College Football Headed to a Playoff?

[Birds of B'more]

I don't know, or care, what that first sentence means. The Giants winning their division, with a 9-7 record, is your argument? So, if Alabama had played in Conference USA, but still lost to LSU, it would be OK?

Basically, the only argument I'm seeing is that the NFL doesn't say the "regular season really matters." Are we basing this all on a slogan?

So if the Giants win today, do the Packers still get to play in the Super Bowl, because a bunch of writers and coaches (SIDs) think the Packers are still the best team?

[waroriole]

Like I said' date=' the NFL says the regular season is the regular season and the playoffs are the playoffs. College football says the season is one big playoff....except this year when a bunch of voters say arbitrarily said it wasn't.[/quote']

Why should what they say matter? It's just pointless slogans to attract viewers, right? They say the regular season matters b/c they want more viewers, it's not part of some mission statement is it?

[Birds of B'more]

Why should what they say matter? It's just pointless slogans to attract viewers, right? They say the regular season matters b/c they want more viewers, it's not part of some mission statement is it?

Something about false advertising, or legitimacy of the sport maybe?

[waroriole]

So if the Giants win today' date=' do the Packers still get to play in the Super Bowl, because a bunch of writers and coaches (SIDs) think the Packers are still the best team?[/quote']

I'm kind of just spitballing here, but what would you rather see: a system where the best teams play (or at least top 3-4) for a title, or a system where a team can be mediocre all regular season and then get hot and call themselves champions.

I don't really have a definite answer to that question. There are pros and cons with each one, which is what I'm trying to point out.

[waroriole]

Something about false advertising' date=' or legitimacy of the sport maybe? [/quote']

Oh come on, it just puffing right. It's an advertising slogan. Do people go to Papa John's and say "this wasn't better ingredients?"

[Birds of B'more]

I'm kind of just spitballing here, but what would you rather see: a system where the best teams play (or at least top 3-4) for a title, or a system where a team can be mediocre all regular season and then get hot and call themselves champions.

I don't really have a definite answer to that question. There are pros and cons with each one, which is what I'm trying to point out.

In the NFL where you have 32 teams and 12 make the playoffs, including winners of a weak division, you'll get some mediocre teams. There's 120 teams in D-1A college football. If they narrow a playoff field to the Top 8, I'm sure that won't be the case.

Oh come on, it just puffing right. It's an advertising slogan. Do people go to Papa John's and say "this wasn't better ingredients?"

No, they just stop going to Papa Johns, like the TV ratings say viewers may be doing with the BCS. Then Papa Johns figures out that they do, in fact, need to use better ingredients when that's what they claim they do.

[waroriole]

In the NFL where you have 32 teams and 12 make the playoffs' date=' including winners of a weak division, you'll get some mediocre teams. There's 120 teams in D-1A college football. If they narrow a playoff field to the Top 8, I'm sure that won't be the case.

No, they just stop going to Papa Johns, like the TV ratings say viewers may be doing with the BCS. Then Papa Johns figures out that they do, in fact, need to use better ingredients when that's what they claim they do.[/quote']

I'm not really against a playoff, but I think 8 is too many. 6 might be the best situation, where the top 2 teams get a bye.

Also, I don't know if I'd read too much into this year's ratings. These weren't exactly "exciting" teams. Plus, they're both from the same part of the country and same conference. If anything, they should look at moving the starting time up. How do the last 2 year's ratings compare to the previous 5-10 years? I'm asking b/c now the game is on cable, which would theoretically lower the ratings.

[Birds of B'more]

I guess what it boils down to is that I find it much easier to accept the NFL system which states "If you do A, B, and C, you will be crowned champion", no questions asked. Even if it means that in the end it isn't always the best team on paper that won. With college football it's more "If you do A, B, and C, plus our group of voters happen to like you, you have a chance....now in some cases you might only need to do A, but as long as everyone likes you, you'll still have a shot."

[waroriole]

I guess what it boils down to is that I find it much easier to accept the NFL system which states "If you do A' date=' B, and C, you will be crowned champion", no questions asked. Even if it means that in the end it isn't always the best team on paper that won. With college football it's more "If you do A, B, and C, plus our group of voters happen to like you, you have a chance....now in some cases you might only need to do A, but as long as everyone likes you, you'll still have a shot."[/quote']

That's fair, and I can't really argue with it.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I guess what it boils down to is that I find it much easier to accept the NFL system which states "If you do A' date=' B, and C, you will be crowned champion", no questions asked. Even if it means that in the end it isn't always the best team on paper that won. With college football it's more "If you do A, B, and C, plus our group of voters happen to like you, you have a chance....now in some cases you might only need to do A, but as long as everyone likes you, you'll still have a shot."[/quote']

I see it as this: should a champion be crowned by fact, or by opinion?

Let's say the Seahawks went on a miracle run last season and won the Super Bowl. I don't think anyone would have called them the best team in the NFL last year. However, they still had to win their division--weak as it was-- win the first game against the Saints, beat the Bears in Chicago and the Packers in Green Bay, then beat the Steelers in the Super Bowl. Just because they were arguably the sixteenth-best team in the NFL last season, would the four games against strong opponents really have cheapened their championship?

[Birds of B'more]

I see it as this: should a champion be crowned by fact, or by opinion?

Let's say the Seahawks went on a miracle run last season and won the Super Bowl. I don't think anyone would have called them the best team in the NFL last year. However, they still had to win their division--weak as it was-- win the first game against the Saints, beat the Bears in Chicago and the Packers in Green Bay, then beat the Steelers in the Super Bowl. Just because they were arguably the sixteenth-best team in the NFL last season, would the four games against strong opponents really have cheapened their championship?

Actually, if Seattle had won in Chicago they would have played the Packers at home.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Actually' date=' if Seattle had won in Chicago they would have played the Packers at home.[/quote']

You are correct. Still, the Packers were a far better team than the Seahawks.

Under a BCS-like system, the Patriots and Falcons (assuming one from each conference--otherwise, Patriots and Steelers) would likely have been the Super Bowl teams. Neither won their first playoff game.