Current Format vs BCS Format?

[gkIrish]

It seems you are concerned with entertainment value, we are concerned with validity, legitimacy and history... our arguments are coming from different starting points.

Not at all. I'm countering wizards argument that the overall meaningfulness of the regular season is diminished with a playoff. I'm arguing a playoff makes game 12 potentially as important as game 1. That's the way it should be.

Validity and legitimacy don't exist without a playoff because you don't settle things on the field.

 

[gkIrish]

Said differently...

Team A goes 11-1. They lost game 2 to Oklahoma.

Team B goes 11-1. They lost game 12 to Oklahoma.

Why should Team B be penalized for losing later in the season? The reality of any model without a playoff is that Team A will be viewed as the more deserving "champion" by all the polls or whatever metric you want to use. However, a playoff allows Team B to try and beat Team A head to head.

Every game should carry basically equal weight. Under the pre-BCS model, Team A gets an unfair advantage. Under the playoff model, Team A still gets an unfair advantage, but it's diminished because Team B isn't left out.

Still not sure what the heck wizards want to use but from my understanding ACamp wants the pre-BCS model.

 

[wizards8507]

Not at all. I'm countering wizards argument that the overall meaningfulness of the regular season is diminished with a playoff. I'm arguing a playoff makes game 12 potentially as important as game 1. That's the way it should be.

Validity and legitimacy don't exist without a playoff because you don't settle things on the field.

Said differently...

Team A goes 11-1. They lost game 2 to Oklahoma.

Team B goes 11-1. They lost game 12 to Oklahoma.

Why should Team B be penalized for losing later in the season? The reality of any model without a playoff is that Team A will be viewed as the more deserving "champion" by all the polls or whatever metric you want to use. However, a playoff allows Team B to try and beat Team A head to head.

Every game should carry basically equal weight. Under the pre-BCS model, Team A gets an unfair advantage. Under the playoff model, Team A still gets an unfair advantage, but it's diminished because Team B isn't left out.

Still not sure what the heck wizards want to use but from my understanding ACamp wants the pre-BCS model.

TCU and Baylor would like a word.

The only group that truly "settles it on the field" is the Big 12. Round robin where everyone plays everyone else.

 

[gkIrish]

TCU and Baylor would like a word.

The only group that truly "settles it on the field" is the Big 12. Round robin where everyone plays everyone else.

TCU and Baylor would like a word about what? Creating an 8 team playoff they could both participate in?

Because without that they don't even sniff a championship.

 

[ACamp1900]

Validity and legitimacy don't exist without a playoff because you don't settle things on the field.

This is the biggest myth/fallacy of the playoff thumpers... the title has ALWAYS been decided on the field, wtf do you guys think the reg season is? Nothing more than a pre season schedule leading up to the playoff apparently... playoffs don't decide anything anymore than any other games..... get your mind around that.

 

[kmoose]

Said differently...

Team A goes 11-1. They lost game 2 to Oklahoma.

Team B goes 11-1. They lost game 12 to Oklahoma.

Why should Team B be penalized for losing later in the season? The reality of any model without a playoff is that Team A will be viewed as the more deserving "champion" by all the polls or whatever metric you want to use. However, a playoff allows Team B to try and beat Team A head to head.

Every game should carry basically equal weight. Under the pre-BCS model, Team A gets an unfair advantage. Under the playoff model, Team A still gets an unfair advantage, but it's diminished because Team B isn't left out.

That's not entirely true. In 2001, Nebraska finished the season 11-1, with their 1 loss being in the last game of the season; a 62-36 loss to Colorado.

Oregon finished the season 10-1, with their one loss coming in Week 7, a 49-42 loss to Stanford.

So, according to your model, Oregon would be in, and Nebraska would be out. However, the Bowl Alliance put Nebraska into the title game against Miami, and left Oregon out. So while I understand what you are saying, it just doesn't always work that way.

 

[wizards8507]

That's not entirely true. In 2001, Nebraska finished the season 11-1, with their 1 loss being in the last game of the season; a 62-36 loss to Colorado.

Oregon finished the season 10-1, with their one loss coming in Week 7, a 49-42 loss to Stanford.

So, according to your model, Oregon would be in, and Nebraska would be out. However, the Bowl Alliance put Nebraska into the title game against Miami, and left Oregon out. So while I understand what you are saying, it just doesn't always work that way.

It's also extraordinarily rare that an eight team playoff would fix anything in that regard. Last year is a neat little example that they'll point to that an eight-team field would have included everyone with one or two losses, but that's just a fluke of how last season happened to turn out. Any other year, some teams with a certain record would be in while other teams with an identical record would be out.

 

[ACamp1900]

It's also extraordinarily rare that an eight team playoff would fix anything in that regard. Last year is a neat little example that they'll point to that an eight-team field would have included everyone with one or two losses, but that's just a fluke of how last season happened to turn out. Any other year, some teams with a certain record would be in while other teams with an identical record would be out.

I'll say it again, playoffs are great for tie breakers, but not as an every year system when the majority of the time they aren't needed...

 

[gkIrish]

This is the biggest myth/fallacy of the playoff thumpers... the title has ALWAYS been decided on the field, wtf do you guys think the reg season is? Nothing more than a pre season schedule leading up to the playoff apparently... playoffs don't decide anything anymore than any other games..... get your mind around that.

2003 and 2004 are two years that are absolute shams due to there being no playoff. How do you explain that Auburn gets no shot at the title despite going undefeated? Plus Boise and Utah were undefeated that year...That will NEVER happen in a 6-8 team playoff. You will NEVER get an undefeated Power 5 team that has no chance to win the title because they don't play in the championship game or the equivalent of a championship game.

 

[gkIrish]

I'll say it again, playoffs are great for tie breakers, but not as an every year system when the majority of the time they aren't needed...

Yeah but what determines whether or not you need a tiebreaker? Record alone? I think it's impossible to have a clear standard. So you have to do it all or nothing.

 

[ACamp1900]

2003 and 2004 are two years that are absolute shams due to there being no playoff. How do you explain that Auburn gets no shot at the title despite going undefeated? Plus Boise and Utah were undefeated that year...That will NEVER happen in a 6-8 team playoff. You will NEVER get an undefeated Power 5 team that has no chance to win the title because they don't play in the championship game or the equivalent of a championship game.

Neither of those situations would have happened in my preferred system...

 

[ACamp1900]

Yeah but what determines whether or not you need a tiebreaker? Record alone? I think it's impossible to have a clear standard. So you have to do it all or nothing.

Not true... most years it's pretty obvious.

 

[gkIrish]

Not true... most years it's pretty obvious.

You can't have a standard where "most years" it works IMO. I think it needs to be consistent.

 

[ACamp1900]

You can't have a standard where "most years" it works IMO. I think it needs to be consistent.

In the years it's not obvious you set up a extra game or two, whatever is needed... I've said this many times over.

That's all playoffs were ever designed for,... then those holding the purse realized how much money was to be made.

 

[ACamp1900]

You can't have a standard where "most years" it works IMO. I think it needs to be consistent.

BTW, consistency is my biggest gripe with the playoff, bc 'most years' it isn't needed.

 

[gkIrish]

In the years it's not obvious you set up a extra game or two, whatever is needed... I've said this many times over.

That's all playoffs were ever designed for,... then those holding the purse realized how much money was to be made.

You are just going to get people complaining every year that an extra game is needed. You have to have a 100% brightline standard.

What do you define as obvious? Would there have been an obvious need for a playoff last year? What about in 2013? 2005?

How does that even work logistically? Bowl games/Playoff games can't just be announced a week before the game. There are committees that spend the whole year preparing for the game.

 

[gkIrish]

BTW, consistency is my biggest gripe with the playoff, bc 'most years' it isn't needed.

If it's not needed, that works itself out on the field. If OSU is the #1 and loses to the #8 that means it was needed IMO. A better example is the 4 playing the 5. Some years I bet you would argue the 5th team is unnecessary. Well let the 5th team play the 4th team to try and prove you wrong.

 

[ACamp1900]

The only reason it takes so long to organize is bc they want to squeeze every drop of money out of it... it's not that hard to organize a game... we are going in circles, you're not gonna win this one gk... imo playoffs are for the brain dead masses you can't think for themselves. Just being honest, there is nothing legitimate about them in the way they are used accross American sports. That's where I am, that's where I'll always be.

 

[ickythump1225]

The only reason it takes so long to organize is bc they want to squeeze every drop of money out of it... it's not that hard to organize a game... we are going in circles, you're not gonna win this one gk... imo playoffs are for the brain dead masses you can't think for themselves. Just being honest, there is nothing legitimate about them in the way they are used accross American sports. That's where I am, that's where I'll always be.

To me playoffs in two sports are particularly unnecessary: college football and professional baseball. I have no problem with a +1 in CFB, and I really don't hate the playoffs. I'm sure in time they'll just be a part of the scenery. Trying to crown the best team in CFB is a fool's errand and every NC is mythical in a sense.

In baseball though...not needed. Just revenue and drama. You play 165 games...what the f**k does a "wild card" game prove? Have each NL and AL team play each other 12 times, for a total of 168 games. Then have the 1st place team in each league meet in the WS. That will give us the most likely scenario in which the best team is crowned.

 

[Circa]

I don't mind the playoffs, but I HATE, HATE ,HAAAAAAATE the "playoff committee." Say what you want about the BCS but at least it did its best to be objective. The only reason OSU, with a Charmin soft cupcake schedule, made it to the playoffs last year is because the committee wet themselves over their beat down of a mediocre Wisconsin team.

and... Wisconsin seems to have had a man in the committee and also the leader of Big Crap. Tank much?

 

[Rocket89]

The only anti-playoff talking point that's really worth the muster is the decrease in the romantic "gotta stay undefeated" feeling that college football fans have grown so accustomed to in their lives. It's definitely worth a nice pour of the 40 oz but still, when so many teams with at least a loss have won titles it's not worth keeping the old system.

I think many of the anti-playoff talk severely underrates how the playoff can add excitement to the regular season. We are seeing a lot of the same arguments in this thread that we've seen for several years re the devalue of the regular season.

It doesn't pass the smell test. For one, I think the loss of the romantic undefeated hope is severely outweighed by many more big match ups created by jockeying playoff teams that barely existed before. Or put another way, the old system might have had 10 truly enormous games every season and 20 still big games. The playoffs might drop the enormous games to 6 per year but we might be gaining 40 still big games as teams fight for playoff spots.

I don't think this can be glossed over that easily. Sure those titanic games from years gone are not as important, but then again, no one really cared about the teams outside the top 15 who were out of the championship race but still putting together 10-2 type seasons.

At the end of the day I think it's a no brainer that the playoffs make a larger swath of college football more important and exciting to watch.

Plus, any defense of the bowl system makes me laugh. I have no doubt in 100 years the bowls will be looked upon with curiousity, puzzlement, and ridicule. Some might have fond memories of them but they are the dumbest and most pointless endeavors in sports.

 

[NCND]

Bowls are "pointless"? Ha. Ask BK and the TEAM how "pointless" that victory vs LSU was?

 

[IrishinSyria]

This is the biggest myth/fallacy of the playoff thumpers... the title has ALWAYS been decided on the field, wtf do you guys think the reg season is? Nothing more than a pre season schedule leading up to the playoff apparently... playoffs don't decide anything anymore than any other games..... get your mind around that.

This is crazy talk in today's CFB. Who would have been the Champion at the end of the regular season last year? FSU? Everyone knew they sucked, but they'd managed to survive every game. Got blown out by Oregon.

I get where your criticism is coming from, but when you select 4 teams from 120 at the end of a 12-13 game season, that's hardly a "preseason".

edit: a quick google search tells me 1 loss Alabama would have been named national champion. I rest my case.

edit: I just read the rest of the thread. No way you can have a "we'll figure it out if we need it" standard. Playoffs are far superior to an ad hoc system.

 

[ACamp1900]

This is crazy talk in today's CFB. Who would have been the Champion at the end of the regular season last year? FSU? Everyone knew they sucked, but they'd managed to survive every game. Got blown out by Oregon.

I get where your criticism is coming from, but when you select 4 teams from 120 at the end of a 12-13 game season, that's hardly a "preseason".

edit: a quick google search tells me 1 loss Alabama would have been named national champion. I rest my case.

edit: I just read the rest of the thread. No way you can have a "we'll figure it out if we need it" standard. Playoffs are far superior to an ad hoc system.

TOSU was not the best team in cfb last year, they just got hot/lucky at the right time.

The system I advocate for, a plus one, doesn't end with the reg season, so most of your points here miss the mark.

I like this for two reasons, one, the larger sample size should matter more than the smaller one... And two, the bowls are something special that should have been protected, just me.

As far as 'making it up as we go,' that's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying if we like playoffs then use them for what they were actually meant for, breaking a tie when record and standing can't, which is very rare.... rather than using them every year just because that's what we do.

 

[ACamp1900]

To me playoffs in two sports are particularly unnecessary: college football and professional baseball. I have no problem with a +1 in CFB, and I really don't hate the playoffs. I'm sure in time they'll just be a part of the scenery. Trying to crown the best team in CFB is a fool's errand and every NC is mythical in a sense.

In baseball though...not needed. Just revenue and drama. You play 165 games...what the f**k does a "wild card" game prove? Have each NL and AL team play each other 12 times, for a total of 168 games. Then have the 1st place team in each league meet in the WS. That will give us the most likely scenario in which the best team is crowned.

Agree with everything else aside from not hating playoffs...

 

[NDhoosier]

TOSU was not the best team in cfb last year, they just got hot/lucky at the right time.

The system I advocate for, a plus one, doesn't end with the reg season, so most of your points here miss the mark.

I like this for two reasons, one, the larger sample size should matter more than the smaller one... And two, the bowls are something special that should have been protected, just me.

As far as 'making it up as we go,' that's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying if we like playoffs then use them for what they were actually meant for, breaking a tie when record and standing can't, which is very rare.... rather than using them every year just because that's what we do.

The bowls are still as important as they ever were. New Year's bowl are what people strive for if they are not the two teams in the NC hunt and the rest are just an extra game on the season against an opponent you normally do not face. Lets not act like bowls were something super special before the playoffs, they were not. They were viewed the same as they are now.

Playoff is definitely a better system, though I am not a fan of the playoff committee. The Champion should be determined on the field, not by pollsters who have clear biases. The regular season lets the nation see who the top 4 teams are and puts them together to face off which is exactly what the fans and what the college system deserves.

imo playoffs are for the brain dead masses you can't think for themselves.

Please do not insult us because we disagree with you and like a system you do not like. The playoff system was greatly needed and I personally think a 6 or 8 team playoff would be perfect.

Next time you insult a group of people on their intelligence, check your grammar first.

 

[Rocket89]

Bowls are "pointless"? Ha. Ask BK and the TEAM how "pointless" that victory vs LSU was?

The 347th most important win in Notre Dame history is a big selling point for the bowl system?

Kind of proves my point, I think.

Plus, I don't think just focusing on one team's situation in one bowl game is the right way to go about figuring out the best system. In other words, no one outside of ND fans cares or will remember our glorious Music City Bowl win.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Baseball, from a statistical point of view, is probably the sport with the best argument for no playoff (or just a plus one). That argument just doesn't hold for CFB.

 

[IrishinSyria]

TOSU was not the best team in cfb last year, they just got hot/lucky at the right time.

The system I advocate for, a plus one, doesn't end with the reg season, so most of your points here miss the mark.

I like this for two reasons, one, the larger sample size should matter more than the smaller one... And two, the bowls are something special that should have been protected, just me.

I feel like point one kind of cuts against point two here. If you're worried about validity, then the bowl or a plus one system sucks: the sample size is too small. Querry: what would your system (which I assume is just the old BCS) have looked like last year?

As for point 2, I think this is the strongest possible argument. CFB's not going to be able to produce a consensus national champion most years no matter what (is anyone certain TCU would have lost to Ohio State last year, for example?) Might as well embrace the chaos.

I, personally, think a 4 team playoff is the best compromise. I'd oppose it going to 8 teams.

 

[ACamp1900]

To your second point, IMO, in an amateur sport with more than 120 teams,... There's nothing wrong with shared titles... Although with a plus one over 90 percent of those situations over the years are resolved... If not all of them. As for TCU, they would have had a better shot with a plus one.