PennStateHoops.com Discussion Forum

Do Final Four Matchups Help or Hurt the Chances for Football Playoff?

One of my Facebook friends made a post suggesting that the Final Four matchups are the best argument he’s seen for a football playoff. I agree that it’s a pretty solid argument for giving all teams a chance. What I fear is that it makes the BCS conferences that much more nervous about sharing the money pie. Anyone else have any thoughts?

The BCS is a cartel that wants to control the flow of money and the opportunity to get it.

The school presidents have a vested interest in appearing to control the appearance of encroachment of the athletic-industrial complex on the university missions.

I don’t think the argument that “it would be better if more people had a chance to demonstrate they are the best” has more than the slightest impact on the conversation.

Especially now that two previous BCS pests (TCU and Utah) are now in BCS conferences.

I don’t think either answer is the perfect solution for identifying the team most deserving of a national championship. I happen to have a huge soft spot for the NCAA tournament, but you definitely get a “better” (more consistent) representation of the two best teams in the country in the BCS championship game than you do in a tournament setting so I think they have a pretty good system for the way their sport is played also.

I’d still like to see all the conference champions go into a small tournament… 8 teams perhaps, the 6 big boys and 2 wildcards for the other conferences to fight over. I think that would be very tidy and generate a lot of interest (and therefore a lot of money).

I don’t think the “arguement” matters. I think there are MASSIVE amounts of arguements for a playoff already, this one won’t add much to the discussion.

As tbj says, it’s about money. Logic, sport, and comptetion all are a very distant second place.

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:4, topic:2264”]I don’t think either answer is the perfect solution for identifying the team most deserving of a national championship. I happen to have a huge soft spot for the NCAA tournament, but you definitely get a “better” (more consistent) representation of the two best teams in the country in the BCS championship game than you do in a tournament setting so I think they have a pretty good system for the way their sport is played also.

I’d still like to see all the conference champions go into a small tournament… 8 teams perhaps, the 6 big boys and 2 wildcards for the other conferences to fight over. I think that would be very tidy and generate a lot of interest (and therefore a lot of money).[/quote]I have always thought hat if you want an NCAA champion yo need to invite all conference champions. That leaves you with 11 autobids and most likely 5 at large selected by a committee using rankings as a guide. Logistically you would do it like IAA (FCS). First three rounds at home of higher ranked team. Championship game at a neutral site.

[quote="Craftsy21, post:4, topic:2264"]I don't think either answer is the perfect solution for identifying the team most deserving of a national championship. I happen to have a huge soft spot for the NCAA tournament, but you definitely get a "better" (more consistent) representation of the two best teams in the country in the BCS championship game than you do in a tournament setting so I think they have a pretty good system for the way their sport is played also.

I’d still like to see all the conference champions go into a small tournament… 8 teams perhaps, the 6 big boys and 2 wildcards for the other conferences to fight over. I think that would be very tidy and generate a lot of interest (and therefore a lot of money).[/quote]I have always thought hat if you want an NCAA champion yo need to invite all conference champions. That leaves you with 11 autobids and most likely 5 at large selected by a committee using rankings as a guide. Logistically you would do it like IAA (FCS). First three rounds at home of higher ranked team. Championship game at a neutral site.

I would support this except that I think 4 weeks is a bit of a long post-season after a 12-13 game regular season, and you would have to cut down the regular season to strictly conference schedules - no OOC at all.

I still might support such a notion, but then a conference like the big east might only have an 8 game season. So do you just leave all the conferences to their own doing to crown a champion? And with no OOC aren’t you going to have a hard time decided on 5 at-large teams to let in?

I think you are probably better off doing the 6+2, or just have 8 entirely at-large bids up for grabs determined via a BCS like formula or a selection committee. 3 weeks seems about right to me.

Didn’t LBJ say that it’s better to have them inside the test pissin’ out rather than outside the tent pissin’ in?

I would love to see College Football have a playoff. Will it happen? Probably not :frowning:

I was listening to Mike and Mike today, and they were both saying the opposite. The premise was the current NCAA format is the most exciting way to determine a champion, but not necessarily the best way to determine the best team from that season. I have always felt the same way, and that’s why I would support making the tourney field smaller rather than larger. What is now a 30-game season in hoops really means nothing if you get in the tournament.

Greenie has always said something that I agree with – The regular season means too little across all sports. For example, Kansas had a fantastic regular season, winning the regular season and post season tournament in the Big 12, and not really ever having a down stretch. VCU hit rocky spots, finished third in their conference (a mid-major), and lost the conference championship game. Why did Kansas not have any advantage based on their success in the regular season? I almost feel like the higher seeds should all get home games until the Final Four. Playing a 16 in the first round is not really enough of a reward.

Jay Bilas said he likes the current format, but he would do things during the regular season to make the games more important (he didn’t say what). I would be interested to hear what.

Why did Kansas not have any advantage based on their success in the regular season? I almost feel like the higher seeds should all get home games until the Final Four. Playing a 16 in the first round is not really enough of a reward.

A 16 has never beaten a 1 seed. It’s essentially a bye. I’d say that’s a pretty fair advantage to get for your excellent regular season performance.

Let’s not allow 1 year of craziness to make us question the entire system - in most years, one of the best teams from the regular season wins the NCAA tournament. The fact is that everybody knew going into this year’s dance that the top just wasn’t as strong as it has been in other years so why is anybody surprised that we saw so many of the top ranked teams go down?

It rarely happens like this, but the great thing is that it CAN happen like this if the chips fall the right way. In almost no other sport would you see a team like Butler or VCU playing for the national title in front of millions of people - hell, in almost no other year would you see it happen in THIS sport. But the fact that they give these teams a chance to do it and now we’re getting to see it possibly happen… that’s what makes the tournament so great in the first place.

The other side of that is - fans don’t really seem to appreciate the regular season no matter how meaningful you make it. College football and baseball probably have the two most important regular seasons of all sports and yet you have more people complaining about their setups than any other sports.

I happen to like the way all sports seasons are setup right now except for NHL and NBA, which I think either need to cut down on playoff teams allowed in or shorten the season by about 20 games. They play from October-ish til April (~6-7 months, same as baseball really with more days off between games), and then go and let over half the league into the playoffs which take yet another 2 months to finish.

At least in baseball the last month of the regular season really means something after playing all those months. The best teams in the NBA and NHL can essentially just rest up the last 2 months of the season to get ready for the playoffs. And if you can’t prove you’re in the top half of the league after 5 months of play, do you really deserve another 2 months to prove it? Or worse yet, if after 7 months of play you’ve proven you are the 16th best team in the league of 30 teams, do you really deserve yet another shot to keep playing in the playoffs? I think you’ve shown what you are by that point.

Just my opinion though. :smiley:

I am not letting this season play in to anything, and there are plenty of years when teams in the Final Four or championship game don’t belong (usually the cream does rise to the top in those instances and the best team wins). I have always felt the NCAA tournament is very exciting and I love it more than any other sporting event, but it is not the best way to determine the true best team. I think the NBA playoffs are the best at determining the best team, though I agree they could cut the teams that get in down by at least two teams in each league.

Remember when the 76ers were the huge underdog and beat the Lakers in game 1? In the NCAA they would have been crowned champions, in the NBA they went on to lose four straight and prove to be the far inferior team. The first scenario is much more exciting, the second scenario is a better reflection of what team was the best.

[quote=“NICU, post:13, topic:2264”]I am not letting this season play in to anything, and there are plenty of years when teams in the Final Four or championship game don’t belong (usually the cream does rise to the top in those instances and the best team wins). I have always felt the NCAA tournament is very exciting and I love it more than any other sporting event, but it is not the best way to determine the true best team. I think the NBA playoffs are the best at determining the best team, though I agree they could cut the teams that get in down by at least two teams in each league.

Remember when the 76ers were the huge underdog and beat the Lakers in game 1? In the NCAA they would have been crowned champions, in the NBA they went on to lose four straight and prove to be the far inferior team. The first scenario is much more exciting, the second scenario is a better reflection of what team was the best.[/quote]

I’m not implying (or not intentionally anyhow) that the NCAA determines the best team, nor that it’s intended to find the best team. But you have a tournament that includes all the best teams, and a winner who is crowned the NCAA champion… and that’s about as “fair” as it gets in sports.

The best team doesn’t always win, in any sport. What you should provide for a championship is a chance for all deserving teams to have a fair, equal chance at winning it. And that’s exactly what the NCAA tournament provides.

[quote=“NICU, post:10, topic:2264”]I was listening to Mike and Mike today, and they were both saying the opposite. The premise was the current NCAA format is the most exciting way to determine a champion, but not necessarily the best way to determine the best team from that season. I have always felt the same way, and that’s why I would support making the tourney field smaller rather than larger. What is now a 30-game season in hoops really means nothing if you get in the tournament.

Greenie has always said something that I agree with – The regular season means too little across all sports. For example, Kansas had a fantastic regular season, winning the regular season and post season tournament in the Big 12, and not really ever having a down stretch. VCU hit rocky spots, finished third in their conference (a mid-major), and lost the conference championship game. Why did Kansas not have any advantage based on their success in the regular season? I almost feel like the higher seeds should all get home games until the Final Four. Playing a 16 in the first round is not really enough of a reward.

Jay Bilas said he likes the current format, but he would do things during the regular season to make the games more important (he didn’t say what). I would be interested to hear what.[/quote]

Fourth not third - George Mason, Old Dominion, and Hofstra all beat them (Hofstra did not get a bid, the other two did).

^Thanks for the correction. Forgot about Hofstra.

[quote="NICU, post:13, topic:2264"]I am not letting this season play in to anything, and there are plenty of years when teams in the Final Four or championship game don't belong (usually the cream does rise to the top in those instances and the best team wins). I have always felt the NCAA tournament is very exciting and I love it more than any other sporting event, but it is not the best way to determine the true best team. I think the NBA playoffs are the best at determining the best team, though I agree they could cut the teams that get in down by at least two teams in each league.

Remember when the 76ers were the huge underdog and beat the Lakers in game 1? In the NCAA they would have been crowned champions, in the NBA they went on to lose four straight and prove to be the far inferior team. The first scenario is much more exciting, the second scenario is a better reflection of what team was the best.[/quote]

I’m not implying (or not intentionally anyhow) that the NCAA determines the best team, nor that it’s intended to find the best team. But you have a tournament that includes all the best teams, and a winner who is crowned the NCAA champion… and that’s about as “fair” as it gets in sports.

The best team doesn’t always win, in any sport. What you should provide for a championship is a chance for all deserving teams to have a fair, equal chance at winning it. And that’s exactly what the NCAA tournament provides.

Probably where we differ on the topic. For a preseason tournament when nobody has proven anything, I agree. For a post-season tournament when the teams have played 30+ games, I think it is only fair for the teams who proved to be better to receive more of an advantage.

But how can you prove who is truly better when you have 30+ conferences and 345 teams, most of which have no played one another?

You’re falling into the college football trap where you want to keep the little guys out who never got the same chance the big guys did to prove themselves… mostly thru no fault of their own. The seeding is the biggest advantage a team should get, imo.

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:18, topic:2264”]But how can you prove who is truly better when you have 30+ conferences and 345 teams, most of which have no played one another?

You’re falling into the college football trap where you want to keep the little guys out who never got the same chance the big guys did to prove themselves… mostly thru no fault of their own. The seeding is the biggest advantage a team should get, imo.[/quote]

WHEN they expand to 96 teams, the “better” teams will get the advantage of a first round bye. I hope that’s enough of an advantage to keep them happy.

I really hope you’re wrong about them ever expanding it that far, but I’m afraid you’re not.