Since I Opened The Can Of Worms...
by Peter Bean on Feb 4, 2008 11:17 AM CST
in Football
22 comments
I probably shouldn't have thrown a hastily-written two-paragraph note about the playoff system into the morning post; it's too big a topic to cover that quickly. All I really wanted to note was that I was sure some people were going to use the Giants' victory as an anti-playoff argument. I should have checked this morning before posting, because Kyle already had.
So let's flesh this out a little bit.
1. The NFL is nothing like college football. It's the same game, but a different league. The point I wanted to make this morning had less to do with wanting to validate the NFL's system so much as noting that it's an imperfect analogy. The professionals play 16 regular season games; discounting the division foes played twice, a team is tested against 12 other teams in the league. By January, we've got a data set that allows us to make much more certain comparative evaluations about the teams than we can in the college game.
2. The NFL playoff system is not the one most of us CFB playoff proponents want. The playoff system we want would not allow the college equivalent of the New York Giants into the playoffs. Anti-playoff advocates are presenting a false choice when they use the NFL as the comparison model.
It's a straw man. While I don't want 7-4 Kentucky in a college football playoff, I'd have liked to have seen 4-8 teams battle for a crown this year. The "travesty" of this year's national championship wasn't that two-loss LSU emerged the title-winner, it's that they and Ohio State, among a handful of equally worthy contenders, were the only two allowed to compete.
3. The regular season would not be ruined by a playoff. A commenter below noted that the Giants' regular-season losses to the Patriots, Cowboys, and Packers became meaningless. That's true. It's also irrelevant to my argument. To begin with, as noted above, the playoff system we want would not include the New York Giants. Their bundle of losses would have disqualified them from contention.
This is another reason I like billyzane's flex playoff proposal. The idea here isn't to have a playoff for the sake of having a playoff. It is to remedy more equitably what is often a messy end-of-season situation. This year, LSU and Ohio State were the only two given an opportunity to play for the national title. Given the equally worthy (certainly difficult to compare) credentials of other teams (USC and Oklahoma, for example), a playoff would have been a more appropriate way to crown a champion than the current system. In 2005, the flex system would have called for a two-team playoff - between Texas and USC.
Long story short: the regular season doesn't become any less meaningful than it is right now simply because we note that we'll have a playoff at the end for the best of the best. The regular season's excitement is rightly valued by those who fear a playoff, but I disagree strongly that the two are mutually exclusive. There are some playoff systems which excessively devalue regular season games. I contend there are systems which do not.
Moreover, the pro-con calculus is not one-sided. The regular season is part of the evaluation, but the postseason must be, too. What little might be lost by a playoff system would be counterbalanced by an enormous gain in the postseason. In my eyes, the gain far outweighs the loss.
But we've had this discussion before, and it's increasingly clear that it's a topic on which reasonable people can disagree. Which is fine.
But I scoff at the notion that last night's Super Bowl is a reason we can't have a playoff in college football. That's not true. All it means is we shouldn't have a system where nearly half the league members receive an invitation.
--PB--
0 recs |
22 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Expand the playoff, please
The idea that div 1 football should not have a playoff beyond the current 2 team scheme does not make sense to me. All the other college sports (even the other football divisions) have playoffs. All the pro sports have playoffs. This reliance on opinion polls is absurd and corrupt. Settle the issue on the field.
Entry into the playoff should be the conference champions of the BCS conferences plus 2 at large teams. The great thing about this approach is that the regular season conference play is still enormously important, yet there is no penalty for great teams playing non conference games with other great teams (sweet!). It would encourage a much tougher non conference schedule to get ready for the all important conference race (instead of the current approach of mostly scheduling patsies).
I have no problem with the Giants winning the Super Bowl. they got it together at the right time, proved themselves by winning on the road over and over in the playoffs, and took it to the Patiots in the Super Bowl. At the end of the game, the giants made plays, the Patriots did not. It was a great game and the giants are a worthy Super bowl champion.
BTW, I was pulling for the Patriots but you just have to admire the grit and skill of the Giants. Their pass rush was brutally effective at harassing the hobbled Tom Brady. The patriots were idiots for not using Randy Moss as a possession receiver much earlier in the game (I was begging for this for about 3 quarters before it actually happened). the giants had a good run game, good protection for the QB, and their QB was tough to bring down.
by Kafka on Feb 4, 2008 11:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Again - beating a drum
All the other college sports (even the other football divisions) have playoffs. All the pro sports have playoffs. This reliance on opinion polls is absurd and corrupt. Settle the issue on the field.
Pretty much all these sports due home-field advantage for their playoffs, yet 90% of the playoff proposals for Division IA go back to using the damned BCS bowls as playoff sites.
No cold-weather school should accept a playoff system without some type of home-field advantage, which is complicated unto itself (but everyone else somehow figure it out).
The bowl system has been unbalanced for about 100 years in making cold-weather schools travel to warm-weather places to play football. If they're going to tear up football and have a playoff system, then let's make LSU or Texas go to Ann Arbor in December and play a game. You win, maybe the next game is in Austin. That'd be fair, wouldn't it?
For that reason alone, a playoff will never happen. Too much tradition, too much money tied up in the BCS bowls.
Corn Nation - Graduating more of our players than you are!
by cornnation on Feb 4, 2008 12:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Clarification
So what is your proposal? Do you think it should be an 8 team playoff (i.e. 6 BCS conference champions plus two at large) with the proviso that the games should be played at the home field of the higher ranked team?
BTW, I grew up in Missouri and played football in cold weather. It really sucks to play in cold weather and it really sucks to watch a game in cold weather. Obviously the championship game should be at a neutral site in decent weather, right? You have to be a complete fanatic to want to watch or play a game in freezing, crappy weather.
There is already an existing 2 team playoff system in place that was implented in the last few years. The question is how to improve this system. The bowl games can still be played and do not have to be incorporated into the playoff system. Two different sets of games governed by two different groups (the NCAA would run the playoff system). The money generated would increase quite a bit which is why it is going to happen eventually.
by Kafka on Feb 4, 2008 12:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Flex System
This would certainly be the ideal system, but I just can't see it being adopted because of numerous logistical/economic reasons. I'm fine with any post-season system that avoids regular season rematches because that would leave the regular season as meaningful (and no, I don't like conference championship games for just this reason). However, no single system can guarantee us this every season.
Until this conundrum is resolved, I would rather the current system (as opposed to a plus one or bigger playoff) because the regular season is always of the utmost importance and we're 99.9% assured that we won't have a rematch to determine the national championship (witness Michigan being left out last year). I mentioned in an earlier post that a plus one would've given us a LSU/VT rematch. If you strip LSU's 41 point win of power by giving the Hokies a rematch, then the regular season has been rendered useless. I don't know what the matchups of an 8 team playoff would've looked like, but the chances of a rematch increase as you add more teams to the equation.
by Sweed4Heisman on Feb 4, 2008 12:32 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
i don't get it
If you strip LSU's 41 point win of power by giving the Hokies a rematch, then the regular season has been rendered useless.
How is that win any more useful or useless than LSU's two losses? Or, on the flip side, are you not rendering Kentucky's win over LSU useless by allowing LSU to win the national championship without having to play Kentucky over again? After all, they did beat them.
by Wells on Feb 4, 2008 2:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The VT win would be useless because...
... they would have to beat them twice to have a shot at the NC, whereas VT would've only had to win the semifinal game to have a shot at the NC. Yes, in a sense, the Kentucky loss was rendered useless, but if not for a bazillion upsets on Dec. 1 then it would've kept the Tigers out of the NC. Even with that Kentucky loss, LSU was still one of the two most deserving teams in the country. I have no problem with a team having a loss or two and being national champs, as long as they ended up with the best resume of anybody.
by Sweed4Heisman on Feb 4, 2008 4:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is the problem
I have no problem with a team having a loss or two and being national champs, as long as they ended up with the best resume of anybody.
How do you know who has the best resume?
by Wells on Feb 4, 2008 4:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I know it's an opinion-based argument, but..
...if you look at the situation as objectively as possible, you would probably conclude that LSU and OSU did the most on the field this season. LSU won the best conference in the country and had the second best win of the entire season (Illinois @OSU was the best). OSU won the Big Ten with only one loss. OU would be the only other team I would truly consider, but their wins weren't as good as LSU's.
by Sweed4Heisman on Feb 4, 2008 4:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What a.....
....futile endeavor, as the school presidents are not going to allow it. On any number of occasions, it has been made incredibly clear. If that isn't futile enough for you, then consider the chances of building a playoff without including the major bowl committees! Put it behind you. It's not going to happen.
Try again in another decade.....
by HornChamps on Feb 4, 2008 2:25 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
There's a point I'll concede
I agree that it ain't happening; at least no time soon.
But that doesn't mean I can't wish we had one. I'll bang on my pot, damnit!
by Peter Bean on Feb 4, 2008 2:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
2 things...
- I've never understood the argument that a playoff system would render the regular season meaningless. I mean, take a Texas season in which we lose one game, to OU, and now, in the system we have, the rest of our regular season is meaningless, at least in terms of the possibility of winning a MNC. In a playoff system, we could still win the rest of our games, get in the playoff, and possibly win. So that would make our regular season all the more meaningful.
- I wish the first thing we do to change the BCS system is to forget the stupid conference tie-ins. When can we get a system in which good teams make good bowls, instead of bad teams winning their awful conferences making bowls, going up against good teams, and getting slaughtered? That was an awkward sentence. Anyway, I hate the BCS-bowl conference tie-ins and the rules about how we can let Notre Dame make a BCS bowl no matter how much they suck.
by hornbone on Feb 4, 2008 2:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
It could work
It could be really good too. It could also possibly force Big East, Pac 10 and Big Ten to go to 12-team conferences and play a title game.
Every year there would be intersectional championships. For instance, Pac 10 winner plays Big east winner the same weekend of Big 12 and other conference title games. Or they would be matched against at-large teams.
So we start with 12 teams. What it could have looked like last year. Seed teams after conference title games
Dec 4:
LSU vs Tenn, OU vs Mizzou, Va Tech vs BC, Georgia at West Virginia, Kansas at USC, Hawaii at Ohio State
reseed
Dec. 11
No. 1 Ohio State, bye
No. 2 LSU, bye
No. 6 West Virginia/Georgia winner AT No. 3 OU
No. 5 USC AT No. 4 Va Tech
Dec. 18
No. 5 USC at No. 1 Ohio State
No. 3 OU at No. 2 LSU
Jan. 7
LSU vs USC
All other teams are guaranteed major/BCS bowl bids to enjoy the pageantry of bowl season, and the money
by FreedomDip on Feb 4, 2008 3:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
good point dip.
we need to shorten the non-conference by a game or 2 and force all to have conference title games. that way it's makes the regular season like a round robin tournament and a mini playoff. either way we still want the longhorns to go undefeated for the season. either way we are all wishing on the wrong star. if we want to watch a playoff, watch the NFL. whether we have a playoff in college is still not going to water-down the fact that COLLEGE FOOTBALL IS BETTER THAN THE NFL.
by kcc28 on Feb 4, 2008 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
what the hell?
Why should the pac-10 have to change because 1) we actually have the same number of teams as the name implies (looking at you, Big Televen), and 2) we've got a conference champion straight from round-robin play and time left for a couple of decent OOC games?
Couldn't you think of a couple of no-hopers in football to drop from the Big 12? Oklahoma, for instance? It's not like they win bowl games that much any more.
by DC Trojan on Feb 4, 2008 4:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
10 is fine...
But every BCS conference either needs a title game, or everyone needs to drop it.
Personally I vote for everyone to have a title game. ASU was co-champs? Give me a break.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Feb 4, 2008 4:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe the Pac 10
Can just keep their precious Rose Bowl game and AP titles and not bother playing on the same rules as the other conferences. In fact, let's just send the Pac 10 champ to Pasadena to play a crappy Big Ten Champ. The winner can say they were better and hold up their AP trophy.
Meanwhile, the BCS will just pick up another game - the Cotton Bowl at JerryWorld.
by FreedomDip on Feb 4, 2008 4:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Uniformity?
ACC, SEC, Big 12: 12 members in 2 divisions, conference championship game to determine conference champion.
Big East, Big 10, Pac 10: 8, 11, and 10 teams respectively (for football), no divisions, conference champion based on round robin play.
Yeah, the Pac 10 are a bunch of non-conformist pansies, standing alone in flouting the college football world order. You certainly caught me on that one. I suppose the solution is to copy the "real" football conferences?
by DC Trojan on Feb 4, 2008 9:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
16 team playoff
Sounds fantastic to me given the sample size of teams. I hear arguments such as:
Rather than cringe from the comparison CFB should embrace it; the NFL proved capable of still producing outstanding championship games without otherwise calling into question the accomplishments of the winner with the worse record. No one can legitimately argue that the Patriots are champions even though the two were 1-1 last season and the Pats have just one loss. The NFL Champions are the Giants. The Pats lost the Super Bowl.
Nothing that happened in the Super Bowl denied the fact that the Patriots were a great team, the best team in the NFL over the course of 19 games, and very deserving of high praise. They aren't the champion of the sport, though, and that is, if anything, an asset of the playoff system.
You can either have the unconvincing argument once every four years about this or that champion or you could accept a new process that always names a champion even if it doesn't answer the subjective question of "Who is the best team in CFB?" My understanding from the unscientific sample of data from water-cooler discussions with like-minded CFB fans was that the rest of us are less concerned with answering affirmatively that last question and more interested in naming a champion the same way they do in other sports. Were ratings that good for this year's MNC?
I didn't watch, not that that matters.
by Red Blooded on Feb 4, 2008 7:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Well said
I'm being accommodating, to some degree. The further the proposal expands, the more the traditionalists recoil in horror.
On the other side, I do appreciate the arguments for preserving as much of the value of the regular season as possible. I think that has more value than you're giving it credit. The college football and NFL regular seasons are different beasts, at least in terms of the meaning of the games. There's something to preserve in the former.
by Peter Bean on Feb 4, 2008 8:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One means of preservation of regular season
import is the conference championships. Alternatively, since there are many more teams (109?) competing for relatively fewer spots (16 or 8, ~14 or 7% of all teams competing), the margins for participation on those edges remains extremely competitive. The concern for traditionalists is that as the procedure becomes more inclusive, so does the regular season become more meaningless. There's some truth to that when we get to talking about 64 team playoffs, but there's some truth to that giving 6-6 teams the opportunity to go bowling at the George's-Restaraunt-in-Laredo-the-one-owned-by my-uncle-with-great-chorizo-and-egg-breakfast-burritos Bowl.
With 16 teams we're talking about something like, at worse, a 4 loss team getting an opportunity to win four straight for a national championship. Worst case scenario is...
16 (8-4 we'll say) beats 1 (12-0) in round one, then proceeds to the national championship game with two more wins and finally defeats an undefeated 2nd ranked team in the nation. The concern from Kyle and others would be that you've now crowned a 12-4 champion over a 12-1 #1 ranked team and a 15-1 #2 ranked team. Does that really bother most CFB fans? I haven't personally met anyone who would describe that series of events as anything other than "motha fucking awesome!!!!!" excepting partisans for the #1 and #2 ranked "robbed" teams that just so happened to lose in consequential, win or go home head-to-head games with the 12-4 loser, who certainly doesn't feel like one.
(Comparably evil would be a 15th (say, 8-4) beating a 2nd (say, 12-0) on the way to a national championship over a number (say, 12-0) ranked team that loses. Same results as above, yet the 15-1 team is a #1 ranked and the NC is that upstart bad ass who, given a larger sample size, proved much better than their regular season record, at least at the admirable task of dispatching better merely higher ranked teams. Does this diminish the regular season for the #1 and #2 teams? Sure, but no less so than it would for the loser of a presumed MNC between an undefeated #1 and #2, and certainly for no fans who take seriously conference championships. I take seriously conference championships.)
by Red Blooded on Feb 4, 2008 9:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Pointless
This whole discussion is predicated on the assumption that the Patriots were really the "best" team and that the Giants did not deserve to be champions. There may be many ways to determine who is "best" but defeating all comers in a winner-take-all playoff would seem to be one of them.
Hell, the Patriots may be the worst 18-1 team ever. Compare them to the '84 Niners and the '85 Bears, position by position or win by win. And those teams won the big one.
by Caradoc on Feb 5, 2008 2:16 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention...
The Bears had by far the most dominant playoff run that I am willing to research.
Game 1: Shutout the Giants 21-0
Sacked their QBs for 60 yards worth of loss. Allowed only 32 yards rushing.
NFC Championship: Shutout the Rams 24-0
Held Dickerson to 46 yards, held QB Dieter Brock to 10-31 for 66 yards. St Louis had a total of 130 yards.
Superbowl: Pasted the Patriots 46-10
In the first half, the Pats had a total of 4 plays that went for positive yardage, out of 21, for a total of -19 yards in the half. While Chicago racked up 236 yards and 23 points. Craig James was held to 1 yard rushing, with 1 fumble. The Pats leading rusher was their fullback, who had 4 yards on 3 carries.
They outscored opponents 91-10, with the only TD coming in garbage time, when the Bears were already up 44-3
by BoddickerIsClutch on Feb 5, 2008 3:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
