Super Bowl Result Derails Pro-Playoff Arguments

I mean this with all due respect...

But I knew it would take you SEC Homers all of two seconds to start comparing the NFL to the BCS. This difference Kyle, is that the New York Giants had to go through, not only three division winners, but three of the best teams in college football to earn the title.

I believe LSU beat two division winners, but in all honesty, it was likely the two weakest division champions in all of Division I football this season.

Yes, I like many others, believe the BCS is a travesty, not because of LSU's victory this season, but because of the fact that in nearly every season throughout the history of college football, the best teams do not end up playing on the field, but in the court of public opinion. That doesn't just apply to the bowl season, but the regular season as well.

I am currently researching the historical statistics for every conference team, including all of the conferences, specifically inside the BCS era and it is amazing how few times the heavyweights actually play one another. It is also amazing how many times the heavyweights schedule easy prey to pad those pretty statistics.

"A Regular Season Bracketed Playoff - Truly Making Every Game A Playoff in College Football While Upholding The Tradition of the Bowls!"

by bcsbusters on Feb 3, 2008 10:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

"[Y]ou SEC Homers"?

Come on, BCSBusters, you know that's unfair.

The rest of your point may be worth considering, but, frankly, when you lead off with that kind of preposterous rhetoric in retort to someone who has been nothing but reasonable in having a civilized debate with you, you undermine your point.

The singer matters as much as the song. I'd appreciate it if you'd remember which singer you were addressing rather than lumping me in with (what you perceive as) the rest of the chorus.

(By the way . . . L.S.U. beat two conference champions and New England beat one.)

by T Kyle King on Feb 3, 2008 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oops . . .

. . . I meant New York beat one.

Sorry. I inadvertently mentioned the better team over the course of the season rather than the one that registered a victory that negated the regular season in its entirety. Was that a Freudian football slip?

by T Kyle King on Feb 3, 2008 10:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Kyle...I think you are taking this way too serious

I thought you admitted in your series of responses to me that you were an SEC Homer. And this wasn't meant to be a dig or a put down. My point is just watch how many SEC bloggers are going to totally discredit the New York Giants and make a comparison to college football.

I think there a plenty of people, including the Kentucky fans at this years ESPN Game Day program before the Kentucky-Florida game, who disagree with the BCS system as well.

If you took that (SEC Homer Thing) wrong, I apologize Kyle, but get a grip bro. I've complimented you, your site, your writing and your knowledge on many occasions. Why would I want to piss you off again?

"A Regular Season Bracketed Playoff - Truly Making Every Game A Playoff in College Football While Upholding The Tradition of the Bowls!"

by bcsbusters on Feb 4, 2008 2:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

All right, fair enough

My bad.

by T Kyle King on Feb 4, 2008 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Travesty

A non SEC Champ (UGA) would have done as well maybe even better.

And congrats to NYG.

by S E Dawg on Feb 3, 2008 10:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

You're right

The Giants deserve credit for winning the game that counted.

However, Sunday Morning Quarterback is right that New York's season is in no way comparable to New England's . . . yet, because the Patriots went 2-1 in the games that counted and the Giants went 4-0 during that same span, the Pats' achievements (a 16-0 record and a division crown) are meaningless. That all happened in the exhibition season.

I agree that Georgia would have done as well or better under similar circumstances, but, as much as I am looking forward to seeing the 'Dawgs win their next national championship (say, in 2008), I could not claim with a straight face that the Red and Black, who did not win their conference championship and lost the tiebreaker to Tennessee after finishing in a two-way tie atop the division, deserved to be competing for an undisputed national title when they did not win undisputed division or conference titles.

Thanks for reading and for taking the time to post a comment, S E Dawg. I'll look forward to hearing from you again in the future.

by T Kyle King on Feb 3, 2008 10:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exhibition?

"That all happened in the exhibition season."

Oh, I didn't realize all 32 NFL teams made the playoffs.

by Josh Massey on Feb 4, 2008 6:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

All 32 teams don't . . .

. . . but, if the Giants are one of the ones that do, clearly, there are too many teams in the playoffs.

And, yes, if a team with six regular-season losses and no division title can be crowned the champion over a team with no regular-season losses and a division title, the regular season is meaningless.

by T Kyle King on Feb 4, 2008 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

way to go Giants!

Congrats to Eli (another SEC product) and his family on joining football immortality (back to back super bowl MVPs! Are you kidding me?!!?!)

I'm just so happy that the Pats lost. What does ESPN talk about tonight?

by loran smith on Feb 3, 2008 10:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not only that . . .

. . . but you have to wonder how much crap Archie is going to catch around the supper table at Thanksgiving dinner.

"Peyton, my favorite memory from winning the Super Bowl was . . ."

"Eli, my favorite memory from winning the Super Bowl was . . ."

"Hey, Dad, what was your favorite memory from winning the Super Bowl? Psych!"

by T Kyle King on Feb 3, 2008 10:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

P.S.:

I'm glad for the Mannings that they entered Super Bowl immortality, but I'm even more glad that, in the process, they consigned Tom Brady to his proper place: Super Bowl immorality.

The guy is America's sweetheart, but he has children by two different women, he is married to neither mother, and he lives with none of his offspring.

We here in Georgia can't point too many fingers---we gave home-grown heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield a free pass for a lot of years and overlooked the indiscretions of more than one Brave named Jones---but the media portrayal of Brady as a stand-up guy is nothing short of sickening.

by T Kyle King on Feb 3, 2008 10:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Love that comment....

I wish the "heads" would spin these types of conversations a bit more!

by dawgaddict on Feb 4, 2008 9:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Really?!?

I generally love the insightful commentary here, but I think you're seeing this with blinders on, Kyle.

This victory only supports pro-playoff arguments. Had a BCS-style formula determined who would play in the Super Bowl, New England would have played Green Bay. It's only because of the playoff system that the underdog (BCS mid-major) was able to pull the upset tonight. And it was a fantastic game to watch.

Tonight's victory by New York is the biggest argument for why playoff systems work.

by zinzarin on Feb 3, 2008 11:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It was a great game . . .

. . . but the Giants can in no way be compared to a B.C.S. buster. To suggest as much is to level an insult at undefeated mid-major teams like B.Y.U. in 1984, Utah in 2004, and Boise State in 2006.

New York finished the season with six losses. New England finished the season with one loss. However, New York's six losses came during the 16 games that didn't count. Why the N.F.L. bothered playing those meaningless exhibition games, or why any fans watched them, I have no idea.

New England won its division without a blemish on its perfect regular-season record. New York finished three games out of first place in its division. However, championships won over 16 games don't matter and championships won over three or four games do. Why the N.F.L. bothers to have division champions is beyond me.

New England beat New York in a tight ballgame in the last game of the regular season. New York beat New England in a tight ballgame in the last game of the postseason. How one team could "win" the series with a 1-1 record against the other defies any explanation that makes a lick of sense to me.

Thanks to the playoffs, the New York Giants did not win a division championship, yet they still won a world championship, which is no more logical than it would be for me to claim that I am the smartest man in the state but not the smartest man in the county.

I understand and respect your point of view, zinzarin, and I agree that the Super Bowl proved "why playoff systems work" for football fans who are more interested in a definitive answer than they are in a defensible answer. (That is the only possible way of characterizing any system that allows---indeed, requires---an N.F.L. fan to claim without irony that the New York Giants accomplished more on the football field over the course of the 2007 season than the New England Patriots.)

Make no mistake about it . . . the 2007 New York Giants are the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals, a mediocre team that got on a hot streak at the right time and rendered the entirety of the preceding season utterly meaningless. Personally, I like knowing that the first game of the season counts in college football, unlike in any other sport. I like knowing that the 'Dawgs will play between 12 and 14 meaningful games next fall, rather than just three or four.

Every A.P. poll champion has had at least a plausible case to make for being the best team in the sport. The same cannot be said for every N.C.A.A. tournament champion, World Series champion, or Super Bowl champion. If a playoff produces a champion that no one can claim with a straight face is the best team in the sport, why should we be willing to sacrifice credibility for certainty?

by T Kyle King on Feb 3, 2008 11:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Irreconcilable differences?

Kyle, as you know I have a great deal of respect for your views on the subject of playoffs and the utility thereof, but I am somewhat baffled by two claims that I believe to be borderline canards (or a brace, to use duck-hunting terms):

Canard the first: the regular season doesn't count. Of course it does: it produces a pool of playoff teams. As I suggested in a prior post, one could argue that the pool of playoff contenders is too large, but that's a question of design rather than an inherent shortcoming of playoffs themselves. To put it another way, grubby commerce may be the reason that 37% of NFL teams were in playoff games, but that's a scope issue.

Canard the second: playoffs don't produce real champions because the best teams don't play one another. The reductio ad absurdum response to this is to ask why play the games at all if the results don't count? To take it more seriously, however, I would ask: can a team really be the best if it didn't win out? Best on paper, perhaps, but the results on the field are paramount.

This is not to say that I think that there is nothing behind these statements. There's no guarantee that a playoff will result in the more obviously "talented" team with a better record winning said playoff. I stopped claiming that after the Euro 2004 soccer tournament in which a decidedly average Greek team beat a plainly more talented Portuguese side. (Watching the game on Icelandic t.v. compounded that certain level of oddness, but that's neither here nor there.)

Nonetheless. I think that this fundamentally comes down to whether one accepts that a playoff is an appropriate way to structure competition between sub-groups of a larger whole without the bias of viewers entering the equation. My bias is plain, but I could live with a return to the old bowl / national championship way of life - if it came with an explicit admission that the statistics for college football simply don't support a true empirical determination of who is best, and that we're going to set up bowl games based on our judgment of who looks good, and pick a final champion accordingly.

by DC Trojan on Feb 4, 2008 1:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As always, DC Trojan . . .

. . . you make a fair point in a reasonable manner and your final paragraph forges a middle ground upon which we both may agree.

The problem with college football today is that there is too much of a playoff mentality, not that there is too little of one. A return to the traditional bowl tie-ins and an abandonment of the unhealthy fixation on a No. 1 v. No. 2 matchup would be best for all concerned.

by T Kyle King on Feb 4, 2008 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am uncomfortable disagreeing with you, Kyle.

But we simply have little to no common ground on this one issue.

New York finished the season with six losses. New England finished the season with one loss. However, New York's six losses came during the 16 games that didn't count. Why the N.F.L. bothered playing those meaningless exhibition games, or why any fans watched them, I have no idea.

The postseason determined three important things. 1) Whether or not the New York Giants would get to play the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl, which was in question up to Week 16 (I believe) of the regular season. 2) How many prior win-or-go-home games the Giants would need to win in order to face the New England Patriots. The Patriots went 2-1. The Giants when 4-0. Due in large part to their deficient record relative to the Patriots, they had to win one more game than New England to capture a championship. 3) How many of those games the Giants would get to play at home.

Seeing as how most people would want to 1) compete in the Super Bowl 2) win the least amount of games necessary to do so and 3) play as many of the games necessary to do so at home, it suddenly makes sense why NFL players still try to win games on a weekly basis during the boring, unnecessary exhibition season, and that the league still (for whatever crazy reason) decides to have it.

But, were it the case that only games that can possibly produce a worthwhile champion be considered meaningful, I guess there's really no reason for mid-majors to play their season in CFB, ever, since they can't actually compete for a championship.

New England won its division without a blemish on its perfect regular-season record. New York finished three games out of first place in its division. However, championships won over 16 games don't matter and championships won over three or four games do. Why the N.F.L. bothers to have division champions is beyond me.

Division champions play at home for their first playoff games. Wild card teams do not. It is a strong incentive to win the division (which is a prerequisite for winning the conference). It is simply a means for organizing the 6 teams from each conference that get to play in the postseason. There isn't much to not understand.

New England beat New York in a tight ballgame in the last game of the regular season. New York beat New England in a tight ballgame in the last game of the postseason. How one team could "win" the series with a 1-1 record against the other defies any explanation that makes a lick of sense to me.

I don't know what to tell you, CFB produces strange occurrences as well. For whatever reason, Kansas is a better team than Missouri despite a 0-1 record against them. Missouri goes on to beat Arkansas in a bowl game, and they beat the National Champions on the road. I didn't consider this year's national championship to be the biggest tragedy in the history of CFB, it just happened to be one of the most boring championship crownings of recent memory. I was as happy to have watched the Giants beat the Patriots as I was to have not watched the LSU-OSU game.

Thanks to the playoffs, the New York Giants did not win a division championship, yet they still won a world championship, which is no more logical than it would be for me to claim that I am the smartest man in the state but not the smartest man in the county.

Supposing the perfectly plausible situation where Oklahoma scores 8 more points in the 2004 Sugar Bowl, and you'd have had a national champion that failed to win its conference. Somehow they don't beat K-State in a conference championship... but they are the national champion?

I understand and respect your point of view, zinzarin, and I agree that the Super Bowl proved "why playoff systems work" for football fans who are more interested in a definitive answer than they are in a defensible answer. (That is the only possible way of characterizing any system that allows---indeed, requires---an N.F.L. fan to claim without irony that the New York Giants accomplished more on the football field over the course of the 2007 season than the New England Patriots.)

I am certainly not the first person to tell you this, but I imagine that more of us favor an exciting playoff that, arbitrarily perhaps and who cares, produces a definitive National Champion than being told who "accomplished more on the football field over the course of the... season" on any given year, with a success clip somewhere below 100%. I know for a fact that question isn't settled every year in College Football, and I haven't run across many people who still think it's a worthwhile question (because of the fact that it's frequently unanswerable -- how many angels can fit on the head of a pen? I care more about late-game comebacks on national television)

Personally, I like knowing that the first game of the season counts in college football, unlike in any other sport. I like knowing that the 'Dawgs will play between 12 and 14 meaningful games next fall, rather than just three or four.

I can only assure you that the first game of the season counts in the NFL.

If a playoff produces a champion that no one can claim with a straight face is the best team in the sport, why should we be willing to sacrifice credibility for certainty?

Because it is fun, which is incidentally the same reason I like watching Football, generally. On the list of reasons for why I love this sport, "credibility" does not rank above "excuse to drink". I can claim the same on behalf of many people.

by Red Blooded on Feb 4, 2008 9:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Happy for the Giants

As far as the whole BCS-NFL playoffs-bowls discussion: whatever. It is what it is. I am about to resort to the philosophy of the schools of today and just declare everyone a winner so no one's self-esteem ever gets hurt and I don't have to sit through these endless debates.

Congrats to NY. They played really well and earned that Super Bowl win. The defense was fantastic and Eli did what he needed to do. Props to the OL who helped the running game set the momentum. The Eli scramble and pass to Tyree will go down in NFL lore as one of the great plays in the history of the league.

I didn't know if NY could score after the Pats took the lead late in the game. I was interested to see if they would have given Brady the MVP or the Pat who deserved it- Wesley Welker.

by fotodog on Feb 4, 2008 7:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Games Are Meaningless

Look, clearly the best way to determine a true champion is for groups of voters to rank teams according to what makes that particular group of voters feel good. There is NO need to go through the long, boring process of a "Regular Season", no need to worry about "Bowl Games" or a "Playoff System". We don't need to sit through the formality of a "Championship Game". Clearly the best way to determine a champion is for people to vote at the beginning of the year. That's it. Done. Champion crowned. End of discussion.

Jace Walden

by jacewalden on Feb 4, 2008 10:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

NFL is different

I don't really understand the comparison here. The giants had 6 losses in a 16 game season leading up to a 10 team playoff out of a 32 team league. This means that roughly 31.25% of the NFL is going to make the playoffs each year.

Compare this to an 8 team playoff for college football's 12 regular season games (any proposal for a more than 8 team playoff is kind of absurd) out of 119 D'1A teams. Roughly 6.72% of the league is going to be included.

In a college football playoff, you aren't going to see any 5-6 loss teams playing for the title. You probably won't even have many 3 loss teams. Furthermore, with a shorter regular season, most of the teams in the NCAA tournament will not have played against each other before!

I'm not trying to advocate a playoff, I'm just pointing out how absurd it is to point to the Giant's win as an indicator that a college playoff system would be broken.

by ElectricSweater on Feb 4, 2008 12:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't believe that's realistic

Right now, the B.C.S. is in the hands of the major conferences. There simply is no way those six leagues would sign off on a playoff that did not ensure each of their champions an automatic berth.

(Moreover, any system that did not guarantee all the major conference champions a spot at the table would require exactly the sort of calculus the B.C.S. requires . . . comparing U.S.C.'s season to Oklahoma's to Ohio State's to L.S.U.'s. A four-team playoff wouldn't solve the problems of the B.C.S. and an eight-team playoff would allow a team like the Giants to make the field. There simply is no acceptable solution.)

Had there been a college football playoff in 1996, Texas would have gotten in with an 8-4 record after upsetting Nebraska (then 10-1) in the playoff game to decide the inaugural Big 12 title.

Had there been a college football playoff in 2001, L.S.U. would have gotten in with a 9-3 record after upsetting Tennessee (then 10-1) in the playoff game to decide the S.E.C. title.

Had there been a college football playoff in 2002, A.C.C. champion Florida State would have gotten in with a 9-4 record.

Had there been a college football playoff in 2003, Kansas State would have gotten in with an 11-3 record after upsetting Oklahoma (then 12-0) in the playoff game to decide the Big 12 title.

Had there been a college football playoff in 2004, Big East champion Pittsburgh would have gotten in with an 8-3 record.

That's five three- or four-loss teams that would have made it into any plausible college football playoff scenario in a nine-year period. The idea that three- and four-loss playoff teams would be a rarity in college football simply does not withstand scrutiny.

by T Kyle King on Feb 4, 2008 8:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I appreciate the comparison...

and your argument has many merits, but again, it is an apples to oranges comparison. I don't see too many Louisiana-Monroe's, Jacksonville State's or Wofford's on the Giants schedule this year.

On any given Sunday, you are playing a great team with many great athletes on both sides of the equation. For those of us who have played professional sports, we can appreciate the level of competition, because college sports do not compare to the professional level. Every game is a DAWG Fight (pun intended).

On any given Saturday, over 75% of the time for most teams, you are not lining up against an equal competitor on both sides of the equation. Of course the NFL teams are going to have more losses, the competition is stiff!

And you are right, there will not be any 5-6 loss teams playing for the title in college football, because 1) we don't play a 16-game schedule and 2) a 5-6 loss giants team, equates to a 8 or nine loss college team given the scheduling differences. However, there very much could be a two-to-three loss team in a college football playoff playing for the title, which isn't the end of the world, given that the elite teams would be on a collision course to play on the field.

When Auburn went undefeated several seasons ago (13-0), 8 teams on their schedule did not end the season with a winning record, although 5 teams on the schedule ended the season with at least 9 wins, indicating an elite performance.

How does that translate you might ask? In the season before, Alabama went 4-9, due in large part to the fact that they played 9 games against teams who won at least nine games that season, and went 1-8 in the process. The year prior, Alabama went 10-3 playing only 5 teams who won nine games. The competition level makes a tremendous difference on your record, and due to the fact that the majority of the college football programs do not play similar schedules (in terms of strength), you can't say that a teams record is a legitimate indicator of their overall strength. I think we've seen that throughout the BCS era. The age old mindset that you have to go undefeated to be a true champion is ridiculous.

In addition, the whole concept of increasing the regular season and adding more playoff games in professional sports is because the season length has to be large enough to cover the rising cost of the salary cap. It is a revenue producer, kind of like the bogus championship games in college football that many times do not even line up the two best teams in the conference. It is a revenue producer.

If you believe in the conference championship game at the college level then you cannot rip the Giants any more for the absurdity of their Super performance than you can for Colorado's inclusion in the Big-12 championship game three years ago, when Texas, who beat the Buffalo's by 38 points (with a better record), should have been involved in the championship as well.

"A Regular Season Bracketed Playoff - Truly Making Every Game A Playoff in College Football While Upholding The Tradition of the Bowls!"

by bcsbusters on Feb 4, 2008 3:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

How does a five- or six-loss . . .

. . . N.F.L. team equate to an eight- or nine-loss college football team?

A 10-6 N.F.L. team has a .625 winning percentage. A 4-8 college football team has a .333 winning percentage. Those aren't even remotely comparable.

An N.F.L. team with six regular-season losses is most closely comparable to a college football team with seven or eight wins, not eight or nine losses. (A 7-5 college football team has a .583 winning percentage and an 8-4 college football team has a .667 winning percentage.)

by T Kyle King on Feb 4, 2008 8:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You are Right Kyle...

Not sure what I was thinking there. As often happens when I write, my mind gets ahead of my fingers on the keyboard. My apologies.

"A Regular Season Bracketed Playoff - Truly Making Every Game A Playoff in College Football While Upholding The Tradition of the Bowls!"

by bcsbusters on Feb 5, 2008 11:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Playoffs

The problem even with an 8-team playoff in college is that it would make all BCS conference champions eligible. Usually, one of those is a sub-par team not worthy of a shot at the title. It would end up being 6 conference champions and 2 other really good teams. We'd have the possibility of non-conference champions winning the title, and non-conference games would mean almost nothing, as winning your conference would be paramount. So, would UGA sit starters if it had the East locked up and knowing it had a shot at all the marbles? Those questions aren't good for college football. I'm pretty happy with the way we do it, but a four-team playoff could be just right. Every game would count because you could hardly lose one or two and still be top-4. Non-conference games would give you huge credibility (or liability). It would end up the best 4 conference champs, which would almost certainly be elite.

The issue no one is talking about is home-field advantage. If they don't give teams home-field playoffs in college, it will be a travesty and only brew more upsets.

I'm not ready for 9-3 bad conference champions to win national championships in college football or hot non-conf. champions do the same. Give me the best 2 or 4 conference champions and I'll live with the debate.

by C on Feb 4, 2008 4:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

With the BCS Busters system...

your worries would be solved for it addresses every one of the rebuttals that continue to come up, including the home field advantage question that you have raised.

The problem with the current mindset is determining the eight. I don't think two at large teams is the way to go. We need to determine the conference champions, as part of the regular season, and save room in the regular season by eliminating the bogus non-conference games in September, as many schools do not operate with the same scheduling philosophy. This would create the room needed in the regular season to play it off on the field, and determine the bowl games as well.

If more teams adhered to the we will play anyone, anytime, anywhere philosophy (like Fresno State), most of the debates we currently have with the BCS would eliminate themselves.

But the reality is most programs will continue to schedule Division I-AA, C-USA, the MAC and Sun-Belt teams until they are forced to do otherwise. Nonetheless, you bring a valid perspective to the table.

"A Regular Season Bracketed Playoff - Truly Making Every Game A Playoff in College Football While Upholding The Tradition of the Bowls!"

by bcsbusters on Feb 4, 2008 5:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs