There's absolutely no way that ends up on a bulletin board somewhere
Why I'm such a crotchety old bastard about college football playoffs
Filed under:
You probably would have to be following my posting habits a bit too closely to bother noticing, but the fact is, I post on the topic of playoffs a lot. It's a hot-button thing for me. Just about every thread on the issue attracts me to it like a magnet, and I'm powerless to resist. Some people truly wonder why anyone could be against playoffs like I am, and many certainly wonder why I'm such a consummate dick about it half the time. An explanation is owed, so that the next time I tear into your special playoff idea that you thought would generate applause and knowing nods of approval, you might still think I'm being a dick but at least you'll know why. Bullets, away:
- I represent the persecuted minority. Woe is us, the playoff deniers. I recognize that the tide is against those of us who would prefer not to turn to a playoff in college football. In order to pander to the majority, idealogues like Dan Wetzel and Pat Forde condescend to those of us who disagree. I believe that a playoff is inevitable, somewhere down the line, due to the tide of support for it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or not go down swinging. But in order to be heard, it sometimes requires drastic measures.
- Gumdrop rainbow playoff ideas. Hardly a day goes by without someone inventing their own playoff. Having come up with their own special proposal and convinced themselves it's perfect, they become entrenched. "I have a great idea, therefore I'm in favor of a playoff." The problem is, people approach it like this:
- I see problems, X, Y, and Z with the current system.
- Here is a system that fixes X, Y, and Z.
They have given zero thought to the actual realities the NCAA operates under. They might fix X, Y, and Z but they break A, B, and C. They come up with ideas that break NCAA bylaws, ignore the considerations that the power brokers deal with, force unrealistic expectations onto the scene, and generally fail to take into account most of the factors that drive the situation. Some are just playoffs for the sake of playoffs. Extremely rare is the playoff proposal that it's not easy to poke a ton of holes in at first sight. Extremely rare is the playoff proposal that the NCAA and conference commissioners wouldn't round-file the moment they saw it. But everyone from POTUS on down has their gumdrop rainbow idea that they like, and having presented it, they see no reason why it shouldn't be implemented and therefore they are playoff advocates.
Even I have my own gumdrop rainbow idea, but it doesn't make me a playoff advocate - I recognize that what I want and what playoff eventually emerges are likely to be wildly different. I suspect many people will find that the end result is as disappointing to them as the current system. At least, though, I've tried to take what I think is the correct approach when designing a playoff, which is to try to think through what the commissioners and presidents would want out of it and then apply those rules to fit what I want into them, rather than start with my own burning desires and convince myself that the result is workable.
- The BCS folks are idiots. The anti-playoff arguments they come up with are at best hit-and-miss and at worst totally off-mark. They aren't much better at thinking through the eyes of a fan than the fans are at thinking through the eyes of the commissioners. Someone has to take up their slack.
- Get off my lawn. I'm a traditionalist at heart, and college football has the best ones. I don't like the idea that we must tear down the old ways because somewhere along the line, we decided the national title is all that matters. And further, many people think you can have it both ways. Well, you might be able to, but not through the methods most propose. Again, I suspect many would find themselves disappointed when the presence of a playoff removes some aspect of college football they thought would be kept. In any case, though, I'm kind of reflexive about it - the default setting should be to keep what you've got if there are doubts, because once you change, you can't go back.
I don't think the BCS is the perfect system, and it could always use a fix here and there. But anti-playoff is not pro-status-quo - an assumption made by too many. That assumption, and others like it, permeate the pro-playoff ranks, and, because those ranks are the majority, are too often accepted as the truth. Too many wrong ideas about why we don't have a playoff and why we should are in every debate. I just can never resist shooting them down.
- I represent the persecuted minority. Woe is us, the playoff deniers. I recognize that the tide is against those of us who would prefer not to turn to a playoff in college football. In order to pander to the majority, idealogues like Dan Wetzel and Pat Forde condescend to those of us who disagree. I believe that a playoff is inevitable, somewhere down the line, due to the tide of support for it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or not go down swinging. But in order to be heard, it sometimes requires drastic measures.
- Gumdrop rainbow playoff ideas. Hardly a day goes by without someone inventing their own playoff. Having come up with their own special proposal and convinced themselves it's perfect, they become entrenched. "I have a great idea, therefore I'm in favor of a playoff." The problem is, people approach it like this:
- I see problems, X, Y, and Z with the current system.
- Here is a system that fixes X, Y, and Z.
They have given zero thought to the actual realities the NCAA operates under. They might fix X, Y, and Z but they break A, B, and C. They come up with ideas that break NCAA bylaws, ignore the considerations that the power brokers deal with, force unrealistic expectations onto the scene, and generally fail to take into account most of the factors that drive the situation. Some are just playoffs for the sake of playoffs. Extremely rare is the playoff proposal that it's not easy to poke a ton of holes in at first sight. Extremely rare is the playoff proposal that the NCAA and conference commissioners wouldn't round-file the moment they saw it. But everyone from POTUS on down has their gumdrop rainbow idea that they like, and having presented it, they see no reason why it shouldn't be implemented and therefore they are playoff advocates.
Even I have my own gumdrop rainbow idea, but it doesn't make me a playoff advocate - I recognize that what I want and what playoff eventually emerges are likely to be wildly different. I suspect many people will find that the end result is as disappointing to them as the current system. At least, though, I've tried to take what I think is the correct approach when designing a playoff, which is to try to think through what the commissioners and presidents would want out of it and then apply those rules to fit what I want into them, rather than start with my own burning desires and convince myself that the result is workable.
- The BCS folks are idiots. The anti-playoff arguments they come up with are at best hit-and-miss and at worst totally off-mark. They aren't much better at thinking through the eyes of a fan than the fans are at thinking through the eyes of the commissioners. Someone has to take up their slack.
- Get off my lawn. I'm a traditionalist at heart, and college football has the best ones. I don't like the idea that we must tear down the old ways because somewhere along the line, we decided the national title is all that matters. And further, many people think you can have it both ways. Well, you might be able to, but not through the methods most propose. Again, I suspect many would find themselves disappointed when the presence of a playoff removes some aspect of college football they thought would be kept. In any case, though, I'm kind of reflexive about it - the default setting should be to keep what you've got if there are doubts, because once you change, you can't go back.
I don't think the BCS is the perfect system, and it could always use a fix here and there. But anti-playoff is not pro-status-quo - an assumption made by too many. That assumption, and others like it, permeate the pro-playoff ranks, and, because those ranks are the majority, are too often accepted as the truth. Too many wrong ideas about why we don't have a playoff and why we should are in every debate. I just can never resist shooting them down.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:16 PM | 
Without reading the post...
Without reading the post...
December 16th, 2009 at 12:20 PM |
Answers
Answers
Instead of shooting holes in everyones else ideas, post yours so we can see what you got
December 16th, 2009 at 12:28 PM |
I did last year. Also you
I did last year. Also you
I did last year. Also you can click through to my blog. Not trying to be a view whore but I don't want to rehash the whole thing. I'll summarize:
- 16 teams, half of which are autobids based on which eight conferences rate highest in the RPI that we'd create.
- Other half picked by a committee which also seeds the teams.
- Big East-style bracket. (Check out their basketball tournament.)
- Played at home stadiums until the final four.
- First three rounds played in December - losers invited to bowl games with the rest of the non-playoff riffraff.
- Final Four played in January at a neutral bowl site.
Ohio State is the #1 bathroom. I take poops in the bathroom.
Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:59 PM |
Too Many
Too Many
I think you got too many teams, with 3 rounds you get into final exams. It is a point many miss that you can add to your argument. You have to allow a week for the kids to take all of their tests. I was more curious about your non-playoff solution to fix the BCS.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:28 PM |
I think the final exams
I think the final exams
I think the final exams argument is a false one that anti-playoff types use. The NCAA has already ceased to give a shit about them. Villanova is holding their final exams right now and yet the Wildcats are playing for the title this Saturday. This weekend and last weekend is championship time in most fall sports - soccer, lower division football, volleyball, etc. Right before and during everyone's finals. Plus, this weekend kicks off the bowl games.
As for fixing the BCS, it involves a lot of things outside the realm of the actual structure of the games. Things like making the ballots much more transparent and accessible, much tighter rules on who you can schedule, and I've tossed around in my head the idea of selecting the title game participants after the bowls have played out....though I haven't thought that last one all the way through yet.
Ohio State is the #1 bathroom. I take poops in the bathroom.
Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:20 PM |
Isn't BCS-caliber football different?
Isn't BCS-caliber football different?
I'm fairly certain the demands (physically and in terms of time) at this level vastly exceed what is going on at lower levels of college football let alone non-revenue sports. Those people are a lot closer to being true student-athletes than the kids who have to worry about media interaction, spending a ton of extra personal time on training just to keep up, etc.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:17 PM |
If it's that different (and I
If it's that different (and I
If it's that different (and I certainly see where it would be) then perhaps it's not the worst thing in the world to have a different way of determining a national champion. Playoffs for playoffs sake is absolutely the wrong way to go.
Ohio State is the #1 bathroom. I take poops in the bathroom.
Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:36 PM |
Keep it up
Keep it up
Most playoff proposals are flawed, usually fatally. Very few acknowledge the tradeoffs involved. Most compromise the regular season, which can arguably be offset by some other benefit (the playoff), but the sacrifice is rarely fully recognized.
There is no question that a(n inevitable) playoff will bring about a lot of unintended consequences and a lot of "no one thought of this situation" commentary will take place. Well, some people did think about these drawbacks during the BCS witchunt...
My personal evaluation for playoff proposals hinges on marquee regular season matchups, especially within conferences. Any that compromises the importance of the 2006 UM-OSU game or this years' Florida-Alabama game should be reworked.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:39 PM |
But what is traditional?
But what is traditional?
I understand the appeal of the traditional in college football, but what is really traditional?
Many of the traditions I grew up with have already disappeared. Big Ten champion vs. Pac Ten champion in the Rose Bowl? Gone. New Year's Day football orgy? Gone. Out-of-conference games against other powers? Mostly gone, now we get MAC and FCS. My senior year, Michigan played Miami and Notre Dame. Now everyone is so desperate to qualify for a bowl and stay in NC contention that a real opponent is the exception. The mad bowl scramble? Gone. Now it's all bowls for everyone and conference tie-ins dictating the match ups.
Not to mention that the bowl tradition I grew up with was a change from the earlier tradition of only the Big Ten champion going to the Rose Bowl and everyone else staying home.
I personally really dislike the displacement of all of the big bowl games to beyond the holidays. In the first week of Jan. everyone is back at work. Sitting down on Thursday night of the first week back to watch the National Championship Game? Lame.
Bring me a playoff with great games throughout my holiday season and a big blowout of the semi's and some non-qualifiers on New Year's Day and the National Championship on the following Saturday.
That's a tradition that I would be happy to pass on to generations of fans to follow!
The BCS is a POS.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:38 PM |
Playoff
Playoff
Do you really need to go to 16 teams? That's the biggest argument against a playoff and I agree.
I say you do eight teams or go back to the old system. Even when you have a split NC, it's double the fun!
What I DO know is the BCS sucks arse--if your team isn't in one of them, why watch any bowl besides the Big One?
Eight teams is deep enough. But how do you determine them? That's the tough part for me. Six big conferences and two at large bids?
If you go 16--that's three more games for a team that could have already played 13.
One reason I favor a smaller tournament is it wouldn't lessen the importance of the regular season.
I do not like math
December 16th, 2009 at 1:04 PM |
You don't need 16 teams
You don't need 16 teams
The arguments happen because you've got five undefeated FBS teams (ALA, TX, CINN, BSU, TCU), and only two get to play for the title. I can't remember a year when there were more than 8 that could reasonably say, "We're #1." A playoff with 8 teams would be more than enough to accommodate everyone with a good claim for being there. Even the so-called "plus one" would be quite a bit better than what we have.
Marc Shepherd
New York, NY
December 16th, 2009 at 1:11 PM |
I don't want to turn this
I don't want to turn this
I don't want to turn this into a referendum on my own idea. We can do that separately if anyone wants to. No problem with the slings and arrows. But, a couple points:
- You can't have six auto and two at-large because the NCAA forbids its tournaments to have fewer than half the field be at-large.
- Therefore, eight is unfeasible. Why? Because the conference commissioners already see themselves as having an autobid to the fat piles of cash available - i.e., the BCS bowls. Once a playoff appears, all those fat piles of cash will move there - there won't be these $6 million bowl payouts or whatever. So you have to have a system that appeases the big six conferences; no conference commissioner is going to be stupid enough to agree to a system where there's even a slim chance his conference champion might be left out. So four autobids won't work. You have to have at least six. I choose to have eight because it expands into the non-BCS conferences and gives those guys a reason to jump onboard.
- I totally agree with the notion that a playoff would reduce the importance of the regular season. Hence the Big East bracket. Instead of a straight-up regular bracket, the Big East gives four teams one bye and four teams two byes. This bracket has so many advantages, it's incredible: it allows more teams to host a game, it seriously improves the drama of the regular season over what a regular playoff would by offering extra tiers and incentives, it greatly reduces the likelihood that a team would have to play way too many games. The list goes on. I think a 16-team Big East bracket would make for a far, far better regular season than an 8-team regular bracket.
Ohio State is the #1 bathroom. I take poops in the bathroom.
Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:06 PM |
Yeah, 16 Is Easy
Yeah, 16 Is Easy
What about a college football playoff that:
Keeps All Current Bowl Games In Place
Keeps Most Traditional Rivalries in Place for Bowl Games
Includes 16 Teams
Limits Additional Games
Reduces the Need/Desire for Teams to Schedule “Non-Competitive” Games
Impossible? Not really, here it is:
All 6 BCS conferences will have two divisions (ACC, Big 12, and SEC already have this in place). Big East, Big 10, and Pac 10 will have the option to add teams and split into 2 divisions. If Big East, Big 10, and/or Pac 10 do not want to split into divisions, there would be more “at large” teams. All conferences may add teams if they want up to a maximum of 10 teams per division.
Schedule will consist of 12 regular season games. Teams may NOT play more than 3 non-conference games.
Playoff will consist of 16 teams
The 12 Division winners automatically qualify.
There will be an additional 4 “at-large” bids determined by BCS ranking.
First round of the playoffs (16 teams) will be the same as the current Conference championships (played the week after the regular season ends) plus playoffs between the 4 “at-large” teams. BCS ranking will determine the home team.
Second round of the playoffs (8 teams) will be the following week. Home team determined the same as for the first round.
Third round of the playoffs (4 teams) will be on New Year’s Day at two of the existing bowl games.
Championship game will be the next week at an existing bowl game (like it is now).
All teams that do not make the final 4 are eligible to play in any of the other bowl games (just like now).
All bowl games can keep traditional rivalries except for the 2 bowls hosting the final 4.
Life should not be a journey to the grave to arrive safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What A Ride!" HST
December 16th, 2009 at 1:25 PM |
Bylaws.
Bylaws.
Bylaws.
Ohio State is the #1 bathroom. I take poops in the bathroom.
Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com.
December 16th, 2009 at 6:19 PM |
I'm a crotchety old man when it comes to the bylaw objection
I'm a crotchety old man when it comes to the bylaw objection
I see this counter-argument arise too often. NCAA bylaws are much like the bylaws of any corporation, LLC, or other business entity in America: they can be amended.
Mustering the support necessary to amend the bylaws is a lofty task, but not an insurmountable one (much like implementing a playoff system). The "bylaws" objection is another hurdle to any given playoff proposal, but not a dead end. Especially where McDuck-sized bins of money are involved.
December 16th, 2009 at 6:58 PM |
In this case I think it's a
In this case I think it's a
In this case I think it's a hurdle they wouldn't bother to jump.
I think it's an absolute, concrete fact of life when it comes to playoffs that the six BCS conferences and their commissioners will never even consider signing on to a new plan that involves the risk of them being shut out at any time in the future from the handing out of the McDuck-sized bins of money. In other words, if we had a playoff idea on the table and there was even the possibility, however remote, that an ACC or Big East or Big Ten or whatever team might not participate, then that playoff idea is DOA, no second looks.
No BCS conference commissioner will sign on to a plan that removes his autobid to the big money. So that means a minimum of six autobids to the playoffs. Let's say a proposal for an eight-team playoff is on the table. Given the choice of the giant-sized catfight involved in amending the bylaws - a change which would almost certainly require the approval of at least a couple of the non-AQ conferences - or simply expanding the playoffs to fit more teams (and more games = more money, after all) I don't see the bylaws getting amended.
Ohio State is the #1 bathroom. I take poops in the bathroom.
Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:11 PM |
Other sports/other divisions
Other sports/other divisions
Amazing - all other sports and all other football divisions can have playoffs to determine a real champion but Div. 1A can't find a way to make it work...hmmm - should we follow the money trail of the bowl games that have nothing to do with the preposterous student/athlete debate?? I am quite sure a tournament outlined above with the bowl games still intact would make more money for everyone!
Let's cut the BS (BCS) and get it done!!
MGoBlog....kinda like crack, but more addicting...
Wolverine Convert
December 16th, 2009 at 1:12 PM |
Any playoff system...
Any playoff system...
...is better than the POS we have right now. It is a lot more important to actually institute a playoff system that can be tweaked as it goes along than it is to get it perfect the first time. I really wish Auburn and Nebraska had held on in their games against Alabama and Texas so that the BCS would have the utter chaos it so richly deserves.
They have a marketable "championship game" now, and that is all that matters to them. They have stuck BSU and TCU against each other so that neither has a chance to upset one of the "big boys" and weaken the BCS' stranglehold on sanity. The BCS is making a mockery of "competition" and of college football.
Hopefully, something will happen soon.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:26 PM |
Screw it
Screw it
Screw the playoffs. I have New Mexico Bowl and St Petersburg Bowl Fever.
The only cure? Cowbell? Nope. How about a dose of New Orleans Bowl soup? Yes, that will do.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:04 PM |
Thanks for the anti-playoff post
Thanks for the anti-playoff post
I appreciate the post because I'm also against any or all proposed playoff systems. However, it's not necessarily because I'm a traditionalist. I have bulletproof reasoning that no one can argue with:
I'm against a college football playoff is because I don't care who everyone else thinks the national champion is.
That's right. Before you criticize me, read that statement again.
Now let me explain further:
The playoff argument begins with the assumption that the bowl system is a failure -- not financially, but in determining a national champion.
I agree. The bowl system (BCS or pre-BCS) doesn't definitively determine a national champion. But neither will a playoff.
To truly determine a national champion, leagues like the NFL have something called a "common pool of competition". The same teams play each other all season long. Their records put them in the playoffs. No votes. No opinions. No disputes.
With 100+ teams and a season that doesn't go year round, there never can be, never will be a common pool of competition in college football. Consequently, opinion-based voting will always be a part of any system determining a national champion.
A playoff would start with the top 4 (or 8, or 16) teams, but those rankings are still determined by opinion-based voting. Yes, the debate now shifts from "who's number 1 (or 2)?" to "who's number 4 (or 5)?", but the first team left on the outside still has a right to complain about not being included in a playoff.
So it all comes back to opinion.
There will never be a definitive national champion in college football. The bowls -- successful both in attendance and revenue -- aren't all worth sacrificing only to determine the national champion with just a *little* more certainty.
Personally, I enjoy debating "who's number 1?", and I'm at peace with not knowing the answer.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:36 PM |
While you're correct that
While you're correct that
While you're correct that it's always going to be possible to omit the truly best team from those who get selected to play for a championship, this reason alone is not enough to dismiss the benefits of a playoff.
By virtue of having more teams in play for the championship, you increase the chance that the best team is included. Want to increase that chance? Widen the field. As the field gets larger and larger, it becomes less and less likely that the truly best team is underrated to the point where they are excluded.
Perhaps more importantly however, dismissing the playoffs because they are not perfect is silly (as Brian has opined in his previous playoff rants.) Our current system is in effect a two team playoff. While widening the field to four, six, or eight teams is not going to magically solve all the problems of college football, it would be better (edit: at selecting the truly best team) than our current system.
Further edit: There are still many reasons why one might oppose a playoff system, but not due to its ability (or inability) to determine a champion, which is better than our current system.
December 16th, 2009 at 5:08 PM |
You're missing the point
You're missing the point
I believe I conceded in my post that the playoffs would be "better" at determining the national champion. However, not at the expense of the bowls, the fans they attract, and the revenue they generate.
Which brings me to another assumption that playoff proponents make: "the bowls are all about money". Well, duh.
That there is money to be had with 32 bowls being played in a span of only a couple weeks means that it's already a successful system. If the fans didn't like bowls, they wouldn't waste their time or money with them.
Yet, playoff proponents want just a little more assurance of who the national champion is. Sorry, but I don't. Especially if it means fewer fans get to watch their teams play in bowls or that schools make less money.
All of my logical arguments aside, the biggest point you missed: I don't care who who the consensus national champion is. I just cheer for my team (Michigan) to win out. If voters across the country want to call them national champs, so be it. If not, then we can always debate it.
December 16th, 2009 at 5:18 PM |
So you where fine back in 2006 right?
So you where fine back in 2006 right?
I mean, who cares who gets to play for the national title, even if it is Michigan, right?
www.get2formaizenblue.blogspot.com
For all of your obscure college wrestling blog needs
December 16th, 2009 at 5:38 PM |
"fine" back in '06?
"fine" back in '06?
I would've felt best if Michigan had beaten OSU that year and subsequently won their bowl game.
However, they did neither. So am I "fine" with how the team performed? No. Am I "fine" that they were unable to play in a "national championship" game? Yes.
December 17th, 2009 at 12:18 AM |
several adjectives would suffice...
several adjectives would suffice...
I've always liked to call it the "speculative" or "presumed" national championship.
December 16th, 2009 at 8:21 PM |
I don't care who who the
I don't care who who the
steelymax:
I don't care who who the consensus national champion is. I just cheer for my team (Michigan) to win out. If voters across the country want to call them national champs, so be it. If not, then we can always debate it.
This is a legitimate difference in opinion. I on the other hand, find the uncertainty and debate completely unnecessary, and would favor a system that would more accurately (albeit, not perfectly) crown a champion.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:42 PM |
You must REALLY hate college
You must REALLY hate college
You must REALLY hate college Basketball season.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:50 PM |
You are partly correct
You are partly correct
In general, dislike basketball as a sport.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:40 PM |
If I'm not mistaken, the
If I'm not mistaken, the
If I'm not mistaken, the whole BCS is not an NCAA-sanctioned function. So it seems that in order to have a playoff system, the NCAA would need to not only get on board, but perhaps be willing to change some of these bylaws to which you refer.
Is it your opinion (or maybe you have first-hand experience?) that the NCAA is so incredibly rigid that it's unthinkable to make bylaws changes?
My own personal issue with the BCS is the use of a human poll.... particularly a coaches' poll. I mean, what football coach has the time to do any reasonable analysis of games other than his own? Note that the AP poll (the fairer of the two, IMO) withdrew itself from being used by the BCS a few years back. Do we not all agree that a champion should be determined on the field? Need I remind anyone that our 1997/98 national title is shared with Nebraska because of the poll being used in the BCS? (Admission of bias here. I am a Michigan fan after all!)
Although my comments may not seem like it, I am also a traditionalist at heart, evidence of which can be seen in some of my posts about B10 expansion. If I could start every Michigan game at noon and rip those rawk-music-playing loudspeakers down, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
But something MUST change about the current system of determining a national champion, because one of these days, Michigan is gonna be the team on the outside looking in. 13-0 after beating OSU in the Big North championship game, but gosh darn it, those pesky voters and computers just don't think our conference is strong enough.
I automatically downvote "B1G"
December 16th, 2009 at 4:03 PM |
Well, regarding the bylaws,
Well, regarding the bylaws,
Well, regarding the bylaws, we have already seen how the NCAA operates with respect to its bylaws. They will be expanding the I-AA playoffs next year in order to allow more autobids. They could get rid of some at large teams, but instead they'll add another weekend onto the tournament. They expanded the basketball tournament from 64 to 65 because another conference came onto the scene, and they preferred to keep the bylaws intact rather than cut even one at-large spot. In other words, the bylaws were sacred enough that the added expense of a totally meaningless, mostly-ignored Tuesday night game between two teams that nobody knows about was preferable to a simple 31-to-33 ratio of at-larges to autobids.
So I don't see any reason why they would make an exception here. Especially since one of the playoff arguments is "every other sport does it."
Ohio State is the #1 bathroom. I take poops in the bathroom.
Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com.
December 16th, 2009 at 5:00 PM |
one bit of caution
one bit of caution
In the basketball tournament this enforcement of the bylaw was essentially pushed by the big conferences so they didn't "lose" a spot to the smaller new conferences.
In football if the threat was "to follow the by-law we can only have 4 auto bids." I think there is more of a chance the BCS conferences would push to change the by-laws...
December 16th, 2009 at 7:00 PM |
Or simply expand the
Or simply expand the
Or simply expand the playoffs, which would be much easier. The commissioners aren't going to be even remotely as attached to the idea of an eight-team playoff as fans are.
Ohio State is the #1 bathroom. I take poops in the bathroom.
Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:11 PM |
human polls
human polls
"My own personal issue with the BCS is the use of a human poll.... particularly a coaches' poll."
True, coaches don't necessarily have the time to evaluate the 117 teams out there, but human polls are unavoidable.
Without a common pool of competition, how else do you suppose national rankings and, subsequently, bowl or even playoff berths would be determined?
December 16th, 2009 at 5:00 PM |
Computer Poll
Computer Poll
For all the griping, they tend to do a better job when allowed to factor in margin of victory. No human sees all the games for all the relevant teams, so using "judges" to grade out the "contestants" is going to be a flawed venture. Computers do a good job of processing large data amounts. We just have to get better at telling them how to do it. At the very least they (besides the stupid Billensly thing) they can have transparent criteria and not be subject to human bias.
December 16th, 2009 at 5:20 PM |
transparent criteria is subject to human bias
transparent criteria is subject to human bias
I agree that a computer system would be the most *objective* way of ranking teams as it essentially creates a simulated common pool of competition.
But no computer system is perfect (as a software designer, I know) and you're still going to have people lobbying for the formula to be changed for the benefit of their own school -- especially if you have "transparent criteria" as you suggest.
So now we're back to human bias.
December 16th, 2009 at 6:47 PM |
There will always be a human element...
There will always be a human element...
but at least it can be known and defined in advance. You won't have people coming up with ad-hoc rationale to justify their personal bias on the fly.
There may be adjustments but they'll happen in the offseason and everyone will know about them.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:09 PM |
Crotchety
Crotchety
Underrated word or most underrated word?
I say the latter.
"The difference between a man and a boy is, a boy wants to grow up to be a fireman, but a man wants to grow up to be a giant monster fireman."
- Jack Handey
December 16th, 2009 at 8:26 PM |
(obvz)
(obvz)
Most!
You'll be better and you'll be smarter and more grown-up and a better daughter. . .
December 16th, 2009 at 4:12 PM |
Agree
Agree
Most people don't know what college football will really be like once a playoff is instituted. I don't either, but I think that it won't be the rosy picture that most paint it to be. And once you go playoff you can't go back.
I also agree with steelymax and st barth. So what if we don't get a "true" national champion? Some years nobody deserves that title. Some years multiple teams might.
Anti-playoff proponents of the world unite!!!!
(and remember that anti-playoff is not pro-BCS. I'm not in favor of playoffs, but I do think the BCS as well as the current method of scheduling (scheduling cupcakes, which I believe is caused in part by the current BCS system) need to be improved)
December 16th, 2009 at 4:24 PM |
Count me as in your ranks
Count me as in your ranks
Count me as in your ranks Maizeandbluewahoo. It's incredible how much confidence people have that the same BCS officials they lampoon will have the good judgment to adopt their pet proposal.
Galileo was also chastised.
December 16th, 2009 at 5:14 PM |
I still want a playoff
I still want a playoff
I don't care for some traditions, namely those that get in the way of progress. I want to see a play off becuase I think it would just be more interesting than the current system in place. I'm sick of the national title every year being turned into a beauty pagent every single year, and I want to see every team in DI FBS have a chance to prove themselves each year against the top teams.
www.get2formaizenblue.blogspot.com
For all of your obscure college wrestling blog needs
December 16th, 2009 at 5:23 PM |
I'm not sure what playoff
I'm not sure what playoff
I'm not sure what playoff system is the answer, but after reading your well written post you seem to step on your own toes in the comments. You don't like OTHER people's playoff ideas but have one of your own. My only thought is that the old bowl system was better than the BCS, and hopefully what they evolve to won't be worse than that.
Hail to the Victors!
December 16th, 2009 at 5:32 PM |
I didn't fault anyone for
I didn't fault anyone for
I didn't fault anyone for coming up with their own ideas. My problem is this:
- People don't think them through properly or use the right criteria or process.
- People have a certain way they'd like to see it done, which they think is better than the current system, so they start insisting on a playoff. Just because I have an idea of my own doesn't mean I'm naive enough to believe the actual final product will look anything like that, or that if it did, it would stay that way. There are many, many other possible ideas, most of which I know I won't like. Many people demand a small, eight team playoff but acknowledge that having it be much larger would ruin the regular season too much for them. Even if they get exactly their wish, will they be pleased when (not if) the monster they create expands, as seems inevitable?
Ohio State is the #1 bathroom. I take poops in the bathroom.
Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com.
December 16th, 2009 at 5:23 PM |
I'm not sure what playoff
I'm not sure what playoff
I'm not sure what playoff system is the answer, but after reading your well written post you seem to step on your own toes in the comments. You don't like OTHER people's playoff ideas but have one of your own. My only thought is that the old bowl system was better than the BCS, and hopefully what they evolve to won't be worse than that.
Hail to the Victors!
December 16th, 2009 at 10:59 PM |
Nice job
Nice job
Thanks for representing the thinking skeptic. I particularly agree with the observation that most playoff scenarios downplay potential damage.
December 17th, 2009 at 9:45 AM |
OK crotchety old bastard
OK crotchety old bastard
I think you're missing the explanation to why you don't like, or rather what you like about the old system.
For example: I liked the pre-BCS system over the BCS system because of the importance of the major bowl games. It used to be winning the Big Ten and the Rose Bowl were accomplishments; now they are bylines.
Lets face it, to most fans (the ones who's teams are not playing in the game), the Rose Bowl doesn't matter anymore, it is just a side show. Of course the other marquis bowls have all sold their names out, so they are even less recognizable.
That said: for me, any National Championship playoff system that preserves the importance of winning your conference, and re-establishes the importance (and thus revenue potential based on viewership) of winning a marquis bowl as say a semi or quarter final game is better than the current BCS system.
The nut of course is revenue (the academic argument is a front), and the shift to a championship path limits the number of teams who participate in bowl games.
Well, anyway, I sort of agree, but the current system sucks worse than either going back, or moving forward in my view. Given the pressure from Congress, and talk around a 12th Big Ten team, and a Big Ten Championship game, it would appear we're moving forward.
So if we move forward - re-establish the importance of the major bowls.
December 20th, 2009 at 11:24 PM |
Agreed
Agreed
Even though you may have "shared" national champs, who cares? if you win out and win your bowl you deserve to be a champ. same with in other "big six" leagues. I personaly think that we should go back to the pre-BCS era arrangement for the postseason.
Go Blue!
lack of sex?
or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.