Why the Accuracy of Bowls and Polls is Better for College Football Than the Finality of a Division I-A Playoff
by T Kyle King on Sep 30, 2010 5:00 AM EDT
in Football
Email
PrintI take a back seat to no one in my regard for Matt "Dr. Saturday" Hinton---heck, his alma mater gets a vote on my preseason BlogPoll ballot merely for having him as an alumnus---but there is no issue facing college football about which we disagree more than the subject of a Division I-A playoff. He strongly favors one. I strongly oppose one.
In his latest posting upon the topic, Hinton addresses the debate over the Boise St. Broncos’ worthiness, vel non, for inclusion in the national championship picture, and he concludes that we should reject the premises entirely:
The real debate should be about why college football has a championship structure that forces us into the unnecessary debate over the merits of a wildly successful upstart at all, when every question could be settled beyond a doubt with actual football instead of conjuring up make-beieve scenarios.
I have two quarrels with that passage, but in those two points of contention are contained the summation of all that divides us upon this question. These are they:
- I reject the concept of "unnecessary debate." Dude, I’m all about unnecessary debate! Heck, Matt and I have had this very debate before, and, as he says of the BlogPoll, "it’s fun." I thoroughly enjoy the Boise State debate, which is part of what makes college football so much fun. As seriously as I take sports, I don’t take them so seriously as to think getting the right answer is in any sense mission critical; this is entertainment, not surgery or public policy. Attaining an objectively correct result (assuming there is one, which there isn’t) is of secondary importance in an endeavor we’re supposed to enjoy. Because opinions have an influence, college football games played in August carry more weighty consequences than NFL games played in October. The debate allows us to enjoy what is intended to be a spectacle; this is a strength of the sport, not a weakness, and we should not be so swift to be such killjoys about a game we love, in part, because these discussions matter more than they do in other athletic exhibitions. There’s a reason why they call it the "No Fun League," and that has partly to do with the fact that regular season games more or less are meaningless in the NFL.
- Settling such questions "beyond a doubt with actual football" will produce results which demonstrably are wrong. The fundamental problem with all playoffs is that they compel us to accept outcomes which obviously are erroneous, because those results, while fallacious, were attained with finality. The 2006 St. Louis Cardinals went 83-78 during the regular season, but they won the World Series, so they were the champions of major league baseball, despite having the worst record ever by a World Series champion. Five games in October trumped 161 games played over the preceding six months, and we were forced to accept the incongruous result because the question was settled beyond a doubt with actual baseball. The 2007 New York Giants were a six-loss wild-card team, but they beat the previously undefeated New England Patriots in the Super Bowl, so they were the champions of the National Football League, despite being the first NFC wild-card team to win a Super Bowl. Sixteen games during the regular season were rendered meaningless, and we were forced to give credence to this absurdity because the question was settled beyond a doubt with actual football.
The premise underlying all playoffs is that certainty matters more than accuracy. Playoff proponents are like advocates of the Bohr model of the atom, an outdated and simplistic depiction which shows electrons as fixed dots on the perimeter. The more scientifically sound electron cloud model of the atom gives us shaded grey areas, indicating that there is a higher probability of finding an electron in one area than in another, yet providing no absolute answers because electrons are tiny and move very quickly. There are grey areas in reality, and Division I-A college football is the only sport whose championship structure acknowledges this, which is why Division I-A college football is the only sport that can point to every champion it has ever crowned after the postseason and argue with a straight face that its No. 1 team was deserving of that honor every year. (Yes, sometimes, you can argue for other teams, too, but that takes us back to the fun of the debate, doesn’t it?)
I know I’m stirring up a hornet’s nest, but Matt Hinton is respected for a reason and right almost invariably, so folks understandably are inclined to heed what he has to say. At least nine times out of ten, that is exactly the right attitude, but, upon this point, our positions could not be more diametrically opposed. Matt wishes to end unnecessary debate and have unassailable finality. I consider both such propositions dubious, and, as Hinton himself says, "When in doubt, reject the premises."
Go ‘Dawgs!
84 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Who cares about accuracy?
Debating is fun. I digress.
Was Butler really the second best NCAA basketball team last season? Was George Mason one of the final four a few seasons back? Were the Arizona Cardinals at 9-7 in the regular season really the best NFC team two years ago?
No. But who cares?
While the playoffs do not necessarily answer who is the “best” team, the playoffs allow more teams to have a chance to win it all, including teams like the ones I just typed above. Why? Because it is settled on the field.
All of those teams beaten in your examples had shot to win. The Patriots? They could have beaten the Giants again. The Tigers? Why not beat the Cardinals? Thus, even if the Patriots were arguably “better” that season, the fanbases are not as upset, for their teams had a shot and failed.
Instead we are left with a system that may or may not match up the two best teams. How does the 2004 Auburn team feel about that? What bout the TCUs and Boise States of the world? They have such a small chance of playing for a championship that it’s embarrassing for the sport. Butler COULD have beaten Duke. They didn’t, but they could have.
I don’t like my Dawgs not getting a shot in 2002, 2005, and 2007 because a computer and voters around the country liked two different teams more. But was the 2002 Ohio State team really the “best” team? What about the 2007 LSU team? Really?
Additionally, we are canceling games against teams like Oregon in order increase our chances to win the mNC. What if a loss on the road at Autzen Stadium didn’t ruin our season? Would we see better regular season OOC matchups? Possibly. But now we get North Texas and Georgia State and Troy.
You know what would solve all of the problems with the BCS? A playoff, for a team like UGA would not necessarily be destroyed by one loss to the Gators or a let down to the Gamecocks/Vols. We would still have a shot, and that is fun.
Yes? There would still be questions about which teams makes said playoff and how many teams are allowed in, but as you said in the Blog Poll discussion, debating the 8th or 9th or 10th best team is not quite the same as debating which two teams out of 120 are the two worthy of going to the “championship” game. There are too many variables, and the computer cannot account for all of them.
So, yes, settling on the field is far superior to the BCS system.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
by Jman781 on Sep 30, 2010 7:23 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
What's the point of being a champion, then?
What you’re saying is that the ideas of “champion” and “best” are mutually exclusive and therefore a playoff makes the most sense. To me, those two ideas are not separable. How can one be considered the champion in what one does and not be the best at the same time?
Now, if you want to call the team that wins a playoff “the team that holds the trophy at the end of the day”, then by all means, I’m on board with a playoff. I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
The point is that a playoff doesn’t answer the question of who is the best team for the entire season. In baseball, it only answers which team got hot for three weeks. In football, it only answers what team got hot for four games. If that’s what you want, then what’s the point of a regular season? The singular reason college football has the greatest regular season in American sports is because of the lack of a playoff. College football has always tried to answer the question of “which team was the best for the entire season”, not “which team backed into a post-season spot and eked out a few wins”.
We can agree to disagree on the merits of fairness or any of that jazz, but in the end college football more often than not pairs the two best teams in the country against each other for the national championship. The same can not be said for other sports.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
by AuditDawg on Sep 30, 2010 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with you.
Except for there’s no fair way to determine which teams truly are the two best teams without having every team in football play the same schedule. Unfortunately, they don’t. So we end up debating our way to a championship. Fun.
Were the 2002 UGA Bulldogs 100% beyond a doubt inferior to both the Hurricanes and the Buckeyes? Yes, the other teams were undefeated, but would they have have been undefeated in the SEC? Who knows? The BCS? No.
What about the 2004 Auburn Tigers? Was it that obvious that the Trojans and Sooners were superior to them? Why? Based on human polls and a computer? Really?
Questions like the above are why I dislike the system, for there is no way to determine which two teams are the best. There’s just not. Unless said teams play each other or, at a minimum, play the same schedule, merely basing who’s the best on record alone or a computer is ludicrous. Why should Boise State potentially get a shot at title this season by playing okay VT and Oregon State teams and waltzing through the WAC? Because we “think” they are the best? They should have to prove it.
I agree with your view in theory. A system that 100% guaranteed that the two best teams played each other at the end of the season would be the best option. But I am not convinced that the 2007 LSU Tigers were 100% the second (or best) team that season merely because the BCS placed them into the championship game. Are you? Really? Thus, given a choice between two imperfect systems, I vote for a playoff system.
A playoff is not perfect, but and an 8-team playoff would still make the regular season meaningful (as a team would have to make the top 8), and it would allow teams like the 2002 Bulldogs, the 2004 Auburn Tigers, the 2007 Bulldogs, and the 2010 Boise State Broncos a legitimate shot at winning a “trophy at the end of the day.” The BCS does not accomplish this, at least not as it is currently set up.
As far as Wild Card teams, they exist because of the disparity between conferences/divisions. Kyle would advocate that the best NFC team play the best AFC team, but this disregards the schedule that a team had to play to be the “best.” Look at the NFC West. It’s terrible. If a team has the best record because it plays in the NFC West, the Big East, or another weak conference/division, then how are they the “best”? Due to record alone? If that was all it took, then I advocate that the Bulldogs transfer to the Sun Belt Conference. We could keep are rivalries against Auburn and GT, but then we could pile up wins against crappy teams ala Boise State.
Why have Wild Cards at all? Because not everyone has the same schedule. I suppose we could have every team play the same schedule, but that would be a very long season. Since we don’t, baseball, football, hockey, and most other sports other than NCAA Division 1-A Football allow multiple teams into a playoff, as this eliminates the unfair results of a BCS-type system or a system that is based on the theory that Team A has the best record and the best record = best team, which is a fallacious assumption.
I will now leave my pulpit, as I feel most of my anger is due to the Dawgs getting the short-BCS stick in a couple of seasons ;-)
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
Not to sound like a BCS apologist...
Like Kyle, I’m wholeheartedly against a college football playoff; I am, however, in favor of more accurate ranking.
This is what I hate about the anti-BCS debate: we should first engage in an anti-Coaches poll debate, because they (far more than demonized “computers,” which are also problematic) create the wobbly foundation upon which the system is built. Even moreso than the unused AP poll, it is BAD; you know how AP writers are generally at work on Saturday, unable to comprehensively survey the landscape? The same goes, time one bajillion, for the coaches/GAs/equipment managers who submit rankings, with the added zest of bias and intentional under/overvaluation. (Let’s hear it for perverse incentives.) The Harris poll, too, is a a BAD POLL; while it professes to solve problems by coming out later and selecting a random panel of “experts” who can comprehensively survey the landscape, the sample size is too small, the participants may or may not vote objectively, and they still fall victim to preseason poll bias (the fallacy of expectation vs. evidence). This is why I love the blogpoll: large sample size; bias analysis; pollster investment. Do away with polls entirely until four weeks in, broaden the dataset, and see what happens.
Credit the BCS; at least attempts have been made to improve the system since 2002 and 2004. Sure, those attempts come in service of propagating the system, but still. The system is not perfect, but our sport is not built to be perfect; the teams competing are not formalized, homogenized entities, so some creeping doubts will always exist. This isn’t a problem for me, since I think the team with the best record is, accordingly, the best team (i.e., they did what sports teams are supposed to do, which is win as many games as possible).
My playoff-having sports can have playoffs; they are part of the DNA of baseball and basketball. But in those sports, teams play a lot of games; with a broader sample size, you can expect more regression towards the mean during the regular season. I know that the slippery-slope argument is fallacious, but understand: there’s no way a 4 or 8 game playoff remains a 4 or 8 game playoff. There’s too much money involved (see also: the NCAA tournament, where you just have to be among the top 50% of all basketball teams in order to compete for a championship). Will we eventually have to eliminate regular season/non-conference games so that contenders don’t play 15 games a year?
And frankly, you’re creating more opportunity for “slights” in such a system: how many 2-loss teams will compete for a limited number of playoff spots? How is slighting those teams create a more accurate championship?
I agree that part of the problem is the lack of schedule parity. In my humble utopian fantasy, all conferences play a conference championship game, period. But then, I also think that in years where no one goes undefeated, we should vacate the national title entirely. But I’m just kooky that way.
Umm
There are ~340 division I men’s basketball teams. 64 — or 68 — isn’t even close to 1/4 of the field. Now, if you’re in the top half of the Big East or ACC, then you’re probably an NCAA tournament team, but that’s just not true in the Horizon League.
there are more than 8 conferences. An 8 team playoff can still screw someone.
They have wildcards because it added several games = more money.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
I didn't say that I wanted 8 teams...
But I would prefer 8 teams to 2 teams, as any dominant team would be included in said 8 teams.
I guess my preference boils down to the following: If we are stuck with an imperfect system, which both sides of the debate admit the BCS and the playoffs are imperfect, why choose a system that is MORE selective? More teams can overcome the imperfect playoff system vs. the imperfect, selective mNC game, as both teams included in the mNC would be in the playoffs.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
Because we're talking about the National Champion.
The definition of which should include selectivity. If you’re not the team that can be chosen as the best in the most selective environment, are you really the National Champion?
by marktheshark on Sep 30, 2010 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions
See: Above
For why limiting the selection to two teams in an imperfect system is a problem.
Once again, if we were guaranteed that the 2 teams playing in the mNC were without a doubt the 2 best teams, then sure, I agree. We aren’t.
Thus, I feel more confident that the 2 best teams would be included in an 8 team playoff than I feel confident that the 2 best teams are included in a 2 team playoff (see: 2004 Auburn Tigers).
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
True, but here's the thing:
Since the polls started waiting until after the bowls to declare their national champions, college football has not produced a clearly undeserving champion. Sometimes, there is a split title, and sometimes there is an uncrowned team with an argument, but not once has there been a champion you could point to and say, “There is no argument that this team is the best team in the sport.”
It happens periodically in the other sports, from the NCAA tournament (1997 Arizona Wildcats) to the World Series (1997 Florida Marlins, 2006 St. Louis Cardinals) to the Super Bowl (2007 New York Giants). The best you can say is, “They won it, so, oh, well!” Whatever deficiencies exist, an illegitimate champion ain’t one of ’em, which distinguishes Division I-A college football from every other sport.
Go 'Dawgs!
I suppose...
That as a fan of a team that I feel was screwed out of a shot of a National Championship in 2002 and 2007 based on the BCS system, I will forever be a fan of a playoff system.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
1990 Buffs?
Pretty sure five downs makes you undeserving…just saying.
by Vodka and Red BullDawgs on Oct 4, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I was highlighting the irony in your question:
why choose a system that is more selective?
by marktheshark on Sep 30, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I, like knowshon loves legos, didn't have my whole post show up
But I’m not going to retype it. These debates become circular and tiring.
by marktheshark on Sep 30, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
We'll never see eye to eye on this one.
I can live with an “imperfect” BCS because I don’t demand a “perfect” conclusion, and I in fact prefer a system that doesn’t compromise the best regular season in sports.
by woolf on Sep 30, 2010 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
question
So you would’ve handed the Patriots the Lombardi trophy at what point during 2007?
"Well, we're gonna have to go out there and work hard so we can get butter."
-Ray Goff, 1989
by Greg Talley: Wildcat Formation on Sep 30, 2010 7:59 AM EDT reply actions
After one postseason game, of course.
NFC team with the best regular-season record represents the NFC, AFC team with the best regular-season record represents the AFC, they play one game, winner take all, just like they do in college football, and just like they used to do in the NFL. (It’s how they used to pick the teams for the World Series, too, before all this “wild card” nonsense. “You weren’t the best team in your division, but we’ll let you play for the right to call yourself the best team in the sport!” That’s as silly and indefensible as claiming, “I’m the second-tallest person in my household, but I’m the tallest person in my neighborhood!”)
Go 'Dawgs!
Just like they do in college football
Except for the part where they don’t. If it were the two teams with the best record, there’d be no need for the BCS.
Opinion over Playing the game
Do not agree with you on playoffs not being the best way to crown a champion. That is the only fair way, there is none other. As for the body of work during the season, that is why they have conference champions. You play your way to the top. It is not about opinions, it is about playing the game.
Okay, think of it another way...
The BCS basically serves the purpose of the NCAA basketball tournament selection committee, except instead of 64 teams the BCS chooses two. I’m content with a two-team playoff that settles the matter on the field.
by Biggus Rickus on Sep 30, 2010 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions
And when does this
two-team playoff that settles the matter on the field take place? And in which sport?
Well, I was kind of being a smart-ass, but the BCS Title Game...
amounts to a two-team playoff.
by Biggus Rickus on Sep 30, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions
A college football playoff system
Would diminish the hype for the regular season in the same way that college basketball does. Except less so because there wouldn’t be as many seeds in the playoff system. I don’t think anyone is arguing for a 32 team playoff system, or even a sweet 16. What’s on the table is most likely, 8 teams. An 8 team playoff would presumably take the top 8 in the country when taking an average of the Coaches Poll, AP Poll, and the computer ratings. So then they’d play each other. I don’t think it would necessarily diminish the regular season, not much anyway. To win out and be in that top 8 would still be a pretty tall order to even get to the playoffs.
I do understand the thought behind this article though, in that it could change some of the feeling of the UGA vs FL game in that in the scheme of things, it’s just another game. But I believe that conference championships would still be on the line and those could still be some type of qualifier for the playoff spots if they didn’t just pick the top 8. So the rivalries would still matter quite a bit. One reason why basketball or baseball rivalries don’t mean quite as much is because they usually face each other multiple times a year so they have several chances. In football, it’s just that one shot, per year.
A lot of people have argued for 16
Most prominently Yahoo Sports’ Dan Wetzel (link goes to the 2008 version of his annual playoff advocacy article). That’s the smallest playoff that can
1) Give every conference champion an automatic bid AND
2) Have no byes (and since the combination of a bye and home field advantage is a huge, huge advantage in football, I don’t want byes in college football playoffs)
I don’t think you can reasonably go under 16 teams without giving up on automatic bids. Which is okay to some fans (though arguably worse from an ‘integrity of the regular season’ argument, since it means conference champions are not guaranteed a playoff spot), but I can’t imagine the conferences would ever go for it.
And what for the #9 team?
Are they going to act like adults and not whine about it like the #3 teams do today? I doubt that.
by marktheshark on Sep 30, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
right
the fist time a #8 makes it to the finals, the numbers 9 and 10 will be bitching even more about missing out on the 8 spot.. whats worse, is that more teams are a legit 8,9,10 spot than are a 1 or 2.. if we are talking about best 2 teams, usually only 1 other team feels screwed. but once you get down to the watered down positions of 8 and 9, you are gonna have about 5-10 teams bitching.
by knowshon loves legos on Sep 30, 2010 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
no
But they will whine less, because arguing #9 vs #8 just isn’t as important.
When trying to get into a playoff pool, I respectfully disagree.
by marktheshark on Sep 30, 2010 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly.
No. 8 v. No. 9 is only less important because there is no prize for coming in eighth.
That would change under an eight-team playoff. Heck, think about how much whining we get in March over who is No. 65.
Go 'Dawgs!
It's really not a lot
And it’s highly localized. Yes, Orange fans were annoyed when we fell on the wrong side of the NCAA tournament bubble a couple years in a row. Strangely, this did not lead to scores of national news stories about slighting us, or the Big East or Syracuse or Jim Boeheim sending protest letters to the selection committee. In fact, pretty much nobody outside of Syracuse fans cared, and even we knew we weren’t going to win the tournament those years if we got in.
apples to -ahem- oranges
you just can’t compare the two sports when talking about playoffs. i can’t even argue on those terms
by knowshon loves legos on Sep 30, 2010 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
also
if it didn’t even matter to you, then what’s the point of the tournament.
if you know you aren’t going to ‘win it all’ then why does it need to be 64+1 teams. Sounds like a waste to me. I thought the whole point of a football playoff was ‘for the fans to feel like their team gets a legit shot’
you want FBS to ruin what they have just to have ungrateful teams get in knowing they won’t win it? Then screw it, it’s not worth it
by knowshon loves legos on Sep 30, 2010 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
there's a fundamental misunderstanding about the basketball tournament
that a lot of people have. The worst teams in the tournament are not the last of the bubble teams. They’re the low-major conference champions. And they deserve to be there, because winning your conference should mean something.
There are 30-odd basketball conferences in Division I. 64 is the smallest regular tournament you can have where they all get in.
Just like the bubble teams that wouldn't win the tournament win they did get in?
But did they deserve to be there? Did they have a legitimate claim to saying, “We deserve showing that we’re the best team in the country.” In my opinion, no, the#65 team can not say that. And, in my opinion, neither can the #8 team.
by marktheshark on Sep 30, 2010 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
until one of em makes it to the big game
a la Zona in the NFL. so i have to respectfully disagree that those teams won’t whine. That spot is just as important as being number 1, which is the whole problem with the playoff. there’s no difference in being number 1 than in being number 8 once the playoff begins… and that is fundamentally wrong
by knowshon loves legos on Sep 30, 2010 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Then why stop at 2?
Why not just crown a champion at the end of the season? Thus, the 2007 Ohio State Buckeyes are your champions.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
because football is about 2 teams playing each other
it’s the bare minimum.
if we go by that theory, then why stop at 2 from week to week. why not just crown whoever we think is the best team w/o playing.
at least 2 teams have to play for their to be a game, so at least 2 have to play in the championship. it just so happens, it’s also best if the ‘at least’ is the ‘at most’ … at least, in my opinion
by knowshon loves legos on Sep 30, 2010 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions
My point is...
That a 2-loss LSU team won the National Championship in 2007 over an undefeated Ohio State team. Thus, it was likely just luck. There were plenty of 2-loss teams to consider like UGA and the Trojans.
If one is comfortable allowing a 2-loss team an automatic spot in a championship game via polls and a computer, then why even bother with games at all? Wouldn’t the same computer that accurately placed Ohio State and LSU into the game be able to accurately determine the best team on the planet?
Playoffs settle it on the field. The BCS settles it on a computer. Why mess with the computer system actually have teams play? Then we might get strange results like a 2-loss team beating a superior undefeated team. Who likes that system?
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
Ohio State came into that game with a loss.
After LSU won, both had two losses, so no team (from big conferences, I don’t remember what Boise States record was that year) had less than two losses.
by marktheshark on Sep 30, 2010 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions
You're right...
I was thinking of the 2006 Buckeye squad…
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
i think hawaii had the best record that year
funny
by knowshon loves legos on Sep 30, 2010 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
jeez, here's a trivia answer
Kansas and Hawaii had the best records in 2007 (12-1)
by knowshon loves legos on Sep 30, 2010 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh...They got plenty of shots that year...
>
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
Wish we did that now.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
by tankertoad on Sep 30, 2010 7:06 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Very Fair Point
But that’s also the point I make. Once you start talking about 2 loss teams – and lets face it, another 2 loss team will probably not make it to the MNC game for some time – you have to throw in the ring ALL good looking 2 loss teams. This is more often than not going to be the exact problem with having an 8 team playoff.
Who was better than LSU that year? UGA? USC? maybe.. but again, you’re talking about only 2 teams that really had a legit claim at that number 2 slot… just like any other year filled with undefeateds or one lossers. I’d rather 2 teams bitching (uga and usc) than 50 teams bitching about number 8… who would have been the 8 teams in 2007 that you would pick.. tell me there aren’t another 10-20 that could lay claim over whoever you put in there as number 8
by knowshon loves legos on Sep 30, 2010 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly.
2007 was an aberration in college football, but that stuff happens all the time in the NCAA men’s basketball tournament.
Go 'Dawgs!
That's a good reason I prefer the old bowl system over the BCS
and why I believe the BCS is a playoff, albeit a two team playoff. Play the season, get invited to a bowl (if you were good enough, and I mean good enough to get into the less than ten bowl, you know, back when getting invited to a bowl was more prestigious than the 6-6 teams or potentially losing teams that may go to bowls after this season because THERE ARE 35 BOWLS!!!! /end rant), play the bowls, polls vote. Poll 1 says Team A was the best team that year after seeing the body of work they put together in the regular season as well as their convincing win over Team B in the such-and-such Bowl. Poll B disagrees. GASP! Another team can be considered the best by another poll? Why not? Team C wins Poll B’s vote. Split title. Oh, the humanity.
by marktheshark on Sep 30, 2010 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree...
My beef is more with the BCS than the bowl system in general.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
This is fun.
Who knew we could take an off-season debate into the season. Thanks, Kyle.
by marktheshark on Sep 30, 2010 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions
And our...
1-3 Dawgs would be left out of any system! LOL.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
So, let me get this straight
Your second point is that because a team can get “hot” during a playoff, it can negate the regular season? So, a playoff would, in essence, make the regular season meaningless? So, a week 1 game should count just as much as a playoff game?
I can understand this point in theory if there was a good alternative to it. The current system is not a better alternative. Early season games don’t count as much as later October games. There’s no way around that. Everyone is quick to the “team A is better” argument. Look at Oregon last year.
The best alternative to me is a playoff that is small enough to make qualifying difficult enough to still make the regular season critical but large enough to allow every team to control their own destiny for inclusion.
by Nick Kroes on Sep 30, 2010 9:59 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
My favorite quote in that whole post was the following:
Attaining an objectively correct result (assuming there is one, which there isn’t) is of secondary importance…
I think you just described all of college football in that one sentence fragment.
Excellent points. . .
Especially in the comments section when you noted that the World Series and football used to take the winners of each division and play them off to determine the chamiopn.
The problem for College Football, in my opinion, is the numbers. Over 100 teams creates a situation where it is very difficult to determine who the two “most deserving” teams are. Further, a playoff wouldn’t help all that much. It only expands the number to 8 or 16.
Really, the best model is European soccer. 20 teams, 38 games, each team plays the other home and away. The team with the best record at the end is the league champion. Its is a beautiful system because of its simplicity.
It also doesn’t work at all for football.
There will never be a perfect system for college football – its structurally impossible. In fact, I wish we could go back to the old bowl system, because then the bowls other than the national championship game would still be meaningful.
Preach on, brother
There will never be a perfect system for college football – its structurally impossible. In fact, I wish we could go back to the old bowl system, because then the bowls other than the national championship game would still be meaningful.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
I would advocate this...
Over the BCS any day.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
Same here.
I prefer the old bowl system to the BCS. But I prefer the BCS to an expanded playoff. I emphasize expanded because the BCS is technically a playoff. It scare me because it can be expanded: the “Plus One.” Which is stupid. That is a 4-team playoff.
by marktheshark on Sep 30, 2010 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I almost bq.'d this myself. No - there is o perfect system. Every playoff system can either be beat by a underserving team, or screw and equally deserving team.
Playoffs (I say this so often, I need it saved to cut and paste) first and foremost support the advertising / tv / media industry to make more money, and then the bookies. Notice the schools, athletes and fans are not served first. The WWL would love a playoff because that means a lot more games and a lot more analysis and a lot more revenue. Their intereset (along with nike, gatorade, under armor, on and on) is on themselves and their pockets first and foremost, which I get, but it doesnt serve the schools, the players and students first and foremost. We must always remember, these teams are part of an educational program, they are student athletes, and while I know the arguments about NFL farm system, most don’t graduate, et all, we must give as much interest and possibilities that the student athelete is their for school, and not solely there to be a product.
The bookie piece is fairly self explanatoy.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
This is not a challenge
But a legit question, for I do not know.
Isn’t there a lot of money for the BCS games? I thought one argument against the BCS system was that the BCS conferences do not want to split up their large pieces of pie. By having a playoff, each BCS conference school would receive less money. Thus, the commissioners of the Big Ten, SEC, etc. aren’t really concerned about the players or the integrity of the game, they are concenred about how much dough lines their pockets.
Money plays a big role in both sides of the argument. Also, I am sure that media networks make plenty of money off the BCS games and any related selection show.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
I should probably know how the money falls out better than I do. I know “revenue sharing” is a hot item in the conferences. The SEC does it – part of their success. Texas didnt want it – which is why the Big 12 is falling apart.
I am sure smarter folks will chime with the facts. But I totally see and agree with what you said:
Money plays a big role in both sides of the argument.
because it is certaintly all about the money with the networks, commissioners, presidents and ADs. That one of many reasons I prefer polls and bolls. The “purity of the X system” is always upstarted by the money.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Three points:
I don’t want to pick on anyone in particular, but I’m quoting people in the thread just to avoid coming across as attacking straw men.
1) “I don’t think anyone is arguing for a 32 team playoff system, or even a sweet 16. What’s on the table is most likely, 8 teams.”
The size of the playoff increases as surely as government spending. The NCAA basketball tournament is case in point. It started with 8 teams, doubled to 16 in just over a decade, increased to 22-25 just two years later, and so on until to the current 68 team format. Now there’s talk of expanding it to 90+ teams. No matter what reasonable-sounding number we start with, it will increase beyond the bounds of reasonableness in a hurry.
2) “An 8 team playoff would presumably take the top 8 in the country when taking an average of the Coaches Poll, AP Poll, and the computer ratings.”
Why is it that the playoff “solution” to the supposed mess of relying on computers and polls almost always involves computers and polls? If the problem with the BCS is that it relies on computers and polls, it cannot be solved by replacing it with another system that relies on computers and polls. The only way to avoid computers and polls is a wholesale conference realignment designed solely to seed a playoff. I, for one, am not ready for that type of brave new world. (Taking only current conference champions doesn’t work because (a) it ignores independents and (b) it punishes strong and balanced conferences in favor of the WAC or MWC.)
3) “That is the only fair way, there is none other.”
The funny thing about fairness is that it always seems to line up precisely with the point of view of whoever is speaking. I don’t think it’s fair that a team like Boise State only really has to get up for 2-3 games a year whereas we have to slog through an SEC schedule. A playoff would only magnify this unfairness. Among other things, a team that essentially gets to play 8-9 glorified scrimmages is more likely to qualify and is going to have fewer injuries and more time to gameplan.
The size of the playoff increases as surely as government spending. The NCAA basketball tournament is case in point. It started with 8 teams, doubled to 16 in just over a decade, increased to 22-25 just two years later, and so on until to the current 68 team format. Now there’s talk of expanding it to 90+ teams. No matter what reasonable-sounding number we start with, it will increase beyond the bounds of reasonableness in a hurry.
The argument, as far as I can see it, is that having 2 teams be selected at the end of the year is arbitrary. Oftentimes, the 3rd and 4th seed are very close, sometimes within a hundredth of a point by the computer systems, or such, and they are left out. By increasing to 8 teams for the playoff, you allow more teams to be a part of that discussion.
In just throwing up your hands and saying, “If we give ‘em an inch, they’ll take a mile! It won’t stop at 8 teams, etc” that seems reminiscent of FIFA and how they are so reticent to add any form of replays to soccer (or what our Euro brethren refer to as, football). They want to keep the “beauty of the game” intact, when what a lot of people saw at the last world cup were botched calls on goals, fouls, etc. If nothing, an instant replay should be added for goals, and then go from there. Point being, the BCS system as it is leaves out at least one team every year that could possibly beat those top 2, but we never know if it’s possible. By increasing the criteria to 8 teams, maybe even 16 then we’re giving more teams a shot at it and there’s no griping about being left out. As it is, too often it falls to posturing (by Miles a couple years ago whining about not winning your conference) or alleged favoritism by the voters.
Why is it that the playoff "solution" to the supposed mess of relying on computers and polls almost always involves computers and polls? If the problem with the BCS is that it relies on computers and polls, it cannot be solved by replacing it with another system that relies on computers and polls. The only way to avoid computers and polls is a wholesale conference realignment designed solely to seed a playoff. I, for one, am not ready for that type of brave new world. (Taking only current conference champions doesn’t work because (a) it ignores independents and (b) it punishes strong and balanced conferences in favor of the WAC or MWC.)
I’m not saying the whole problem is the polls though. I’m saying that the polls are pretty good, but paring it down to 2 teams using those polls is like taking a chainsaw to a filet mignon. It just doesn’t work well and it’s not accurate enough. And the seeding for the playoffs doesn’t necessarily have to be based on polls. It could be based on the winners of the existing 6 BCS conferences as well as 2 at large bids.
And I’m not saying the system I’m suggesting is perfect, there are better minds out there than mine but I do think that a playoff system is inevitable. It won’t be within the next 5 years, but I think it’s like trying to hold back the ocean at this point.
The funny thing about fairness is that it always seems to line up precisely with the point of view of whoever is speaking. I don’t think it’s fair that a team like Boise State only really has to get up for 2-3 games a year whereas we have to slog through an SEC schedule. A playoff would only magnify this unfairness. Among other things, a team that essentially gets to play 8-9 glorified scrimmages is more likely to qualify and is going to have fewer injuries and more time to gameplan.
Definitely, this is why at least one at large bid would be necessary. If you start including every conference in this discussion, the playoff would just be the regular season. You have to have a cutoff at some point, and I don’t see a reason to mess with using the existing BCS conferences, and then having some at large bids for the other conferences.
As much as I'm an unapologetgic fan of a currently bad Big East team...
… I’d still argue BCS AQ champs + 2 at-large is a bad playoff format (though with very few exceptions, I think any even remotely plausible playoff plan is better than the BCS).
- I don’t think two at-large spots is enough to cover non-AQ schools, independents, and good teams that came out on the wrong end of a tiebreaker or happen to play in a very strong conference.
- It’s not unusual for at least one AQ conference champion to be nowhere near being a serious national title contender
I love this quote from Senator Blutarsky:
…So at some point, the debate here crosses over from settling it on the field to inviting Cinderella to the dance. My question is, why does college football need the fake juice of potential upsets in a single elimination-format postseason to validate itself?
If 2 teams are arbitrary, then so are 8. Plus, the further from two teams we get, it’s easier to justify adding more. That’s exactly what we see with the NCAA basketball tournament. “we’re already at 68. What’s another 4 teams going to matter?” That’s a slippery slope that has already begun with the so-called Plus One.
by marktheshark on Sep 30, 2010 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
T Kyle, love the comparison with the Bohr atom...
…and your approximation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for the MNC argument, namely, that you cannot tell both the speed of an object and it’s location at the exact same time. In Boise St.’s case, I propose the corollary Heismanberg Uncertainty Principle, in that while Boise St. might be a fast team, at the same time no one cares where Boise St or Idaho is.
And if you are a Boise fan, this makes it grossly unfair, because your team is going to be relegated to the nethers, no matter how good they really are. For my bias, Mizzou gets burned in bowl selections because the football history of the school isn’t as glorious (definitely as long, but not as glorious) and we aren’t perceived to travel well. As someone said above, fairness depends on your perspective.
At the end of the day, though, you have a hundred teams and odd teams, each playing a tiny subset of the other teams for a very small sample size of games. There literally is not enough information available from this to ever compute particularly accurate rankings. There may objectively be a best team in the country (though they’re only likely to be a tiny bit better than the 2nd best team) so how do you maximize their odds of being declared champions?
a) If they don’t make the playoffs, then they can’t be champion, and when the playoffs is only 2 teams, then you have a high chance that the various polls and computers will mess it up and exclude them.
b) If you expand the playoffs to 8, you’ll almost surely have the best team in there somewhere, but then you introduce a fair bit more random error that comes from very small sample sizes of games. One star player is sick or injured or has an off day, or the coaching plan happens to be just right for that scool, or the ball happens to bounce the right way on a close play, or the 98% field goal kicker happens to get one critical kick land in his 2% of misses…
So polls have the advantage of using larger sample sizes, but the disadvantage of being subjective, while playoff games have the advantage of objectivity, but the drawback of tiny sample sizes… So in the end, you ask “what is the most entertaining way to decide it?” And it comes down to whether you love watching upsets, march madness style, or whether you love having protracted arguments. I kind of like the former, but it’s an aesthetic judgment, not a scientific one.
by Wan Ihite on Oct 1, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
very nice!
That is a much better write up than I would have made on a similar point of view. There is no perfect, there is no system that absolutely with out flaw. We should enjoy the season much more and worry about NCs much less. UGA stinks right now, but we can enjoy them digging out of the hole.
If we had a playoff of some sort, its not like the world is a better place or someone not directly connected in someway has a happier life for it. Same with the BCS. Same with polls and bowls. I think the old bowls had more glamour, tradition, and meaning, which made it more enjoyable. But my emotional well being is not related to a football (well, except during and immediatley after of course!)
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
by tankertoad on Oct 1, 2010 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
“my emotional well being is not related to a football (well, except during and immediatley after of course!)”
lies, lies I tell you! Xoxo
I can bake like a demon.
by podunkdawg on Oct 1, 2010 5:54 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
As a Cardinals fan, I didn't mind having the worst regular season record ever for a WS champ in '06
At the end of the day, we won the World Series. After seeing the juggernaut 2004 (105 wins) and 2005 (100 wins) teams flame out in the postseason, it was justice in our opinion.
Also, you’ll never convince an Auburn fan (well, most Auburn fans) that there shouldn’t be a playoff. 2004 was just too painful! (the best Cardinals team in my lifetime, the best Auburn team in my lifetime, neither of which won the championship…..gah!)
Do you remember that spelling bee you won in the first grade? Rock? "R-O-K"?
But your happiness was because your team won, which is fine if it is your team. The teams out there with a 10-15% better record and their fans don't think it's so cool.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
I read Matt Hinton everyday
but his pro-playoff stance has become really annoying. Any college football analyst usually has a particular stance on that issue, one way ot the other, and most are happy to share that stance. But most are also happy to do the analysis part of writing without having to constantly insert their feelings, as if to subliminally lobby his/her readers that a playoff is the way to go. Most times it’s not so subtle. Matt doesn’t annoy me just because I am anti-playoff. Pro-BCS people can annoy me too when they do what Matt does: always write with an agenda.
Why does Matt’s team deserve your #25 ranking every year? At least when Spurrier does that for Duke, he does it for a team with which he has a direct connection. A team he coached to an ACC championship, an admirable feat for Duke. Perhaps those token #25 votes are best reserved for more worthy teams than a particular writer’s alma mater. It is your prerogative to continue to do so. I just find it odd.
Sports are indeed for entertainment purposes only (at least for the fans). They’re value is almost entirely derived from the entertainment they provide. Certain people need to remember that (cough Orrin Hatch and PlayoffPAC cough).
I regret if it comes across as odd.
Matt Hinton is a former colleague here at SB Nation, and, while I am thrilled for his success at Yahoo!, I was sad to see him go. While I cannot claim to have been ahead of the curve on many things, I was a Sunday Morning Quarterback aficionado from the get-go, back in his old pre-SB Nation Blogspot days, when I was over on Xanga and Peter Bean was in the process of plucking us both from obscurity by identifying Matt and me (separately from one another, obviously) as up-and-coming bloggers. It’s hard to remember how revolutionary this all seemed in 2005, but we really felt like part of an insurgency changing the face of sports commentary; the fact that we no longer feel like rebels storming the capitol building attests to how successful the enterprise has been and how mainstreamed it has become.
I believe Matt Hinton is the best college football blogger out there, bar none. As the “great debate” linked to in the posting above indicates, I enjoyed matching wits with him when we were with the same network. The preseason No. 25 ranking for Southern Miss is a nod to Matt for his place in the blogosphere and my high personal and professional regard for him.
I’m sorry if it seems strange, although I understand why it does. It’s intended as a tip of the cap and a show of respect for a former co-worker (loosely defined, of course) whom I regard with great esteem.
Go 'Dawgs!
I don't mean to belittle your hat tip to Matt.
I respect that and like I said before, it is your prerogative to do so. I did not know that background, which I find interesting.
I had a conversation today with coworkers about the advent of the internet and how I remember chatting with my friends on ICQ over a dial-up connection. In college, high-speed internet (now broadband) was all the rage. It is interesting to see how things can evolve so quickly, and seem like so long ago.
I respect Matt too, his playoff agenda just gets old to me. I brought up Spurrier and Duke because it is the only basis of comparison that exists, to my knowledge, and it’s not fair to expect you to have the same exact relationship with Matt as Spurrier did with Duke. With that said, it’s not fair to expect you to have any relationship similar to one of Spurrier’s. I mean, think of your wife as your QB. If you treated her like Spurrier treats Garcia, I imagine the King household would not be a fun place, so Spurrier-esque relationships are not advised. :)
by marktheshark on Sep 30, 2010 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
The argument I don't get
EVERY OTHER NCAA DIVISION/SPORT SETTLES IT WITH A PLAYOFF
by knowshon loves legos on Sep 30, 2010 4:31 PM EDT reply actions
not sure what happened to the rest of my post
but it was as follows.
Bully for them. If you care so much, go follow anything else other than FBS football. Not every sport has to follow the exact same structure. Just because everyone is doing it, doesnt mean it’s the best thing. Remember the macarana?
If you hate FBS football so much because of the BCS, then give up on it and watch the NFL or FCS, there are plenty of other options out there
by knowshon loves legos on Sep 30, 2010 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Proposal #1: Plus-One
I’m guessing there’s something terribly wrong with the plus-one system that I’m overlooking – otherwise, I don’t see why it doesn’t get at least as much discussion as the 8 game playoff. If this is the case, please be kind – I’m a relative newcomer to football politics.
While I agree with the playoff proponents’ basic problem with the BCS, I do not think an 8 team playoff is the solution. My objection to this system is that, regardless of what they accomplish through their regular season, I find it highly unlikely that all 8 of these teams can legitimately have a claim to being the best. If the purpose is to give chance to prove it to those who may be the best, 8 teams disserves this goal by allowing several other teams the opportunity to prove the same when they haven’t earned that right, which will inevitably result in occurrences of a team that was most certainly not the best at the end of the regular season claiming the title when the dust settles, as has happened in the examples Kyle gave from other sports. I am certainly not what you would call a college football history buff, so I may be wrong on this, but I find it unlikely that there are often more than 4 teams with a legitimate claim to being the single best in the nation after the regular season and conference championship games. If there are, other steps need to be taken to fix that.
The system that makes the most sense to me (to disagree with marktheshark) would be a +1 (which I admit is essentially a 4-team playoff) where, through whatever method you like, the top 4 teams are chosen and ordered. Then, during the current bowl season, #1 plays #4 in one BCS bowl (probably on a rotating basis), and #2 plays #3. Then, for the NCG you put the winners of those two games against each other. While you may mistake which teams belong where (and there would certainly be argument about that), complaining that you had to face a harder team than you should have in the elimination game doesn’t strengthen your case that you’re the best. As for those not selected for the top 4 – they probably haven’t achieved enough to really be contenders for #1 anyway, which is what this is all about.
The primary benefits of this, as I see them, are these:
1) in contrast to an 8 team playoff, this doesn’t lengthen the season at all (though it adds an extra game for 2 teams, just as conference championships do), and still keeps the definitiveness of the NC game. It simply changes the requirements for getting to that game by adding an additional elimination round.
2) as compared to the current system, it allows (or at least is more likely to allow) everyone with a legitimate claim to being #1 an opportunity. However, as compared to an 8 team playoff, it doesn’t allow teams with no real claim to “best” to potentially take that title. Also, while there’s more debate about the top 4 teams than the top 2, there’s less than there is regarding the top 8 (as the top 4 primarily deals with the top undefeated and one-loss teams, maybe taking the prettiest 2-loss some years; whereas 8 would likely deal with several 2-loss teams, or include without justification all AQ champions).
It seems to me that this solves most of the complaints of both sides. If I’m wrong, please see my second proposal, below.
Proposal #2: Where the SEC are Vikings
The above is one system I, at present, believe to be superior to the status quo, though my mind is not firmly set on the issue.
My actual preference is as follows:
After conference championship games have been played, the PAC 10 and Big 10 champs play in the Rose Bowl, the Big 12 champs and SEC #2 play in another bowl. The winners of those 2 games play the following week during the current NC slot. The winner of that game has the option of taking the title of #2 team in the country without dispute, or (if not the SEC #2) they can play the SEC Champ to try to be #1 (the SEC #2 can’t challenge, so as to maintain the integrity of the SEC CG).
In years where there is a challenge to the SEC champ, the challenging game still ultimately results in #2 status for the challenger after enduring much shame and embarrassment on the field. In years of a challenge to the SEC champion’s greatness, after the contending team’s inevitable loss, their home state (Ohio) must offer tribute to the home state of the SEC champion by way of gold, ale, immortalization of the victor’s heroics in song, and surrender of their fairest maidens. Something like this:
Allowing for some minor tinkering, I honestly don’t see what could possibly be objectionable about this second plan to anyone.
by AdamLilly on Oct 1, 2010 2:40 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
i still dont like the bcs
I really, really try to understand and accept the arguments of people who support the BCS or are at least anti-playoff. Some of it I can agree with. Kyle, you make a good argument for that side of things. But I still can’t go along with it.
The reason why is because the BCS is an attempt to legitimize something that is still so flawed beyond belief. There are those that will look at Alabama’s MNC from last year and regard it with the same kind of legitimacy as Duke’s real, honest to goodness national title in basketball. The truth is, one was truly earned while the other one sort of was earned.
A playoff may produce an unwanted result like the Cardinals example you cited or Villanova in 1985. But at least those teams followed a universally accepted process. No one doubts or questions those titles because the playoff does produce such certainty and finality.
I suppose the debate can be fun. But if we’re going to have a debate, then lets go back to the old way of doing things where split national titles were fairly common. Lets not pretend that the BCS is about keeping the debate alive. Because it isn’t.
Lets see Boise St. get a chance to prove themselves in a post season game that matters. And lets see a school like UGA not have to hope that the voters see them in the same way that they see Florida and Alabama. Because I guarantee you in 2007 LSU, the SEC champ, would’ve been sitting at home watching either one of those two schools play Ohio St. in the supposed national title game.
No, deciding a national champion and getting it right isn’t a high priority in life. But fairness should be a bigger priority than what the BCS allows for.
by Snarles Q. Dawg on Oct 1, 2010 10:09 AM EDT reply actions
I think you, like most playoff proponants, confuse this:
All PRO playoff people are ANTI BCS
However, all ANTI playoff people are not necessarily PRO BCS.
by knowshon loves legos on Oct 1, 2010 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
