For all of you who dismiss the devalue-the-regular-season concerns that people like myself have about an extended playoff, read this WaPo article and tell me if it wouldn’t bother you at least a little to see that sort of discussion in college football’s future.
- Bloviation for the Dawgnation
-
Quote Of The Day
-
“We remember the Sugar Bowl, I think it my junior year of high school, we let Alabama beat us twice,” Brinson said of a team that also lost to the Crimson Tide in the SEC Championship game. “We’re not letting Alabama beat us twice. In the Sugar Bowl in 2018, they… thought they should have been in the playoffs and lost to Texas.” -- AB-H, 12/27/23
Search
Categories
Archives
Blogroll (ND)
- 82 Sluggo Win
- And The Valley Shook
- Banner Society
- Black Heart Gold Pants
- Black Shoe Diaries
- Blatant Homerism
- Braves & Birds
- Brophy Football
- College Football Talk
- EDSBS
- Eleven Warriors
- Lost Angeles
- MGoBlog
- RazorBloggers Network
- Rock M Nation
- Rocky Top Talk
- Saturday Down South
- Saturday Tradition
- Shakin The Southland
- Smart Football
- Team Speed Kills
- The National Championship Issue
- The Wizard of Odds
- Tide Bits
Dawg Blogs
Dawg Links
Media Links
Stats/Info Links
- All-Time Division 1-A CFB Standings
- American College Football
- American College Football – Rankings
- cfbstats.com
- College Football at Sports-Reference.com
- College Football by the Numbers
- College Football Data Warehouse
- College Football Recruiting Map
- College Nicknames
- Football Outsiders – College
- Football Study Hall
- GBE College Football Ratings
- MapGameDay.com
- NCAA Division I Football Statistics
- SEC Statistics
- Statistically Speaking
- Strangestbrew's College Football Schedulizer
- The Helmet Project
- Varsity Numbers
Useful Links
Time, time…
GATA
Blog Stats
- 73,803,350 hits
Get The Picture · Bloviation for the Dawgnation
Get The Picture 
i can’t really make up my mind about a playoff or not, but the value of the regular season doesn’t sit well with me because of the scheduling inequities. some teams play tougher schedules than others, but every game is valued the same.
i lean toward a playoff, but with limited teams (probably 6 or fewer would more than likely capture all undefeated teams. lose just 1? you may get left out. still maintains importance on regular season), which is where i know your argument stems from…the future growth of that number. if there was a way to ensure that number would never grow, i’d definitely be in the playoff camp.
LikeLike
One problem of the “devaluing the regular season” argument is that for like 70% of teams the season is already devalued because they have no shot. But we are ok with letting them pick up scraps because they don’t have many fans. Then, for the upper 20-25% the season is gone after the second loss which is often by mid season. Only the top 5 teams have a “value” season but as a fan of a team more than a media storyline…I’d rather my team have a shot on the field rather than a beauty contest with biased “traditionalist” who just want the ratings USC and Texas will bring.
LikeLike
I disagree with your premise that a season that can’t result in a national championship is wasted.
LikeLike
Ask Texas.
LikeLike
By that logic, any team that does win the playoff NC would have a wasted season. No difference there.
Same applies to only 5 teams having value season. Man that hindsight is beautiful aint it?
ANY team is eligible for the MNC. The teams y’all speak of that are not eligible need to go out and schedule harder games and prove they are worthy. Make it impossible for the BCS to ignore you. Unfortunatelt going undefeated against the 90th best schedule won’t do that.
LikeLike
To put an example to my point above: a playoff would go a long way to limiting the crappy Ohio St teams from coasting to the MNC game. Another: Fl St made a tradition of coasting through the old ACC to a MNC. We would know if Boise St is good or just feasting on lesser teams. Any real football fan wants to see it decided on the field. Otherwise why don’t we just vote preseason, crown a champ and save a lot of money.
LikeLike
I think Boise State is a good team … that feasts on lesser teams. And expanding the playoff from 2 teams to 6, 8, or more would simply ease the requirements to make the playoff. Boise State didn’t make the championship playoff this year because they couldn’t put their regular season resume up against that of Alabama or Texas as one of the best 2 in the country. But if all they have to be is one of the best 6, or 8, or 12, then no problem.
Boise State, if they want to get to a national championship under the current system, will have to schedule stronger opponents and win against them. Under a larger playoff, they can keep playing UC-Davis.
LikeLike
Boise this year was no different than Auburn 2004, they started behind teams that were ranked pre-season higher. If an undefeated SEC champion can be denied a shot at the “title”, it isn’t about a worthy schedule is it? Current system is simply too confining and denies deserving teams from getting their shot.
While Boise didn’t accomplish what Auburn did, they may have given the chance. They played two very solid opponents and beat them handily. We will never know, and that is unnecessary. The arguments about conference strengths and scheduling will never be settled until we have a playoff, thus no season ever really answers the age-old questions.
LikeLike
In 2004, Auburn’s strength of schedule ranked behind both of the teams in the championship game. Just like Boise State’s this year.
And I disagree with your premise that a playoff solves the issue of conference strengths and strength of schedule. We simply go from trying to use those factors to help determine the two best teams to using them to determine the top 8, or 12, or 24.
LikeLike
Yet, doing that with 6/8/12 teams monumentally increases the chances that the best teams will actually be among that group versus the current guess-at-the-best-two approach.
LikeLike
Do your really have any confidence in “strength of schedule” rankings? Any at all? And if so, which one do you feel has credibility since they all have a subjective bias which causes them to vary widely? Not asking to challenge your statement, but this is the exact same reason why choosing the top 2 teams doesn’t work. The only way to resolve the arguments is to meet on the field of battle, otherwise, we only know who played the best in their own conference.
LikeLike
Texas-
Louisiana-Monroe W 59-20
at Wyoming W 41-10
Texas Tech W 34-24
UTEP W 64-7
Colorado W 38-14
vs. No. 20 Oklahoma* W 16-13
at Missouri W 41-7
at No. 14 Oklahoma State W 41-14
UCF W 35-3
at Baylor W 47-14
Kansas W 51-20
at Texas A&M W 49-39
vs. No. 22 Nebraska* W 13-12
vs. No. 1 Alabama* L 37-21
Boise-
No. 16 Oregon W 19-8
Miami (OH) W 48-0
at Fresno State W 51-34
at Bowling Green W 49-14
UC Davis W 34-16
at Tulsa W 28-21
at Hawaii W 54-9
San Jose State W 45-7
at Louisiana Tech W 45-35
Idaho W 63-25
at Utah State W 52-21
Nevada W 44-33
New Mexico State W 42-7
vs. No. 4 TCU* W 17-10
Pull these from ESPN.com. Without assigning a rank, which one of those better passes the eyeball test (by a LOT)? Every team on Boise’s schdule (other than Oregon) are teams Texas would schedule for homecoming. Tell me again how they are qualified to be in the discussion?
LikeLike
I don’t blame you for shifting your reply to a comparison you feel more comfortable with since SOS is just a bear to wrestle with, unless you enjoy wallowing in subjectively.
But let’s look at what you provided and deal with only the “quality” games. Texas beat no one as good as Oregon or TCU, struggled with both Oklahoma and Nebraska, and lost to Alabama. So they were 2-1 against higher quality, ranked teams. Boise beat every decent team they played, Oregon and TCU, and did so impressively; they were 2-0. Personally, I feel Boise is the team we cannot dismiss between these two.
LikeLike
Is Oklahoma State not a quality game?
LikeLike
Yes, sorry I overlooked that one. A Texas win, but do you really think that changes the “reasonable doubt” since Boise handled all their challenges?
I propbably would have bet Texas straight up against Boise, but it wouldn’t have been that big a play for me because I thik they were pretty closely matched.
If one team was not named “Texas”, and the other “Boise” with all the inherent bias that brings along, don’t you think this game could easily go Boise’s way? I sure do. Texas might win 6 of 10, but I am not even sure about that. Texas struggled with several teams this year, including Wyoming and Colorado. Boise has the type offense that could give Muschamp trouble, and I think Peterson is a better coach than Brown.
LikeLike
Mac, I was just commenting on the schedule issue. You did not answer my question about the eyeball test between the schedules, TOP TO BOTTOM. Let’s back up for a second…
First, I should not have posted the bowl game opponents, because this argument should be being argued from the prebowl perspective (which helps your case, from the scheduling standpoint). That considered…
Texas’ opponents were a combined 87-78 (52.7% WIINERS). Boise’s were a combined 72-90 (55.5% LOSERS. Counting UC-Davis, a I-AA team, as 0-11, as they would have been if the played a I-A schedule, that makes Boise’s opponents 60% losers.
And I think it’safe to say, based upon just looking at the opponents, Texas’ opponents played better teams than Boise’s opponents played, unless you are now going to argue that the MAC and the WAC are better than the Big 12.
Beating Oregon at home was nice. Beating another mid major in a bowl game was nice. But they basically played a 2 game schedule.
Texas ran a season long gauntlet, otherwise known as a major college schedule.
I am not trying to prove that Texas was better than Boise. My point is to prove that their schedule was leaps and bound better.
LikeLike
And you are right Puffdawg, topline,eyeball test clearly favors Texas. But that is primarily due to pre-conceived assumptions we all make about schools based on past history. I am neither exempt from those same judgements, nor naive; usually Texas would be my pick as well. I just think there is a case for Boise here, and there usually is a valid case for at least one other team every single year. I would be OK with not having a playoff if everyone would forget this silly MNC status that is conveyed on teams who really have not earned it, while teams with similar credentials are left behind.
LikeLike
There’s no reason you can’t have a playoff and a “full value” regular season.
If you have a 12 team playoff – modeled after the NFL format, almost every game would have value.
In the 12 teams, you would have 3 main subsets of teams: (1) Teams 1-4 that get a bye the first week and host the second week, (2) Teams 5-8 that host the first week, and (3) Teams 9-12 that barely get in.
Any late season loss would at least move a team down to the next subset. Where a team ranked in this group would likely have a significant effect on its postseason chances.
You could still keep the bowl games too. To help with that, the season would start the weekend before Labor Day weekend instead of Labor Day weekend. Conference championship games would be played on Thanksgiving weekend. On Conference Championship weekend, the first round would be played. Following this, the bowls could pick teams. The bowls could figure out what to do with the 4 losers from the next weekend.
The semis would be in major bowls around New Year’s Day. The big game would be a week later at another bowl site.
Of course, there’s a lot of other ways all the contingencies could be satisfied and a playoff could work. Until the powers that be decide they want this, it won’t happen.
Regardless, a playoff system does not demand the conclusion that the regular season is devalued.
LikeLike
Senator, I think you realize there are many/most playoff advocates who agree that NCAA Basketball and NFL Playoffs go way too far by including so many teams in their system, and have lessened the significance of each single season game. I would vote against that happening in CFB along with you. But while taking some of the significance off EACH game, they have added an element that college football lacks, a purpose to the season overall.
Setting a 6-8 team maximum limit is all that is required to acquire the positives and eliminate the negatives. I would even favor a “poison pill” provision that playoffs would cease before they can exceed 10% of available teams. Being an “A” team, top 6-10 percentile requires exclusivity and insures a demanding, tension-filled season. My max of 8 would require EVERY game be played to win by giving the opening round home game only to the Top 4 ranked teams. Where is there room to slack off in that? Have to be in the Top 4 of 120 teams, name me one team where they didn’t have to go all out to make that cut?
While I understand the alarmist concerns regarding expansion, why assume the worst? I don’t see why I should deny myself the pleasures of life each just because it is inevitable I will die one day. Expansion is less a given than death. I could live my life on roots and berries and probably delay the inevitable, but I like my cigars, single malts, red meat, and salted vegetable. Why settle for less than the best in life?
LikeLike
I think we can assume that playoff expansion would be inevitable because it has happened in every other sport’s playoff format (college or pro). So we’re not just positing about the worst case scenario, we’re discussing how night invariably follows day.
And we can look to the current arguments in favor of a playoff and substitute “expanding the playoff” to see what the arguments will be in the future. “Settling it on the field,” “fairness,” and money will be why all the “reasonable” fans must agree that the playoffs should be more than 12, or 16, or 24 teams.
I certainly agree that some aspects of a playoff would be enjoyable, just as some aspects of life that are bad for you are also enjoyable. But I can tell you right now that, when the day comes that UGA drops GA Tech from its schedule because it only hurts with playoff seeding, or we rest all our starters on the last day of the regular season and essentially forfeit the game, I will look back wistfully on the bygone days of yore when the regular season meant something. 😉
LikeLike
That kind of talk would bother me, but thats just not possible with CFB. Natural constraints are in place to keep it from ever getting that far.
LikeLike
There used to be natural constraints to keep the season from getting to 13 games, or to keep teams from playing bowl games after January 1st. Those natural constraints usually aren’t as constraining as you tend to think.
LikeLike
They are constraining enough to prevent a playoff going to 16 teams.
LikeLike
The natural constraints are called “injuries”, “exhaustion”, “fans who have to travel all over for consecutive weeks”, and “not wanting to spend millions of dollars traveling from California to Texas to Florida on consecutive weekends.”
LikeLike
It actually doesn’t require that many more games at all, and the travel would only be one more trip for fans of just two teams. Given the difficulty of getting to that point, I doubt fans would object to an extra trip every few years, if at all. The travel and logistics of D1 football would be the limiting factor that would keep it from expanding. I agree 16 teams or more brings about many problems that would be unsatisfactory.
LikeLike
What, they don’t have injuries, exhaustion, travel and expense in any other sport that’s expanded its postseason?
The only “natural constraint” D-1 football truly has is the bowl tradition.
LikeLike
I do think the required week between games, multiple venues, and large quantities of fans make D1 football logistics unique amongst all the other NCAA playoffs.
LikeLike
I’m with the senator when it comes to devaluing the regular season. The NCAA basketball is often pointed to as an example of why CFB needs a playoff system. Look at how important regular season wins are there. Not nearly what they were when it was a 32 team tourney.
My take is that each conference should crown a conference champion, and ONLY conference champions should be in the playoffs. Notre Dame, join a conference or be left out.
LikeLike
Its all about finding the right balance. A limited playoff would not devalue the reg season and it would add value to the postseason. Playoffs only devalue reg seasons when they are extended too far like the NFL and CBB.
LikeLike
In the end it’s truly absurd that anyone believes the present system is worth defending, and the effort to do so is just a case of trying to prove a negative, in a way.
Can’t we all just see how great it is having a faux champion every year? Better not touch that, we might break something. Never you mind that it’s already broken, little fans, you.
LikeLike
The entire argument is being made on the wrong terms.
We have a playoff now.
A contest is held after the regular season to determine the national champion.
Anyone advocating a 4 team or 6 team or whatever team play off is simply advocating an expansion of the play off.
This is my issue. People who argue that the BCS is a failure and we need a playoff are arguing in circles.
Making a plus one system or a 4 team playoff system will not solve this problem, it will simply alter it. There will still be massive discontent, just as there is now. All of the accusations that people currently hurl at the BCS will still apply (x team was unfairly left out) and will actually intensify, because the line between the fourth and fifth best team is even blurrier than the line between the 2nd and 3rd best team. When that happens, will we be able to drop the “we just want a playoff” theme and embrace the more honest “we need to keep expanding the playoff?”
LikeLike
You think we have a playoff with 2 teams and thw BCS but that just isn’t so. An actual playoff, even for two teams, would have clearly established rules for entry. If you met those, you are in. Because of the haphazard, arbitrary, totally subjective means of entry it is simply not satisfying. I could live with a 2 or 4 team playoff, but again you have to establish a clear way for teams to earn their way in. Denying teams who have done all they can do, Auburn 2004 is the best example, is just wrong.
Eight teams are the fewest I can think of which can be done logistically, accomplished without adding too many games, and without risking the integrity of the regular season. I get those needs, I really do, and it can be done without excluding deserving teams, or making them part of some political process.
LikeLike
Boy, I missed that excellent semifinal between Texas and TCU.
LikeLike
Or was it Texas and Boise? Florida and Cincinnati I saw. Oh, wait…Cincinnati’s coach had bolted because he knew the game mattered not one whit and because Cincinnati went 11-0 and still had no chance to get in the NC. (Please don’t give me that crap about Florida beating them proving anything. They had already lost the so-called playoff without even playing a game.)
LikeLike
What is truly absurd is the pro-expanded playoff crowd using a logical fallacy to argue their point. It’s called begging the question. When a poster argues, “an expanded playoff would be great, therefore, we need an expanded playoff,” that is a nonsensical argument that is called begging the question.
LikeLike
Who here is “pro-expanded” playoff? Who here is for expanded anything? Does having something automatically mean that I (we) are in favor of its inevitable expansion? As you are sharp on logical fallacies, perhaps you are aware of the dangers of assumptions and inferences.
Think about the logic of defending the system in place of a SPORT that nullifies its own competition through disallowing winning on the field. Is that fallacious enough? I don’t have to infer anything to make that statement.
LikeLike
If there is any subjectivity involved in your playoff proposal, then you are simply advocating expanding from the current subjective two team system to a larger subjective system. If you propose just having conf champs, you are basically telling me Boise 2009 is automatically better than Florida 2009 becuase they won the WAC and UF did not win the SEC. Sounds totally fair, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
8 team playoff would be less subjective than the current system if it involved conference champs and awesome at large teams.
LikeLike
You can’t be sort of pregnant
LikeLike
Was Florida fairly eliminated this year in the current system?
I love the “the regular season is a playoff that weeds out the teams” approach that posits that a team like Florida was weeded out this year–then followed up with the argument for the unfairness of a limited playoff THAT WOULD DO THE SAME THING.
LikeLike
Yes, Florida 2009 WAS fairly weeded out. But don’t tell me Boise 2009 should be included in a playoff over Florida 2009 based on the simple fact that they won the WAC and Florida came in 2nd in the SEC. That is completely absurd.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s that absurd. It’s extreme, yes, but the point is that in very few cases can differences between conference champions be such a clearly big gap–and it is quite unusual to have a team as good as Florida NOT win its conference (can you think of another)?
The point of conference champions only is several-fold: 1. To create a single purely objective criterion (only one now, not saying more than that) that directly relates to the regular season; 2. To eliminate as much of the hypothetical reasoning as much as possible as often as possible (again, very rarely would a team as good as UF be at issue); 3. To create a natural constraint–with an objective criterion that makes it harder to expand because SUBJECTIVE criteria would have to be employed to do that.
Note that I am not suggesting that lesser conferences–really, there’s only two, I think, Boise’s and the Sun Belt–play a play-in game.
If the bigger picture is considered it is apparent that second-place conference teams often are near the bottom of the first ten or the second ten of the rankings. And in those odd years where a good team gets left out it will have been proven on the field on way or another–conf championship games or no–rather than the court of opinion.
LikeLike
Sorry, I meant that lesser conferences COULD have a play-in game.
LikeLike
I do appreciate what you are saying here. I agree that one must win their conf to play in MNC game. But to posit that a much weaker conf’s champ is better than a stronger conf’s 2nd best team just seems unfair to me. That is not necessarily settling it on the field, because I believe UF 2009 would beat Boise 2009 8 times out of ten. And I don’t think the UF situation is as rare as you might think (twice in 3 years, with UGA 2007). I agree with you and Mac that there must be some sort of objectivity if there is going to be a playoff. Where I disagree is that is not possible. There is not really a “fairer” (or at least better than we have now) way to go about it. I think Boise is a nice team, but I do not think they are NC worthy because they beat the 90th best schedule. I get your “settling it on the field argument” but I just think there are too many teams in CFB to objectively narrow it down in a fair nature without watering down the playoffs.
LikeLike
If you look around the media and the Internet on the subject, as I do, I think you’ll find that there’s more discussion for a 16-team playoff than any other variant.
LikeLike
Senator, I do hope that there will be a second post on the Jets’ performance in the AFC playoffs. Clearly they have demonstrated several things: 1. Cincinnati and San Diego were not as good as their seedings; 2. the Jets were not the best team; 3. Indianapolis was the best team.
That may seem obvious from the regular season. But consider this: How many people were talking about San Diego being as good as the Colts when the playoffs started? Have we solved that debate?
Let’s go to another point, since every pro-regular-season person is currently about to bring up the 2007 Giants and 2008 Cardinals. Before you do that, go back through the last 20 years of NFL playoffs and come up with a percentage of wild-card or, for an even larger total, 6+ loss teams versus the percentage of 4 or fewer-loss ones that made the Super Bowl.
LikeLike
Without a playoff, Indy goes 16-0 and San Diego goes 12-4. I think I know which one of them I would have thought was better. The only reason there was a discussion is BECAUSE there was a playoff and ESPN needed a narrative.
And congrats on the Jets winning. That would’ve been a big blow to your argument. Now you can hang your hat on the fact that a team that never should’ve been in the playoffs to begin with actually proved something other than the fact that any team in any sport can get hot for a few games. Nevermind that whole 16 game season where they were barely better than average.
LikeLike
“Congrats on Jets losing.”
LikeLike
Yeah, except that, as I pointed out in my post via the challenge to look up historical numbers, that Jets team almost never wins in that situation.
LikeLike
A few notable stats (per your request) in reference to your assertion that wild cards almost never win.
– Since 1970, nine wild-card clubs have advanced to the Super Bowl.
(h/t http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/dec/31/sp-history-on-the-side-of-wild-card-teams/)
– Two of the last 6 Super Bowl champs (incl this year) have been Wild Cards. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/rgosselin/stories/010109dnspogosselin.36e2720.html)
– 3 of the last 11 Super Bowl champs (incl this year) have been Wild Cards. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/rgosselin/stories/010109dnspogosselin.36e2720.html)
That’s 22.5%, 33.3%, and 27.3%, respectively. Not exactly Dumb and Dumber one in a million chances we’re talking about here.
LikeLike
Yes, but they are still very low numbers. When you consider it is a league that does every possible thing in its power to level competition amongst its teams, it is not implausible to suggest that in CFB’s very unbalanced competition, there would be similar numbers minus at least 10%–more likely 20%.
LikeLike
I started this and now I’m changing the terms, so fire away…but even with the NFL numbers being pretty appropriate, a more apt comparison might actually be the NCAA basketball tournament, with its large number of teams and radically unbalanced schedule. EVEN WITH all those participants, lower seeds rarely win it all. In fact, the only seeds out of the top 12 (seeded 3 or higher in-bracket) in the last 30+ years to win it are Arizona ’97 (4), Villanova ’85 (8), and NC State ’83 (6).
There are lots of upsets in the first few rounds because the San Diego Chargers-like pretenders get beat. The truly best teams win almost every year, though, despite the upsets.
LikeLike
The idea that Cinderella teams win titles is a myth propagated by the WWL and its ilk.
Recent history often seems like all of history.
LikeLike
No need to refute the NFL playoff, no one is proposing that. I think everyone concedes that NCAA basketball, NFL football, and the NHL are way out of bounds with including teams that should be excluded. 8 of 120 is pretty elite and worthy by any definition. But I think you know that already, it just doesn’t fit the argument you wish to make. By the way, you are right in your point, but it isn’t relevant until 12+ teams are involved.
LikeLike
For the record, I am not backing the current system so much as I am opposed to most of your proposals. I know the BCS is flawed. If you recall, I am not opposed to a Plus One format. That would be fairly clearly defined and would leave the current system as it is. But even then you run the risk of setting a precedent where eventually somebody will want a Plus 3.
In the bigger picture, though, it is my opinion that our goal each year should be to win our conference, beat our rivals, and win the Sugar Bowl. I like the regular season as it is. No, I LOVE the regular season as it is. I don’t want that to turn into a seeding exercise. Inevitably playoffs grow. That’s what they do. There has never been a playoff in the history of playoffs where they didn’t grow. There are too many teams in CFB to accomplish what you guys want without watering down the regular season.
LikeLike
I fully support not watering down the regular season, and also feel conference championships are what CFB should be about. It is the people who claim national titles when there are none that drive me crazy. Our present system has inflated this issue since some actually feel we now have a legit solution.
To me the Plus One is better, but it still ignores that conference champions are denied access, and that leaves us where we started. 6-8 teams is all that is required to get a legitmate champion, four just means we settled for a half-ass soluytion, didn’t shoot high enough and didn’t solve the problem. Either eliminate the post season dramatics, or fix it so the speculation is ended. Currently being SEC Champion is the most prestigous title one can earn, and even that gets debated by other regions.
LikeLike
“…four just means we settled for a half-ass soluytion, didn’t shoot high enough and didn’t solve the problem.”
And therein lies the problem, Mac. Although I am against it, I know your stance. 8 teams. Fair enough. But your comment I quoted will never go away, because there will always be somebody saying we didn’t go far enough.
LikeLike
IF you were to have Plus 1 system who would have played this year? Alabama versus…
Florida who beat the #3, though Alabama had already beaten Florida…or Boise State who beat the #4 team and was still undefeated? (and what about Ohio State or Iowa…are they eligible?)
Or, would you have begun the BCS Bowls with Alabama versus the #4 team (TCU) and Texas versus the #3 team (Cincy)…and still leave Florida and Boise State out of the Plus 1…even though both proved that they were better than the #3 and #4 teams in the Bowls.
The Plus 1 system only really works in convenient years where you can get the SEC, Big12, Pac10, and Big Ten teams as your four finalists. Or, if one of them is obviously not elite that year, the ACC champ.
What i have noticed is that everyone that is anti-playoffs only points to undfeated teams from the non-AQ conferences when stating that the other school with a claim really doesn’t have one. What they never appraoch is when the BCS champ is a one loss team and then have to say that that particular one loss team is better then the other one loss teams.
2009: 12-1 Florida or 11-1 Texas or 11-1 USC?
2008: 11-2 LSU or 11-1 Kansas or 10-2 Georgia
2007: 11-1 Florida or 11-1 Louisville
2004: 11-1 LSU or 11-1 USC
LikeLike
The only thing that came to mind when I heard the result of the AFC title game was that the game that was meaningless from the Colts’ standpoint resulted in a Jets’ win and the game that mattered to the Colts resulted in a Colts’ win.
You really think anybody needed a demonstration that the Jets weren’t the best team?
LikeLike
I always have a problem when the anti-playoffs crowd toss in the word ‘best’ when attacking the pro-playoffs position. Playoffs aren’t about determining the ‘best’ team, they are about crowning a ‘champion’. .
Besides, ‘best’ is a clearly subjective word. Who is to determine what ‘best’ means? ‘Champion’, on the other hand, is strictly defined. The definition of ‘champion’ does not include the word ‘best’. The definition merely states that the champion is the winner of some competition or tournament.
When Matt Leinhart walked off the field after losing to Texas a few years back he was still claiming that his Southern Cal team was the best in college football. Plenty of people still think that. What none of those supporters can claim is that that Trojans team was the ‘champion’.
LikeLike
Like the winner of the BCS title game… 😉
LikeLike
Which is why the winner of that game is often refered to as the “BCS Champion”…just like Florida is the “Sugar Bowl Champion”, Iowa the “Orange Bowl Champion”, Boise State the “Fiesta Bowl Champion”, and Georgia the “Independence Bowl Champion”.
Too bad their is no was of properly assessing which of these and the many other ‘champions’ is the “National Champion”…you know, like they do in every other sport and football at every other level in the NCAA.
LikeLike
And if everyone could agree on the definition of “properly assessing”… there’d still be a fight over the money.
LikeLike
I think once the football-thing is settled any other arguments would just become background noise. (How often do we hear the money argument regarding NCAA basketball/baseball/hockey/etc.?)
But, as it is today, we get to argue about both!
LikeLike
By the way, perhaps you should reread this comment thread. I’m not the one who introduced “best” into the conversation.
LikeLike
Since I wasn’t able to comment before the word was used a second time I thought the ‘best’ place to object to the term was after the last use of the word at the time I posted.
Perhaps you think after the first use, regardless of my timing, would have been the ‘best’ place.
I guess if we have ample amounts of idle time that we could debate which of those approaches would have the ‘best’… 🙂
LikeLike
No, they needed a demonstration on why the Jets were as good or better than Cincinnati and San Diego despite the shiny happy records of the latter.
And that the playoffs disproved anyone’s notions about how good those last two really were. Which is what head-to-head competition does, say, as opposed to paper competition that gets TCU as a significant favorite over Boise…or Texas in the NC.
LikeLike
An example of why playoffs work:
1997 NCAA baseball
LSU is Nationa Champion because they beat Alabama in the finals of the College World Series. Championship game score LSU 6-4 Alabama
However…
For the entire year Alabama and LSU were 3-3 versus each other.
Alabama won the regular season matchup 2-1*
Alabama and LSU the SEC tournament matchups 1-1
Aggregate score for the 6 games played:
Alabama 63-39 LSU
In the end, everyone acknowledges that LSU was the NCAA Champion that year.
* LSU is SEC Regular Season Champion because that lone victory, on the final day of the regular season, was the tie-breaker between the two teams.
LikeLike