AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
The playoff committee is getting it right
- Thread starter Duff Man
- Start date
From that standpoint, 32 is the right number for basketball. But the first round is the best of the Dance.
I think 12 is the right number for football with full expansion of this, but there's more money in 16 if you're playing games that week anyway. There's a big market for games involving the Top 4 teams.
4 team playoff = 3 games (2+1)
8 team playoff = 7 games (4+2+1)
12 team playoff = 11 games (4+4+2+1)
16 team playoff = 15 games (8+4+2+1)
They'll play as many as they can while keeping the sport in 1 semester to finish before the start of the spring. New Year's Day championship game, if possible.
wouldn't even bitch about 16, let the champ earn it.
Expansion is inevitable because as you said, $$. I believe it will ultimately be a to drive towards 32, which is essentially the top 25 and "others receiving votes". But it is going to take a long, long time to get there.
I started to write a long post about having four automatic bids with first round byes and then eight others competing to play those four, but I realized it is just your 12 team playoff. duh. It sounds pretty good.
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
If you take the conference champions plus three, you realistically are at 12 to 16. The CCGs are in reality the first round of the playoffs.
I would bitch, cry, yell, piss, moan, wail and gnash teeth.
In my mind, that championship would be even more "mythical" than the champ determined by the BCS system. Being a "national champion" in college football used to mean that you had the best season. With a 16 team playoff, the 5th place team from the SEC gets in with three losses, and assuming they got hot at season's end, walk away with the MNC.
And I think it's a likely scenario: consider who's in the top 16 right now-- your system would be allowing three different 3-loss teams in. If 3-loss UCLA got hot during those final 4 games (playoffs), would you honestly feel good crowning them national champs ("hey, they only needed TWO overtimes to beat CU")? What about an Ohio State team who lost at home to Virginia Tech ("hey, they're playing much better ball now...")?
I know there are people who feel that the title of "national champion" doesn't have to go to either the best team or the team with the best season, rather are satisfied with a system that crowns a good team that got hot at season's end. Single-elimination, short-series playoffs can be exciting. Single-elimination, short-series playoffs can produce some very good games. Single-elimination, short-series playoffs do a very poor job of selecting the best team, and do a horrible job of selecting the team with the best season, IMO. But, fucjk it, at least we KNOW who is the national champion.
Nailed it.
What you describe IS the nature of organized sports. Should we crown the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. champion based upon regular season records only? Were the Ravens not worthy of their SB win a couple of years ago because they were wildcards? I do not understand what makes CFB so unique that a playoff might not crown the true champion :huh:
Yeah. It's not like I feel the Dance (or the regular season) is diminished because all the #1 seeds don't make the Final Four.
The Raven's were worthy of their SuperBowl -- the won the single-elimination, short-series playoffs that the NFL has determined they will use to crown their champions. They weren't the team with the best season (my opinion, IIRC, the Packers, Pats and Broncos were better teams with better seasons).
The NHL and NBA playoffs are far more legit than the college or NFL playoffs, IMO, because they use longer series in each round, although it's still single elimination. MLB I give slightly less credit to (a 7 game series is still damn short in context of a 162 game season) and again, I don't feel they consistently selects the team with the best season.
I love the Dance too. I think it's an awesome sporting event. I watch as much of it as I can every year. And, I don't believe it consistently selects the best team as it's champion (nor the team with the best season).
I guess it all comes to, why do you want a playoff? Is it because you want more games? is it because every other sport seems to have one so college football should too? is it because we need an unambiguous system, that even if it's not the best team, at least gives a consensus champ? IMO, none of those reasons are compelling enough to go towards a system that historically has done a poor job of selecting the team with the best season.
On another note, I think the Chase has about killed NASCAR by pushing a playoff system on a sport that didn't need it -- probably not an indicator for college football, but a warning sign nevertheless.
Sounds like you are a very frustrated sports fan.
well, my two favorite teams in my two favorite sports are VT and CU.
That's what I was thinking. Until I got to the end of his post and he stopped talking about sports and started talking about NASCAR.
P.S. College football has never rewarded the best season by choosing a champion. It's always subjective. I don't like subjective. Playoffs make you win the title on the field.
End of it the best team will be left standing, how is that a bad thing? Depending on the body of work, I don't see a 3 loss sec team snubbing a 1 or 2 loss power 5 team.
the playoffs should start this week. 16 teams. 2 from each of the P5 Conferences play each other (10) and serves a conference championship game also; plus 6 at large teams go head to head this week. Big12 would need to tweek their scheduling since this week is not a conference championship week. Provides a path for at-large teams (with 16 total) and doesn't extend the season past New Years.
And the nature of college athletics is that players gain experience and improve as the year goes on. I think being hot at the end of the year could be a great element of college football.
I always look back at 2001 when we lost to Fresno St in the first game. No way we'd lose to them later on, and it singlehandedly left us out of the National Championship game.
Last edited:
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
This times 1000. Hated polls from coaches who don't give a **** (like how Tommy Hide-A-Handgun ****ed over CU in 91) having a say. You want to win it all? Then be good enough to make the playoffs and then do what you have to do for the two or three games it takes to win it all.
I've never been that heartbroken about missing out on that Rose Bowl. We would have gotten steamrolled.
There have been 6 wild card teams that have won the Super Bowl. I have never once heard anyway say that was unfair or they were undeserving. Only talk about how amazing it is that they went on such a run and proved they were the champions of that season.
Eight would be a farce to me.
Go to eight and you are slipping in 3 loss teams. One of the things that is magical about college football is that every game counts. College BB has a great pleyoffs but the regular season is a mere formality to determine seating for all the teams that actually have a chance to win it.
Even then it is less about who was best all year and instead about which of the top teams gets hot at the end and wins 6 in a row.
When we had two teams numbers three and four whined, now that it is 4 the whining comes from 5 and 6. Go to eight and 9 and 10 complain. There is no system that will make everyone happy but the bigger it gets the less of an indication it is of the best team over the entire year.
The current system has it's weaknesses. Is an undefeated team in a weaker conference more deserving than a one loss team in a tougher conference? How about a team that doesn't win it's conference? People argue about Baylor/TCU but each of those played a weak OOC schedule (TCU at least played a decent Minnesota team) and the B12 schedule includes Kansas and Iowas State which are byes for any decent team.
I'm not a huge fan of even four but at least with four the teams should have no more than one loss and that loss to a decent team. It does also generate a lot of attention and discussion and means that a team has to beat at least one solid team from another conference to win it all (assuming two teams max from one conference.)
Go to eight and you are slipping in 3 loss teams. One of the things that is magical about college football is that every game counts. College BB has a great pleyoffs but the regular season is a mere formality to determine seating for all the teams that actually have a chance to win it.
Even then it is less about who was best all year and instead about which of the top teams gets hot at the end and wins 6 in a row.
When we had two teams numbers three and four whined, now that it is 4 the whining comes from 5 and 6. Go to eight and 9 and 10 complain. There is no system that will make everyone happy but the bigger it gets the less of an indication it is of the best team over the entire year.
The current system has it's weaknesses. Is an undefeated team in a weaker conference more deserving than a one loss team in a tougher conference? How about a team that doesn't win it's conference? People argue about Baylor/TCU but each of those played a weak OOC schedule (TCU at least played a decent Minnesota team) and the B12 schedule includes Kansas and Iowas State which are byes for any decent team.
I'm not a huge fan of even four but at least with four the teams should have no more than one loss and that loss to a decent team. It does also generate a lot of attention and discussion and means that a team has to beat at least one solid team from another conference to win it all (assuming two teams max from one conference.)
somebody
Well-Known Member
2 AQs from each conference makes the CCG kind of moot, right? Not a good idea.
I think 8 is the right number personally.
bless everyone for having different opinions. we're all fucjking right.
80: CFB should have a playoff b/c every other sport does
Nik #1: the Dance is awesome, so CFB playoffs should be awesome too
Nik #1.5: besides, he mentioned NASCAR
Nik #2: I just can't stand subjectivity, we must have a deterministic objective system!
Timmy: screw giving the MNC to the best season, I think it should go to the team hottest at season end because improvement over the course of a season is part of the college game.
Nik, Luke, 80, etc..: playoffs make you win it on the field
one of the biggest reasons I hate the playoffs is that it takes the emphasis off of conference championships and puts it on the playoffs. no longer is the success of a team's season primarily dependent on how the school performs in conference against other schools with comparable academic standards, recruiting budgets and territories, stadium sizes, etc... With the playoffs, the emphasis shifts to "how deep in the bracket did the team go against schools from conferences that may not be playing by the same rules".
80: CFB should have a playoff b/c every other sport does
I just don't find that compelling, but understand the comfort of familiarityNik #1: the Dance is awesome, so CFB playoffs should be awesome too
I'm sure the games will be awesome, and once every 4 or 5 years, we might crown the best team as champ. and once every 10 years or so, we might crown the team with the best entire season champ. fair trade?Nik #1.5: besides, he mentioned NASCAR
ok, my bad. that didn't help my case
Nik #2: I just can't stand subjectivity, we must have a deterministic objective system!
Subjectivity and ambiguity here doesn't bother me a bit. I actually believe that the years of split MNC's contributed hugely to the popularity of the sport. I remember passionate arguments continuing into May over Miami vs Washington in 1991 (in Blacksburg, no less) -- nobody is talking about the NCAA tourney champion after tax day. If three schools want to make T-shirts and rings calling themselves National Champs, go for it. If TCU wants to give themselves rings and banners for that obscure poll that had them finish at #1 a few years ago, doesn't bother meTimmy: screw giving the MNC to the best season, I think it should go to the team hottest at season end because improvement over the course of a season is part of the college game.
this is the most compelling argument I've ever heard to risk destroying the sport we love. I still believe that a playoff will diminish the sport, but you have me considering there may some small merit to this approach.Nik, Luke, 80, etc..: playoffs make you win it on the field
and the old system where a perfect or near-perfect season was required to finish #1 in the polls didn't?one of the biggest reasons I hate the playoffs is that it takes the emphasis off of conference championships and puts it on the playoffs. no longer is the success of a team's season primarily dependent on how the school performs in conference against other schools with comparable academic standards, recruiting budgets and territories, stadium sizes, etc... With the playoffs, the emphasis shifts to "how deep in the bracket did the team go against schools from conferences that may not be playing by the same rules".
hokie, you absolutely cannot bring that argument to a CU board. Look back at the 2001 season.
Opened the season by losing to the David Carr Fresno State team which also took down ranked Oregon State and Wisconsin squads & finished #20 that year. (22-24 score)
Took a 2nd loss at #9 Texas by a score of 7-41.
Along the way, beat #24 CSU, @ #12 KSU, #25 Texas A&M... and then destroyed #2 Nebraska by 62-36.
In the Big 12 Championship game, CU avenged the loss to Texas (now #3 ranked) in a close 39-37 win.
CU finished 10-2.
Nebraska got to play for the national championship.
And promptly got destroyed. I was pissed at the time, and it's the biggest reason why I think anyone who can't win their division is automatically disqualified from a national title discussion, but in retrospect, I'm not all that bummed we missed the chance to get spanked on national tv.
Oh, I don't think for a second that anyone was beating Miami that year. I'm just making the point that the "conference champion" thing wasn't followed in the old system. There were also inconsistencies on other criteria. iirc, Notre Dame had one year when it beat FSU head-to-head but dropped a different game later to see FSU play for the title while the Irish were left home. A different year (vs FSU or Miami, can't remember which), it played out the opposite way and the Irish were the team left home. The old system sucked. Hell, a lot of years the teams considered to be the two best didn't even get to play due to bowl tie-ins. There was also the year that an undefeated Penn State was jumped in the polls by Nebraska because PSU decided not to roll the score up on Indiana and they lost style points.
1. 'Nik, you're making my point for me. I don't have time at the moment, but I suspect that if I were to mine all the posts on Allbuffs for reference to the 2001 season, I would find far more references to "NU got to play for the MNC and why wasn't it us", than I will see for posts with references celebrating the fond memories of the conference championship. By 2001, we were 9 years into the playoff pre-cursor that was the BSA/BCS; the erosion of emphasis on conference championships well underway.
2. In context of a discussion on the merits of playoffs, presenting this example is a false dichotomy: The 2001 example you present assumes that in lieu of playoffs our only option is to revert back to a quasi-playoff/BCS type system, but ignores the possibility of reverting back to the pre-1992 system. If we still had that sort of "pure conference/bowl tie in" back in 2001, CU would've won the Big XII and gone to the Cotton Bowl (or whatever bowl would've had the tie-in to the XII champ), playing [STRIKE]the SWC[/STRIKE] some other conference champion, and NU would've gone to a lesser bowl as an "at-large". There would've been no angst around NU playing for the MNC and Buff fans would've ended the season as happy conference champions. Besides, I can't help but note that under today's playoff system, the 2001 Buffs team would've likely been left out (OTOH, so would've NU).
You were doing better with "I just can't stand subjectivity". :nod: