One More
Monday, December 11, 2006 at 10:46PM So the handful of anti-playoff folks like myself need a nickname... Coalition of the Villain? Eh. Comment or send me emails with ideas.
In the meantime check out this entry from Georgia blogger Get The Picture.
He takes a different tack about the issue, talking about a lot of the downwind stuff that isn't being considered at all when people call for a playoff.
So there you have it. Wave your magic wands and fix these issues. Like I said, it’s so easy…
Heh.
Unintended consequences.
It takes a great deal of energy to move a giant boulder. But once it's moving, it's also difficult to halt. When college football decided to ditch its old system, many felt the Bowl Coalition would be the last stop, a successful compromise to establish a more realistic championship game.
Oops.
Instead we then created the BCS and modified it ceaselessly, each time finding no greater success than the day we started. That's kind of how it goes.
This blog makes a good point that if we start out with a limited playoff (four or eight teams), who is to say that boulder stops there?
Most proponents of a playoff talk about a small scale proposal - usually, anywhere from four to eight teams. The virtues of this approach are that it does the least amount of harm to the results of the regular season, minimizes extra travel and keeps the extension of the season to as short a period as possible. What nobody talks about is how things would stay compressed. I like to point to the history of NCAA men’s basketball as an illustration of what occurs over time. When the NCAA started the tourney in 1939, there were only eight participants. Today, the field is over eight times that size. Because of that, the regular season has been reduced dramatically in its meaningfulness. How do you propose to prevent that from happening in football?
That is but one unintended consequence to consider. We have to be very careful what we wish for, and there's simply no caution evident in the marketplace of ideas (sans a few places like here, Baseball Savant and Get the Picture).
General 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (30)
Here's one more anti-playoff piece you might want to read, by Dick Bestwick, who was the head coach at Virginia before Welch: http://onlineathens.com/PalmPilot/stories/120906/opinion_20061209041.html
Great read, thanks for pointing that out.
Johnny and Ltrain,
Nice suggestions both. Could do the "Coalition of the Unwillin'" also :o). Good stuff, I need to find someone who does images now, create a little sticker for sites who aren't all into the whole playoff thing.
As far as when the playoff expansion would stop, who knows. Two things that would factor into that are 1) Will I-A continue to expand to some degree like BB has, and 2) How much noise (lawsuit?) will the non-BCS teams make about not having their conference champion or highest rated team (another argument in itself) in the playoff?
However, there is an elitist argument (reality?) that it would be more likely for a low seed in BB to beat a much higher seed than it would be with your 'average' Sun Belt, MAC, etc., champion in FB. So, why keep expanding the tournament just because there's more Middle Tennessees? Unfortunately, that answer is $$$.
If those teams are willing to (most likely) take a beating in their final game for a bigger paycheck than a mid-range bowl, then surely they'll stand up and fight for that right at some point as they did for the extra BCS game.
That's a false choice, in my opinion.
Because we're not the ones who get to make that choice. That will be made by the college presidents, athletic directors, coaches, the bowls, the networks and the NCAA.
The #9 coach whose team get screwed out of the playoffs and thus doesn't collect on a $100k bonus in his contract could care less about what might of happened to #3. The #17 athletic director who was counting on the additional revenue from a playoff game doesn't care about your choice, either.
They'll just keep yelling. And eventually, they'll be rewarded with more seeds and brackets in the tournament. Because in this setting, money talks louder than anything else.
That's a false choice, in my opinion.
Because we're not the ones who get to make that choice. That will be made by the college presidents, athletic directors, coaches, the bowls, the networks and the NCAA.
The #9 coach whose team gets screwed out of the playoffs and thus doesn't collect on a $100k bonus in his contract could care less about what might have happened to #3. The #17 athletic director who was counting on the additional revenue from a playoff game doesn't care about your choice, either.
They'll just keep yelling. And eventually, they'll be rewarded with more seeds and brackets in the tournament. Because in this setting, money talks louder than anything else.
These anti-playoff people have no argument. You could take their stance and make the argument that we don't even need to play regular season games. Just let the polls and computers pick the conference champs and the National Champion. Post-season awards too.
I never hear any argument whatsoever in any other college sport where's there is a playoff for the championship. None, nada, zippo. When it's decided on the field, it's decided.
Sure, if the pro-playoff stance could be twisted to make the argument that the regular season could be removed for a season-long playoff. With imagination, you could make an argument point a lot of directions if you introduce your own thinking.
The point of many anti-playoff arguments (at least, the point of mine) is not that we should leave football solely up to the polls -- it's that we should leave the polls simply as opinions and consider the "national champion" simply as a matter of opinion rather than a proclamation of fact. The regular season is a beautiful thing, and conference champions are as indisputable as it gets in college football. It's when you get to the national level that you spawn arguments, and that's where it's best for college football to keep national rankings simply as opinion, and nothing else.
So the anti-playoff stance is not to reduce the regular season; it's to maintain it as the most important part of college football.
"When is the last time a number 16 seed made it to the final 8?"
A #8 in college football and a #16 in the basketball tournament are in no way comparable. Not until a #8 college football team is from a mini-major conference like the Sun Belt.
Actually, I don't think the basketball tournament and a proposed football playoff are comparable anyway, but that's another issue.
The fact is that when someone ask who was the National Champion in 2004 nobody says well it was the opinion that USC won it. What a bullshit argument.
"A #8 in college football and a #16 team in the basketball tournament are in no way comparable." I'm not sure what you mean? I'm saying that when only (2) teams are representing all of college football that there could be and usually are at least 3 or 4 teams making the claim that they should have been in the game. With a playoff of 8 or 16 teams the number 9 team or the number 17 team might whine about not being in the field but, I don't think you would hear much argument after a playoff that these teams should have been the champion. BTW, from what BCS conference is Boise State?
Why bring up the basketball playoffs? I didn't. How about comparing it to the playoffs in the other college football divisions? Where's the problem there?
What other championship is decided by polls, computers, opinions? Don't make sense to me.
1) The anti-playoff folks do NOT want to rely on computers and polls because we think those methods are better or somehow a more accurate way to determine a "true" champion - it is that most of us think the whole notion of determining a "true" champion is flawed no matter which way you choose to decide (playoffs, polls, whatever), and in fact, choosing to do so via playoffs would only determine the "champion" of the end of season tournament, while in the process ruining alot of the great tradition of college football (extremely important regular season matchups, interesting bowl games, etc.), we'd be changing from one "flawed" system (and the BCS is indeed flawed) to a more "flawed" system that could potentially ruin the sport we love. Not a good trade off. There isn't a way to determine a "true" champion, and we are fine with that.
[this is a wholly different argument than the one which says the current BCS format is flawed and I think most of us are in agreement as to that]
2) Most of us anti-playoffers are not going to be swayed by the "this is the only level of a sport that doesn't decided a champion on the field" argument...we believe part of what makes CFB great is in fact, differences like that one.
I am not trying to claim you are wrong, I'm only trying to clarify our point of view (which needed clarification, with your sarcastic commment of "lets get rid of the regular season and wholly rely on the polls," which in no way logically follows from the stance of the anti-playoff points of view espoused around these parts).
"Interesting Bowl games"?? Most are uninteresting and unattended and unwatched. They are in locations miles and miles from the teams that are participating. If some of these bowls would be incorporated into a playoff system they might be worth watching. At least they would generate some TV ratings. If we had a 16 team playoff and use the bowl games as playoff games at least we would have about 15 bowl games that would actually be interesting. Instead we have maybe 3 or 4 and only 1 of them really mean anything.
Different doesn't necessarily equate to better.
The BCS is plenty flawed, and a playoff may (to some), from a relative standpoint, be better than the BCS, but that doesn't mean it is the best answer for college football. The main identifiable playoff flaws are, amongst others: *in other sports playoffs don't answer the question being asked, which "who is the best team" (see 2006 St. Louis Cardinals, 2006 Florida basketball); *regular season losses won't have the same impact if you can still make the playoffs, and hence regular season games will lose their intensity and luster. *Don't forget all of the problems that we can't identify - the flaws of the BCS have taken a decade to identify themselves (in the beginning everybody was mad at the computers, now everybody is mad at the pollsters...what will be the problem in two years?)...*There are other reasons, but I will dwell on this one since you asked:
["Why would a playoff of some kind at the end of the season take away from "important regular season matchups? Give me an example please.]
Example one: Number 1 Florida lost to #10 Kansas a few weeks back in College Basketball - did you even notice? Did you even watch? Did you even care? Most people would answer no, no, and no, because it doesn't matter. (Imagine the total lack of attention given to a top 10 early season matchup in football...this was a basketball matchup on par with Sept. 06 OSU vs. Texas, but nobody even noticed, and/or it will have virtuall zero affect on the remainder of the season for either team)
Example two: have you watched the NFL in the final 3 weeks with games between any team other than a team fighting for a last spot? They bench all the starters, play the scrubs, and nobody cares. College football shouldn't turn into this. Everygame should matter, e.g. USC lost to UCLA but, prior to that game USC would have clinched a playoff spot as Pac-10 champion in almost any 8 or 16 team scenario (if you say top X should make it without regard to conference championships, then you minimize conference champsionships...so what's the "playoff" answer for USC this year? this isn't as easy an answer as you think). That game, one of the most exciting of the year, would be rendered nearly meaningless, and 3/4 of the football world wouldn't have been tuned in.
Example three: Other than the playoffs, how much 1-AA regular season football have you watched? (I'm not calling you out personally, just the hordes who love the 1-AA system but often never really pay attention...) I have watched a bunch in what is arguably, year in and year out, the best 1-AA conference, and the football is very good (I watched alot of Randy Moss when he was at Marshall), but a loss or two was no big deal because you could get in the playoffs. The quality of football at most of these schools in the starting lineup is pretty close to 1-A standards (quality depth being the major difference), but the fan support is no where near relative, until the playoffs. If it takes playoffs to get fans interested in the sport, find another sport.
["Interesting Bowl games"?? Most are uninteresting and unattended and unwatched. They are in locations miles and miles from the teams that are participating.]
I don't disagree with you here (as to the "interesting" point...the travel distance is in direct relation to the fact the games are traditionally intended to be a reward/vacation, and as such are by nature going to be far away), but this "uninteresting" is a function of too many bowl games, not a problem with the bowl concept in general. Reduce the number of bowl games and they immediately become more meaningful and interesting.
[If some of these bowls would be incorporated into a playoff system they might be worth watching. At least they would generate some TV ratings.]
I hope we don't continue to make decisions on the sport in regard to TV ratings. The new clock rules were made from such a viewpoint, and we can see how masterfully that has worked.
[If we had a 16 team playoff and use the bowl games as playoff games at least we would have about 15 bowl games that would actually be interesting. Instead we have maybe 3 or 4 and only 1 of them really mean anything.]
I agree there are too many bowls, but if you think, this year, there are only 3 or 4 interesting matchups, then I believe there may be a fundamental philospical divide here that no amount of blog discussion will overcome.
[Different doesn't necessarily equate to better.]
No, but it doesn't mean worse either, and thus isn't a strong foundational argument. It is a subjective matter, and some ofus think different is in, fact, better in this particular circumstance.
I hope you at least deem this a passable effort at answering your questions.
Why leave the polls as opinions rather than proclamations of fact? Because that's what they are. I don't know what arguments there are to the contrary.
> The fact is that when someone ask who was
> the National Champion in 2004 nobody says well
> it was the opinion that USC won it. What a
> bullshit argument.
You're right: that wouldn't be much of an argument. Fortunately, that's not the argument I made. I said the polls should be considered matters of opinion, not that they are considered matters of opinion. The problems we have now are directly related to this issue.
> BTW, from what BCS conference is Boise State?
I hope you're not saying the WAC and the Sun Belt are similar. Boise State is a good mid-major team, as was the Mountain West's Utah (who, as I recall, beat Georgia in a bowl game); the Sun Belt doesn't produce football teams like that.
> Why bring up the basketball playoffs? I didn't.
You said, "When is the last time a number 16 seed made it to the final 8?" Your words and their context seemed to be speaking of the basketball tournament. If I did not read them correctly, I apologize.
> How about comparing it to the playoffs in the
> other college football divisions? Where's the
> problem there?
Someone with more experience outside D-1A has addressed this question. But here's my question for you: why should D-1A football be like the other divisions? Why can't it be different?
> What other championship is decided by polls,
> computers, opinions? Don't make sense to me.
You're right -- opinion-based championships are a little odd. But guess what: D-1A college football already has championships decided independent of polls, computers and opinions: conference championships. They work beautifully, and the championship races are compelling. If we could drop the obsession with one single "undisputed" champion, we might realize that we already had a pretty amazing system.
Dawgy, ever pay attention to how the seeds are selected for the NCAA basketball tourney?
Maybe you should pay attention and your posts would make more sense?
And if college football goes to, say, a four team playoff, how do you propose to choose the teams? With an eight team tourney, how do you seed the teams?
If you've got a way to decide this stuff without polls, computers and opinions, clue us in. I don't see how you get away from it, playoff or no playoff.