[Mick]

That's three BCS Bowl Games and the underdog has won all three.

Funny...I was looking at the NFL playoffs, and with the exception of the Bengals, I like the underdogs in all three...I like the Pack in the cold especially with Rodgers and their receivers against a deteriorating SF secondary, I like Luck versus Smith (and his rapidly deteriorating defense over the second half of the season) and I like Drew Brees big time against Philly's crap defense and Boles.

[Mick]

That's three BCS Bowl Games and the underdog has won all three.

Funny...I was looking at the NFL playoffs, and with the exception of the Bengals, I like the underdogs in all three...I like the Pack in the cold especially with Rodgers and their receivers against a deteriorating SF secondary, I like Luck versus Smith (and his rapidly deteriorating defense over the second half of the season) and I like Drew Brees big time against Philly's crap defense and Boles.

[Nan3cy]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9325.msg80546#msg80546 date=1388727195]
That's three BCS Bowl Games and the underdog has won all three.

Stanford was the favorite who lost by the fewest points and was closest to winning. 

Doesn't make the Rose Bowl loss less frustrating, but Alabama's loss certainly helps in the perception war that will determine who the top 4 teams are in the 4-team playoff.  Of course, it also shows the sheer folly of having only four teams in a playoff.

Actually, to me it shows the folly of having a playoff at all.  The idea that you can determine the "best" team by a single elimination playoff is ludicrous.  You will get years where the fourth best team, the one that arguably should have been left off altogether, wins the whole thing.  Then all a National Championship means is that you were one of the best four teams in the country, and then finished your season with two consecutive wins.

BC
[/quote]

Like the year that Arizona won the NCAA basketball championship after finishing fifth (!) in the Pac-10 during the season (no Pac-10 tournament at that time, IIRC).

[Nan3cy]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9325.msg80546#msg80546 date=1388727195]
That's three BCS Bowl Games and the underdog has won all three.

Stanford was the favorite who lost by the fewest points and was closest to winning. 

Doesn't make the Rose Bowl loss less frustrating, but Alabama's loss certainly helps in the perception war that will determine who the top 4 teams are in the 4-team playoff.  Of course, it also shows the sheer folly of having only four teams in a playoff.

Actually, to me it shows the folly of having a playoff at all.  The idea that you can determine the "best" team by a single elimination playoff is ludicrous.  You will get years where the fourth best team, the one that arguably should have been left off altogether, wins the whole thing.  Then all a National Championship means is that you were one of the best four teams in the country, and then finished your season with two consecutive wins.

BC
[/quote]

Like the year that Arizona won the NCAA basketball championship after finishing fifth (!) in the Pac-10 during the season (no Pac-10 tournament at that time, IIRC).

[Nan3cy]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9325.msg80546#msg80546 date=1388727195]
That's three BCS Bowl Games and the underdog has won all three.

Stanford was the favorite who lost by the fewest points and was closest to winning. 

Doesn't make the Rose Bowl loss less frustrating, but Alabama's loss certainly helps in the perception war that will determine who the top 4 teams are in the 4-team playoff.  Of course, it also shows the sheer folly of having only four teams in a playoff.

Actually, to me it shows the folly of having a playoff at all.  The idea that you can determine the "best" team by a single elimination playoff is ludicrous.  You will get years where the fourth best team, the one that arguably should have been left off altogether, wins the whole thing.  Then all a National Championship means is that you were one of the best four teams in the country, and then finished your season with two consecutive wins.

BC
[/quote]

Like the year that Arizona won the NCAA basketball championship after finishing fifth (!) in the Pac-10 during the season (no Pac-10 tournament at that time, IIRC).

[Nan3cy]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9325.msg80546#msg80546 date=1388727195]
That's three BCS Bowl Games and the underdog has won all three.

Stanford was the favorite who lost by the fewest points and was closest to winning. 

Doesn't make the Rose Bowl loss less frustrating, but Alabama's loss certainly helps in the perception war that will determine who the top 4 teams are in the 4-team playoff.  Of course, it also shows the sheer folly of having only four teams in a playoff.

Actually, to me it shows the folly of having a playoff at all.  The idea that you can determine the "best" team by a single elimination playoff is ludicrous.  You will get years where the fourth best team, the one that arguably should have been left off altogether, wins the whole thing.  Then all a National Championship means is that you were one of the best four teams in the country, and then finished your season with two consecutive wins.

BC
[/quote]

Like the year that Arizona won the NCAA basketball championship after finishing fifth (!) in the Pac-10 during the season (no Pac-10 tournament at that time, IIRC).

[Leftcoast]

For anyone saying that Arizona team didn't earn their championship keep in mind the 1997 Wildcats beat three #1 seeds and storied programs to claim it, Kansas, North Carolina and Kentucky.

[Leftcoast]

For anyone saying that Arizona team didn't earn their championship keep in mind the 1997 Wildcats beat three #1 seeds and storied programs to claim it, Kansas, North Carolina and Kentucky.

[Leftcoast]

For anyone saying that Arizona team didn't earn their championship keep in mind the 1997 Wildcats beat three #1 seeds and storied programs to claim it, Kansas, North Carolina and Kentucky.

[Leftcoast]

For anyone saying that Arizona team didn't earn their championship keep in mind the 1997 Wildcats beat three #1 seeds and storied programs to claim it, Kansas, North Carolina and Kentucky.

[stupac2]

I think what you do is you just define the best team as the team that wins the playoffs. Otherwise, since everyone will have their own definition, it will be  impossible to reach agreement.

Well, that's just tautological. Who's the best team? The one that won the playoffs. Why are they the best team? Because the won the playoffs. It's begging the question, and I think you can also take a cursory examination and show that any reasonable (and non-tautological) definition of "best team" makes it clear that the best team won't always win. Football is a probabilistic game, and the better team doesn't always win.

[stupac2]

I think what you do is you just define the best team as the team that wins the playoffs. Otherwise, since everyone will have their own definition, it will be  impossible to reach agreement.

Well, that's just tautological. Who's the best team? The one that won the playoffs. Why are they the best team? Because the won the playoffs. It's begging the question, and I think you can also take a cursory examination and show that any reasonable (and non-tautological) definition of "best team" makes it clear that the best team won't always win. Football is a probabilistic game, and the better team doesn't always win.

[stupac2]

I think what you do is you just define the best team as the team that wins the playoffs. Otherwise, since everyone will have their own definition, it will be  impossible to reach agreement.

Well, that's just tautological. Who's the best team? The one that won the playoffs. Why are they the best team? Because the won the playoffs. It's begging the question, and I think you can also take a cursory examination and show that any reasonable (and non-tautological) definition of "best team" makes it clear that the best team won't always win. Football is a probabilistic game, and the better team doesn't always win.

[stupac2]

I think what you do is you just define the best team as the team that wins the playoffs. Otherwise, since everyone will have their own definition, it will be  impossible to reach agreement.

Well, that's just tautological. Who's the best team? The one that won the playoffs. Why are they the best team? Because the won the playoffs. It's begging the question, and I think you can also take a cursory examination and show that any reasonable (and non-tautological) definition of "best team" makes it clear that the best team won't always win. Football is a probabilistic game, and the better team doesn't always win.

[washingtonismoney]

March Madness is too large and should be contracted to 32 or perhaps even 16 teams. That doesn't invalidate the concept of a college football playoff (though four will often be too small.) I prefer too small to too large, as it helps bolster the drama and meaning of games in the regular season.

[washingtonismoney]

March Madness is too large and should be contracted to 32 or perhaps even 16 teams. That doesn't invalidate the concept of a college football playoff (though four will often be too small.) I prefer too small to too large, as it helps bolster the drama and meaning of games in the regular season.

[washingtonismoney]

March Madness is too large and should be contracted to 32 or perhaps even 16 teams. That doesn't invalidate the concept of a college football playoff (though four will often be too small.) I prefer too small to too large, as it helps bolster the drama and meaning of games in the regular season.

[washingtonismoney]

March Madness is too large and should be contracted to 32 or perhaps even 16 teams. That doesn't invalidate the concept of a college football playoff (though four will often be too small.) I prefer too small to too large, as it helps bolster the drama and meaning of games in the regular season.

[BostonCard]

does this mean you are dissatisfied with NFL playoffs?

It means I don't care about the NFL playoffs.

BC

[BostonCard]

does this mean you are dissatisfied with NFL playoffs?

It means I don't care about the NFL playoffs.

BC

[BostonCard]

does this mean you are dissatisfied with NFL playoffs?

It means I don't care about the NFL playoffs.

BC

[BostonCard]

does this mean you are dissatisfied with NFL playoffs?

It means I don't care about the NFL playoffs.

BC

[ChicagoCard]

In keeping with the spirit of this thread, here is an optimistic view of the future from an AP writer. (same article on MLive.com)

[ChicagoCard]

In keeping with the spirit of this thread, here is an optimistic view of the future from an AP writer. (same article on MLive.com)

[ChicagoCard]

In keeping with the spirit of this thread, here is an optimistic view of the future from an AP writer. (same article on MLive.com)

[ChicagoCard]

In keeping with the spirit of this thread, here is an optimistic view of the future from an AP writer. (same article on MLive.com)

[BostonCard]

The idea that there's any way to meaningfully determine the best team is laughable. It's just not a well defined term. In college football, with its wildly different schedules, especially so. Because of this, playoffs are pretty much universally used to crown champions. That's the argument for a playoff. Sometimes the last seed will win, most of the time it won't. So what? It did what it took to win once the field was completely level.

This is why I liked the pre-BCS system.  It inherently acknowledged that determining the "best" team is an inexact exercise, and allowed for such things as split national titles.  It emphasized accomplishing set goals (such as winning your conference to go the Rose Bowl) rather than doing what is necessary to get to the playoffs and winning however many games you need to win to become a national champion.

The problem is that people don't like dealing with ambiguity. The playoff system will produce an unambiguous national champion (save for close games with some questionable calls).  I get that people like that, and television channels will pay big bucks to show those games, and that my views, while not unheard of, fall along the "vocal minority".  I recognize that there is no going back to the old way. But I do find the argument that a playoff is the best way to find the best team to be ludicrous.

If you really want to maximize your chance of identifying the best team with a 12 to 14 game schedule, the best way is a modified Swiss, where each week's opponents are based on prior results, trying to match up similar teams.  It is a logistical impossibility, however.  The NCAA, however, can do a much better job of "encouraging" teams and conferences to set up match ups that help determining the "best team", by, for example, encouraging conferences to go to 9-game schedules, and discouraging teams from setting up cupcake non-conference schedules.

BC

[BostonCard]

The idea that there's any way to meaningfully determine the best team is laughable. It's just not a well defined term. In college football, with its wildly different schedules, especially so. Because of this, playoffs are pretty much universally used to crown champions. That's the argument for a playoff. Sometimes the last seed will win, most of the time it won't. So what? It did what it took to win once the field was completely level.

This is why I liked the pre-BCS system.  It inherently acknowledged that determining the "best" team is an inexact exercise, and allowed for such things as split national titles.  It emphasized accomplishing set goals (such as winning your conference to go the Rose Bowl) rather than doing what is necessary to get to the playoffs and winning however many games you need to win to become a national champion.

The problem is that people don't like dealing with ambiguity. The playoff system will produce an unambiguous national champion (save for close games with some questionable calls).  I get that people like that, and television channels will pay big bucks to show those games, and that my views, while not unheard of, fall along the "vocal minority".  I recognize that there is no going back to the old way. But I do find the argument that a playoff is the best way to find the best team to be ludicrous.

If you really want to maximize your chance of identifying the best team with a 12 to 14 game schedule, the best way is a modified Swiss, where each week's opponents are based on prior results, trying to match up similar teams.  It is a logistical impossibility, however.  The NCAA, however, can do a much better job of "encouraging" teams and conferences to set up match ups that help determining the "best team", by, for example, encouraging conferences to go to 9-game schedules, and discouraging teams from setting up cupcake non-conference schedules.

BC

[BostonCard]

The idea that there's any way to meaningfully determine the best team is laughable. It's just not a well defined term. In college football, with its wildly different schedules, especially so. Because of this, playoffs are pretty much universally used to crown champions. That's the argument for a playoff. Sometimes the last seed will win, most of the time it won't. So what? It did what it took to win once the field was completely level.

This is why I liked the pre-BCS system.  It inherently acknowledged that determining the "best" team is an inexact exercise, and allowed for such things as split national titles.  It emphasized accomplishing set goals (such as winning your conference to go the Rose Bowl) rather than doing what is necessary to get to the playoffs and winning however many games you need to win to become a national champion.

The problem is that people don't like dealing with ambiguity. The playoff system will produce an unambiguous national champion (save for close games with some questionable calls).  I get that people like that, and television channels will pay big bucks to show those games, and that my views, while not unheard of, fall along the "vocal minority".  I recognize that there is no going back to the old way. But I do find the argument that a playoff is the best way to find the best team to be ludicrous.

If you really want to maximize your chance of identifying the best team with a 12 to 14 game schedule, the best way is a modified Swiss, where each week's opponents are based on prior results, trying to match up similar teams.  It is a logistical impossibility, however.  The NCAA, however, can do a much better job of "encouraging" teams and conferences to set up match ups that help determining the "best team", by, for example, encouraging conferences to go to 9-game schedules, and discouraging teams from setting up cupcake non-conference schedules.

BC

[BostonCard]

The idea that there's any way to meaningfully determine the best team is laughable. It's just not a well defined term. In college football, with its wildly different schedules, especially so. Because of this, playoffs are pretty much universally used to crown champions. That's the argument for a playoff. Sometimes the last seed will win, most of the time it won't. So what? It did what it took to win once the field was completely level.

This is why I liked the pre-BCS system.  It inherently acknowledged that determining the "best" team is an inexact exercise, and allowed for such things as split national titles.  It emphasized accomplishing set goals (such as winning your conference to go the Rose Bowl) rather than doing what is necessary to get to the playoffs and winning however many games you need to win to become a national champion.

The problem is that people don't like dealing with ambiguity. The playoff system will produce an unambiguous national champion (save for close games with some questionable calls).  I get that people like that, and television channels will pay big bucks to show those games, and that my views, while not unheard of, fall along the "vocal minority".  I recognize that there is no going back to the old way. But I do find the argument that a playoff is the best way to find the best team to be ludicrous.

If you really want to maximize your chance of identifying the best team with a 12 to 14 game schedule, the best way is a modified Swiss, where each week's opponents are based on prior results, trying to match up similar teams.  It is a logistical impossibility, however.  The NCAA, however, can do a much better job of "encouraging" teams and conferences to set up match ups that help determining the "best team", by, for example, encouraging conferences to go to 9-game schedules, and discouraging teams from setting up cupcake non-conference schedules.

BC

[fullmetal]

I agree with BC--I prefer the ambiguity of the bowl system (despite its corruption by money).  It's just college football...let's try not to put it on a higher pedestal than it's already at.

[fullmetal]

I agree with BC--I prefer the ambiguity of the bowl system (despite its corruption by money).  It's just college football...let's try not to put it on a higher pedestal than it's already at.

[fullmetal]

I agree with BC--I prefer the ambiguity of the bowl system (despite its corruption by money).  It's just college football...let's try not to put it on a higher pedestal than it's already at.

[fullmetal]

I agree with BC--I prefer the ambiguity of the bowl system (despite its corruption by money).  It's just college football...let's try not to put it on a higher pedestal than it's already at.

[stupac2]

But I do find the argument that a playoff is the best way to find the best team to be ludicrous.

Is anyone making that argument? The argument for a playoff is that literally every other sport that decides a champion does it by some kind of playoff system. There are lots of different ways of doing it, but Div-1A CFB is the only one that has totally eschewed it. I think it makes sense because it'll produce some really awesome games that we'll all want to watch, while giving more teams a chance at actually winning it in a given year.

I mean, if, say, women's tennis were done the way the BCS is, Stanford's national title streak would have stopped last year. I find it sort of hard to believe that anyone here would be convinced by any argument that women's tennis should switch to a poll method because the best team didn't win the playoff.

[stupac2]

But I do find the argument that a playoff is the best way to find the best team to be ludicrous.

Is anyone making that argument? The argument for a playoff is that literally every other sport that decides a champion does it by some kind of playoff system. There are lots of different ways of doing it, but Div-1A CFB is the only one that has totally eschewed it. I think it makes sense because it'll produce some really awesome games that we'll all want to watch, while giving more teams a chance at actually winning it in a given year.

I mean, if, say, women's tennis were done the way the BCS is, Stanford's national title streak would have stopped last year. I find it sort of hard to believe that anyone here would be convinced by any argument that women's tennis should switch to a poll method because the best team didn't win the playoff.

[stupac2]

But I do find the argument that a playoff is the best way to find the best team to be ludicrous.

Is anyone making that argument? The argument for a playoff is that literally every other sport that decides a champion does it by some kind of playoff system. There are lots of different ways of doing it, but Div-1A CFB is the only one that has totally eschewed it. I think it makes sense because it'll produce some really awesome games that we'll all want to watch, while giving more teams a chance at actually winning it in a given year.

I mean, if, say, women's tennis were done the way the BCS is, Stanford's national title streak would have stopped last year. I find it sort of hard to believe that anyone here would be convinced by any argument that women's tennis should switch to a poll method because the best team didn't win the playoff.

[stupac2]

But I do find the argument that a playoff is the best way to find the best team to be ludicrous.

Is anyone making that argument? The argument for a playoff is that literally every other sport that decides a champion does it by some kind of playoff system. There are lots of different ways of doing it, but Div-1A CFB is the only one that has totally eschewed it. I think it makes sense because it'll produce some really awesome games that we'll all want to watch, while giving more teams a chance at actually winning it in a given year.

I mean, if, say, women's tennis were done the way the BCS is, Stanford's national title streak would have stopped last year. I find it sort of hard to believe that anyone here would be convinced by any argument that women's tennis should switch to a poll method because the best team didn't win the playoff.

[BostonCard]

There are lots of ways to determine champions that don't involve playoffs.  In golf, match play is the exception rather than the rule, though obviously golf is different than sports where opponents play each other.  But boxing also does not have some sort of championship.  Professional baseball, basketball, and hockey all use best 3 out of 5 or 4 out of 7 rather than single elimination tournaments. College baseball uses a double elimination format.  Even in tennis, while a given tournament uses a single elimination format, the "best player" is not determined that way, but rather based on the cumulative results over the prior year.

I don't think that "every other sport" does it is a good reason for football to do it.  For one, in football you are limited by the number of games you can play.  Multi-game rounded tournaments (NBA, NHL, etc.) are better at determining the better team than a single elimination tournament, but you can't do "best three out of five" football games.  Secondly, there is a much stronger conference tradition in college football than in other sports (though that is being eroded quickly).  Hypothetically, a nine game round-robin among 10 teams is a pretty good way to determine the best team in a conference, and historically, being a conference champion was as much a goal as winning a national championship (and the bowl game was the reward, not just another game in achieving some larger ambition).

The best argument you have is that it will produce some awesome games that many people will want to watch, and that's a perfectly fine argument that is broadly shared; it simply doesn't sway me.  But as I said, I probably fall in the realm of "vocal minority".

BC

[BostonCard]

There are lots of ways to determine champions that don't involve playoffs.  In golf, match play is the exception rather than the rule, though obviously golf is different than sports where opponents play each other.  But boxing also does not have some sort of championship.  Professional baseball, basketball, and hockey all use best 3 out of 5 or 4 out of 7 rather than single elimination tournaments. College baseball uses a double elimination format.  Even in tennis, while a given tournament uses a single elimination format, the "best player" is not determined that way, but rather based on the cumulative results over the prior year.

I don't think that "every other sport" does it is a good reason for football to do it.  For one, in football you are limited by the number of games you can play.  Multi-game rounded tournaments (NBA, NHL, etc.) are better at determining the better team than a single elimination tournament, but you can't do "best three out of five" football games.  Secondly, there is a much stronger conference tradition in college football than in other sports (though that is being eroded quickly).  Hypothetically, a nine game round-robin among 10 teams is a pretty good way to determine the best team in a conference, and historically, being a conference champion was as much a goal as winning a national championship (and the bowl game was the reward, not just another game in achieving some larger ambition).

The best argument you have is that it will produce some awesome games that many people will want to watch, and that's a perfectly fine argument that is broadly shared; it simply doesn't sway me.  But as I said, I probably fall in the realm of "vocal minority".

BC