Snarky BCS/playoff thought of the day

Unlike in college football, there is no NCAA basketball rule demanding at least a .500 record for postseason eligibility.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs

4 responses to “Snarky BCS/playoff thought of the day

  1. Chuck

    Snarky reply:

    Unlike in college football, 64 teams are allowed to compete for the national title in the post season.


  2. I understand that, Chuck.

    Last time I checked, thought, there were more than 64 schools playing D-1 bball that had winning records.

    I don’t see how people can bitch about the bowls inviting teams with 6-6 records to play on the one hand, and on the other, not have a problem with a team with a losing record having the opportunity to play for a national title.


  3. Chuck

    I don’t have a problem with either, personally.

    I’ll take a stab at why that’s not a contradiction for some people.

    In college basketball, you let in a field of 64 teams that have a reasonable claim to being the 64 teams most worthy of a shot at the national title. Then it is up to the team to prove that worth on the court. They can go as far as they are capable of going, but no farther.

    In college football, you let in a field of about 64 teams also. Of these teams, there are probably about 6 that have a reasonable claim to being most worthy of a shot at the title. Then, it is up to them to settle for the prestige of attending a bowl game and winning the bowl game as a consolation to not contending for a postseason title.

    People complain about the 6-6 teams getting into bowls because it devalues getting to a bowl game for the teams with better records who are left out of the title game which, since there is no playoff of CFB, is all those teams have to hang their hat on.

    Expanding the playoffs in basketball has allowed more teams to take a shot at the title.

    Expanding the bowls in football further dilutes what is already a somewhat hollow prize compared to the chance to play for a title.

    The former increases the prestige of winning the post season, the latter diminishes it.

    This isn’t necessarily my position, but it’s one I can understand.


  4. I know it’s not your argument, but, honestly, it’s one thing to say that you’re expanding a tourney to let more teams compete, but it’s a totally different one to say that you’re going to let teams with losing records compete.

    I don’t see how that enhances the prestige of anything.