PLAYOFFS VERSUS THE BCS VERSUS HOLI
College football could use more throwing of colored powder.
From the estimable JCCW, discussing our playoffs vs BCS on-off discussion:
But Orson (here at least) also makes the common mistake of restricting the argument to one game vs. five, to a full-on “bracket” vs. the meteor-impact of a BCS one-off.
No such mistake made, but perhaps a clarification due: we think this dynamic applies to any and all playoff scenarios. We’re on record as being pure playoff agnostics, or perhaps more accurately: we’re pure playoff mysterians, and have no clearly defined preference on what the hell the resolution to college football’s endgame would be. More specifically, we’re discussing the effect of any playoff system versus what we have here. One thing for certain is the tradeoff between fairness and spectacle: even a plus-one format will diminish the championship game’s bang-for-buckage, and will do so in ever-increasing degrees with the addition of more rounds and more teams.
The plus-one would be fine with us, but the truth with all playoff miracle cures is that they are all unfair and flawed in some way, and you just have to choose what variety of screwed-up you would like. The downside to having a playoff would be getting the CFB equivalent of the 2007 NY Giants in the title game, a team that catches fire towards the end of the season and doesn’t put together a solid body of work before snatching the title game away from a team that has been more consistent than them for the entire season. (That wincing noise you hear is us standing on the same side of the fence with Bostonian sports fans. We feel so dirty, and not in that fun sexual way, either.)
The NFL has the benefit of a fascist dictatorship running it to make it hum. College football is more like a freewheeling, anarchic Indian festival of a sport where just holding an election is difficult enough, much less deciding who’s going to run the place. We don’t want to bend over backwards to defend the BCS, but to deny that it’s been a reasonably effective way of solving the question “Quien es mas macho?” in college football would be disingenuous on our part…just as suggesting that having sportswriters’ votes decide anything about the outcome of a sport is just, fair, or even logical.
Loading ...
1
ChasingMizzou says:
One (at least) point of contention: I’m not sure college football teams “get hot” by the end of the year. Most are done playing inferior schools Alabama A&M or Syracuse by the end of the year (K-State, of course, excluded). I don’t think a playoff would increase the likelihood of “gimmie games.”
May 14th, 2009 at 10:41 am
2
Counter Trap says:
All valid points, Orson–IF the polls did not crank up until October. As it stands now a zombie preseason #1 (I’m not pointing fingers at any specific team here) that loses an ugly September game has a reasonable chance of recovering by early December. The same cannot be said of a #1 or #2 that loses a heartbreaker of a difficult rivalry or conference championship game.
That’s the rub with the consistency argument–which is worse to lose to Chan Gailey in September or to Urban Meyer around or after Thanksgiving?
May 14th, 2009 at 10:49 am
3
SpartanDan says:
Honestly, I think all the worries about a 2007 Giants situation are overblown. The NFL puts 37.5% of its teams in the playoffs. No serious, or even half-serious, proposal has gone beyond 16 teams, which would be 13.3% of Division 1-A. A team like the 2007 Giants isn’t getting in a CFB playoff.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:51 am
4
Counter Trap says:
One more thing–all bowls apart from the BCS title game now officially suck. And do not exhale.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am
5
Not You says:
@1:
One (at least) point of contention: I’m not sure college football teams “get hot” by the end of the year. Most are done playing inferior schools Alabama A&M or Syracuse by the end of the year (K-State, of course, excluded). I don’t think a playoff would increase the likelihood of “gimmie games.”
See: 2008 Ole Miss Rebel Football Team.
They dropped four games early in the season, and win vs Florida not withstanding, they didn’t hit their stride until the middle of the second half, culminating in a wrecking of The Fightin’ Pirates of Texas Tech in the Cotton Bowl.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:19 am
6
JCCW Jerry says:
Orson, agreed that the BCS has been “reasonably effective” and that there’s a substantial danger that whatever college football might try to replace it with would wind up some awful uncontrollable monster that has Berry Tramel shaking his head and saying “there are some things man was not meant to know.” Or something. I’m not convinced that a four-team playoff–and not one team more–wouldn’t retain enough “bang-for-buckage” to make it worth avoiding the injustices like, say, I don’t know, just to pick an example at random, 2004 Auburn … but you’re right that there’s something to be said for the devil we know.
Also: how are LSU fans not already tossing gobs of purple and gold powder at themselves in a giant pregame Holi-type frenzy? I’m retroactively disappointed in them.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:22 am
7
Crabapple Buck says:
Spartan Dan
Have you seen the Pitt team from 2003 or FSU from 2005? I believe that would qualify as inferior. I haven’t even touched on ND, but their inclusion without a conference affiliation is borderline criminal.
I am on the fence regarding a playoff. Partly because I haven’t suffered the rodgering that Auburn did in 2004. And partly because although I think the BCS is flawed, the bowl system stupid and ESPN too powerful, shifting to a playoff would make it worse. I want better football in season, but scheduling will remain soft unless a playoff is in place. So conflicted, but not convinced it would be run any better than the current system.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:22 am
8
WarChiziken says:
let’s be honest here – we keep score because we want to know who WINS WHEN TIME RUNS OUT
I don’t care if New Mexico State uses 8 giant saguaro cactus for pass defenders and finds some burro who can kick field goals from the far 20 yd line …. I just want to know if you can beat my team or the best team around late in the season (when good teams start playing most consistently).
Some schedules don’t allow you to test yourself properly late in the season *ahem, Tennessee* so having some sort of semi finals gives them a chance to prove they truly should be there. Sometimes fate will step in and break your QBs’ leg *sorry Oregon* but MOST of THE TIME the good teams survive and make it to the end victorious.
Right now we have confused semi-playoffs (championship games vs no championship game), a reliance on sportswriters that borders on negligence, and a 45-60 day layoff between games to the BCSCG. That is the definition of clusterfuck in my book
….. sorry, got up on that damned soapbox and couldn’t get off…. I’ll be quiet now
May 14th, 2009 at 11:24 am
9
T-bird says:
SpartanDan makes a good point, even in a 16 team playoff the 16 seed last year would have probably been Georgia. They started the season #1 and if they beat #1 OU in the first round then beat #8 Texas in the 2nd, then beat #4 Utah in the 3rd and then got revenge against #2 Florida for the title, thats not so far fetched is it? We’re not talking about a random team getting hot and winning it all, how often does that happen in basketball and you would have so many more little guys.
The worst that could possible happen would be someone you don’t expect like Cincinnati getting hot and making a run. The NCAA tournament tells us that upsets make it interesting, but cinderella never takes home the trophy. Ok except maybe that one time.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:30 am
10
Mr. Pelican Pants says:
Uck fUTAH. and Andre Smith. And Spread Offenses that confuse underclassmen in the defensive backfield on the same play for a touchdown 3 times in the first quarter. And undersized, quick Polynesians. And premature Coach of the Year Awards. And injuries to your back up offensive linemen.
If we are gonna have playoffs, we need to have Do-Overs. And Alabama would like to Do-Over the 1st quarter of the Sugar Bowl. Or a rematch in the Chick Fil-A College Football game. I say the playoffs should be for conventional offenses only. Not this new fangled fancy pants flavor of the month stuff.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:45 am
11
SpartanDan says:
@7: That’s an argument against conference auto-bids, not an argument against an eight-team playoff. If you go 16 teams, including every conference champion would be reasonable (at the very least, they proved themselves best in their conference), but specifying that certain conferences get auto-bids and certain others do not is silly when the MWC or WAC champ has been better than at least one of the ACC or Big East champs pretty much every year.
I think the ideal system would be:
- 8 teams.
- Anyone who goes unbeaten gets in. Even if it’s a Sun Belt team or Hawaii 2007. If you leave an unbeaten team out, then you’re essentially saying they were eliminated from contention before the season started since they did everything that could be asked of them and still didn’t get in.
- If you’re dead set on conference championships being among the criteria, the six highest-rated conference champions, plus the two highest remaining teams (who might be champions of other conferences), qualify. I don’t see any reason to guarantee the winner of ACC Tiebreaker Roulette a bid at 8-4 if there are six conference champions who are better (odds are, even an 10-2 WAC or MWC champ belongs ahead of that). Otherwise, take as many teams as you need to fill the bracket after all the unbeatens are taken.
- First two rounds at higher seed.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:53 am
12
ohiodawg says:
Seems to me that all of these ideas have major flaws in them, primarly relating to which teams get into the playoff.
I still don’t see what problem the playoff is supposed to solve. There were controversies before the BCS, there have been controversies during the BCS and if anyone thinks that four or eight team playoffs won’t leave legitimate teams out in the cold, they’re wrong. If it was an 8 team playoff last year, do you take three teams from the Big 12 south? Do you bump Texas out because Hawaii goes undefeated?
Think about instant replay, how it was going to eliminate huge errors, then think of the Oklahoma Oregon game.
Playoffs will add no value, futher devalue conferences and strengthen no one other than the NCAA and ESPN.
Solution: Stop all this nonsense and go back to the traditional bowl games as they existed prior to the BCS. College football is unique. Let’s keep it that way. It’s the one major sport that doesn’t have a playoff at the end. YET IT IS STILL THE BEST!!!11!!
May 14th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
13
beckett929 says:
@ #11 –
I remind you the Big East has gone 3-1 in BCS games, with WVU beating the SEC & Big 12 champs in respective years, and Louisville/Cinci splitting a set with the ACC. So please stop throwing stones their direction without at least lobbing them at the Big 10. WVU *RIPPED* that Oklahoma team by 3 touchdowns, which had zero excuse for losing after being embarrassed the year prior by Boise.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
14
North 2 says:
Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party* to continue advocating.
See: http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2009/05/12/mike-leach-army-of-darkness-and-how-to-set-up-a-pokemon-tournament/
from a few days ago, start around comment 9.
*Party = BITCH (BCS Is The Crazy Helluvagoodtime)
May 14th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
15
Marcus says:
After watching my team have to play a middle of the road Va Tech team after going undefeated in 2004, I have to say I think the old bowl system would be better than the BCS. At least in the old bowl system AU would have had some sort of shot at ending #1 (assuming USC and OU didn’t play each other and they both lost their respective bowl games). Same goes for 2003. As exciting at the Rose Bowl was that year, imagine how much more interest it would have gotten if USC was still in the hunt for the MNC (AP doesn’t count any more unless you’re a homer). How about UTx this year? Again, if OU and UF both lost their bowl games, then at least they would have had a shot.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
16
ATL AU Tiger says:
Oh Marcus, Marcus…….
AU number 3 winning Sugar Bowl and numbers 1 and 2 both lose their bowl games – what are our chances of being number 1?
Still a snowball’s in hell – see 1983 season and your eventual national champ. Damn, I still hate Miami.
War F’ing Eagle.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
17
Mooncricket says:
How about a 16 team bracket on paper?
May 14th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
18
Mooncricket says:
I suck at this game, click my name…
May 14th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
19
tim in gainesville says:
Part of the problem here is people are focusing too much on the “BCS vs Playoff” angle and not enough on what the actual problem with the whole process is: that more than half of the teams in the NCAA’s top division start the season knowing that even if they play perfectly, and win every game, they have no chance at winning the championship.
NCAA FBS is the only organized sport on the planet that operates this way.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
20
ohiodawg says:
#19 – You’re talking about the mid-majors, right? That’s a good point. Since there’s probably no chance of putting them somewhere else, their presence will always bedevil the situation.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
21
sevenDs says:
ATL AU Tiger @ 16,
Thanks for the stroll down memory lane. I’ve been advocating a playoff since then and used the Sugar Bowl with Syracuse as support (until OT was introduced). Still, had the Orange won, they would have suffered the same as us in 2004 and Penn State in 1994.
Then there’s the case of BYU’s 1984 “championship” earned by beating a 6- 5 Michigan team.
A playoff won’t eliminate controversy, but it would reduce it. At least it would reduce the number of logial complaints. What makes a playoff better? The fact that it’s more difficult to prove you are worthy of a vote for solely being #1 than it is proving you’re among the top 8 or 16 teams who deserve to have a shot at being #1. Especially when you take into account conference championships that are determined on the field which give you a chance to show you’re among the elite for a given season.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
22
Mr. Flibble says:
Even a playoff won’t silence critics.
After all, when Ohio State lost to UF in ‘06, their reaction wasn’t “Oh well, we lost it on the field–good game, guys.” Hell no. They were ROBBED! People had a full-time job sifting through all the excuses why UF had an unfair advantage & in fact didn’t even belong on the same field. Same deal when the ’04s won back-to-back NCAA basketball titles. The Gators were “lucky”. Even winning on the field by a blowout won’t be enough for everyone to agree about a champion.
Except for maybe Nebraska in 1995. No questions there (& no one needed a playoff to know that).
Let’s just keep things as they are. There will be no ideal solution except to give everyone a trophy at the end & not keep score for any of the games.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
23
sevenDs says:
No one thinks playoffs will silence critics, it would just reduce the number of reasonable arguments as to who was most deserving.
After all, if there had been a playoff in 2006, the Buckeyes wouldn’t have had all that time off and may have been better prepared, if indeed that is the reason they lost.
There will always be some critics. This is America, we’ve got people who feel their right to complain is more of an obligation.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
24
Crabapple Buck says:
What is the point of a playoff if Kirk Herbstriet will just say that SC is the best team RIGHT NOW!? Regardless of record.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
25
Counter Trap says:
“the Buckeyes wouldn’t have had all that time off and may have been better prepared”
That one makes my head hurt.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
26
SpartanDan says:
@13: The Big East has done better in recent years, true, but half the time they’re playing a joke of an ACC champion. Usually one of those two (more often the ACC, but not always) is worse than the best mid-major champ. And the Big Ten champions are usually pretty good; the problem is that they’re always either playing at USC or against #1.
@22: Of course there’s some luck involved in any game, but short of an on-field controversy there’s hardly ever any argument about who should have won in any other sport. “Should” means next to nothing; “did” is what counts. I’ve never heard that argument regarding either of Florida’s basketball titles (there’s a little bit of luck in which part of the bracket collapses and leads to an “easier” path, but you still have to beat the team that managed to take out the “tougher” competition), and the only argument I’ve ever heard about ‘06 was that it should have been OSU-Michigan in a rematch instead – and a playoff would have settled that by having those teams duke it out on the field.
My biggest gripe with the BCS is that it’s a completely half-assed attempt at deciding the championship on the field. If you’re going to mess with bowl season to give us an undisputed champion, you damn well better deliver an undisputed champion, and the BCS cannot do that. As a result, you get the worst of both worlds – disruption to the college football traditions that are so unique to this sport without the promised benefits that it would bring.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
27
sevenDs says:
Counter Trap @ 25,
” “the Buckeyes wouldn’t have had all that time off and may have been better prepared”
That one makes my head hurt. ”
That’s why I use the words like “logical” and “reasonable” when I talk about complaints.
Part of the fun of college football is the irrational thoughts of fans, but only if it’s how they support their team. (thoughts like; like hearing Rocky Top 87 times in 3 hours doesn’t get old, optimism from Miss State fans, how we in the SEC think only the other schools in our conference have redneck fans, anything Jim Delany says, etc)
We don’t need something irrational when determinig the champion. The BCS claims strength of schedule makes the voters opinions valid. But how good are the teams on your schedule? Well, that’s based on how they’re ranked. And having the BCS poll start in mid season really doesn’t help because the polls taken prior to that, are skewed by strength of schedule from the pre-season poll.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
28
Mr. Flibble says:
@26: the archived ESPN comment sections will show you what I mean. Time might have softened feelings about the UF basketball team, but lots of folks were in no way persuaded that UF was deserving of being champion even though they won it on the court in a playoff.
My point is just that partisanship & self-interest infuse the entire process of choosing a champion. Irrational? Not really–people just want to think “their” team is #1. And they will do and say anything and twist any facts (or make facts up), and promote any system, toward the end of proving it.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
29
USCPCT says:
The 2007 Giants hadn’t put together a “solid body of work”? They went UNDEFEATED in road games.
But what am I saying? This is an SEC blog. What the hell would the SEC know about playing a road game??
May 14th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
30
meatybob says:
In this case, to say that one system is more “rational” than the other boils down to be nothing more that saying “its more rational because I like it more”. Esp considering that most of these arguments look at the playoffs in isolation, not adjusting for the regular season.
Fundamentally, this post-season argument is all about what do you want CF to be? A system that places emphasis on perfection when it can (which, in a flawed way, the BCS is) or a system that rewards the best overall team and it is fine with some large imperfections. My take, I like perfection, and as far as I am concerned, I have zero sympathy for any team with a loss. I want my teams to be punished for mailing in games. Sometimes that happens, sometimes not. Its almost like there are 2 types of NC in college football, true undefeated NC like 2005 Texas, 2000 OU, 2001 Miami, whoever was undefeated, and everyone else, while winning the NC, are just caretakers for the next great champ. Like college football stewards, awaiting the next great college football king.
May 14th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
31
SpartanDan says:
#29: They lost at Dallas to start the season. And all that means is that they had a losing record at home, which is pathetic.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
32
AERose says:
I think I speak for all right thinking Cal fans when I say this shit can wait until *after* we end our Rose Bowl drought.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:50 am
33
sevenDs says:
meatybob, rational has nothing to do with liking something more. It’s logic versus opinion. If an opinion poll picks two teams to play for a national title out of 119, then there’s a 1.68% chance they got the best two teams. If they pick the best 16 teams and let them play it out, then there’s a 13% chance they have the two best teams when the final game is played.
If you only consider the top 20, then picking 2 out of 20 is a 10% chance the two final teams are the best, and picking 16 gives you an 80 % chance the right team wins it all.
I’m just wanting to reduce the power of popular opinion and give the players more influence on the championship.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:29 am
34
robert says:
I’ve been heavy on the Early Modern Europe references in my comments lately. Sorry. Trying to pass comps this summer. But this is a definite Polish Sejm (legislative body) situation, and the fucking Rose Bowl keeps up with the Liberum Veto, and ending all discussion. SO…the solution is for Prussia to invade….? Yeah, I got nothing.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:19 am
35
respite says:
JCCW forgets that Auburn isn’t going to be a part of the BCS, playoff or plus 1 any time soon, so why in the hell is he writing about it?
May 17th, 2009 at 2:24 pm