Who's the best in nation ???

Last time I checked, college football did determine the national championship on the field. My point is that a playoff would solve little if anything, while creating all new problems. Of course, you Vito never actually debate anything, so it's quite clear that you only posted to be an ass as usual.

No, it just means that the NCAA tournament is not designed to divine the best team in college basketball. It's designed expressly for entertainment (at least since the field was expanded beyond each conference champion), which is fine I guess, but people shouldn't pretend that it crowns the best team. It rarely does, as evidenced by any number of recent winners who were either clearly inferior to teams that just had a bad night or otherwise sucked during the season only to get hot in the tournament. Does anyone believe that George Mason was one of the top four teams in the country two years ago? No, but it made for a good story and good entertainment.

Any single elimination tournament introduces a high likelihood of advancement being determined by chance, not skill, and that chance increases with the number of tiers those teams have to play through. It's simple probability. As you undoubtedly know, kshead, anyone can blindly stumble into a winner on any particular weekend because "shit happens," but it takes someone who knows what they're doing to consistent win parlays.

 

All tournament/playoffs do is crown Champions.

This "Best Team" bullshit is for the slide rule/pocket protector crowd.

 

Yep...and will be there at the end

 

werdage

 

No one will even debate me on this because everyone knows that I'll completely whip their ass, but they persist in whining for a playoff anyway. It's annoying.

 

I AM!​

 

I'll step up Colon because I have been after a playoff since before you were born.....but we all know how you 'respect' experience

1) 16 teams (1AA and II have 16, III manages to have 28, so it can be done)
2) Seeding done by the BCS formula, it works for that as well as anything because it at least considers strength of schedule
3) Home games for the higher seed in the first two rounds (that keeps the regular season important since you want to finish in the top 8 to get a 1st round game, and the top 4 to get a possible 2nd round game at home...think that won't get some panties in a bunch at the conference championship games...lose and you could have to go on the road)
4) Cuts down on travel...teams manage to handle home games in 1AA, II and III until the finals
5) Semis and final at neutral sites...rotate it among the 5 major bowls, 3 years in, two years out
6) Still have all of the nut-job, weed-whacked, fruit bowls for everyone who does not make the party
7) "Every team except one ends the season with a loss "....What is the big deal with ending the season with a win? How many basketball teams really end the season with a win? Maybe 10...NCAA and NIT winner, and any other teams that sucked so bad they did not even qualify for their conference tournament but managed to win their last game anyway...everyone else loses in their conference, NIT or NCAA tournament game and they are done...
8) "You could end up with a 2 or 3 loss team as the champ because they got hot".....SO? Isn't that what the Pittsburgh Steelers did recently? What's wrong with that?
9) "There would still be controversy about who gets in", with 16 teams if you don't get in, you screwed yourself somewhere, Pac-10 and Big-XII-officials-in-Lubbock-TX notwithstanding (sorry, couldn't resist!!)
10) Still done in the same amount of time and no 55-day layoff so maybe teams would be in a better rhythm...

11) Last year's bracket....

(16) Rutgers at (1) Ohio State
(9) Auburn at (8) Boise State

(12) Arkansas at (5) USC
(13) West Virginia at (4) LSU

(11) Notre Dame at (6) Louisville
(14) Wake Forest at (3) Michigan

(10) Oklahoma at (7) Wisconsin
(15) Virginia Tech at (2) Florida

2nd round, if seeds hold up, which they probably wouldn't, but so what....
Boise at OSU
USC at LSU (has to be a night game!)

Louisville at Michigan
Wisconsin at Florida

 

I'm sure nobody will debate you because you are an ass, not because you'll whip theirs.

by the way, you're wrong.

 

I like the thought you've put into your proposal, but your first and most obvious problem is that you're introducing too many rounds of play. That would mean cutting down the regular season to 10 games or so, which would obviously be unacceptable for any of the conferences. They're also not going to for the idea of seeding by BCS formula instead of their conference championships. The home format is definitely a plus, but it's still robs the regular season of the nail-biting ramifications that it currently has. Speaking of which...

While I salute you for creativity, you have to know how ludicrous this suggestion is. This just flat out isn't workable at all, because none of the bowls will consent to sitting it out twice every five years. And if we remedy that by having the current big bowls hosting the quarterfinal round, it's going to cut back again on that home/away penalty and make the regular season even less significant.

That's my point. As a fan, I've been on both sides. I've been to bowl games where we won and felt awesome even if the season record was just 7-5, while I've also felt absolutely crushed when the Tar Heels made it to the Final Four but failed to seal the deal. I can only imagine what it's like for the players and families. Ending the season on a high note is awesome, and we're going to rob those kids of that for what? Sure, you can say that Boise State might have theoretically run the table in a playoff system, but come on. In the current system those guys ended the season feeling on top of the world, whereas playing another week and losing to Florida or someone would have taken the shine right off of that win. And really, that's where the push for a playoff gets exceptionally selfish. It's not about the players or their families, it's about some casual fans wanting to be further entertained.

The NFL is different because every team generally has 2+ losses during the season. But let's say you have an undefeated Ohio State run the table all the way up to the championship game, facing off against some 2 or 3 loss team who got hot and blazed through your rounds. What if that team wins? How does that not completely undermine the regular season? The whole emphasis on a playoff format is illogical because you're saying that this one game counts whereas the previous ones didn't. You're going to stir up an enormous amount of controversy and create much more discontent than you've even seen with the current system.

The problem with drawing the line at 16 teams is that a whole lot of teams will finish with 2 losses. So how do you decide which ones get in? Do you put in a 1 loss Hawaii or Boise State over a 2 loss SEC team? You're never going to end that controversy, especially if someone lost 2 or 3 early games and ran the table afterwards.


I do like your proposal because, as I said, it's clear that you've put thought into it. But at the same time, you have to know that it's completely unacceptable right from the start. Conferences will not consent to shortening the season (and no matter what you say about the amount of time, that's what your proposal would require), and the major bowls certainly won't agree to sit out 2 years out of 5. So this model is DOA, even ignoring the other flaws.

And quite honestly, I'm still waiting for someone to even tell me why we need a playoff.

 

Playoff system for D1 football will be in place within 8-10 years. The groundwork is already being laid in place at many levels from the conferences to the "bowl system.".

Many of Collin's concerns are the sticking points, particularly the seeming devaluation of the regular season, but progress is being made. Once a structure is in place that can guarantee more income for the schools, the bowl system as we know it will be gone.

Also, look for more conference consolidation within the same timespan. Who knows? Maybe the NCAA itself will be a relic by that point.