The W
Views: 178597693
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.3.17 0426
The 7 - Football - AP/Harris polls Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(1439 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (48 total)
TheCow
Landjager
Level: 68

Posts: 902/948
EXP: 2628662
For next: 100152

Since: 3.1.02
From: Knoxville, TN

Since last post: 5884 days
Last activity: 5884 days
Y!:
#21 Posted on 27.9.05 2001.26
Reposted on: 27.9.12 2001.51
Besides, everyone seems to be forgetting that with all the controversy surrounding the "who got snubbed?" conversations following the at-large teams, rarely does any of them make it past the first round or so. In a 16-team playoff, they'd eliminate each other quickly anyway, or get stuck playing the top few teams.

As for how polls work, this is my best idea on it (I'm following this closely this year): Preseason polls are defined by two things. The first is the "name" recognition of the franchse, both recently and historically; the second is the number of star returning players. This is why USC was 1st, Texas was 2nd, etc. Also, USC returned their core from last year's championship team that destroyed Oklahoma. They're all still there. Why should they NOT be first?

However, that's not my main point. My main point is that, in general, teams only drop for a loss. It's not just the top 5. (And, lest we forget, Tennessee did drop from 3 to 6 after a win against UAB this year.) How much they drop depends on a few things - if they were a preseason fave, are they a mid-major, which number loss was it, etc. The general theory I've cooked up is a little more complicated than this; I'm using this year as a test run on the theory. My reasoning behind it is that voters:
1 - are largely lazy
2 - can't watch all the games, so go off of where everyone was last week, and if they won, great. If not, they'll get dropped. Seriously, with the Coaches' poll, how are they supposed to coach their game and watch another 30 teams play?
Roy.
Pepperoni
Level: 70

Posts: 807/1040
EXP: 2870935
For next: 144891

Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 5792 days
Last activity: 1756 days
#22 Posted on 27.9.05 2052.47
Reposted on: 27.9.12 2052.53
    Originally posted by TheCow
    Seriously, with the Coaches' poll, how are they supposed to coach their game and watch another 30 teams play?


I'd bet that, most of the time, an AD, SID, or assistant coach faxes in the votes, with very little input from the head coach himself. That's how it worked at Penn State (until JoePa pulled out of the poll this year). I'd be willing to bet that there's some not so football savvy people sending in votes.
thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 152

Posts: 1450/6203
EXP: 44062446
For next: 239316

Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL

Since last post: 938 days
Last activity: 318 days
#23 Posted on 27.9.05 2224.20
Reposted on: 27.9.12 2225.09


    ACC Atlantic Champion
    ACC Coastal Champion
    Big 12 North Champion
    Big 12 South Champion
    Big East Champion
    Big Ten Champion
    Conference USA East Champion
    Conference USA West Champion
    Mid American East Champion
    Mid American West Champion
    Mountain West Champion
    Pac 10 Champion
    SEC East Champion
    SEC West Champion
    Sun Belt Champion
    WAC Champion



The problem here is there'd be a line a mile long of teams wanting to be the first (and only) to transfer to the Sun Belt for an easy easy bid into the BCS Tournament. Not to mention plenty of 2nd/3rd place finishers complaining about teams not even ranked getting advanced past them.

Having division/confrence winners advance to the playoff round works in college basketball because there are still plenty of at large births to allow any team of good quality (and some who are lesser) to still take part; here, most years there'd be 35 teams better than the MAC West champion who don't get to move on because they're stuck with one birth for their confernce.

If they're going to take something from college basketball, I believe they should take the committee selection method. Regardless if it's for a playoff or for the current system, it's much more sensible to have informed people come to get to make a decision away from the public rather than put the decision in the hands of isolated voters, very affected by partisan pressure.

(edited by thecubsfan on 27.9.05 2224)
JayJayDean
Scrapple
Level: 136

Posts: 2315/4750
EXP: 29484849
For next: 612143

Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 2975 days
Last activity: 2553 days
Y!:
#24 Posted on 27.9.05 2256.37
Reposted on: 27.9.12 2256.37
    Originally posted by thecubsfan
    The problem here is there'd be a line a mile long of teams wanting to be the first (and only) to transfer to the Sun Belt for an easy easy bid into the BCS Tournament. Not to mention plenty of 2nd/3rd place finishers complaining about teams not even ranked getting advanced past them.


You think so? Based on the annual "Florida State wants to join the Big South for basketball"-story or something? I doubt, say, Baylor, would want to give up games versus Texas with stands full of Texas fans and replace them with Troy and stands full of crickets.

Besides, Miami just left their darn-near-automatic-BCS-berth in the Big East for the ACC, where they face much stiffer competition for the season.

(I don't think that playoff set-up would work, either, but I thought that was a curious comment.)
wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 96

Posts: 196/2190
EXP: 8786813
For next: 202006

Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 2552 days
Last activity: 1537 days
#25 Posted on 27.9.05 2328.28
Reposted on: 27.9.12 2328.35
    Originally posted by JayJayDean
    If you're going to just say "I like the bowl games", that's fine, but don't try to act like they are superior to a would-be playoff. How's this for a difference between the lower divisions and Division I: the teams of Divsion I-AA include Eastern Washington University, in Cheney, which is basically the middle of nowhere, like a lot of smaller schools. Their championship game takes place in Chattanooga, TN. To me, the logistics of getting a team from Cheney to Chattanooga on a D-IAA budget is a lot more imposing a student-athlete than flying on D-I budget to major cities where most of these playoff games would likely take place.

    Your comment about "what separates the 12-24" teams can esily be applied to the teams from 30-40 (where they get the last at-large teams) in basketball, yet they seem to manage to make a bracket every year. And like I said, which didn't answer, you can't name the teams that get screwed out of March Madness bids every year, because they all could've done something better during their seasons to deserve a spot in the bracket. In football, neither Auburn, Utah, or Lousiville could've won any more football games than they did, yet they were denied a chance to compete for the championship.

    Also, 64 is not half the number of Division I basketball teams. There are 119 Division I football teams, but there are around 320 basketball teams, so they're really taking presumably the best 20%, which is what you'd get with a 16-24 team playoff format in football, and the teams that would get cutoff would be 8-3 or 8-4 teams, not 11-0 or 11-1 teams.

    Maybe the USC's would get to basically have byes in the first-round of playoffs under such a scenario, but every year in March Madness a #3 seed loses to a #14, a #4 loses to a #13, and occassionally a #2 loses to a #15, so it wouldn't be worthwhile to see how a North Texas (four straight Sun Belt titles and counting) could match-up with one of the big boys?

    They're not going to stop awarding the trophy with the big crystal football on it, so they might as well make it possible for all 119 teams to win the thing (which it's not now, no matter how you try and spin it). That's my biggest issue with the bowls/playoff debate.


First, I never mentioned the lame "student athlete" issue for a playoff. My point was that a playoff creates more controversy than we have now. You're saying that hey it's just 8-3 teams getting screwed. Yeah but there are a lot more teams that go 8-3 or 8-4 than go 11-0. So yes you would have more teams saying hey we have the same record as that other team that got in. This is just a fact.

Here's the BCS rankings from last year before the bowl games were played:

1. USC 12-0
2. Oklahoma 12-0
3. Auburn 12-0
4. Texas 10-1
5. California 10-1
6. Utah 11-0
7. Georgia 9-2
8. Virginia Tech 10-2
9. Boise State 11-0
10. Louisville 10-1
11. LSU 9-2
12. Iowa 9-2
13. Michigan 9-2
14. Miami 8-3
15. Tennessee 9-3
16. Florida State 8-3
17. Wisconsin 9-2
18. Virginia 8-3
19. Arizona State 8-3
20. Texas A&M 7-4
21. Pittsburgh 8-3
22. Texas Tech 7-4
23. Florida 7-4
24. Oklahoma State
25. Ohio State 7-4

You're honestly telling me that Wisconsin, Virginia, Arizona State, Texas A&M and Pittsburg at a minimum wouldn't have one hell of a legit complaint to being left out of a HUGE money playoff. That's a big part of the complaining now is that a team gets left out of the title game which is worth more, but it's only one team and they still get a big payday. Think if you have to leave teams out of the entire playoff money, giving them some middling bowl game no one will care about. You're absolutly insane if you don't see the amount of crap that will fly over this type of system. A playoff will flat out make things worse.

Football is not the same as basketball, that's why I didn't answer your question. Adding a couple extra basketball games is not a huge deal. Adding a couple extra football games is, with the high potential for injuries and mismatches that no one will pay or want to see. No one wants to see North Texas get that shot cause everyone knows USC would slaughter them. It's not in question.

It's not possible for all teams to win the basketball playoffs. Oh yes they have the oppotunity, but how many times has a 16 seed won even a single game? Never. Utah and Louisville had a chance too, but they chose to play a weak schedule. Plus they weren't good enough.

JayJayDean
Scrapple
Level: 136

Posts: 2317/4750
EXP: 29484849
For next: 612143

Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 2975 days
Last activity: 2553 days
Y!:
#26 Posted on 28.9.05 1051.43
Reposted on: 28.9.12 1051.52
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    First, I never mentioned the lame "student athlete" issue for a playoff. My point was that a playoff creates more controversy than we have now. You're saying that hey it's just 8-3 teams getting screwed. Yeah but there are a lot more teams that go 8-3 or 8-4 than go 11-0. So yes you would have more teams saying hey we have the same record as that other team that got in. This is just a fact.

    You're honestly telling me that Wisconsin, Virginia, Arizona State, Texas A&M and Pittsburg at a minimum wouldn't have one hell of a legit complaint to being left out of a HUGE money playoff. That's a big part of the complaining now is that a team gets left out of the title game which is worth more, but it's only one team and they still get a big payday. Think if you have to leave teams out of the entire playoff money, giving them some middling bowl game no one will care about.


The title game doesn't pay out any more than the other BCS games, and all of the money a BCS team gets is split among the conference teams. The conferences have beef because when a situation like last year's Cal/Texas-switcheroo comes up the Pac-10 teams lose the $13 mil to split and the Big 12 teams get $13 mil more to split.

You notice no conferences bitch about that sort of thing (who gets more bids) when basketball happens? That's because they divvy up the tournament money ahead of time, so whether one or six ACC teams get invited the conference gets the same amount of money. Problem solved, if that's your main concern.

Based on how I figured my 20-team playoff last year, the last invitee would've been Texas A&M, with FSU and Pitt being left out despite a superior record. Why? Because their strength of schedule and conference was superior to that of FSU and (especially) Pitt. If they were to complain, my answer would be simple: win more games. No two-loss teams would've been left out. They always interview someone during the March Madness selection show whose bubble burst and their lives go on.


    It's not possible for all teams to win the basketball playoffs. Oh yes they have the oppotunity, but how many times has a 16 seed won even a single game? Never. Utah and Louisville had a chance too, but they chose to play a weak schedule. Plus they weren't good enough.


If, say, Winthrop goes undefeated in basketball, what happens? They're the national champs. Beacuse their conference gets an automatic bid, so if they were to somehow catch lightning in a bottle and run the table, they'd be the champs. Remember St. Joseph's being undefeated a couple of years back going into the tourney? If they were a football team they'd have gone to the Liberty Bowl.

The PLAYERS at Louisville and Utah can't control their schedules, all they can do is beat they teams they're told to play. Utah beat them ALL, including winning their bowl game easily. Wouldn't a potential Utah/Texas match-up last year have been awesome? How about USC/LSU or USC/Boise State? Those would've been potential quarterfinals by my bracketing.

The whole BCS/bowl set-up isn't really an injustice to the 'little guys', either. FIVE teams went undefeated last year, two get to play for the title and the others get a pat on the back and a meaningless bowl game? A couple of years a go only one team was undefeated, and they put possibly the weakest of the one-loss teams into the championship game.

To me, a three or four-loss team complaing about being left out of a playoff is a lot easier to take than an undefeated team having no chance to play for the title.

(edited by JayJayDean on 30.9.05 1645)
wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 96

Posts: 197/2190
EXP: 8786813
For next: 202006

Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 2552 days
Last activity: 1537 days
#27 Posted on 28.9.05 2024.51
Reposted on: 28.9.12 2025.24
I don't know how many ways I can say that your constant comparison to the basketball tournament just don't fly here. The two sports are way too different for that to apply. The money would be an issue, and a huge one at that. There's no way around it. How many games does a basketball team play each year? Way more than 11 or 12 right? And they play the same opponants more than once in conference, plus multiple out of conferences games, then they play a conference tournament. By the end of the year you have a great idea where teams stand in relation to each other because of all those games, so there's less room for controversy, not to mention they pick so many teams. Football can't pick that many teams and they don't play near enough games to be able to get a truly accurate measure of who should be 15th and who should be 25th. There's so much more room for controversy and disputes and honestly for a crapload of money. This idea that they can just split the money will never, ever happen. You honestly think any school will ever give the ok to give up the kind of money they pull in right now for a BCS game versus splitting the payday of a playoff that may not go more than a round for them? Not a chance in hell.

I haven't even gotten in to how much a playoff would impact regular season games, which is huge in my view. right now we have gigantic match-ups that everyone watches. We also have ok matchups between a big team and a middle of the road team that everyone watches too, just because if the upset happens it'll impact everything for the title hunt.

Say you're an LSU fan. That loss to UT Monday means you are likely out of the running for a national title. One more loss means likely no BCS game at all. So you'll watch every one to make sure your team pulls it out and you'll be on the edge of your seat for all of them.

If you had it your way, that loss means nothing toward the postseason. And one more likely won't keep you out of the playoff either. So maybe you've got a nice sunny Saturday and have to decide betwen watching LSU against a team like say Ole Miss(don't know if they play this season) or go to the zoo. You say hell even if LSU gets upset they'll still have a great shot at the playoffs, and that's when it really matters so you keep the tv off and go out. Nice for our nations health, not so nice for college football as a whole.

I'm sorry but I love the importance of regular season games, and there is zero chance you can make any argument that they won't be diminished if we go to a playoff system. Don't even think of comparing it to god damned basketball again, cause it's not even close to the same thing. College football is popular BECAUSE of the importance of regular season games. I won't support anything that detracts from it.

You know what I hate? When in the NFL the playoffs start and they talk about how so and so did great during the regular season but now it's a whole different ball game cause teams play harder and go faster or whatever crap. They "take it to another level". You never hear anyone talk like that about bowl games, cause every damn week in college football is like a playoff. One loss and you're out.

(edited by wmatistic on 28.9.05 1842)
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 116

Posts: 3049/3284
EXP: 16927462
For next: 396683

Since: 23.1.02
From: In a Blue State finally

Since last post: 1894 days
Last activity: 1894 days
#28 Posted on 28.9.05 2205.22
Reposted on: 28.9.12 2210.13
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Football can't pick that many teams and they don't play near enough games to be able to get a truly accurate measure of who should be 15th and who should be 25th.


It's quite obvious that they can't even get an accurate measure of who should be #1 and #2.


    College football is popular BECAUSE of the importance of regular season games. I won't support anything that detracts from it.


Then kill the BCS system. Teams should play for spots in their traditional bowls, and we can stop pretending that there's a national champion.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 142

Posts: 2817/5284
EXP: 34593598
For next: 374917

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 1666 days
Last activity: 1666 days
#29 Posted on 28.9.05 2301.04
Reposted on: 28.9.12 2301.30
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    still have to pick teams for a playoff and there is no viable way to do that other than a poll. More teams you pick, more controversy you make.


Please tell me. How is there LESS controversy for picking the current 58 team bowl schedule than our 24-32 team playoff ideas? Just like you say, more teams, more controversy, right?

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    It won't work. Dump the BCS and go back to what it used to be.


Yes, because split championships and bowl games that that have zero impact outside of the two teams playing (Hey it's the SEC #9 vs Sun Belt #7! It's gonna RULE) had ZERO controversy.

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    If I hear one more person compare the other divisions of college football to division one I might drive a nail through my skull. They are not even close to the same thing. If a DIII school gets screwed out of a playoff spot, who the hell knows about it? No controversy cause no one gives a rip.


No controversy because they aren't getting left out of a couple million dollar pie. That's why.

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    So take 32 you say? As if we really need to see USC play the 32 ranked team in the country to know USC will win? It's a waste of a game, and god forbid the QB gets taken out against SouthWestNorthMiddle Tennesse State, screwing USC when they really need him.


If it were REALLY that big of a blow out, would Leinart (sp?) really be out there playing? Plus, they have to play stinkers like AZ and Stanford every year. Do we really need to see that too?

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Basketball is different in that they can play the games every couple of nights and so a couple of extra games is no big deal, plus they take over half the teams out there. If you could do that with football, maybe ok, but it's silly to even think of a 64 team football playoff.


WTF? 64 x 2 = 128. 128 does not equal or even comes close to the number 330, the amount of teams. Half of the 330 teams would be 165.

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    Nope, get rid of all this and go back to a mythical champion. If there isn't anything to fight over maybe then we'll get some peace to enjoy the games.



People will still fight over who is your MNC.

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    A playoff will flat out make things worse.



Yep, because who wants to fight through a playoff system when they can play a one game playoff for it, IF they can get selected for it, and we all know that there is NO controversy in doing that!

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    No one wants to see North Texas get that shot cause everyone knows USC would slaughter them. It's not in question


Just like Oklahoma beating TCU...oh wait...

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    I don't know how many ways I can say that your constant comparison to the basketball tournament just don't fly here. The two sports are way too different for that to apply. The money would be an issue, and a huge one at that.


I said that many posts ago.

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    We also have ok matchups between a big team and a middle of the road team that everyone watches too, just because if the upset happens it'll impact everything for the title hunt.


Wait, you just said upsets NEVER happen.

    Originally posted by wmatistic
    If you had it your way, that loss means nothing toward the postseason. And one more likely won't keep you out of the playoff either.


Have you read any of our other posts? Really? We talk about using the polls/BCS to select teams. Pollsters/computers don't reward losing. Losing = bad.

If you lose a game, you fall down the rankings, meaning you have a worse chance of getting in.

All this crap about "It lessens the regular season!" doesn't make a lick of sense. That says to me that you don't want a post season at all, because it lessens the meaning of the regular season, and we should just award the best team the championship. Because there would be NO controversy in that. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

Honestly, you lost me after saying it was better before the BCS and that there was no controversy.

The last time PSU won a championship was 1986. They were 12-0 and beat Miami, FL (11-1) in the Fiesta bowl.
According to you, none of this was controversial because there was no controversy before the BCS:
1994: 12-0 beat Oregon (9-4) in the Rose Bowl. Nebraska was champion (13-0)
1977: 11-1 beat AZ state (9-3)in the Fiesta bowl. Notre Dame was champion (11-1)
1973: 12-0 beat LA State (9-3) in the Orange Bowl. Notre Dame/Alabama split champions
1969: 11-0 beat Missouri (9-2) in the Orange bowl. Texas/OSU split champions
1968: 11-0 beat Kansas (9-2) in the Orange bowl. OSU was champs (10-0)


Let us not forget Arkansas. From http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/database/arkansas_database.htm
*The 1964 national championship was historic not so much for who won but for when the title was awarded. In 1964, seven different entities named a mythical national champion. The two most notable polls to fans at the time - The Associated Press and the United Press International - did not wait until after the bowl games to award their champion. Because of that, Alabama was named the national champ by the AP, UPI, and Litkenhous groups. However, the Crimson Tide went on to lose, 21-17, to Texas in the Orange Bowl and finish 10-1 on the year. Arkansas remained the only undefeated team in the country at 11-0 with its victory over Nebraska. Two groups who waited until after the bowl games to name their champion - The Football Writers Association of America and the Helms Athletic Foundation - named Frank Broyles' Razorbacks as national champs. Both the AP and UPI changed their procedure the next year, choosing to wait until after the bowls to announce their final polls. NationalChamps.net recognizes this tribute to the great Arkansas team of 1964.

wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 96

Posts: 198/2190
EXP: 8786813
For next: 202006

Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 2552 days
Last activity: 1537 days
#30 Posted on 29.9.05 0901.35
Reposted on: 29.9.12 0904.37
I think you aren't even paying attention. When did I say there was "no" controversy before the BCS? Of course there was some, but not near as much as there is now. Not even close, because the money involved wasn't the same. People didnt fight over who was the national champion, most of us had fun talking about what if this team had played that team. But the schools still got paid the same and people weren't bitching at anywhere close to the levels they do now.

Have you heard one school complain about getting left out of a bowl game other than the national title game? Nope. Why? Cause they still get to go to a bowl game. If you make a playoff, that's worth a hell of a lot more fighting if you get left out. Think of the difference in exposure and pay. It would be way more controversial.

North Texas against USC this year is nowhere close to TCU against OU. Everyone knew OU wasn't going to be close to what it has been. And again you put words in my mouth, as I never said that "upsets NEVER happen". I said North Texas would not stand even a slight chance of beating USC this year. If you disagree with that, well you just need to watch a lot more college football cause I don't think you've been paying attention.

Losing = bad right now. With a playoff, if you actually read the post where I went over last years rankings, losing = eh we'll still make the playoffs even with three losses. Seriously almost all three loss teams still would have made it into a 16 team playoff. So hell yes it's a fact that regular season games would be less important and if a game has less impact on the outcome of your season then yes fans will not tune in as much and players may not go as hard or coaches may not pull out all the stops. It's called the NFL and it happens there all the damn time. I don't want that crap in college football.

I do want a post-season, of just bowl games with no BCS and no playoff. And for the second time I never once said there was no controversy before the BCS. Maybe you just haven't been a fan long enough, but the controversy was nowhere near this level back then.
JayJayDean
Scrapple
Level: 136

Posts: 2319/4750
EXP: 29484849
For next: 612143

Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 2975 days
Last activity: 2553 days
Y!:
#31 Posted on 29.9.05 1008.41
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1009.28
You're losing me a bit because your arguments seem to be all over the page and somewhat not based on facts. It appears that your most vehement objection to a playoff is a monetary one, so can we make sure we're working off the same set of facts?

- The individual schools don't get the bowl money. Each school's bowl money goes to their conference and they split the bowl money equally within the conference, so Baylor gets an equal share in Texas, Oklahoma, and the rest of the Big XII's bowl money even though they stink.

- Based on this article, it's safe to say that many of the schools that go to bowls end up with LESS money that if they stayed home.

- Based on this article, the last time offer for a playoff would've been more than DOUBLE what the combined bowls make. That's more money for EVERYBODY, right?

- The National Championship game is not the highest paying bowl every year, it's the Rose Bowl. The four BCS games each payout $12-13 mil per game, which is substantially higher than the non-BCS games, but there' no "bonus" for being in the title game. In fact, the big controversy is with a Cal/Texas situation as happened last year over the last BCS berth, because the Big XII got two BCS payouts and the Pac-10 got one.

- You NEVER EVER EVER hear about money as the reason why teams get upset at being left out of the basketball tourney. According to this article, the basketball tournament payouts are based on a six-year track record of performance per conference.

You're telling me that some 320 schools in 34 conferences are able to split $146 million in tournament profits and $565 million in TV revenue (source), but there's NO WAY that 119 schools in 11 conferences could figure out how to split up money from a football playoff? Really?

Again, EVERY DIVISION I school gets bowl money because of the conference allotments. USC DID NOT get $13 million for going to the Orange Bowl, they got 1/10th of that amount.

As far as the regular season being diminshed, I can see one side of that, but I've also heard the argument made that with playoffs, you'd see MORE Ohio State/Texas-type matchups because the one loss is not a season-ender. Look at Duke basketball, who played Michigan State, Temple, Princeton, and Oklahoma non-conference last year. Strength of schedule is a factor when deciding who gets in and seeding in a playoff format.
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 71

Posts: 802/1091
EXP: 3053155
For next: 113974

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 6276 days
Last activity: 6004 days
#32 Posted on 29.9.05 1210.21
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1212.41
    Originally posted by Zeruel
    Please tell me. How is there LESS controversy for picking the current 58 team bowl schedule than our 24-32 team playoff ideas?


Because unless you are in the MAC or Sun Belt conference, six DI wins gets you into a bowl. From there it's largely based on conference standings at least in the sense that 6-5 NC State isn't going to the ACC's number two bowl, the Gator Bowl (just as an example).

And with a 16 team playoff (because there is no way they'd do a five round playoff), you're eliminating 42 teams from postseason play altogether. And unlike the bowl system they won't be mid-majors and 5-6 BCS conference schools. In a playoff, they'll be 7-4 and 8-3 teams from the big conferences and maybe even a 11-1 or 10-2 school from the MAC.



    No controversy because they aren't getting left out of a couple million dollar pie. That's why.


I think that was the point. DIII can have a playoff because there's not millions of dollars at stake. It's not at all analogous to Division I-A.




    If it were REALLY that big of a blow out, would Leinart (sp?) really be out there playing? Plus, they have to play stinkers like AZ and Stanford every year. Do we really need to see that too?



Leinart could get hurt early in the game when he would be playing. And I'm sure that there is a pretty decent conference rivalry between USC and Arizona and Stanford. No one gives a rat's ass about seeing USC play North Texas or Toledo.


    All this crap about "It lessens the regular season!" doesn't make a lick of sense. That says to me that you don't want a post season at all, because it lessens the meaning of the regular season, and we should just award the best team the championship. Because there would be NO controversy in that.


But it does lessen the regular season. Right now the system is set up so that if you lose once you'd better win out and pray for other teams to lose. If you lose twice you're done. In a 16 team playoff, an 8-3 team from the Big 10 is going to the playoffs so those three losses aren't a big deal.

I can see how someone would think a playoff would be more entertaining, but I don't see how it would do a better job of crowning a legitimate national champ. At worst with the Bowl system, one of the top three teams in the country becomes national champ. Does that happen in basketball?
JayJayDean
Scrapple
Level: 136

Posts: 2321/4750
EXP: 29484849
For next: 612143

Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 2975 days
Last activity: 2553 days
Y!:
#33 Posted on 29.9.05 1237.16
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1237.28
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    I think that was the point. DIII can have a playoff because there's not millions of dollars at stake. It's not at all analogous to Division I-A.


For the last time...

(ahem)

THERE ARE NOT "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" AT STAKE. THE BOWL MONEY GETS REDISTRIBUTED TO EACH CONFERENCE MEMBER. TEAMS THAT NEVER GO TO BOWLS GET SHARES OF BOWL REVENUE EVERY YEAR. THE BCS BOWLS PAY THE SAME AMOUNT TO EACH PARTICIPANT (ROUGHLY). THE NATIONAL CHAMP (USC) ACTUALLY GOT A SMALLER SHARE OF ITS OWN BCS BOWL MONEY THAN PITT OR UTAH BECAUSE THE PAC-10 HAS MORE MEMBERS THAN THE BIG EAST AND MOUNTAIN WEST.

    Originally posted by BigSteve
    But it does lessen the regular season. Right now the system is set up so that if you lose once you'd better win out and pray for other teams to lose. If you lose twice you're done. In a 16 team playoff, an 8-3 team from the Big 10 is going to the playoffs so those three losses aren't a big deal.


It depends what model you use. If you give all of the conference champs automatic bids that makes 11, then you're taking the next best five teams, which would have given you all one- or two-loss teams last year for at large bids. With my twenty-team model, there were three three-loss teams and one four-loss team (Texas A&M, who played a fairly brutal schedule).

    Originally posted by BigSteve
    At worst with the Bowl system, one of the top three teams in the country becomes national champ. Does that happen in basketball?


Except for the rare NC State or Villanova, yes, (though maybe top THREE is stretching, top five or six isn't, IMO.) Since Villanova in '85, it's hard to pick out a mediocre team that somehow won the championship, since they're by and large in the Duke, UConn, Kentucky, Arizona-class of school. Maybe Syracuse a couple of years ago, mayboe the Miles Simon-Arizona team, but I think that's pretty much it.

(edited by JayJayDean on 29.9.05 1037)
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 83

Posts: 1176/1498
EXP: 5220144
For next: 212100

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 2169 days
Last activity: 2157 days
#34 Posted on 29.9.05 1256.59
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1257.28
I reject your notion that one of the best three teams wins the National Championship each year. Based on what? Opinion polls? The same opinion polls that change weekly, but for some reason the last one is suppose to be so much more accurate than the previous ones? Polls by people who one week declare a team the best team ever and the very next week decide that very same team is not even worthy of playing for the current year's National Championship? Can a two/three loss team not be better than than an undefeated team? It's not like the schedules are balanced, or 11-12 games among 119 teams provide much of a sample to definitively rank those teams.

I also disagree about the regular season. Playoffs don't lessen the regular season. Using your own point, a team losses one game and unless it's an unusual season, it renders their rest of the regular season pointless as far as the National Championship is concerned. Two losses, and it definitely renders the regular season pointless. A playoff system keeps more teams alive for a longer period meaning that more meaningful games will be played. With 119 teams jockeying for only 16 spots, the regular season certainly is meaningful for a good many teams (easily more than the NFL). I also agree with JayJay Dean, playoffs would encourage more Texas/Ohio State's and less Texas/Rice's.

Also, there is no reason you can't do the playoff but still keep the bowls for teams that don't make it. No reason those two options have to be mutually exclusive.

Playoffs are not a perfect solution because there is no such thing as perfection. But I prefer things to be settled on the field, with the flaw that the best team may not play its best game when it counts, than with polls and computers, with the flaw of biases, opinion, and the fact that some teams don't have a legitimate shot at the National Title regardless of what they do on the field. Nobody complains when the perceived best team in basketball doesn't win the championship. They should have just played better.

Arguments like this can be interesting. But what's funny, none of these arguments have nothing to do with the real reason there's not a playoff. Bottom line is the conferences keep 100% of all the bowl money, and the major conferences don't think they can do a playoff outside the NCAA (where the NCAA would get a cut). So there's no playoff, and there won't be one for a long time to come.
wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 96

Posts: 199/2190
EXP: 8786813
For next: 202006

Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 2552 days
Last activity: 1537 days
#35 Posted on 29.9.05 1259.32
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1259.36
I'm all over the page because I keep going to all the different reasons why a playoff would suck for college football. So far you keep comparing to basketball, unable to show or tell me how the two sports are similar enough to use that type of argument. I've mentioned many reasons why they aren't, so until you can do that I'm just gonna ignore any point made with that type of comparison.

As to my main objection, it's not monetary it's the regular season being diminished. There is no other side to this. It would happen and it would suck. Teams would not have any reason to care about scheduling tough non-conference games at all anymore if we had a playoff so yeah we might get a few good playoff games but the regular season, the lifeblood of college football, would suffer horribly. I just don't see how anyone can support a system that would do this much to alter the sport. There's no way we'd get more tough OOC matchups because what would the benefit be? Play a tough game, get guys hurt, maybe lose? Hell no that wouldn't happen. I can tell you what would happen and that's Duke would need to hire a lot of people to field the offers from every team in the nation. It would be all about making the playoffs, any way you can.

For the money, you're not getting the point. Yes there would be millions of dollars at stake with a playoff. How the hell else do you want to structure this? All teams split all the money from everything? Well that'll give schools a lot of incentive to support their football teams and be competitive. Oh wait no they can just sit back and suck and still bring in the dollars.

Being in a BCS game does in fact bring your school more money. A lot more money. So they have something to fight over right now. As you said with a playoff the money would likely be more, and it's not going to be shared all around, so YES THERE WOULD BE MORE CONTROVERSY!!!! More money and less teams overall getting to play in the postseason means more fighting over who gets in and who doesn't. Teams won't be content with a bowl game anymore cause it's not the playoffs. How can you not even remotely see this?

If you can tell me how basketball and football are the same, and how this wouldn't hurt the regular season, and how this would not bring about more controversy then I'll listen. But so far you've just tried to say that everything will be hunky dorey with "my plan", not realizing that we live in the real world and your plan is never going to happen anyway and if it did there would be good and bad, mostly bad stemming from it.

Putting in a playoff would cause a huge change in college football. It just wouldn't be the same, and considering how popular it has become I can't think of one reason why the people in charge would make a move that would alter it in that large a way. You have to think of it not just in a "perfect world" way but in a what's feasible or what might actually happen way.

It's likely that they might dump the BCS and go back the way it was. They've already discussed it. It's not at all likely we'll see any form of playoff. They've discussed it and not just turned it down, but smacked the crap out of the people who brought it up...more or less. They don't want one and neither do I.

(edited by wmatistic on 29.9.05 1102)
JayJayDean
Scrapple
Level: 136

Posts: 2322/4750
EXP: 29484849
For next: 612143

Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 2975 days
Last activity: 2553 days
Y!:
#36 Posted on 29.9.05 1347.28
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1347.30
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    I'm all over the page because I keep going to all the different reasons why a playoff would suck for college football. So far you keep comparing to basketball, unable to show or tell me how the two sports are similar enough to use that type of argument. I've mentioned many reasons why they aren't, so until you can do that I'm just gonna ignore any point made with that type of comparison.


Silly me for thinking that since the are able to make a 65-team tournament for basketball into the biggest sporting event of the spring, they might apply some of that same template to a football playoff.


    As to my main objection, it's not monetary it's the regular season being diminished. There is no other side to this. It would happen and it would suck. Teams would not have any reason to care about scheduling tough non-conference games at all anymore if we had a playoff so yeah we might get a few good playoff games but the regular season, the lifeblood of college football, would suffer horribly. I just don't see how anyone can support a system that would do this much to alter the sport. There's no way we'd get more tough OOC matchups because what would the benefit be? Play a tough game, get guys hurt, maybe lose? Hell no that wouldn't happen. I can tell you what would happen and that's Duke would need to hire a lot of people to field the offers from every team in the nation. It would be all about making the playoffs, any way you can.


What teams are playing exceptional out-of-conference schedules that I'm not aware of? The only out-of-conference game I recall from this season that I HAD TO SEE was Texas/Ohio State. Are you not watching the same games I'm watching?


    For the money, you're not getting the point. Yes there would be millions of dollars at stake with a playoff. How the hell else do you want to structure this? All teams split all the money from everything? Well that'll give schools a lot of incentive to support their football teams and be competitive. Oh wait no they can just sit back and suck and still bring in the dollars.


THAT ALREADY HAPPENS. Didn't you read my post? I even cited sources so you'd stop acting like I'm tossing opinions out there. These are FACTS.


    Being in a BCS game does in fact bring your school more money. A lot more money. So they have something to fight over right now. As you said with a playoff the money would likely be more, and it's not going to be shared all around, so YES THERE WOULD BE MORE CONTROVERSY!!!! More money and less teams overall getting to play in the postseason means more fighting over who gets in and who doesn't.


Please verify with some statistics your belief that USC gets more money being in a BCS game than if they're not, as that directly contradicts the "conferences distribute the money"-idea that is, again, an indisputable fact.


    Teams won't be content with a bowl game anymore cause it's not the playoffs. How can you not even remotely see this?


And yet (oh no here comes another basketball reference) there's still and NIT for teams that don't make the main basketball tournament. I certainly am not advocating eliminating all bowls, as ges7184 said before, they're not mutually exclusive. Besides, we need something to watch Tuesday - Friday.


    Putting in a playoff would cause a huge change in college football. It just wouldn't be the same, and considering how popular it has become I can't think of one reason why the people in charge would make a move that would alter it in that large a way. You have to think of it not just in a "perfect world" way but in a what's feasible or what might actually happen way.


I believe something that will deter people from college football is if these "who is the champ?"-debates continue. People will only put up with undefeated teams not having chances to win the championship or pick a one-loss team from the pack and let them play for it controversies for so long. If people were entirely happen with the way things were, things wouldn't be the way they are.
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 71

Posts: 803/1091
EXP: 3053155
For next: 113974

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 6276 days
Last activity: 6004 days
#37 Posted on 29.9.05 1356.15
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1359.01
    Originally posted by JJD
    For the last time...

    (ahem)

    THERE ARE NOT "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" AT STAKE. THE BOWL MONEY GETS REDISTRIBUTED TO EACH CONFERENCE MEMBER. TEAMS THAT NEVER GO TO BOWLS GET SHARES OF BOWL REVENUE EVERY YEAR. THE BCS BOWLS PAY THE SAME AMOUNT TO EACH PARTICIPANT (ROUGHLY). THE NATIONAL CHAMP (USC) ACTUALLY GOT A SMALLER SHARE OF ITS OWN BCS BOWL MONEY THAN PITT OR UTAH BECAUSE THE PAC-10 HAS MORE MEMBERS THAN THE BIG EAST AND MOUNTAIN WEST.


Yes, there is millions of dollars at stake. Go back and read what I posted and what I was responding to with my post (hint: it was about teams being left out of that 16th spot and the controversy over that school and their conference losing millions of dollars in revenue whereas that isn't a problem in DIII).

Also, if it isn't about the moeny, why isn't there a playoff?



    It depends what model you use. If you give all of the conference champs automatic bids that makes 11, then you're taking the next best five teams, which would have given you all one- or two-loss teams last year for at large bids. With my twenty-team model, there were three three-loss teams and one four-loss team (Texas A&M, who played a fairly brutal schedule).



There's no way they'd do a five round playoff, and if they gave the mid-major champs an automatic bid to the playoffs over a 9-2 SEC team, that would be horrible.


    Except for the rare NC State or Villanova, yes, (though maybe top THREE is stretching, top five or six isn't, IMO.) Since Villanova in '85, it's hard to pick out a mediocre team that somehow won the championship, since they're by and large in the Duke, UConn, Kentucky, Arizona-class of school. Maybe Syracuse a couple of years ago, mayboe the Miles Simon-Arizona team, but I think that's pretty much it.


I'm not saying that mediocre teams win March Madness, but certainly teams outside of the top five and top ten do. Is that better than a system where one of the top two to four teams wins the championship every year (and when has someone fifth or below been champ in football).


(edited by BigSteve on 29.9.05 1458)
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 49

Posts: 403/449
EXP: 854274
For next: 29615

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 3980 days
Last activity: 3847 days
#38 Posted on 29.9.05 1407.21
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1407.29
Reason for the playoffs:

The bowls aren't working. Time to try something different.

Argue on.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 98

Posts: 1294/2221
EXP: 9439619
For next: 214768

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 2611 days
Last activity: 2152 days
#39 Posted on 29.9.05 1419.17
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1420.24
    Originally posted by messenoir
    Reason for the playoffs:

    The bowls aren't working. Time to try something different.

    Argue on.


Reason to NOT have the playoffs:

Having a National College Football championship tournament is another unnecessary bastardization of a sport that has managed to somehow survive for 100 years.

Argue off.

(edited by Eddie Famous on 29.9.05 1220)
tarnish
Landjager
Level: 66

Posts: 570/878
EXP: 2337076
For next: 124788

Since: 13.2.02
From: Back in the Heart of Hali

Since last post: 569 days
Last activity: 8 hours
Y!:
#40 Posted on 29.9.05 1609.07
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1613.06

It's about money and logistics for sure.

Basketball is not a fair comparison. Like most other sports, in basketball you prepare as much as you can, but are limited by the schedule. If you play two games in two nights, you might prepare for both before the first one.

In football, there's a week's preparation whenever possible. Even if the players could physically play two games in two or three days, the quality of play would suffer immensely.

If you have to space the games a week apart to maintain the level of competetion, and you have to shorten the regular season, then suddenly the logistics of a playoff become ridiculous:

- Moving and housing a football team and all supporting staff is far more costly than doing so for a basketball team, baseball team, or hockey team.

- Who gets the home games? If it's based on record, teams have to spend far more if they only barely make the playoffs. Meanwhile, travel reservations, usually made months in advance due to known schedules in college football, become huge issues and increased costs. Teams would be fighting NOT to make the playoffs if just barely making it costs them more. And even more if they succeed in the playoffs. Even if you do revenue sharing, the payoff for one playoff loss cannot possibly compare to the payoff for a single home game, let alone 2 or 3 or 4.

- Football games affect the local economy in the area they're played. Not only are you affecting the school's revenue, you're potentially affecting revenue all around the community the school is in.

- If you have the games in appointed places, those places stand to rake in a bonanza. Even if the team in that place isn't in the playoffs. Tying game venue to previous performance (say, last year's results) gives too much advantage to already strong programs. You'd have teams dropping out of D-I because they can't afford to remain competitive.

- Every home game a college team plays brings big, big revenue. Another reason not to make the playoffs if you're near the bottom of the seedings.

- You've shortened the regular season, so now you have all the teams that didn't make the playoffs with either nothing to do in December, or trying to schedule games on a week-to-week basis. No way.

I just don't think college football as it stands is conducive to a playoff system. I'm not a big fan of the BCS, nor do I think the "old way" is a whole lot better. It's just far less expensive to maintain the status quo than to risk it all on trying a playoff system.

The only way to make a playoff system work is to have the playoffs in January. This raises all kinds of academic issues, and whether it's reflected in reality or not, the NCAA still likes to blow the "these kids are still getting an education" horn and I don't think you'd see them concede to extending football that far into the new year. Weather, especially in more Northern climes, also becomes a major factor.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: A feel-good Tom Brady story
Next thread: WEEK 4 LIVE FROM MEXICO
Previous thread: Madden curse lives on?
(1439 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Football - AP/Harris pollsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2024 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.193 seconds.