov 28, 2006 10:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

not sure who you left out

But I wouldn't take the ACC champ over the Pac 10 or Big East champ.

by mldatx on Nov 28, 2006 10:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Are you kidding?

You wouldn't take the ACC champ over the PAC-10 or BE? The ACC has Miami, Florida State, and Virginia Tech. Who does the Big East have? Louisville, Rutgers, and West Virginia. The PAC-10 has USC, but after that there is a significant drop off. Sure they have Oregon State, UCLA, and Cal, but when was the last time any of those schools was really a factor in the MNC.

Anyway. Off subject. Another discussion for another day.

Mike

Black Shoe Diaries

by PSUMike on Nov 28, 2006 11:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The same thought crossed my mind

but there would inevitably be a controversy over who fields the at-large bids or over weak-league champions.

Assuming that all BCS league champions are automatically qualified, the remaining two spots would be heavily debated. For example, special execptions for non-BCS teams ranking in the top 12 or so (Boise State this year) making it over a second-place BCS team (Ark v Fla loser or Michigan). But if special exceptions weren't made for non-BCS teams there would be a large outcry from those leagues. For that matter, there would be a controversy of a (perceived) weak BCS league champion (ACC this year) making it in ahead of a strong second-place BCS team.

I've never seen anything inherently evil with the BCS formula. Only in its application. If a playoff were to occur, why not just take the highest 8 teams in the BCS formula (with possible exceptions for non-BCS teams).

I've never been convinced that a team not winning its conference (Nebraska 2001?) is any less worthy of a shot at the national title than another conference champion. In a playoff format, they would be roughly equivalent to an NFL wildcard team.

by gwh65 on Nov 28, 2006 11:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

conference champ is way overrated.

"I've never been convinced that a team not winning its conference (Nebraska 2001?) is any less worthy of a shot at the national title than another conference champion."

Agree.

Would anyone want to leave Michigan out of an 8-team playoff this year? How horrible would that be. Especially considering the chips happened to fall so that the game was in Columbus and not Ann Arbor. It could easily have worked out the other way around. Plus, is the Big XII champion really that great this year (or the ACC champion while we're at it)? If I HAD to choose a playoff system (and I hate the idea of a playoff), I wouldn't want conference championships to play any role. You would end up sticking 21st ranked teams in the tournament while 4th ranked teams get left out. And I recognize that at-large bids are designed to remedy such potential injustices, but that does absolutely nothing to remove 21st ranked teams from the equation.

I hate the upset-fever that drives the popularity of the NCAA tournament. To me, it just ruins the field for real fans who would rather see the most competetive sweet sixteen possible. But we never get that, we a get a bunch of Cinderellas that force uncompetetive rounds of 16 and 8. Blah! Its for causual fans looking for excitement, not real basketball fans. If someone is going to get upset in a college football playoff, I want it to be #7 upsetting #2 at worst, and #21 should be sitting at home trying to figure how not to lose three games next year.

by BrooklynHorn on Nov 28, 2006 11:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Overrated

The conference championship is overrated only because of conference championship games. It is because of this monstrosity that a 7-4 Florida State team went to the Orange Bowl last year. Take away the conference championship games and winning your conference goes back to being impressive again.

Under the current system with three at large bids, Michigan, Notre Dame and most likely LSU will be invited to a BCS bowl this year. Can anyone reasonably argue that there is another team out there more deserving that is totally getting robbed?

Mike

Black Shoe Diaries

by PSUMike on Nov 28, 2006 11:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Funny

because I would extrapolate that logic to the entirety of having a playoff at all. We would get national champions with three losses.

But I still think you can't leave Michigan out this year. I want the best teams in the playoff. Michigan is better than nearly every other conference champ.

by BrooklynHorn on Nov 28, 2006 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

good idea, but take it further

I really like this idea, but I think it needs to be expanded. For me, I think the question of a playoff is "what's the most fair to everyone?" If we only allow the 5 major conferences + 3 at large teams (I assume the 3 highest non-conference-winners), that leaves a LOT of teams out of it. No chance for Boise State, very little chance for Big East teams, etc.

I know it might sound completely insane (or stupid), but I favor a 16 team playoff which would include the conference champs of all 11 1-A conferences + 5 at large bids and those would be the next 5 highest ranked teams (not conf champs).

That's only 4 extra weeks of games, and 3 if you go back to an 11 game season. Seed the teams according to their BCS ranking, which would still be used in however it's determined.

That's my basic outline anyway.

by cheevyjames on Nov 28, 2006 11:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought about his too

going to a 16 team playoff with all 11 conferences. But I don't like the idea of seeing Ohio State play Middle Tennessee State and USC playing Ohio (not State) in the first round while Michigan would have to play Florida or LSU have to play Oklahoma.

Under the current rules Boise State is getting an invite to the BCS. Keep the same rules for a playoff system.

Mike

Black Shoe Diaries

by PSUMike on Nov 28, 2006 12:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i'm not a huge fan of the playoff

it works for college basketball because it's very hard to determine who the best basketball teams are at the end of the year because there's just so many teams who play so many other different teams. It's all very exciting with the upsets and everything, but it sort of ruins the regular season.

Does anyone really agonize over a loss in the regular season of college basketball? I was at the Michigan St. game in the garden this year (a last-second loss for UT) and I was disappointed, but I was over it in about 2 minutes because I know it doesn't matter. Beat the teams you're supposed to and you get into the tournament. And once you're in, those are the games that matter.

Having a 16-team playoff ruins the regular season. You could have a 3-loss team in the national championship game! even a 2-loss team would be terrible in my opinion. Who cares about losing in the regular season if you win all the games that "really count"?

There's an aura about the football national championship that college basketball doesn't have and never has had. There's an aura about an undefeated season. There's a consensus about the best team in the country. The basketball national champion is the team that avoided the upset in the tournament. It's great and all, but there's no mythologizing of those teams.

Do you want the best national champion or do you want the most exciting playoff system? The playoff system caters more to the casual fan (office pool brackets and what not) in terms of entertainment value, while the bowl system caters more to the traditionalist.

by billyzane on Nov 28, 2006 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Question

Are the Pittsburgh Steelers less of a Champion because they didn't win their division last year and had to make the playoffs as a wildcard? Was the Superbowl any less exciting?

Once the playoffs start it's a whole new season. But it doesn't take away from the regular season at all. You still have to have a good year and probably win 10 games to make the playoffs. But a team that drops an early out of conference game but comes on strong at the end can still have a chance.

Right now they are talking about National Championships in Ohio and Southern California. How exciting would it be if they were still talking national championship in Michigan, Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Bend, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kentucky, and even Idaho? That's why a playoff would take college football to a whole new level of popularity.

Mike

Black Shoe Diaries

by PSUMike on Nov 28, 2006 12:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

not less of a champion, but a less important one

just like the Wild Card in baseball (and to a certain extent the divisional system altogether), while making the playoffs more exciting, has also made the champion less important. Are you going to tell me the Marlins in 2003 or the Cardinals in 2006 were the best teams in baseball? Or that the steelers were the best team last year? They were the best team in the playoffs, but during the regular season they were merely a "good team" that won just enough games to get into the playoffs.

And yes, the superbowl was less exciting than if the colts had been there instead of the steelers. Now, I'm admitting the fact that a playoff leads to more excitement generally. One needs to look no further than march madness to see that. I'm saying that doing that would be at the expense of something that really makes college football special, which blogs have termed (perhaps somewhat derisively) the "mythical national championship." I think of "mythical" not in the sense of it being fake or made-up, but in the sense of it being something legendary. A team going undefeated the entire year and then beating the 2nd best team in the country. Not some 3-loss team upsetting an undefeated team in the first round of a tournament. That's what gets ruined by a playoff.

by billyzane on Nov 28, 2006 12:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Madness

Time for me to weigh in. I love how the regular season games are so important. Its like 14 weeks of playoffs. As a team if you can finish with no losses or just one loss then you have a chance of getting to play. But what happens when you have a year like this year? Michigan found a way to give OSU a game when no one else could. OSU was just lucky that game was at home. Neutral field or playing in Ann Arbor may have produced a different result. But Michigan had their chance.

Now USC has surged here at the end of the season and by all rights they deserve a chance. Personally i think that USC doesnt stand a chance but hey, thats just me. If everything plays out like it should USC will get a chance.

Its not that i dont think a playoff system will work its just i think a playoff system will bring in a whole list of other problems that will give teams and fans something else to gripe about.

The solution is to find a way to make the current system better. Maybe the Plus 1 system will work. #1 vs #4, #2 vs #3, then the winners of each of those play for the title. If the season ended right now that whould mean...

Ohio St vs Florida = (we all know how this turns out)
Michigan vs USC = Great game possibility here.

Then 2 weeks later the winners of those games square off for the National Title. Simple and easy and completely possible given the timelines we have to complete the season in the same amount of time.

Am i just crazy or does this sound like it works!?!?!?!?

I know that it would totally fall apart if Florida pulled off the upset but thats what makes college football exciting, and proof that any system will have flaws and there is always the possibility of controversy.

What do yall think?

by lalonghorn on Nov 28, 2006 5:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

i've advocated something like this on this site

mine is a flex system where there are 5 BCS bowls (4 plus the MNC game). the problem with always having a 4-team playoff is years when there are 2 clear-cut best teams. does anyone seriously think that a playoff would have beeen better than the BCS system last year? USC v. UT was the national championship game and if penn state or whoever upset one of the two on the way, then what the hell was the point of going undefeated in the regular season?

so years where there are only 2 undefeated teams in the top 4 of the BCS standings (and they're ranked 1-2), then there is no playoff, like last year. in years where there are no undefeated teams in the top 4, then there's a 4-team playoff among the top 4 in the BCS standings, with 2 BCS games being the first round and the +1 game being the MNC game.

In years where there is one undefeated and no others in the top 4 (like this year), you can do two things. 1) the undefeated gets a bye into the MNC game and plays the winner of the 2-3 game, or 2) a 4-team playoff with the undefeated seeded #1 I prefer option 1 because it gives you a reward for going undefeated in the regular season.

this way, all the conference champions get into the BCS. the only thing that varies every year is the number of at-large teams that get in.

by billyzane on Nov 28, 2006 7:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Who makes the decision?

Is it just the NCAA? How are bowl association interests, conference interests, etc. taken into account when a new system gets put in place? Who sits at the big round table and decides how the system will work for the next however many years?

by littlevisigoth on Nov 28, 2006 6:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs