February 13, 2010 · 8:26 AM

I had no idea brackets could be so exciting.

So this is what you guys mean by “settling it on the field”.

26 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs

26 responses to “I had no idea brackets could be so exciting.”

  1. mikeinvaldosta
    February 13, 2010 at 10:20 AM

    No, and you know it isn’t.

    I think you read too much Mark Bradley! ;-/

    Like

  2. DawgBiscuit
    February 13, 2010 at 11:41 AM

    A system in which more than two teams are in a tournament to decide a champion by defeating the competition on the court? Blasphemy!

    65 teams is overkill, but you can bet that the best team in basketball is included in that number, and will be given the fair chance to win on the court. How sure are we that the best team in football is always included in the BCS title game?

    Like

    • anon
      February 13, 2010 at 1:26 PM

      bbbuuttt the BCS put 1 vs. 2!!!!

      (never mind that no one is sure if 3 thru 8 is actually #1)

      Seriously, NCAA D1 hoops has 300+ teams. If there are 65 teams in the tourney, why can’t the 119 D1-A football teams figure it out with the top 8.

      Like

      • Hackerdog
        February 15, 2010 at 9:59 AM

        Because up to this point, nobody has been able to propose a system to put the top 8 teams in a tournament.

        The Senator has an interesting, but completely unworkable, idea of blowing up the conferences in order to equalize conference strength among 8 new conferences. Then, when the conference winners are put in a tournament, the selection process would be fair. But that will never happen.

        So we’re left with the idea that the winner of the Big East should be put in a tournament over the SEC #2 team, and we all saw how those two teams stacked up against each other.

        So all the current playoff ideas aren’t really about finding that true, actual, best team in the country. They’re just about playing more games. And that’s fine, but what if we just expand the regular season to 15 games and then we can watch a whole lot more games than a tournament would provide?

        Like

  4. dawgbob
    February 13, 2010 at 1:22 PM

    Because some will want to expand it, is not an argument against a Plus One N.C. If 4 is the right number then fight for that and against any more. Don’t stick with this BCS crap because it might…might expand. That’s like saying we don’t call every penalty right so we might as well not call any. Or we can just go back to the old system of dedicated bowl games and beauty contest voting. We can just give it to Notre Dame every other year b/c of their “tradition”. Settle it on the field. Football is not figure skating.

    Like

  5. Dawgaholic
    February 13, 2010 at 3:21 PM

    +2 bob

    Like

  6. Tony B.
    February 13, 2010 at 5:58 PM

    The plus one is an acceptable compromise to me.
    Except for 2005 it has been a long time since I believed that the 2 best teams were in the NCG. However, During that time I also believed the 2 best teams were in the final top 4. A plus one would have satisfied my doubts every year.

    Like

  7. Muckbeast
    February 13, 2010 at 6:23 PM

    “65 teams is overkill, but you can bet that the best team in basketball is included in that number, and will be given the fair chance to win on the court. How sure are we that the best team in football is always included in the BCS title game?”

    Exactly.

    Senator can make as many snarky posts as he wants on the issue, but having the champion decided through actual games played and won is better than a whole room full of computers and sports writers who spent most of their life getting stuffed in lockers.

    And before anyone retorts “but there is a committee to put people in the tournament”, that committee basically only decides on 10-20 spots. 30 or so are conference champs, and another 20 or so are locks.

    I’m also not saying we need a 64 team football playoff. But 8 would be perfect.

    Like

  8. stick jackson
    February 13, 2010 at 11:07 PM

    This is beneath your senatorial dignity, uh, Senator.

    This is about who might get in a bracket. And then yes, by god, they would battle it out between the white lines. And yes, perhaps a team that you deem unworthy might knock off another team that you have chosen to exalt.

    Far better to have that than which conferences ESPN has contracts with and where it gets the best ratings to drive its producers to order its on-air heads (perhaps slightly flavored by where said heads played), to determine the who gets a chance to compete.

    Senator, you are like Vladimir Posner pointing out the imperfections of democracy while the absurd system that you defend produces one monstrous injustice after another.

    And you may ask, what am I for? I will tell you: A 16 team bracket seeded by a committee. That’s what I am for.

    Like

  9. Senator Blutarsky
    February 14, 2010 at 9:28 AM

    This post was, of course, offered with tongue firmly planted in cheek on my part. (Some of you guys need to develop a better sense of humor.)

    That being said, there is a kernel of truth worth noting and that is that when someone speaks of “settling it on the field” the field being spoken of is the postseason. And to that extent, the import of the regular season is being diminished. We’re all just hashing out how much.

    Now for some folks like Mike, it doesn’t matter. For him, a playoff trumps all concerns. And I respect the intellectual consistency of the playoffs über alles crowd. All I can do is respectfully agree to disagree with them.

    But for those in the we-can-have-it-all club (aka “it’s so easy” to have a playoff), that’s not the case. And that’s why I continue to point out the inherent inconsistencies to that viewpoint.

    Like

  10. Macallanlover
    February 14, 2010 at 11:33 AM

    Not so fast, Senator. I realize your original post was tongue in cheek, but the comments in your reply were serious. The continual “it will diminish the regular season” is simply not a slam dunk certainty as you state. I respect the right for others to disagree, but only a 16 plus playoff is likely to have any impact that would remotely diminish the regular season (and even that, like the MLB wild-card, would make for some schools having a higher degree of excitement as the season moves along. I don’t want to see a MLB type playoff, nor do I think the exclusive level many of us are proposing is similar, but most of the original critics of adding wild-cards to the mix have now reversed their position because it has made the end of the season better.)

    At 8 teams with the first round being played at the four top seeds’ home stadium, the “club” remains so exclusive as to increase the regular season’s intensity, not diminish it. You can argue that expansion is inevitable, and there is a case for that, but I don’t see how the 8 team plan can be attacked as diminishing the regular season, and perhaps you agree with that IF there were no expansion. For once there would be a point beyond conference titles, sort of like starting with the Elite Eight in College Basketball after having the build-up of the entire season as the play-in. Multiply that excitement by 20 since it is football, not basketball.

    So it really IS that easy, just prohibit any expansion. Voila.

    Like

    • Senator Blutarsky
      February 15, 2010 at 8:26 AM

      You can’t prohibit expansion. The best you can do is come up with a playoff format that discourages it – which is why I prefer an eight-team, conference champs-only setup, or, in the alternative, BCS Guru’s plus-one format.

      Like

  11. dawgfan17
    February 14, 2010 at 8:28 PM

    I am, have been, and always will be against a playoff. I love college football for what it is. I like that it is different. I like that there has only ever been one team with 2 losses to win a championship. There is no way to “prohibit” expansion. Anything that can be voted to make that happen can be changed with a vote at a later date. Also any tournament you play does not always give you the best team. It comes down to matchups in your brackets. Team A may be the best team on the whole of any team in the field. Team B may have a matchup that allows it to beat team A but team B may still lose to anyone else in the field. So if team A gets lucky and avoids team B they will be champions. However if they face Team B in the first round they might be eliminated. That is why I like a big picture look (the whole season) instead of a playoff. You are welcome to disagree, I understand all the arguments against this but to me, in my opinion, I would rather keep what we have than dilute the regular season even 1%.

    Like

    • mikeinvaldosta
      February 14, 2010 at 8:32 PM

      “Also any tournament you play does not always give you the best team. It comes down to matchups in your brackets. Team A may be the best team on the whole of any team in the field. Team B may have a matchup that allows it to beat team A but team B may still lose to anyone else in the field. So if team A gets lucky and avoids team B they will be champions. ”

      So you place a high regard on the AD’s scheduling ability in your regular season. I say beat the team you play if you are the best.

      I enjoy reading sportswriters. I make my living in computers. I trust neither to consistently decide the two best teams in college football.

      Like

    • Bob
      February 15, 2010 at 9:18 AM

      A “national CHAMPION” is not about who people think is the best team. It is about the one who wins. Here’s the test: you vote for who ever you think is the “best” NFL (NBA, MLB, or college B-ball) team at the end of the regular season and see if anyone cares. It’s all about who wins. As it should be.

      Like

      • Hackerdog
        February 15, 2010 at 10:06 AM

        That’s why college football is different. If a CHAMPION is what you care about, then you should love the NHL, or the college world series. I’ll stick with college football, where the championship is about identifying the best team.

        Like

        • Bob
          February 16, 2010 at 12:05 PM

          Sports is not about who you think is the best team. Whether by luck or fluke or whatever. Ask the NYGiants about who had the better year vs the Pats. A Champion must win something, not just look the prettiest. My point, call it something else b/c it’s not a Championship. For example, defense wins Championships but fans will vote for high powered offense every time. Yes I DO care who wins the NC. So does 99.99% of fans out there. I want my team to win…and so do you.

          Like

      • Senator Blutarsky
        February 15, 2010 at 10:11 AM

        Bob, I think some of us would argue that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. 😉

        Like