Define BEST!!
How can anyone on this blog (or any other) be trying to justify that the winner of a playoff (in any sport) is not the BEST team?
What is your definition of BEST?
The team that has the most wins during the entire season, even though lost in some round of a playoff?
Huh???
So, you tell me, if the winner of the playoff is not the "BEST" team, what is your criteria.
(This outta be good.)
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:03 AM ^
What's the context of your question? Who has said the winner of a playoff isn't the best team?
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:32 AM ^
In the thread on MGOBLOG post "One right answer" (with like 70 comments) a common line of "reasoning" against a playoff is that it does not determine the "best" team.
I.e. -- Giants were not the best team last year in NFL
Or -- You don't want G. Mason to get to the NCAA B'Ball finals by beating a better team in the playoffs.
Etc, etc.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:06 AM ^
Nobody thought they were the best team in football entering the playoffs last year. Now when their top WR from MSU shoots himeself in the leg, all they do is beat everyone and are clearly the top team in the NFL.
College football needs a playoff system, period. You never know what team might play well over a 3 to 4 week period.
Texas Tech could be the best team in the nation, but we will never know. (of course with a healthy QB that didn't have 9 breaks in a couple of fingers! ouch!)
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:40 AM ^
"College football needs a playoff system, period. You never know what team might play well over a 3 to 4 week period."
That's a perfect argument AGAINST a playoff. If just any team can play well over three weeks, then how does that crown the best team? Was George Mason really the fourth best team in the country?
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:20 PM ^
So let me get this straight... you think that the regular season alone is more accurately telling as to which teams are the top two, and therefore deserving to play for that national championship, than the regular season plus 3 weeks of head to head play against elite competition.
Consider that in order to take part in the national championship as is, or in a 6 team playoff, you need to have succeeded in the regular season to some degree. however, a playoff system would alleviate the controversy over who deserves to be in the national championship that is created by the fact that teams have identical records, share no opponents, or may have had a week of devastating injuries.
Notice that George Mason did not win the national championship and all is still right in the world. However, there is no law of the universe that makes it a natural impossibility for a george mason to be the best team in college basketball. luckily there is a playoff system that gives teams such as g.mason an opportunity to prove themselves against real competition.
do you honestly believe that utah is a better team than texas tech. do you thiink that cincinatti is better than oklahoma state and georgia. there are clear flaws in the bcs rating system. it is impossible to compare a team from the big east to a team in the big 12 because they dont share opponenets (for the most part), so why attempt it. I realize that even a playoff system would involve rankings, but at least it minimizes the chances of error. i would like to think that the best team in football is currently ranked somewhere in the top 6. althou i personally am not sure that they are rated in the top 2.
ps. the top ranked team going into the march madness tournament almost never wins the national championship.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 AM ^
these would be the top teams in the nation. The Basketball tournament if filled with a ton of teams. Can you tell me who is better between the Big 12 Schools? Most people don't think Alabama is the best team in the nation and they have been #1 for over a month. Could Boise State beat them?
How about this: Boise State plays Utah this weekend in Dayton as the play-in game.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:25 PM ^
The argument that a playoff will determine the "best" team in the country holds no water in my book. If you want a playoff because it would be more exciting to watch, I'll buy it.
Do any of you think that Fresno State was the best team in college baseball last year? They needed an auto-bid by winning their conference tournament just to get in. They've got the trophy, but they weren't the best team.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 PM ^
For instance, in baseball, they play 162 games. That is a huge sample, and more than ample to decide who a better team is - much better than, say a seven game sample.
The winner of a playoff crowns who played best during the playoffs - not the "best" team in the league.
In the NFL, the Patriots were the best team. But, as shown by the Giants losing to the Browns earlier this year, any team can feasibly lose to any other team on a given day. Do we think the Browns are better than the Giants?
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:02 PM ^
Chitownblue, Chitownblue, Chitownblue, I expected more of YOU!
You did not answer the question!!
What is your criteria??
Overall winning percentage?
Most wins?
Least Losses?
Do you count the games in the playoff?
What if two teams are tied in all of the above?
Finally, what "recognition" do you give this "best" team? (perhaps a footnote saying that even thought team X is the NFL Champion, team Y was really better?)
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:15 PM ^
Not to speak for Chitownblue, but it can't be decided based on one number. Its some combination of winning percentage, points scored vs allowed, yards gained vs allowed, strength of schedule, and some other things. Playoff games should count, but not for significantly more than a regular season game would. I am not sure why you want one stat here. I doubt anyone's calling for an official recognition of the best team, just that people should realize that "champion" and "best team" are not the same.
To ask you a question, do you always think the champion is the best? Were the Giants (1-1 vs the Patriots, 13-5 against everyone else) really better than the Patriots (1-1 vs the Giants, 17-0 against everyone else)? Were the 2006 Cardinals (83 regular season wins) really the best team? Or if you're only talking about college football, you're willing to say for sure that 2004 USC was better than 2004 Auburn or that 2003 LSU was better than USC?
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:21 PM ^
OK if there are multiple factors, what are they??
If you can't define them, then you can NEVER determine this "best" team.
My definition of best is quite simple, "the team that wins the playoff".
So, you can disagree with my definition, but at least have the courage to give me yours.
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:28 PM ^
The factors are the ones I just mentioned. SoS, wins, yards, points, hidden yards. Maybe if I've got it down to two teams I'll use common opponents. I don't have a set mathematical formula for combining all of these, but I start with those. In the end though, I can never be 100% sure.
With regards to your definition, can we actually put you on record saying that the Giants and Cardinals were the best when they won? That in years with disputed national titles, you know that the team that won was better than the one that felt slighted? Really?
December 4th, 2008 at 6:26 PM ^
The winner of the playoff is the best team based on my definition (which is that the playoff winner is the only criteria I use to determine "best).
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 PM ^
Dude you gotta chill out on the amphetamines.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:42 PM ^
Are the amphetamines the green ones or the red ones?
December 4th, 2008 at 7:37 PM ^
OK.
I would argue that in the NBA, MLB, and NHL, where schedules are pretty uniform, and there enough games to provide a large swath of data, the team with the best record is the best team. Thus, when the 83 win Cardinals beat the 100+ win Tigers over the course of 7 games, that is a fluctuation - a blip on the radar - over the course of the entire season. The World Championship Phillies had a 6 game losing streak this season - they just did it at the right time. I'm not saying the Cards aren't "The Champions" - they are. But playoffs crown champions, not the best team.
In the NCAA it is virtually impossible. There are wildly non-standard schedules, and a small number of games. A playoff would be the best way to decide the "best" team, merely because the chance of the best team being included in a group of 6 team, or 16 teams, is more likely than that team being included in a group of two. That said - I understand the champ wouldn't neccesarily be the "best" - they'd just be the champ.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:45 PM ^
except for the fact that a 12 game season, based majorly on inconference games is not a telling sample. and wut exactly are you basing your judgement on about the giants and pats. they played head to head, and the giants won. to me thats far more telling than how the two teams did against different competition.
to be honest i dont even think they should play a national championship. b/c that might produce a team that isnt the best. i think they should just crown the top 2 teams as per bcs rankings to be co-champions and hope that one of them actually is the best team.
based on your logic, the national champion is just the team that performs better in that particular game, and not truely the best.
id rather see a team be deemed champion after theyve performed against elite competition and succeeded for 3 weeks straight, than play one game against what some computer decides is a top two team.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:05 PM ^
They played head to head 4 weeks previous, and the Patriots won. The fact that the Patriots won 16 games and the Giants won 10 would also point to the fact they were better. Head-to-head can't trump all. By that logic, the Browns are better than the Giants this year.
You're right - 12 games against wildly divergent schedules isn't a good sample. At least a playoff would decided the champion based on some sort of performance - not people theorizing.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 PM ^
I see a distinction between a "championship team" the "best team". A playoff crowns a champion, which is first place in the competition. It's an objective determination based on predetermined rules. First place does not necessarily mean the best under that criteria.
The body of acheivement pertains to the "best team". It's a subjective determination based on various possible permutations of overall record, statistics, personal observation, etc. But it does not automatically make one a champion, due to any of a myriad of factors.
A championship team and the best team are not mutually exclusive, but, IMHO, they are not synonymous when it comes to sports. For example, one has a good argument that the Patriots were the best team last year, but they weren't the champions. Point is, a playoff is only meant to crown a champion, not the best team.
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:05 PM ^
You did not answer the question!!
What is your criteria??
Overall winning percentage?
Most wins?
Least Losses?
Do you count the games in the playoff?
What if two teams are tied in all of the above?
Finally, what "recognition" do you give this "best" team? (perhaps a footnote saying that even thought team X is the NFL Champion, team Y was really better?)
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:05 PM ^
Dude. Show some respect. You've copied and pasted the same reply 3 times. Are you even reading what these people are saying?
FTR: Its ALL subjective. There is NO one answer. The only time I would use "BEST" is to describe an Olympic Gold Medal team. Otherwise, they are Champions.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:45 PM ^
Unfortunately, a lot of folks on MGOBLOG still don't use the "reply" button (you did, thanks). So, all I was trying to do was to make it easier for anyone who was looking for replies to their specific post.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:01 AM ^
You asked three questions in your OP:
(1) "How can anyone on this blog (or any other) be trying to justify that the winner of a playoff (in any sport) is not the BEST team?"
(2) "What is your definition of BEST?"
(3) "The team that has the most wins during the entire season, even though lost in some round of a playoff?"
I answered the first question by noting that the winner of a playoff only identifies a champion, which is not equivalent to the best. A playoff is not designed to identify the best team. To take it one step further, there is no way to identify the best team, period. This leads to your second question.
In answer to your second question, I noted that “best” is a subjective determination of the body of achievement (i.e., the season including playoff games) based on various permutations of different criteria. Being subjective in nature, not only is the criteria subject to interpretation, but the criteria cannot be consistently defined from person to person. You summed it up yourself in response to SJUblue by saying “If you can't define them, then you can NEVER determine this ‘best’ team.” That’s exactly right.
The third question was rendered moot by the answer to the second.
Of course, your OP was pretty transparent, in that you wanted the answer in a specific form to set up a straw man argument. I answered your questions; they just weren’t the answers you were looking for.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:22 PM ^
Actually, my OP was merely to try and find out: if the playoff winner is "not the best" then how do you determine which team is.
Apparently the answer is "Being subjective in nature, not only is the criteria subject to interpretation, but the criteria cannot be consistently defined from person to person."
I.E. It can not be determined?
So, how can people be so sure the winner of the playoff is not the best??
December 4th, 2008 at 7:04 PM ^
Question: How can people be so sure the winner of the playoff is not the best?
Answer: Because by virtue of being a subjective determination, "the best" cannot be objectively determined.
(Partial) Explanation: The mere existence and breadth of disagreement over whether a playoff determines the best demonstrates that "the best" is subjective in nature and therefore cannot be objectively determined. That is, the best is determined solely by playoff results. Others say the best is determined by other criteria other than, or in addition to, playoff results. That disagreement makes determination of "the best" subjective.
A playoff, being objective in nature, cannot make a subjective determination. As such, the winner of the playoff (i.e., an objective determination) is not necessarily the best (i.e., a subjective determination).
Of course, I already pointed out that "the champion" and "the best" are not mutually exclusive, so the best team could very well win the playoff. But the playoff alone does not define the best team for reasons already stated. Instead, playoff results simply become another possible subjective criteria that one may use to determine the best team. Even though a playoff is objective in design, the weight accorded to playoff results is subjective. Some, such as yourself, will give it more weight, and others will give it less.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:38 PM ^
Was OSU a top two team over the past two seasons...hells no (and thats prob y they got blown out in the national championship.) would they have been in the national championship games if they had played in a 6 team tourney against the top 6 ranked teams in the bcs...hells no. Am I convinced that LSU was the best team in college football last yr...im leaning towards hells no (prob georgia).
whether or not you think a 6/8 team playoff is more accurate than a 160+ game baseball season is a rediculously irrelavent argument...clearly the edge goes to the playoff (sarcasm). but there is no doubt in my mind that selections of national championship contenders would be far more justified after having gone through a regular season of mixed opponenets, and two weeks of heavy competition, than had they simply been picked by a computer following the regular season.
if the bcs rankings were perfectly accurate, there would be no need to play a national championship at all because we wood already know who is better.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:00 PM ^
Obviously Michigan is the best. It says so in Hail to the Victors.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:19 PM ^
Say Oklahoma and Alabama end up in the championship game this year. Someone please make me a compelling case that someone else was better.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:23 PM ^
Texas beat Oklahoma. That's pretty compelling. I might not be the only one in the country making that argument.....
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:04 PM ^
You did not answer the question!!
What is your criteria??
Overall winning percentage?
Most wins?
Least Losses?
Do you count the games in the playoff?
What if two teams are tied in all of the above?
Finally, what "recognition" do you give this "best" team? (perhaps a footnote saying that even thought team X is the NFL Champion, team Y was really better?)
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:11 PM ^
The awesome thing about this year's scenario is that Texas has an even money chance of getting into Championship game this year. They're ranked solidly ahead of Florida right now - in the computer poll, and it's not clear if a Florida win over 'Bama would put them over Texas. Further, if Missourri were to beat Oklahoma, Texas gets in as well. If Texas went over Florida, it would be Awesome with a capital A.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:18 PM ^
So replace Texas with Oklahoma. Now make the case that it Texas and Alabama aren't the best teams. But Texas Tech beat Texas, so they should go instead. And so on....
So throw those out. And again, make the case that OU and Bama aren't the two best. I don't see any. Point being that it's less hard than people are saying to find the two best teams in the land out of the wildly disparate, and rather short, schedules teams play.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:15 PM ^
The TT>Texas, Texas>Oklahoma, Oklahoma>TT situation obviously can't be used as proof that Texas is better than Oklahoma, but I think it makes the whole situation cloudy enough that no one can say for sure which one of those three is better. Even if you believe Oklahoma is clearly better, how often does that happen. In every year outside of 2005, I think there is a pretty good argument that the top two teams were not the teams in the MNC game.
OP, I define best as the team that played better than everyone else during the season. Its a completely different thing than champion. In most sports I think a playoff isn't really necessary to figuring this out, but when a team can only play 10% of the league during a season, you're going to need a playoff to have a chance at figuring it out.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:31 PM ^
People also claim the MLB playoffs don't reward the best team, but the hottest team or the team with the best top 2 pitchers. Basically only the NBA rewards the best team. Because the NHL can depend on a hot goalie. MLB can turn on hot pitchers or wildcards or something. NFL apparently the Super Bowl is only valid when the favorite wins.
Basically people are whiny bitches when the team they want to win loses.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:31 AM ^
Why do we need a playoff? Don't do it in Europe.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:46 PM ^
You did not answer the question!!
What is your criteria??
Overall winning percentage?
Most wins?
Least Losses?
Do you count the games in the playoff?
What if two teams are tied in all of the above?
Finally, what "recognition" do you give this "best" team? (perhaps a footnote saying that even thought team X is the NFL Champion, team Y was really better?)
Finally, Recent research has shown that empirical evidence for globalization of corporate innovation is very limited and as a corollary the market for technologies is shrinking. As a world leader, it's important for America to provide systematic research grants for our scientists. I believe strongly there will always be a need for us to have a well articulated innovation policy with emphasis on human resource development. Thank you.
...
What happened? I blacked out!
December 4th, 2008 at 7:18 PM ^
Well, M is done with football for a few months so we have to wrangle about something.