Fanblogs.com - Latest Comments in How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

Ben Prather — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 23:37:03 -0000

Yeah, our two road losses drop us a tad.

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

Ben Prather — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 23:36:22 -0000

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.

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

1Tomcat — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:17:28 -0000

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

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

VTBobb — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:30:02 -0000

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.)"

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

Regan — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:12:22 -0000

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. :)

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

Regan — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:08:57 -0000

Well, let's look at last year's brackets: http://campusgrotto.com/ima...

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.

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

hrposon — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:26:05 -0000

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.

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

Zac — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:55:34 -0000

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.

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

Mars — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:43:16 -0000

BYU will be the MWC #1 seed, because they swept SDSU.

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

Zac — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:09:25 -0000

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.

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

1Tomcat — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:18:43 -0000

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

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

Regan — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:02:19 -0000

You forgot to mention the part where it doesn't matter if you win or lose until February and March...

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

Regan — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:01:17 -0000

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...

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

1Tomcat — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:33:25 -0000

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

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

VTBobb — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:35:56 -0000

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”.

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

VTBobb — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:10:44 -0000

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?

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

1Tomcat — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 02:58:47 -0000

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

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

hrposon — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:21:01 -0000

Good one :-)

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

Zac — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:21:57 -0000

"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!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

GeauxTigers0107 — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:32:41 -0000

That word is already being used on regular tv. If it isn't censored there..................

Geaux Tigers
Geaux SEC

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

1Tomcat — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:48:31 -0000

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

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

Porcine — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:51:44 -0000

We need another Peter vs. The Chicken.

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

hrposon — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:30:05 -0000

RG, Do not cancel the CWS. It's the greatest show on dirt...

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

hrposon — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:24:32 -0000

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.

Re: How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

Zac — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:54:03 -0000

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.