Rant Against the Playoff
I don't think I like what college football is becoming. I know the chaos of last year proved that the system is broken. But having 8-5 Wiscy at the Rose Bowl proves to me that the new way we're doing things (and trying to do more of in the future) isn't any better. Yes, I know Ohio is ineligible and so this season is an exception, but looking across the country and through history this isn't the first time undeserving teams win the little playoff game at the end of the season. The Big XII had it happen all the time. Georgia Tech nearly did it. UCLA had a chance to do it last season. And rematches are stupid, anyway, which is another reason I hate these expanded conferences and their title games.
Even worse to me was what SI's "mock" committee selected for the playoffs. The committee would have selected an Oregon team that didn't win its division, and they were flirting with the idea of sending three SEC teams. That makes very little sense to me - the whole point of playoffs is so we can take teams who've been isolated from each other but were the best in their isolated conferences, and match them up to see who's the best of the best. You don't think Stanford is deserving because they lost to the #1 team in the nation on a questionabl goal line stand? Fine - then send K-State, not an Oregon team who had a cakewalk of a non-conference schedule. But the morons who run college football are going screw up this playoff or expand it (which is also screwing it up).
I'll always love Michigan football and always watch them. But I used to love the "chase" for the national title, whether or not we were a part of it. I loved seeing who won what conference and who played in which bowl games and how the BCS filled their slots. But these last two seasons, that has been so unsatisfying. I almost wanted to see 6-6 GT win the ACC just so everyone can see how ridiculous this new system of super conferences and divisions are, with the de facto playoffs at the end that next year lead into the "national" playoffs.
For years we all clamored, begged, and wanted playoffs. I'm regretting what that has led to. We've ripped apart and thrown away traditional rivalries that made these conferences seems like families. I am beginning to wish Penn State had joined the Big East in 1982. I don't think it's crazy to say that none of this super conference bullshit would have happened with that being the case. Sure, maybe the SEC and Big 12 would have formed. But the 14 team Big Ten, the ACC and the Pac 12? Maybe, it was inevitable, I don't know.
Maybe I'll get used to it - Michigan at High Point Solutions Stadium to play Rutgers. Every conference having a title game, the champions meeting in the bowl game playoffs. Maybe the powers that be will figure out the kinks in the next few years and actually make it so 8-5
Wiscy doesn't head to the Rose. And it is a good thing that we'll no longer have our arguments about "who is better?" But is that worth what we've given up? Conferences felt like families, rivalries that built this sport? With Wiscy in the Rose and Maryland in the Big Ten the answer for me is no. And even if this season proves to be an anomaly, we would still have lost something with forsaking tradition and embracing a system that leaves no doubt who's "the champ." And college football is becoming a little bit less special as each of these moves happens.
Oh well. Sorry if this rant clutters up the board without adding anything, feel free to send me to Bolivia if neccessary.
December 3rd, 2012 at 9:23 AM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 10:14 AM ^
I worry about the 8 teamer because it severely cheapens the regular season. Typically the top four would only be one loss teams.
I do like the human element of the committee because clearly if you said just take the 4 conference winners of the Big Ten, Big Twelve, Pac 12, and SEC and put them in a playoff you would end up with five loss Wisconsin in there this year.
Oregon being picked over Stanford is tough, but I don't see how that ignores the regular season. Stanford lost twice, Oregon lost once. Oregon goes. That seems to me to take the entire regular season into account and not just the head to head matchup.
Say the Chicago White Sox swept the Tigers in their regular season matchups, but the Tigers manage to finish with one more win at the end of the season. People wouldn't complain in that situation that the Tigers go to the playoffs and the Sox do not.
The system does ruin the conference championship games but it seems to take into account the entire regular season and not just head to head.
December 2nd, 2012 at 10:41 AM ^
It doesn't cheapen the regular season to me, like college basketballs' 64 team tourney...the better you do in the regular season, the better your seed on the playoff's, therefore matching you up as no.1 vs. no. 8...etc.
Maybe if there are 4 "super-conferences" then maybe their champs get an automatic in the group of 8 and the rest are at large bids.
December 3rd, 2012 at 9:21 AM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 12:11 PM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 6:06 PM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 12:48 PM ^
Stanford beat Oregon head to head in Autzen.
Standford went 4-1 against teams in the BCS Top 25 (UCLA 2x, Oregon, Oregon St wins, ND loss)
Oregon went 1-1 against teams in the BCS Top 25 (beat Oregon St, lost to Stanford)
If Stanford had scheduled 3 cupcakes in the non-conference like Oregon, then they'd get in over Oregon??? It seems like you're punishing Stanford for scheduling a legit opponent in the non-conference.
December 2nd, 2012 at 10:19 AM ^
being in the title game this year was a freak occurrence due to OSU and PSU, the "upset" is part of a tourney formula. I believe that soon enough college football will have a playoff in which the champion of four superconfernece will "advance" in the tourney. Although it will certainly not be as extensive as a college B-Ball tourney will there is actually an upset category of games, sometimes in this playoff to be there will be a team that is not "deserving" that is advances, such is the world of a single elimination tourney. You are romaticizing both the BCS format that was and the pre-BCS format, neither of which has done and acceptable job at determining a champion. And history as taught us that people want a team to call champion in sports. A playoff has to occur. It is a natural evolution derived from a series of deeply flawed methods of determining the best team.
December 2nd, 2012 at 10:45 AM ^
playoffs work well for leagues of 20 to 30 teams. the top 1/3 of the teams are admitted to the playoffs and some of the teams have around .500 records. the team that is playing the best at the end of the season wins and may not be the team that has been dominant all season long.
bowls allow the top teams to be hand picked for the final games without running an equal schedule of tough games. if pro leagues had bowl system, we would almost always see the yankees, cowboys, knicks, lakers in the top games.
i like bowls you get "dream matchups" and do not see the teams eliminated in preliminary rounds.
Congrats the 5th best team in the B1G goes to the rosebowl. Luckily, the Pac 12 is sending the 2nd best team. Just makes the rosebowl suck.
December 2nd, 2012 at 11:14 AM ^
And if that 5th best team goes to Pasadena and plays like it did last night, you think it doesn't have a good chance to win? College football is weird, because it has essentially kids developing before our eyes; that 5th best team could be a tire fire in the first half of the season playing new starters and struggling. It's record is damaged beyond salvage, but by the end of the year has its act together and is playing to its full potential.
We're simply dealing with the skewing that's inherent in short schedules. In baseball, hockey, and basketball the results even out quite a bit because there's a lot more data.
December 2nd, 2012 at 11:04 AM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 12:43 PM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 11:09 AM ^
If you can win a championship game over a team more talented than you, how exactly are you undeserving? You're not.
December 2nd, 2012 at 11:31 AM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 11:09 AM ^
You do remember 1997, right? The old system and the current system have some pretty major flaws. The playoff system isn't fully developed, so while we don't know what its flaws will be we can be pretty sure that it will have some. Some of those flaws can (and may not be) designed out, others are going to be inherent in a football playoff because teams can't really play 5 games in two weeks.
All playoffs are "unfair". The wild card team in baseball gets in with the worst record, beats the best team in the league in a short series. A low seed enters the NCAA tourney and makes the final four through luck and playing like its shorts are on fire, beating a handful of "better" teams.
Superconferencees actually help the playoff system. If the B1G is 20 teams, there are two full divisions (play nine and use the OOC to play teams in the other division). The two winners face each other. Conference champions and a couple at large teams make an 8 game playoff. How is this worse than there being arcane arguments about which one loss team is better than all the other one loss teams?
December 2nd, 2012 at 4:17 PM ^
in the grand scheme, 15 years later... what exactly was so horrible about 1997? Seriously, has it cheapened our memories of that season? Has it changed the fact that we were national champions that year?
December 3rd, 2012 at 9:18 AM ^
December 5th, 2012 at 3:17 AM ^
from the majority of the comments on this thread - and by nature of being on this blog, they are probably more than your casual fan - it seems that the three of us are in the vast minority. If this is what the majority of CFB fans want, then it's the right move for CFB. Even if I like the old way, with small conferences, round-robin conference schedules, and traditional rivalries mattered - most fans would rather see a playoff, even if all of those things have been sacrificed towards that goal. The powers that be are, incredibly, thinking about the fans on this one.
December 2nd, 2012 at 11:59 AM ^
A simple solution would be to get rid of the dumb rule that whoever wins a conference championship game is guaranteed a spot in this bowl or that bowl.
That's just dumb.
Put the best teams in the best bowls.
December 2nd, 2012 at 12:24 PM ^
I'm not sure you're ranting against the right things. I agree that the presence of GT in the ACC title game and Wisconsin winning the B1G are frustrating but I think this is more an indictment of the ineligible teams that threw off any competitive balance than it is of the original format. If the teams that should have been there were eligible you would have had 8-4 UNC vs. 10-2 FSU in the ACC champ game and 12-0 vs. 10-2 Nebraska, and nobody would be complaining.
Also, I agree with you that the four-team playoff would do a very poor job of crowning a legit national champion this year. You need to leave out one or two of Georgia/Florida/Oregon/K State. 6 teams seems to do really well so I think the issue is more with how many teams you have in the playoff, not the playoff itself. HT to this blog, which went back in time and showed the same result - 4 is usually too few, 6 is usually just right. This doesn't mean playoffs are necessarily bad.
December 2nd, 2012 at 12:44 PM ^
I like the national playoffs, but I hate conference title games. They're cringe-worthy at best (Dr. Pepper halftime show?), don't draw fans, and make the regular season too long. Dump them already and replace them with the first round of playoffs (to be hosted on-site).
December 2nd, 2012 at 1:11 PM ^
I hate this argument. It's 100% selfishness.
(This is not related to the rest of the post, but playoffs are NOT destroying rivalries and conferences. It's the bowl execs demanding we shoe horn a playoff system into the bowl system and conference/university execs wanting more money. Adding teams to conferences is about cable tv money. The NCAA going to only a 4 team playoff forces the conferences to whittle the teams down to 4 before the playoff even starts. Like you'll see below, it's money that's ruining those things).
Why should WE get the matchups we want to see? Does the NFL care about getting the best matchup in the Superbowl? Does MLB focus on getting the 2 absolute best teams into the World Series?
EVERY postseason in EVERY sport at EVERY level (except for NCAA Football) focuses on finding the best team. Period. No matchups. No TV Ratings. No Ad Revenue. They care about finding the best team. Not the most consistent team. The team who, at their best, plays the best football (regardless of how many losses they've already had).
NCAA Football is different. It is driven by those matchups, tv ratings, and ad revenue. It's driven first and foremost by money. They don't want teams like Wisconsin or your dreaded 6-6 GT teams to win their conferences because they aren't safe bets. They're inconsistent. Sure they can come out and play well, but they might drop the ball, and those Execs in the NCAA and at the broadcasting companies don't want to take a risk with that much money. They'd rather make a safe bet by picking the 2 best teams from a select pool of consistent teams (pick the highest ranked teams that are ranked first and foremost on being consistently good).
Seriously, if having a 6-6 GT team win the ACC was so horrible of an option, why did we even play the fucking game? Why didn't we just give FSU the Conference Title and send the lowly GT team home? If FSU were truly as good as their record indicated, why did GT have a chance? CLEARLY a 10-2 team is better than a 6-6 team, right?
Why should YOU get the matchups you want? Should these teams just not play so the fans can see what they want to see?
I'm so sick and tired of people demanding to see the "best matchup" in the championship game. No fans in any other sport feel so entitled to "demand" that the best 2 teams should reach the final. This isn't some meal being catered to your every whim. This isn't some scripted drama where the fans get exactly what they want. This is sports fergodsakes.
December 2nd, 2012 at 2:27 PM ^
I have no problem with Wiscy going to the Rose Bowl. They are clearly the best eligible B1G team.
The common thinking among the B1G talking heads was that the Legends division was stronger this year. Well, with OSU going undefeated, Wiscy absolutely shelling Nebraska (the best team in our division), and PSU having a relatively good season, it might just be that the Leaders division was better (and gawd do I hate those division names, I still have to think about which is which!).
I've got no issue with B1G expansion. I don't like playing the same teams all the time.
I hate the playoff system for the NC, and hate the BCS system. I see no need for college football to have a super bowl system. People seem to care passionately about being #1, but really, a team can be better and have a lousy day or bad luck in any given game, so a single game NC doesn't really mean all that much.
Let's say ND has a great game, and Alabama has a bad one. Does anyone really think that ND is truly a better football team than Alabama? I'm not even sure they're much better than Michigan, and I don't think Michigan was all that great this year.
Just my two cents.
December 2nd, 2012 at 3:57 PM ^
If you're from the SEC, it's actually beneficial for you to lose your game against your top division rival. The likelihood that all the top 4 teams go undefeated is extremely small. You'll get to bypass the big dog from the other division and slip in over the team that won your division. All the hypothetical playoff projections have Florida in over Georgia, even though Georgia beat Florida at a neutral site, and only lost to Alabama in a game that went right down to the wire.
Obviously Michigan kind of benefitted from this last year (although in reality we benefitted more from the fact that no one outside the state of Michigan cares about Sparty football; we probably would have been selected even if MSU hadn't played in the CCG). However I still feel like under the current system it's more reasonable, because the chance that you lose to your division rival and make the NCG is really small, and I'd much rather have a chance to win a Big Ten title than play in a BCS game. However, under the new playoff system, why would any SEC team care about winning a conference title when they could instead have a chance to play for the National Championship? With a playoff Florida might as well have just thrown that game against Georgia, as long as they could make sure to in the rest of their games
December 3rd, 2012 at 9:37 AM ^
December 3rd, 2012 at 4:02 PM ^
The old system was killed by mass media. As soon as people in Michigan and Ohio could watch every SEC game and Pac-10 game and so on, college football as it was ceased to be. College football before the early 1990's was a nationally popular but it was also incredibly regionalized. You'd only get to see a couple of games from outside your region a week before the bowl season (fewer if you a midwesterner since one would inevitably be Notre Dame). In that world, the idea of random inter-sectional matchups at season's end were kind of cool... the best in the Midwest vs the best on the West Coast, the best in Southeast vs the best in the Southwest, etc. Because of that, the national championship was more of a conceptual thing than a tangible goal and everyone was fine.
Once that genie came out of the bottle and USC fans in California became intimately familiar with every game Georgia had to play, the march toward a playoff was inevitable. Because how could they be happy knowing their team might have to play some team from the Big Ten while #2 would be off playing some team from the Big 12 and the national championship would be decided by men in press boxes and graduate assistants? What was the point of it all if it doesn't lead to those two teams facing off? And once the question was asked, there was no being satisfied with the way things were.
College football is cursed with having two direct analogues in the NFL and college basketball... it's not a coincidence that this whole movement was really precipitated by the rise of both the NFL and the NCAA tournament to their current heights. With each passing year it seems like Super Bowl Sunday and March Madness become bigger and bigger deals, which only invited unflattering comparisons for college football since it doesn't that comparable crescendo.
December 5th, 2012 at 4:21 AM ^
Wait, what? All that means is we would have played two teams again that we already had lost to. How the hell do you jump to the conclusion we would have been in the Rose Bowl? It's just as likely we wouldn't have a sugar bowl win if that were the case....
December 5th, 2012 at 4:25 AM ^
I was more talking about how I don't think the move to the new college football playoff is worth the superconferences that seem to be hand-in-hand with it. Re-reading it, I did a pretty poor job of communicating it in this post. But also I think everybody really wants a playoff and so they didn't care too much for this, haha