CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

A Playoff- Is it Really that Hard?

by Mars · 12/9/2009

Sponsored Advertisementad content
G
GolfDiveNCougs
Schmoe wrote:
Schmoe wrote:
It's because they only let conference champions into the BCS championship game. If 99% of the teams going meet that criteria, then there's a good chance that the winner will meet it as well.
Uhh, Schmoe, please refer to my previous post about that. 2 years in 12 is a little higher than 1%.
You're right, I was exaggerating, two teams out of twenty-four is eight percent.
Schmoe, when did you go all rastafarian on us?

:skeptic:

My biggest issue was with the word "only." Even 1 in 12 is STILL high enough to be considered statistically significant.
T
tripwire
I just do not understand how a college football fan would not be in favor of a playoff.

Can you imagine the excitement that that proposed playoff would have this year?

But instead we get this very anticlimactic end to the season, with a bunch of bowl games that mean nothing and one "national championship" game that only matches up 2 of the 5 undefeated teams.

Would it be a perfect system? Of course not, but if you wait for everything in life to be perfect before you do it you aren't going to get much done.

If we had that playoff this year the big controversy would be LSU or BYU for the last at-large bid, it's still controversy sure, but not quite the same is leaving out 3 undefeated teams from even getting a shot.
M
Mars
mormonrasta wrote:
I think if you win your conference then you are the only team from that conference that can even remotely claim the right to a championship. It's not a coincedence that every BCS champion is a conference champion and that will be true this year. I don't want to change to a system where they try to tell me LSU is the best team in the country because they won 4 games in a row when I saw Alabama be a better team over 4 months. It's go with the evil you know I guess.

Can you believe they gave a fake title to FLORIDA last year? Florida wasn't even better than their own conference-mate, Mississippi! Not to mention those crazy professional leagues like the NFL, NBA, and MLB that allow 2 teams from one division to make the post-season if their record is good enough. People always say how there's nothing more Unamerican than baseball!
M
mormonrasta
GolfDiveNCougs wrote:
It's not a coincedence that every BCS champion is a conference champion and that will be true this year.

rasta, that's revisionist enough I have to call bull crap on it. So do the 2001 Colorado AND Oregon teams, AND the 2003 Southern California AND Michigan teams. Sure, the eventual winner of the title game each year has happened to be a conference champion winner, karma has taken your argument that far, but there sure as hell is precident under the current system to stick teams IN the title game that AREN'T conference champs, just dumb luck that neither of them won it! Mean time, legit champs those years looked on PISSED as the BCS sold out to BIGGER Royalty names.



PLEASE tell me I'm wrong. I BEG you!!!


You're right twice a nonconference champion has played in the title game and both times they got drilled. I've said before it's not a perfect system. But 92% of the time (22 out of 24) a participant in the BCS championship has won their conference and not been some bogus "at-large" or "wildcard" team. That's a much better success rate than the other sports.
M
mormonrasta
Mars wrote:
I think if you win your conference then you are the only team from that conference that can even remotely claim the right to a championship. It's not a coincedence that every BCS champion is a conference champion and that will be true this year. I don't want to change to a system where they try to tell me LSU is the best team in the country because they won 4 games in a row when I saw Alabama be a better team over 4 months. It's go with the evil you know I guess.

Can you believe they gave a fake title to FLORIDA last year? Florida wasn't even better than their own conference-mate, Mississippi! Not to mention those crazy professional leagues like the NFL, NBA, and MLB that allow 2 teams from one division to make the post-season if their record is good enough. People always say how there's nothing more Unamerican than baseball!


Bad example with Ole Miss. Head to head is important, but certainly not the only factor. That win has to be put in context of conference play. Florida had a better conference record and therefore was the best team in the conference.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
C
CAFB_04-12
I loved this article. Mr. Wetzel for President.
M
Mars
mormonrasta wrote:
Bad example with Ole Miss. Head to head is important, but certainly not the only factor. That win has to be put in context of conference play. Florida had a better conference record and therefore was the best team in the conference.

So head-to-head is important but not the only factor, but Texas winning the Big XII ahead of Oklahoma on a technicality was not just important but THE only final and deciding factor for worthiness last season?
M
mormonrasta
Mars wrote:
Bad example with Ole Miss. Head to head is important, but certainly not the only factor. That win has to be put in context of conference play. Florida had a better conference record and therefore was the best team in the conference.

So head-to-head is important but not the only factor, but Texas winning the Big XII ahead of Oklahoma on a technicality was not just important but THE only final and deciding factor for worthiness last season?


Texas-Oklahoma-Texas Tech were in a 3 way tie. Therefore, head to head becomes IRRELEVANT. They had to use another factor. It's hard to feel sorry for Texas when 1. they agreed to the tiebreaker procedure in the first place. 2. They scheduled such a sissy OOC schedule that could not be said for Oklahoma. 3. If they felt the tiebreaker unfair they had an opportunity to change it and they voted not to.



Besides, that scenario is such a freak example. You can't argue that more often than not a 2nd place or lower team has absolutely no right to make a claim for a NC because it has already been proven on the field that a team is better or more worthy than they are.
M
Mars
mormonrasta wrote:
Besides, that scenario is such a freak example.

3 of the 6 BCS conferences don't even have a championship game. It would be extremely easy for two teams in any of those conferences to go 11-1 and tie for 1st place, and have the tie-breaking conference champion team be viewed nationally as the 2nd best team in their conference.



Another example, had 2-loss Pitt beat 0-loss Cincy, the Big east conference champ would have been ranked lower than the runner-up in the polls. Had there been a bunch of 2-loss champs nationally, Cincy still would have been in the BCS title picture, and rightly so.



A 16-team Playoff is the only logical solution to college football's post-season, when all the tap-dancing around the BCS mess stops. That's the whole point here. Everything else is just heat without light.
M
mormonrasta
Mars wrote:
Besides, that scenario is such a freak example.

3 of the 6 BCS conferences don't even have a championship game. It would be extremely easy for two teams in any of those conferences to go 11-1 and tie for 1st place, and have the tie-breaking conference champion team be viewed nationally as the 2nd best team in their conference.



Another example, had 2-loss Pitt beat 0-loss Cincy, the Big east conference champ would have been ranked lower than the runner-up in the polls. Had there been a bunch of 2-loss champs nationally, Cincy still would have been in the BCS title picture, and rightly so.



A 16-team Playoff is the only logical solution to college football's post-season, when all the tap-dancing around the BCS mess stops. That's the whole point here. Everything else is just heat without light.


If two teams are tied at 11-1 at the top of a conference then you take the head to head. It really isn't that difficult.



There is only 1 conference where there's a decent chance of not decisively deciding a sole conference champion and that is the Big 10. Most years that "at-large" teams would be like this year where the highest ranked nonchampion teams Florida, Iowa, Virginia Tech, LSU, and Penn State have absolutely ZERO claim that they could be considered the best team in their conference. If they can't be considered the best team in their conference then NO RIGHT to even participate in a tournament to determine a national champion. Admitting them would be every bit as flawed as excluding an undefeated team for a NC.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
M
Mars
mormonrasta wrote:
Florida, Iowa, Virginia Tech, LSU, and Penn State have absolutely ZERO claim that they could be considered the best team in their conference. If they can't be considered the best team in their conference then NO RIGHT to even participate in a tournament to determine a national champion. Admitting them would be every bit as flawed as excluding an undefeated team for a NC.

Your credibility is approaching zero on this subject. Just look at how every major sports does this- NONE of them agree with you.



March Madness = GOOD

BCS = GARBAGE



You like to play devil's advocate by argument the opposite of rationality, but you're just wasting your time. Might as well get a job working for the BCS, or perhaps a cigarette company...
S
snoscythe
Mars wrote:
Might as well get a job working for the BCS, or perhaps a cigarette company...


Reminded me of a fantastic movie:

http://www.jdmfilmreviews.com/userimages/user-8699956_1167874548.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
M
mormonrasta
Mars wrote:
Florida, Iowa, Virginia Tech, LSU, and Penn State have absolutely ZERO claim that they could be considered the best team in their conference. If they can't be considered the best team in their conference then NO RIGHT to even participate in a tournament to determine a national champion. Admitting them would be every bit as flawed as excluding an undefeated team for a NC.

Your credibility is approaching zero on this subject. Just look at how every major sports does this- NONE of them agree with you.



March Madness = GOOD

BCS = GARBAGE



You like to play devil's advocate by argument the opposite of rationality, but you're just wasting your time. Might as well get a job working for the BCS, or perhaps a cigarette company...


Translation: I can't make a decent argument as to why we need 5 "at-large" teams so I'm just going to say because every sport does it so you must be wrong.



Well done Mars.
A
Alphaleonis
We need "at large" teams in the playoffs to ensure that the best team in the nation is in the mix. The best team in the nation may not be the champion of their conference. This may have happened because they (Team A) played the team that eventually won the conference (Team B) at that other teams field and had the disadvantage of that plus they got homered by the refs and had a few bad breaks - maybe their field goal kicker missed two easy chip shot field goals. And even with all that - the home field, the refs, the breaks, the other team still barely won. Everybody knows, based on the performances of the rest of the season, that on a neutral field Team A would beat Team B 9 out of 10 times. Now assume that Team A has only one loss and is rated #5 in the nation prior to the playoffs (Team B, their conference's champion is also in the top 10, but has 2 losses - both out of conference)



Could have happened this year if Bama had played anybody out of conference.
H
happyvalleycougar
As long as we're playing with numbers.... How often in NCAA men's basketball has the two teams who play for the championship been the winner of their conference? I don't have the time to look up the stats, but I bet it's pretty close to 100%. Certainly within the 8% that is the BCS. Rasta, we don't care about the at-large bids. We are fine not having them. We want everyone to have a chance at the title. If you have to win your conference, that's fine. Each team in the country has that oportunity. Right now, each team in the country does not have the oportunity to get into the title game. It's that simple. You give us a way that any team, any year could get into the title game, and we would be fine with that. That's our beef with the BCS. You can't sit down before the season starts and tell a team what they have to do to be the champions.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
M
mormonrasta
Alphaleonis wrote:
We need "at large" teams in the playoffs to ensure that the best team in the nation is in the mix. The best team in the nation may not be the champion of their conference. This may have happened because they (Team A) played the team that eventually won the conference (Team B) at that other teams field and had the disadvantage of that plus they got homered by the refs and had a few bad breaks - maybe their field goal kicker missed two easy chip shot field goals. And even with all that - the home field, the refs, the breaks, the other team still barely won. Everybody knows, based on the performances of the rest of the season, that on a neutral field Team A would beat Team B 9 out of 10 times. Now assume that Team A has only one loss and is rated #5 in the nation prior to the playoffs (Team B, their conference's champion is also in the top 10, but has 2 losses - both out of conference)



Could have happened this year if Bama had played anybody out of conference.


How often does what you described happen?



You are saying that at least 5 teams A YEAR are not only agonizingly close to a conference championship, but if they had won their conference championship they would have been worthy of a National Championship? Let's review.



Boise State won the WAC easily. Nobody else from the WAC fits your scenario.



Alabama clinched the SEC west with 3 weeks left to play, went undefeated, and beat Florida easily in the SEC Championship Game. Nobody fits your above scenario from the SEC.



Cincy won the Big East by 2 games. Nobody from the Big East fits your scenario.



Texas went undefeated, but barely beat Nebraska for the Championship. Had Nebraska won did they deserve a shot at the title? Iowa State says no way. Nobody from the Big 12 fits your scenario



TCU went undefeated. The only close game in conference came against Air Force. Had TCU lost that game they are still conference champs and own the tiebreaker with BYU. Nobody in the MWC fits your scenario.



Does anybody from the Sun Belt, MAC, or CUSA deserve to play for a NC this year? No.



There are barely 5 conference champs that deserve to play for the NC this year. There is not one single "at-large" team worthy to play for the championship this year. This year is not a fluke in that regard. And we want to have 5 "at-large" teams play for a NC? I don't think so.
G
Guest
mormonrasta wrote:
Does anybody from the Sun Belt, MAC, or CUSA deserve to play for a NC this year? No.


Absolutely, yes they do. Give me one good reason why a NCAA division I football team doesn't deserve to? That is nearly as stupid as saying Arizona didn't deserve to go the Super Bowl last year because they haven't been good in a long time, or even worse coming up with some even stupider explanation about them not selling as many home game seats so they don't deserve it, but maybe, just maybe if they start selling out it will be.



Any team that doesn't deserve a shot at the National Championship shouldn't be playing.
M
Mars


The BCS is great.

Also, the Holocaust never happened.



:roll:



Some people can't be helped.
M
mormonrasta
hawkwing wrote:
Does anybody from the Sun Belt, MAC, or CUSA deserve to play for a NC this year? No.


Absolutely, yes they do. Give me one good reason why a NCAA division I football team doesn't deserve to? That is nearly as stupid as saying Arizona didn't deserve to go the Super Bowl last year because they haven't been good in a long time, or even worse coming up with some even stupider explanation about them not selling as many home game seats so they don't deserve it, but maybe, just maybe if they start selling out it will be.



Any team that doesn't deserve a shot at the National Championship shouldn't be playing.


Please don't misunderstand. I do believe every team should have a chance to play for a NC.



My post was meant to say based on their accomplishments on the field of play this year does anybody from the Sun Belt, MAC, or CUSA deserve to play in a playoff for a NC this year.
A
Alphaleonis
Back from the Sunday School Christmas party and ready to answer Rasta.



You ask how many times my imaginary scenario will happen to exclude a worthy non-conference champ from a playoff? How many times in what length of history? The past 8-10 years (How long has The BCS been around?) or the last 10 plus the next 50.

If it happened only once in whatever period it would be too many.



I graduated from BYU and went to graduate school at LSU. So I follow LSU pretty close as my second school. One year they got into the NC game with 2 losses and won. I'm a LSU fan and even I didn't like that bogus NC matchup. I think that there were 5 or 6 teams that were just as worthy of admission to the NC game. Maybe more than one from some conference(s). Hence the need for a playoff and the need for some at large berths.



Just spending so much typing time proving that such a travesty didn't happen THIS YEAR is a waste of your time. We're talking long term solutions. Like I said, if it happens once in the next quarter century, it would be once too many.
Page 2 of 3
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.