Why have playoffs in any sport, then? If the goal is determining the best team based on the largest sample size possible, just crown the team with the best regular season record as the champion.
I think at some point we've lost sight of the reason sports exist: competition. A playoff system allows the best teams to compete for a championship--based on clearly established rules that everyone understands going into the season.
I'll take Wisconsin +30...
i will take the +30 as well.
also, if you watched the wisconsin-michigan game, you would know that the game was MUCH closer than the score.
also, did you see what happened at last year's capital one bowl...an extremely underrated wisconsin team destroyed a hyped-up SEC opponent.
The Big 10 was awful this season and the only team Wisky played with Michigan wherein they took a BEATING.
Hmm. The Badgers were tied with Michigan until 3 minutes left in the 3rd quarter. Do some research. Where do I sign for the 30 points? People said the same thing last year when Wisconsin was headed to play Auburn in the bowl game. And, oops, the Badgers won. Sorry there my expert friends.
What an idiot.
Your analysis is interesting, but has one glaring flaw. You also only
apply your logic when it helps you argument, as I will show:
I think your main problem is that you fail to recognize that the
champion is the best team at the END of the year, not the beginning or
middle of the season. The playoffs reward teams that play well at the
end of the year. Playing well at the end is usually a result of
practicing hard and developing a stronger team. That is why the 2006
Steelers are the Champs as well as the 2001 Lakers and the 2002 World
Cup Champs Brazil, though those teams were clearly not the best during
the regular season.
The best regular season team does get their banner though, in the form
of a Conference or Division title.
About the 8-team playoff myth: It is better to argue about who the 8th
best team is instead of the 2nd. This happens every year in the Hoops
tourney, when the 66th best team whines about not getting in
(e.g. 2006 Terps). Again, we shouldn't look at the overall record
after the playoffs... the winner of the tourney is the best team at
the end of the year, and they proved it on the playing field. Sure, a
16 or 32 team field would be better than an 8 team field, just as an 8
team field is better than a 2 team field, which is essentially what we
have now.
About the rankings: Again, we wouldn't be up in arms about who's
ranked over another team if there were a playoffs. Sure, there would
be debate about UW getting in etc... but that can only be fixed with a
larger playoff field. Better to leave WVU out instead of Michigan.
By the way, I don't think UW will lose to Arkansas by 30.
Your flawed logic about the plus-1 format: As I mentionqed, this is
basically a 4 team playoff, so is better than the current BCS. The
bracket should be declared before-hand, and not after the bowl games
are played. Once the final game is played, the winner should be the
champ, regardless of what happened in the "regular season."
Bottom Line: The tourney champ have proven they have formed the best
team at season's end, regardless of what happened in the regular
season. Why don't you extend your logic about 1 team beating another
the other way? What if a freshman QB started slow and played poorly
early on, losing the first 2 games. Then he starts to improve, and
understand his coaches and teammates, and by the end of the year is
tearing it up, beating teams that beat them, and finishes 11-2.
Shouldn't that team have the right to play for a championship?
Doesn't practice mean anything?
Your claim that the BCS is "rewarding teams with better overal
performance during the regular season which is supposedly what it's
all about" is just not true. It is not all about rewarding the best
regular season... If that is all you care about, then you can have the
2001 Mariners (116 Wins) as the Champs that year in your book (and the
best team ever?). One characteristic of a great t
To the author:
Stick to baseball!
Oops, my lengthy comment got chopped off. Here is the rest:
One characteristic of a great team is one that can
perform well under constant pressure, as a playoffs can provide.
There are many more reasons to install a playoffs: such as
entertaining, pressure filled games, more $$$ to be made. But, I
think the main reason is that we should reward the best team... at the
end of the year.
Seriously, stop saying 'Wisky'.
Sigh.
Dear Mr. Savant,
People use the same argument over and over again in Div I college football playoff discussions: "My system is the best because all the others are flawed."
Firstly, I notice you didn't do justice to the system I prefer - but more on that later. Secondly, the system you are defending is at least as flawed as any of them. This year is actually one of the *best* matchups that the popularity contest otherwise known as the BCS has produced, and unless Florida pulls off a miracle and beats OSU it will prove nothing but that the voters know how to use their votes to justify the matchup they want in the BCS title game.
The BCS's flaws have been published repeatedly, but what hasn't been done is to suggest a better, more fair system that keeps what's good about the BCS - the fact that the regular system means something.
Oh - except that it has! In your article, you use the "plus 1" idea to demolish the idea of a 4 team mini-playoff - but plus one is a foolish system if ever there was one. Why follow a national championship game with another game?
Instead, a true 4 team playoff has been defended excellently by many; the best arguments I have seen are by Phil Steele. It can be done without scuttling the bowl system, diminishing the regular season (especially with my proposed "only conference champions" idea) and would finish on Jan. 8, *exactly* the day that we finish this year. If you truly deserve to get in the playoff, you should be able to qualify for the top four spots, yet winning the battle of the four most deserving conference champions must surely give you a legitimate claim on the national championship!
I'd love to defend this thoroughly but for the sake of readibility I'll end here and let others decide it. Let me just finish by saying isn't it ironic that with so many advocates taking one side or the other on this issue, that the best solution is the happy medium?
Wisconsin is not overrated.
They led against Michigan until 2 mins left in the 3rd quarter. No where near a "BEATING".
Besides that game against #2, they have done everything against everyone they played.
They are the reason a playoff has to be done soon.
P.S. Arkansas is in serious trouble and the odds-makers have Wisc. a favorite for a reason. You are a idiot.
So if I understand what you are saying, the current system for college football is better than any playoff system because on any given day an underdog can win and thus a playoff will not give us the true number one team.
Well under that notion let's just end all playoffs right now because lord only knows it is pretty stupid to have playoffs if the lower seeded team has a shot to win. Yep lets not resolve any championship on the field because if I understand you correctly, computers and the opinion of coaches and sportswriters some of whom have never seen some of the teams play is a better way to go. The athletes on the teams, fugetaboutem! What right do atheletes have to compete and win if they are on the lower rated team.
Must have been that same keen analysis that lead you to determine that Arkansas is 30 points better than Wisconsin, non Wisky, Wisconsin. Better stay off that computer son. Your ignorance is showing.
Right on brother, there should NOT be a playoff in college football. It's unique and I love it. A playoff works one year but works terrible in others. What would have been the point of a four-team playoff in 2005 (USC v. Texas), 2002 (Miami v. Ohio State) and 1999 (Virginia Tech v. Florida State).
In fact, in nine-year history of the BCS, the top two teams were pretty evident and without controversary in all but two. And Auburn, 2004, is the only team to win all its games and get screwed.
1998 - Tennessee v. Florida State, no controversary
1999 - FSU v. Va. Tech, excellent.
2000 - Miami & Oklahoma were top two, didnt play because of BCS setup.
2001 - Miami & Oregon were top two, blah blah blah
2002 - Miami v. Ohio State, best game ever.
2003 - USC/LSU top two, didn't play.
2004 - USC v. Oklahoma, three can't go into two.
2005 - USC v. Texas, best game ever part two.
In fact, in EVERY SINGLE YEAR of the BCS, the human polls have agreed on the top two teams. If the current BCS formula had been around in 2000, 2001 & 2003, those controversaries wouldn't have happened.
Michigan is not in the title game because they lost their last game. And if it's an anti-rematch bias...WHY are they #3 in the AP Poll? The AP Poll doesn't mean anything in the BCS!!!!
Rundown -- 9 years of the BCS, 9 years of agreement throughout the polls on the top two teams. Florida/Ohio State will be champ, football fans get 32 football games in three weeks to watch and we should be HAPPY!
Lastly, college football crowns the truest champion in any sport because the playoffs start at week 1. With one loss, you have thrown yourself at the mercy of the pollsters. If Michigan wanted to be champions, they should have beaten Ohio State.
Wow. Where should I start? You have no idea what your talking about. Points that prove you are dumb just from the wisconsin comment.
1.Wake Forest over Virginia Tech despite Virginia Tech beating the Demon Deacons by 3 TD in their own house?
Wake Forest won the ACC title game. Therefore they clinched an automatic BCS berth.
2.Notre Dame ahead of Arkansas?
No conference can have more than 2 teams in the BCS. The BCS chose Florida and LSU and deservedly so. So, It is impossible for Arkansas to get a BCS berth
3. So Wisconsin is better than USC, Louisville, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Auburn, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Rutgers, Tennessee, and California?
USC with losses to mighty UCLA and Oregon State is better than the badgers?
Louisville has one loss, and deservedly made a BCS bowl.
West Virginia loses at home to the powerful South Florida Bulls. Wisconsin is better
Virginia Tech got demolished at BC and lost to Georgia Tech. They play in the worst bcs conference and Wisconsin is better
Auburn got destroyed by Georgia at home. How does that make them more deserving than Wisconsin?
Arkansas and Wisconsin will settle whos better in January
Oklahoma is a good team and I expect them to roll Boise State, but they had a fluke loss to Oregon and do not deserve to be ranked higher than UW
Texas has 3 LOSSES!! Kansas State and Texas AM????? they definatly should be behind the badgers
The mighty Rutgers scarlet knights lose to Cincinatti, a bottom feeder of the 2nd worse BCS conference. Therefore they are where they should be
Tennesee lost to 3 good teams, but still had three losses. Wisconsin would roll them
California lost to Arizona and that in itself is enough to be ranked behind UW
Why does UW deserve to be ranked ahead of these teams? One simple thing. They did not lose to any teams of lesser talent, which all of the teams listed above did.
A playoff system in college football would be horrible for the EXACT same reasons it is in college basketball...it renders the regular season meaningless.
In basketball, does it really matter who wins the NC/Duke tilts during the regular season? Does it matter which team (if either) wins the conference tourney? No, because we all know they're both going to the tournament where any team getting hot can win the title.
Now, football is a very different animal than basketball, but I think an astute reader will get the point.
In football this, Michigan/Ohio State was THE game of the year...no question. However, with a playoff, that game becomes utterly meaningless. There is no significance as to who wins that game because both teams would be in any playoff.
On of the main reasons I will watch college football regular season games and NOT regular season college basketball is that the regular season is POINTLESS. Seriously, how many teams with double digit losses get into the dance every year?
With those who favor football playoffs, what's the cutoff...2 losses and you're in? Why not 3 losses? How about 4?
The bottom line is that whether you pick an 8-team playoff, 16-team, or 32-team, it's just an arbitrary number, and there will always be teams bitching about how they should get in and therefore the tournament should be expanded.
If that's the case, let ALL the teams in. Just dispense with the regular season, put all the teams in one big bracket, and play down from SEP to the national championship game in DEC/JAN.
And furthermore, you all KNOW that the HOGS are going to destroy WISKY!!
Holy smokes... WISKY is TERRIBLE!
This is a stupid article. A 8 team playoff is 500 times better then the current system. Of course there are going to be people bitching they should have made top 8. But none of those people had ANY chance of making it to the national championship with the current system either. The main problem is when you get 3 or 4 teams with legite shot to be in the championship. With this system all of these teams will have a shot even if a few 2 loss teams dont make it to the tournament. Once you decide the top 8 teams in whatever unjust system you have, youll atleast let those 8 play it out to see whos the best. Who cares who they beat before they made it to the top 8? Same thing happens in every sport. some teams barely dont make the playoffs in every sport, and the team with the best record in the regular season doesnt always end up winning the tournament. All you have done is justifed a system ran by good old boys thats built on bringing the bowl money to the same schools every year. shame on you.
week 8 betting lines week 8 betting lines week 8 betting lines // black jack chewing gum black jack chewing gum black jack chewing gum
what is debt capital what is debt capital what is debt capital // commerce bank credit card commerce bank credit card commerce bank credit card
Commenting by HaloScan
