SI’s Stewart Mandel says the problem with this college football season isn’t that there are “no dominant teams,” as many people have said. It’s that there are “too many dominant teams. Six of them, in fact.”
The delineation couldn’t be clearer in this week’s BCS standings, which feature six undefeated teams (Florida, Alabama, Texas, TCU, Cincinnati and Boise State) … then no one else with fewer than two losses. Just to punctuate the point, No. 6 (12-0 Boise) even beat No. 7 (9-2 Oregon).
I hadn’t noticed that, but it’s true. There are six unbeatens in Division 1-A, zero 1-loss teams, nine 2-loss teams, and fourteen 3-loss teams. Wow.
Anyway, let it be noted that in any “Plus One” model, including the “Mandel Plan,” one of those six, presumably Boise State, would be left out of the championship picture (assuming Cincy beats Pitt, and Boise takes care of business vs. New Mexico State). Moreover, there would undoubtedly be a fierce debate about whether the SEC runner-up should be taken at #4, ahead of one of the “lesser” unbeatens (TCU, Cincy, Boise), particularly if Saturday’s game in Atlanta is the Instant It’s-a-War Classic everyone is expecting. It’s quite possible we’d end up with a #1 vs. #4 SEC rematch in a designated semifinal bowl, and #2 Texas vs. #3 TCU in the other bowl, with the Bearcats’ and Broncos’ cries of “OMG WTF?” falling on deaf ears.
Which isn’t to suggest that a Plus One wouldn’t be a dramatic improvement over the current BCS system. It would. But only an 8-team, 12-team or 16-team playoff can truly resolve a season like this.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Too many good teams, not enough playoff spots -- Topsy.com
Ok, so lets say a playoff is implemented, and the situation (entirely possible) comes up where you have two undefeated teams and no 1 loss teams. Now you have two teams who ran the table but we don’t think they are good enough to play for the championship then and there?
Lets add a twist. Lets say Alabama loses to Auburn and then Florida in the SEC championship game, but still makes it in to the playoff. We get to the semi-finals and its Alabama – Texas and Oregon – Florida. The Ducks lose to the Gators on a last minute field goal. Meanwhile Alabama beats the Longhorns ona controversial last minute TD that isn’t reviewed before the extra point (by a Pac-10 crew of course).
Alabama edges out Florida in the championship game, and are now the National Champions.
Despite having two loses.
Despite having allready lost to Florida.
Playoffs trade one set of problems for another in football.
David, you’re of course correct that a limited playoff is, like the current system, not ideal. The question is: which is less likely to lead to a feeling of injustice? I think you’d agree that this year feels stranger than most, with its raft of undefeateds and no one with one-loss. For me, there is a greater likelihood of injustice against a team like undefeated 2004 Auburn than injustice from the 2-loss team winning it all with a playoff. Neither is ideal, but the larger playoff feels less problematic.
Best of all would be to go to an NFL-style 12-team playoff with the 11 D-1 conference champions and one at-large team. That’s a near-ideal solution IMHO.
One at-large team isn’t enough, Jazz. Not only because Notre Dame would go apeshit (though it would), but because you’d frequently have extremely worthy at-large contenders, like either Texas or Alabama last year, and either Iowa or USC in 2002, and 2 out of the pre-bowl #4-5-6 in 2005 (Ohio State, ND, Oregon). Etc. etc.
Otherwise, though, I agree with you. Arguments like David’s are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. The current system is terrible… TERRIBLE. Replacing it with a system that will sometimes create a mildly imperfect (but universally accepted as legitimate) result doesn’t sound so bad.
I disagree about the worth of a team that lost its conference championship in earning an at-large berth. I agree about the fans going apeshit. There was a time where you pretty much had to win your conference championship to get an NCAA hoops bid, but those days have long since passed away.
The “win-your-conference-to-get-in” model of an NCAA football tournament feels elegant to me, but I feel old-fashioned even as I write that. I said about my proposal:
That’s a near-ideal solution IMHO.
But I could have been clearer:
That’s a near-ideal solution IMHO (though I doubt anyone under 40 agrees with it).
Heh. Fair enough. So for you, the “near-” part of “near-ideal” is the fact that you’ve gotta have 1 at-large bid to make it mathematically neat. Ideal, for you, would be an 11-team playoff (and, presumably, Notre Dame joining a conference, and the Big Ten eliminating the possibility of undefeated co-champions — two problems that could be solved in one fell swoop if, well, y’know).
Pingback: Tcu Vs New Mexico « Religion
David, so what you are saying is that the NFL playoff system is totally illegitimate because it could theoretically make an undefeated Colts team and an undefeated Saints team play two extra games before facing each other in the Super Bowl? Which means that it is possible they might not get to face each other?
Tough toenails. It is far better than the farce we have now. Far better.
dcl, yes I think a system where you can finish a season with no losses and then have teams who lost multiple games beat you once and be declared better has some serious problems, especially if said teams allready played and the result was flipped. If I beat you once and you beat me once but you lost other games as well when I didn’t, stands to reason I am the better team overall. The problem with a tournament is it ignores to a significant extent the rest of your season. I happen to think that’s wrong. If you want to have a tournament to decide the best team then don’t half ass it. Have the guts to propose a full on 7 week 128 team tournament.
David, you’re entitled to your opinion about the merits of playoffs generally (so long as you recognize that you’re condemning the manner in which virtually every sport in existence, both college and professional, determines its champion in the modern era). I disagree, but I understand the belief that regular seasons should count for more. That said, please don’t insult our intelligence with the ridiculous 128-team tournament straw-man at the end of your comment. That’s just freaking absurd, and you know it. It has NOTHING to do with anything. It doesn’t refute any aspect of the pro-playoff argument. It’s just a dumb comment that’s supposed to be clever, but isn’t. Stick to real arguments, please.
Brendan, if its your belief that the playoff is the best system to determine who the best team is, then why not a 128 team playoff? Or throw in all of D-1 and go 256 (or whatever the closest format is, adding in some random byes here and there). You could even have a four week seeding period where teams play regional/rivalry games that give a rough seed grouping (4 win teams play 4 loss teams, 3 win play 3 loss, etc. in the first round). Set it up so early rounds are roughly regional. Once you are out of the tournament you schedule regional games against other teams out of the tournament.
Does it satisfy the idea that tournaments are the best way to determine a champion? Absolutely.
Logistical/practical nightmare? Absolutely.
And there in lies the rub. We don’t have a play-off system now not because of the scenario which I originally objected to, but because there is little to no practical incentive to switch to it, and doing so, even in a limited fashion would be far more painful logistically and financially than any school/conference wants to deal with.
The only flaw in the current system is the lack of a 100% satisfyng way to crown a champion. The advantages it offers are for increased revenue across the board AND increased games for more teams, and their fans (directly related to point 1 of course, but incldues other benefits, fan enjoyment and goodwill, recruitng, etc.).
Something you see in the tech world, heck in the product world in general is that once you have an established product, simply beingas good or better is often not enough. You have to be significantly better in order to get people to switch. You have to offer enough compelling reasons over the existing system, and I think when you take into account the negatives of a playoff system PLUS the pain of changing from the current system that just isn’t there except in the eyes of fans who have little/no vested interest/understanding in how complex it would be to change things. Fans throw out things like “oh just use xxx bowl games as a playoff” or “lower leagues do it, it should be easy” without fully understanding whats involved and the tradeoff costs. They also ignore the injustice potential that STILL exists as I highlighted in my first scenario.
So yes, if you (not you specifically) are going to argue for a playoff system because its OMG PERFECT and completely ignore the downsides and fail to address the complexities involved, then I stand by my assertion that you should follow it to the logical conclusion and push for a complete switch to a season long single (maybe double) elimination style tournament because that would be the BEST way of determining the champion.
Which, of course, assumes that the primary purpose of the college football season is to determine one single undisputed champion. I don’t think it is.
David, I refuse to dignify the 128-game nonsense with a full rhetorical takedown. It is just absolutely, self-evidently ridiculous, and if you use your logical faculties for a moment, instead of being blinded by your own biases, you’ll recognize that. The fact that I, and the majority of other fans, think a 4- or 8- or 12- or 16-team playoff would be better than the current broken system does NOT, in any way, shape, or form, lead to the logical conclusion that we should necessarily support a 128-team or 256-game playoff. That’s almost crazier than Sandy Underpants’s belief that the moon landing was fake. It’s a waste of time to thoroughly debunk such absurd bullshit.
Furthermore, neither I, nor the majority of other playoff advocates, have ever claimed that “a playoff system … [is] OMG PERFECT.” This is a complete misrepresentation and a fabrication by you, just as egregious as if I claimed that your position was based upon a belief that the current system is OMG PERFECT. In reality, what playoff advocates believe is simply that you vastly understate the problem when you say, almost laughably IMHO, that “[t]he only flaw in the current system is the lack of a 100% satisfyng way to crown a champion.” Right, and the only flaw in the recent Afghan election was its failure to produce a 100% fraud-free outcome. Likewise, the only flaw in France’s World Cup qualifying victory over Ireland was that it isn’t 100% clear the French should’ve won.
The problems with the current system are far, far more serious than you pretend, in that it is literally impossible for the system to accomplish its stated objective (matching up the #1 vs. #2 teams, producing a clear-cut champion) in the majority of years (it doesn’t just fail occasionally; it USUALLY FAILS). Does that mean a playoff system wouldn’t have flaws? Of course not, and I haven’t contended anything of the sort, nor do other serious playoff advocates. We merely contend a playoff would be BETTER than the current, fatally flawed system. And we’re right.
But I don’t expect you to agree with me about that. I do, however, expect you to drop the 128-team b.s., and to stop using fraudulent rhetorical devices like claiming playoff advocates think their system would be “OMG PERFECT.” You’re way smarter than such nonsense, and if your underlying position has any merit — which I believe it actually does, although I ultimately disagree with it — you needn’t stoop to those sorts of phony “arguments.” Stop it.
Brendan, if you don’t like my argument, fine. If you don’t agree with my argument, fine. If you are too damn lazy to address it, fine. Simply calling it B.S. without addressing it? Not fine.
There is nothing absurd with pointing out that the base argument of tournament proponents is that they believe a tournament is the optimal way to choose a champion, that it is an inherently better system, and therefore why not choose a champion using an extended tournament format. It is not a ridiculous argument on its face, other than that its dramatically different than what we have now.
If a playoff is the best, why not use a larger playoff instead of the current system? I agree that there are arguments against it, but there are also arguments against a limited playoff, that as I point out, and you minimize, are hugely and largely ignored by the vast amount of people calling for just such a system.
I also don’t see whats wrong with claiming that the only flaw with the current system is its difficulty in giving an undisputed champion. If that were the sole purpose of college football and even the BCS then yes, you are right, it would be like a fraudulent election.
But it is quite clearly not.
The BCS was supposed to improve the chances of having a 1 vs 2 and supposedly undisputed champion, but it was also supposed to make money. If the BCS sole purpose were choosing a champion, then why have the other BCS games? Oh there are practical reasons in getting the bowls to agree to letting their top teams go for the championship game, but it also elevates the status of those bowls which brings in more money. More prestige.
You can come accross as a real asshole sometimes, and frankly this is one of those times. Just because you don’t like my argument you decide to act all high and mighty about it? Sorry but thats pretty weak.
First, yes my response contains some hyperbole and extremism, in part due to dcl’s tone which is what I was initially responding to. If you are going to respond you might take that in to consideration.
Second, I laid forth my case by addressing the topic at hand, I made some frankly reasonable points, points you disagree with. Thats fine, I thought thats what discussions were about personally, but you seem to be so emotionally invested in this whole playoff thing you aren’t willing to treat me with a modicum of respect that I disagree with you and am pointing out flaws in your argument.
If you think my assertion that proponents of a playoff system who are unwilling/unable to accept and address the problems it would bring should have to defend a full season playoff is as crazy as the idea of a fake moon landing, fine. But I’d appreciate it if you let me atleast continue the conversation with people who are willing to be more civil and open to criticism without calling me crazy after every post about it.
David, your interest in having the two best teams compete for the championship, in addition to being devilishly challenging to enact in real life (as the BCS has shown), also doesn’t really match what the average fan wants out of a playoff, IMHO. As I see it, the criteria people most value is the chance for all teams to win it on the field, followed by an entertaining tournament, with ensuring the two best teams playing for the championship being much further down the list. An example of this was last year’s NFL playoffs, where 9-7 Arizona played an extremely entertaining Super Bowl against the Steelers, after a mediocre regular season in which their defense was horrid. Arizona’s regular-season mediocrity seems not to bother most fans, who are mostly fond of what a great Super Bowl last year’s game was.
Beyond that, though, I prefer the Jazz 12-team system to the current or and-one system to a large extent because the 12-team system is more fun. This is sports after all, not your finances or your family’s health, and so its importance should be regarded accordingly. The most important thing a tournament/playoff can be is fun, with fun being much more important than justice.
As a great example of this argument, the last 10 seconds of this clip contains one of the most iconic images in the history of college sports. Even though y’all were not out of your diapers, you probably love this clip, and maybe it even brings a tear to your eye given everything that happened since.
However, if the Final Four that year were treated like a “just” and-one, that game would surely never have happened, as awful NC State would have played either dominant Houston or dominant Louisville in a semi, with awful Georgia playing the other in the other semi, and Houston meeting Louisville in a championship. As it happened, NC State drew Georgia in the national semi, and two nights later, something magical and unforgettable happened.
Sports fans like magic and unforgettable. Much more than logic. There’s nothing magic at all about the current BCS – the only magic is in non-championship games like Boise State/Oklahoma.
Come to think of it, the Vinsanity game was both magical/unforgettable and satisfied David’s criteria of matching #1 and #2. Maybe this isn’t the forum for that….
David, I have no problem with you “pointing out flaws in my argument.” I have no problem with discussing the respective merits and flaws of various positions. I even acknowledged that I think your core position has some merit, although I disagree with it.
I *do* have a problem with you making an utterly absurd leap of (il)logic like, “If you support an 8-team playoff, then you must necessarily support a 128-team playoff! Now, prove why I’m wrong!” Sorry, but that is just a flat ridiculous “argument,” just like it would be totally absurd and ridiculous for me to say, “If you don’t like a playoff, then you must not believe anything should be settled on the field. So why not just award a champion based on the preseason polls? That’s the logical extension of your argument!! Prove me wrong!!” If I said that, you’d scoff and refuse to dignify it with a full response, wouldn’t you? Because it’s transparently absurd!! And so is your 128-team playoff nonsense. It is simply NOT A REAL ARGUMENT. It is maddeningly phony bullshit. It has no basis in reality or logic.
If refusing to do a point-by-point rebuttal of dishonest, illogical, nonsensical straw-man “arguments” — such as those based on the premise that there is no reason why someone might legitimately support an 8-team playoff, but oppose a 128-team playoff — makes me an “asshole,” so be it. But keep in mind, I am not attacking you personally, in fact I have been careful to avoid saying anything that could reasonably be interpeted as an attack on you personally rather than an attack on your arguments (because we’ve too often had arguments like this, usually about football for some odd reason, where you end up believing that I’m attacking you personally because I fervently disagree with a particular position or argument of yours). Re-read my comments and tell me where I’ve attacked you, as a person, rather than attacking your argument. You won’t find anything, because I am merely attacking the one specific aspect of your commentary that I believe is complete and utter nonsense. I think the rest of your points are fine. I just wish you could stick to the 90% of your points that have some merit, and not invest so much energy in stubbornly refusing to back off a transparently absurd and intellectually insulting strawman.
Correction, re-reading my argument, I shouldn’t have used the phrase “instead of being blinded by your own biases.” That was at least arguably personal rather than argument-based. I apologize for saying that.
I stand by the rest of what I said, attacking your argument as the absurdity that it is. I think that’s well within bounds, just as (again) it would be perfectly fair for you to call me out as making a totally absurd argument if I said something like “David, if it’s your belief that there’s no need to determine a champion on the field — that picking a champion based on polls is perfectly fine — then why not pick the champion based on preseason polls?”
That’s a crazy, dumb argument. If told me that, you wouldn’t be attacking me personally; you’d be attacking my argument, and you’d be right. Likewise, “Brendan, if its your belief that the playoff is the best system to determine who the best team is, then why not a 128 [or 256] team playoff?” is a crazy, dumb argument. I’m not attacking you personally by saying so. I’m attacking your argument, and I’m right.
David. To be perfectly clear the current system is a farce. To take you product analogy, it is a badly broken pice of crap. So while not perfect a playoff system is massively superior. So by your logic should be embraced immediately. The reason it is not is because those responsible for buying stuff don’t have to use it and have a vested monetary interest in the current product. It is the same reason IT departments by crap… I mean windows. If they bought computers that actually worked they wouldn’t have a job.
As for your 128 team playoff you are utilizing a standard logical fallacy in a effort to win an argument know as “the slippery slope”. This being a standard debate tactic does not make it any less bullshit. For example, people supporting gay marriage does not also mean that they support people marrying sheep.
I don’t even really think it’s a slippery slope. David isn’t saying “if X happens, therefore Y will happen as a logical consequence of X.” E.g., if gay marriage is OK because of privacy rights, therefore marrying sheep is also OK because of privacy rights, and if the Court rules the former, it will eventually rule the latter because of the precedent it set by ruling the former. Or, more pertinently, if we adopt a Plus-One system, we’ll eventually, inevitably move to an 8-team playoff, then a 12-team playoff, etc., because of “playoff creep” — something the BCS’s public-relations braintrust has been enthusiastically arguing lately, but something that’s a bit different from (albeit related to) what David is saying.
What David is saying, I think, is basically that “if you believe X, you must also necessarily believe Y, because the logical premises that support X are equally applicable to Y.” The problem is, to reach this conclusion, David is inventing a cartoonish caricature of what people who believe X actually think. He describes playoff advocates as believing that the playoff is the be-all, end-all, and that NOTHING ELSE MATTERS except having a playoff system. He acts like playoff supporters are Borg-like automatons who believe that EVERYTHING IS IRRELEVANT except having a playoff with as many teams as possible. If that were an accurate description of what playoff advocates believed, then David’s argument might be accurate.
But of course, playoff advocates don’t believe that, it is totally unreasonable to contend that they believe that, and no one who is making an honest effort to understand the motivations of playoff advocates would contend that they believe that (because it’s fucking nuts). And, as soon as you recognize that playoff advocates’ beliefs are more complicated than “OMG THE ONLY IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD IS HAVING A PLAYOFF, THE MORE TEAMS THE BETTER, PLAYOFFS ARE AWESOME!!!!11!!!,” the argument falls apart, since a 128-team playoff has a number of transparently obvious disadvantages* when compared to, say, an 8-team playoff, that, obviously, the vast majority of playoff advocates would have a problem with.
It’s just not an argument at all. It’s like if I said, I support the surge of troops in Afghanistan, and you replied, “Oh really?!? Well, if you feel that way, why don’t you advocate sending U.S. troops to all Muslim countries and converting them all to Christianity?!?” It just doesn’t remotely follow, at all.
*For instance: making the regular season totally meaningless; eliminating or nearly eliminating rivalry games and the meaningfulness of conferences; allowing not just 10-2 type teams, but downright horrible teams like New Mexico State, to play for the national championship; making a large percentage of “playoff” games involving the top teams noncompetitive crapfests (Florida gets to play #128, then #64, then #32, before it faces anyone who is likely to give it any kind of a challenge? Really?); etc., etc. Playoff advocates want a system that allows the top teams, who have earned their way to the top by winning games, to hash it out on the field at season’s end. We can argue over whether this positive outweighs the negatives (or whether it’s really a positive at all, per David), and we can also argue about how to define “top teams,” “earned,” etc. But there is just no conceivable argument that a team like New Mexico State has earned a playoff spot, or that putting New Mexico State in a playoff would benefit anyone, anywhere, in any way. No one believes this. No one. And there is no contradiction whatsoever between not believing something so nutty, on the one hand, and believing that Boise State deserves a shot at the title via a (small) playoff, on the other.
That is a much better critique Brendan, and one that, while i disagree with some of it, I can respect. Thank you.
The problem is most people I have seem clamor about an N-team playoff arent’ acknowledging alot of the things you do. Most of the chatter you hear from your average college fan is that “OMG TEH PLAYOFFZ ARE THE BEST!!11!1one!!”. I appreciate nuance, I appreciate those who seek a reasonable compromise between the two systems (if one exists). I think ANY change needs to acknowledge the importance to all of college football (Div1A atleast) of the bowl system, and how any proposed playoff system would impact that. Frankly I think DCL’s reaction is more in line with most college fans “OMG THE BCS SUXORZ, CHAMPIONSHIP FOREVER” attitude, and in his case, I think yes, he should be intellectually honest and push for a 128 team playoff (hence my initial response to him).
I think that you (and Jazz) have a more nuanced approach, which I think the 128 team assertion doesn’t apply to.
Either way, my biggest problem with a playoff is highlighted by the fact that a team like the cardinals got to teh super bowl despite a mediocre reason by being good at the end. I think that a system that allows that is a bad one because it doesn’t just devalue the regular season a little, it devalues it a LOT.
I could consider buying in to a limited playoff system that pits teams who have demonstrated a clear level of success throughout the season against one another to some extent, but I think we need to acknowledge that teams can still get screwed by it, and consider whether its better enough to change a system where teams get screwed by currently. It probably is, but I want people to atleast ACKNOWLEDGE those potential downsides and address them. What I see now, far too often (in general not from you guys specifically) is a gharie-esque attitude towards playoff-criticism, i.e. any time someone crticizes the idea of a playoff, point out some flaw in the BCS system, without actually addressing the criticism of the playoff.
Jazz, addressing your 12 team system, I think its flawed because it follows the same setup that gets us flawed NFL playoffs (and NBA, and MLB, etc.) you only have to be better than a bunch of crappy teams to make it in. I mean does the champion of Confernece USA with an 8-4 record deserve a chance at the national championship where the runner up at 10-2 from the Big-12 doesn’t? Are you saying the 8-4 team is legitimately better than the 10-2 team?
Of course it all comes down to what are we trying to do?
Are we trying to find out who the best over all team was during the whole year?
Are we trying to find out who the best team is in the last 3/4 games of the season?
Are we trying to make money?
Are we trying to have entertaining games?
Several comments David:
First, I think there’s a basic difference between yours and my approach to something like a playoff. You seem to be primarily concerned with rationality, while I primarily want to be entertained. I’m usually a pretty rational guy in my real life, but when it comes to sports, I am often as irrational as Homer Simpson at a Donut Convention.
As an example, don’t know if you clicked through on the link to the end of the NC State game (in post 14), but damn it doesn’t matter how many times I’ve seen Jimmy V running around in that shrugged-shoulder way, looking for someone to hug, but every time I get choked up. Especially in the context of the end of that game. But I’m that way, and I don’t care much that NC State arguably didn’t deserve to be there.
Which sort of makes me a problem for a guy like you. Because while Brendan attempted to defeat your 128-team hypothetical by saying “Harumph David! Who would watch that #1 seed Florida v. #128 New Mexico State?” I was like “Yeah David, who would watch that?” and then I was like “Me. I’d be sitting there in a barcalounger, with a beer in one hand and strips of bologna in a tupperware container in the other, imagining the possibilities of New Mexico State”. And while I may not literally be alone, I certainly figuratively wouldn’t be alone, which the NCAA knows.
So while I didn’t entirely like the particulars of your argument, I think your underlying point is a valid one: those of us who like sports for the bread and circuses are going to ingest however much bread and however many circuses they throw at us. If the system is more lucrative the more bread and circuses they throw out there, this could mean trouble.
In my case, David, this excess on my part is managed, in my mind, by building a firewall around a conference or division champion. So one of the advantages of Jazz playoff, in addition to giving everyone a chance to control their destiny, is that it prevents outsiders from making their case to the NCAA, which knows I will sit in the barcalounger and watch, whatever they decide. Going back to the NFL example, it doesn’t bother me that much that 9-7 Arizona made the Super Bowl, because they won the (admittedly weak) NFC West. But I read that the NFL is considering adding 4 more wild cards, which would be worth a lot of money, but I will hate, because those are going to be 8-8 teams, and while I can handle the occasional 8-8 division winner, the 8-8 wildcard has clearly crossed the Jazz Rubicon.
Re: your much more restrictive Rubicon, it does feel different – and worse – that the 9-7 Cardinals almost won a thrilling Super Bowl than that the 11-5 Giants did win a thrilling Super Bowl the prior year. You are right that there is a threshhold, and that the more a playoff expands the more that threshhold becomes problematic – in my Homer Simpson-ish mind that problem is solved by limiting to division champions. But you could easily feel that my firewall is a bad one.
To your question about whether I want the 8-4 team to have a chance against the 10-2 team, well, sure, for reasons that have been hopefully laid out in this post. However, there is a subtle problem with the Jazz pool which I doubt anyone bothered to consider, but which limits the bread-and-circuses fun of such a playoff.
I would love the occasional 8-4 team to crash the party and make the semifinals, winning a memorable Boise State-ish game on their way to the semis. See: Valvano, Jimmy running around the court. I’m like that. But I don’t think my tourney will lead to it very often. Because in order for a Boise State to win a quarterfinal game, they have to play a “beatable” opponent, which in 2009 likely means someone other than Texas or Florida/Alabama. (Some years not, for example, LSU’s 2-loss championship. But I digress).
Here’s the problem: for a Boise State to avoid Texas or Florida/Alabama in the quarterfinals, they need one of the following seeds:
#3,4,5,6,11,12.
Seeds 7-10 feed into the quarterfinals against #1 Florida or #2 Texas, which isn’t all that much fun for us Homer Simpson-types. But a bit of reflection should show that Boise State won’t ever be an 11 or 12, since the MAC and Sun Belt are the two worst conferences in D1, their champions will get the 11 and 12 seeds most years, while 3-6 may often be a bit of a stretch for a team like Boise State.
And one final point: all of this is basically moot, since as you also pointed out above (and I have argued elsewhere), none of this will happen since the money just isn’t right. You know this from inference when dcl says the current system is insane, which it is, but insane things don’t tend to persist unless they are lucrative. I am fully convinced that the current system is more lucrative than the playoff, as I have argued at length on other threads. Its more lucrative because we Homer Simpson-ish fans allow it to be that way.
In closing, a friendly request to my fellow fans, particularly on the off-chance that there is a partisan Gator or Crimson Tide fan here: if your team should unfortunately lose on Saturday, and be “rewarded” with the consolation prize of a Sugar Bowl berth…don’t go to New Orleans. Maybe don’t even watch it on tv.
There’s only one way to make the playoff system more lucrative than the BCS, and that way is in our control, though we no doubt lack the will….
I just looked it up – the Giants weren’t 11-5 two years ago, they were 10-6. What’s worse, they (unlike the Cardinals) were a wildcard. This would make it seem like I need a new firewall, but fortunately, behind the “division champion” firewall lies an even stronger firewall: the Homer Simpson firewall, which says that none of this really has to make sense, it just has to feel right.
Jazz – I like being entertained too, thats what we allready get with the regular season and alot of the bowl games. But a Texas vs. N.C. State game isn’t likely to be entertaining, so much as boring blowout (see Florida vs. Charleston Southern). Boise State vs. Oklahoma was amazing, but it was between two talented teams. Two untalented teams might be entertaining too.
In fact, David, while Brendan argued that the 128-team playoff is transparently beyond the threshold of a slippery slope, I actually think he might have oversold that case, that in fact as a placeholder the 128-team meme is not…terrible…and the reason it would never ever ever happen is not because it is an aesthetic violation but because the money is so obviously not right.
D1 could, in theory, have an 8 game regular season and a 7-week, 128-team playoff. Until that happens, you have the current world, where you left coasters are all abuzz about tonight’s Oregon-Oregon State tilt for the Pac-10 title, and we humbler folks out here in flyover country are geeked up for the 3-8 Arkansas State vs. 0-11 Western Kentucky Sun Belt clash. Ok, we’re not. But 0-11 Western Kentucky will still generate *some* fan interest for tonight’s game, putting enough butts in the seats to make a little bit of money.
If Arkansas State and Western Kentucky were thrown into a 128-team tournament, both would no doubt lose in the first round, which would be week 9 in this post’s example. Suppose this coming weekend were the quarterfinal of said tournament. Would any Arkansas State or Western Kentucky fan attend a supplemental clash of those two titans tonight, if it were scheduled in addition to one of those quarterfinal games televised on local CBS? A few, maybe, but surely far fewer than will attend tonight’s lame-o affair.
In other words, if the money were right, the 128-team tournament would happen, but the money pretty obviously is not right. Indeed, while the actual NCAA basketball tournament hasn’t grown from 64/65 in the last 25 years, the total NCAA D-1 postseason has grown by 16 teams – the CBI. The NIT even grew for a while and then shed teams over to the CBI.
Why did things develop that way? Well, speaking of Oregon State, its probably better for that school’s coffers for their 14-18 team to win a second-tier tournament like the CBI then to get blown out as a 27th seed in a mega-huge NCAA tournament.
In conclusion, then, the 128 team meme is not as terrible as it seems, or at least its aesthetic offense is not why it wouldn’t happen. Its the money. That said, since money guides these things, we should be wary of assuming that our aesthetic preferences will have anything to do with how the actual NCAA playoff ends up looking.