The BCS wants to tell you why a playoff won't work
http://playoffproblem.com/
- It's unfair - How do you pick the best 2 of 5 undefeated teams? I don't know. How do you pick the best 16 of 20 teams? I don't care. No crying here if you're marginally top 16 - your claims to a national title are tenuous, at best.
- Bracket Creep - there's really no need to go beyond 16 teams. 2- and 3-loss teams have little to complain about if they fail to make the tournament.
- It would forever change the Bowl system - I think the BCS has done enough to water down and dilute the bowl system as it is. I fondly remember the days of maybe 10-12 New Years Day bowls - it's now, what, 2? And the national championship is a week after that? Ugh...
- A 'weak' team can get hot and win the whole thing - Um, if they can get hot and knock off 3 or 4 of the top 16 teams in the land, they deserve the title. In 1996, the Michigan hockey team wasn't the best in the land, but they knocked off 5 of the top 6 teams in their last 5 games to win the title.
- How do you select teams? Well, as I've already stated on a couple of other posts, the BCS selects its 2 teams by opinion poll. When the sample size is 2, there's an awful lot of room for, shall we say, unscrupulous voters to have a huge influence. When the sample size is 16, that influence is limited to the last few eligible teams.
- It'll reduce the importance of the regular season - Not really. You still have to perform well to be in the top 16-20 at the end of the year. 3 losses is unlikely to be good enough.
- EDIT: My favourite: "If you could resolve all that would everyone be satisfied? NO!!"
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:04 AM ^
This was at the end of a UV post over the holiday. I followed the linkage and read it all.
Doctor Saturday surveys the latest ham-handed attempt by the BCS to convince you that the BCS isn't stupid. It is amazing how tone-deaf public relations firms are.
See the UV from the 30th and follow the link to the Dr. S. article.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:13 AM ^
I did a quick search but didn't find it.
http://mgoblog.com/content/unverified-voracitys-hiring-bob-stoops-be-ih…
And the link to Dr. Saturday:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/This-Thanks…-?urn=ncaaf,205129
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:47 PM ^
text quoted. At the bottom of the UV article and what i typically think of as asst. misc. that is interesting but not necessarily worth writing a whole lot about.
Dr S article was quite amusing. Amazing to think that something like that was actually written.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:47 AM ^
Often times, I find that after all the BCS games are played, the national champion turns in an underwhelming performance, and another team creates a huge splash that make many question the selection of the top two teams that played for the national championship. Last year, Florida looked good against Oklahoma, but mostly Oklahoma just looked miscast as their national championship game opponent. On the other hand, Utah racked Alabama who almost beat Florida in the SEC championship game and finished the season as the only undefeated (I believe). Bam - Utah v. Florida for the national championship. True, Texas gets the shaft, but hey, they just clipped OSU, who got beat by Penn State who got spanked by USC.
It would not eliminate all problems with the BCS, but often times a lot is learned when teams go out of conference in bowl games and play similarly situated teams from other conferences. This year, say Alabama beats Florida by a field goa1. Texas then beats Alabama in the BCS title game, but TCU routs Florida and Cinci and Boise lose or win unimpressively. +1 equals Texas v. TCU for the NC. The +1 issue should really be considered, but is instead looked for hypothetical talk of a playoff that is not going to occur.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 AM ^
It's difficult to rate teams with so few meaningful games in the regular season (and they say the regular season is meaningful). I would take the +1 in lieu of a true playoff, because, as you say, it does resolve some issues with the BCS.
Every other football division, however, has found a way to make a playoff work. It would seem all the arguments for or against would apply to these, as well, but you don't hear people clamouring for a BCS-type championship, at least not loudly.
Who likes the BCS? BCS conferences and schools who stand to make a lot of money - the Big Ten is likely to place 2 teams in the BCS again. I would expect that just as much, if not more, money could be made by restructuring the bowls and using them as the playoff bracket.
Grand Valley State University (GVSU) has gone far into the D-II playoffs for years. They can't have a huge following, but nobody's complaining about the money or attendance there. In the end, you get weeks of top games, and a duly crowned national champion. The season starts a week earlier, and there are 4 (5?) rounds of playoffs, and they finish by mid-December.
I know I'm probably preaching to the choir here. I just think the BCS arguments are bogus. But, if the powers that be don't want to see the hypocrisy, they won't see it.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:09 AM ^
is so sure that there's a playoff problem then why aren't they doing everything in their power to change every other sport to the BCS format? i'm sure there are a lot of frustrated volleyball teams who just missed the field of 64
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:13 AM ^
You had me right up until the point where you brought politics into it. That's a shame.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 AM ^
The head of the BCS was on the Dan Patrick show recently, and I don't think even he believed his own BS...
I can't wait until we get the tired old "it will hurt the student-athletes" canard...football is by far the easiest sport to do a playoff in (length of season excepted) because the games are (or at least should) be played on weekends, meaning no missed classes for the players.
Baseball, softball, volleyball, basketball, hockey - *most* other sports have far more chaotic schedules that can potentially hurt athletes in the classroom. Funny how we're rethinking March Madness because of hurting those poor student athletes...
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:30 AM ^
I like the "It's Successful" argument.
Sure, it's successful in the eyes of the BCS conference presidents. Why wouldn't it be? Even in the Big East, where an undefeated Cincinnati has no shot at the championship, there will be little grumbling by the heads, since they are guaranteed BCS money every year.
In reality, the only time that there is no controversy in the system is when there are two, and only two, undefeated teams.
Hell, even a +1 game would be infinitely better than what we have now (although this may be a year where one undefeated team would still be on the outside looking in).
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:33 AM ^
The BCS didn't water down the bowl system. TV did it. Blame ESPN. It used to be a lot of fun switching back and forth between the three or four games that were on at any one time on New Year's Day, but the networks for obvious reasons didn't like that setup. The BCS also didn't have anything to do with letting shit bowls in places like Mobile and Toronto play in January.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:40 AM ^
"This whole argument reminds me of the health insurance companies telling us why we shouldn't have a public health insurance option."
Please no politics I come to Mgoblog to get away from that shit!
Most of the arguments made against a football playoff fall away when one realizes that D2 & D3 have a playoff system. I'm not sure about D1-AA.
Also, the basketball playoff seems to work quite well not that they could have that many teams for football.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:41 AM ^
A +1 wouldn't solve anything. In fact it probably would make it worse if TCU, Cincy, and Boise all win their bowl games.
And a 16 team playoff would take the meaning out of the regular season. I mean who would waste their time watching the Florida vs Alabama this weekend?
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:53 AM ^
A playoff wouldn't take the meaning out of the regular season any more than the current "system" already does for anyone who loses two games. On the contrary, it would add more meaning to the regular season, like the "wild card" berths do to MLB. More teams would be playing for a chance to get into the tournament later in the season than currently.
As for this week's Florida/Alabama game, it isn't part of the regular season. And if they used my system and made championship week the first round, it would officially be what it is now in a de facto sense: a first-round playoff game. I think a first round playoff game would qualify as "having meaning."
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 PM ^
Duke and Connecticut played a basketball game last weekend. It was one of those super-marquee matchups people claim would happen more if playoffs happened. Did anyone outside of North Carolina and Connecticut even care?
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:09 PM ^
you could measure the performance of all teams against top of the line out of conference opposition before declaring the teams in the national championsip game. It would not solve everything, but it would help.