The Myth of Ancient Parity: Articles About Competitive Imbalance Coming
- Thread starter selmaborntidefan
- Start date
"It's NOT FAIR! THAT TEAM GOT A BYE WEEK!"
The idea of a 6 team playoff has merit as an expanded system in which the 5th or 6th seeded team might actually have the talent to win it all, but it does nothing to expand the dream of a playoff beyond the group currently getting into a field of four. I think that it should have been 6 all along if we want to be sure that we have all of the teams with a realistic chance of winning a championship in the field.
An expansion beyond six is an effort of inclusion. I used to be opposed to any expansion, but I am coming around to the need to be more inclusive for the good of the sport.
An expansion beyond six is an effort of inclusion. I used to be opposed to any expansion, but I am coming around to the need to be more inclusive for the good of the sport.
What's funny is that very concept was promoted years ago as the "Plus One" - play all the bowl games, select the two best teams and play for a championship.
Like this would solve anything.
Imagine it's 1983 again.
Regular Season Final Top 10
1) Nebraska 12-0 - Big 8 Champion
2) Texas 11-0 - SWC Champion
3) Auburn 10-1 - SEC Champion, only loss to Texas
4) Illinois 10-1 - Big 10 Champion, loss to Missouri
5) Miami 10-1 - Independent, only loss to Florida
6) SMU 10-1 - SWC runner-up, only loss to Texas
7) Georgia, 9-1-1 - SEC runner-up, only loss to Auburn, tie with Clemson
8) Michigan, 9-2, losses to Illinois, Washington
9) BYU, 10-1, WAC champion, loss to Baylor
10) Iowa, 9-2, losses to Michigan and Illinois
Don't get too bogged down in the names or modern conference affiliation but.......
BOWLS
Miami beat Nebraska, 31-30, in the Orange
Georgia beat Texas, 10-9, in the Cotton
Auburn beat Michigan, 9-7, in the Sugar
UCLA beat Illinois, 45-9, in the Rose
FINAL RANKING
1) Miami
2) Nebraska
3) Auburn
4) Georgia
5) Texas
6) Florida
7) BYU
8) Michigan
9) Ohio St
10) Illinois
In a Plus One game, guess what......Nebraska gets a rematch with Miami! Of course, what would happen IF WE KNEW there was another game is that the outcome would be rigged (I'm shocked!) and Miami would play Auburn.
Of course....
1) How do you possibly rank Auburn ahead of Texas when the Horns beat them, 20-7?
2) How do you rank 3-loss Michigan ahead of 2-loss Illinois, who beat Michigan, 16-6?
3) How do you rank 3-loss Michigan (who lost their bowl game) ahead of 3-loss Ohio St (who won theirs)?
If your response to #3 is, "because Michigan beat Ohio State, 24-21, head-to-head," then you have to explain number two. You can't say "head to head counts when Michigan WINS but not when they LOSE by more!" It doesn't work that way, sorry.
So wouldn't it just have been better to play Texas vs Nebraska in the bowl game in the first place (which is what the BCS wound up doing)?
My first sport was soccer (known in England when I lived there as "foot-bull" the way they say it).
Around 1990 or so, there was a really boring World Cup, and they had a couple of games where they ran up and down the field longer than some marriages last and wound up having the shootout. American sportswriters trashed this concept.
My thoughts then and now: "Well, okay, I'll grant it's not perfect. But at least they don't do it like college football. Play an entire season, play a game that ends in a tie - and then let some suits in an office CAST VOTES to determine who wins the game."
The shootout is not great, but at least it comes down to the skills of the players.
Around 1990 or so, there was a really boring World Cup, and they had a couple of games where they ran up and down the field longer than some marriages last and wound up having the shootout. American sportswriters trashed this concept.
My thoughts then and now: "Well, okay, I'll grant it's not perfect. But at least they don't do it like college football. Play an entire season, play a game that ends in a tie - and then let some suits in an office CAST VOTES to determine who wins the game."
The shootout is not great, but at least it comes down to the skills of the players.
Now I’m really crappy at math but what about a playin style format where the Top 4 are given byes which is a reward for the great season (similar to SEC bball tournament). Take the next 8 and let them fight for the quarterfinals spot. Personally, I think it’s just too many games for college but that’s just me. That would get 12 teams involved. Regarding more and more teams involved you have to give some reward to the top teams IMO.
The big question is, Why is someone from Indiana being paid to comment on football??
Actually, I don't mind Dinich all that much. I'm fine with her having a variant opinion, but her attempts at supporting data sometimes just boggle the mind.
If you're saying you think LSU is better than Alabama based on an eye test (say, in 2019), I might not agree, but I'm okay with that. If you say the reason you think LSU is better than Alabama is because LSU blew out Vandy by more points in a game where they played their team the whole game while Alabama put in the 4th string......I don't have a lot of regard for that POV.
If you're saying you think LSU is better than Alabama based on an eye test (say, in 2019), I might not agree, but I'm okay with that. If you say the reason you think LSU is better than Alabama is because LSU blew out Vandy by more points in a game where they played their team the whole game while Alabama put in the 4th string......I don't have a lot of regard for that POV.
A 16-team playoff that INCLUDES the bowl games (including in the final) would mean all of a sudden that FOURTEEN of the bowl games would MEAN something big.
The first year I watched CFB - there were 15 bowl games.
I wouldn't mind going back to that or cutting the regular season by two games, either.
The first year I watched CFB - there were 15 bowl games.
I wouldn't mind going back to that or cutting the regular season by two games, either.
Oh absolutely. I’d like to drop the cupcake games. Now that likely means many of them start dropping Programs off their Athletic Depts. but hey, y’all wanted to expand the playoffs...
and I sure don’t want to hear all the pundits bitching about that when it happens.
Why does it matter if the bowl games "mean something"? Just let them die. I do not understand this need to hold on to these corporate cash cow games. Fine, keep some around for the teams that don't make the playoffs but, don't expect me to watch, I don't watch most bowls now. It's like the NIT, who cares. I mean, I'll watch if Alabama is playing but that's it, I don't watch the other NIT games. I'm just not stuck on the "bowl tradition" and frankly think there are too many bowl games anyway. It used to be something really special until 6 win teams started being allowed. Also, if the playoffs expand to 6, 8 or beyond; I don't think bowl games should be used until the final 4. The early rounds need to be played on the campuses of the higher seeded teams. Stop forcing fans into more and more high cost trips for the post season. Anyway, rant over.
About playoff expansion. One thing I always find funny is that some in the media bring up Div III and FCS. Ooo, they have much larger playoffs and it's great!! That's what they try to tell us. Maybe it is a lot of fun but, there isn't much parity, even with there larger field of teams.
Look at Div III for the past 15 years. Only 4 different champions in 15 years. 2 of those 4 teams have won 12 of the 15 championships.
Now FCS for the past 15 years. They did slightly better with 6 different champions in 15 years. 2 of those 6 have won 11 of those 15 years. North Dakota St. has won 8 of the last 9 years.
So, go ahead and expand. It will not create the parity people want, you'll still end up with the same teams winning it all. I know, I know. At least G5 teams would get in and have a shot. Fine, okay, whatever; for some reason though, I don't think people will be satisfied with early round thumpings. They'll still fine something to complain about.
About playoff expansion. One thing I always find funny is that some in the media bring up Div III and FCS. Ooo, they have much larger playoffs and it's great!! That's what they try to tell us. Maybe it is a lot of fun but, there isn't much parity, even with there larger field of teams.
Look at Div III for the past 15 years. Only 4 different champions in 15 years. 2 of those 4 teams have won 12 of the 15 championships.
Now FCS for the past 15 years. They did slightly better with 6 different champions in 15 years. 2 of those 6 have won 11 of those 15 years. North Dakota St. has won 8 of the last 9 years.
So, go ahead and expand. It will not create the parity people want, you'll still end up with the same teams winning it all. I know, I know. At least G5 teams would get in and have a shot. Fine, okay, whatever; for some reason though, I don't think people will be satisfied with early round thumpings. They'll still fine something to complain about.
And eliminate the conference championship games. Use that weekend for the first round of playoffs.
WHEN THE CHAMPIONS WON THEIR FIRST NATIONAL TITLE (STARTING WITH AP IN 1936)
1) Minnesota, 1936
2) Pitt, 1937
3) TCU, 1938
4) Texas A/M, 1939
5) Ohio St, 1942
6) Notre Dame, 1943
7) Army, 1944
8) Michigan, 1948
9) Oklahoma, 1950
10) Tennessee, 1951
11) Michigan St, 1952
12) Maryland, 1953
13) UCLA, 1954
14) Auburn, 1957
15) LSU, 1958
16) Syracuse, 1959
17) Alabama, 1961
18) USC, 1962
19) Texas, 1963
20) Nebraska, 1970
21) Georgia, 1980
22) Clemson, 1981
23) Penn St, 1982
24) Miami, 1983
25) BYU, 1984
26) Georgia Tech, 1990
27) Colorado, 1990
28) Washington, 1991
29) Florida St, 1993
30) Florida, 1996
Somehow, I missed one in the count but okay - 30 teams have won a national title in the 84 years they were give active (as opposed to retroactive) titles. The biggest areas of parity - where teams "won their first title" - are the obvious first series (13 champions in 18 years) and the period of 1980-1984, where we had a first-time champion every year.
Reminder: these circumstances no longer exist.
1) Minnesota, 1936
2) Pitt, 1937
3) TCU, 1938
4) Texas A/M, 1939
5) Ohio St, 1942
6) Notre Dame, 1943
7) Army, 1944
8) Michigan, 1948
9) Oklahoma, 1950
10) Tennessee, 1951
11) Michigan St, 1952
12) Maryland, 1953
13) UCLA, 1954
14) Auburn, 1957
15) LSU, 1958
16) Syracuse, 1959
17) Alabama, 1961
18) USC, 1962
19) Texas, 1963
20) Nebraska, 1970
21) Georgia, 1980
22) Clemson, 1981
23) Penn St, 1982
24) Miami, 1983
25) BYU, 1984
26) Georgia Tech, 1990
27) Colorado, 1990
28) Washington, 1991
29) Florida St, 1993
30) Florida, 1996
Somehow, I missed one in the count but okay - 30 teams have won a national title in the 84 years they were give active (as opposed to retroactive) titles. The biggest areas of parity - where teams "won their first title" - are the obvious first series (13 champions in 18 years) and the period of 1980-1984, where we had a first-time champion every year.
Reminder: these circumstances no longer exist.
Posts like this are why this is the best message board of any kind on the internet.
