The Faustian Playoff Proposition

[TideEngineer08]

Krazy, I feel sorry for you. This is coming. The train has left the station and she ain't turning back.

Whether its the best thing for the sport or not, it's going to happen. I hope you're able to cope...

 

[BAMAFAN IN NY]

SBTF, You cant use examples from an old system to point out the fact that the current system doesnt work.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

I agree with KrAzY3.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

SBTF, You cant use examples from an old system to point out the fact that the current system doesnt work.

The examples I used prove that the claim "the number four team doesn't deserve consideration" isn't correct.

You also can't just arbitrarily decide that certain years don't count when you have the same problem.

 

[BamaSully]

krazy

while i understand the boxing analogy, i dont think it fits. the concept is solid, and perfectly describes what it means to defend a title, but you cannot simply declare that this is what the BCS intent was. i never got the chance to ask roy kramer in person but i seriously doubt that was the intent.

you are correct in saying we started worrying about who was #2 instead of who was #1. that is dead on. in the history of college football the only thing that ever mattered was who is #1. in the BCS era, that did in fact change. you're right. but that argument nullifies the boxing analogy. if you must use a boxing analogy, then here is one. the pre-BCS era is like the champ defending his belt, all season long, one game at a time. "champ" being defined as the team ranked #1. however the BCS system is like when the champ has his belt stripped and they pick the two top contenders and make them fight for the belt. no one has the belt coming into the fight. so yeah, the process by which you select #1 AND #2 becomes vitally important.

i think that "thing" that has always made CFB special is the part about always talking about who is #1. the BCS has already watered that down slightly by talking about who is #2. a 4-team playoff simply means we will debate who is #4. i wholeheartedly agree that the farther this debate gets away from the good ole "who is is #1", the worse off we are.

in the pre-BCS era and with the BCS system, when you think back on past "champs" you tend to think in terms of who was the best team all season long in everyone's collective eyes, OR who BEAT THAT TEAM at the end. in the NFL, you think about who won the arbitrary tournament at the end. playoffs are fun, but there is no way to deny that it reduces the importance of the regular season, which i think will be a travesty. (see NY GIANTS!)

i cannot deny the fact that we dont really know who is #1, or who is #2, and in the future, who is #3 or #4. we never have. and it has still always been VERY special just like it was. i agree that we should always look for ways to improve the process. i am simply afraid of the slippery slope toward a big tournament, a la march madness.

in summary

krazy it is obvious where you stand and what you want

selma, not so much. you like to debate krazy's points, and you do it well, but i would like to know what you want as a system. what do you think is the best system? it is easy to poke holes in someone's logic. let's hear your system of choice and see if we can poke some holes . seriously here is why i say that. it sounds like you want to get totally away from polls. i get that and i understand your points, but brother, that dog wont hunt. is that what you want or am i reading you wrong?

as for me, i am torn. the pre-BCS era was special to me and always will be. the BCS is the first step on that slippery slope, but it doesn't deviate enough away from the old system to show a ton of negative side-effects. i think the results of the BCS system show that it was a good step in the right direction (the slope aint all that slippery yet, in other words). but four teams? well that is where I think we will start to see some of the cons that will water things down a little. i think in that system the debate about who should have made it will happen more often and will include more teams. we will debate who should be #4 more than we currently debate #2. and the number of teams that have a legitimate claim logically goes up as well. sometimes one team can say we should be #2. i think almost ALL the time one or maybe two or three teams can say we should be #4.

so i guess i am pro-BCS because I think we are VERY close to crowning the right team every year (no NY GIANTS). i dont mind the 4 team deal as long as it is based solely on BCS rank and if I had some assurance it wouldnt almost immediately lead to 8 and then 16 (obviously i cant have that assurance, thus my apprehension).

 

[LCN]

I do hope you'll admit that's a ridiculous argument.

What would be ridiculous is attempting to play on both sides of the fence solely for the sake of argument rather than using common sense .... Kansas ?

 

[TideFan in AU]

I'm going to go KrAzY arguing with you, but here goes:

In the early 1960s, simply being ranked #1 at the end of the regular season made you champion. No debate beyond that, you were champion and that was that. I, for one, do not believe the BCS, or bowl games made this irrelevant, or in the very least should have made it irrelevant. Yes, in my mind they are the "champion", but they are forced into a title defense. This is commonplace in boxing to, there are mandatory title defenses. The BCS is a mandatory title defense, in this analogy, which to me makes perfect sense. Honestly, it isn't just that it makes sense, it's that it is the cornerstone of the way I look at it. It's all about the belt holder, it's all about #1. To be clear, the lineal championship begins at a point in time in which consensus is reached that a particular boxer is the best in his class. You know, like the polls.

The boxer becomes a champion when he beats the former champion. This is not the case with the poll system. The BCS is not forcing them into a title defense because the only thing making them the so-called champion is some pollster's opinion. I do find it ironic that you that you using a dying sport that is dying because of terrible decisions by people sitting watching the fight and judging who is better based on their opinion (sound familiar?) and the lack of clarity of who the true champion is. You have belt holders walking around proclaming themselves champions while not fighting the best fighters in their divisions.

The more I think about, you may be right. Deciding a champion solely on a poll system IS a lot like boxing these days...

As to your question, how can we know who is better? Honestly, there are some instances in which we won't. Uconn won a NCAA basketball title without beating a single #1 seed. They were 50/50 in conference play. How can we know they were really better than a #1 seed? We can't! The idea that because they won the tournament, they somehow proved it is faulty at best. The tournament is so big and chaotic that any number of factors can act on their behalf. Now, you might say that the regular season does this to. Ok, sure, you're right. But, that's the other cornerstone of my viewpoint. That the regular season in college football is sacred.

This is another totally irrelevant argument. We all know that basketball's playoff is a farce, but you bring up a great point. We curb stomped the pollster's sacred #1 team in January. In fact, the sisters of the poor, participation trophy-winning #2 teams have won 7 of the 14 BCSNCG's. Under the poll system that you hold in such high regard, they have got it wrong 50% of the time! To clarify, 7 teams would have got a championship that they did not deserve. Now, with this being an undisputable fact, how can you tell me that #2 was better than #3 when they were both undefeated or both were 1 loss teams?
That, my friend, is why 75% of the people on this board voted for the +1 system.

Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? We watch a team play an entire season, yet we're supposed to be confused to who is the best to that extent? You say 1/3 of the time? So, last year Alabama and LSU were not the two best teams? Or wait, what about 2010? Are you seriously saying TCU was better? Is that your argument? Or, what about 2009? You think TCU, who got beat, or Cincy, who got spanked were better? Because, you said 1/3 of the time. So, here are three examples, but you're here seriously claiming they are wrong two thirds of the time! So, do tell. Let's see it. I can keep going, 2008. Was Utah better? Is that what you're hanging your hat on? Because, news flash Utah wouldn't have been a top 4 seed! Honestly, you're right though. This argument is futile. You think #2 is the important part, I think #1 is the important part. I think that's the entire argument in a nutshell. A playoff zealot, is lost in the process.

Once again, you brushed right over the argument someone is presenting with the reasons they feel that way, and proceed to assume what they think. Below is the post in this thread that I gave reasons of why I question whether the current system got it right and which years I think there is very reasonable doubt that the top 2 teams did not play.

Very nice post, Krazy. Though I am a fan of the +1, I share your fear that it will lead to more teams in a playoff. In fact, that is my biggest fear for CFB. My hope is the that Presidents do what they always have, and keep the bowl system in place. This automatically limits the number of playoff teams.

The part I don't completely agree with you is the number of years that the BCS "got it right". There's really nobody that can really argue about '03 and '04. OU had no business in that game in '03 after getting destroyed by K State in the B12CGC, and much as we all hate barney, NO SEC team that goes through the SEC undefeated should ever get left out of of at least a chance to play for the BCSNCG - even the goobers.:mad2:

Besides '03 and '04, myself and most everyone else paying attention feel like '01 and '08 were equally wrong. Nebraska was allowed to play Miami after getting run out of the stadium 62-36 by Colorado. Oregon went on to soundly beat #3 Colorado 38-16 in the Fiesta Bowl. Its pretty much impossible to argue that Nebraska deserved to be there over Oregon.

In '08, OU was given the berth in B12CGC over Texas (who beat OU by 10 at a neutral site) by the B12's ridiculous conference tiebreaker rules. In any other conference, Texas would have played for the championship. This was not a failure of the BCS per se, but nonetheless, the 2 best teams in country did not play, which is what the BCS is designed to do. (Side Note: based on the OU's performance in the BCSNC, I'd argue we were better than they were, while sitting at home with the same 12-1 record that they had. OU never led against FL while we lead up 9:21 in the 4th) I would have loved to have played OU for another shot at Florida. Wouldn't you?

Even in '99, which is not considered a controversial year, Virginia Tech played FSU for the BCSCG by going undefeated in the horribly weak Big East, while playing James Madison, UAB, 6-6 Clemson, and 7-5 Virginia OOC. VT beat 4 teams a winning record and no one with a record better than 9-4. Nebraska finished #3 that year beating 5 top 25 teams and 2 top 10 teams, including 11-1 K State. Nebraska's only loss was a 4 point loss to Texas, and they avenged that loss in the B12CGC. There's very reasonable doubt that VT was not as good as Nebraska. This is basically the equivalent of an undefeated TCU, Tulane or Boise getting in the BCSNCG over a very good 1 loss team that played a murderous schedule.

If you believe this to be true, (which I do) there's 5 of the 14 BCSNCG's that didn't conclusively match the 2 best teams in the country, which again, is its only function. Getting it right 64% of the time is the reason for a push for some type of a more conclusive way to determine who is really #1 and #2 for people like me. It's not about "inclusion over excellence" in my eyes. It is actually the desire for excellence (or as close as you can get) that drives my belief that there needs to be a change in the system. The system doesn't need to be scrapped, it just needs to be tweaked to prevent these type of years from happening.

Now - you say that you care about #1 and I care about #2. Based on the UNDISPUTABLE FACT that #2 has won 7 of the 14 BCS games, then yeah, I'd say #2 is pretty darn important. I actually can't see how you DON'T feel this way since you claim that you think #1 is only thing that is important.

Someone such as myself, thinks crowning a worthy champion is all that matters. We're at an impasse, we might as well be speaking different languages.

On this, I agree. Well, except your means for determining how worthy that champion is.

Let me say again - I do not want a full playoff system. In fact, it will ruin CFB, IMO. However, I consider the BCS an improvement over the old system (again, since 7 #1 ranking teams proved ON THE FIELD that they were unworthy of their ranking). I think the +1 is another tweak that improves the determination of a champion. It fits within the confines of the bowl system and the regular season means what it always did.

As somebody said, some type of playoff is inevitable, and I'd much rather it be this than an 8, 10, 12, or 16 team playoff that some people are pushing. Also, as I've said before, your +1 would awesome. I think its a great idea as long as the #2 vs #3 game was played one week after the last game. It could be a disadvantage for #1 to play a team fresh off a game after they'd been sitting for over a month. If they both sat for 3 or 4 weeks before the NCG, it would negate that (like us vs LSU this year).

 

[KrAzY3]

First, I have to reiterate that we are mainly arguing from different perspectives. I'd wager most people here want the same things basically, but we just have different viewpoints. Secondly, I'm prone to being defensive, grumpy and argumentative. That's just my nature. On this issue, I know I'm in the minority. The anti-BCS faction literally has books to go by, they can consult virtually any ESPN article written on the matter, they can tune in to virtually any talk show discussing the matter and get their fill of anti-BCS material. On the other hand, I have to hunt things down via google that all those resources couldn't be troubled to point out to me. Like, the point I just made in another post, that the college basketball finals on broadcast TV had lower ratings than the BCSCG on ESPN. All I've heard is how horrible the ratings where, I had to go hunt down ratings numbers myself, so, with that as an example, each point I make is usually backed by my own research and with it comes a bit of frustrating. In that regard, I can't always find the time to address everything, since I want my responses to be as factually correct as possible.

1: Boxing
For the record, boxing just had a fight that made a ton of money. Boxing has it's issues with corruption, too many belts (inclusion over excellence), and so on, but if boxing is dying, why is a boxer the biggest revenue generating American athlete? Anyway, in America boxing's current entities started giving out belts in 1920. College football started deciding champions in 1926. There is a commonality in that their method of deciding champions predate the formation of some leagues and most playoffs. There is also a commonality in the brutal, exhausting nature of the sports. You can't expect these athletes to compete as often as other sports. The main comparison I was making though, was to the notion of a "lineal championship". It doesn't carry over perfectly, it's a different sport, but I do see more in common with boxing and football than most sports. In either case, arguing over my comparison is moot. It doesn't validate or invalidate my argument, it simply was my attempt to express how I felt on the issue.

2: Regular Season
This is the area is greatest separation between someone that prefers the BCS, or "old school" to a playoff format. Explaining our position, to a playoff supporter (to quote things said on this forum) who thinks "a playoff is the only valid way to determine a champion", insists in calling even an unquestioned BCS champions "mythical", or that is under the impression that the regular season and BCSCG is not played on a "field", is very difficult. We are butting up against a logic that says nothing prior to a playoff is valid, save as seeding and selection criteria. This is necessary for someone to buy entirely into playoff results. If you do include the regular season in your thought process, you can't help but question the results of many playoffs. When I try pointing out that I think finishing #1 in the regular season is akin to earning a title belt in boxing, it is bound to be perplexing to the pro-playoff mindset. Because to them the regular season holds no real value at all. And that's my entire point! I said it before, I think the regular season is sacred in college football! Furthermore, I think the BCS was a blow to the regular season and bowls, a +1 will put them on life support and any more will be the death of a meaningful regular season and a vibrant bowl season.

We curb stomped the pollster's sacred #1 team in January. In fact, the sisters of the poor, participation trophy-winning #2 teams have won 7 of the 14 BCSNCG's. Under the poll system that you hold in such high regard, they have got it wrong 50% of the time! To clarify, 7 teams would have got a championship that they did not deserve. Now, with this being an undisputable fact, how can you tell me that #2 was better than #3 when they were both undefeated or both were 1 loss teams?

I shall recite the mantra of the regular season zealot, the sworn enemy of the playoff zealot. Regular season, regular season, regular season! This is what is missing from your debate on the issue. Why was LSU ranked #1, Alabama ranked #2, and Okie St. ranked #3? Sometimes #2 deserved the shot, and sometimes frankly they didn't. Alabama didn't actually deserve a chance last season. Under the BCS they did, but if it was the old system? Could any of us argue that Alabama, based on their regular season performance actually deserved a second shot? They didn't, none of us could have complained had they just given LSU the trophy after the regular season. Now, I buy into the BCS, because I do think there are seasons that it isn't as clear cut. But, I've shown already that #4 simply does not deserve a chance.

I never once said #4 couldn't win, though! That's what I'm afraid of! Let me give an example. USC in 2002 was a very good team. They lost two games early, and would have been a #4 seeded BCS team. The likely result of a +1 in my mind? 12-2 USC vs. 14-0 Ohio St. I think USC would have a very good chance at winning that game. Which is exactly why I believe it shouldn't happen! USC screwed up, just like Alabama did in 2010. Alabama could have beaten any team in college football, but they blew their chance in the regular season. What you are arguing for, what you are saying, has sound logic in that sure, the best team at the end of the season might not be the #1, or even #2 team. What I'm saying is, this is supposed to be about who is best all season long, including the regular season! So, of course you scoff at what I say, because it doesn't even seem to occur to you what I'm actually talking about, which is that regular season performance should actually mean something. I'll give #2 a shot, I'll even give #3 a shot in the plan I outlined, but know that each step makes the regular season mean less.

Sometimes people overlook my choice of words. I say "championship worthy" for a reason. If it's just about who is best, at the end of the season, then a +1 doesn't go far enough. If it's about who was best all season long? I think a +1 goes too far.

 

[BamaSully]

nice post krazy.

regular season! regular season! i like that.

you made a point that was somewhat eye-opening for me. when folks complain that we didnt deserve to be in the game my thought process goes like this. first, is it auburn? if so, disregard as jealousy. lol, honestly it is really more like, is it anyone other than #3 Ok State? if it is Ok State, then my response is of course that WE DID deserve it. we were the better team in the eyes of the voters and the computers at that time so we earned the #2 ranking UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM. of course i point to the result of the game and the statistical mismatch from the first game (which didnt translate to the scoreboard where it counts) as proof that the system did the right thing by putting bama in that game. however, i didnt stop to think about the fact that in the old school system, the plain truth would have been, we blew our shot in the regular season and i personally would not have had one word to say about it because, well if we wanted to be champs, we should have won in november!!!

summary

we were already saying the same thing and that is: no matter what, it is a plain and simple truth that the more teams who are "given a chance" at the title, the less important the regular season is. we already agreed on that. we also agree that this is a very bad thing. that college football regular season is indeed a huge part of what has made the sport so sacred to so many fans for decades. but what you might have just helped me see is that the current system, the BCS, has already eroded purity more than i even realized!

 

[TideFan in AU]

That's fair enough. As I've said before, you make good points on this subject, and I actually really enjoy discussing it with you. In reality, I think CFB doesn't even always need a +1 system. If I had my way, it would only be implemented if there was reasonable doubt that the best two teams weren't conclusive. As I've said before, I think the BCS has got it right 9 out 14 years which is an improvement over what the poll system alone would have done. However, with the push for playoffs from the Boises, TCU's and Utah's, I know this is not a reality. Some type of playoff system is inevitable, and +1 is the least detrimental to CFB as we know it.

 

[TideFan in AU]

nice post krazy.

regular season! regular season! i like that.

you made a point that was somewhat eye-opening for me. when folks complain that we didnt deserve to be in the game my thought process goes like this. first, is it auburn? if so, disregard as jealousy. lol, honestly it is really more like, is it anyone other than #3 Ok State? if it is Ok State, then my response is of course that WE DID deserve it. we were the better team in the eyes of the voters and the computers at that time so we earned the #2 ranking UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM. of course i point to the result of the game and the statistical mismatch from the first game (which didnt translate to the scoreboard where it counts) as proof that the system did the right thing by putting bama in that game. however, i didnt stop to think about the fact that in the old school system, the plain truth would have been, we blew our shot in the regular season and i personally would not have had one word to say about it because, well if we wanted to be champs, we should have won in november!!!

summary

we were already saying the same thing and that is: no matter what, it is a plain and simple truth that the more teams who are "given a chance" at the title, the less important the regular season is. we already agreed on that. we also agree that this is a very bad thing. that college football regular season is indeed a huge part of what has made the sport so sacred to so many fans for decades. but what you might have just helped me see is that the current system, the BCS, has already eroded purity more than i even realized!

I am inclined to agree at least with the principal of this, but its hard for me to call the old poll system "purity" when years like 1966 and 1977 (among many others) are capable of happening. There's valid arguments as if the +1 system is a good idea or not. I admit that. However, I do not, can not, and will not ever believe that making #1 play #2 at the end of the year is anything but a great idea. BTW, a +1 would have given Alabama a chance to play for the NC in 1966 AND 1977!

 

[BamaSully]

I am inclined to agree at least with the principal of this, but its hard for me to call the old poll system "purity" when years like 1966 and 1977 (among many others) are capable of happening. There's valid arguments as if the +1 system is a good idea or not. I admit that. However, I do not, can not, and will not ever believe that making #1 play #2 at the end of the year is anything but a great idea. BTW, a +1 would have given Alabama a chance to play for the NC in 1966 AND 1977!

Good point...and that's why it takes all of us to make the world go round! I actually agree with you totally.

So...to clarify a little...the "purity" I referred to in that particular statement is, very specifically, the importance of the regular season. I was NOT alluding to the effectiveness of the system overall. I too believe the BCS has done a great job especially once all the tweaking was done after the USC snub.

This whole debate is so intriguing to me. The more teams you include, the less the regular season meant. However, the more teams you include, the better chance you have of ensuring that the "best team" is in there. However, the more teams you include the more you incorporate other undesirable factors that water down the whole process.

There is a balance there somewhere. I think I would summarize the entire situation like this. We are still right in the middle of the process of playing with that balance, trying to achieve the perfect balance. The problem is, perfect does not and cannot exist in college football as we know it. The only "perfect system" would require a total upheaval of the whole deal (such as eight 16-team conferences where each conference championship game is technically the first round of the playoffs, with the winners advancing into the final 8, etc, etc). So in the absence of perfection, we must find the best balance possible with the current set of circumstances (such as uneven conferences, dependence on polls, independent schools, etc, etc).

It is probably most likely that we will find out later that the current BCS was the best balance!!!

 

[KrAzY3]

It is probably most likely that we will find out later that the current BCS was the best balance!!!

I think we've all tossed alternative ideas around, things that we could stomach outside of what we currently have. But, I do tend to agree with that basic sentiment. The BCS isn't perfect, and it has baggage, but in respect to everything, happy coincidence or not, it seems to me that this is the era in which the regular season and the post season was most perfectly married. This was the point in which, like them or not, you could almost always point to the champion and go, that team had an amazing season. That team outperformed their peers, and they were a pretty darn good team to. It feels almost like there will be a lost innocence. We have a playoff now, but we don't really know it.

Also, since we're all singing Kumbaya together, I will reiterate that I don't take these discussions personally. If I don't want to talk to someone, I don't. It's been years since someone here personally got under my skin, and I know I have a habit of directing my posts at people, or at something in particular that they said. I'm not doing that to try to belittle them, or even because I take exception with them in a vast majority of the cases. I usually find myself arguing with a sentiment, popular opinion, or that sort of thing. So, I guess if someone has the fortune of not really knowing me, it can probably come off like a personal attack and if I don't know someone, I usually don't have cause to personally attack them

 

[TideFan in AU]

Good point...and that's why it takes all of us to make the world go round! I actually agree with you totally.

So...to clarify a little...the "purity" I referred to in that particular statement is, very specifically, the importance of the regular season. I was NOT alluding to the effectiveness of the system overall. I too believe the BCS has done a great job especially once all the tweaking was done after the USC snub.

This whole debate is so intriguing to me. The more teams you include, the less the regular season meant. However, the more teams you include, the better chance you have of ensuring that the "best team" is in there. However, the more teams you include the more you incorporate other undesirable factors that water down the whole process.

There is a balance there somewhere. I think I would summarize the entire situation like this. We are still right in the middle of the process of playing with that balance, trying to achieve the perfect balance. The problem is, perfect does not and cannot exist in college football as we know it. The only "perfect system" would require a total upheaval of the whole deal (such as eight 16-team conferences where each conference championship game is technically the first round of the playoffs, with the winners advancing into the final 8, etc, etc). So in the absence of perfection, we must find the best balance possible with the current set of circumstances (such as uneven conferences, dependence on polls, independent schools, etc, etc).

It is probably most likely that we will find out later that the current BCS was the best balance!!!

Now I was right there in total agreement with you until the 16 team conference champion playoff part being the only way to get a perfect system. This would be the worse case scenario, IMO. This would totally negate the regular season, and CFB as we know it. Under that system, you could have 3 or 4 loss conference division champs who get hot at the end of year being put in place to play for a championship (who could go on to national champions) over a 1 loss division runner up who lost only to their division champion (who could have lost 3 or 4 out conference games). This system is the biggest fear of anybody who feels the regular season should matter. KrAzY and I are arguing tooth and nail over a tweak in the current system, but and he I are in total agreement when it comes to this type of playoff scenario. This system is 180 degrees from perfect if you care about the regular season...

 

[TideFan in AU]

I think we've all tossed alternative ideas around, things that we could stomach outside of what we currently have. But, I do tend to agree with that basic sentiment. The BCS isn't perfect, and it has baggage, but in respect to everything, happy coincidence or not, it seems to me that this is the era in which the regular season and the post season was most perfectly married. This was the point in which, like them or not, you could almost always point to the champion and go, that team had an amazing season. That team outperformed their peers, and they were a pretty darn good team to. It feels almost like there will be a lost innocence. We have a playoff now, but we don't really know it.

Also, since we're all singing Kumbaya together, I will reiterate that I don't take these discussions personally. If I don't want to talk to someone, I don't. It's been years since someone here personally got under my skin, and I know I have a habit of directing my posts at people, or at something in particular that they said. I'm not doing that to try to belittle them, or even because I take exception with them in a vast majority of the cases. I usually find myself arguing with a sentiment, popular opinion, or that sort of thing. So, I guess if someone has the fortune of not really knowing me, it can probably come off like a personal attack and if I don't know someone, I usually don't have cause to personally attack them

Same here, buddy! I sometimes argue the point passionately, but at the end of the day we're on the same side. We're all here because we love Alabama and CFB.
If they announce tomorrow that they are staying with current system, I'm totally fine with that. If we are going with a playoff system (which I think is imminent at this point), some variation of the +1 is the only system I can support.