Here's my problem with a playoff

Discussion in 'The Tiger's Den' started by NJtiger, Jan 14, 2008.

  1. NJtiger

    NJtiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    21
    All of this discussion about a playoff system, aside from the logistical problems which include two or three more weeks of college football games to be played either during December when most are in exams or in January after a long layoff, has another problem, in my opinion. The complaints seem to stem from the displeasure of teams which are doing well at the end of the season but which didn't perform for some reason or another early on. That brings up the issue of which of two criteria describes the National Champion--a team which has performed well over its entire body of work or a team which is hot at the end.

    I think those who want a playoff system are firmly in the latter camp. They want to see games from the teams which are finishing with a flourish. They also look at the result of the BCS system and because they don't like that result want to trash the system. Imagine, however, that we DID have a playoff and on the given Saturday that UGA (as an example) had a bad day or Knoshon Moreno was hurt (wasn't he hurt at times this year) or for some other reason they come up with they should have won but didn't. Would they be any happier with a playoff system which was one and done?? I really doubt it. In other words, I think people THINK a playoff system would solve it but it wouldn't solve it at all. In a playoff in which a big team got eliminated early everyone (at least ESPN) would talk about how the "real" champion was the team which had a bad day (after all--they forgive USC the loss at Stanford so they'd surely forgive a loss to Illinois in the early part of a playoff system.)

    I think that to revamp the whole thing, basically throwing out the "body of work" criterion for a "who's left standing" standard, is not necessarily any more satisfying. If you don't like the result of the BCS in any given year, you say it's "broken"--then they fiddle with it, and the new result, which is EXACTLY what the new formula is intended to fix, is broken, too, if it doesn't produce a USC/Ohio State/ND/UMich/Alabama/pick-your-storied-program champion.

    Why undo the bowls, which are a lot of fun, and which keep everyone arguing and talking about the college system rather than quell the complaints, in favor of a cut-and-dried who wins on any given playoff Saturday system? Right now, LSU should LOVE the BCS system because look how well LSU has done with it! We've been the most successful program IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE BCS. We stay up late doing stats (or at least istsl stays up late doing stats) and we watch every game in the last few weeks, games we wouldn't give a damn about otherwise. I ENJOY the BCS and I think every LSU fan should be careful what they wish for because they might get it.:crystal: :geaux: :LSU231: :tigereye:
     
  2. Bengal Buddy

    Bengal Buddy Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,599
    Likes Received:
    520
    As I said before, if there is going to be a playoff system, the regular season will have to be reduced by at least one game and the conference championships will have to be eliminated. An 8-team playoff system will be comprised of 7 games which would very likely use the top bowls as the venue. So a playoff system, rather than replacing the bowls, would use them. The university presidents oppose a playoff system because they fear it would extend the football season into a second semester. But cutting the number of regular season games to 11 or 10 could resolve that problem.
     
  3. NJtiger

    NJtiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    21
    The scheduling problem is the least of the issue as far as I'm concerned. Seriously, if LSU had been eliminated by, say, a hot Kentucky team in triple overtime in the first round of a playoff, would you say that the national championship was decided on the field? Wouldn't you KNOW that the result was wrong? Opinion DOES help LSU and other teams, especially the old favorites.
     
  4. lsu-i-like

    lsu-i-like Playoff advocate

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17,958
    Likes Received:
    8,799
    LSU may well have been the best team last season as well, but the majority were ok with us not playing in the NC because we didn't earn a spot on the field. A playoff would not be without its flaws, but gone would be the exclusion of truly deserving teams like USC in 2003 and Auburn in 2004. This season, Georgia would have still been left out of my playoff because they did not win their division and they did not win their conference. This is the result of games decided on the field. Georgia fans may have been crying, especially if they'd have been left out of a playoff, but the counter-argument that they lost on the field is strong. I'd have argued for Hawaii before Georgia because at least it was uncertain that they belonged. Hawaii did everything necessary on the field. Georgia can't say the same.
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. LsuCraig

    LsuCraig Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    55
    I would say if Kentucky beat LSU in triple overtime in the 1st round of a playoff system, then yes, whoever won decided it on the field. I get what you're saying but does anyone devalue the Super Bowl champion based on what their record was overall? The Colts are out now....the Partiots could have lost and then Green Bay won the whole thing. Does anyone devalue the Packers as Super Bowl champ? No, because it played out on the field.

    It may devalue what happens earlier in the season but to get seeding, and just get in at all with only 8 teams, you still have to play well to be one of the 8. We'll still get arguments over who should be the 8 certainly, but at least those 8 fought it out by playing football and not some surfing writer from L.A. or Lou Holtz getting to choose who plays in the one game to decide the champion.

    I want to take it out of writers and coaches' hands as much as possible and by having 8 teams play it out. It may never happen but it would be best. It would be best to have 16 teams play it out but that's even less likely than 8.
     
  6. LSUtiger327

    LSUtiger327 Pow right in da kissa

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,132
    Likes Received:
    688
    right now, a plus one needs to be installed and after seeing how well that works out, we'll need to go from there. i'm not for a playoff involving more than 8 teams and i really think a plus one would help.

    depending on how much i like it, i may not even be in favor of an 8 team playoff, so for now i'm a plus one guy and it's the next logical step before getting into an 8 or 16 team playoff.


    it's funny how the teams that did the most griping would've missed out on a plus one system as well. we play the whole season for a reason. if you lose to a 40 pt underdog at home, your season should be over. if you don't win your division, your season should be over.
     
  7. lsu-i-like

    lsu-i-like Playoff advocate

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17,958
    Likes Received:
    8,799
    I agree with the idea that a playoff could take away from the regular season. By the end of the season there are usually a handful of teams or less that are generally regarded as NC worthy. If the playoff started from that point with those teams, the regular season wouldn't be injured at all. But if we decide we have to have a uniform, 2/4/8/16 number of teams, the regular season will be damaged the further we get away from, on average, about 5 (maybe 4). 8 damages the regular season a little, 16 really hurts the regular season. It just makes sense, the more teams allowed in a playoff, the less valuable a regular season game. If we jump from 2 to 4 teams, each regular season is only half as valuable. If we drop to 8 teams, each regular season game is only half as valuable as it would be if we had a 4 team playoff. A 16 team playoff makes regular season games 4 times less valuable than a 4 team playoff.
     
  8. NJtiger

    NJtiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    21
    First of all, college football is very different from pro football. Pro football is purely a money game, and college football involves a lot more. Pro football has to do an elimination procedure which is cut-and-dried, but just because it does doesn't meant college football should. I am sure that there would be more controversy over a college playoff system than there is over who has beaten who in pro ball. In fact, the winner of the Super Bowl isn't necessarily who is best, just who has survived. No one pretends that it is always the best team, just the surviving team. That's VERY VERY different from the historic choice of the "best" or the "Number One" college team. To look at the two sports similarly is just not going to work given fan loyalties, etc.

    Secondly, taking opinions out of it and making the whole thing based on what happens on the field is not necessarily good at all. I realize LSU doesn't get the props that USC does, but my example of the UK team beating LSU wouldl result (perhaps) in UK being the "champion". Is that your idea of the #1 team in the nation? That's what the polls have always chosen--the #1 team in the nation, NOT THE TEAM WHICH WON A CHAMPIONSHIP. There is a difference. This year LSU is both the team which won the championship AND pretty clearly the #1 team in the nation. But in a year in which the championship winner is not who others think is best will continue to cause split trophy winners. Someone wiil get the AP trophy and some other team might get the playoff trophy. WHO IS BEST??? The playoff won't solve anything.
     
  9. BrettStah

    BrettStah Tiger Fan

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,007
    Likes Received:
    69
    It's pretty simple... we know that a 2-team playoff that we have now is flawed in many years. So let's see how much better (or worse :confused:) a 4-team system works. If having one extra game for 2 teams turns out to be awful, then we can always go back to a 2-team system. If it turns out that having teams play that one extra game is not the end of the world, but 4 teams aren't quite enough to end the controversy of which teams deserve to play, then a 6-team or 8-team playoff can be tried.
     
  10. LSUfan71

    LSUfan71 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2002
    Messages:
    3,284
    Likes Received:
    432
    Divisions I-AA, II, & III have had playoffs forever, no one complains about them. It's all about the bowls. As far as how many teams are involved, it will be up to who holds the playoff. A BCS playoff can have 4, 6, 8 or 32, or whatever. An NCAA playoff would have to have 16 teams, they wouldn't be able to justify doing it any differently than they already do for the other divisions.
     

Share This Page