Rolling Stone vs ESPN

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

I dunno, I am not a playoff person. In baseball the playoffs are a crap shoot, in the NFL the playoffs are who is clicking at the right time, NHL is who has the hottest goalie, and the NCAA's are completely random. I think playoffs don't determine the best team, but the tournament champion. Many times those are one and the same, but many other times they're two different teams. I do think the NBA playoffs do always have the best team win, and they do determine the true best team. Their playoffs just go on forever, and you can't fluke your way to winning a 7 game basketball series.

In my opinion, if you like college football because you want to find out who the champion is, you're missing the point. College football is about the regular season. The traditions, rivalries, homecoming, the fact that EVERY game matters, this is what sets college football apart from other sports. Determining the champion is the least of my worries, I am worried that the determining of the champion will screw up what I like best about the sport.

If through inevitable expanded playoffs we get to the point where you can lose 2-3 games and still be ok, the sport will have taken a big hit.

I am with you. The BCS was an attempt to preserve the integrity of the regular season, and the move to four teams erodes that a little bit. Expanded playoff scenarios will render the reqular season and conference championships meaningless, like basketball. I was fine for 50 years of having the champion crowned in a beauty contest. Marginal improvement IMHO--just a better revenue stream for the NCAA and ESPN.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

16 team playoff means 5 additional games for the final two. That's an 18 game season counting conference championship games. I don't see that happening..... ever. I'd be thrilled with an 8 team playoff with conference champions mandatory plus a few wild cards. Make the championship playoff a contest of champions like it should be or don't do it at all.

no reason the total games each season can't be further reduced, there are a variety of options possible.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think that is a fair point, but maybe a bit overstated. I agree that, what a team/conference did 6 years ago is completely irrelevant. However, while each year is "new," there is some continuity in college football from one year to the next because players stay 3-4 years and the coaches generally stay the same. FSU returned their staff, most of the team, and their Heisman QB. Given that, I think it is probably fair to take that somewhat into consideration when evaluating this year's team. Not as one of the biggest factors, mind you, but something. It is simply impossible to compare, for example, an ACC team to a Pac 12 team, and I would have no problem if the committee looks to that type of very recent history as one factor to help decide between two teams with the same record.

That said, I agree with CPJ that there should be no polls until at least week four, and there is absolutely no reason at all that there should be a championship poll before maybe the last week of the season going into the conference tournaments. Those early polls do nothing but establish the type of bias you are talking about.

Well said. It isn't simply that past performance is wholly irrelevant. You are right I overstated in a passion. The problem is the way polling works, especially starting before any games at all are played, plus there being very little inter-conference game play during the season. Both result in polls based on very little relevant data and far more susceptible to bias.

 

[ibeattetris]

I dunno, I am not a playoff person. In baseball the playoffs are a crap shoot, in the NFL the playoffs are who is clicking at the right time, NHL is who has the hottest goalie, and the NCAA's are completely random. I think playoffs don't determine the best team, but the tournament champion. Many times those are one and the same, but many other times they're two different teams. I do think the NBA playoffs do always have the best team win, and they do determine the true best team. Their playoffs just go on forever, and you can't fluke your way to winning a 7 game basketball series.

In my opinion, if you like college football because you want to find out who the champion is, you're missing the point. College football is about the regular season. The traditions, rivalries, homecoming, the fact that EVERY game matters, this is what sets college football apart from other sports. Determining the champion is the least of my worries, I am worried that the determining of the champion will screw up what I like best about the sport.

If through inevitable expanded playoffs we get to the point where you can lose 2-3 games and still be ok, the sport will have taken a big hit.

I agree baseball playoffs are a joke. 162 games is enough to determine the best team in each league. A final game between the leagues is still necessary due to schedules being vastly different.

In college football though, I believe a playoff necessary. College football is made of highly connected clusters (conferences) that form a sparse network with other clusters (from out of conference games). Current scheduling does not allow enough relationship building between the various clusters to draw reasonable conclusions. The only way to test the relative strength of the teams would be to allow them to play in some series of games once you determine the best from each cluster.

Any other solution devolves into a beauty pageant where preconceived notions and regional bias reign supreme. If the regular season truly mattered, Alabama would have never gotten a rematch; that game CLEARLY did not matter.

 

[WreckinGT]

I dunno, I am not a playoff person. In baseball the playoffs are a crap shoot, in the NFL the playoffs are who is clicking at the right time, NHL is who has the hottest goalie, and the NCAA's are completely random. I think playoffs don't determine the best team, but the tournament champion. Many times those are one and the same, but many other times they're two different teams. I do think the NBA playoffs do always have the best team win, and they do determine the true best team. Their playoffs just go on forever, and you can't fluke your way to winning a 7 game basketball series.

In my opinion, if you like college football because you want to find out who the champion is, you're missing the point. College football is about the regular season. The traditions, rivalries, homecoming, the fact that EVERY game matters, this is what sets college football apart from other sports. Determining the champion is the least of my worries, I am worried that the determining of the champion will screw up what I like best about the sport.

If through inevitable expanded playoffs we get to the point where you can lose 2-3 games and still be ok, the sport will have taken a big hit.

Determining the best team is pretty much impossible at all levels because there is no clear definition of what best means. Even in your description above when you talk about certain sports getting it right all you are really saying is the end result met your preconceived notion. The reason playoffs exist is because it is fairest way of trying to define a champion. Teams play a regular season schedule and the best teams out of those play each other. Is there a potential for a team to get hot at the right time? Sure, but they still had to play their way there all season. Its a lot more fair then Herbstreit's eye test.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Do it on the field! Period! Every sport does it except CFB.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Determining the best team is pretty much impossible at all levels because there is no clear definition of what best means. Even in your description above when you talk about certain sports getting it right all you are really saying is the end result met your preconceived notion. The reason playoffs exist is because it is fairest way of trying to define a champion. Teams play a regular season schedule and the best teams out of those play each other. Is there a potential for a team to get hot at the right time? Sure, but they still had to play their way there all season. Its a lot more fair then Herbstreit's eye test.

Yeah, don't get bogged down over achieving perfection in determining that year's "best team" in any sport. Patriots fans were nice and snooty about having clearly been the "better team" when Eli and the Giants pulled off a sensational win over them in the 08 Super Bowl.

I think having those kind of hypothetical sports arguments over beers is acceptable and amusing. These arguments are fun because the structure and format exists that allowed for a game to be played to determine that year's NFL championship team. No matter how many times the regular season 16-0 Pats may beat the wild card Giants in hypothetical neutral field contests, the Giants were and always will be the 2008 Super Bowl champions and the process by which that result came about was adequately (maybe not perfectly but at least reasonably) fair.

The arguments in college football at the BCS level over which team is "the best," which conference is "the best" and so on are dreary, pointless, and mind-numbing to me because there is no structure in place in this one sport to at least take a good bit of the hypothetical postulating out of the equation.

Think of this, how fantastic would it have been to see GT play Colorado back in 1990? To my way of thinking the sport is severely hampered by the fact that we can only speculate about the possible outcome of that game.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I agree baseball playoffs are a joke. 162 games is enough to determine the best team in each league. A final game between the leagues is still necessary due to schedules being vastly different.

In college football though, I believe a playoff necessary. College football is made of highly connected clusters (conferences) that form a sparse network with other clusters (from out of conference games). Current scheduling does not allow enough relationship building between the various clusters to draw reasonable conclusions. The only way to test the relative strength of the teams would be to allow them to play in some series of games once you determine the best from each cluster.

Any other solution devolves into a beauty pageant where preconceived notions and regional bias reign supreme. If the regular season truly mattered, Alabama would have never gotten a rematch; that game CLEARLY did not matter.

That scenario may just be the best evidence of the complete b.s. that is at the heart of college football qua a "sport" built on the back of opinion polls. There is no reasonable way to justify based on objective criteria replaying a regular season conference game as the national championship game and allowing Alabama that chance to win a mnc. They had already lost at home to LSU!

I might be willing to agree to a statement like "the SEC is the best football conference this (or X) year" but the problem is that I know I am having to construct largely via some sort of "eyeball test" my opinion and argument to make that claim. Typically, this only kind of works when one can be reasonably assured that a "truly dominant" and special team happens to exist in that conference in that given year, since we are always going to be prejudiced towards recognition of a "clearly dominant" or "clearly better" team.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

16 team playoff means 5 additional games for the final two. That's an 18 game season counting conference championship games. I don't see that happening..... ever. I'd be thrilled with an 8 team playoff with conference champions mandatory plus a few wild cards. Make the championship playoff a contest of champions like it should be or don't do it at all.

I think 16 team playoff would only be four games (single elimination). That would be three more than are currently played by teams who go bowling. But that is a lot more games, unless you get rid of the championship game. We could do that easily in the ACC given how lopsided the talent between the Atlantic and Coastal is distributed. And similarly between SEC East and West. The ACC champ would be determined by conference record and then tie breakers.

I think we'll go to 8 next once ESPN has figured out that more games and a playoff is lots more money. It'll be whatever maximizes fan interest (and spending).

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I dunno, I am not a playoff person. In baseball the playoffs are a crap shoot, in the NFL the playoffs are who is clicking at the right time, NHL is who has the hottest goalie, and the NCAA's are completely random. I think playoffs don't determine the best team, but the tournament champion. Many times those are one and the same, but many other times they're two different teams. I do think the NBA playoffs do always have the best team win, and they do determine the true best team. Their playoffs just go on forever, and you can't fluke your way to winning a 7 game basketball series.

In my opinion, if you like college football because you want to find out who the champion is, you're missing the point. College football is about the regular season. The traditions, rivalries, homecoming, the fact that EVERY game matters, this is what sets college football apart from other sports. Determining the champion is the least of my worries, I am worried that the determining of the champion will screw up what I like best about the sport.

If through inevitable expanded playoffs we get to the point where you can lose 2-3 games and still be ok, the sport will have taken a big hit.

I agree a playoff only determines who is playing best at the time, like the NFL. In MLB and NBA there is a longer playoff series to weed out the better team and reduce the vagaries of chance. Hockey is the wrong way where you have the playoffs forever.

What I would like about a playoff is that you could get the Cinderella teams make a run like the NCAAs. It would be more interesting, and for a lot more teams there would be a second season. I still think every game would matter for the vast majority of the teams except those in the top 8 or so. Dozens of others would be fighting for spots. But the method for determining the top 16 would have to be fairly transparent and mechanical and not based on opinions like we have seen in picking the top 2 and now top 4.

 

[ibeattetris]

I think 16 team playoff would only be four games (single elimination). That would be three more than are currently played by teams who go bowling. But that is a lot more games, unless you get rid of the championship game. We could do that easily in the ACC given how lopsided the talent between the Atlantic and Coastal is distributed. And similarly between SEC East and West. The ACC champ would be determined by conference record and then tie breakers.

I think we'll go to 8 next once ESPN has figured out that more games and a playoff is lots more money. It'll be whatever maximizes fan interest (and spending).

I don't understand why conference championships can't be considered the first round of the playoffs.

Example of how it could work (not necessarily my favorite, just an example):

First round -
You have the 5 power conferences play a game to determine their champion. You take the top 6 not playing in championships and have them play each other as a play in.

Find some way of seeding teams and finish the rest of the 8 team bracket.

That is 16 teams, single elimination, removes an extra game people whine about, gives non power 5 a chance to get in via top 6 at large, and most importantly allows teams to DECIDE IT ON THE FIELD.

 

[AE 87]

I don't understand why conference championships can't be considered the first round of the playoffs.

Example of how it could work (not necessarily my favorite, just an example):

First round -
You have the 5 power conferences play a game to determine their champion. You take the top 6 not playing in championships and have them play each other as a play in.

Find some way of seeding teams and finish the rest of the 8 team bracket.

That is 16 teams, single elimination, removes an extra game people whine about, gives non power 5 a chance to get in via top 6 at large, and most importantly allows teams to DECIDE IT ON THE FIELD.

IIUC, the aim of the playoff is to find the "best team." To that end, the first premise is that the playoff should be a playoff of the four best teams. Given the potential of disparity between the quality of conferences, it is reasonable that two, or more, teams from one conference may in some seasons be better than the champions of other conferences. For example, in 2009, SEC #4 beat the ACC champion in the last game of the regular season (for illustration purposes only).

I agree with you that the aim of the playoff should be to find the "champion." As long as we have only four teams, which I don't see being easily expanded, I think there should be three automatic bids and one play in bid.

Generally speaking, the first step to becoming the FBS Champion is to be a conference champion (with some allowance for independents to play in).

The three automatic bids will go first to the three highest ranked Power-5 conference champions, (if ranked in the top 10 or 15) and then to the otherwise highest ranked teams if there are not 3 ConfChamps in top 10 or 15. The two highest-ranked non-power 5 conference teams getting invited to a play-in game on conf-championship Saturday. So, only if there are not three power-5 conference champions in the top 10 would it be possible for a second power-5 conference team to go. However, that

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think we'll go to 8 next once ESPN has figured out that more games and a playoff is lots more money. It'll be whatever maximizes fan interest (and spending).

You are scratching here at a basic problem I have with how D1 college football alone has failed to institute a playoff system to determine a yearly "champion" like all the other sports did long ago.

It seems to me that "generating fan interest" or "more revenue" should be ignored by the powers that be in the same sense that it was "ignored" by every single other sporting league that has found a way to create an annually repeatable format of athletic competition that can determine as reasonably and equitably as possible (in this imperfect vale of tears) who that year's "best" or "championship" team happens to be. I think that "if you build it they will come," that is, the sport itself will be improved and hence your material interests will ultimately be furthered.

This is especially true for a sport tied to colleges because fan interest in the sport is built upon the foundation of identification with a specific college, or even just a local community. There is pride in one's alma mater or local pride at the heart of support for college athletics and thus a remarkable degree of "fan interest" is a fundamental given. This was just as true before the first college football game was broadcast on radio (I checked and it was Pitt beating WVU in 1921), as it was true before the first TV broadcast (Checked again and that was a team called the "Yellow Jackets" . . . of Waynesburg, PA against Fordham in 1939).

The way it operates now ESPN has to spend insane amounts of money and time in propaganda to stoke interest in the b.s. college football bowl postseason and BCS games--now "playoffs." If the sport simply had a better format in place then they could be saved from some of the expense of spewing propaganda.

 

[ibeattetris]

IIUC, the aim of the playoff is to find the "best team." To that end, the first premise is that the playoff should be a playoff of the four best teams. Given the potential of disparity between the quality of conferences, it is reasonable that two, or more, teams from one conference may in some seasons be better than the champions of other conferences. For example, in 2009, SEC #4 beat the ACC champion in the last game of the regular season (for illustration purposes only).

I agree with you that the aim of the playoff should be to find the "champion." As long as we have only four teams, which I don't see being easily expanded, I think there should be three automatic bids and one play in bid.

Generally speaking, the first step to becoming the FBS Champion is to be a conference champion (with some allowance for independents to play in).

The three automatic bids will go first to the three highest ranked Power-5 conference champions, (if ranked in the top 10 or 15) and then to the otherwise highest ranked teams if there are not 3 ConfChamps in top 10 or 15. The two highest-ranked non-power 5 conference teams getting invited to a play-in game on conf-championship Saturday. So, only if there are not three power-5 conference champions in the top 10 would it be possible for a second power-5 conference team to go. However, that

Are we attempting to find the best team or the team that had the best season? The smaller the sample, the more you are picking "best season" and not best team. I don't have an opinion on what I prefer the playoff to achieve, but I strongly disagree that having less team means you are more likely to get the best.

Let's say we have a team with a key injury in off season, that leaves to a star player being out 3 games. They lose the three games OOC, but once the star returns, they sweep their conference winning by 30 points a game.

Did they have the best season? Not with three losses, but they may very well be the best team, and I don't see why the team should not have the opportunity to prove it on the field.

Obviously a key injury could happen later in the season as well, but a playoff usually determine "who is the best now" after picking teams who have already had good seasons.

 

[OldJacketFan]

I've been thinking about this for a while. From my standpoint I want to see a playoff but I want it with 8 teams. The Power 5 conference champions regardless of their overall record and 3 at large berths. It makes the regular season meaningful and gives those top teams not in the Power 5 a shot at the "ring". I'm not saying the 3 remaining slots would be filled by non Power 5 teams, after all does it make sense to keep out a 1 loss Power 5 team, but if does give an undefeated non Power 5 team something to shoot for. Seeding, in my mind, isn't that big a deal if all the games are played at a neutral site so you have the big 4 bowls happy as well.

 

[AE 87]

Are we attempting to find the best team or the team that had the best season? The smaller the sample, the more you are picking "best season" and not best team. I don't have an opinion on what I prefer the playoff to achieve, but I strongly disagree that having less team means you are more likely to get the best.

Let's say we have a team with a key injury in off season, that leaves to a star player being out 3 games. They lose the three games OOC, but once the star returns, they sweep their conference winning by 30 points a game.

Did they have the best season? Not with three losses, but they may very well be the best team, and I don't see why the team should not have the opportunity to prove it on the field.

Obviously a key injury could happen later in the season as well, but a playoff usually determine "who is the best now" after picking teams who have already had good seasons.

I'm not sure I follow you. Start with 20th century ncaa football. Number 1 was determined by polling. BCS sought to improve that by 1 game, as mncg. Now, there are two games. It's a corrective to polling independent of conference and conference championship.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I've been thinking about this for a while. From my standpoint I want to see a playoff but I want it with 8 teams. The Power 5 conference champions regardless of their overall record and 3 at large berths. It makes the regular season meaningful and gives those top teams not in the Power 5 a shot at the "ring". I'm not saying the 3 remaining slots would be filled by non Power 5 teams, after all does it make sense to keep out a 1 loss Power 5 team, but if does give an undefeated non Power 5 team something to shoot for. Seeding, in my mind, isn't that big a deal if all the games are played at a neutral site so you have the big 4 bowls happy as well.

I agree, a Championship Playoff should be a tournament of champions. The 3 wild card teams can easily make up for any conference that has more than one deserving team or any independents deserving a slot.

 

[ibeattetris]

I'm not sure I follow you. Start with 20th century ncaa football. Number 1 was determined by polling. BCS sought to improve that by 1 game, as mncg. Now, there are two games. It's a corrective to polling independent of conference and conference championship.

You mentioned it was meant to determine the best; I'm saying the current format determines who has the best season, not which team is the best.

More cross divisional games among the top teams is the only way to guage who is the best without relying on things like the "eye test".

 

[stevo0718]

I agree a playoff only determines who is playing best at the time, like the NFL. In MLB and NBA there is a longer playoff series to weed out the better team and reduce the vagaries of chance. Hockey is the wrong way where you have the playoffs forever.

What I would like about a playoff is that you could get the Cinderella teams make a run like the NCAAs. It would be more interesting, and for a lot more teams there would be a second season. I still think every game would matter for the vast majority of the teams except those in the top 8 or so. Dozens of others would be fighting for spots. But the method for determining the top 16 would have to be fairly transparent and mechanical and not based on opinions like we have seen in picking the top 2 and now top 4.

Cinderellas are nice, but only when they make the ball, not win it. Remember the 2011 final four when butler and VCU both made it. Zzzzz no one cared who won that game, because ould just get destroyed by UCONN. Those situations are fun to see teams like VCU beat a team like Kansas or Kentucky. But you don't want the end result where you have 2 teams no one cares about playing each other. Remember the white Sox v Astros World Series... Two cinderellas, I'll just wait til next year.

These days you're only a Cinderella if you're not from a major conference or are someone like Duke in football. The cfb playoff is so small you can't get a Cinderella. This year it would be Miss State or Ole Miss, would you consider the cinderellas?

Cinderellas in my opinion are over rated, basically they're just puff pieces for Tom Rinaldi to report on.

I know I am comparing this a lot to other sports, but a couple of years ago (2011) the WSJ ranked the 2011 football teams and seated them in the NCAA bball bracket, they then picked the winners based on the results of the bball tourney. You ended up with a final four of VT, OK state, Norther Ill and Air Force with a magnificent championship game of VT over NIU to seal the deal. I know they're different sports, and the difference btw big and small schools is greater but it goes to show you what cinderellas can deliver.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703712504576235191915692976

If you're going to have the playoffs, only let conference champions play. It's the only fair way to do it. You're gonna end up with stinkers (Like the Pitt-Utah fiesta bowl) , but if you don't make the playoffs it's your own damn fault for not winning your conference.

In the current system, things are based on poll opinions. And basically if youre out of the top 12 right now you have 0 shot of making the playoffs. The committee poll will behave like every other, if you win you keep your place if you lose you move down. They shouldn't come out with this poll til a week before the playoff occurs, peoples egos get in the way, they don't want to be wrong about the original poll they created.

I think its ridiculous that auburn ole miss and MSU are all in it. The poll they have today has a rematch of last years and a rematch of the Egg bowl. 3 of those teams play eachother and they could have consivabley all lost to one of the other ones. Theres no reason to create a poll (other than viewer interest) this early it's just going to set in stone who can make it and who has no shot.

These people should determine at the endof the season who had the best 4 seasons. That way you can judge all teams on their full body of work. You can say hey, maybe SCAR wasn't a very good team regardless of their preseason ranking a win against them isn't that impressive and a loss to them is pretty bad.

Sorry for the rant. Dislike cfb playoff

 

[Sean311]

I think a good argument here would be our feelings towards the ACC in basketball..I'm sure all of us feel it is the best basketball conference hands down. Very similar to the SEC in football without the championships lately. Might be irrelevant but just a thought.