Fanblogs.com: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season
Zac
· 9 months ago
"Would regular season attendance in college football suffer if the teams are a lock for a tournament? Would teams not play competitively, like Utah in 1998, if they have a place secured? Losing a game to avoid a conference championship game and get an extra week to prepare for the national tournament could be a real possibility."
Ben, these very questions go to the route of ALL sports. Why are there teams of any kind? Why does man-kind compete so? Historically, sports, specifically the Olympics were a means to avert war. Champions of rivaling lords, dukes, even kings fought in the stead of their liege. To otherwise do one's best often meant one perished.
In the civilized world we now have, such is not the case. Instead of soldiers competing, citizens do. Instead of hearing the cheers of fellow soldiers, they hear the cheers of alumni or people who support the spot in which they compete: citizens and armed servicemen alike. They don't compete just because there's a "tournament". They compete because they're driven by whatever it is that drives them: fame, riches, or because it's what's inside them, because they have a real love for what they do. Some try and succeed; some try and find they need to keep trying; some try and quit; some try and die.
Coaches guide or even lead many of these individuals or teams for the same reason(s); those things that drive them. Tell me, then. What coach would continue coaching if after their team was guaranteed a play-off birth, would suddenly just quit playing? Are you going to attempt to convince me, should USC be undefeated at 11-0, they would just play all their back-ups in the final game and save their best for the end? Are you saying if FL & AL were both 12-0 and headed for the SEC title, that at least one of these fine teams would flounder in order to save themselves for a play-off? If AL & Auburn, or OK & TX, or MI & OSU, were all undefeated and playing each other the last game of the regular season, by your argument, why play??? For that matter, riddle me this. Why do teams, which year after year don't win enough games to be bowl eligible, continue to play? Yet, they do.
Ben, I understand what it is you're trying to say. However, utilizing college basketball strategies to argue college football strategies is not talking apples & apples, nor is it talking apples & oranges. It's not even in the same friggen food group. Not to mention, I vehemently disagree with it. In fact I find it outrageously ludicrous.
I do stand with you on one point. Change for change sake is change without wisdom. I for one will not stand for tearing down the current system without at least a few viable substitutes which could replace it. As I once posted in another thread, I recognize the disadvantages with a play-off system. One will not work unless it's well organized, as impartial as any system can be made, and will unequivocally make more money for all concerned than the current system.
I am also personally against the existing bowl tie-ins; not to mention, the limit on teams from one conference which can be bowl eligible. I say eliminate the tie-ins. Let the Top-10 or Top-12 teams as they stand at the end of the regular season be squared off in the Top-5 or 6 bowls. If that means 4 teams from one conference wind up in BCS bowls, so be it. I will not support punishment of good performance. Besides, there are still 30 or 31 other bowls for other teams to play in. If they don't like it, well, as you suggested they might, they can always quit.
Oh, fans, good question. I can't argue fans. There will always be diehard fanatics and fair-weather fans (or if you prefer "band wagoners"). Suffice it to say, those who really love their team, and have the time and money to attend their games will. I wonder how many are out there who really love their team, but either have sufficient time or money or both to attend games. Would that they could. Only then might you see how right or perhaps how wrong you are.
Tom22
· 9 months ago
The BCS pretty much does give us 8 out of the top 10 teams matched up.. sometimes more.
I'm not so sure about number 4 in a conference or even #3 necessarily getting in. At some point I really want to see the top teams in different conferences play each other to sort of weigh in to see whether a conference was overrated or not. Its nice to have the number 3s an 4s in different conferences play each other (even down to 5s) and we really got a lot of that this year.
Personally, seeing how the conferences match up is one of the fun things about bowl season.
Zac
· 9 months ago
Realistically, since 2004, there are 4, or (depending upon how you look at it) 5 teams with a legitimate beef with the BCS. Auburn lost millions by not having a shot at the title in 2004. Wisconsin may not have lost as much in 2006, but they were ranked 7th (lost only to Michigan which lost only to then undefeated OSU) when the Badgers were passed over by #11 Notre Dame. Thanks to that, "Sorry, no more than 2 teams/conference in BCS games" rule, instead of a more lucrative BCS bowl, WI was relegated to the salad bowl. Same year: Undefeated Boise St was told they weren't good enough; yet, they managed to beat Big 12 Champ, Oklahoma.
Going back to 2004, there was this team from Utah, which (like Auburn) went undefeated. They got to play 8-3 Pitt, and it wasn't much of a game. Though the 2004 Utes weren't considered as strong a team as 2006 Boise St, the 2008 Utes were considered superior to the Broncos, and proved superior to then 12-1 Alabama. Oh, and lets not forget that same year; the Big 12 put 3 teams in the Top-10 by seasons end, but only 2 saw the glory of BCS bowls. TX Tech got to play odd-man-out.
My opinion: For every classic match-up the B(c)S has given us, they've given us the ole "silent-but-deadly". I'd just as soon see a committee made up from Clemson_Joe, Gator Hippy, K-Hue, OU-Ron, Ben Prather, Ramblin' Gator, Tiger Ed., Tom Blogical, Tommy Trojan, & WarEagleA to pick the match-ups. Betcha they'd beat the B(c)S selection committee hands down. But I will admit, it sure gives us plenty to talk about.
1Tomcat
· 9 months ago
Zac Sorry man but gots to respond to this- #1 Bois over OU no big deal Texas done beat them that year too as for 08 ya thats right again the so-called big12 champ lost to Texas- Hey I'm not whining or bitching these are the facts- plain & simple- Hey Dude you put Ron on the selection committee and excluded me-bout right- its Okay the Horns are like the Rodney Dangerfeilds of CFB- no respect- got to put on them orange colored glasses to understand Hey Zac I can't help it Hookem-Horns Adios Tomcat
Zac
· 9 months ago
TC, I wasn't excluding anyone (cept myself, if you'll notice). I just wasn't certain how many to put on such a committee. I mean, what did I suggest, 12 guys? OOPS!!! I just counted. Lets include you & Porcine on there, and will get Diggs as an alternate. Sound fair?
By the way, in my opinion it was a big deal that TX beat OK that year. I mean, no matter who wins that match-up, it's a big deal. I also thought it a big deal that OSU was able to win in Austin, and that TX lost at K-St. Boise was a special team that year. I'm just part of the minority that thinks so, is all. And that's fine, big guy, no hard feelings here.
Regan
· 9 months ago
Ben,
People have spoken...
Battlestar Gallactica is the best show ever. Wolverine and Boba Fett are awesome. George W. Bush was Hitler. Playoffs will solve every possible CFB problem with no side effects.
Those few that question the will of the masses will be corrected ad nauseum by those who just know better because it is what they think and they choose not to question the collective will...
LOL...great analysis... :)
Ramblin' Gator
· 9 months ago
Regan,
You damn skippy, Battlestar Galactica IS the best show ever; however... Wolverine and Boba Fett are pussies. George W. Bush was NOT Hitler - that would be Dick Cheney,
...and the BCS is soooooo wonderful. We know this because the media has decided and told us that the BCS is better than playoffs. We should begin petitioning the NCAA RIGHT NOW.
CANCEL MARCH MADNESS, THE SWEET SIXTEEN, AND THE FINAL FOUR!! CANCEL THE COLLEGE WORLD SERIES!!
Sports writers have a better way and they have spoken!!
hrposon
· 9 months ago
RG, Do not cancel the CWS. It's the greatest show on dirt...
1Tomcat
· 9 months ago
I'm lost Regan-Who the heck is Wolverine and Bob Fett? All your bases are belong to us? Thanks Regan-I figured you would chime in on this one-LOL CFB playoffs are going to happen, its just a matter of time. The SI link in Ben's article makes perfect sense- Look its all about the money During the economic crisis- more games mean more money- It certainly will not correct all the the problems, but would stagger T.V. ratings and generate huge amounts of revenue for the insitutions-OK I'll climb down now, because I dont want to be too repetitious in our never ending debate. Question? You like Miami & Tenn Okay for example 1 loss Tenn 1 loss Miami 1 loss OSU 1 loss USC 1 loss Tex 1 loss WV All Conference Champs all 1 loss- who plays for the big one? Throw in a few more top 10 programs with 1 loss and a couple of MWC or WAC undefeated Answer-which system would include Miami & Tenn ? The BCS or playoffs ? BTW you can substitute any teams, just using Tenn & Miami for examples
Zac
· 9 months ago
"Okay for example 1 loss Tenn 1 loss Miami 1 loss OSU 1 loss USC 1 loss Tex 1 loss WV All Conference Champs all 1 loss- who plays for the big one?"
OO!!! OO!!! Pick me; pick me!!! I know the answer to this one!!!!
4 loss Notre Dame!!!!!!!!!!!!
hrposon
· 9 months ago
Good one :-)
Regan
· 9 months ago
As with all things, you'd take the top 2 teams in the BCS and tell them they lucked out. You take the rest and tell them "sorry, but it's your fault you dropped a loss."
Note - I had to deal with this in 2000, when MIA (10-1) beat FSU (10-1) and missed out on a chance to play OU for the title. The 'Canes got the Sugar Bowl and had to make the most of it. Had they beaten WASH, they would have been in the Orange Bowl and played the Sooners. It sucked, but was MIA's fault.
It's when you have 0-Loss TENN, MIA, OSU, SCAL, TEX, and WVU that things get hairy...
1Tomcat
· 9 months ago
Thanks Regan-yes real hairy- BTW that 2000 OU team was really good they whuped the H outa the Horns that year and I took them against the feild and won, real remarkable season for Stoops & Co
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 9 months ago
What the hell is basketball?
hrposon
· 9 months ago
Basketball is a noncontact game of extremely talented individuals that can walk with the ball, push off the opponent to get a better shot and mug the player shooting the ball. The outcome of the game is decided by the referee's whistle, but at least they have a playoff to determine the champion.
1Tomcat
· 9 months ago
hrposon I agree and usually who can draw the most fouls towards the end wins the game and if they dont win its okay because you have 5,056 more games to be played, well I might have exaggerated a little on the amount of games
Regan
· 9 months ago
You forgot to mention the part where it doesn't matter if you win or lose until February and March...
Zac
· 9 months ago
Not quite, ole bean. If you don't put together a wining resume', and if you're not at least 500 in your conference (provided your conference is one of the "Big 6"), U iz at the very least on the bubble. Ya wanna avoid the bubble? Ya gots to win games! Regular season builds the resume' that seeds the teams attending the tournament; not to mention, sends the not-so-lucky "bubble" teams to the NIT. I have to say; that makes season as a whole pretty important. BUT, that's just my opinion.
Now, if'n you're team is in one of those conferences with an automatic bid (provided your team wins its conference's tourney), then and only then can it be said the regular season means nothing. BUT, I don't think tourney winners should be an automatic lock in the "big dance". Again, just my opinion.
I see #3 seeds Louisville, Stanford, Wisconsin, and Xavier with records of: (24-8), (26-7), (29-4), and (27-6). The #3 seeds....averaging just over 6 losses each....
Do we even need to go down to the #12 seeds? George Mason, Temple, Villanova, and W. Kentucky with their records: (23-10), (21-12), (20-12), and (27-6)? That's an average of 10 losses each...
And 12th seed Western Kentucky (27-6) has the same record as 3rd seed Xavier (27-6). If that were CFB, the outcry over one being 3rd seed and the other being 12th seed would lead to whining the likes of which we have never seen!
Tell me that Kentucky (18-12) deserves an 11th seed after winning only 60% of their games. TELL ME THEY HONESTLY HAVE A LEGIT REASON TO BE COMPETING FOR A CHAMPIONSHIP.
Hey, in NCAAB it's possible! Run the table through Feb and March and you can win it ALL....despite losing TWELVE GAMES!!!
Keep that crap away from my beloved CFB.
VTBobb
· 9 months ago
Check my post below that looks at the numbers. "In Football, in order to be COMPARABLE, we would need to expand the season to 32 games, institute a 22 team playoff, with each conference getting an automatic bid for the champion of their conference round robin championship football tournament. Another 10 teams would get at large bids. (Remember, value is a function of supply and demand.)"
hrposon
· 9 months ago
Regan, I don't think that's true. Teams that prepare for doing well in the playoffs tend to schedule good opponents. I wouldn't have brought up basketball but Kevin wanted to know more about the game... Now back to a real game. A playoff of conference champions will inspire a strong OOC schedule because of no elimination games in September. Right now there are only a few teams that can suffer a September loss and still have a chance at the glass football.
Regan
· 9 months ago
A playoff of Conference Champions will promote teams wanting to win their CC Games and scheduling cupcakes OOC to ensure as high a win percentage as possible.
Bash the BCS all you want, but a simple look back will prove that having a high SoS has become important only in the BCS era . Prior to that, no one cared about SoS. Go look. :)
1Tomcat
· 9 months ago
I kinda halfta agree with that when it comes to teams from{BCS] conferences, however in the case of Utah the SOS and the tough OCC games did not help their cause- they did all they could do and no crystal ball. Regan in no way am I a proponent of a BB type tourney for CFB, but I would like to see changes made that would allow teams like 08 Utah a legit shot at Nat Championship
Ramblin' Gator
· 9 months ago
Hmm... Either I'm having technical problems or censorship is alive and well at Fanblogs. Ben? Kevin? Did one of you have an objection to my most recent post or do I need to get a new ISP/computer?
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 9 months ago
Nobody calls Boba Fett that and gets away with it, sir...
Actually, your language automatically landed you in the klink. I bailed you out. I just saw it in there.
Who's Boba Fett anyway? The Star Wars guy? I think the Boba Fett is George W. Bush comparison is more apt...
Ramblin' Gator
· 9 months ago
Thanks for bailing me out. In the future, I'll stick to phonetic spelling. Boba Fett is a poo-see.
OU_Ron
· 9 months ago
Isn't that the french word meaning " push "....think I seen that on a movie once...The Big Red One...;-)
GeauxTigers0107
· 9 months ago
That word is already being used on regular tv. If it isn't censored there..................
Geaux Tigers Geaux SEC
Porcine
· 9 months ago
We need another Peter vs. The Chicken.
VTBobb
· 9 months ago
Ben, talk about devaluing the regular season. From one perspective, if a team does everything right for every game of the season, goes undefeated, but doesn’t have a chance to play for the championship, their entire season meant NOTHING (I said from one perspective, I know, there’s still the competition, striving to be the best, recruiting, etc.). If the “only cost” is not knowing “…who the top two teams are that should play in the championship game,” why even keep score during the season? Why not just have a 12-13 game exhibition season, and everyone vote for 2 teams to play in 1 real game at the end of the season and 60 other teams to play in exhibition bowl games, based on their regular season exhibition games?
1Tomcat
· 9 months ago
VT Bobb good post- the regular seasons importance has already been diminished, because polls & computers determine who pays in the big one. Right now there are 4 big BCS bowls=8 teams adding 2 more big games would not extend the season any and there is a big gap between Thanksgiven and New Years anyway-where's Regan? Hookem-Horns
VTBobb
· 9 months ago
Let’s delve into the basketball tourney/football playoff/regular season impacts analogy. Basketball: -347 Teams -Approx. 32 Games/team/season -32 Conferences ->95% that participates in Conf. Tourneys each year (estimated, anyone want to verify?)
Football: -120 Teams -Approx. 12 Games/team/season -12 Conferences -7-8% maybe?
In Basketball, 18.7% of teams make it into the NCAA Tourney, with over 95% of teams in any given year playing in a tournament that will get them an automatic bid. In Football, in order to be COMPARABLE, we would need to expand the season to 32 games, institute a 22 team playoff, with each conference getting an automatic bid for the champion of their conference round robin championship football tournament. Another 10 teams would get at large bids. (Remember, value is a function of supply and demand.)
Ben, you are absolutely right. That would be horrible and would devalue the regular season games. Of course, I haven’t heard of any proposals that even come close to that kind of a system.
Now, Ben’s argument is that a tournament will hurt the regular season because: 1. Teams will be,”…able to garner an at large bid being in a double elimination tournament starting at the conference level. Other than determining a little bit of seeding the regular season has almost no bearing on the national title at all.” 2. “…with the regular season being cut out of the title chase… Would regular season attendance in college football suffer if the teams are a lock for a tournament?” 3. “Losing a game to avoid a conference championship game and get an extra week to prepare for the national tournament could be a real possibility.”
In Response: 1. First, I don’t think most conferences have double elimination Basketball Tourneys. Second, I’m sure if you compare the pre and post season RPI’s and top 25’s, you will find numerous teams that don't think the regular season ONLY affects seeding. 2. Short of a 22 team playoff with 12 automatic bids, why would a playoff “cut out” the meaning of the regular season games? A meaningless regular season would be like, oh, I don’t know, maybe winning every regular season game, unlike every other team in the country, but not having a chance to play for the NC. 3. Again, unless we get a 22 team playoff with 10 at-large bids, your logic is faulty. Each regular season football game is 8.3% of the season, each basketball game is 3.1%. Even with a 16 team palyoff (which I think would be too large), I can't believe any college would assume they have a bid locked up to the point that they wouldn't give it their best, dropping their winning percentage by the better part of 10%.
My next post will address your “Theory of Diminishing Attendance”.
Ben Prather
· 9 months ago
1) I was counting the conference tournaments as part of a larger national championship tournament. As such a loss in the early conference tournament rounds and not being eliminated from the national championship tournament is a double elimination format.
2) I like it...
3) The comparison is not exact. Period.
Mars
· 9 months ago
BYU will be the MWC #1 seed, because they swept SDSU.
All Comments
Ben, these very questions go to the route of ALL sports. Why are there teams of any kind? Why does man-kind compete so? Historically, sports, specifically the Olympics were a means to avert war. Champions of rivaling lords, dukes, even kings fought in the stead of their liege. To otherwise do one's best often meant one perished.
In the civilized world we now have, such is not the case. Instead of soldiers competing, citizens do. Instead of hearing the cheers of fellow soldiers, they hear the cheers of alumni or people who support the spot in which they compete: citizens and armed servicemen alike. They don't compete just because there's a "tournament". They compete because they're driven by whatever it is that drives them: fame, riches, or because it's what's inside them, because they have a real love for what they do. Some try and succeed; some try and find they need to keep trying; some try and quit; some try and die.
Coaches guide or even lead many of these individuals or teams for the same reason(s); those things that drive them. Tell me, then. What coach would continue coaching if after their team was guaranteed a play-off birth, would suddenly just quit playing? Are you going to attempt to convince me, should USC be undefeated at 11-0, they would just play all their back-ups in the final game and save their best for the end? Are you saying if FL & AL were both 12-0 and headed for the SEC title, that at least one of these fine teams would flounder in order to save themselves for a play-off? If AL & Auburn, or OK & TX, or MI & OSU, were all undefeated and playing each other the last game of the regular season, by your argument, why play??? For that matter, riddle me this. Why do teams, which year after year don't win enough games to be bowl eligible, continue to play? Yet, they do.
Ben, I understand what it is you're trying to say. However, utilizing college basketball strategies to argue college football strategies is not talking apples & apples, nor is it talking apples & oranges. It's not even in the same friggen food group. Not to mention, I vehemently disagree with it. In fact I find it outrageously ludicrous.
I do stand with you on one point. Change for change sake is change without wisdom. I for one will not stand for tearing down the current system without at least a few viable substitutes which could replace it. As I once posted in another thread, I recognize the disadvantages with a play-off system. One will not work unless it's well organized, as impartial as any system can be made, and will unequivocally make more money for all concerned than the current system.
I am also personally against the existing bowl tie-ins; not to mention, the limit on teams from one conference which can be bowl eligible. I say eliminate the tie-ins. Let the Top-10 or Top-12 teams as they stand at the end of the regular season be squared off in the Top-5 or 6 bowls. If that means 4 teams from one conference wind up in BCS bowls, so be it. I will not support punishment of good performance. Besides, there are still 30 or 31 other bowls for other teams to play in. If they don't like it, well, as you suggested they might, they can always quit.
Oh, fans, good question. I can't argue fans. There will always be diehard fanatics and fair-weather fans (or if you prefer "band wagoners"). Suffice it to say, those who really love their team, and have the time and money to attend their games will. I wonder how many are out there who really love their team, but either have sufficient time or money or both to attend games. Would that they could. Only then might you see how right or perhaps how wrong you are.
I'm not so sure about number 4 in a conference or even #3 necessarily getting in. At some point I really want to see the top teams in different conferences play each other to sort of weigh in to see whether a conference was overrated or not. Its nice to have the number 3s an 4s in different conferences play each other (even down to 5s) and we really got a lot of that this year.
Personally, seeing how the conferences match up is one of the fun things about bowl season.
Going back to 2004, there was this team from Utah, which (like Auburn) went undefeated. They got to play 8-3 Pitt, and it wasn't much of a game. Though the 2004 Utes weren't considered as strong a team as 2006 Boise St, the 2008 Utes were considered superior to the Broncos, and proved superior to then 12-1 Alabama. Oh, and lets not forget that same year; the Big 12 put 3 teams in the Top-10 by seasons end, but only 2 saw the glory of BCS bowls. TX Tech got to play odd-man-out.
My opinion: For every classic match-up the B(c)S has given us, they've given us the ole "silent-but-deadly". I'd just as soon see a committee made up from Clemson_Joe, Gator Hippy, K-Hue, OU-Ron, Ben Prather, Ramblin' Gator, Tiger Ed., Tom Blogical, Tommy Trojan, & WarEagleA to pick the match-ups. Betcha they'd beat the B(c)S selection committee hands down. But I will admit, it sure gives us plenty to talk about.
Hey Zac I can't help it
Hookem-Horns
Adios Tomcat
By the way, in my opinion it was a big deal that TX beat OK that year. I mean, no matter who wins that match-up, it's a big deal. I also thought it a big deal that OSU was able to win in Austin, and that TX lost at K-St. Boise was a special team that year. I'm just part of the minority that thinks so, is all. And that's fine, big guy, no hard feelings here.
People have spoken...
Battlestar Gallactica is the best show ever.
Wolverine and Boba Fett are awesome.
George W. Bush was Hitler.
Playoffs will solve every possible CFB problem with no side effects.
Those few that question the will of the masses will be corrected ad nauseum by those who just know better because it is what they think and they choose not to question the collective will...
LOL...great analysis... :)
You damn skippy, Battlestar Galactica IS the best show ever; however...
Wolverine and Boba Fett are pussies.
George W. Bush was NOT Hitler - that would be Dick Cheney,
...and the BCS is soooooo wonderful. We know this because the media has decided and told us that the BCS is better than playoffs. We should begin petitioning the NCAA RIGHT NOW.
CANCEL MARCH MADNESS, THE SWEET SIXTEEN, AND THE FINAL FOUR!!
CANCEL THE COLLEGE WORLD SERIES!!
Sports writers have a better way and they have spoken!!
All your bases are belong to us?
Thanks Regan-I figured you would chime in on this one-LOL
CFB playoffs are going to happen, its just a matter of time.
The SI link in Ben's article makes perfect sense- Look its all about the money
During the economic crisis- more games mean more money- It certainly will not correct all the the problems, but would stagger T.V. ratings and generate huge amounts of revenue for the insitutions-OK I'll climb down now, because I dont want to be too repetitious in our never ending debate.
Question? You like Miami & Tenn
Okay for example
1 loss Tenn
1 loss Miami
1 loss OSU
1 loss USC
1 loss Tex
1 loss WV
All Conference Champs all 1 loss- who plays for the big one?
Throw in a few more top 10 programs with 1 loss and a couple of MWC or WAC undefeated
Answer-which system would include Miami & Tenn ? The BCS or playoffs ?
BTW you can substitute any teams, just using Tenn & Miami for examples
1 loss Tenn
1 loss Miami
1 loss OSU
1 loss USC
1 loss Tex
1 loss WV
All Conference Champs all 1 loss- who plays for the big one?"
OO!!! OO!!! Pick me; pick me!!! I know the answer to this one!!!!
4 loss Notre Dame!!!!!!!!!!!!
Note - I had to deal with this in 2000, when MIA (10-1) beat FSU (10-1) and missed out on a chance to play OU for the title. The 'Canes got the Sugar Bowl and had to make the most of it. Had they beaten WASH, they would have been in the Orange Bowl and played the Sooners. It sucked, but was MIA's fault.
It's when you have 0-Loss TENN, MIA, OSU, SCAL, TEX, and WVU that things get hairy...
Now, if'n you're team is in one of those conferences with an automatic bid (provided your team wins its conference's tourney), then and only then can it be said the regular season means nothing. BUT, I don't think tourney winners should be an automatic lock in the "big dance". Again, just my opinion.
I see #3 seeds Louisville, Stanford, Wisconsin, and Xavier with records of: (24-8), (26-7), (29-4), and (27-6). The #3 seeds....averaging just over 6 losses each....
Do we even need to go down to the #12 seeds? George Mason, Temple, Villanova, and W. Kentucky with their records: (23-10), (21-12), (20-12), and (27-6)? That's an average of 10 losses each...
And 12th seed Western Kentucky (27-6) has the same record as 3rd seed Xavier (27-6). If that were CFB, the outcry over one being 3rd seed and the other being 12th seed would lead to whining the likes of which we have never seen!
Tell me that Kentucky (18-12) deserves an 11th seed after winning only 60% of their games. TELL ME THEY HONESTLY HAVE A LEGIT REASON TO BE COMPETING FOR A CHAMPIONSHIP.
Hey, in NCAAB it's possible! Run the table through Feb and March and you can win it ALL....despite losing TWELVE GAMES!!!
Keep that crap away from my beloved CFB.
Now back to a real game. A playoff of conference champions will inspire a strong OOC schedule because of no elimination games in September. Right now there are only a few teams that can suffer a September loss and still have a chance at the glass football.
Bash the BCS all you want, but a simple look back will prove that having a high SoS has become important only in the BCS era . Prior to that, no one cared about SoS. Go look. :)
Actually, your language automatically landed you in the klink. I bailed you out. I just saw it in there.
Who's Boba Fett anyway? The Star Wars guy? I think the Boba Fett is George W. Bush comparison is more apt...
Geaux Tigers
Geaux SEC
Right now there are 4 big BCS bowls=8 teams adding 2 more big games would not extend the season any and there is a big gap between Thanksgiven and New Years anyway-where's Regan? Hookem-Horns
Basketball:
-347 Teams
-Approx. 32 Games/team/season
-32 Conferences
->95% that participates in Conf. Tourneys each year (estimated, anyone want to verify?)
Football:
-120 Teams
-Approx. 12 Games/team/season
-12 Conferences
-7-8% maybe?
In Basketball, 18.7% of teams make it into the NCAA Tourney, with over 95% of teams in any given year playing in a tournament that will get them an automatic bid. In Football, in order to be COMPARABLE, we would need to expand the season to 32 games, institute a 22 team playoff, with each conference getting an automatic bid for the champion of their conference round robin championship football tournament. Another 10 teams would get at large bids. (Remember, value is a function of supply and demand.)
Ben, you are absolutely right. That would be horrible and would devalue the regular season games. Of course, I haven’t heard of any proposals that even come close to that kind of a system.
Now, Ben’s argument is that a tournament will hurt the regular season because:
1. Teams will be,”…able to garner an at large bid being in a double elimination tournament starting at the conference level. Other than determining a little bit of seeding the regular season has almost no bearing on the national title at all.”
2. “…with the regular season being cut out of the title chase… Would regular season attendance in college football suffer if the teams are a lock for a tournament?”
3. “Losing a game to avoid a conference championship game and get an extra week to prepare for the national tournament could be a real possibility.”
In Response:
1. First, I don’t think most conferences have double elimination Basketball Tourneys. Second, I’m sure if you compare the pre and post season RPI’s and top 25’s, you will find numerous teams that don't think the regular season ONLY affects seeding.
2. Short of a 22 team playoff with 12 automatic bids, why would a playoff “cut out” the meaning of the regular season games? A meaningless regular season would be like, oh, I don’t know, maybe winning every regular season game, unlike every other team in the country, but not having a chance to play for the NC.
3. Again, unless we get a 22 team playoff with 10 at-large bids, your logic is faulty. Each regular season football game is 8.3% of the season, each basketball game is 3.1%. Even with a 16 team palyoff (which I think would be too large), I can't believe any college would assume they have a bid locked up to the point that they wouldn't give it their best, dropping their winning percentage by the better part of 10%.
My next post will address your “Theory of Diminishing Attendance”.
2) I like it...
3) The comparison is not exact. Period.