BOL Round Table

The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet

Boards ▾

BOL Round Table

The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet

The Water Cooler

BOL message board for off-topic posts

The Tailgate

Tailgating, recipes, cooking, food & drink

Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell or swap tickets

Reply

CNN article shows the down-side of a playoff system.

  • RollTide1987 said... (original post)

    A mixed record. And anytime a record for getting the two best teams is mixed, that means the system is wrong.

    So the BCS was *right* 8 of 14 times, with 3 a push, and 3 wrong.

    And we think that the playoffs would end up with more deserving teams why exactly? And if it's because the playoff "will show who is better," that's completely circular.

    Note that I don't hate the playoffs, but as I noted earlier, I don't get why it's so clearly better at determining a champion. A whole lot of talk for the same problems.

    This post was edited by Huskypup 3 years ago

    signature image signature image signature image
  • Sosa98

    Huskypup said... (original post)

    So the BCS was *right* 8 of 14 times, with 3 a push, and 3 wrong.

    And we think that the playoffs would end up with more deserving teams why exactly? And if it's because the playoff "will show who is better" than realize that's completely circular.

    Note that I don't hate the playoffs, but as I noted earlier, I don't get why it's so clearly better at determining a champion. A whole lot of talk for the same problems.

    And that gets us back to my original point. At best, a playoff gets us a system no better than the one we have. At worst, we just ruined my favorite sport because "everybody else does it that way".

    signature image
  • I am not sure how you could seriously say it would ruin the sport.

    On a side note, I seriously wish I could have this debate with you face-to-face because I have never spoken with a college football fan who does not support a playoff and, to me, it's one of those things that I cannot fathom someone would feel differently than me. I think it would be educational to have a direct conversation with someone who actually does. I love the debate.

  • Sosa98

    airbj01 said... (original post)

    I am not sure how you could seriously say it would ruin the sport.

    On a side note, I seriously wish I could have this debate with you face-to-face because I have never spoken with a college football fan who does not support a playoff and, to me, it's one of those things that I cannot fathom someone would feel differently than me. I think it would be educational to have a direct conversation with someone who actually does. I love the debate.

    Most of my friends now see things my way. Besides, I think supporting a playoff in college football is kind of like being a liberal. It is a sign of a lack of intelligence.

    signature image
  • Sosa98 said... (original post)

    Most of my friends now see things my way. Besides, I think supporting a playoff in college football is kind of like being a liberal. It is a sign of a lack of intelligence.

    Ok, fine, make an intelligent argument to support that a playoff would ruin college football. Convince me with you obviously superior intelligence. Tell me where a one game single elimination where the participants are voted upon using mostly subjective criteria is more, or even as, legitimate as a 4-8 team playoff where a team at least has to sustain success over more than 1 game to "prove" that it deserves to be champion. Maybe you are not an NFL fan, but do you believe green bay didn't deserve to win the super bowl after backing their way into the playlets. Would you rather we just have voted new England and Atlamta into the Super Bowl?

  • Sosa98

    airbj01 said... (original post)

    Ok, fine, make an intelligent argument to support that a playoff would ruin college football. Convince me with you obviously superior intelligence. Tell me where a one game single elimination where the participants are voted upon using mostly subjective criteria is more, or even as, legitimate as a 4-8 team playoff where a team at least has to sustain success over more than 1 game to "prove" that it deserves to be champion. Maybe you are not an NFL fan, but do you believe green bay didn't deserve to win the super bowl after backing their way into the playlets. Would you rather we just have voted new England and Atlamta into the Super Bowl?

    I have made my argument. When a team that has spent a whole season proving itself to not be the best team, giving them the opportunity to ruin the season for someone who has done the opposite illigitimizes the entire sport.

    signature image
  • BamaLivesFootba

    No one can convince me that playoffs are better at determining IMO a "true" champion than the BCS. The survivor of a single-elimination tournament is not a champion but is the last person to lose. Just because playoffs exist and work for one doesn't mean it is guaranteed to work for the other. If we lived in Europe and grew up on home and away round-robins like the association football leagues use, we'd all be screaming how that is the best way to determine a champion. Is it worth a try? Maybe.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Hey, hey, hey. A life. A life, Jimmy, you know what that is? It's the shit that happens while you're waiting for moments that never come."

  • Sosa98 said... (original post)

    I have made my argument. When a team that has spent a whole season proving itself to not be the best team, giving them the opportunity to ruin the season for someone who has done the opposite illigitimizes the entire sport.

    I am not sure how you can say that teams like oregon, Boise St, and OSU have "proved" themselves to not be the best team any more than Alabama. You can debate quality of wins or losses, but it becomes very subjective. Alabama certainly had some games against inferior opponents when they did not look like they were "proving" that they were the best team. By your argument, we should just skip the national championship all together and just anoint LSU as the champions since they are the only ones who "proved" it over the course of the year. If Alabama wins, should they split the championship?

  • Sosa98

    airbj01 said... (original post)

    I am not sure how you can say that teams like oregon, Boise St, and OSU have "proved" themselves to not be the best team any more than Alabama. You can debate quality of wins or losses, but it becomes very subjective. Alabama certainly had some games against inferior opponents when they did not look like they were "proving" that they were the best team. By your argument, we should just skip the national championship all together and just anoint LSU as the champions since they are the only ones who "proved" it over the course of the year. If Alabama wins, should they split the championship?

    I am cool with that. LSU really has proven plenty. The problem this year isn't that there are 4 teams who truly deserve to be playing for a championship. The problem is that there aren't two who do. In this case, even the two team playoff we have is too big.

    signature image
  • BooAU

    RollTide1987 said... (original post)

    1998: UCLA and Ohio State have just as much of a claim to play Tennessee as FSU did. 1999: The BCS got it right (FSU vs. VT) 2000: Miami and Washington have a better claim to be in the game than Florida State 2001: Colorado and Oregon have much better claims to be in the game over Nebraska 2002: The BCS got it right (Miami vs. Ohio State) 2003: Oklahoma over USC? Come on! 2004: Oklahoma, USC, Utah, and Auburn are all undefeated. A +1 would have worked great here. 2005: The BCS *definitely* got it right (USC vs. Texas) 2006: The BCS gets it right (OSU vs. Florida) 2007: Don't even talk to me about '07. This game could have featured ANYONE inside the Top 10 and people would have accepted it 2008: The BCS got it right 2009: The BCS got it right 2010: The BCS got it right 2011: Controversy again, but the Bama fan inside me says the BCS got it right

    A mixed record. And anytime a record for getting the two best teams is mixed, that means the system is wrong.

    1998 UCLA lost their last game of the season to Miami. Ohio State had the same record as FSU and did not play as tough a schedule. BCS got 1998 riight. I will grant 2000 in Miami's case as they beat FSU. Washington got hurt by the PAC 10 that year, although their OOC schedule was stout. 2003 USC got hurt by strength of schedule and their inexplicable one loss a year to an average (California) team. Does that sound familiar? 2004? Complain if you want but Oklahoma and USC started one and two in the polls and won all their games. They gave no reason to not be in the title game. 2007. I will grant that we all make fun of LSU's two loss national champion but if you recall, both one and two (Mizzou and West Virginia) lost the last weekend of the regular season. Additionally that was a crazy season in that nine teams who had been ranked in the top five that year lost to unranked teams. So I am not altogether sure that the BCS did not get 2007 right too.

    The point being, if your argument is that the BCS can be too subjective, subjectively you can find reasons on several of the years you think that the BCS did not get it right that maybe they did.

    One final point. How do we pick the playoff participants? The polls? A selection committee? Create super conferences aligned in divisions similar to the NFL? No one has shown me a system that would not take the subjective human element out of it. This additionally goes back to the point I made earlier about oversight and administration. If you have a selection committee similar to basketball, guess what, the NCAA comes back into the picture, as would equal distribution of playoff proceeds. Quite honestly I like the SEC's revenue position just fine.

    By the way I am not flaming you. You actually made some great points. We just are on opposite sides of this argument.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • A play-off, even a plus one is going to be under the control of the NCAA. The conferences are not going to give up the financial control. So, it is probably a dead issue from the start.
    This year the SEC will receive $43,000,000 in bowl money. The AQ bid for LSU is $17.5 and the 2nd bid for us is $4.5 million (actually $100,000 less than the Capitol One Bowl).
    The NCAA takes 1/3 of the BBall tourney revenues for itself.
    As pointed out above, there are 12 conferences as of now and to get a playoff system approved by the NCAA members you are looking at a 16 team playoff with 12 automatic qualifiers and 4 at large. You can also bet that no conference will be allowed more than 2 teams in the playoff.
    So, the Champion will play 17 games (that is one more than the NFL regular season). The first game this year would probably be Saturday. So, with a week off before the championship game you are looking at this all ending the last weekend of January. The simple truth is that for a Trent Richardson, playing 4 extra games is a bad financial move. He is better off not enrolling for the January term so that he can get ready for the draft rather than risk injury.
    To those who say reduce the regular season by one game, you need to look at the issues surrounding adding a 9th SEC game. From a fan perspective it is really simple. Go to a 6-2-1 format. Everything works out fine. But, from a revenue standpoint each team loses a home game every other year. It is my understanding that UA makes about $4,000,000 for its cupcake home games. That means for us to break even the SEC needs to get another $24,000,000 per year in TV money to make up for that lost home game every other year. While Vandy and MSU may lose less in ticket sales from that game, the TV money split is even. So, for Alabama we need over $2,000,000 per year in additional TV money to make up for losing that GSU game every other year.
    If you cut back to an 11 game schedule that means our conference will need another $48,000,000 per year to make the deal work for Alabama. That does not include any lost money on the conference TV packages (I have no idea what the TV loss would be for losing North Texas PPV, but whatever it is, you need to add that in).
    With a 16 team playoff the bowls go the way of the NIT.

    So, if we go to a playoff and lose a regular season game, the SEC needs to pull about $90,000,000 per year. With a 12 AQs that is going to mean that the playoff is going to have to generate about $1,000,000,000 per year for it to make sense for Alabama to support it..

  • BooAU

    Excellent post cmj. Thanks for doing the math on this. Great job!

    signature image signature image signature image
  • BamaLivesFootba

    cmjal77 said... (original post)

    A play-off, even a plus one is going to be under the control of the NCAA. The conferences are not going to give up the financial control. So, it is probably a dead issue from the start.
    This year the SEC will receive $43,000,000 in bowl money. The AQ bid for LSU is $17.5 and the 2nd bid for us is $4.5 million (actually $100,000 less than the Capitol One Bowl).
    The NCAA takes 1/3 of the BBall tourney revenues for itself.
    As pointed out above, there are 12 conferences as of now and to get a playoff system approved by the NCAA members you are looking at a 16 team playoff with 12 automatic qualifiers and 4 at large. You can also bet that no conference will be allowed more than 2 teams in the playoff.
    So, the Champion will play 17 games (that is one more than the NFL regular season). The first game this year would probably be Saturday. So, with a week off before the championship game you are looking at this all ending the last weekend of January. The simple truth is that for a Trent Richardson, playing 4 extra games is a bad financial move. He is better off not enrolling for the January term so that he can get ready for the draft rather than risk injury.
    To those who say reduce the regular season by one game, you need to look at the issues surrounding adding a 9th SEC game. From a fan perspective it is really simple. Go to a 6-2-1 format. Everything works out fine. But, from a revenue standpoint each team loses a home game every other year. It is my understanding that UA makes about $4,000,000 for its cupcake home games. That means for us to break even the SEC needs to get another $24,000,000 per year in TV money to make up for that lost home game every other year. While Vandy and MSU may lose less in ticket sales from that game, the TV money split is even. So, for Alabama we need over $2,000,000 per year in additional TV money to make up for losing that GSU game every other year.
    If you cut back to an 11 game schedule that means our conference will need another $48,000,000 per year to make the deal work for Alabama. That does not include any lost money on the conference TV packages (I have no idea what the TV loss would be for losing North Texas PPV, but whatever it is, you need to add that in).
    With a 16 team playoff the bowls go the way of the NIT.

    So, if we go to a playoff and lose a regular season game, the SEC needs to pull about $90,000,000 per year. With a 12 AQs that is going to mean that the playoff is going to have to generate about $1,000,000,000 per year for it to make sense for Alabama to support it..

    I'm going to quote this do it can be repeated:logic, reason, and reality.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Hey, hey, hey. A life. A life, Jimmy, you know what that is? It's the shit that happens while you're waiting for moments that never come."

  • airbj01 said... (original post)

    I am not sure how you could seriously say it would ruin the sport.

    On a side note, I seriously wish I could have this debate with you face-to-face because I have never spoken with a college football fan who does not support a playoff and, to me, it's one of those things that I cannot fathom someone would feel differently than me. I think it would be educational to have a direct conversation with someone who actually does. I love the debate.

    I don't support a playoff, so there you go.

    Sosa is bringing the truth.

    signature image
  • Three arguments against a playoff
    1. A winner of a game is not always the better team but they played a better game that day. Oklahoma St would probably win by huge margins vs. Iowa State in 9 games out of 10 if the two teams played at the level they both played this year but Iowa St. won it on the field.
    2. It will not stay at 4 teams. Basketball now has what 66 teams and some models place as many as 96 teams in the tourny for future expansions to it. Football would try to go the same way.
    3. I love the tradition of bowls.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • There are 120 teams so you can't do divisions and even if you did you still have too many teams. You can't just do away with major college teams. So let's say you take the top (insert number). How is that decided? By a subjective poll so you have the argument regardless. I don't know anybody against a plus one that however is still going to be decided in a subjective way.

  • This post is for members of BamaOnLine only. Join now! Start Free Trial
    signature image
  • All Bama fans should be against a playoff. We're going to get our chance every year. A playoff only brings in those teams like Boise state and Houston. Teams like that can win when you're not having your best game. Plus I love the bowls. An 8 team playoff would make the other games like the NIT. All SEC fans should be against it. All we're going to do is have a rematch every year. And as much as Im glad for it this year just ask any LSU fan if rematches are a good thing. We would have the same opinion if we had won the first game.

  • The financial argument is legitimate, assuming you are thinking as university president and not a fan. However, I would argue two points in you post. Why would all 12 conferences have to be represented? They arent now. Take the top 8 BCS teMs regardless of conference or take the 4 bcs conference champions and the 4 next highest ranked from the bcs poll. The other argument would be about the playoff starting today. I would start the playoffs the very next week after the conference title games, maybe with a bye week for the top seeds. The championship game could be played this weekend or next

  • Aight36411

    This season would be perfect for a playoff. Playoffs create the most excitement and buzz, and they also make teams earn it. Not saying LSU hasn't, because they have, but I mean teams from weak conferences with weak schedules.

    Also, a few years back everyone KNEW the Patriots were the best team in the NFL. Then they played the Giants, Brady ran for his life for four quarters, and the Giants were crowned Super Bowl Champions. That's a prime example of why we should go to a playoff system. Jmo

    signature image

    The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 2 Cor 10:4

  • GhostTide said... (original post)

    If college playoffs is such an evil thing, then get rid of all college sports playoffs.

    Amen brother! Been saying it for years. Every arguement against a playoff comes back to that very question to which they have no answer. Heck even every other level of college football has playoffs have them. +1 to you for stating the simple obvious playoff haters don't want to admit and have no answer for.

    Everytime I hear an anti-playoff person say "I love the NFL playoffs or NCAA March Madness, or DIV II playoffs", I wonder how they can possibly use such different levels of logic and then justify saying playoffs DIv I college football is bad. That sort of reasoning baffles me!!!

    This post was edited by Bearyant 3 years ago

  • BooAU

    This post is for members of BamaOnLine only. Join now! Start Free Trial
    signature image signature image signature image
  • Bearyant said... (original post)

    Amen brother! Been saying it for years. Every arguement against a playoff comes back to that very question to which they have no answer. Heck even every other level of college football has playoffs have them. +1 to you for stating the simple obvious playoff haters don't want to admit and have no answer for.

    Everytime I hear an anti-playoff person say "I love the NFL playoffs or NCAA March Madness, or DIV II playoffs", I wonder how they can possibly use such different levels of logic and then justify saying playoffs DIv I college football is bad. That sort of reasoning baffles me!!!

    How do you determine a champion without a playoff? And what's the point of playing a sport if it's not to win a championship?

  • BooAU said... (original post)

    You are comparing apples and oranges when using other NCAA sanctioned sports and college football. Read the prior posts concerning oversight and finances. Football is the financial straw that stirs the drink for many programs and major conferences. By using selection committees or cutting regular season games you cut revenue streams and replace one subjective system for an even more subjectively flawed system. One of the biggest problems that many have with the way basketball has done it is the qualifications of the committee members. Do you really want some guy from Villanova, for example, deciding between Alabama and Oklahoma State? Heck do you want to suddenly share our bowl revenue with Villanova? If you think that is far fetched then look no farther than basketball.

    And for those who say I, and others who support the current system are thinking like administrators and not fans, then you are missing the point. I am actually thinking like a logical Alabama fan. Wether you like it or not, revenue is what helps us pay Coach Saban's salary. Build the finest stadium in the country. Have facilities that are the envy of many in football. Pay for a recruiting budget that routinely earns us top classes. It is a reality. A reality that, quite honestly, I do not want changed.

    I don't understand how a playoff hurts anyone financially especially when you can keep the bowls for the teams that don't make the playoffs. The NCAA could market the hell out of a playoff. I think a playoff would be at least as big of a pay off for schools participating as a bowl game.

  • airbj01 said... (original post)

    How do you determine a champion without a playoff? And what's the point of playing a sport if it's not to win a championship?

    Not sure if your asking me the questions or just anyone in general. But I do have 2 simple rules to decide who is champion:
    1. We should do our very best to remove as much human opinion as possible
    2. Do our very best to let the reults on the field speak for themselves

    If we could do this, it would be a HUGE step in the right dirrection.....If you want to see how peoples opinion, hates, biases, and mob mentallity can be quickly swayed depending on how they "feel" at the moment, watch the weekly Heisman Update.