Why Playoff Winner is the BEST
As many have stated, at the end of the regular season in any sport, there are always a number of teams that are statistically so close and there are so many variables that the "best" team cannot be determined.
You could vote.
You could let the computers decide.
OR
You could have all the "potential best" teams engage in some sort of contest.
Wouldn't the winner of this contest be the best?
A round robin competition for all the "potentially best" teams would be the theoretical way but, of course, that is not practical in many instances.
So, playoffs are the practical solution. Perfect? Of course not. But, as they say, it is better than any other alternative.
And, if there is no way to ever determine which team is "best", isn't the term totally irrelevant?
December 4th, 2008 at 6:48 PM ^
Homeboy, you need to chill about this. You are pushing this idea of BEST way too hard. You need to:
1. Buy a bag of weed. Not some bunk shit, but like the medical grade dank.
2. Pack a bowl.
3. Whenever you think you want to convince us on your definition of "best" or how the "best team" can be determined, take a hit and hold it in until you reach 7 Mississippi.
4. Repeat as needed.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:21 PM ^
What do you think I have been smoking before writing this stuff?
December 4th, 2008 at 7:26 PM ^
Crack.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:32 PM ^
Smoking crack is too hard core!
December 4th, 2008 at 7:39 PM ^
Pussy.
Just kidding. Don't do drugs. Well, don't do crack.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:50 PM ^
i agree, get some purple kush yum yum. mmmmmmmmmm
December 4th, 2008 at 6:57 PM ^
Pineapple Express!
December 4th, 2008 at 7:43 PM ^
Enjoy Life, the point is this: A Playoff is entertaining, and crowns a winner based on results. That's good. The problem, of course, is that no team will beat another 100% of the time.
If Ohio State played 1000 games against Indiana this year, I guarantee they'd lose at least one. If that one game ocurred in a playoff, by your logic, Indiana is better. However, wouldn't the fact that OSU won 7 more games factor into that determination? The results of playoffs can inherently be flukey.
For instance, on 12/29/07, the Patriots beat the Giants 38-35. On 2/3/08, with the same rosters, the Giants beat the Patriots 17-14. One of those games had a name, and thus determined the champion.
Why does that single game effect your designation of "who is better" more than the other?
December 4th, 2008 at 10:51 PM ^
Awesome. That was my whole point in that other thread about head to head matchups.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:05 PM ^
the giants are better. BIG BLUE!
December 5th, 2008 at 2:18 PM ^
My assumption (yeah, I know) was that there was some desire to determine the "best" team.
If there is not, then of course, polls, computers, and playoffs are useless and all should be abandoned.
And, the reason a single game effects my designation of "who is better" is because that is the criteria that was established and agreed upon by the league.
BTW, that was the only reason for my previous post "Define Best". I was interested in what other criteria other bloggers might have.
I believe the answer was: It is subjective and cannot be written down.
Which is OK. I just happen to think there appears to be this unstoppable desire to determine "who is the best". So, why not use some criteria that lets the players decide it on the field.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:21 PM ^
Ooops, just read your post on "Define Best" (it was after this thread).
You did provide your definition of best.
Mea Culpa.
And, thank you.
December 6th, 2008 at 6:58 PM ^
Now that would be cool. That's almost three games a day. I think they'd be down to walk-ons after the first week or month or something.
I suppose it'd be smarter to play your "regular" team only once a day and have the JV team play the other games. Do major college footbal teams have a JV team any more? You'd need two of them if you were playing three times a day.
What, I'm taking that way too literally? Oh. Never mind!
December 4th, 2008 at 7:43 PM ^
Hit the sticky-icky. If you are like this on weed you're either getting ripped off or I'd hate to see you not stoned.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:17 PM ^
Settle for nothing but the stickiest of the icky.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:47 PM ^
"So, playoffs are the practical solution. Perfect? Of course not. But, as they say, it is better than any other alternative."
So, you admit its not perfect, yet your definition says that the team that wins is always the best. If its not perfect, why always use it?
December 5th, 2008 at 2:09 PM ^
I would always use a playoff because it is better than anything else.
The alternative is to use nothing.
And, playoffs have universally (as far as I know) always increased interest and attendance in every sport.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:25 PM ^
I don't think you understood my criticism. I agree that playoffs would probably make the NCAA overall more profitable and be more exciting and help us figure out who the best team is. But, you say that the playoff winner is "always" the best team. That's not true. They're always the champion, but champion and best are not always the same.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:20 PM ^
Yes, based on your (and others) definition, the winner of the playoff may not be the best team.
For Example, Chitownblue defines best as the team with the highest winning percentage after the regular season (for sports with more than 50 games -- for football a bit more tricky because often many teams are tied with the same win percentage).
I used to also feel that the winner of a football playoff was not necessarily the best team. But, then I tried to figure out how to determine the best team and came up empty.
So, either there is no best team (unless the one team with the best record wins the playoff) or we devolve into a senseless discussion based on subjective, biased opinions on which team is best.