Your Postseason Is Bad and You Shoud Feel Bad
Ever since the various conference commissioners had a fifteen-minute daliance with the idea of a sensible postseason, the football blogosphere has spit out any number of reasons why the current ad hoc system is awesome and the introduction of rationality into the system would ruin everything. And they're pretty much the same arguments that have been for years, which I'm tired of reading (and writing) about, so for the most part I've ignored it. But one post caught my eye, since it made the mistake of focusing on 2006, the season I spent so much time debating the merits of playoffs in:
[...]
That means your seeds from the 2006 season would be:
#1 Seed Ohio State as Big 10 Champ
#2 Seed UF as SEC Champ
#3 Seed USC as Pac 10 Champ
#4 Seed Louisville as Big East Champ
#5 Seed Oklahoma as Big 12 Champ
#6 Seed Boise State as top non-BCS team
#7 Seed Notre Dame by virtue of finishing in Top 10 poll
#8 Seed Wake Forest as ACC Champ
Look at who doesn't make the playoffs in that scenario. Michigan (#3), LSU (#4) and Wisconsin (#7) are left out of that bracket. That's a better system than what we have now? One that excludes better teams who are fully capable of winning from participating?
Actually, I'm perfectly OK with eaving those teams out. In fact, I developed an extensive alternate universe with just that scenario. Man up, win your conference championship, or you don't get to play. Basketball ran with that for thirty years. I'm absolutely fine with that. And here's the thing:
So are you. Really. You're completely cool with tossing Michigan to the wolves, for two reasons:
Michigan was excluded from the championship. Before they took the field in Pasedena, they were already eliminated. God could have descended from the heavens and smited Glendale as a modern day Sodom killing every member of the Gators and Buckeyes, and the championship wouldhave been issued to them in memoriam. Michigan's 11-1 record wasn't good enough in real life, why is it such a sin that they're denied a playoff?
Michigan sucked. Remember? They took the field in Pasedena and were blown out by USC. They ended the season ranked 8th and 9th. Our hypothetical playoffs really dodged a bullet there.
Of course, so did the BCS. There was a month of incredibly dull bickering about whether Michigan or Florida should have been on the field in Glendale, a decision eventualy made by a bunch of non-athletes paid to, well, endlessly bicker about such things. And the pairing they did choose didn't really lead to the pinnacle of the sport. OSU came out of their ever-so-meaningful undefeated regular season and followed Michigan's lead, playing Wake Forest-level football. If only there was some other game after those two, where Florida and USC could have played. Maybe it would have been decided in a game without three-toucdown margins. But what kind of football fan would want to watch football, when they could be talking about it?
Oh, and while I'm at it, that whole problem of mission creep? Yeah, that's a concern. After all, it would be horrible for the postseason to expand to sixty-eight teams. That would just suck.
Face it, the bowl system is just like the NCAA basketball tournament. Except where there's one meaningless Tuesday game in March, there's thirty-three in December.
0 recs |
4
comments
Read Related
Comments
Not really sure why the ACC, Big 12 or SEC would
The Big 10, Big East and Pac 10 can all have two or even three conference champs. The leagues with title games can only have one champ.
Notre Dame isn't in a conference at all. They don't have to win a title to make the game. Why should anyone else?
In other words, why vote for a stipulation that could one day hurt and never benefit UNC?
If the SEC didn't have a title game, UGA and LSU would've both been named "Co-Champs" and both would've been eligible for the title game. With LSU coming off a season ending loss to Arkansas, there is no possible way they would've been in the title game discussion.
PWD
by paulwesterdawg on May 21, 2008 12:26 AM EDT 0 recs
When Will They Agree?
A lot of early preseason rankings have Georgia in the Top 5. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Georgia could start the season ranked say, 4th, go undefeated and stil be denied a national championship shot because Ohio State and Texas were ranked ahead of them and they went undefeated too. Or everybody has one loss, and Georgia's just came at the wrong time of the year. Why would you support a system that could one day hurt Georgia?
I like that a playoff would give every team at least a shot at the title, unlike the BCS that has left more than one undefeated team out in the cold. I think that there will be better football in December and not merely one game held an absurd time after the season ends and almost invariably dissappoints. And I'll continue to think that no matter how it effects UNC. After all, a bowl system in basketball would be incredibly beneficial to Carolina - they finish the season at the top of the polls quite often you know - but it would still be a stupid idea.
And if USC hadn't mysteriously choked against UCLA in 2006, Florida would, through no fault of their own, never even seen the championship game. Under a playoff, both UF and LSU the next year probaby would have come out on top, no matter what counterfactuals are out there. It's another reason why playoffs are good for football.
by T.H. on
May 21, 2008 1:44 AM EDT
up
0 recs
also - thanks for the link
PWD
by paulwesterdawg on May 21, 2008 12:27 AM EDT 0 recs





