Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Somebody remind me again ...


Grits and Shins
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dude, you need to stick to arguing against points that people actually make. I was giving you that we could thank the BCS for Texas v USC. My point was that, most years, it fails to give something as solid as that. In the same way that some years, like this one perhaps, the NFL playoffs aren't truly needed to figure out who the best team was.

 

However, "some years the BCS does it better" implies that Texas vs USC is the norm and it simply isn't. That's the only year in some time where there wasn't significant controversy over who was in the game. I mean, if your system works only, say 20% of the time, then it's a pretty crappy system.

 

Now, another major thing to consider is that it is not the duty of a play-off system to always deliver the best two teams in the final game. Once again, that would imply that we're much smarter than we are. It is only the duty of a play-off system to insure that all worthy teams are given a shot at the title. Certainly one should do one's best to seed the thing so that the teams that look best don't play off the bat. However, if the best two teams end up playing in the semis (as was the case in the NFC title game when SF/Dallas/Wash owned the league for that stretch in the 80s/90s, that's not the end of the world. In terms of settling on a champion, at least you're assured the best teams were given a shot.

Guess I misunderstood what you wrote. I thought you meant that most years the NFL does it the right way (playoff format) and most years the BCS doesn't (because they don't use a playoff system). Sorry if I misread your post. .

 

I do agree with you about the duty of the playoffs is not to deliver the two best teams in the final game. That's pretty much what I have been saying. While the duty of the BCS is to match the two top-rated teams in a national championship game. That's the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guess I misunderstood what you wrote. I thought you meant that most years the NFL does it the right way (playoff format) and most years the BCS doesn't (because they don't use a playoff system). Sorry if I misread your post. .

 

I do agree with you about the duty of the playoffs is not to deliver the two best teams in the final game. That's pretty much what I have been saying. While the duty of the BCS is to match the two top-rated teams in a national championship game. That's the difference.

 

When the NFL SB is over the winning team can stand up and declare they bested the field and are the champions that year. The teams that had the best regular season were seeded into brackets based on their performance giving all a chance to win it all. Each team had their own destiny in their hands in that they simply needed to win. Until there were only 2 teams left undefeated in the playoffs. These two teams earned their way into the game by qualifying for the playoffs in the regular season and winning all their playoff games to that point. And at the end of the day there is only 1 team that remains undefeated in the playoffs and that team is the champion. Will the championship game always feature the teams that most thought were the best two teams, nope. Will the actual champion be the team that most thought was the best team, nope. But what people THINK is irrelevant the champion earned it every step of the way. And should New England fall to the Giants on super bowl Sunday then the Giants will indeed be the best team in the land regardless of the fact that New England was undefeated prior.

 

When the mythical NC game is over the winning team can only exclaim that they won the most votes and prevailed against their patsie opponent of that year. They can not claim to have bested the field. Most years they can't claim to be undefeated. Most years they can't claim to have more wins and fewer loses than all other teams. This year the queen can't even claim to have less than 2 losses. The only thing the queen can claim is that they were one of the two the prettiest team when it came time to vote on the teams to go into the mythical championship game and they beat the other powder puff team. And this system you value so highly attempts to feature the top two teams in the country but as we have clearly seen very rarely has success in doing so ... in fact after the national championship debutante ball is over very rarely is the losing team, that was declared to be one of the top 2 in the country, ranked 2nd after the game is over.

 

So yes you had it right ... most years the NFL does it the right way and most years the BCS does it the wrong way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in the year of USC vs Texas, their should have been a tournament to truly test those teams. And if those teams are really that great, then they would win out and play each other in the championship game anyway. And I'm sorry, but if playoffs favor underdogs, then why in the NCAA tournament, do most years a #1 seed win it all? 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99, 00, 01, 02, 05, 07... thats just the last 17 years of tournament play where a #1 seed took home the crown. 12 out of 17, you want high probability, that my friend, is high probability. And the years that a #1 seed didn't win it? the #2 seed won in 91, 98, and 04, the 3 seed won in 06, and the 4 seed won in 1997. And it's pretty hard to argue that those other teams weren't worthy.

 

I forgot 03, Syracuse a #3 seed, with the best player in college basketball at the time. Again, a team certainly worthy.

Edited by GWPFFL BrianW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian, if you truly believe great championship teams should never lose a game then you would have a hard time crowning any team most seasons.

 

Just want to clarify that I said the playoffs benefit the underdogs. That doesn't make them a favorite just increasing their odds.

 

Here's some interesting Super Bowl information.

 

The NFL first started seeding playoff teams in 1975. That means we have had 32 Super Bowls since. Only 8 times has the Super Bowl matched #1 seeds. 9 times wild cards have managed to make it to the Super Bowl. Lower seed teams are 11-13 in that time frame.

 

Sort of backs up my statement that playoffs benefit underdogs, don't you think?

 

For further proof when the game matches two teams that played each other during the regular season, the team that lost the regular season meeting is 6-5 in the Super Bowl, including 4-1 the last five times this has happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL first started seeding playoff teams in 1975. That means we have had 32 Super Bowls since. Only 8 times has the Super Bowl matched #1 seeds. 9 times wild cards have managed to make it to the Super Bowl. Lower seed teams are 11-13 in that time frame.

Has it dawned on you that is exactly why the playoffs are a better way of settling this thing? That you just don't know for sure who the two best teams are after a very incomplete set of regular season data? I mean, in order for your suggestion that we shouldn't bother with playoffs to hold much water, then the #1 seeds should just blow through the competition year in and year out. Then you could claim that they're really not needed and only muck up what we already know should be true from time to time.

 

 

That so often lower seeds make it to the big dance just shows how little we can truly tell by looking at the regular season records. I mean, what's the most common argument brought up when arguing who in D-1 football deserves to play in the NC game. Strength of Schedule. So, one NFL team happens to play in a division that sucked that year and drew a bunch of other weak teams as well. If they put up some gaudy record, do we just move them to the head of the class? What if they went .500 in all their games against solid teams but only played 4 all year and beat the rest. Meanwhile, another team in their same conference also went .500 but played 6 such teams and beat all the easier teams on their schedule. At the same time, the same thing is happening in the other conference.

 

You're advocating that we vote over which of those teams has a better resume. We think it makes more sense if they just play. We're also pointing to the fact that many teams outside the top 2 seeds in each conference have proven that they deserved to be in the discussion enough to warrant going even deeper than 4 total.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has it dawned on you that is exactly why the playoffs are a better way of settling this thing? That you just don't know for sure who the two best teams are after a very incomplete set of regular season data? I mean, in order for your suggestion that we shouldn't bother with playoffs to hold much water, then the #1 seeds should just blow through the competition year in and year out. Then you could claim that they're really not needed and only muck up what we already know should be true from time to time.

Detlef, your use of the word BEST is killing your argument. No one has made claim that the BCS is picking the two best anymore than you admit that a playoff does. BCS takes the two top rated teams to play for the BCS NC. Not going to go back and repost all the suspect past champions of the MLB, NBA or NFL to prove my point. The only thing a playoff would do would be to give us a different way of crowning a NCAA Football Champion. You're still going to have to use ratings to pick your playoff participants even if you are proposing a 32 or more team format.

Edited by Rockerbraves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Detlef, your use of the word BEST is killing your argument. No one has made claim that the BCS is picking the two best anymore than you admit that a playoff does. BCS takes the two top rated teams to play for the BCS NC. Not going to go back and repost all the suspect past champions of the MLB, NBA or NFL to prove my point. The only thing a playoff would do would be to give us a different way of crowning a NCAA Football Champion. You're still going to have to use ratings to pick your playoff participants even if you are proposing a 32 or more team format.

 

Do the two best teams always make the SB, certainly not. Do the two best teams always have a shot at making the SB ... almost without exception.

 

Can the BCS say the same ... :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the two best teams always make the SB, certainly not. Do the two best teams always have a shot at making the SB ... almost without exception.

 

Can the BCS say the same ... :wacko:

 

The answer is no, because ultimately, it wasn't proven on the field. This year is also a prime example, as detlef pointed out, LSU a 2 loss team was cleary better than Ohio State a 1 loss team. If ever their WAS a sport that screams for a playoff more than any other sport, it is college football. Think about it, you play 12 games. 12 teams out of 119 possible opponents. Again, a small percentage. How often has #2 beaten #1 in the BCS "NC" game? 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007. 5 out of the last 6 years. That is simply more proof that a playoff is needed. Beacuse if #2 can beat #1, whose to say, that #3 can't beat #2? And so on? Sometimes that was settled on the field, but most cases it certainly was not.

 

And yes, great teams are able to win 3 games, with 2 of them at home. I'm sorry, if you can't get that done, then you weren't worth a sh|t to begin with. I have no sympathy for the Chargers last year, or the Colts the year before. None whatsoever. I certainly have no sympathy or Dallas or Green Bay this year either. Sorry but most years, the regular season doesn't leave me thinking, WOW this team is head over heels better than everyone else. New England was an obvious exception this year, but come on, did anyone really think just because the Chargers were 14-2 last year, that they were so much better than everyone else? I mean people acted all shocked that the Patriots went in there and won. Not that shocking IMO. No more shocking than Joe Montana and the niners going into Soldier Field and beating the Bears in 1988. How often do you see it where a team, maybe not mailing it in during the regular season, but certainly just because they didn't have as good of a record, you didn't come away thinking, this team has no shot. 2001 Lakers in the NBA are the best example. Did anyone REALLY think they weren't the best team going into the playoffs that year? What were they, the #3 seed? All they did, was destroy everyone, I think losing a total of 2 games maybe in the playoffs. Or how bout the Spurs last year? Yeah they were the #3 seed, but come on... by your "best team" theory, one could make a real good argument that despite being merely the 3rd best during the regular season, they were the best team going into the playoffs. I certainly felt that way, and laid a bunch of money on them with a month to go in the regular season, and got paid off handsomly. Same thing here, Tom Brady and the Patriots beating the Chargers last year, was not "party crashing." You can't say they sucked either in the regular season, when you go 12-4, you certianly don't suck. I might be able to give you the Giants this year, but on the flip side of that, was Dallas and Green Bay really that much better than the competition to warrant saying, fucc the playoffs, these are our teams. I don't think so. And again, I have to continue to point out, that the regular season rewarded both teams handsomely, by them earning a first round bye, AND more importantly, home field advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on... it's been almost a week and no more arguing about the BCS vs. NFL Playoffs? I'm disappointed in you guys. :D

 

My :D on this is quite simple logic: The vast majority of major sports championships are earned through a playoff system. Most people likely agree that they like playoff systems to crown the champ (otherwise they wouldn't be the norm, right?). The FBS of college football is the only example where two teams are selected to play for a championship. Eventually, the FBS of college football will find a way to give more than two teams a chance to play for the championship (whether it's a plus-one format or a true playoff), because that's what people want to see.

 

And they pulled my original avi... :wacko: Sorry, Wildcat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information