|
Post by Coach JR on May 11, 2008 16:38:14 GMT -6
auburn--just make sure you realize that the answers are not only given in 20/20 hindsight, but will be given from the perspective that they would have WON the title. If you played for Pat Dye, the hindsight is 50/50. You might not get that. Anyway. I know guys that played for Auburn, Bama, and Ole Miss from the early 80s - the mid 90s. Only one was in line for a NC...all went to bowls. So I think I can get a fair perspective on "what if". Also, I don't put much credence in people thinking back 25 years and remembering how they "felt" when it comes to this. They had their Sugar Bowl Experience (by the way, they are MUCH enhanced these days, due to increased regulation ...the bowl "booty" is quite nice, as is the week long festival atmosophere). When asked the question, they will answer it thinking that they would have won..and they will answer it imagining all the fleeting glory that comes in the moments after winning. Finally, remember that is just ONE part of the discussion. Money and its distribution, host cities, RECRUITING, .... I understand ultimately player's or coaches feelings wont matter much if at all. But you've made it part of the debate. The money thing is something for open debate until such time they try a playoff...it's all theoretical now. The "Bowl Experience" is something I can get a handle on.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 11, 2008 17:03:17 GMT -6
could be. Still waiting for someone to explain to me what is so great about games connected by bracket lines...
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 11, 2008 17:16:18 GMT -6
i like the arguement that the championship will all of a sudden bring in substantially more viewers ... uh, why? the bcs championship is still just that, a game where the winner is crowned the national champion. i'm so sure more people will watch now that this new fangled championship game will crown the winner the champion ... how is that different again?
what proponents HOPE a playoff will do (money wise/ratings wise) is make the other games more "viewable" .. i.e. their ratings increase. when looking at these other bowls and their ratings (bowls such as all the other bcs bowls and some of the "larger" non-bcs bowls) it averages out to just between 7 and 9 percent ... (while championship games net 17 to 20 percent). 7 to 9 is pretty much what the nfl playoffs net ... and, the super bowl goes way above that at nearly 40 on average. so, THIS is where playoff proponents stake the bulk of their case ... WE CAN BE LIKE THE SUPER BOWL .... and bring in tons from 1 game. well, where is the data that says more people will now watch the ncaa championship game than already watches?
will regular season games see the dropoff that nfl or ncaa basketball sees compared to their respective postseasons? will this decrease in viewership have an affect on sponsorship as a whole --- and, would think this arguement of "we'll watch a championship if it MEANS something" holds true to the same type of fan so he'll likely turn off during the regular season because "the game doesn't MEAN anything"
ah, crap .. i can't believe i'm still reading this thread ... lol
no more "i think" or "my opinion", please ... try to look at NUMBERS
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on May 12, 2008 8:46:30 GMT -6
Congrats on an outstanding achievement. I think you can immediately discount anyone who says "oh, because it was division II, it counts less" because they are obviously a moron. With that said, you had the exact same experience during your playoff run as you had every other week of the season correct? You ENJOYED it more, and the feelings were a bit different (because of the heightened interest--(self induced). But the actual experience was the same right? Same practices, same travel in, play game, travel out (or host) experience right? This does bring me to an interesting point. Why does an "weekly elimination sequence" provide some type of validity? I have always wondered this. In the current system, and any playoff system, there are preset rules. Both systems rely on winning "certain games" to be labeled "champion" I would say practice was the same structure, but heightened sense of awareness. Basically everything was sharper. In theory, all practices should be sharp. Execution should be flawless and effort should be 100% from every player. Reality is that rarely happens, but it seemed to come playoff time. Focus was more intense. I am not sure practices would be different going to a bowl? Maybe a different location, but structured the same. Our championship game was a lot like you described for the bowl. Flew in on Wednesday, had the local banquets, toured the area, hospitality suites, etc. Game experiences were different because we rarely play someone in our own conference during the playoffs. Likely it was a team we rarely play so it was different. So we saw different styles and types of players. I am not sure D1 is as regionalized as D2 though so I am not sure if they will see the different styles as much. The playoffs and BCS are completely different rules. Classic example is Auburn going undefeated in the SEC years ago, but not playing for a title in the BCS system. They would determine their own fate in a playoff. Let’s say in theory that the two best teams in football play each other in the regular season. They are far and away the best two teams, but one of them loses that game. Then two teams are undefeated (one plays a soft schedule, ie Pac-10) and the theoretically the second best team in the country is left out of the title game. That isn’t the same system. Not even close. As I stated in an earlier post: Team A .700 winning percentage. Losing record at home, including a head to head loss against Team B. only a +23 point differential between points scored and points allowed, .500 record in their division .583 conference record Team B .947 winning percentage. Undefeated at home. A +315 point differential. Undefeated in their division and undefeated in Conference. Beat Team A on the road, but split on neutral site. So, based on the winning percentages, point differentials, a split head to head record (with team A losing at home, but winning at a neutral site)...which team is the "Champ"? The team that wins the arbitrarily denoted "championship" game. Right ? Whether that game was out of the blue, or at the end of a series of pretty brackets, it is still arbitrary. I don’t know why winning on the field is arbitrary. Unless Team A and Team B play the exact same schedule, there is no way to prove one is better than the other. Conferences are not created equal. The MAC doesn’t equal the Big 10. I am not sure how you get a better result in comparing two teams then having them play each other. If you think it is all arbitrary anyway, why even play games? If you are coaching an underdog team, do you tell them to just quit? You might as well because it has already been proven based on stats they aren’t going to win. That’s the great thing about football, you don’t have to be the best everyday, just the one day it matters. Same with winning a championship. It is a big part of what makes football interesting. The chance of victory by the underdog is the reason every team sport at every level has a playoff. Some choose to look at College football as unique while others see them as behind the times. Ask any football player you know if they would rather have a chance to win the Sugar Bowl, or a small chance to play their way into a National Championship game. I would simply question a football player who would choose the bowl.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 12, 2008 11:14:06 GMT -6
Again I ask...why is a game that follows at the end of a buch of brackets considered superior than some other way? I am just looking for the logic there. Looking for an answer other than "it is on the field" because bowl games are "on the field" Looking to find some input regarding my team A and B scenario...because each team beat the other team "on the field"
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on May 12, 2008 11:25:22 GMT -6
Again I ask...why is a game that follows at the end of a buch of brackets considered superior than some other way? I am just looking for the logic there. Looking for an answer other than "it is on the field" because bowl games are "on the field" Looking to find some input regarding my team A and B scenario...because each team beat the other team "on the field" The problem with your scenario and the "bowl" scenario is it only works when there is a Team A and a Team B. What if there is a Team C? Maybe USC was the best team in college football last season, maybe better than LSU, but because of the bowl system, we will never know. All of those "pretty brackets" equal wins. It isn't conjecture or stats. It is one day, one chance, definitive answer. Otherwise we just give chances to the popular teams. So I guess would you rather have a popularity contest or pretty brackets. I would personally choose the brackets. I still believe any competitor would rather settle it on the field then in the media. It saddens me to see so many coaches with a t-ball mentality. Why can't everyone win? Because football is a game where we keep score for a reason. Either that or I wasted a lot of time trying to beat the DL in front of me all those years. Had I known it was all arbitrary anyway, I would have struck a deal with him to take turns winning matchups.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on May 12, 2008 11:33:29 GMT -6
i like the arguement that the championship will all of a sudden bring in substantially more viewers ... uh, why? the bcs championship is still just that, a game where the winner is crowned the national champion. i'm so sure more people will watch now that this new fangled championship game will crown the winner the champion ... how is that different again? what proponents HOPE a playoff will do (money wise/ratings wise) is make the other games more "viewable" .. i.e. their ratings increase. when looking at these other bowls and their ratings (bowls such as all the other bcs bowls and some of the "larger" non-bcs bowls) it averages out to just between 7 and 9 percent ... (while championship games net 17 to 20 percent). 7 to 9 is pretty much what the nfl playoffs net ... and, the super bowl goes way above that at nearly 40 on average. so, THIS is where playoff proponents stake the bulk of their case ... WE CAN BE LIKE THE SUPER BOWL .... and bring in tons from 1 game. well, where is the data that says more people will now watch the ncaa championship game than already watches? will regular season games see the dropoff that nfl or ncaa basketball sees compared to their respective postseasons? will this decrease in viewership have an affect on sponsorship as a whole --- and, would think this arguement of "we'll watch a championship if it MEANS something" holds true to the same type of fan so he'll likely turn off during the regular season because "the game doesn't MEAN anything" ah, crap .. i can't believe i'm still reading this thread ... lol no more "i think" or "my opinion", please ... try to look at NUMBERS So in order to be a proponent of a playoff system, you have to break it down into numbers? Coach, Would you personally be as fulfilled with a season your state championship game was selected by the media? I know money makes the world go round, but just because it is the most profitable doesn't make something right. I do find it ironic that I as a person in corporate America is arguing for the "theoretical" vs. a person in academia arguing for the bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on May 12, 2008 11:38:21 GMT -6
I know that there are MANY different topics that can come out of this thread, but NOBODY knows the $$$ impact of it until it actually happens. All we can do is use the current information we have to speculate on what would happen $$$-wise.
Again... if you have a tournament, then the winner of each conference would have to get in... otherwise you still have the same system as now... A lopsided mess where the big conferences get in, and the smaller ones don't (8-team). And with a 16 team tournament, 12 of the seeds would have been: ACC - Virginia Tech Big 12 - Oklahoma Big East - West Virginia Big 10 - Ohio State Conference USA - UCF Independants - Navy Mid American - Central Michigan Mountain West - BYU Pac 10 - USC SEC - LSU Sun Belt - Florida Atlantic WAC - Hawaii Then you would have to add 4 other teams arbitrarily... I honestly don't think that ANYONE would make money off of a playoff game between USC and Florida Atlantic... or USC and Central Michigan... Plus you would have to add in the fans/teams that would complain because they are in a conference with a championship game, and they go 11-0 during the season, then lose 1 game to a 10-2 team in the championship game so they get eliminated, but a team from a conference with no championship game can lose 4 games and still get in the tournament because they won their conference...
There are so many different issues at work here, that there is a REASON why the system is set up the way it is now... It's really the only way to keep the schools and sponsors happy. I know that there are a lot of schools that will argue on specific years, but there is a reason why a lot of the BIG conferences want a playoff while I haven't heard any smaller schools wanting to go to one...
A Boise State team has a chance to beat ANYONE with a month to prepare, with everyone healthy and with a few breaks during the game... But if they had to play 4 weeks in a row with bigger schools, then they wouldn't have a chance due to depth issues. What happens if Ian Johnson gets hurt in the 1st round against (you pick), and their OL has a couple of guys banged up? They are in trouble... Then a school with 3-4 losses from a big conference beats them, which allows for the big conferences to monopolize the $$$ made from a playoff, because by the end of it, you end up with 8 teams from the Big 10, Pac 10, Big East, SEC, Big 12, ACC in the final rounds with no small schools in there to make "big boy $$$".
At least with the current system, a team like Utah, Boise, Hawaii can have a great year and make some $$$ for their conference & school. Going to a playoff just makes is like the "conference champ" from the America East Conference playing North Carolina in the first round of the tournament... not even worth it
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 12, 2008 12:02:30 GMT -6
The problem with your scenario and the "bowl" scenario is it only works when there is a Team A and a Team B. What if there is a Team C? Maybe USC was the best team in college football last season, maybe better than LSU, but because of the bowl system, we will never know. So tell me then..which team was better. Team A or Team B. I gave you a wealth of information, and they split head to head "on the field"
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 12, 2008 12:06:49 GMT -6
I do find it ironic that I as a person in corporate America is arguing for the "theoretical" vs. a person in academia arguing for the bottom line. You are arguing for what "benefits" YOU most...namely, the ability to sit in your recliner and watch "exciting, drama filled" elimination games. Not theoretical or bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 12, 2008 12:25:09 GMT -6
just a question here, folks......lets get down to brass tacks.
Lets say YOUR playoff scenario is in effect, how would this past year have shaked out?
How would you have determined your Top 8 / 16? What would those matchups looked like, where would we have ended up?
Without conference championships, we're still back to the same place we started (rankings).
Would LSU NOT be the national champion had we done it a different way?
Would the games lose the quality that we see currently if we are playing 'playoff' games back-to-back (rather than the 1 month layoff)?
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on May 12, 2008 12:28:33 GMT -6
I do find it ironic that I as a person in corporate America is arguing for the "theoretical" vs. a person in academia arguing for the bottom line. You are arguing for what "benefits" YOU most...namely, the ability to sit in your recliner and watch "exciting, drama filled" elimination games. Not theoretical or bottom line. My contention is that athletes/teams train to be the best. In a given year they may not have control over their own destiny if they lose a popularity contest. My opinion (I know that isn't suppossed to happen) is that each team that proves worthy (however that is deemed) should have a shot at a championship. In your scenario (A vs. B), B is obviously the better team, but if they played a 3rd time, who knows who would win? That's the beauty of sports. Upsets can happen. That is why the NY Giants winning the championship, while improbable, is great. You have never answered two of my questions. What if there are 3 teams with good arguments to be in the title game? What if you are coaching against a team that is obviously better than you? Do you tell your kids the game has already been decided?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 12, 2008 13:02:59 GMT -6
In your scenario (A vs. B), B is obviously the better team, but if they played a 3rd time, who knows who would win? That's the beauty of sports. Upsets can happen. That is why the NY Giants winning the championship, while improbable, is great. Funny you mention them. Not sure if you did that on purpose or not..but those are the two teams whose stats I gave. Team A were the NY football Giants, and Team B--the "obviously better team" in your words were the Patriots. I find it odd that everyone celebrates the fact that the "better team" did not win. Why is this a good thing? [/quote] You got me on this one, because I could care less about outcomes. As I have said several times on this site, my ONLY goal is "win the next play" I don't worry about stats, scores, wins, championships or any other outcome based items. Process based. Align properly, read keys properly, play your technique to the best of your ability. [/quote] See above.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on May 12, 2008 13:04:01 GMT -6
just a question here, folks......lets get down to brass tacks. Without conference championships, we're still back to the same place we started (rankings). Would LSU NOT be the national champion had we done it a different way? I totally agree... Without ALL conferences having conference championships, then teams without them have a HUGE advantage because they can lose their final game before the tournament to a 6-loss team, and still make the tournament, while teams with conference championship games could lose to a 10-2 team in the title game and be eliminated... I honestly DON'T know if LSU wins without the BCS system last year... I will argue with ANYONE that they were in the top 3 best teams (USC & Georgia being the other two), but the arbitrary ranking that they would be placed in the tournament at would have more to do with whether they would win the NC or not... If they had to face Hawaii in the first round, Georgia in the second, an USC in the 3rd round, I don't think they even make it to the NC Game! Too hard of a road. Just making it through the SEC regular season without losing 2x last year was impossible due to the difficulty of that conference. No matter what system you use, the "human-ranking-factor" plays a HUGE roll in who has the best chance to be in the NC Game... Why do you think teams make such a big deal about being the #1 seed over the #2 seed? Technically you should make it to the elite 8 if you get either ranking, but the team that gets ranked #2 has a MUCH HARDER time getting there because of the "path-difficulty" difference. So the schools are going to stick to what makes them the most $$$... Every team has a shot at $14 million at the beginning of the season (even when Auburn went undefeated and didn't go to the NC, they still made $14 million), but only the teams who either A-take care of ALL their games or B-get the breaks they need during the season get the opportunity to play for the NC. Fans care about the label "National Champ", while presidents care about the +/- in the accounting budget... Until a tournament can find a way for 60+ teams to make MORE money than they currently do, we are all just wasting our breath!
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on May 12, 2008 13:17:37 GMT -6
In your scenario (A vs. B), B is obviously the better team, but if they played a 3rd time, who knows who would win? That's the beauty of sports. Upsets can happen. That is why the NY Giants winning the championship, while improbable, is great. Funny you mention them. Not sure if you did that on purpose or not..but those are the two teams whose stats I gave. Team A were the NY football Giants, and Team B--the "obviously better team" in your words were the Patriots. I find it odd that everyone celebrates the fact that the "better team" did not win. Why is this a good thing? You got me on this one, because I could care less about outcomes. As I have said several times on this site, my ONLY goal is "win the next play" I don't worry about stats, scores, wins, championships or any other outcome based items. Process based. Align properly, read keys properly, play your technique to the best of your ability. NFL is a COMPLETELY different animal than the NCAA... They are all operating under a salary-cap, they do not get to pick their schedule, 53-man rosters, EVERY division has the exact same way to determine champion, as well as the wild-card... All of the other aspects of the game are "forced" to be equal, so that the only thing that matters is the performance (head to head) on the field... until that is true for college football, then it has to be treated as a completely different beast. Big-conference schools have an unfair amount of resources that make it unfair to the smaller conferences in recruiting. Imagine if the NCAA did a "draft" of recruits where the worst team got to pick which HS athlete they wanted... and they took the recruiting advantages away from the HUGE schools... Teams like Florida Atlantic, Utah State, Idaho, etc... would have a much better chance of making the NC game! In the NFL every team has a "fair chance" to make it to the Super-Bowl... They all operate under the same guidlines and have an equal amount of $$$ they can spend on their teams. Teams can go from Super Bowl Champ to 1st pick in the draft over 1 season in the NFL. In college, does anyone really think that Idaho has a chance to make it to the NC game next year? The teams that were good last year will be good this year, with a few exceptions... Hawaii won't be nearly as good because their QB is gone. Same with LSU unless their 3rd & 4th string QB's from last year can step in and do the job. I honestly expect to see Ohio State in the NC this year if they beat USC early in the year! And I fully expect to see USC in the NC if hey beat Ohio State early in the year... Because both of those teams are probably about 90%-95% sure to win their conferences with one or less losses, so the team that doesn't get that 2nd loss when they play each other will be a shoe-in because they don't have to play in a championship game in their conference! Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, LSU, Georgia, Florida, VaTech, etc... if they "escape" during the regular season, are forced to play an additional game against a very difficult opponent (in most cases. there are rare exceptions) which can get them "booted" out of the NC Game.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 12, 2008 13:57:26 GMT -6
INTERESTING
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on May 12, 2008 15:22:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 12, 2008 17:03:16 GMT -6
Fans care about the label "National Champ", while presidents care about the +/- in the accounting budget... Until a tournament can find a way for 60+ teams to make MORE money than they currently do, we are all just wasting our breath! exactly ... kinda' what i've been saying this whole time. (not to mention the complexity of developing said 'tournament')
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 12, 2008 18:15:17 GMT -6
THIS..actually...is one of the factors that DOES influence me to think playoffs. I agree fully with those who aren't BCS fans...(I am not a big BCS guy either) and this is the reason why. The flaws inherent to the BCS are magnified when teams change their "behavior" (for lack of a better term) in order to achieve things. Although I am not sure how much any of this would change in a playoff...as the teams would still have to either win their conference, OR be chosen in a very BCS type ranking system.
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on May 13, 2008 7:26:18 GMT -6
i like the arguement that the championship will all of a sudden bring in substantially more viewers ... uh, why? I guess you're addressing that in general, but I for one don't necessarily say it would bring more viewers. It would create more football, top quality at that, to be viewed. I think another bowl game was added this year or last. You know? One of those "who cares" bowl games played by two 6-6 teams where about 25-30K will show up on site to see it. But for reasons those of us not in the TV and sports promotion biz can understand, it will somehow turn a profit despite the fact that when you see it on the TV schedule, you'll say: "Who cares?" I, for one, don't have to speculate that games, added games to the number we have now, added top quality matchups, will make more money. I KNOW it! Coach5085, the reason the little bracket lines matter is that most of the football viewing world, and a large portion of those directly involved or affected by the BCS, Bowls, or potential playoff, believe it creates a legitimate champion. Obviously you don't. And that's ok too. The assertion that the regular season is a "form of playoff" is very flawed IN MY OPINION. In every other sport you play a regular season, and strive to win enough games to qualify for the "second season" in which the rules change and become "lose and go home, win and advance". This formula works for most, and even when "the best team" gets upset along the way, the champion, is considered legit by those interested. I don't know anyone saying the NYG's weren't the champs last season, even though everyone "knows" the Pats would have beat them 8 our of 10 times...the NYG's won when it counted. Yeah, you can say the same about the current system about "winning when it counts", but still the majority of folks believe a playoff creates a legitimate champion, and the current system doesn't always do that. At least that part of the debate is purely opinion, and nothing will change that for most, no matter which side they're on.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on May 13, 2008 7:46:17 GMT -6
The regular season is not a playoff for all. LSU lost twice in the regular season, but still won the championship. Most years losing early is ok, but losing late is not. Why? Most years losing if you are ranked in the top 3 can be forgiven, but if you are ranked out of the top 10 at the beginning of the year, forget it. Why?
Why did LSU get another chance, I mean two more chances? Because they were pre-season number 1. If they were anything but preseaon #1, they would not have gotten another chance. Period. Most people would consider that unfair.
But if there is a 16 team playoff, there might be upsets. Well, isn't that why you play? Sure the best team might not actually win it (that still happens no matter what the system), but no one will complain that a team that made the playoffs and then won 4 straight games againist elite competetion under pressure doesn't deserve it.
If a number 16 won it, they would have to beat #1, and probably #8, #4, and #2. All the while most likely only having 2 to 3 losses in the regular season. How is that not better than LSU being given the championship this year? By the way, I don't think that it is very likely that a 16 will win it.
One more thing, #1 versus #16 is not like #1 seed vs. #16 seed in the NCAA ball tournament. It is exactly like a #1 seed vs. a #4 seed. Everybody thinks that is a big time quality game, and when #4 wins, it is not that big of an upset.
And then, if #16 goes on to win the Final Four, which makes 6 straight wins, no one complains that they don't deserve it. They might not be the best, but they still deserve it.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 13, 2008 8:09:48 GMT -6
i like the arguement that the championship will all of a sudden bring in substantially more viewers ... uh, why? I guess you're addressing that in general, but I for one don't necessarily say it would bring more viewers. It would create more football, top quality at that, to be viewed. Hey, CBS ... we're gonna go to a playoff and it won't bring in any more viewers... but, can you kick in more sponsorship money? hey, i know you're still reaching the same number of people with your ads, but the QUALITY ... wow, you will be impressed with the quality of the games. the fans are gonna love it. now, there won't be more viewers or at least not significantly but i'm pretty sure by you spending more money you will get better returns since the quality is so much better. ........... great pitch to the networks. thank you for the public perspective ... and i agree with you on so many levels.... but, i realize this isn't about the fan's wishes ... not even about what all the coaches want (and, talk all you want, a playoff does the sun belt or mac very, very little good.) but, continue to stir the emotions of fans everywhere by saying how quality, importance, "it's on the field", etc.... which, by the way, is what the media does when trying to whoop up interest for a playoff... controversy sells and playing on fan emotion gets the topic discussed ... look at it here on this board. we haven't discussed one monetary reason why this thing should work yet EVERYONE speaks of "play it on the field", "wouldn't you be upset if they voted for your state champ", etc., etc. get over that hurdle and realize most here aren't for or against ... simply pointing out the obstacles in the way --- all the while, those things get swept under the rug and bypassed as we focus on the emotional points of the debate --- that's easier
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 13, 2008 8:09:49 GMT -6
The regular season is not a playoff for all. LSU lost twice in the regular season, but still won the championship. Why did LSU get another chance, I mean two more chances? Because they were pre-season number 1. If they were anything but preseaon #1, they would not have gotten another chance. Period. Most people would consider that unfair. ....and this is the reason why the BCS exists. This is what fuels the support for its 'efficiency'. Wins & Losses would be a factor if all opponents were relative. Michigan losing to Ball State is much different than Georgia losing to Florida. This is why the BCS was created, to trump sports writers who vote as fans, by measuring quality wins and negating margin of victory to a point. You mean to tell me college football was better off in the 90's when you had the Big 8 loading up their season with as many creampuffs as they could find so they could tout the "undefeated" argument? I don't believe a system of rankings should discourage quality matchups....that defeats the purpose of having a quality championship game. Hawaii was undefeated....Missouri and Kansas were close behind.....do you really believe any of those teams were the best team in college football in 07? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the undefeated Auburn year in 05(?)......the Tigers were scheduled to open with USC that year, but they backed out. That would've settled their claim right there, IMO> This is what you're gonna get in a tournament...... #1 Florida vs #16 Texas in 2008..... Florida goes to get a quick lead in the first two quarters.........then starts subbing guys in and milk the clock to secure the win...because afterall, there is nothing left for them to shoot for. Get the win and thats all that matters. If you win big, it doesn't influence the rankings. If you keep your starters in, you only risk getting them injured heading into next week. I'm not against a playoff system, but it doesn't strike me as the Utopia that we're making it out to be.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on May 13, 2008 9:00:17 GMT -6
but, continue to stir the emotions of fans everywhere by saying how quality, importance, "it's on the field", etc.... which, by the way, is what the media does when trying to whoop up interest for a playoff... controversy sells and playing on fan emotion gets the topic discussed ... look at it here on this board. we haven't discussed one monetary reason why this thing should work yet EVERYONE speaks of "play it on the field", "wouldn't you be upset if they voted for your state champ", etc., etc. get over that hurdle and realize most here aren't for or against ... simply pointing out the obstacles in the way --- all the while, those things get swept under the rug and bypassed as we focus on the emotional points of the debate --- that's easier I keep trying to talk myself out of posting in this thread as we are getting nowhere and everyone's mind is made uo. I hate the fact that money ruins what should happen and does happen at every other level of team sports. In high school, what team sport doesn't have a playoff? In college, what sport other than D1 football, doesn't have a playoff? In pro sports, what team sport doesn't have a playoff? It works for so many, but it doesn't work for D1 College football? That is just about as silly of an argument as I have ever heard. So in the end, it all comes down to money, greed and an unwillingness to make it happen. The D1 National Championship will continue to mean absolutely nothing, but hey at least everyone is getting paid. That is what college football is all about, getting paid. It seems the proponents of the BCS like to focus on money and the proponents of the playoff like to focus on football.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 13, 2008 9:08:23 GMT -6
coachj .. i'm with you on these points.
it is sad in that we (the fans) aren't treated to something such as the playoffs. however, i can understand the school's side of it in wanting the best financial package available to them. i may not like it or agree with it, but i can accept it as what it is.
sure, i think it would be great if there was a playoff. personally, might actually prefer it ... but, not disappointed in what we have now since i'm not totally invested in any one team or conference to the point where i lose sleep over one team getting a bcs bid and another not.
i don't want someone to construe that i am against any such remodeling of how the D1 postseason is done. i just realize the myriad of obstacles and the complexity of all things involved -- the greatest of which is the concern for money distribution.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 13, 2008 9:12:51 GMT -6
the means has to justify the end.
Even if a playoff system is designed, it still has to justify not only the 'masters', but what is the entire point?
The point is to ensure the top teams are seeded, ensuring all 'qualified' teams have a shot at the title.
How do you ensure all teams get a shot at the title?
It brings you back to the flawed system of RANKINGS and their impact on seeding.
So how do you obsolesce RANKINGS, to ensure quality seeding?
How do you allow the cream to rise to the top without having to build a program for 5 years to actually get 'cred' and be ranked in the Top25?
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on May 13, 2008 9:14:18 GMT -6
Funny you mention them. Not sure if you did that on purpose or not..but those are the two teams whose stats I gave. Team A were the NY football Giants, and Team B--the "obviously better team" in your words were the Patriots. I find it odd that everyone celebrates the fact that the "better team" did not win. Why is this a good thing? Because upsets make for special games. If we wanted only the best team to win, we could computer simulate the games because the games wouldn't matter. I believe football games are meaningful events and not an exercise is robotic movements taking up time until we all die. You got me on this one, because I could care less about outcomes. As I have said several times on this site, my ONLY goal is "win the next play" I don't worry about stats, scores, wins, championships or any other outcome based items. Process based. Align properly, read keys properly, play your technique to the best of your ability. I find this point of view very strange. So do you encourage your team to just scrimage other teams? No point in playing, since the outcome of the game doesn't matter. Really what does it matter that they read their keys properly or align properly? If they don't, they will lose their matchup on that play, but that is an outcome and you don't care about those. Infact, if you don't care about any outcome based items, nothing your players do should matter. Them doing things "properly" is an outcome. They either successfully mastered their technique on a given play or didn't. I don't live in a surreal world, I live in a tangible, competitive one and prepare my kids for the same. Does that mean win at all costs? No, but value is placed on outcomes because that is what they will be judged on their whole lives.
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on May 13, 2008 9:18:40 GMT -6
I guess you're addressing that in general, but I for one don't necessarily say it would bring more viewers. It would create more football, top quality at that, to be viewed. Hey, CBS ... we're gonna go to a playoff and it won't bring in any more viewers... but, can you kick in more sponsorship money? hey, i know you're still reaching the same number of people with your ads, but the QUALITY ... wow, you will be impressed with the quality of the games. the fans are gonna love it. now, there won't be more viewers or at least not significantly but i'm pretty sure by you spending more money you will get better returns since the quality is so much better. ........... great pitch to the networks. Then why add these other bowl games if they're not generating a profit? The viewers are coming from somewhere. If you're suggesting that it wont create more football fans...I agree. However, if you play more games with the same veiwership over several days and weeks...more games with higher ratings (ratings like those of the current BCS games) = more revenue. It doesn't create "more viewers" it creates more times for those viewers (the high volume of viewers generated by meaningful games) to view a football game. The crowds that find LSU on TV will get 2, 3 or 4 extra chances...the same with USC, Texas, OSU...these teams, and others like them command the highest ratings on TV, and moreso when they face off against each other. "More numbers of viewers?" Maybe a few, but the same 40 Million viewers (or whatever the number is) getting 3-4 extra primetime slots to veiw games over 3-4 more weeks = more money.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on May 13, 2008 9:19:15 GMT -6
coachj .. i'm with you on these points. it is sad in that we (the fans) aren't treated to something such as the playoffs. however, i can understand the school's side of it in wanting the best financial package available to them. i may not like it or agree with it, but i can accept it as what it is. sure, i think it would be great if there was a playoff. personally, might actually prefer it ... but, not disappointed in what we have now since i'm not totally invested in any one team or conference to the point where i lose sleep over one team getting a bcs bid and another not. i don't want someone to construe that i am against any such remodeling of how the D1 postseason is done. i just realize the myriad of obstacles and the complexity of all things involved -- the greatest of which is the concern for money distribution. I think we are mostly in agreement. I don't care enough about D1 football to really bothered that there isn't a playoff system. I like the games, but I don't have a particular team I have deep buy in with. My opininon is just that it is best for all scenarios of team sports. If D1 never chooses to change, i will still watch it.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 13, 2008 9:25:49 GMT -6
auburn ... again, not disputing that a playoff system is 'better' (or 'worse') ... and that it might actually increase overall revenue. but, it is not just about total revenue generated - it is about how that revenue is distributed. will a team that plays 3 postseason games receive more revenue than a team that plays 1? how will this affect the overall revenue of conferences? it is logical to conclude that even should the sun belt or mac or any of the lesser conferences get a team in the playoffs they likely not to play multiple games ... so if revenue based on number of games how does a playoff (vs a bowl) benefit them monetarily? again, the distribution of this new revenue becomes the issue. who gets what?? does each conference get roughly the same as they get now? do they get more? do they get less? what determines how each school 'earns' money (and, thus, how each conference gets money)?
not against 'your' system or your point of view. just understand that the distribution of this revenue will drive the decision making process. not saying it's right but that it is what it is.
|
|