1000th Post - Mini Soapbox

[bluehenbillk]

"in honor of the milestone reached by billk, the GPI has officially been abolished for one hour" - ralph

I thought I'd try to make this one special & make it about what's important to me.

Do you love college football? I'd imagine an even 100% of you answer "Yes" to that question.

Do you love all levels of college football? I'd imagine most of you answer "Yes" to that question as well.

What's the pinnacle of college sports? Unfortunately, it's nothing to do with college football, it's March Madness.

Why is this so? Incompetency, greed & short-sightedness.

I've been going to college football games for 36 years, that number would be more but I'm only 36 years old. My first game, which was a UD game, was when I was between 1 & 3 months old. We tailgate from 3 1/2 hours before kickoff to normally an hour after, and then go home & watch college football on TV until the wee hours of the morning.

Let me squeeze in another question: How many of you love the 1-AA playoffs? I'd imagine close to 100% of you would answer "hell yeah".

I can't speak for others, but I know I'm not alone when I say it frustrates me to no end, pisses me off, makes me feel cheated, honestly it makes me want to kick something everytime I hear the three letters B....C....S.

Can't these blockheads understand how friggin' HUGE a Div 1-A football playoff would be? 4, 8, 16 I don't care how many teams at this point, just let them play the games!!!

I've spent a good percentage of my previous 999 posts spelling out my reasons against the GPI & have seen it's purpose & reach outgrow its original mission statement. I know it's not the same thing or an exact duplicate, but let's face it, it's over the line as being too close to the single worst thing in sports today in my book, heck it even has the 3-letter abbreviation. I cringe everytime I see the letters BCS or GPI, because I fear that the longer the atrocity of the BCS haunts college football fans everywhere (Auburn fans, USC fans, etc) the greater that chance has to spread like a cancer to other places where it has no business like 1-AA & give more & more power & influence to things that should have zero power at all except for entertainment purposes like the GPI.

I'm happy to have a place where I'd want to spend my time writing 1,000 different times.

GO BLUE HENS!!!

[EKU05]

To be fair, a I-A playoff would never make as much money as the bowls for logistical reasons. I like the playoff system better as well, but many of the complaints against the bowl system are a little hasty.

Again, I prefer the playoff system...but I don't mind playing the devil's advocate either. Read this...

http://bowldebate.ryanrenn.com/

In short...the bowl system makes the post-season less exciting, but it makes the regular season itself more exciting than it would have otherwise been.

[89Hen]

To be fair, a I-A playoff would never make as much money as the bowls for logistical reasons.

http://bowldebate.ryanrenn.com/
I find a LOT of flaws in that presentation.

Myth: Adding a tournament to a sport brings in a lot of revenue to the sport.
If that is so, why, for instance, doesn't a sport like pro boxing implement a tournament system? Probably because the business model that leads some sports to hold tournaments, is not a one-size-fits-all model. The tournament system might work fine in college basketball, but in that sport, we're talking about filling 20,000 seats per game, not up to 65,000 or 100,000.

Newsflash to Ryan Renn... ABC payed the Rose Bowl $27,000,000 to broadcast the game. Boxing? Boxing? Did he really just use boxing as an analogy? xlolx

[Cap'n Cat]

"in honor of the milestone reached by billk, the GPI has officially been abolished for one hour" - ralph

I thought I'd try to make this one special & make it about what's important to me.

Do you love college football? I'd imagine an even 100% of you answer "Yes" to that question.

Do you love all levels of college football? I'd imagine most of you answer "Yes" to that question as well.

What's the pinnacle of college sports? Unfortunately, it's nothing to do with college football, it's March Madness.

Why is this so? Incompetency, greed & short-sightedness.

I've been going to college football games for 36 years, that number would be more but I'm only 36 years old. My first game, which was a UD game, was when I was between 1 & 3 months old. We tailgate from 3 1/2 hours before kickoff to normally an hour after, and then go home & watch college football on TV until the wee hours of the morning.

Let me squeeze in another question: How many of you love the 1-AA playoffs? I'd imagine close to 100% of you would answer "hell yeah".

I can't speak for others, but I know I'm not alone when I say it frustrates me to no end, pisses me off, makes me feel cheated, honestly it makes me want to kick something everytime I hear the three letters B....C....S.

Can't these blockheads understand how friggin' HUGE a Div 1-A football playoff would be? 4, 8, 16 I don't care how many teams at this point, just let them play the games!!!

I've spent a good percentage of my previous 999 posts spelling out my reasons against the GPI & have seen it's purpose & reach outgrow its original mission statement. I know it's not the same thing or an exact duplicate, but let's face it, it's over the line as being too close to the single worst thing in sports today in my book, heck it even has the 3-letter abbreviation. I cringe everytime I see the letters BCS or GPI, because I fear that the longer the atrocity of the BCS haunts college football fans everywhere (Auburn fans, USC fans, etc) the greater that chance has to spread like a cancer to other places where it has no business like 1-AA & give more & more power & influence to things that should have zero power at all except for entertainment purposes like the GPI.

I'm happy to have a place where I'd want to spend my time writing 1,000 different times.

GO BLUE HENS!!!


Hey, Bill - just give up the GPI shat and join us in the religion and politics shat in the Lounge.

Football is just a game.

[EKU05]

The boxing analogy was not it's finest moment, but outside of writing the word boxing with a question mark you didn't really list any of those flaws that were so easy to find.

At the end of the day it just kind of depends what you want. If you want everything to boil down to one super-climactic tournmanent and have about 4 weeks of intense excitement then a playoff works. That's why I like it.

But a playoff DOES NOT give you an automatic "true champion." Take last year, Furman and Appy State split their season series 1-1, but Apps victory counts more than Furman's. I'm fine with that, but it just goes to show that the tournament/playoff style system has flaws of its own.

Again, it just all depends what you want to see happen (and of couse the $$$ factor).

[OL FU]

I agree with much of what you say but here is what I don't understand.


Why do you think the GPI detracts from the playoffs? I know you said it is the closest thing that I-AA has to the BCS but we still have the playoffs. BCS doesn't.

Since we still have the playoffs, the GPI is effectively just another ranking methodology. Why not ban all the rankings.

Understand that I am just trying to understand.

[AppGuy04]

So do you think subjective rankings(polls) are better than objective ones(GPI)?

[bluehenbillk]

To be fair, a I-A playoff would never make as much money as the bowls for logistical reasons. I like the playoff system better as well, but many of the complaints against the bowl system are a little hasty.

Again, I prefer the playoff system...but I don't mind playing the devil's advocate either. Read this...

http://bowldebate.ryanrenn.com/

In short...the bowl system makes the post-season less exciting, but it makes the regular season itself more exciting than it would have otherwise been.

I went through Renn's 9 points or "myths". There's maybe 1 of the 9 that I'd agree has any merit whatsoever. Each of the other 8 are short-sighted & not very well thought out or just plain wrong. If you really want me to blow up these 8 points I'd have no problem doing so.

The whole point is a team really can't complain that much when they actually got beat on the field, but they can complain until the cows come home when they didn't even get a chance to do so.

[GannonFan]

Geez, that had to be one of the silliest supports of the bowl system I've ever seen. It's almost too involved to go through every one of those points and dismiss them so I'll stick with the glaring ones:

Myth 1 - Having a tournament doesn't mean the best team won. My answer to this is so what and how does he know that? Being the best team isn't that useful if you can't defend it on the field so who cares if Miami was better than Ohio State when they played a few years ago - Miami couldn't beat them when it counted so being a better team is a lame fallback. And that ties into the other point, it has to be won, IMO, on the field. DI-A college football is at it's worst when you look at the regular season - every proponent of the bowls likes to say the regular season is the real tournament, but that's a crock. The bulk of the schedules are filled with patsies and mainly played at home - rarely does a contender play more than 2-3 big games per year, and often just in conference. The other 8-10 games are filler. When there is such little shared play between the contenders, the tournament is the only way to get them on the same field.

Myth 2 - College football doesn't need a champion every year because other sports, namely pro boxing, pro golf, and pro tennis don't. Well, first of all, he's just wrong as both pro golf and pro tennis do have individuals each year who are the Golfer of the Year (mostly Tiger) and Player of the Year based on what they won and, first in tennis and now in golf, through a select group of events that is very much like a tournament. And second, college football is a much more isolated activity - pro golfers compete for 30 years of their life - a college football team is together for 1 year and that's it - trying to compare the two is silly at the best.

Myth 5 - The revenue question. I'll quote him directly here : "One finally has to consider the fact that, if a tournament system would bring in so much more money, this would have brought great pressure on the NCAA to implement it long ago. The fact that they haven't done so in spite of all controversy, suggests that the current system is a very profitable one. " First, no one is saying the current system isn't profitable, just that the tournament version would be more profitable. And second, the one big reason why there is no tournament is because the BCS conferences, under the current system, control all the money that comes from it. The NCAA is not included and they don't need to share it with the other half of DI-A. They saw that they dropped the ball in basketball when March Madness money is shared with pretty much all 350 some DI teams and rather than open up that can of worms, the BCS conferences put up their fences and claimed all the money for themselves. So yes, the revenues would be greater, but a tournament doesn't happen because the big boys that suck up all the money now would get less if they let others get in on the action.

The other things that I find wrong in this blog- having a tournament wouldn't drastically impact the regular season in my opinion - heck, in an 8 team tournament again one loss would be particularly damaging to the hopes of a team trying to make the tournament, i.e. no different than now. Also, you could still have your bowl system for the vast majority of teams not involved in the playoff - no one is trying to take away the Poulan Weed Eater Bowl from the likes of Akron or UL-Monroe.

Like I said, and someone else said, there are holes galore in this guy's opinions about a playoff system - but hey, he's part of the BCS and already on the inside of the power in DI-A - why would you expect anything different?

[89Hen]

The boxing analogy was not it's finest moment, but outside of writing the word boxing with a question mark you didn't really list any of those flaws that were so easy to find.
As Billk said, I could go through one by one, but they are too obvious to waste the time. My big point was that he's trying to imply that because a team may have to travel for more than one post season game, ticket sales would be down. TV dollars outweigh ticket sales ever day of the week and I'm not convinced that you would have attendance issues if done correctly.

I've gone through many proposals on playoffs before, and I think most of mine cover attendance pretty well. In a nutshell, my I-A playoff scenario involves 8 teams using the existing BCS bowl sites to host with revolving years. An example would be Orange and Fiesta hosting the four first round with each having games Friday night and Saturday using the time zones to your advantage. Then the semis are at the Sugar with Friday night and Saturday. The finals at the Rose. Each of the preliminary sites is relying on half the normal number of fans from each school because there are four instead of two for the weekend AND they have twice the number of games! IMO ticket sales are not an issue. TV revenue would be higher than normal. Local businesses would do even better because of the extra day. Revenue INCREASES IMO.

[*****]

yawn

[EKU05]

So you're suggesting that a 7 game post season (that's what an 8 team tournament would be) would be MORE profitable than nearly 30 bowl games? You've made some decent points, but that's just way off.

And, yes, neutral site games would cause a serious decrease in attendance if people only had one week to prepare rather than one, not to mention the fact that most people probably couldn't afford to do it 3 times if their team went all the way to the finals.

Finally, I could go for a 16 team playoff, but an 8 team playoff would leave to much controversey over teams not getting in. If you think the small conferences are screwed now, just wait until they are basically fighting over two spots in the post-season (because we all know the BCS leagues would HAVE to have auto-bids) only to (inevitably) get screwed out of them by BCS teams that finished second in their leagues.

It all sounds very good when you say it (initially), but I can poke just as many holes in everything you've said. What does that prove? It proves that we're both sitting here trying to defend two different systems that are BOTH DEEPLY FLAWED. It's a pick your poison situation.

[AZGrizFan]

So you're suggesting that a 7 game post season (that's what an 8 team tournament would be) would be MORE profitable than nearly 30 bowl games? You've made some decent points, but that's just way off.

And, yes, neutral site games would cause a serious decrease in attendance if people only had one week to prepare rather than one, not to mention the fact that most people probably couldn't afford to do it 3 times if their team went all the way to the finals.

Finally, I could go for a 16 team playoff, but an 8 team playoff would leave to much controversey over teams not getting in. If you think the small conferences are screwed now, just wait until they are basically fighting over two spots in the post-season (because we all know the BCS leagues would HAVE to have auto-bids) only to (inevitably) get screwed out of them by BCS teams that finished second in their leagues.

It all sounds very good when you say it (initially), but I can poke just as many holes in everything you've said. What does that prove? It proves that we're both sitting here trying to defend two different systems that are BOTH DEEPLY FLAWED. It's a pick your poison situation.

No. He's saying KEEP the other 23 bowls. They'd mean just as much as they do now.....NOTHING. But they'd still be there for those teams not good enough to make the tournament.

[bluehenbillk]

You are correct. Having a 8- or 16-team playoff would neither eliminate the minor bowl games nor change the interest in them. Let's face it the minor bowl games attract 3 sets of people: 1- Alumni & those 2 schools fans, 2- college football junkies (like myself) & 3- gamblers.

Example: Rutgers plays Arizona St. in the Insight.com Bowl. There's just as much interest or lack thereof in that game regardless of whether or not there's a playoff or the current _ _ _ system. (sorry I can't type those 3 letters anymore.)

[AppGuy04]

You are correct. Having a 8- or 16-team playoff would neither eliminate the minor bowl games nor change the interest in them. Let's face it the minor bowl games attract 3 sets of people: 1- Alumni & those 2 schools fans, 2- college football junkies (like myself) & 3- gamblers.

Example: Rutgers plays Arizona St. in the Insight.com Bowl. There's just as much interest or lack thereof in that game regardless of whether or not there's a playoff or the current _ _ _ system. (sorry I can't type those 3 letters anymore.)

You have to realize that this may not be the best plan for the fan. Most of these BCS type bowl games are $100 a pop. How many fans do you know that would be willing to shell out almost $500 to see their team play in playoff games. I love football and my team, but no way I shell out that kind of cash

[OL FU]

You are correct. Having a 8- or 16-team playoff would neither eliminate the minor bowl games nor change the interest in them. Let's face it the minor bowl games attract 3 sets of people: 1- Alumni & those 2 schools fans, 2- college football junkies (like myself) & 3- gamblers.

Example: Rutgers plays Arizona St. in the Insight.com Bowl. There's just as much interest or lack thereof in that game regardless of whether or not there's a playoff or the current _ _ _ system. (sorry I can't type those 3 letters anymore.)

Hey Bill, Explain to this simpleton why the GPI interferes with the playoff system

[Tribe4SF]

yawn

ditto

[bluehenbillk]

Hey Bill, Explain to this simpleton why the GPI interferes with the playoff system

It doesn't, yet.

[OL FU]

It doesn't, yet.

OK Bill I was trying to understand your difficulty with the GPI. I have seen bits and pieces of responses on the subject but nothing I would call convincing:p . I will pay attention in the future to see if I spot the answer:smiley_wi

[89Hen]

So you're suggesting that a 7 game post season (that's what an 8 team tournament would be) would be MORE profitable than nearly 30 bowl games? You've made some decent points, but that's just way off.

And, yes, neutral site games would cause a serious decrease in attendance if people only had one week to prepare rather than one, not to mention the fact that most people probably couldn't afford to do it 3 times if their team went all the way to the finals.

I can poke just as many holes in everything you've said. What does that prove? It proves that we're both sitting here trying to defend two different systems that are BOTH DEEPLY FLAWED. It's a pick your poison situation.
I never said do away with the other bowls. I've seen lots of people try to argue that a playoff makes the other bowls meaningless.... guess what, they're meaningless now! I've just made four bowl sites meaningful without damaging the others in any way.

I agree that the neutral site games would mean that many people would not be able to go to all 3, but you forget that with four teams at each of the preliminary sites you have to sell half as many tickets to each school. The NC game will be a sellout no doubt. :nod:

As for 8 vs. 16... no matter where you set the number somebody will feel screwed. We see that in I-AA with 16. It certainly a LOT better way of determining a champion than 1 vs. 2 as evidenced by the fact that the NC participants in I-AA are almost NEVER 1 vs. 2.

I don't see where you've poked any holes at all.

[GannonFan]

I never said do away with the other bowls. I've seen lots of people try to argue that a playoff makes the other bowls meaningless.... guess what, they're meaningless now! I've just made four bowl sites meaningful without damaging the others in any way.

I agree that the neutral site games would mean that many people would not be able to go to all 3, but you forget that with four teams at each of the preliminary sites you have to sell half as many tickets to each school. The NC game will be a sellout no doubt. :nod:

As for 8 vs. 16... no matter where you set the number somebody will feel screwed. We see that in I-AA with 16. It certainly a LOT better way of determining a champion than 1 vs. 2 as evidenced by the fact that the NC participants in I-AA are almost NEVER 1 vs. 2.

I don't see where you've poked any holes at all.

Agreed - I don't see any hole punching yet either. Keep all the other bowls, buut now make some more bowls meaningful by having them part of the playoffs. And you'd be surprised how many fans would travel - these people spend a lot of money now to follow their team, no reason to assume that they would stop now.

Like I said, the main reason why there is no playoff now is because IA is entirely controlled by the 66 teams that are in the BCS conferences or Notre Dame - these teams control virtually all of the profit now that comes from the college postseason and even though there could be more profit from a playoff system, they would have to share it more with those outside the BCS and their total take could go down. They don't want to share, and that's why we have what we have.

[EKU05]

What makes you think that a playoff would suddely involve the sharing of profit? You change a system, but you can't change greed. Like I said, if we're talking about an 8 team playoff then we're still looking at 6 spots for the BCS leagues (and please don't try to pretend it would be any other way). So then the teams from C-USA, MAC, WAC, MWC, and SBC (giggle) are fighting over the other two spots...but wait...the other two are probably just going to end up going to other BCS conference teams just like they do now. Sure you might get your occasional "Utah," but nothing is fundamentally different.

That's why I think if 1A went to a playoff it would be very important to do the 16 team rout. That would make it exponentially easier for (1 or 2) smaller conference teams to get in and make some of those post season upsets of the big boys that we all drool about (well, at least I do, but not as much as I used to. I have to admit my IA team is Louisville who is now headed into their second season on the "inside" of the system). I still root for the rest of C-USA in my spare time though...I'd love to see them have some success because I felt bad for them the way things played out.

On the surface I like the idea that the rest of the bowls would remain intact, however I don't think it's true that this system wouldn't hurt them. Right now, the mentality for every team in IA is to "go bowling" at the end of the year. That's the goal (just like "going dacing" in basketball). But if the major goal becomes something other than bowls I think it will (somewhat) weaken the attraction of even the weaker bowls. You don't see basketball signs raving about NIT bound teams do you?

Now, the fact that it would dim the rest of the bowls doesn't mean a playoff wouldn't work (remember, I've always been slightly in favor of a playoff...but definitely not an 8 team one). I do think that a playoff would work, I'm just not sure that it would be the drastic improvement that people envision...things like that almost never are.

[GannonFan]

It depends if the NCAA ran it or, like it is now, run by the BCS conferences. Sure, an 8 team playoff wouldn't include much of anybody other than the group of 66, but I'd still rather see that than a group of exhibition games extolling the virtue of bowl games. And yes, I still think the bowls outside the system would be unaffected. Heck, they're outside the BCS system now and they still do alright so why would that change? This still wouldn't be anything like March Madness so people would still be happy to go 6-5 and say "but hey, we made it to a bowl game so what a great year it was!".

[Cap'n Cat]

It depends if the NCAA ran it or, like it is now, run by the BCS conferences. Sure, an 8 team playoff wouldn't include much of anybody other than the group of 66, but I'd still rather see that than a group of exhibition games extolling the virtue of bowl games. And yes, I still think the bowls outside the system would be unaffected. Heck, they're outside the BCS system now and they still do alright so why would that change? This still wouldn't be anything like March Madness so people would still be happy to go 6-5 and say "but hey, we made it to a bowl game so what a great year it was!".



Hey, Ganny and Bill - Why in TF is this such a cross to die on for your guys? What's the big deal? Seriously!

No disrespect intended, but it just looks like a message board dick-measuring contest. Mental masturbation.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[bluehenbillk]

Capn Cat, this just in. the champ of the Gateway will now play the champ of the OVC the third Saturday of December every year. Now do you get my drift?

EKU05, I disagee with your point on weakening the attraction of other bowls. All you're doing is changing it from currently, the teams that play in a BCS bowl, to teams that make the playoffs. Do you think fans of Michigan & Nebraska, 2 traditional powerhouse teams that played in the Alamo Bowl last year, which isn't exactly what they had planned before the year started would've acted any less excited about their game if there was a playoff?

[Cap'n Cat]

Capn Cat, this just in. the champ of the Gateway will now play the champ of the OVC the third Saturday of December every year. Now do you get my drift??


Sorry, no, I don't. You guys are too smart for me, obviously.

:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

[bluehenbillk]

Don't say I didn't warn you.

[Cap'n Cat]

Don't say I didn't warn you.


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:





I just don't see the GPI thing as an issue. Is it negatively impacting how we get seeded and such or is it just another sort of poll? Who uses it?

[*****]

I just don't see the GPI thing as an issue. Is it negatively impacting how we get seeded and such or is it just another sort of poll? Who uses it?It has no more impact in general than any other ranking or poll. Half the people that matter don't understand computer rankings to begin with I think.

[OL FU]

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:





I just don't see the GPI thing as an issue. Is it negatively impacting how we get seeded and such or is it just another sort of poll? Who uses it?

Good question. I have never understood the problem. Usually Bill and Gannon have some good arguments, so you want to believe there is one. Just have not heard it yet

[OL FU]

It has no more impact in general than any other ranking or poll. Half the people that matter don't understand computer rankings to begin with I think.

And the other half wishes they didn't.



LONG LIVE GPI:o

[Cap'n Cat]

Good question. I have never understood the problem. Usually Bill and Gannon have some good arguments, so you want to believe there is one. Just have not heard it yet


Mental masturbation.

[EKU05]

Capn Cat, this just in. the champ of the Gateway will now play the champ of the OVC the third Saturday of December every year. Now do you get my drift?

EKU05, I disagee with your point on weakening the attraction of other bowls. All you're doing is changing it from currently, the teams that play in a BCS bowl, to teams that make the playoffs. Do you think fans of Michigan & Nebraska, 2 traditional powerhouse teams that played in the Alamo Bowl last year, which isn't exactly what they had planned before the year started would've acted any less excited about their game if there was a playoff?

Yes, I do think that actually. It's a mental thing really. Right now, even if it isn't a good bowl, you still have the mentality that...hey we made it to a bowl...which is what every teams wants to do. Once a bowl isn't the ultimate goal it changes things. Now, you are correct in saying that it doesn't change the reality, but it does change the mentality (which is really what we're talking about since we're discussing interest in those kinds of games). You're assuming that every fan out there things about all of these things as deeply as we do. They don't.

One other point...there are now 5 BCS bowls. That's the 4 normal bowls and an additional title game that rotates between teh 4 sites. An 8 team playoff would actually DECREASE access to those big games by two teams.

[89Hen]

But if the major goal becomes something other than bowls I think it will (somewhat) weaken the attraction of even the weaker bowls. You don't see basketball signs raving about NIT bound teams do you?

Now, the fact that it would dim the rest of the bowls
Uhh, I don't see signs raving about the New Orleans Bowl right now. 30 bowls = 60 teams. NCAA BBall tourney = 64 teams. NIT is below the lowest bowl right now.

The fact? The fact? xcoffeex

[EKU05]

Ok, if you want to start playing Math games...

334 total D1 teams, 65 of which (not 64) make the tournament. This means that to qualify for this tourmanent a team should theoretically be in (roughly) the top 19.5% of all teams (but we all know that even THAT isn't true do to Auto-bids from lower conferences).

I'm not sure of the exact number, but there are roughly 120 Division I-A football schools. If 60 get into bowls then that means you would simply have to be in the top half.

So a team that makes the NIT could potentially still be in the top 20% of all college basketball teams...probably close to top 15% if auto-bids are taken into account. To be in a bowl you pretty much just need a .500 record.

Therefore, the NIT is a significantly higher level of competition than the lowest bowls. :nod:

[89Hen]

Therefore, the NIT is a significantly higher level of competition than the lowest bowls. :nod:
Uhhhh, not really. The #65th team in anything sucks. I don't care if there are 1,000 team in basketball. Once you go outside of the Top 25, nobody outside of the players and alumni care. xcoffeex

[EKU05]

Uhhhh, not really. The #65th team in anything sucks. I don't care if there are 1,000 team in basketball. Once you go outside of the Top 25, nobody outside of the players and alumni care. xcoffeex

I agree that no one really cares outside the top 25, but you made the alarmingly erroneous claim (based on some superficial math) that somehow the low-end bowl games were superior to the NIT. All I'm saying is that isn't true. Once I proved that you were incorrect on that you basically said that no one cares anyway...which is true, but it still doesn't change anything. There aren't top 25 teams in the New Orleans Bowl either, so that's kind of a moot point.

[rrenn]

Hi. I am Ryan Renn, the guy who wrote the piece that seems to be beneath the dignity of many bowl-enemies. I'm a busy person at this time of year, but I will see if I can address some of your points.

Newsflash to Ryan Renn... ABC payed the Rose Bowl $27,000,000 to broadcast the game. Boxing? Boxing? Did he really just use boxing as an analogy?

How does the amount that ABC paid to televise the Rose Bowl change the point that, by the logic that tournaments bring revenue to sports, boxing would have to get more revenue if it went to a tournament system? Why wouldn't virtually all revenue-seeking sporting organization hold tournament formats, if tournaments are the one-size-fits-all revenue generator they are often purported to be? I can't see your point in attacking the analogy because you are yet to address this question or salvage the myth.

(Another post:)
The whole point is a team really can't complain that much when they actually got beat on the field, but they can complain until the cows come home when they didn't even get a chance to do so.
If that is the whole point, then single-elimination tournaments are pretty easily sunk, so I trust that is not your whole point. Take the most recent March Madness as an example. The champion, Florida, "actually got beat" six times. There are more at least a half dozen teams that "actually got beat" fewer times than the team declared the champion by the tournament. You don't seem to be concerned about losses during the season. This simply re-demonstrates another one of my points.

[*****]

Hi. I am Ryan Renn...Ryan, welcome and don't be stranger here. You said Florida got beat six times... so an FL team (B-CC, FAMU or Jacksonville) finished 5-6? This is I-AA Discussion.

[rrenn]

Geez, that had to be one of the silliest supports of the bowl system I've ever seen.
I'll be interested to know, then, which ones you personally would list as being less silly.


It's almost too involved to go through every one of those points and dismiss them so I'll stick with the glaring ones:
So would you the consider points you didn't list a response to (#3, 4, 6-9) things that reasonable people can believe? Or just silly?


Myth 1 - Having a tournament doesn't mean the best team won. My answer to this is so what and how does he know that?
So what? Is the point of the title to reward the best performance or to reward the best luck? If you want to introduce luck into the equation, just say so.


Being the best team isn't that useful if you can't defend it on the field so who cares if Miami was better than Ohio State when they played a few years ago - Miami couldn't beat them when it counted so being a better team is a lame fallback. And that ties into the other point, it has to be won, IMO, on the field.
Miami had played better - but then after Ohio State won, Ohio State's overall record was better. This is not even anecdotal evidence against using the whole season's results to determine the champion, so I fail to see how this example slam dunks your point. Regular seasons are played on the field, not just playoffs, but this seems to elude your style of grandstanding.

The better question is the recent March Madness. Florida couldn't "defend it on the court" six times during their regular season. You are perfectly happy to grant them amnesty for that because of the all-important tourney results. You are fine to sweep what happened on the court during the regular season under the rug. If there is any bitterness in your tone about sports (or life in general), consider the fact that, based on your view of a sports season, all that matters is the final game, yet so few seasons are going to conclude positively for any team.


DI-A college football is at it's worst when you look at the regular season - every proponent of the bowls likes to say the regular season is the real tournament, but that's a crock. The bulk of the schedules are filled with patsies and mainly played at home - rarely does a contender play more than 2-3 big games per year, and often just in conference. The other 8-10 games are filler. When there is such little shared play between the contenders, the tournament is the only way to get them on the same field.
If the strength of opponent were the criteria for how big a game were, we'd all watch NFL only, not college football. It is naive to imagine that playing in, say, the Big Ten is filled with only 2-3 big games. Some teams put 100,000+ in their seats every week. Major local teams have nearly every game televised. Lopsided matches aren't unique to college football.


Myth 2 - College football doesn't need a champion every year because other sports, namely pro boxing, pro golf, and pro tennis don't. Well, first of all, he's just wrong as both pro golf and pro tennis do have individuals each year who are the Golfer of the Year (mostly Tiger) and Player of the Year based on what they won and, first in tennis and now in golf, through a select group of events that is very much like a tournament.
I admit to not following those sports too closely. Are those designations official or voted on by the press or some other organization? In any event, those titles get nowhere near as much attention as the individual events (Masters, Wimbledon, US Open, etc.) and the sports go along fine.


And second, college football is a much more isolated activity - pro golfers compete for 30 years of their life - a college football team is together for 1 year and that's it - trying to compare the two is silly at the best.
That has nothing at all to do with my point, which was not about player longevity in different sports. In one sense, a college football team is not together for just one year: some have been around since the 19th century. In another sense, very few are together for more than one game: rosters shift with injuries and depth chart moves. Your point is rather unclear.


Myth 5 - The revenue question. I'll quote him directly here : "One finally has to consider the fact that, if a tournament system would bring in so much more money, this would have brought great pressure on the NCAA to implement it long ago. The fact that they haven't done so in spite of all controversy, suggests that the current system is a very profitable one. " First, no one is saying the current system isn't profitable, just that the tournament version would be more profitable.
That's why I said "more" money. Why would the fact that the NCAA football activities already have profits stop greedy villains from wanting more profits?


And second, the one big reason why there is no tournament is because the BCS conferences, under the current system, control all the money that comes from it. The NCAA is not included and they don't need to share it with the other half of DI-A. They saw that they dropped the ball in basketball when March Madness money is shared with pretty much all 350 some DI teams and rather than open up that can of worms, the BCS conferences put up their fences and claimed all the money for themselves. So yes, the revenues would be greater, but a tournament doesn't happen because the big boys that suck up all the money now would get less if they let others get in on the action.
There seem to be no shades of gray in your discussion. It has to be "all" the money. For instance, the BCS revenue (http://www.bcsfootball.org/index2.cfm?page=revenue) has a certain amount guaranteed to be paid to non-BCS conferences and Division I-AA. This is separate from the money that those conferences are free to make for themselves with their own bowl matches, and if they do put up a team like Utah, that team's conference gets BCS money. This is a far cry from "all" the total money going to the BCS teams.


The other things that I find wrong in this blog- having a tournament wouldn't drastically impact the regular season in my opinion - heck, in an 8 team tournament again one loss would be particularly damaging to the hopes of a team trying to make the tournament, i.e. no different than now. Also, you could still have your bowl system for the vast majority of teams not involved in the playoff - no one is trying to take away the Poulan Weed Eater Bowl from the likes of Akron or UL-Monroe.
Most teams are not in a situation where they will only lose one game per year. The point is not that they should have a shot at the title; that depends how good the other teams are. The point is that within the current system, in which bowls are not demonized, at least a team that is, say, 7-2, has an incentive to play hard and get in a bigger bowl (e.g. they want to be in something like the Alamo Bowl, not the Weed-Eater Bowl), not just act as though all is lost and it's time to sit out their starters to protect them from injury. More happens during a season than just the national title.


Like I said, and someone else said, there are holes galre in this guy's opinions about a playoff system - but hey, he's part of the BCS and already on the inside of the power in DI-A - why would you expect anything different?
But I also pointed out in my system that this isn't a discussion about conference-neutrality. That is a separate discussion. You could set up a bowl invitation system that is based solely on rankings systems that look at the whole season without even looking at any team's name. You could set up a playoff system where the invitations are totally conference-rigged. Either system can be accommodate conference bias or neutrality.

[blukeys]

I'm late to this discussion and I am not sure at this stage what it is about but for the record.

Congratulations Bill on your 1,000th post!!!!:hurray: :hurray: :hurray:

The GPI is a tool. It is not a be all end all. I think the NCAA committee uses it that way for I-AA.

I really don't care what happens In I-A. If they want to blame the GPI and a computer for their selections for a champion then let them. It just makes them look stupid and makes the playoff system look superior and the current BCS system look ridiculous.

Ryan Penn's "myths" is an excellent example of how a Big 10 fan justifies a system that benefits the few conferences (i.e.Big Ten) and teams that can get into a BCS game. I think it is a hilarious that conferences like the MAC buy into the bowl system and think that their teams would EVER have a chance to become National Champions. Ryan is free to PM me for details but I too am busy right now and cannot respond in detail immediately.

Congratulations on Ralph for getting near 18,300:hurray: :hurray: :hurray: ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)


Cap'n regarding Mental Masturbation, No matter how hard I try I still need the use of body parts below my chin!!!:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

Maybe you have some clues as I am at a loss. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[EKU05]

I think a good point was made. Any system (playoff or bowl) could be biased toward certain conferences. Ryan, in the original article, even said that he wished conference bias could be eliminated. Read it, it's there. This is not, in any way, a debate about conference bias. That is a totally seperate discussion. As I've pointed out, in many ways a playoff system has the potential to be even more biased.

I think I-AA does a pretty good job of governing the playoff system, but it isn't perfect. Haven't you seen all of the recent complaints on here that our playoffs are excluding certain teams? It can happen in any system!

[bluehenbillk]

(Another post:)
The whole point is a team really can't complain that much when they actually got beat on the field, but they can complain until the cows come home when they didn't even get a chance to do so.
If that is the whole point, then single-elimination tournaments are pretty easily sunk, so I trust that is not your whole point. Take the most recent March Madness as an example. The champion, Florida, "actually got beat" six times. There are more at least a half dozen teams that "actually got beat" fewer times than the team declared the champion by the tournament. You don't seem to be concerned about losses during the season. This simply re-demonstrates another one of my points.

Ryan, welcome to the board. I was the one that started this thread and made the quote you reference above. Let's talk about college football & not a March Madness example of a team that played over 35 games this past year. 2005 Orange Bowl, USC beats Oklahoma & an unbeaten SEC champ Auburn doesn't get a shot to play for a NC, fair, right? Also, this decade Miami beats Nebraska in the Rose Bowl for the NC, Nebraska didn't even win their own conference, so much for the regular season, right? (& I'm a Huskers fan) With a tournament in college football the regular season is tantamount just as much if not more than it is currently. Put 8 teams in, the 6 BCS league conference winners & 2 at-large's. The bottom line is the teams that excel in the regular season get their shot ON THE FIELD. Do your job at work great & then an opening for a promotion comes up & your HR department says you can't be considered & they're hiring from outside, you're pretty upset right versus getting to COMPETE for the job. You can throw the argument out there what about the argument from the #9 or #10 team & my answer to that goes back to the bowl-peoples arguments: win your league, have your regular season be good enough and you'll have no arguments.

I did take the time previously to read your 9 or so points, only 1 of which I found to be a half-decent point not worth an argument, the rest is poorly written & unsupported spin.

[EKU05]

Not to beat a dead horse into the ground, but the point was not that the bowl system is fair all the time...just that neither is a playoff system.

[Tod]

Not to beat a dead horse into the ground, but the point was not that the bowl system is fair all the time...just that neither is a playoff system.

Lots going on here, so I'll ask the question. What do you mean by "neither is a playoff system"?

Maybe I lost the gist of the conversation. :confused:

[blukeys]

I admit to not following those sports too closely. Are those designations official or voted on by the press or some other organization? In any event, those titles get nowhere near as much attention as the individual events (Masters, Wimbledon, US Open, etc.) and the sports go along fine.




Interesting that you would include Wimbledon as a defense of a non - playoff system. The make up of any Tennis tournament is essentially a head to head playoff system. Players are seeded and then matched according to their seeding as they are in every NCAA sport with the exception of I-A football. The Seeded players then play each other. If the 16th seed beats the 1 seed He/She moves on and has the chance to be the champion and the loser goes home although He/She may have been rated higher.

By Your logic the Wimbledon Champion should be decided by prior rankings and results and not just the results on the court. Of course #1 ranked players could be effected by injuries, bad days, etc. so let's cut them a break if that is the case and just vote them the Wimbledon Champion!!!!xlolx xlolx

So one should take this into account when deciding the winner of the most prestigous tennis tournament in the world.


Other sports that should imitate the I-A football model because it is so much better but don't.

World Cup Soccer Men's and Women's

World Cup Softball

NBA

WNBA

American Major League Baseball

Japanese Major League Baseball

NHL

All European Professional Soccer Leagues

U.S. Professional Soccer Leagues

NCAA Men's Volleyball

NCAA Women's Volleyball

All NCAA swimming champions Mens and Womens

NCAA Men's Basketball

NCAA Women's Basketball

NCAA Men's and Women's Lacrosse

NCAA Men's and Women's Crew

NFL

Arena Football League

NFL Europe

NCAA Wrestling

I can go on for quite a while. If you wish I will give you boxing, a sport which was considered a major sport 50 years ago but today is largely a novelty. I wonder if no way of deciding a true champion has an impact??????????????????:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

[rrenn]

Ryan, welcome to the board. I was the one that started this thread and made the quote you reference above. Let's talk about college football & not a March Madness example of a team that played over 35 games this past year. 2005 Orange Bowl, USC beats Oklahoma & an unbeaten SEC champ Auburn doesn't get a shot to play for a NC, fair, right?
The fact that 35 games were played is irrelevant to the principle that basing the championship on fewer games leaves it more up to luck (rather than performance) compared to looking at the entire season. Was USC's title fair? Yes. USC thrashed the unbeaten Oklahoma. Auburn's performance was impressive, but it is called a narrow second-place, which happens in every sport and is not a sign of systematic bias in who is the winner and not a disgrace to the second-place team. Auburn probably wouldn't admit it, but they probably feel better about that season than they would have if they had been in Oklahoma's shoes and lost the next week.

Furthermore, there is this myth that there is uncertainty as to who is the better team ONLY in the bowls, as two teams can finish with the same record and only one wins the title. If you have a playoff system and an 12-0 team loses to a 11-1 team, you'll then have two teams with the same record at the end of the season, yet one is going to be declared the champion and one not. But we wouldn't find you decrying the unfairness, because your whole notion of unfairness seems to have little relation to overall merit.


Also, this decade Miami beats Nebraska in the Rose Bowl for the NC, Nebraska didn't even win their own conference, so much for the regular season, right? (& I'm a Huskers fan)
That can happen in a tournament system. But what I am saying that results should be determined based on all results - regular season and postseason.


With a tournament in college football the regular season is tantamount just as much if not more than it is currently. Put 8 teams in, the 6 BCS league conference winners & 2 at-large's. The bottom line is the teams that excel in the regular season get their shot ON THE FIELD.
They already had a shot, on the field, to get to the final game. Few teams capitalize on that and go unbeaten. That is overlooked.


Do your job at work great & then an opening for a promotion comes up & your HR department says you can't be considered & they're hiring from outside, you're pretty upset right versus getting to COMPETE for the job.
Poor analogy. The other person basically competed with me by submitting his resume. E.g. if Albert Einstein were competing with me for a physics research position, he wouldn't have to work in my department and compete with me head-to-head in order to prove he's worthy of a higher position.


You can throw the argument out there what about the argument from the #9 or #10 team & my answer to that goes back to the bowl-peoples arguments: win your league, have your regular season be good enough and you'll have no arguments.
My original article addresses that the point of the system is not just whether it resolves arguments. People consciously choose not to argue about tournament results even though they may be no better a reflection of merit than the BCS. Continuing with the example that no one seems happy to discuss: Florida was probably about the third best team in the NCAA. Do you think you can say that about the BCS champion often?


I did take the time previously to read your 9 or so points, only 1 of which I found to be a half-decent point not worth an argument, the rest is poorly written & unsupported spin.
That is a poorly written & unsupported bare assertion.

[rrenn]

Interesting that you would include Wimbledon as a defense of a non - playoff system. The make up of any Tennis tournament is essentially a head to head playoff system. Players are seeded and then matched according to their seeding as they are in every NCAA sport with the exception of I-A football. The Seeded players then play each other. If the 16th seed beats the 1 seed He/She moves on and has the chance to be the champion and the loser goes home although He/She may have been rated higher.

I did NOT say it wasn't a playoff. I said there isn't a single annual title for the whole sport. There are multiple grand slams.


By Your logic the Wimbledon Champion should be decided by prior rankings and results and not just the results on the court. Of course #1 ranked players could be effected by injuries, bad days, etc. so let's cut them a break if that is the case and just vote them the Wimbledon Champion!!!!xlolx xlolx
I have not said that the bowl system is a one-size-fits-all approach. I do not believe that there is any one-size-fits all approach to sports. Otherwise, you wouldn't have had Ali fighting Joe Frazier three times. But tell me how injuries don't affect a team's results? I never said anything about cutting a break to teams for injuries or bad days. If they have a lot of them, it will affect their record and the final result. You are completely making that up.


Other sports that should imitate the I-A football model because it is so much better but don't.
...
NBA

WNBA
I don't advocate a single approach to all sports. I imagine you don't envision a 16-team, best-of-7 set for NCAA football.


I can go on for quite a while. If you wish I will give you boxing, a sport which was considered a major sport 50 years ago but today is largely a novelty. I wonder if no way of deciding a true champion has an impact??????????????????:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:
That is a silly suggestion because the golden era of boxing was not one where it was on a tournament system, so clearly the decline in popularity has to do with something else. But feel free to prove to us all how quickly you leap from conjecture to unshakeable conviction.

[rrenn]

I'm going to call it a night. Thanks for the welcome and I appreciate the discussion.

Ryan
http://bowldebate.ryanrenn.com/

[Tod]

...Auburn probably wouldn't admit it, but they probably feel better about that season than they would have if they had been in Oklahoma's shoes and lost the next week.

Probably? According to whom? Who says they would have lost?

Furthermore, there is this myth that there is uncertainty as to who is the better team ONLY in the bowls, as two teams can finish with the same record and only one wins the title. If you have a playoff system and an 12-0 team loses to a 11-1 team, you'll then have two teams with the same record at the end of the season, yet one is going to be declared the champion and one not. But we wouldn't find you decrying the unfairness, because your whole notion of unfairness seems to have little relation to overall merit.

No, it's because the 11-1 team beat the 12-0 team on the field. How is that so hard for you to understand?

That can happen in a tournament system. But what I am saying that results should be determined based on all results - regular season and postseason.

Of course. The regular season will determine whether or not you even make it to the post-season.

They already had a shot, on the field, to get to the final game. Few teams capitalize on that and go unbeaten. That is overlooked.

Not as long as there are teams that go undefeated or lose a single game that have nowhere to go but a second-tier bowl game. I'm sure they'd love a shot at the USCs or Texas'.

Poor analogy. The other person basically competed with me by submitting his resume. E.g. if Albert Einstein were competing with me for a physics research position, he wouldn't have to work in my department and compete with me head-to-head in order to prove he's worthy of a higher position.

Why the hell not? Define "department". Isn't I-A a single department? If not, why not? I-AA is a single department.

My original article addresses that the point of the system is not just whether it resolves arguments. People consciously choose not to argue about tournament results even though they may be no better a reflection of merit than the BCS. Continuing with the example that no one seems happy to discuss: Florida was probably about the third best team in the NCAA. Do you think you can say that about the BCS champion often?

It doesn't matter, they won it on the court, not via court.

[blukeys]

I did NOT say it wasn't a playoff. I said there isn't a single annual title for the whole sport. There are multiple grand slams.


I have not said that the bowl system is a one-size-fits-all approach. I do not believe that there is any one-size-fits all approach to sports. Otherwise, you wouldn't have had Ali fighting Joe Frazier three times. But tell me how injuries don't affect a team's results? I never said anything about cutting a break to teams for injuries or bad days. If they have a lot of them, it will affect their record and the final result. You are completely making that up.


I don't advocate a single approach to all sports. I imagine you don't envision a 16-team, best-of-7 set for NCAA football.


That is a silly suggestion because the golden era of boxing was not one where it was on a tournament system, so clearly the decline in popularity has to do with something else. But feel free to prove to us all how quickly you leap from conjecture to unshakeable conviction.

Quite frankly since you are convinced that your bowl system is the superior means of crowning a champion PLEASE explain to the rest of us why everyone else ESPECIALLY DIVISION I SPORTS decides their champion on the field in team sports as opposed to polls.

You are nothing but a Big Ten Shill.

If Purdue won the either the the Men's or Women's NCAA basketball tournament you would be the first to shout it from the highest rooftop. Even if Purdue entered the tournament with 10 losses. (Deny this on this board please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Everyone on the Internet knows this. But because you choose to defend an outmoded non playoff championship system, you will not admit this. There goes your credibility.

There are a variety of reasons why boxing has declined over 40 years. Not the least of which is no known champion in all of the weight classes!!!!! Are you denying this???????????

This is not really relevant since you were the one who brought tennis and boxing into the discussion that involved team sports in an attempt to muddy the waters. In the end team sports decide their champions by 95% with a playoff. The only person I know who thinks that this is a bad idea is you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bluehenbillk]

You gotta love the stones on a guy that comes out of the blue to tell us why bowls are a better system than a playoff. I won't waste my time anymore with him, but here's the last thing on why bowls are a BAD idea. If a Big 10 team plays in the "NC game" this year their last regular season game will be 11/18 or 11/25. The "NC Game" isn't until 1/8!! That break is slightly longer than half of the regular season itself.

On a side note, how does a college football post/GPI post make the Other Sports board? See, the GPI censorship people just wanna sneak up on you.

[griz37]

Furthermore, there is this myth that there is uncertainty as to who is the better team ONLY in the bowls, as two teams can finish with the same record and only one wins the title. If you have a playoff system and an 12-0 team loses to a 11-1 team, you'll then have two teams with the same record at the end of the season, yet one is going to be declared the champion and one not. But we wouldn't find you decrying the unfairness, because your whole notion of unfairness seems to have little relation to overall merit.


That can happen in a tournament system. But what I am saying that results should be determined based on all results - regular season and postseason.


.

So what you are saying is that Florida's win in this years NCAA Basketball tourney is unfair because they weren't the best team during the regular season? What about '91 when Duke beat an undefeated UNLV in the semis? I haven't heard a single person ever claim UNLV should be the national champ that year, even though they were w/o a doubt the best team all through the season.
I would also argue that Auburn would feel a lot better about their season knowing they actually had a chance to win the title by playing USC or Oklahoma. Playing in the Sugar Bowl gave them no chance.

The fact remains that national championships should be won on the field. Not on the ballot of a coach or media member who is full bias.

[89Hen]

you made the alarmingly erroneous claim (based on some superficial math) that somehow the low-end bowl games were superior to the NIT. All I'm saying is that isn't true. Once I proved that you were incorrect
You say higher percentage, I say same rank. Just because bball has more teams like: Quinnipiac, Stetson, Utah Valley State, Centenary... included in their ranks doesn't mean the 34th percentile team in bball is better than the 50th percentile team in I-A football. : smh :

[89Hen]

How does the amount that ABC paid to televise the Rose Bowl change the point that, by the logic that tournaments bring revenue to sports, boxing would have to get more revenue if it went to a tournament system? Why wouldn't virtually all revenue-seeking sporting organization hold tournament formats, if tournaments are the one-size-fits-all revenue generator they are often purported to be? I can't see your point in attacking the analogy because you are yet to address this question or salvage the myth.
The amount that ABC paid argues your wild claim that they would lose revenue because you think ticket sales would drop. Instead of four BCS games we would have seven under my scenario. More games = more revenue. The TV contract alone would more than make up for any ticket sales (which I don't think would fall anyway).

The boxing is an asinine comparison because boxers at the top level usually take a couple of months between fights. It's logistically impossible to have a boxing tourney other than what NBC tried to pass off as reality TV. : smh :

[89Hen]

Not to beat a dead horse into the ground, but the point was not that the bowl system is fair all the time...just that neither is a playoff system.
That's not what I took away from it. I read it as defeating the notion of a playoff system.

[EKU05]

You say higher percentage, I say same rank. Just because bball has more teams like: Quinnipiac, Stetson, Utah Valley State, Centenary... included in their ranks doesn't mean the 34th percentile team in bball is better than the 50th percentile team in I-A football. : smh :

For the love of God, you were the one who first tried to use some numbers to show your point, and I showed you that upon examination similar numbers could be used to show the opposite. My point wans't REALLY that the NIT is better...my point was that you claiming that it isn't based on your quick little number scheme is absolutely outlandish...there wasn't any logic to it at all. If you don't want to get into that game, then don't try to act clever and use numbers to prove a non-point to begin with. Otherwise, stop whining. :bang:

[EKU05]

That's not what I took away from it. I read it as defeating the notion of a playoff system.

Then clearly you didn't read this...

"The better business model for [I-AA and other divisions] is probably to concentrate the attention from their seasons into one intense playoff, which brings in a couple games nationally televised (usually on cable) to the system."

For you to make the statement you just made would seem to mean one of two things..either you can't read (unlikely), or you just didn't read the article (more likely)...or at least not well enough to enter an opinion.

Also...

"For instance, we might have a set of rules under which the winner of the Big Ten is normally preferred to go to the Rose Bowl, but if an at-large team had a strongly superior record, that might trump the tradition in such a rare circumstance. But this does not constitute an argument against the bowl system, but rather, only an argument in favor of making bowl invitations rules more conference-neutral."

Would someone tell me why a "Big 10 Shill" would include that in his article? He made a SPECIFIC POINT to say that he believes the bowls should show less conference bias. Read it. It's right in the article. Clearly he has a favorite conference, but any of you who would try to fault him for supporting his school and it's league would be quite hypocritical. I think the above statement shows a more than fair attitude. Ryan likes the bowl system, but he doesn't like all of the conference biased aspects that have been drawn into it. You are accusing him of things that simply weren't said.

[EKU05]

"...Auburn probably wouldn't admit it, but they probably feel better about that season than they would have if they had been in Oklahoma's shoes and lost the next week.

Probably? According to whom? Who says they would have lost?"

Not that this proves anything, but this is true. My best friend is a HUGE Auburn fan, and when we were at a bar watching USC trounce Oklahoma he actually said to me that he was glad AU didn't have to face the trojans and got preserve their perfect season. I'm not saying everyone felt that way, and I'm not saying Auburn couldn't have won. I'm just saying that there is more than one way to look at things. For the record I DO AGREE that in that instance Auburn got screwed. As I've said many times, each and every possible system has very major flaws.

Also, to whoever listed the "other sports that could use the bowl system but don't"....


READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN. THE WHOLE POINT WAS THAT IT IS NOT ONE SIZE FITS ALL. HE LITERALLY SAYS THAT EACH SPORT SHOULD USE A SYSTEM THAT WORKS FOR IT, AND NOT JUST FOLLOW A ONE SIZE FITS ALL MOLD.

Perhaps I shouldn't assume that everyone on a college football board actually went/goes to college. You'd think someone who did could figure that out. I'm not trying to be mean here, but you're just putting words in people's mouths.

[griz37]

[QUOTE=EKU05]

READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN. THE WHOLE POINT WAS THAT IT IS NOT ONE SIZE FITS ALL. HE LITERALLY SAYS THAT EACH SPORT SHOULD USE A SYSTEM THAT WORKS FOR IT, AND NOT JUST FOLLOW A ONE SIZE FITS ALL MOLD.

QUOTE]

The BCS does not always work. If you actually think that Auburn being denied a shot at the championship is the system working then I feel bad for you. I can't imagine any athlete being happy that are playing to decide if they are #2, which is what their Sugar Bowl win vs. Virginia Tech was. Let's not even talk about the Miami-Nebraska Rose Bowl game a few years earlier.

[EKU05]

[QUOTE=EKU05]

READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN. THE WHOLE POINT WAS THAT IT IS NOT ONE SIZE FITS ALL. HE LITERALLY SAYS THAT EACH SPORT SHOULD USE A SYSTEM THAT WORKS FOR IT, AND NOT JUST FOLLOW A ONE SIZE FITS ALL MOLD.

QUOTE]

The BCS does not always work. If you actually think that Auburn being denied a shot at the championship is the system working then I feel bad for you. I can't imagine any athlete being happy that are playing to decide if they are #2, which is what their Sugar Bowl win vs. Virginia Tech was. Let's not even talk about the Miami-Nebraska Rose Bowl game a few years earlier.

Don't feel bad for me...I don't think that. That was not my opinion. I was relating a story about a friend of mine who is an Auburn fan. Can you read? Read what I said yet again. I said that many times that all systems have flaws. That is one of the major ones in the BCS. An example of one in a playoff is last year when Furman had already "proved it on the field" that they were better than App, but then in the playoffs (because of a bid involiving MONEY) had to go play at App and lost a close game that they may well have won at home. Is that fair that Furman had to do that when they had already clearly beaten App? Why is Furman's win over App less significant that App's win over Furman? The reason is because a playoff system puts more weight on certain games and does not weigh the system as a whole

Again, when you get scenerios like Auburn that does expose a flaw in the bowl system. On the other hand...last year it worked out perfectly and there was no dispute at all.

NO ONE AT ANY POINT EVER SAID THAT THERE WERE NOT FLAWS IN THE BOWL SYSTEM. FIND ME ONE QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE OR FROM THIS THREAD THAT CLAIMS THAT THE BOWL SYSTEM IS FLAWLESS. (By the way, you quoted me, but then your response was to a completely different part of the thread...the quote option is meant to respond to specific phrases. Do you understand that? If not then I feel bad for you.)

Seriously, surely you guys are competent enough to be able to find one place where we said that the bowl system is perfect to support yourselves. You keep telling us that's what we said. Now prove it, or be men and apologize for putting words in people's mouths.

[89Hen]

My point wans't REALLY that the NIT is better...my point was that you claiming that it isn't based on your quick little number scheme is absolutely outlandish...there wasn't any logic to it at all.
"the NIT is a significantly higher level of competition than the lowest bowls" - EKU05

Most of the teams in the NIT are ranked well below the teams in the N.O. Bowl. The logic comes in when you try to include teams like I mentioned (Quinipac, etc...) to bolster the numbers of DI bball. If you like, I can include DI football where there are 230ish teams. xcoffeex

[89Hen]

Then clearly you didn't read this...

"The better business model for [I-AA and other divisions] is probably to concentrate the attention from their seasons into one intense playoff, which brings in a couple games nationally televised (usually on cable) to the system."

For you to make the statement you just made would seem to mean one of two things..either you can't read (unlikely), or you just didn't read the article (more likely)...or at least not well enough to enter an opinion.
xcoffeex

"Most of the naivete, though, is on the sides of those calling for a playoff system. Many demonstrably wrong arguments are made in favor of a playoff system, and playoff proponents do themselves no good to misunderstand the nature of their arguments. Here my hope is not to totally debunk the notion that a postseason tournament in NCAA football would have merits"

You were saying EKU? You should check that attitude at the door too. :nono:

[EKU05]

Right from the quote you just posted...

"Here my hope is not to totally debunk the notion that a postseason tournament in NCAA football would have merits"

Seems you didn't highlight quite enough words there my man. That sentence there (that you just quoted) cleary shows that he was not trying to say that a bowl system is the only vialble option. Just one of them, and the one that he tends to favor. If you need me to define any words in that quote that YOU posted I'd be happy to. None of those lines you took the time to highlight actually suggest in any way that a playoff system doesn't ahve merits (in fact he states that it does). They simply say that many of those defending the playoffs do so naivly.

Can you read that? Seriously, can you? I'll check my attitude when you post something that doesn't literally say the opposite of what you thought it did. I'm still waiting.

I'm not the one putting words in people's mouths, which is a pretty sorry thing to do. My hope is that it was all unintentional. Just please try to avoid that as best you can...that's all I ask.

And by the way, 230 teams is STILL less that 334. So the numbers would technically still work in my favor, albeit less drastically. But again, I was only trying to make that point to show you that numbers can be bent in all sorts of directions as you tried to first. In total honesty, there really isn't a way to prove if the NIT is better than the NO bowl. You could very well be correct here. So could I. There is no way to tell, and really that isn't relevant to the discussion anyway. You do make a somewhat valid point that there are more patsies in basketball than football. I will most certainly grant you that. I was being somewhat sarcastic in response to your original numbers. Perhaps that didn't convey very well...my apologies if it didn't.

[89Hen]

That sentence there (that you just quoted) cleary shows that he was not trying to say that a bowl system is the only vialble option. Just one of them, and the one that he tends to favor. If you need me to define any words in that quote that YOU posted I'd be happy to. None of those lines you took the time to highlight actually suggest in any way that a playoff system doesn't ahve merits (in fact he states that it does). They simply say that many of those defending the playoffs do so naivly.

Can you read that? Seriously, can you? I'll check my attitude when you post something that doesn't literally say the opposite of what you thought it did. I'm still waiting.

I'm not the one putting words in people's mouths, which is a pretty sorry thing to do. My hope is that it was all unintentional. Just please try to avoid that as best you can...that's all I ask.
How can one put words in people's mouths when you cut and paste their own words? He favors a bowl system, he said it, you said it. The whole article is anti-playoffs. His quote of "Here my hope is not to totally debunk the notion that a postseason tournament in NCAA football would have merits." is of little substance given the preceding sentences. It would be like me saying...

But most of the naivete, is on the sides of those calling EKU05 a good poster. Many demonstrably wrong arguments are made in favor of EKU05, and EKU05 proponents do themselves no good to misunderstand the nature of their arguments. Here my hope is not to totally debunk the notion that EKU05 has merits, but I do hope to do apply the brakes to several of the fallacies that suggest that EKU05 is a see-all/know-all to AGS posters... and then go on to list 9 "myths" about why you're a good guy.

Does that make you warm and fuzzy? :confused: : smh :

And the personal attacks do not bolster your arguement IMO.

[EKU05]

The point of the article is to show all of those high and mighty people who say that a playoff systems is the THE ONLY option that such a system has pleny of flaws of its own. Of course it would then come of anti-playoffs in spots. If you are campaigning for office you wouldn't exactly want to do a commercial endorsinng your opponent. His article is in favor of the bowl system and he does compare it to what most opponents of the bowl system would use as an alternative. Yes, we didn't need to overstate the obvious. But the sentence that you quoted (which is the funniest part of the whole thing) plainly states his intention. That intention was to show flaws in the playoff system as well so that people would stop acting like it was the perfect solution. Period.

(For the record, let's remember that I myself actually prefer a playoff system and still agree with basically every word of that entire article).

As for your attempt at creativity...none of that changes the fact that you read a paragraph and actually thought it meant the opposite of what it says in plain English (or tried to make it that way by randomly adding a few bold words of your own...equally sketchy). But it was a solid attempt at turning the attention of the thread away from the fact that I challenged you all to find a single place where Renn says that a bowl system is the only system with any merit...and you still haven't done it. I'm still waiting.

[bluehenbillk]

No one has said that people can argue about flaws in a playoff system, however, the smaller the field, the more value the regular season holds & it eliminates the "wild upset" factor.

The bowl system though on the other hand has countless more flaws than a playoff system. I simply can't support a system that many many many times cheats us from being able to watch matchups that never happen.

I'd rather get beat by a run or a pass than a pollster or a computer.

[89Hen]

The point of the article is to show all of those high and mighty people...

But it was a solid attempt at turning the attention of the thread away from the fact that I challenged you all to find a single place where Renn says that a bowl system is the only system with any merit...and you still haven't done it. I'm still waiting.
What makes somebody who is in favor of a playoff system "high and mighty"?? :confused: Ususall "high and mighty" people use words like "naivete" and call other people's theories "demonstrably wrong". :nod:

Where did I say that Renn was trying to say that the bowl system was the only one with merit? I said the whole article was written to discredit the playoff system and IMO failed to do so. You keep skipping the fact that I see that one sentence where he says "Here my hope is not to totally debunk the notion that a postseason tournament in NCAA football would have merits" but that I think that statement is a drop of water in an ocean of tirade against a playoff scenario.

[EKU05]

He's not calling the playoffs themselves demostrably wrong...he's calling some of the "myths" that people use to defend them that...and that's what his article attacks...THE MYTHS. He's attacking people who think that the playoffs are the only reasonable option...not those who simply prefer them. There is quite a difference there. Renn even suggests his own willingness to make changes to the bowl system to make it more fair. He clearly isn't against that either. He makes a good point that some of the suggested changes are short sighted (like Kirk Herbsreit's (sp?) constant suggestion of the "plus one" system...that's idiotic).

Let me lay it out for you...

Liking the playoff system better because you prefer it = fine (I, myself, fall into this category)


Thinking that anything other than a playoff system is automatically wrong = very closed minded

Even Ryan admitted that he thinks a playoff system is likely the better model for a level like I-AA. He sees that there are good aspects to a playoff system. What makes you high and mighty is your constant attitude that anyone who would favor the bowl system is wrong. At least, that's what I gathered from your overall attitude. If that isn't correct then I offer nothing but my most sincere apologies. To put it another way...in the two categories of people I submitted above...ONLY the second category is someone that I would consider high and mighty.

In no way would I call someone who simply likes the playoff system better "high and mighty" because, again,,,


I LIKE THE PLAYOFF SYSTEM BETTER. I JUST DON'T SEE IT AS THE ONLY REASONABLE OPTION.

Go back to my first post of the thread and I'm saying exactly the same thing.

[EKU05]

Here's one other thought that I'm sure Mr. Renn would agree with....

If a given person is okay with crowning a definite champion even though the season as a whole might show that definite champion to not have been the overall top performing team...then a playoff system would certainly be fine.

Ryan is simply saying that he doesn't think there is any reasonable way to prove a definite best team in less than 15 games. Therefore, he prefers a less definite system so that the accomplishments of all teams can be seen for what they are as opposed to simply champion or not champion.

I hope that makes a little more sense.

[89Hen]

What makes you high and mighty is your constant attitude that anyone who would favor the bowl system is wrong. At least, that's what I gathered from your overall attitude. If that isn't correct then I offer nothing but my most sincere apologies.
Apology accepted. I've pretty much only expressed opinion on this one article by this one author that I think failed to make his case in disproving these "myths".

[89Hen]

he prefers a less definite system so that the accomplishments of all teams can be seen for what they are as opposed to simply champion or not champion.

I hope that makes a little more sense.
Not really, but thanks for trying. :p

[EKU05]

What I mean is this...take last year in I-AA


App was hot at the end of the year and clearly playing the best football at that time. However, with all of the seasons games taken as a whole I don't think there is anyway that you could argue App State to have been the top overall performer in I-AA for the entire season.

Now, I-AA uses the playoff system to determine a champion, and App won that fair and square. I'm not disputing that they are the champions...I'm just saying that under our system it's not always the overall best team that wins...just the hottest (which often can be one in the same...but last year it was not. The Year WKU won it was not. The year that Delaware won...well actually that year I really do think the best team won.)

Can you at least admit that it was really unfair to Furman last season the way things happened? I think it was. Auburn got screwed under the bowl system, Furman got screwed in a playoff. It can work and not work both ways. For example, I think you can dispute that App was the overall best team last year...but in this one random year the bowl system worked. I think there is virtually no way to dispute Texas's title last year.

[GannonFan]

What I mean is this...take last year in I-AA


App was hot at the end of the year and clearly playing the best football at that time. However, with all of the seasons games taken as a whole I don't think there is anyway that you could argue App State to have been the top overall performer in I-AA for the entire season.

Now, I-AA uses the playoff system to determine a champion, and App won that fair and square. I'm not disputing that they are the champions...I'm just saying that under our system it's not always the overall best team that wins...just the hottest (which often can be one in the same...but last year it was not. The Year WKU won it was not. The year that Delaware won...well actually that year I really do think the best team won.)

Can you at least admit that it was really unfair to Furman last season the way things happened? I think it was.

See, that's the one failing of the bowl system that I've not heard a single argument to refute - last year Appy St was certainly one of the top overall performers in I-AA for the entire season - what hid that was the record, which if you delved further was the result of losing one IAA game, on the road, by 3 points, to another top IAA team (Furman) and losing two games on the road against IA competition, one of which was against LSU, who happened to be one of the best IA teams last year. If you just looked at regular season records without looking at the underlying reasons, you wouldn't include Appy St as a top IAA team. But looking at the reasons behind the schedule, you would have to include them. And they were certainly included as Appy St was the #2 seed in the playoffs - hardly the mark of a team not being included at the top of IAA.

My knock on bowl games and the like is that they purportedly put all this emphasis on the regular season, but then fail to realize that most teams do not play similar schedules and that there is an extreme paucity of inter-conference games that can give you any semblance of comparative strengths between conferences. And again, many teams schedules come down to a small handful of truly competitive games - when you play so few games that you can actually lose, how does that make the regular season important? Renn may argue that you can't determine a true national champion in less than 15 games, and I agree - I just think you would need a whole lot more games than that to properly do it. The real boon of the playoffs is that you can get around the extreme disparity and isolation (few interconference games of comparable teams) of the regular season and put teams on an even playing field (i.e. the same field) and see who wins. The regular season still plays a part in this as it helps with homefield advantage, but the regular season doesn't arbitrarily decide who will win, which is the effect of having the current setup where the championship comes down to a one game playoff.

[EKU05]

I saw Appy State play in person last year. They beat my Colonels, but didn't look good at all doing it. They need 4 unforced EKU fumbles including one that was about a 90 yard return to win by the score of 24-16. EKU was a decent team, but not one that the best team in the country should have needed that much blind luck in beating. App was a good team all year long. I don't think they were the best team all year long. At the end of the season they certainly were.

[89Hen]

However, with all of the seasons games taken as a whole I don't think there is anyway that you could argue App State to have been the top overall performer in I-AA for the entire season.
:confused: They beat the #6, 7 and 9 GPI team en route to the title. Did anyone else beat three top 10 teams last year?

[GannonFan]

I saw Appy State play in person last year. They beat my Colonels, but didn't look good at all doing it. They need 4 unforced EKU fumbles including one that was about a 90 yard return to win by the score of 24-16. EKU was a decent team, but not one that the best team in the country should have needed that much blind luck in beating. App was a good team all year long. I don't think they were the best team all year long. At the end of the season they certainly were.

And that's why the playoffs work - that way, you don't look at the result (which was a win on the road btw) of the very first game of the year where a team like Appy St didn't win by a large enough margin over what was a decent team. There's going to be weeks for any team in any year where they don't look good. Heck, UD found a way to lose to an unassuming Northeastern team back in 2003 - someone watching that game would've thought that UD was a fraud. But the playoffs work in that they use the regular season but still rightly recognize that no two regular seasons are entirely alike and therefore extremely difficult to make hard and fast decisions off of.

[89Hen]

Can you at least admit that it was really unfair to Furman last season the way things happened? I think it was. Auburn got screwed under the bowl system, Furman got screwed in a playoff.
What happened to Furman? You mean beating AppSt once and losing the second time? :confused:

[89Hen]

Heck, UD found a way to lose to an unassuming Northeastern team back in 2003 - someone watching that game would've thought that UD was a fraud.
Not only that, but Delaware wouldn't have even been in a BCS type NC game that year. They were #3 in both polls (McNeese and Wofford were 1-2) and #3 GPI (SIU and UNI were 1-2). Yet there is no way anyone would dispute the perfomance UD put on that year in the playoffs.

[GannonFan]

What happened to Furman? You mean beating AppSt once and losing the second time? :confused:

I didn't even see that line - what was unfair to Furman? They finished second in the conference to Appalachian St. Heck, you (EKU05) bring up SoCon champion Appy's St unimpressive 8 point win on the road against EKU and you think the real unfair thing was what happened to SoCon runner-up Furman without mentioning they too had an unimpressive, 3 pt road win against another OVC team? Comments like that aren't helping your case any. : smh :

[EKU05]

See, that's the one failing of the bowl system that I've not heard a single argument to refute - last year Appy St was certainly one of the top overall performers in I-AA for the entire season - what hid that was the record, which if you delved further was the result of losing one IAA game, on the road, by 3 points, to another top IAA team (Furman) and losing two games on the road against IA competition, one of which was against LSU, who happened to be one of the best IA teams last year. If you just looked at regular season records without looking at the underlying reasons, you wouldn't include Appy St as a top IAA team. But looking at the reasons behind the schedule, you would have to include them. And they were certainly included as Appy St was the #2 seed in the playoffs - hardly the mark of a team not being included at the top of IAA.

My knock on bowl games and the like is that they purportedly put all this emphasis on the regular season, but then fail to realize that most teams do not play similar schedules and that there is an extreme paucity of inter-conference games that can give you any semblance of comparative strengths between conferences. And again, many teams schedules come down to a small handful of truly competitive games - when you play so few games that you can actually lose, how does that make the regular season important? Renn may argue that you can't determine a true national champion in less than 15 games, and I agree - I just think you would need a whole lot more games than that to properly do it. The real boon of the playoffs is that you can get around the extreme disparity and isolation (few interconference games of comparable teams) of the regular season and put teams on an even playing field (i.e. the same field) and see who wins. The regular season still plays a part in this as it helps with homefield advantage, but the regular season doesn't arbitrarily decide who will win, which is the effect of having the current setup where the championship comes down to a one game playoff.

That's why I do like the playoffs. I would argue though that computer rankings are better than you might give them credit for, though. They take into account complexities that a human never could...and without the bias that people will always have (at least that is possible if you do the formula right...it would certainly be reasonable to argue to change the formula). In this way you can glean more from a regular season that you otherwise could (I realize you didn't say anything specifically about computer rankings...I'm just responding to your somewhat valid complaint that there are not enough non-conference games.)

By the end of a college football season a computer ranking system is able to make some kind of link between almost every team. Now, there can still be some conference bias is a formula for sure...and if there is then THAT is what truly needs to be eliminated. People have a general distrust of computers...but I think that they are usually more trustworthy than voters. Additionally...conference bias is a serious problem in I-AA as well...but that's a totally separate argument.

By the way...more often than not homefield advantage in the I-AA playoffs is decided by which school offers a better financial bid for the game. I think that needs to be changed. All 16 teams should be seeded in a truly fair playoff.

Also, LSU was NOT one of the two best I-A teams last year IMO. I think last year was pretty clearly Texas and USC. LSU was the best team two years ago.

In the end...even if App was the best team last year...you can still see the potential for a team that isn't to win a playoff. Look at Western Kentucky in 2002 and try to tell that was the best team all season. In the regular season they were pretty clearly not even the best team in the Gateway...and the team that they beat for the national title (McNeese State) gave them a pretty good pounding in the regular season as well. That's probably a better example.

[GannonFan]

That's why I do like the playoffs. I would argue though that computer rankings are better than you might give them credit for. They take into account complexities that a human never could...and without the bias that people will always have (at least that is possible if you do the formula right...it would certainly be reasonable to argue to change the formula). In this way you can glean more from a regular season that you otherwise could (I realize you didn't say anything specifically about computer rankings...I'm just responding to your somewhat valid complaint that there are not enough non-conference games.)

By the end of a college football season a computer ranking system is able to make some kind of link between almost every team. Now, there can still be some conference bias is a formula for sure...and if there is then THAT is what truly needs to be eliminated. People have a general distrust of computers...but I think that they are usually more trustworthy than voters. Additionally...conference bias is a serious problem in I-AA as well...but that's a totally separate argument.

By the way...more often than not homefield advantage in the I-AA playoffs is decided by which school offers a better financial bid for the game. I think that needs to be changed. All 16 teams should be seeded in a truly fair playoff.

Also, LSU was NOT one of the two best I-A teams last year IMO. I think last year was pretty clearly Texas and USC. LSU was the best team two years ago.

In the end...even if App was the best team last year...you can still see the potential for a team that isn't to win a playoff. Look at Western Kentucky in 2002 and try to tell that was the best team all season. In the regular season they were pretty clearly not even the best team in the Gateway...and the team that they beat for the national title (McNeese State) gave them a pretty good pounding in the regular season as well. That's probably a better example.

I never said LSU was one of the two best teams last year - I said they were one of the best, and that was true last year (fluke loss to Tennessee in the regular season, and one more loss in the SEC title game).

As for computers, I think they can be better, but there's no guarantee of that. USC still got locked out of the title game in 2003 despite being the #1 team in both polls and to many observers they were the best team that year. However, a lot of computers that made up the BCS didn't see it that way. Computers can't take into effect injuries during a year (say Team A and Team B both play Team C - but A plays them before B and C's star player is hurt and misses the game against B - the computer still has them playing the same teams but it can't take into account who was playing). How about rivalry games where two teams play close although one is a pretty bad team outside of the rivalry game? And how do you account for results where one team just happens to be bad against a certain offense (say an option) and the resulting score is a win but closer than what you would expect? Like I said, I don't think you can ever take the regular season of all 120 IA teams and definitely say, based on that regular season, who is the national champ - there's no way to exactly take into all the nuances of a very, very small sampling of games. I see the playoffs as a way to rectify that - I still don't think playoffs completely do that, no one would argue that anyway, but it's still leaps and bounds better and more effective at doing that than the current bowl system does.

[EKU05]

My bad, I misread the part about LSU.

[EKU05]

I never said LSU was one of the two best teams last year - I said they were one of the best, and that was true last year (fluke loss to Tennessee in the regular season, and one more loss in the SEC title game).

As for computers, I think they can be better, but there's no guarantee of that. USC still got locked out of the title game in 2003 despite being the #1 team in both polls and to many observers they were the best team that year. However, a lot of computers that made up the BCS didn't see it that way. Computers can't take into effect injuries during a year (say Team A and Team B both play Team C - but A plays them before B and C's star player is hurt and misses the game against B - the computer still has them playing the same teams but it can't take into account who was playing). How about rivalry games where two teams play close although one is a pretty bad team outside of the rivalry game? And how do you account for results where one team just happens to be bad against a certain offense (say an option) and the resulting score is a win but closer than what you would expect? Like I said, I don't think you can ever take the regular season of all 120 IA teams and definitely say, based on that regular season, who is the national champ - there's no way to exactly take into all the nuances of a very, very small sampling of games. I see the playoffs as a way to rectify that - I still don't think playoffs completely do that, no one would argue that anyway, but it's still leaps and bounds better and more effective at doing that than the current bowl system does.

Now THAT is a reasonable attitude about it...and the reason that I have supported the playoffs all along actually. I agree nearly 100% with what you just said..except for one thing.

While you are reasonable enough to realize that no system can guarantee that the best team wins, there are a lot of morons out there that think that a playoff gives you such a result. Trust me, I've met plenty of people that have tried to argue that (and I'm not referring to anything in this thread by saying that).

[bluehenbillk]

Not only that, but Delaware wouldn't have even been in a BCS type NC game that year. They were #3 in both polls (McNeese and Wofford were 1-2) and #3 GPI (SIU and UNI were 1-2). Yet there is no way anyone would dispute the perfomance UD put on that year in the playoffs.


Bingo!! Case closed. UD wouldn't have made the "title" game under the absurd _ _ _ format 1-A currently uses. I look forward to the conversation I'll have one day with my grandson as to explaining why college football used to NOT determine a champion on the field.