FanNation - The Republic of Sport

"Such a prospect is what makes March Madness so much fun, so why won't this work for football?"

It would make it more fun. Unfortunately, this isn't about fun. This is about selecting the "best" teams. If you want fun, I suggest a circus or Disney World.

And, a playoff definitely devalues the regular season. There is no debate on this topic.

Georgetown defeated Villanova twice that season. Yet, because Villanova won the last game, they were declared the "Champion". So much for beating an opponent at their house. Georgetown finished with a better record while playing nearly the same schedule.

Last year, Patriots went undefeated for 18 games and had already beat the Giants. Yet, the Patriots finally lose a game and the Giants were declared the "Champion". The Patriots still finished with a better record.

Shouldn't the best team be the team that performs well over an extended period of time, instead of who put together the best final 5 games?

A lot of teams go on 5 game winning streaks. Few teams put on 18 game winning streaks. I can't see how the argument that 5 games > 18 games.

Silars, you bring up some good points, but and I agree ". . .instead of who put together the best final five games.", with the current system if you lose late you are out. Everyone agrees that if Texas Tech loses in the Big 12 Championship game they will be eliminated. In fact, they won't even make a BCS Bowl game if that happens. Secondarily, a strong team, say USC or Utah, is eliminated before they even play their bowl game.
I recommend all conferences start conference play on week 1, play it through to the conference title game, then finish with non-conference play. The first conference to do this will be in the title game every year.

Yes the regular season is devalued with a playoff system. Look at College basketball, u can stink during the regular season and make a run during the conference tourney and make it. Even if you do the playoff format like FCS then it still goes to a vote to pick the final 8 at-large teams.

QUOTE(#1):

Originally posted 11:05 AM ET  11.18 by silars

And, a playoff definitely devalues the regular season. There is no debate on this topic.

"And, a playoff definitely devalues the regular season. There is no debate on this topic."

I'm sorry, I could not disagree more. My team's season has no championship value right now. A playoff would mean that every conference still has something else to play for and spots to fight for. If you want no debate, just declare "NEXT!"


"It would make it more fun. Unfortunately, this isn't about fun. This is about selecting the "best" teams. If you want fun, I suggest a circus or Disney World."

We've been round and round before. "Best" is reserved for opinions based upon subjective values and decided by votes. Championships are for teams that win first in a conference and then across conferences on the field. I want fun. Fun to play, fun to watch.... sports represent the biggest form of global entertainment. Sports are entertainment for billions.

As a clown, it pains me to say, fun is not reserved just for the circus (or disney World).

QUOTE(#1):

Originally posted 11:05 AM ET  11.18 by silars

And, a playoff definitely devalues the regular season. There is no debate on this topic.

I couldn't agree more.

The only argument I have heard against that from a previous comment is that at this late point in the season, some teams that are still in their conference championship race have been eliminated from the possibility of playing for the national title or are all but eliminated barring some very odd circumstances. This fails to take into account all of the weeks leading up to this late part of the season, where every game had meaning not only to the teams playing, but to other teams in other conferences, whose hopes rested in part on the result of a game not even in their conference.

Mandel described it very well in last week's mailbag. He took several games from around the country that would have had meaning only to fans of those particular teams or conferences, but because of the BCS system, has tremendous meaning to fans of teams and other conferences all over then nation. One of those games was Penn St. -Iowa.

I am not going to go into the many other issues surrounding the BCS because I would be here all afternoon. But there really is no way the regular season is not devalued by a playoff structured as most playoff supporters envision. The more teams that are in the playoff (and the more conferences that are required to be in it) the more it is devalued.

Judging from fan attendance at the regular season basketball games, it sure does not look to me as if the fan sees it as a devalued experience. The gyms are still full and the rivalries are still just as intense. Including more teams in the mix beyond just the conference champions (college basketball changed to this format in 1975 and also expanded to 32 teams at this time) put more teams in the conversation for the pursuit of the National Championship.

This would work in college football. Imagine how great a 12-team playoff would be this year with something like the following:

1. Seed the top 4 teams according to some formula like today's BCS calculation

2. Conference Champs from top 6 BCS conferences automatically qualify (currently projected as Alabama, Texas Tech, Oregon State, Penn State, Maryland, Cincinnati)

3. Make 6 at-large choices that would come from schools like Florida, Texas, USC, Utah, Boise State, Oklahoma.

Play the games off over a month and, just as with March Madness, have the entire country riveted for that period of time.

As for money and meaning, imagine the rights fees that ESPN would pay for the 11 games that would be played under such a format. Furthermore, each playoff game would be totally meaningful, much more so than contests like this year's Rose Bowl is likely to be if it matches Penn State against Oregon State or this year's Orange Bowl that could match Maryland against Cincinnati. Those and many of the BCS bowl games have modest interest to most of the country.

QUOTE(#6):

Originally posted 12:06 PM ET  11.18 by arbitrageur

Judging from fan attendance at the regular season basketball games, it sure does not look to me as if the fan sees it as a devalued experience. The gyms are still full and the rivalries are still just as intense.

If this is your criteria for success, then the BCS is a monstrous success.

College Football has had more expansion over the last 10 years (BCS years) than any other period of its existence. People are attending games in droves. Stadiums are having to expand to accomodate all the people. Skyboxes are built because people want to spend more money. Bowl games are worth more money than they have ever been. The list goes on and on.

You are essentially arguing that the BCS should stay.

arbi, I assume by "every conference" you are referring to the FBS, aka Div.1. That's fair enough except for one gargantuan oversight. Why in the world would you include the itty bitty Big Ten in this plan? They don't even have a conference championship game, the MAC does so that automatically makes the MAC superior to the itty bitty Big Ten and last but not least Ball St. is better than Ohio St.

BCS is gonna stay no matter what. Instead of crying for a playoff, there should be modifications to the current system to make it better. I'm not a Big 12 fan, but because of this format I actually care to watch their games.

Silars:

No debate? As you can see from psuinstl and SportsPoet, there is significant debate. Take away the BCS conferences greed and replace it with the ability for any team who can win their conference championship to have an opportunity to get into the playoffs. The regular season matters because every team strives for that conference championship and the opportunity to go further, to play the rest of the best. This differs from the 64 team NCAA basketball tournament where there are so many conference champions given automatic bids that the dilution of the overall quality of the tournament is obvious. A 16 team playoff would not be like that.

In football, unlike basketball, it is unlikely that one player is going to be able to change the outcome of a game involving a heavily over matched opponent as can happen in basketball. There is no more of a team game than football. A great performance by a running back, receiver or quarterback can't help you win if your defense can't stop the other side. More importantly is the fact that a football playoff can still have the best teams playing each other.

There are 11 conferences and 1 small group of independents in the FBS. Get rid of the independents by making them join a league, (there are only 4 and Army and Navy should be easily absorbed by the MAC or Sunbelt and ND is perfect for the 12th in the Big 10). Although ratings are problematic for all, it would not be too difficult to figure out which of the 11 conferences are worthy of putting their conference champion into the playoff. If the overall record of the conference does not place them in the top 10, then they are out. So, each year, one conference, because of the conference's overall performance would not get in the playoff. You have a 16 team playoff who do you get in this year? This year it looks like that based on overall records that the Sunbelt would be staying home (can anyone really complain when the best team in conference has 4 losses that they deserve to have their champion represent?). This means that Ball State, undefeated, Boise State, Undefeated, and Utah, Undefeated, if they won their conference would be in the playoff, something they are screaming to do.

This year, the BCS qualifiers that are almost certain locks are: PSU in the Rose Bowl, USC (Rose or at large), OSU (at large), FL or Bama (NC and/or Sugar), Texas, TTech and/or OU (NC and/or Fiesta), ACC Champ (none in top 20 BCS) Big East (top is #19 in BCS) OrSt (Rose).

So, we have the 6 BCS conference Champs taking 6 spots in the playoffs, the undefeated conference champions from Utah, Ball State and BSU taking 3 spots, and the winner of Conf-USA taking the last guaranteed spot. Then, we have 6 at-large. We know right now that one of the 3 Big XII South members will not get a BCS game. They would all get into the playoffs based on their BCS (and/or human poll rankings). So would USC, Ohio State and the loser of the Bama/Florida game. None of the top 10 teams would be left out and only one conference champion would be out. You'd then have one other spot, maybe it is Georgia. Sending 3 SEC and 3 Big XII schools certainly shouldn't offend anyone. Not with 2 Big 10 and 2 Pac 10s going as well. The BCS conferences would still have the highest representation and depending on rankings, higher seeds.

cont. -

You eliminate the need to play FCS schools because you need to reduce the games played by 2 and depending on what your conference does, you don't play out of conference games when you have a large conference and you pick up 1 or 2 OOC games if you are in the MWC, Pac 10, Big East and WAC (and with this you could realign some conferences and get Conf Championship games in each conference thereby reducing the # of conference champions and opening up more at-large bids and making every single regular season game matter). You can also make your conference championship game the 2 teams with the best records regardless of division thus putting a premium on winning every game as opposed to just winning your division.

This system would reward conference champions. Thus putting a premium on every regular season game as you need to qualify for the conference championships. As the teams with the best in conference records play for the championship and right to the automatic bid, you'd have all of the teams with the best records with a chance to get in the playoffs. The other top teams would still have an opportunity as an at large. I don't think there is any one who claims that there are more than 6 or 7 teams ranked below the top 9 that would ever be considered worthy of a shot at a national title and each of those teams would have a chance in the playoff. This system would not let a mediocre team get on a roll and get the automatic bid as in the Basketball tourney because your best 2 records are required to get into that game.

Obviously the playoff would pit 1 v 16, 2 v. 15, etc. With the lower ranked schools playing the higher ranked schools, presumably at the higher ranked team's home field (and for all you BCS schools where you are consistently ranked higher than the non-BCS teams, you would likely be playing at home at least in week 1. After week one, you use 3rd tier bowls for week 2, then new year's bowls for week 3 and finally the week after New Year's for the NC game.

Any remaining bowl games could still feature the rest of the teams by their current conference affiliation as they do now. So, Silars, I disagree, I think that the time to have a FBS playoff utilizing conference champions and at-large teams is workable and makes the most out of every regular season game. If your team is the best, it will win the playoffs. Isn't the saying "Any Given Sunday" one of the reasons we watch the NFL? Any team at any time beating each other, records be damned. The difference in college football is we have so many good teams all over the country that don't get to stack up against the others and this gives all a shot. Finally, the money generated from this playoff would be sick. Isn't that what college athletics and student athletes are all about anyway? Making money for their school?

I rest.

QUOTE(#11):

Originally posted 01:09 PM ET  11.18 by UTEBROOK

I rest.

Your fingers must hurt. Silars won't change his opinion and the format of the playoff is debatable. But obviously there is room for debate.

QUOTE(#10):

Originally posted 01:08 PM ET  11.18 by UTEBROOK

No debate? As you can see from psuinstl and SportsPoet, there is significant debate. Take away the BCS conferences greed and replace it with the ability for any team who can win their conference championship to have an opportunity to get into the playoffs. The regular season matters because every team strives for that conference championship and the opportunity to go further, to play the rest of the best.

The original quote concerned there being no debate that the regular season would be devalued. Though you wrote a lot about how much you would like to see a year end tournament and how it might be structured, if you are going to debate you need to address the issue which generated the quote, and I cannot see that you did. Would the regular season be devalued?

You stated that the regular season would still matter, and no one ever said it wouldn't...only that it would be devalued.

I would agree that if there were to be a playoff tournament, the format would be highly debatable. It is even highly debatable whether the benefits obtained by having a playoff tournament would outweigh the devaluation of the regular season. But there isn't much argument that the regular season would be devalued.

Personally, as a huge college football fan, I would hate to see a 16 team playoff. I would be uncomfortable with an 8 team playoff but it would have its moments...and I couldn't say for sure that I might not come to like it. I would be completely ok with a 6 or 4 team playoff...or to leave it as it is. I have my own ideas as to how to improve the selection process, however.

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 01:24 PM ET  11.18 by josephplumber

The original quote concerned there being no debate that the regular season would be devalued. Though you wrote a lot about how much you would like to see a year end tournament and how it might be structured, if you are going to debate you need to address the issue which generated the quote, and I cannot see that you did. Would the regular season be devalued? You stated that the regular season would still matter, and no one ever said it wouldn't...only that it would be devalued.

The entire post had to do with how the regular season games have meaning with a playoff. You have little to no shot to make the playoffs and the chance at a spot in the NC unless you win your conference. You must have one of the 2 best records in conference to play for the conference crown. That isn't the case with the current BCS where a non-champion can still be put in the NC game. If you are concerned that allowing at-large teams in, then reduce it to only conference champions, top 8. That eliminates the BCS other strong teams but it still does not dilute or devalue the regular season.

Every game matters to win your conference. How is that devalued?

My brain hurts now! Although I am with silars on this one.

QUOTE(#15):

Originally posted 01:46 PM ET  11.18 by UTEBROOK

The entire post had to do with how the regular season games have meaning with a playoff. You have little to no shot to make the playoffs and the chance at a spot in the NC unless you win your conference. You must have one of the 2 best records in conference to play for the conference crown. That isn't the case with the current BCS where a non-champion can still be put in the NC game. If you are concerned that allowing at-large teams in, then reduce it to only conference champions, top 8. That eliminates the BCS other strong teams but it still does not dilute or devalue the regular season. Every game matters to win your conference. How is that devalued?

I have already acknowledged that you said that the regular season has meaning and matters. But you repeated it again anyway. The question was ....Is the regular season devalued? I am trying to avoid writing a definition of devalue as it seems rather self-explanatory.

In a previous post I made points about how games all over the country mean a lot to people from other conferences and other parts of the country. Another commenter backed me up on that. Have you refuted that? Fans will always be interested in their own conference and their own teams regardless of whether you have a tournament or not.

Silars also made points about how the team that was the best over the long haul...over the course of a season..will often not win a tournament. So are we just trying to have a tournament for the sake of fun? ...or are you trying to identify the best team? In any case the regular season is devalued.

I think there should be some sort of 8-or-more team playoff system used to determine the NC, but I don't think each conference champion should get an automatic bid. Each team in a playoff should have to earn their spot, with something like the BCS determining who plays. Gifting one team in each conference with a playoff spot cannot possibly assure a playoff with the best teams in the country.

QUOTE(#12):

Originally posted 01:16 PM ET  11.18 by PSUinOutback?

Your fingers must hurt. Silars won't change his opinion and the format of the playoff is debatable. But obviously there is room for debate.

We're starting to discuss two different topics.

Playoff format is highly debatable. As, Plumber pointed out, this wasn't what we were discussing.

The function that a playoff devalues the regular season isn't debatable. This is a cold, hard fact. It is well understood and accepted. When administrators create a playoff, they know they will devalue games in the regular season. The intentionally try to create playoffs that minimize this impact because it has an effect on the revenue stream.

Common sense even dictates it.

A playoff shifts the importance of games to the playoff games. You merely need to win enough regular season games to enter the playoff structure. Once in the playoffs, you start over with all the marbles on the table again.

If you had no playoff games, then all the emphasis is on the regular season games.

This is really just simple logic.

If you have an 8 team playoff I don't think the regular season will be devalued. Looking at the current BCS standings there are 3 undefeated teams and 5 teams with 1 loss. An undefeated team losing to a 1 loss team is not akin to the kind of defeats in March Madness that some argue would devalue the regular season.