College football playoffs?
For those of you who favor a playoff in football, does this tounament cause some pause for you? The big reason I always hear when people are arguing for a playoff in football is that it provides a "true champion". With one game left the elite eight there is a good chance that no team in the top 10 will even make the final four. No one can argue that any of the remaining 5 teams have been the best team in college basketball this season. I don't care for the bcs but I would like to see the old bowl system (pre-bcs) restored. The bowls allow for the whole season to count. The unintended consequences of a playoff are a bigger risk than most will let on.
What specifically do you not like about the BCS that the Bowl Coalition had?
Edit: Should have said Bowl Alliance. Whatevs.
By old system, I believe he's referring to the days before the Alliance/Coalition. This is what I would like to see happen as well, not that it ever will.
I was born in '89 so other than B1G/Pac champions in the Rose Bowl and the B1G restricted to one bowl team per season I'm really not too familiar with the old system and how it was much different.
Since everyone is throwing their solutions out there, I like the BCS system with a four team playoff. The complaint always comes from number three, and number five's complaint wouldn't be nearly as valid, because I can't think of a time with a #5 ranked team that was undefeated.
Before the early '90s (I forget the exact year), it went like this:
Rose = Big Ten vs. Pac-10
Sugar = SEC vs. at-large
Orange = Big XIII vs. at-large
Cotton = SWC vs. at-large
Fiesta = at-large vs. at-large
Then they formed the Coalition, where all the conferences except the Big Ten and Pac-10 agreed to pool their champs if they were #1 or #2. It was renamed the "Alliance" after a few years. In 1998 the BCS was formed, with all the power conferences participating, and the Cotton was downgraded after the demise of the SWC.
5 undefeateds going into the bowl game. I guess you are technically correct. #5 wasn't undefeated, thanks to the BCS formula.
| 1 | Alabama | 13-0 |
| 2 | Texas | 13-0 |
| 3 | Cincinnati | 12-0 |
| 4 | TCU | 12-0 |
| 5 | Florida | 12-1 |
| 6 | Boise State | 13-0 |
That was an anomoly. We won't see many years with that many 0 loss teams. However, we will see years with a bunch of 1 loss teams in contention. Look at 2008.
| 1 | Oklahoma | 12-1 |
| 2 | Florida | 12-1 |
| 3 | Texas | 11-1 |
| 4 | Alabama | 12-1 |
| 5 | USC | 11-1 |
| 6 | Utah | 12-0 |
| 7 | Texas Tech | 11-1 |
| 8 | Penn State | 11-1 |
| 9 | Boise State | 12-0 |
Who's your four to play for the Championship? The BCS ranking wouldn't put one of the two undefeateds in the 4 team playoff and even would shut one out of an 8 team play off.
I think the BCS does a good job. I also think that if Utah or Boise do not have the SOS to get into the top four, they're not deserving. I'd much rather keep the status-quo than go to a big playoff, but a play in game for the championship seems like a reasonable alternative that keeps the system alive but quiets most of the complaints.
March 31st, 2011 at 11:50 PM ^
Picking four teams would not be much of an improvement over picking two. I think you have to go 8 and reward the BCS conference winners, with a stipulation that any team with more than 3 losses is disqualified. If an undefeated team is not one of this six, they take up an at large. If no undefeateds, you defer to the next two highest in the BCS poll.
There has been controversy in the BCS final ranking almost every year of it's existence. The only time when the BCS final ranking has "gotten it right" is when there were only two undefeateds remaining and, even then, there is a reasonable argument that there could be a "better" team to fill one of the slots based on who the teams played.
Sure, there is no perfect scenario, as the best team doesn't always win on the field. With that said, the best teams in the FCS and D-II do always seem to make the deepest runs and no one really argues about the qualifications of the champ.
Teams that deserve a chance are shut out every year. Back to 2008. Utah was ranked 5th. Make whatever argument you want, but they beat Alabama handedly. They proved that they were at least worthy of the opportunity to let it be decided on the field.
I am a fan of tradition... so New Years day, traditional bowl match-ups, no computer polls, the importance of the big bowls... Since the BCS has come along the 4 non-championship games have lost a lot of importance and meaning and spreading out the games has really hurt on field performance of the later games. There is way too much time between the conference championship games and the national title game. Plus New Years day used to be one of the best sports days of the year and now is shell of what it used to be.
I haven't been alive long enough to remember those days, but I am a fan of the computer polls. No matter what name/coach you put in, they'll objectively spit out the same answer. I realize they have flaws, but less than human "experts" IMO.
As to the NYD, I think that ship's sailed...TV schedules and what not.
Computer polls evaluate everyone by the same criteria, but that doesn't necessarily make them objective. They reflect the personal bias of whomever created them. Some value margin of victory, for instance, and some don't (or cap it at 21 points or whatever).
If a poll uses a 21-pojnt cap, a team that scores a last-minute TD to win by 23 will get credit for a "large" victory, while a team that pulls its starters and gives up a last-minute TD to win by 20 can get downgraded, as the computer, which is fed raw data, cannot understand the circumstances of the two games.
Thanks for the other answer above.
Obviously computers reflect the bias of whoever wrote the programs, but it's still more objective, IMO than some random writer. If Michigan and Boise State are both competing for a chance to play OSU in the championship bowl (modified 2006) the writers would likely pick M, even though there might be evidence that Boise is the better team.
I like that they're locked in before the season starts, while a human can change their mind at any time.
You also can't argue that Kansas is better than VCU, can you? That's the whole point of actually playing the game.
Ok I'm sorry arguing VCU is better than Kasnas is insane. A great team will beat a mediocre one 90% of the time. The fact that this time the 10% won doesn't mean VCU is better. The ridiculousness of the argument can be shown by imagining teams that play more than once. After the first Indiana game would you have said that Indiana is inarguably better than Michigan? After the second one were we inarguably better? VCU was better today. Maybe they were better this week. They weren't better this year.
If I draw a black marble from a bag of 1 black marble and 9 red ones, there were still more red marbles in the bag to start with.
And to the OP, I totally agree. In hockey four seeds are now 9-11 against one seeds in the past several years. To suggest a single elmination tournament really selects the best team is silly. For all their problems, computers do a better job. I'd be fine with a four, six or eight team tournament, but any larger and its mostly luck and who is hot when.
would you also say that the tournament committee did the right thing by including VCU?
i would still say that despite what happens in the tournament, Colorado among others was more deserving to make the field. Arguing that VCU's run validates this ignores the fact that colorado could have made the same run and would have been more likely to prior to the start of the tournament based on the strength of its resume.
Do you remember the Pats-Giants Super Bowl? Which was the better team? Which team won? I'll give you a hint. They aren't the same team.
Just because a team beats another team doesn't make them the better team. It just means they were better on that day.
No, I still have the same opinion that I had before the tournament. A team that has a bad loss like Youngstown State (Butler) or Georgia State (VCU) should have no chance to win a title in a 13 game season. College football should force teams to play better games out of conference against other top teams, instead of including 8 or 16 (which would be absolutely horrible) teams that may have lost two or three games. With such a small sample size, a plus-one is the only way to have the regular season mean anything whatsoever.
The main reason to have a playoff is that playoffs own.
Also, a team that wins a tournament will have a pretty impressive resume against top teams simply by virtue of winning a bunch of playoff games.
The main reason to have a playoff is that playoffs own.
As a staunch anti-playoff Luddite, I wish I could get more people to admit this. It's long been my contention that most people just want a playoff because they love brackets. Honestly, so many of the playoff arguments are so easily taken apart that they just come off as confirmation-bias kind of reasons where people search for a reason why a playoff would be better to justify their desire for a bracket. I don't know why. Bracket-love is one of the strongest reasons in favor.
is the very reason why there should be college football playoffs in Division I-A.
The reason why there are not playoffs is the money that is linked to schools and the current bowl system. It is clear to me that the "Tat Five" of OSU was not suspended for the Sugar Bowl last year due to the lobbying and influence of Sugar Bowl officials. The Big 10 and NCAA were influenced by this and did nothing, while technically ineligible players were allowed to play. The current Fiesta Bowl investigation is just another example of how the bowls have corrupted things. What do AD's and administrators think and beleive when March madness comes and goes each spring?
They know what they need to do but are getting their wallets filled to much to change things.
especially in BB. The winner is crowned the NC but really they should get the "Hottest team" award. I really liked the old bowl system. I called it back when it was first rumored. The BCS does not satisfy the critics. Every year someone will complain they were not chosen.
In BB I had to hear Dickhead Vitale cry that the tournament is a travesty because Alabama was left out and Georgia was in and 'Bama beat Georgia twice this year. The committee members should be "ashamed" to exclude Alabama.
But Dickhead did not offer any solutions as to who should be left out if Alabama is put in. Dickhead makes his money by making silly, meaningless statements that are full of platitudes. So the football critics will do the same, even if there is a plus one game. No one will be happy.
While the spectator in me wants a playoff, I cannot in good conscience say it'sa good idea. There are two reasons for this.
1) As UM, a quintisential big, visible school, we are the school that reaps the advantages of the current system we have. We will always have an edge even over the smaller schools, and thus we benefit from not having to play and potentially be upset by such a school. As a UM fan first, the current system plays to our advantages.
2) I like the fact that the regular season counts for something. Every game is important if you want to make it to the NC game, or a BCS bowl. Having a base of the regular season really does seperate the better teams. Football is different than basketball, and it is much harder for smaller schools to actually be very good. If there was a playoff, it would have to be small, so that the teams that performed the best in the regular season don't have the chance at getting upset in the first round by some no-name team who sucks. Yes, such a senario would be wonderful to watch and be kind of awesome, but I can't really say that is a good way to actually find the best team in the country.
How advantageous was the current system for Michigan in 2006?
Michigan in 2006 probably didn't belong in the national championship game, considering after our loss to OSU we were thumped pretty well by USC [and OSU was thrashed by Florida].
It was pretty clear that neither us nor Ohio State deserved the championship.
March 27th, 2011 at 11:26 PM ^
However, I'm not arguing that Michigan should have been in the championship game. My point was that the system was not advantageous to Michigan, given that we were jumped in polls while sitting idle.
All that said, wouldn't it have been better if OSU and USC had played in the Rose Bowl as Big Ten and Pac Ten champions, and Florida played Michigan as SEC Champion and at large, and the winner of those two games had played for the National Championship (even if theoretically it would have been USC and Florida).
It seems like almost every year after the bowl games in hind sight I say: "man, those two teams who didn't play each other really looked like the best, I wish there was a plus one format"
It's not like we were beaten out by a one-loss mid-major team, but rather a one-loss team from the SEC. Obviously we didn't get the nod, bit this specific instance does nothing to show that we don't still have an advantage over mid-major teams in the BCS.
Do we really need to cite specific instances to show that we have an advantage over mid-majors in the BCS? I thought that was understood. My point was about the current system as a whole, which the poster was supporting compared to a playoff format.
If your goal is to chose the best team over the course of the year, that would do a far better job than VCU playing Butler in the semifinials. If you really think VCU is a better basketball team than Kansas, you have probably run afoul of the flow chart somewhere. This might be more fun, but it certainly doesn't crown the best team champion.
It may start at 8 teams, but it won't end there.
Correct. 100% of people who think they can have a football playoff that limits itself to a certain number of teams are wrong. The I-AA playoffs just expanded from 16 to 20, didn't they?
The point isn't to find the "best" team, though. The point of a playoff is to crown a champion. Take baseball for example... the baseball regular season does a pretty good job figuring out which team is the best (at least in each league respectively) because each team plays so many games. So why have a playoff?
It's interesting, for one thing. There is also something to be said about playing best when it matters more.
Because of the limited (and not so long ago non-existent) play between Leagues. The best way to go is playoffs with 7 game series, to offset who you played. Barring injury it usually determines the best team. That's not really realistic in football, though.
Baseball's just a funny game in general. There is so much variance from game-to-game that even a seven-game series often results fluky outcomes, like the Marlins winning two World Series.
It was better, IMO, when only four teams made it. Still probably has the truest champion of all the majors due to its relative exclusivity when it comes to playoff births.
March 28th, 2011 at 12:07 AM ^
we made sure all our kids were born in regular season or off season. No playoff births. But seriously, I'm 100% with you. 2 divisions per league, none of this wild card stuff. You know it's gone too far when a sport has divisions but it no longer makes sense to show division standings since the top half of the teams in the whole conference make it to the 2nd season (yes, I'm talking to you, NHL).
To bring this back to football, Div I has 120 FBS programs and 35 current bowl games for 70 teams (58% make it to the post season of a sort). There were not enough eligible teams for all these bowls last season until the last Saturday of the season (72 ended up being eligible). Now, a much smaller group make it to the BCS bowls or would make it to any comparable playoff system. But the combination of the current BCS and the proliferation of cheesy 2nd rate bowl games has certainly diluted the experience, especially the Jan. 1 experience. And while we're ranting, in my vision of the future, all restaurants are not Taco Bell and I'd rather not have all football games being carried on ESPN....
Some would argue that the team that should be crowned champion should be the "best" team, so, in effect, they become one in the same.
March 28th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^
Of all of the professional sports, I think baseball does it the best by the sheer fact they limit the playoffs to the top 4 teams in each league. Generally, the wild card in Baseball would have won one of the divisions if it were there. So the regular season still matters in baseball but I do agree there are too many regular season games...but that's the way it is. Plus with a seven game format, that tends to weed out the drawing 1 out of ten balls from the jar. Football is a pretty close second because again, the Wild Cards would likely win one of the divisions if they were to play.
I think a football playoff would go much differently though. it seems like in basketball, if you've got a couple of decent players, you can overcome some of the inherent advantages of the more powerful programs.
The goal is to crown a champion and if it is the best team going into the tournament or not, I could care less. Giving teams a chance to prove themselves is what the tourney is all about. I think football would be just fine if it did something similar, even if it is much smaller.
VCU may not be the better team on paper or over the course of the year but they were today and that is all that really matters.
The goal is to crown a champion and if it is the best team going into the tournament or not, I could care less.
Then why does everyone profess to care so much about deserving teams being left out? If the point is to crown a tournament champion, you could do just as well with 64 teams chosen randomly out of a hat.
Now that would be an interesting Selection Sunday.
So the regular season does not matter?
Where did I say the tounament sucked? I am enjoying the tournament. But entertainment isn't what is in question. What is the best way to crown a champion. You know who is the best team in the counrty. All I am pointing out is that a playoff system isn't the be all end all that some make it out to be.
The biggest thing that I would miss if the NCAAF went to a playoff system is the fact that, under the current system, every game is so important and you need to almost need to win them all to have a shot at the title.
To use an example from this past year, under a playoff system, Ohio State losing to Wisconsin would no longer be cause for ZOMGFREAKOUTTIME!!!
OSU could just brush it off, win the rest of their games, and end up in the same position they'd have been in if they had beaten Wisconsin.
In other words, upsets would be about as meaninful as they are in basketball, which is to say not very much.
Very true, just imagine Carr and Tressel resting their starters for the playoff push in '06.
This would be a lot more common than people realize. Also, since playoff spots will most likely get filled by conference champions, get ready for early season non-con games to become more of an exhibition than they already are. Any team with an honest shot of winning their conference is not going to risk injury to a star player or players in meaningless non-con games. Get ready for NFL-style pre-season games where starters play a couple series and then watch the rest from the sideline.
And then it would just be more wins they would have to vacate soon. Booyah!
This is why I don't want a football playoff. I want the BEST team to win the title. Not just A team to win the title. The people who run the tournament even admit the best team does not always win. When you have to put in as much as you do to win at football don't you want the best team to always win?