Playoff hurt the Regular Season?

CJH9972, "A playoff will not hurt the regular season."

I read your response and some of the "objectiverules" link, and it is clear that you don't get it. Apparently, I'm an idiot. Lots of nice numbers that supposedly say something significant. But nothing you write refutes the contention that a playoff will hurt the CFB regular season ... with the possible exception of a plus-one format. Certainly, any "playoff" larger than that would turn the CFB regular season into the NFL.

Yes, "16 of 120 is equal to the NFL having a four team playoff." But the NFL doesn't have a 4-team playoff, does it? And it does have a playoff based on numerics alone -- you gather enough W's, you make the playoff. CBB is not quite the NFL playoff-wise, but close as numerics play a large role in determining playoff participants. Win over 20 games and you're usually in. In BOTH cases, the fact that playoff entry is largely or solely based on numerics absolutely devalues those sports' regular season.

The rest of what you wrote apparently (I'm not sure) justifies the CBB playoff because of the number of BCS members who made the tourney ... ???  Or whatever ... either way, it is irrelevant because it speaks to the mechanism for entry into a playoff. Which is besides the point.

A couple of "idiot" points from the blogspot link should explain:

• if you believe polls have any value.
• if you believe the Bowl Championship Series is fair.
• if you believe the Bowl Championship Series works.

There is no completely "fair" way to determine a champion in any sport. If you think it was fair that Dallas was required to play the NYGiants in the 2007 playoffs after having defeated them decisively not once but TWICE during the regular season, then you're an idiot !!! The NFL has a system to determine its champion, so does CFB. As long as the rules are promulgated up front, the system's results are legitimate.

• if you believe there is an inherently right winner of the national championship.

No. Same applies to the NFL playoff. For explanation, see previous paragraph.

• if you believe an Ohio State-Southern California bowl game is meaningful even if neither team can win the national title but an Ohio State-Southern California regular season game is meaningless if both teams qualify for the playoffs.

This "idiot" point is the most revealing WRT the disconnect between the true nature of CFB and playoff advocates. If you believe that somehow an NFL-style playoff is the only "true" way to determine a champion, then the concept of regular season game worth is probably mystifying to you. Sorry, go watch the NFL (oh that broke one of the other "idiot" points, didn't it ... lol). CFB is different. If you don't think a tOSU-USC regular season game would not be diminished by an NFL-type, numerics-determined playoff (SPEAKING ONLY OF THAT GAME AND THAT GAME ONLY), then you are clueless. Name ONE NFL matchup that anybody cares about DURING THE REGULAR SEASON. Just one ...

• if you believe the regular season is a playoff.

Is it ... in a CFB way. Obviously, it is not a playoff in an NFL way, duh !!! But in the CFB system of determining a champion, the regular season IS the playoff. In the NFL, a loss in its playoff means you're out. In CFB, a loss in its "playoff" is an injury toward potentially playing for its NC. Different ... but not wrong.

• if you have ever argued against a playoff by asking playoff advocates if they truly believe the winner of a referenced playoff was the best team.
• if you oppose a playoff because the best team may not win.
• if you think a larger playoff would reward a team that just gets hot.
• if you believe "champion" and "best team" are synonyms.
• if you believe a three-loss playoff team is more unacceptable than an unbeaten non-playoff team.

Both the NFL and CFB crown "champions" ; ... usually, that team is considered the "best team" although there have been times in both sports where there were doubters. Both champs are THE champ. I would say that LSU is a more believable "best team" champ than the NYGiants (SIX-losses including twice in the meaningless regular season to Dallas, one of the vanquished during the holy playoffs) ... LOL

No way.

A 4 team playoff is too small (USC and UGA) were both out of the top 4 in the final bcs standings.

A plus one wont work. How could you of fairly picked between USC and UGA to play LSU.

Use the BCS to determine the top 8 and play it out on the field.

WVU dropped to #9 after the loss to Pitt. You think that game lost any importance?

IF Arizona St beat USC late season they may have made the top 8 and not USC.

IF Florida beat UGA they may have made the top 8 and not UGA.

I dont think a playoff would diminish these games at all.

Use the BCS to determine the top 8 and play it out on the field.

Carolina1140--I couldn't have said it better myself.  Ooops, actually, I said the same thing on another thread a couple of weeks ago.  You CAN have the best of both worlds, the BCS and the traditional bowl schedule.

<table width="800" class="mcct_container"> <tbody> <tr class="mcct_header"> <td> April 28, 2008 8:54 pm Score: 26 </td> </tr> <tr class="mcct_body" valign="top"> <td>

The TV networks need to make there $$$ and a really don't think that anyone could propose a good enough playoff system.

They can use an 8 team playoff, use the BCS rankings, and still utilize seven traditional bowl games in the process.  You can use the Gator/Outback/Cotton/Fiesta/Orange/

Sugar/Rose Bowls in the process.  No one really believes that a number 9 ranked team in the BCS rankings is going to jump 8 spots to the number one position.

For example, this year you could have played 1 Ohio State vs. 8 Kansas in the Gator Bowl, 2 LSU vs. 7 USC in the Outback Bowl, 3 Va Tech vs. 6 Missouri in the Cotton Bowl, and 4 Oklahoma vs. 5 Georgia in the Fiesta Bowl.  You take the four winners of those games and play them in the Orange and Sugar Bowls.  You take the final two teams and play them in the Rose Bowl. 

You can rotate the Fiesta/Orange/Sugar/and Rose Bowls on a four year cycle to host the national championship game.

Is this an insane idea or not?

Folks, this is all for nothing anyway.  The College Presidents are ADAMANT that there will be no playoff.  In fact the reason the modest Plus One made no headway whatsoever was the FEAR that this will not satisfy folks and we will move to a playoff.  It ain't happening...at least not in the next ten years of so.

If I set that as the baseline, I really do like the BABY STEP that Tony Barnhart presented the other day in the AJC.   Basically it works this way:

1.  We return to the old Bowl System. 

Rose Bowl.....PAC 10 vs Big Ten

Sugar .....SEC Champ and opponent

Fiesta ......Big XII Champ and opponent

Orange....ACC Champ and opponent

Coalition (NEW BOWL> >> PICK A NAME)..NonBCS team unless chosen by one of the others vs another BCS Opponent

2. BCS voting continues after New Years Day Bowl games

BCS process determines #1 and #2 after these games.  This is different than a true Plus One where 1-4 would be seeded and winners playoff.  The Presidents and 4 of the Conference Commissioners oppose that so forget about it for the time being.

3.  Throw out the rule than no BCS conference can have more than 2 teams in BCS Bowls.  That screwed Wisconsin in 06 and Mizzou in 07.

4. Non BCS team still automatically qualifies for at least the Coalition Bowl if it finishes ranked #12.  Notre Dame still qualifies if it finishes at least #8.

5.  Sugar, Orange and Fiesta rotate choices 1-3 for their conference opponents.

 What this would have probably looked like in 2007

Rose ....  OSU vs USC

Sugar ....LSU vs Mizzou

Fiesta....OU vs WVU

Orange.. Va Tech vs UGA

Coalition....Kansas vs Hawaii

Disadvantages over CURRENT system:  None I can find

Advantages over CURRENT system

----You have one additional week to make a determination of who #1 and #2 are

---The New Years Day Bowl games (less Coalition) all mean something again.  They all have the potential to provide the BCS Championship game with a participant.

Is this perfect?  Hell no, it is not.  Is it better than what we currently have?  I think so.  Does not mean that  we still won't have arguments, but it is also clear that more teams will be eliminated from the equation.  There will be 4 teams with potential arguments and not 6 or 7. 

Go ahead, I am ready to be beat up on!!

"Bob Ufer here, Wolverine fans!!! Saturday, Nov. 17, a brisk autumn day in Ann Arbor, the Ohio State University vs. our beloved Michigan Wolverines. The Buckeyes come into the game 10-1 on the season, 7-0 and unbeaten in the Big10 while the Wolverines stand at 9-2, 5-2 in league play."

"As you all know, since the powers-that-be decided that crowning a quote legitimate unquote national champ is more important than everything else, this game really doesn't have as much meaning any more. The Buckeyes are already in the Holy Playoffs because they clinched the Big10 title last week."

"Even if our Wolves beat the formerly dreaded Buckies today, even though both of these teams would be 10-2 ... well, today's game won't mean anything."

"I understand that Coach Tressel will be holding out his QB, Pryor, because he's a little dinged up from the Illinois game. "

...

Naw !!! The CFB regular season won't be hurt by a playoff. Nawwww !!!

Is that a joke?

How?

You never want to lose to your rivals if you are 0-11 or 11-0 going into that game. It doesnt matter. Period.

If there was an 8 team playoff last year, tell WVU fans that game vs Pitt would have not have mattered.

You have no idea.

• UGA vs. GaTech, pffttt ... what's the point? Has no effect on the ACC or SEC championship, does it?
• USC vs. UCLA, pfffttt ... USC 1000-0 and in the Pac10 clubhouse, UCLA is Oh-for-the-league, why risk getting SanchezTain hurt when winning or losing the game means NOTHING toward the almighty playoffs?

I could go on, but if you think after years of "the playoff is the only important thing" mentality that these rivalries won't lose value, then ...

If thats the only thing that makes a rivalry, then why is it one?

Had UCLA beaten USC, USC would not have made the playoffs.

When you play a rival, none of the outside stuff matters. You hate them. You want them to fail. Botton line.

Lets just agree to disagree.

BigDawgs, do you think that Barnhart idea would pass muster with your typical CFB playoff advocate? Way too subjective and not "purely" objective enough (i.e., W's and L's) for them, don't you think?

Which means ... I sorta like the idea.