12-10-2015, 11:06 PM
Getting into the playoffs is only marginally a beauty pageant (basically the 4th playoff spot in some cases); most cases it's win your conference and have fewer losses than at least one other conference winner or play a harder schedule than another conference winner if you are tied with another conference winner for most losses. Then the rules are pretty straightfoward; win the semi-finals and finals.
Plus there are plenty of compelling games as it is. You don't think the Rose Bowl qualifies as an "important and evenly matched game"? Isn't Ohio State/Notre Dame in the Fiesta? I'd like to see more compelling non-conference match-ups in the early season (USC/Alabama should be good) and wish more teams would schedule like we do, but that's not something that playoffs fix, and instead of expanding playoffs, I wish television would push to have better pre-season matchups (for example, I would love to have a Pac-12/SEC challenge)
And every sport has its share of idiosyncrasies. The rules are set for the NFL, but they mean that there is a very good chance that a team from the NFC East with a losing record will make it into the playoffs (there's a chance that the AFC South winner will too). Plus, an NFL playoff spot could come down to a coin toss (http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures).
Because the NCAA basketball tournament is a single elimination tournament, it routinely produces upsets. Many people consider that a feature and not a bug (I know I do enjoy a good cinderella story), but it is an idiosyncrasy of the way NCAA basketball works. You can have a dominant undefeated regular season and lose to an eight seed that underachieved all year in the second round. Nor is it any less of a beauty pageant, since every year we hear about the last four in and first four out, as well as whether team X got screwed in their seed, or got screwed by getting shipped three time zones away. I like the NCAA basketball tournament for basketball, but I don't want to see it for football.
Soccer has its own weird things; arguably games shouldn't be decided on penalty kicks, which are completely different from the rest of the game.
The arguments seem to be:
1) Every one else has a playoff.
To which I respond, so what? The bowl system is great because it offers a reward to teams that have a good season, which is really what this is about. A single post-season game (for most teams) offers fans a great way to travel to support their team over the winter break at (mostly) warm weather destinations. The fact you need to be perfect or nearly perfect to make it into the playoffs (or, back in the day, the BCS title game) means that every regular season game is important.
2) There isn't a perfectly defined path to the playoff.
To which I respond that for all intents and purposes, there is. Any Power-5 team with a perfect record will be there except in the most unlikely of situations. With one loss, you better win your conference title and have a challenging schedule. With more than one loss, you are at the whims of other teams.
BC
Plus there are plenty of compelling games as it is. You don't think the Rose Bowl qualifies as an "important and evenly matched game"? Isn't Ohio State/Notre Dame in the Fiesta? I'd like to see more compelling non-conference match-ups in the early season (USC/Alabama should be good) and wish more teams would schedule like we do, but that's not something that playoffs fix, and instead of expanding playoffs, I wish television would push to have better pre-season matchups (for example, I would love to have a Pac-12/SEC challenge)
And every sport has its share of idiosyncrasies. The rules are set for the NFL, but they mean that there is a very good chance that a team from the NFC East with a losing record will make it into the playoffs (there's a chance that the AFC South winner will too). Plus, an NFL playoff spot could come down to a coin toss (http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures).
Because the NCAA basketball tournament is a single elimination tournament, it routinely produces upsets. Many people consider that a feature and not a bug (I know I do enjoy a good cinderella story), but it is an idiosyncrasy of the way NCAA basketball works. You can have a dominant undefeated regular season and lose to an eight seed that underachieved all year in the second round. Nor is it any less of a beauty pageant, since every year we hear about the last four in and first four out, as well as whether team X got screwed in their seed, or got screwed by getting shipped three time zones away. I like the NCAA basketball tournament for basketball, but I don't want to see it for football.
Soccer has its own weird things; arguably games shouldn't be decided on penalty kicks, which are completely different from the rest of the game.
The arguments seem to be:
1) Every one else has a playoff.
To which I respond, so what? The bowl system is great because it offers a reward to teams that have a good season, which is really what this is about. A single post-season game (for most teams) offers fans a great way to travel to support their team over the winter break at (mostly) warm weather destinations. The fact you need to be perfect or nearly perfect to make it into the playoffs (or, back in the day, the BCS title game) means that every regular season game is important.
2) There isn't a perfectly defined path to the playoff.
To which I respond that for all intents and purposes, there is. Any Power-5 team with a perfect record will be there except in the most unlikely of situations. With one loss, you better win your conference title and have a challenging schedule. With more than one loss, you are at the whims of other teams.
BC