The Definitive NO PLAYOFF Thread

• enigmaax

  j_crazy;476375 wrote:This is my sentiment. If there's no playoff then IMO you can't necessarily call the NC the best team. Which to me is not good for the sport.

  
  The sport is really doing just fine.
• enigmaax

  trep14;476360 wrote:That is a valid point, and the Giants are the perfect examples of it. A postseason playoff system does tend to reward the "hot" team, which may not have been the best team all season long. There isn't a postseason system that is out there that is perfect, but that doesn't mean we should accept mediocrity where there could be improvement. Because college football is such a regional game and there is so little overlap between opponents, I tend to think a postseason playoff is the best solution to determining who the most deserving teams are, especially since there are very few years where it is cut and dry, such as 2002 where there were only two undefeated teams left in Ohio State and Miami or 2005 where it was Texas and USC. But nothing is perfect and I understand your point.

  It also doesn't mean we should reward mediocrity just because other sports do it. We are conditioned to feel that more teams makes it better, but it doesn't. Baseball used to have four division winners. Why did they expand? Money. The NFL used to take its top two teams. Why did they expand? Money. Don't pretend that all other playoffs and tournaments were all about some kind of competitive fairness. Every league known to man added games to bring in more money. College football just happens to have a system it doesn't have to change to bring in more money.
• trep14

  enigmaax;476434 wrote:It also doesn't mean we should reward mediocrity just because other sports do it. We are conditioned to feel that more teams makes it better, but it doesn't. Baseball used to have four division winners. Why did they expand? Money. The NFL used to take its top two teams. Why did they expand? Money. Don't pretend that all other playoffs and tournaments were all about some kind of competitive fairness. Every league known to man added games to bring in more money. College football just happens to have a system it doesn't have to change to bring in more money.

  
  Actually the NFL used to have a round robin format, with the champion being determined by a vote at the end of the season. They introduced a championship game because one year there were two teams with identical records. And when they split up into conferences in 1933, any time that there was a tie between the top two teams in the conference, they had a playoff game between those two teams to determine who went to the championship game. Yes some of it was money driven, but some of it was also in the interest of determining a champion. And like I said, I just can't accept a system that looks at two undefeated teams and determines one of them is better than another for intangible reasons.
• enigmaax

  trep14;476443 wrote:Actually the NFL used to have a round robin format, with the champion being determined by a vote at the end of the season. They introduced a championship game because one year there were two teams with identical records. And when they split up into conferences in 1933, any time that there was a tie between the top two teams in the conference, they had a playoff game between those two teams to determine who went to the championship game. Yes some of it was money driven, but some of it was also in the interest of determining a champion. And like I said, I just can't accept a system that looks at two undefeated teams and determines one of them is better than another for intangible reasons.

  I was talking about when they went away from two teams playing for the title to eventually/now 12.
  
  The thing you said about two undefeated teams happens every day in real life. Try for a job - you are going to be judged on your resume. I definitely don't consider the BCS a perfect system, but I have yet to hear a real reason why playoffs is the answer or why a change is needed. Sure it would be fun for us fans, but there's a lot more to it than that.
• dazedconfused

  

  i hate every single one of the 456 bowl games every year. for that reason alone i want a playoff...no idea on how a playoff would work or what the logistics of one would be
• jordo212000

  

  Mooney44Cards;476327 wrote:I stopped reading at "conquer the moon".

  
  That's because his comparison was above your comprehension level.
• jordo212000

  

  I'm not a big fan of the BCS just because of how subjective the whole thing is. Who is to say any undefeated team is better than the other? How can we actually know? Why do they even play the National championship game? Why can't they just use the formula and crown the national champion after the regular season? Hmm I think they play the National Championship because you have to settle it on the field. My issue is this: if you feel the need to settle it on the field and play the championship, why are you at the same time declaring that other teams should not have the opportunity to settle it field because their schedule wasn't good enough (or even worse they started out lower in the pre-season rankings)
  
  My last point for this evening (I'll jump in again tomorrow sometime) is that I find it downright laughable that we are holding up change for the Meineke Car Care.com presented by Papa Johns Bowls of the world. That's a joke. Charlotte, NC will be just fine without a game that settles who sucks more. Really I find the whole "save my tradition" rhetoric stuff to be the real knee slapper. Ohio State and Michigan were about to play in week 4 a few weeks ago because Gordon Gee/Jim Delany didn't care about tradition. The Big 10 now has 12 teams. The Big 12 almost fell apart. Why? Because teams were disregarding tradition and being progressive. If you are for or against a playoff... fine, it's whatever. Just please don't say you are against it because of tradition in college football.
• BoatShoes

  enigmaax;476434 wrote:It also doesn't mean we should reward mediocrity just because other sports do it. We are conditioned to feel that more teams makes it better, but it doesn't. Baseball used to have four division winners. Why did they expand? Money. The NFL used to take its top two teams. Why did they expand? Money. Don't pretend that all other playoffs and tournaments were all about some kind of competitive fairness. Every league known to man added games to bring in more money. College football just happens to have a system it doesn't have to change to bring in more money.

  
  No guy...I really thought you wouldn't need me to spell this all out...Jees man.
  
  
  SEC West
  
  Florida, georgia, Tennesse, kentucky, Vandy, South Carolina......these teams play each other all year to determine who is the best.....let's say Vandy wins.
  
  They play the champion of the SEC west....say, Auburn.
  
  Vandy has beaten out everyone in the SEC east...they have earned the right to play the champion of the SEC WEst just like Auburn has earned the right to play the SEC East Champion.
  
  When Vandy wins....they have earned the right to go into the playoffs and challenge other conference champions....say, in the first round they play the Buckeyes....
  
  The Buckeyes have defeated everyone in the big ten and earned their way into the playoffs....
  
  What right do Indiana, Purdue and Illinois, etc. have to play Vandy in the playoffs? They're not even their conference champion....the buckeyes were the champion of their conference....they've conquered everyone in their conference and Vandy has conquered everyone in their conference....
  
  It's like, if One Army has conquered all of the tribes in France and another army has conquered all of the tribes in Spain....why should the Army of Spain have to conquer the tribes of France when they should just conquer the controlling army of France to then have reign over the tribes already conquered by that Army?
  
  
  And with Boxing....you start out low and have to beat out guys and earn your way to the Number 1 contender match...the winner of that match has earned his way to box the champion.....it just so happens that Boxer's have free will and can turn down who they fight...but it doesn't change the fact that they have fought their way to the top...knocking all of the other guys out of their way.
• Mooney44Cards

  

  jordo212000;476499 wrote:That's because his comparison was above your comprehension level.

  
  Good one, I forgot that resorting to insults was par for the course for you.
  
  Anyways, on with the debate......
  
  Oh man, I've seen it already like 10 times.
  
  Something about how winning a playoff format means you "beat every team" even though you only beat 3 teams out of 7 in an 8-team playoff, and 4 out of 15 in a 16-team playoff. Again.....only going undefeated in a round robin means you "beat everyone". So since the Saints won the Super Bowl, and the playoff format, that means they would have beat every single team that was in the playoffs, even though they only beat 3? Thats a bad argument that makes no sense. And if you're going to use the "well they beat team A which beat team B which beat team C, we also would have beaten team C", then you lose all credibility whatsoever.
• Mooney44Cards

  

  BoatShoes;476550 wrote:No guy...I really thought you wouldn't need me to spell this all out...Jees man.
  
  
  SEC West
  
  Florida, georgia, Tennesse, kentucky, Vandy, South Carolina......these teams play each other all year to determine who is the best.....let's say Vandy wins.
  
  They play the champion of the SEC west....say, Auburn.
  
  Vandy has beaten out everyone in the SEC east...they have earned the right to play the champion of the SEC WEst just like Auburn has earned the right to play the SEC East Champion.
  
  When Vandy wins....they have earned the right to go into the playoffs and challenge other conference champions....say, in the first round they play the Buckeyes....
  
  The Buckeyes have defeated everyone in the big ten and earned their way into the playoffs....
  
  What right do Indiana, Purdue and Illinois, etc. have to play Vandy in the playoffs? They're not even their conference champion....the buckeyes were the champion of their conference....they've conquered everyone in their conference and Vandy has conquered everyone in their conference....
  
  It's like, if One Army has conquered all of the tribes in France and another army has conquered all of the tribes in Spain....why should the Army of Spain have to conquer the tribes of France when they should just conquer the controlling army of France to then have reign over the tribes already conquered by that Army?
  
  
  And with Boxing....you start out low and have to beat out guys and earn your way to the Number 1 contender match...the winner of that match has earned his way to box the champion.....it just so happens that Boxer's have free will and can turn down who they fight...but it doesn't change the fact that they have fought their way to the top...knocking all of the other guys out of their way.

  
  2002 Ohio State won the national championship and the Big 10. They didn't defeat Iowa. HOW DO WE KNOW?!
• BoatShoes

  enigmaax;476418 wrote:I just find this to be ridiculous, especially since the argument for a playoff is to settle it on the field and then you are using "de facto" wins as your support. The point is, boxing picks two people to fight for the title. College football picks two teams to play for the title. Whoever quoted what a champion is defeated his/her own point since boxing was the example.

  
  I mean Cassius Clay had to go undefeated for four years before he was the number 1 contender to take on Sonny Liston.
• BoatShoes

  Mooney44Cards;476553 wrote:2002 Ohio State won the national championship and the Big 10. They didn't defeat Iowa. HOW DO WE KNOW?!

  
  That's why every team in conference should play eachother and also why my beloved Buckeyes 2002 National Championship, just like the rest, is just a Mythical National Championship.
• trep14

  Mooney44Cards;476553 wrote:2002 Ohio State won the national championship and the Big 10. They didn't defeat Iowa. HOW DO WE KNOW?!

  
  That's a good question and one that a playoff system would answer.
• trep14

  enigmaax;476452 wrote:I was talking about when they went away from two teams playing for the title to eventually/now 12.
  
  The thing you said about two undefeated teams happens every day in real life. Try for a job - you are going to be judged on your resume. I definitely don't consider the BCS a perfect system, but I have yet to hear a real reason why playoffs is the answer or why a change is needed. Sure it would be fun for us fans, but there's a lot more to it than that.

  
  I really don't think college football should be compared to that of a job application, where there is literally no way to make two candidates go head to head. What are you going to do, have a steel cage match? I mean some places may look at standardized test scores or something like that, thats about the extent of it. Meanwhile, that option exists in college football. You can take two teams, line them up, and see who can come out on top. And how is that not a real reason for there to be a playoff system? I'll refer you to what jordo said about the BCS legitimizing the need for these things to be decided on the field by holding a "national championship game", yet the BCS still denies several qualified teams the right to do that almost every year.
• trep14

  Mooney44Cards;476552 wrote:Good one, I forgot that resorting to insults was par for the course for you.
  
  Anyways, on with the debate......
  
  Oh man, I've seen it already like 10 times.
  
  Something about how winning a playoff format means you "beat every team" even though you only beat 3 teams out of 7 in an 8-team playoff, and 4 out of 15 in a 16-team playoff. Again.....only going undefeated in a round robin means you "beat everyone". So since the Saints won the Super Bowl, and the playoff format, that means they would have beat every single team that was in the playoffs, even though they only beat 3? Thats a bad argument that makes no sense. And if you're going to use the "well they beat team A which beat team B which beat team C, we also would have beaten team C", then you lose all credibility whatsoever.

  
  Transitive logic never works for any sport.
• Mooney44Cards

  

  trep14;476572 wrote:That's a good question and one that a playoff system would answer.

  
  Oh ok, so this playoff system guarantees that every team plays every other team? Cool, just so we cleared that up.
• ytownfootball

  

  The BCS is private enterprise. The organization promotes the damn thing, sponsors it and crowns "their" champion. Recall they were told to remove language in their advertising that led us to believe they were crowning the "National" champion. The BCS is a direct result of the NCAA not being able to, or willing to, change the format of post season bowl games. What has changed since the implementation of the BCS that makes any of you play-off supporters think that the NCAA has since grown a pair and are ready to take on this damn thing? Shit, it took them years to find USC guilty of cheating their asses off, when everyone knew it.
  
  Bottom line is, you can't be pissed at the BCS, if you want to be pissed about the current state of affairs, you need to look at the NCAA. Don't hold your breath, (okay, some of you can).
• sherm03

  

  BoatShoes;476550 wrote: SEC West
  
  Florida, georgia, Tennesse, kentucky, Vandy, South Carolina......these teams play each other all year to determine who is the best.....let's say Vandy wins.
  
  They play the champion of the SEC west....say, Auburn.
  
  Vandy has beaten out everyone in the SEC east...they have earned the right to play the champion of the SEC WEst just like Auburn has earned the right to play the SEC East Champion.
  
  When Vandy wins....they have earned the right to go into the playoffs and challenge other conference champions....say, in the first round they play the Buckeyes....
  
  The Buckeyes have defeated everyone in the big ten and earned their way into the playoffs....
  
  What right do Indiana, Purdue and Illinois, etc. have to play Vandy in the playoffs? They're not even their conference champion....the buckeyes were the champion of their conference....they've conquered everyone in their conference and Vandy has conquered everyone in their conference....
  
  It's like, if One Army has conquered all of the tribes in France and another army has conquered all of the tribes in Spain....why should the Army of Spain have to conquer the tribes of France when they should just conquer the controlling army of France to then have reign over the tribes already conquered by that Army?
  
  
  And with Boxing....you start out low and have to beat out guys and earn your way to the Number 1 contender match...the winner of that match has earned his way to box the champion.....it just so happens that Boxer's have free will and can turn down who they fight...but it doesn't change the fact that they have fought their way to the top...knocking all of the other guys out of their way.

  
  The problem with your idea is that just because all those teams play each other...it does not produce "the best team." One of the biggest arguments for the playoffs is that it will allow for "upsets" and "Cinderella teams" to make it through. So let's say a crappy team upsets Alabama in round 1. And then in round 2, Ohio State beats said crappy team. Does that meant that Ohio State is better than Alabama? No...it means they are better than the team that upset Alabama and the argument that it's settled on the field is completely blown out of the water.
  
  I used to be a big proponent of the playoff system. But now I think they just need to revisit the BCS and make some changes because no system is going to be perfect. The first thing that needs changed is that the preseason rankings need to be done away with. The biggest problem right now, IMO, is that a team can get a favorable preseason ranking...coast through an easy schedule...and end up in the National Championship game without having to beat anyone ::cough Boise State cough::. Do away with the preseason rankings, and don't give out rankings until around week 5 or 6 (after you see that the close win over an opponent that was supposed to be good in week 1 was nothing more than struggling with a team that actually was pretty shitty).
  
  I think if you fix that, there would be far less complaints about the system currently in place, and many parties would be appeased.
• ytownfootball

  

  The problem is sherm is that there will be polls, by God there will be polls. Which to use and when?
  
  "Yeah but we start conference play in week four and..."
• believer

  

  ^^^This....period.
• enigmaax

  sherm03;476590 wrote:The problem with your idea is that just because all those teams play each other...it does not produce "the best team." One of the biggest arguments for the playoffs is that it will allow for "upsets" and "Cinderella teams" to make it through. So let's say a crappy team upsets Alabama in round 1. And then in round 2, Ohio State beats said crappy team. Does that meant that Ohio State is better than Alabama? No...it means they are better than the team that upset Alabama and the argument that it's settled on the field is completely blown out of the water.

  
  Exactly. Say you let a 4-loss team into the playoffs and that team pulls a 1st Round upset. The fact that the next teams beats them and yet another team beats them doesn't prove anything "head-to-head". It goes right back to the fact that a playoff determines who was able to win three or four games at the right time and can still disregard what a team has done over the course of the season.
  

  BoatShoes;476554 wrote:I mean Cassius Clay had to go undefeated for four years before he was the number 1 contender to take on Sonny Liston.

  
  And Evander Holyfield had won 6 out of his last 14 fights and got a title shot. And then even within a single match their is human opinion involved. Many people felt John Ruiz actually beat Holyfield. Again, boxing was a bad example if you are trying to support your point.
• enigmaax

  trep14;476577 wrote:I really don't think college football should be compared to that of a job application, where there is literally no way to make two candidates go head to head. What are you going to do, have a steel cage match? I mean some places may look at standardized test scores or something like that, thats about the extent of it. Meanwhile, that option exists in college football. You can take two teams, line them up, and see who can come out on top. And how is that not a real reason for there to be a playoff system? I'll refer you to what jordo said about the BCS legitimizing the need for these things to be decided on the field by holding a "national championship game", yet the BCS still denies several qualified teams the right to do that almost every year.

  You still have to have some way of determining participants. Somewhere along the line, there is human involvement and a selection process. The only difference is that with only two teams, that process is much more highly selective.
  
  If you have a playoff, are you going to give all conference champs automatic bids? Because then you'd be telling me that a 7-5 Sun Belt champion that lost all its games to BCS teams earned the right on the field? And if you don't include those teams, then you've just made a judgment as to who deserves a shot and who doesn't - same thing that happens now. Then you are going to say, well I'd rather take a chance on the 17th best team being left out than the 3rd. And I'll turn right back around and say, I'd rather see a team with a legitimate claim to being in the top 2 win the title than the 13th team who already lost 3-4 games taking advantage of a couple upsets and playing for a title all of a sudden.
• trep14

  Mooney44Cards;476588 wrote:Oh ok, so this playoff system guarantees that every team plays every other team? Cool, just so we cleared that up.

  
  Nobody said that in a playoff every team would play every other team.
• trep14

  sherm03;476590 wrote:The problem with your idea is that just because all those teams play each other...it does not produce "the best team." One of the biggest arguments for the playoffs is that it will allow for "upsets" and "Cinderella teams" to make it through. So let's say a crappy team upsets Alabama in round 1. And then in round 2, Ohio State beats said crappy team. Does that meant that Ohio State is better than Alabama? No...it means they are better than the team that upset Alabama and the argument that it's settled on the field is completely blown out of the water.

  
  Don't like this logic at all. Whats the point of playing the games if you are going to dismiss the results of what happens? When Ohio State lost to Purdue last year, no one said "well Ohio State is actually better than Purdue, so lets just forget that happened and OSU will still be in the national title picture like they belong". Come on, its not like this problem is exclusive to playoff systems. It exists in sports period, and that is why they say you don't play games on paper. It would be alot easier to argue that Alabama doesn't belong in the NC game if they are upset by said crappy team. And it was settled on the field. What so hard to understand about that?
• trep14

  enigmaax;476687 wrote:You still have to have some way of determining participants. Somewhere along the line, there is human involvement and a selection process. The only difference is that with only two teams, that process is much more highly selective.
  
  If you have a playoff, are you going to give all conference champs automatic bids? Because then you'd be telling me that a 7-5 Sun Belt champion that lost all its games to BCS teams earned the right on the field? And if you don't include those teams, then you've just made a judgment as to who deserves a shot and who doesn't - same thing that happens now. Then you are going to say, well I'd rather take a chance on the 17th best team being left out than the 3rd. And I'll turn right back around and say, I'd rather see a team with a legitimate claim to being in the top 2 win the title than the 13th team who already lost 3-4 games taking advantage of a couple upsets and playing for a title all of a sudden.

  
  Which is why I said that I think 16 teams is too big. Like I said, a 16 team playoff would devalue the regular season too much and you would be letting in an awful lot of flawed teams that sandbagged at some point in the season. Usually by the end of the year there are like 4 to 6 teams that have a legitimate claim to being in the top 2. I'm not sure why you are so comfortable to just discard 2 to 4 teams that have earned that chance for intangible reasons. I think we all like seeing a team with a legitimate claim being in the championship game, but what we don't like seeing is that they are in the championship game at the expense of another legitimate team and that other legitimate team never had a chance.