Expanded playoffs sexy talk

Elkon knows how to ring my bell.

20 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs

20 responses to “Expanded playoffs sexy talk

  1. Irwin R Fletcher

    Sorry, but that just doesn’t make any sense.

    Number 1…tell me again why the Patriots can’t dominate in their home stadium in January? Seriously…give me one ounce of data that says the Patriots aren’t built to in a manner to win in January in the cold. Stupid.

    But more to the point….Interesting definition of devalue. Does it create less interest in the weekly matchups? No. Does it generate less revenue? No. So what is meant by ‘devalue’….?

    If he means that by adding playoffs, you get a larger sample size on which to accurately judge who the ‘best’ teams are and therefore devalue a 13-3 record, then he probably is right.

    Anyway, there is a huge difference between 1/32 and 1/16th…and while about 40% of D1 is included in the NCAA hoops tournament and 40% is also included in the NFL playoffs, you can’t really say that the 200 or so mid to low major programs are really on the same playing field.

    By the way, what isn’t devalued is how a champion is named…they have specific rules and each team controls its own destiny.

    I guess these guys would have rather seen a great debate over whether New England or Baltimore belonged in the Super Bowl? That would be fun…we could have spent January watching exhibition games of the Falcons and the Broncos while the voters told us who ‘earned’ a spot in the big game.

    • Hackerdog

      In 2005, when the Colts locked up home field advantage throughout the playoffs, they treated the final two games of the season like exhibitions and rested many of their starters, including Manning. Were those interesting games? No. Did TV sets across America change the channel? Yes. Why? Because those games WERE exhibitions. They were devalued.

      And playoffs don’t simply add sample size. They are a new season. The point of playoffs is that the first 16 games no longer matter. In 2007, the Patriots went 16-0 in the regular season and beat the Giants by 3. In the playoffs, they went 2-1 and lost to the Giants by 3. They finished the year 18-1. The Giants went 14-6 (10-6 in the regular season). The Patriots and Giants split the two games they played and tied in the total score of the two games.

      Were the Patriots the better team over the course of 19 or 20 games? Clearly. Does the NFL care about that when naming its champion? Clearly not.

      • Irwin R Fletcher

        What is the determination of the NFL’s champion? First, make the playoffs by winning enough games to qualify. Second, win each game in the playoffs. So, your darn right that the NFL doesn’t care who is the better team over the course of 10 or 20 games. They don’t need to care. Because unless you play all 20 of those games against the same teams, in the same conditions, with the same rosters, there leaves doubt over who is ‘the best.’ Champion and Best are not the same. Best is subjective. Champion is based upon an objective formula…except in D-1 College Football.

        Ah…the whole 2005 Colts argument. How is playing FAU, Buffalo, GA Southern, etc. any different? Regardless, math can be a pain in the butt. You can’t change the fact that mathematically teams get eliminated from postseason play and therefore some teams have earned a berth prior to the final game of the season. You have to entertain the argument you are making…you’re right, it could happen. However, it is almost mathematically impossible for a team to have no worries about making the postseason because they only play 12 games rather than 16 …. you are talking about taking maybe 5 to 10% of the eligible teams in a playoff versus taking 20% of the eligible teams after a 16 game season. Coming up with a scenario where a team would have a lock prior to their last game of the year is still mighty hard.

        • Hackerdog

          I know I’m right that the playoffs cast off the regular season. That’s why I wrote it. Which makes you wrong when you wrote that a playoff gives a larger sample size for determining the best team.

          Sometimes, there may be doubt over who the best team is, but arguing that a team that won 70% of its games is better than a team that won 95% of its games isn’t serious.

          And college football champion isn’t subjective. It’s the winner of the BCS game. It’s simple. I suppose that you’re arguing that some of the criteria for choosing the contestants in that game is subjective. So what? That’s just life. The NCAA uses a committee that subjectively chooses teams for the basketball tournament. Is that a problem for you?

          The difference between a college team playing cupcakes and a pro team resting starters is that the college team is playing to win. The Colts sacrificed two games in 2005 in the name of the almighty playoffs. A college team vying for a championship under the current system can’t afford to sacrifice any games.

          As for a college playoff eliminating certainty before the end of the season, you’re still way off the mark. Any 8-team (or more) playoff system would guarantee conference winners a spot in the playoff. So, in terms of a championship, the UGA/GA Tech game goes from a late-season statement against BCS opponent, to a meaningless game that can be sacrificed so that our starters can rest for the SEC championship game. And I didn’t even have to strain myself imagining possible scenarios.

          Also, 38% of NFL teams make the playoffs. Not 20%. Yippe! 7-9 and heading for the post-season, babeee!

  2. Connor

    How much does it matter that the Giants lost to the Cowboys this week? Neither needs to win their division to get into the playoffs. Compare that with the prospect of UGA losing tomorrow.
    Regular season games played in the shadow of a large playoff aren’t meaningless, they just mean less.

    • Macallanlover

      Or Alabama losing to LSU in the game in Tusky? Or Auburn not losing in 2004. There are solid arguments both ways, once we accept there will never be agreement on who is the best team for the whole year we can get on to giving the fans more/better matchups by allowing representation from all the major conferences via a limited playoff. Hard to be against more CFB, particularly when we have a few weeks every year without compelling games, as everyone plays the system. Never ending arguments, although I think limiting the NFL, NHL, NBA, and NCAA basketball playoff arguments are pretty easy to make. You don’t need 30% of the teams involved, under 10% in CFB keeps it exclusive, under 4% is too extreme, imo.

      • Irwin R Fletcher

        Well…I’m not sure if I agree that they mean ‘less’, they just mean something different.

        To Mac’s point, what does a win over Mizzou really mean, anyway? That some voters might like you more? We’ve already set the regular season up as a beauty pageant with a handful of meaningful games and maybe 3-4 games that actually matter….6 in a good year.

        It really comes down to the goal. If you are looking to crown a national champion, (a) there is no reason to keep D-1 at 100 or so teams….get the number down to closer to 60-80 teams and take D-1AA teams off the schedule. Assuming conferences expand a bit with that move, 9-10 game conference slate and 2-3 game non-conference slate against real teams would be much better than the suckfest of non-conference games we currently have. (b) Get a playoff.

        Last point…one thing the NFL has done a really good job of is not expanding their playoffs past the point of diminishing returns. They had 4 teams in 1970 per conference. They expanded twice…to 5 teams in 1978 and the last time in 1990. 22 years without expanding and the success that they have developed should be a good model for college football to keep it simple and keep it small.

        • Hackerdog

          In 1990, 43% of the teams in the NFL made the playoffs. Through league expansion, that figure is currently down to 38%. That’s WAY beyond the point of diminishing returns. You don’t even need a winning record to make the playoffs. As the Senator says, “Brackets Babeee!”

          • Irwin R Fletcher

            It’s clear by your reasoning why you like the current system.

            37.5% is diminishing because I say so.

            Ugh…that’s right…the NFL regular season product really got terrible in the early 90s and now is much better after they expanded again. Or is that not your point? I’m not even sure what your point is other than “I like to treat opinions as facts…yay, tradition!”

            • Hackerdog

              I was simply assuming that by, “diminishing returns,” you meant a playoff system that doesn’t devalue the regular season by a great deal. My mistake.

              Apparently, you meant that the NFL playoffs are great because they’re great. Football is great, so more games is great. If half the teams make the playoffs, that’s great. Personally, I find that logic … lacking.

              And 38% of teams making the post-season isn’t an opinion. It’s fact. If you put that into FBS terms, we’re talking about 46 teams in the playoff. How awesome would that be?!? Just kidding. ;)

      • Connor

        If you get more games against good teams, but the games have lower stakes, are you sure that will be an improvement? I don’t think it’s so obvious that the new system will give the fans much more than the current one does. Robbing Peter to pay Paul and all that.

        • Macallanlover

          We already have lower stakes games (see Lil Nicky’s presser) with empty seats all around. I don’t think you mean to suggest the 7 playoff games would be lesser, and with only eight making it out of 120, there isn’t much room for fooling around, less than 8% make that eleite list. Now 37%, that allows for taking games off.

  3. Steve

    Go ahead and devalue it. Treat it like the Europeans treat their football. Give a trophy for the regular season champion and have a tournament champion. The BCS stinks currently.

    • The BCS stinks currently.

      We’re really still bitching about the BCS? It’s going away in 2014.

      • Macallanlover

        BCS is, but the new system is still a week short on defusing the issue. I know, I am in a minority but I have thought this through for a long time and I am not willing to settle for half a loaf. We were so close……

  4. Cojones

    Hot Diggety! Real and logical talk about a playoff from people who don’t toe the party line. Consistently refreshing for early crusaders who haven’t yet bought the Pome ‘d Rue that selecting 4 teams instead of 2 constitutes a playoff. And haven’t bought the lubricated angle meme. Eight remains the only logical number.

  5. Always Someone Else's Fault

    8 is logical? And it would defuse the issue?

    No and no. It’s as random as 4 and as controversial as 2.

    I’m pretty sure I can’t like college football any more than I already do. I’m absolutely sure that my diminishing returns as a fan of pro sports has everything to do with their constant expansion of their post-seasons. I used to tune in for the playoffs. Now I don’t bother until the second round.

    Would 8 appeal more to casual fans out west, especially if the got an auto bid into the thing? Sure. But I don’t really care about the casual fan out west. He’s a casual fan for a reason – his teams tend to stink, and his sisters did not check the fall Saturday football calendar before scheduling their weddings. Football isn’t a part of the rhythm of their lives, and it’s never going to be.

  6. Cojones

    Regardless, I think 8 will constitute the final number we settle on.