2008 Bowl Game Talk - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to College Football

2008 Bowl Game Talk

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby HskrPwr13 » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:00 pm

knapplc wrote:Playoffs are designed to determine a champion. We know the playoff system is the best way to determine this because, over the last 10,000 years of organized sport, nobody has come up with anything better. Every major and minor sport since the Greeks first held the Olympics have used a form of a playoff format to determine champions.

Why the NCAA is making us debate this in 2009 is beyond me. It's a pretty clear-cut situation.


That seems like a sorry reason to have a playoff: determine a champion, not determine who's best. I disagree with your assessment of 10k years of sports being determined by a playoff. They were determined by tournaments. I'd be fine if college football, or any other sport, wanted to hold a tournament. They don't because there'd be less games, i.e. less profit. Playoffs in American sports were the brain child of greed and because they've been around all of our lives, we're conditioned to believe that its the "fair" and "correct" way of crowning a champion.

The NFL had very few playoff games in its inception and everyone was fine with that. The NFL saw an opportunity to cash in so they added more teams and divisions which created more playoff games. Those were profitable so they added a "wild card". They didnt make these changes because they felt they hadnt been crowning a true champion, they did it for revenue, and they're probably further away from crowning the best team champion than they were in the days before most of us were born.

Interesting enough Steward Mandel (SI.com) just put out an article on this. He equates the Cards shot at the title as the equivalent of VTech getting into the NC game via a playoff.

I certainly disagree with the spirit of the playoffs being so that everyone who had an outstanding season gets a shot at the title as Fleshner suggests. If thats the case, I'd want there to be a Season Champion and then also a Playoff Champion with the Season Championship meaning more. I'd hate to look back at which teams we might consider "champions" since 1970 if some obscure playoff system was in place. As Stuart Mandel has always said, and I agree 100%, college football probably crowns the best team that season as champion moreso than any other sport that has a playoff. Especially the NFL considering its a "one and done" playoff.
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby knapplc » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:03 pm

I watched several Ole Miss games this year, and every Nebraska game. No question, Nebraska was the better team. You can compare wins and losses forever, and I can find a string of teams Nebraska beat that beat Ole Miss (everyone's the champion). That proves nothing.
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby knapplc » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:27 pm

HskrPwr13 wrote:That seems like a sorry reason to have a playoff: determine a champion, not determine who's best. I disagree with your assessment of 10k years of sports being determined by a playoff. They were determined by tournaments. I'd be fine if college football, or any other sport, wanted to hold a tournament. They don't because there'd be less games, i.e. less profit. Playoffs in American sports were the brain child of greed and because they've been around all of our lives, we're conditioned to believe that its the "fair" and "correct" way of crowning a champion.

Define "tournament." In every tournament I've ever competed in, there's a pool-play division followed by a playoff. What new kind of "tournament" are you talking about here?

HskrPwr13 wrote:The NFL had very few playoff games in its inception and everyone was fine with that. The NFL saw an opportunity to cash in so they added more teams and divisions which created more playoff games. Those were profitable so they added a "wild card". They didnt make these changes because they felt they hadnt been crowning a true champion, they did it for revenue, and they're probably further away from crowning the best team champion than they were in the days before most of us were born.

The bottom line is that they had a playoff from their inception because it's the most logical thing to do to determine the "winner" of the year. The added games were put in for more revenue, yes, but that means nothing to the overall conversation that a playoff is the best way of determining a champion.

HskrPwr13 wrote:Interesting enough Steward Mandel (SI.com) just put out an article on this. He equates the Cards shot at the title as the equivalent of VTech getting into the NC game via a playoff.

Stewart Mandel’s opinion on playoffs/bowls is very self-serving, since he’s allowed far more control over the champion by his media vote. Let’s not forget that – the media are all for continuing the bowls, and the loudest voices in the media are the ones with votes. They’re not impartial parties like you and I.

HskrPwr13 wrote:I certainly disagree with the spirit of the playoffs being so that everyone who had an outstanding season gets a shot at the title as Fleshner suggests. If thats the case, I'd want there to be a Season Champion and then also a Playoff Champion with the Season Championship meaning more. I'd hate to look back at which teams we might consider "champions" since 1970 if some obscure playoff system was in place. As Stuart Mandel has always said, and I agree 100%, college football probably crowns the best team that season as champion moreso than any other sport that has a playoff. Especially the NFL considering its a "one and done" playoff.

So you’re basically saying that college football, which determines the two teams worthy of playing for their championship by the votes of people who watch at best 1/3 of all games is better than the method of determining a champion used by the NBA, NFL, Division II college football, MLB, MLS, the CFL, college basketball (Men’s & Women’s), the WNBA, Premier League Soccer, Australian Rules Football, college volleyball (Men’s & Women’s)… how many more leagues would you like? Because College Football is the only one who determines their champion via votes like this.
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby deerayfan072 » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:07 pm

knapplc wrote:I watched several Ole Miss games this year, and every Nebraska game. No question, Nebraska was the better team. You can compare wins and losses forever, and I can find a string of teams Nebraska beat that beat Ole Miss (everyone's the champion). That proves nothing.



There is no way that Nebraska would beat Ole Miss more times than Ole Miss would beat them. Ole Miss is a good team with a solid QB, great run game, great front 7 and a suspect pass defense. Ganz would be able to put up points on them no doubt, but there is no doubt in my mind Ole Miss is the better team
Image
deerayfan072
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18976
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: On an Island

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby knapplc » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:14 pm

deerayfan072 wrote:
knapplc wrote:I watched several Ole Miss games this year, and every Nebraska game. No question, Nebraska was the better team. You can compare wins and losses forever, and I can find a string of teams Nebraska beat that beat Ole Miss (everyone's the champion). That proves nothing.



There is no way that Nebraska would beat Ole Miss more times than Ole Miss would beat them. Ole Miss is a good team with a solid QB, great run game, great front 7 and a suspect pass defense. Ganz would be able to put up points on them no doubt, but there is no doubt in my mind Ole Miss is the better team

I respect you for exercising your right to be wrong. ;-)
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby Free Bagel » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:13 am

Wait, are we still on this "The Big 12 is a god conference this year" kick? I thought that myth was dispelled by now. I guess some perceptions never change (like the one that the SEC didn't stink this year).

At the end of it all, other than Oklahoma who actually had a couple decent out of conference wins, what did they do? They had a couple last second victories against mediocre/bad teams that they should've been able to blow out, and just as many if not more losses to similar teams. Sorry, but a couple close wins (Northwestern and Clemson) and one convincing one (Minnesota) against a pair of conferences that everybody beat up on isn't exactly all that enticing.

Meanwhile, the supposed Big 12 South Elite looked like a whole different set of teams when they had to play out of conference, going 1-3 in their bowl games (and for all but Oklahoma, their only decent out of conference games all year) despite some pretty favorable matchups, with their only win being a last second victory in one of those aforementioned favorable matchups where they were supposed to win my multiple touchdowns.

When it comes down to it, not a single one of those Big 12 South "elite" covered their spreads (or even came close to it really), and only two Big 12 teams covered their spreads at all. That tells me that people's perception of the Big 12 is higher than it should be, because those lines are based on people's perceptions.

And don't give me this nonsense about a month off. Everyone has a month of. TT's timing was disrupted? C'mon, even you know you're just making that up as an excuse. Timing doesn't get disrupted because of a month of practicing, timing gets disrupted because a bunch of strong linemen that your linemen can't block get in your quarterback's face, and having less time off wasn't going to make TT's line any better at stopping them, just like it wasn't any better at stopping Oklahoma's with less time off.

TT was lucky to be as close to Ole Miss as they were in that game (the garbage time TD helped make it look closer too). They just got pushed around, and if they played that game over and over again I don't see why they wouldn't continue to be, they're not going to get any bigger/stronger.

There's a reason that the coach of every decent team that played against Ole Miss had them ranked in the top 15 even BEFORE that bowl game against TT, and it had nothing to do with making themselves look better (since they didn't do the same thing, at least not to nearly the same extent) with other teams they played.

I probably didn't see enough Nebraska games this year to fully evaluate how a game of theirs against Mississippi (or any top 15 team) would go, but given what bit I did see of them I saw nothing to give any indication that they were anything resembling a better team than any of the teams up there, in spite of what some obviously unbiased husker fans think ;-)
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby HskrPwr13 » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:26 am

Good Lord, Bagel. You act like no one EVER gives the SEC any love. So the SEC had to share some love this year with the Big12. Oh, the horror. :-B

I'll stand with you that bowl games count just as much as regular season games and to try to quantify a teams mindset going into a game is a lesson in futility. But common sense dictates that a 30ish day layoff is not going to produce the same results as if the teams lined up after a week or two off. I dont deny that Ole Miss still may have won the football game for the exact reasons you mentioned. Those same reasons are why NU nearly knocked them off in Lubbock. But this doesnt dismiss the entire body of work by both teams. Ole Miss did lose 4 games, most against teams that no one outside of the SEC would deem worthy of losing to for such a "great" team. Will the real Ole Miss please stand up? Also, again, outside the SEC, no one really thinks that LSU was underrated and GT was overrated based on that clearly lopsided bowl. If that had game had happened one week after the season, its doubtful that wouldve happened. Coupling that GT beat an UGA team that destroyed LSU and the 30ish day layoff, I dont see how this matter-of-factly proves SEC superiority. The SEC may have turned out to be the best conference this year, but they shouldnt get that nod through fallacy reasoning.
Last edited by HskrPwr13 on Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby knapplc » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:38 am

Wow, who peed in your wheaties this morning, Bagel? :-b

I'm missing whatever made you think that Big XII homers are declaring it a superconference. If anything, we saw this year that there were NO superconferences - that gap narrowed in 2008.

As for the Huskers, they were screwed out of their rightful National Championship this year, but I'm not griping. I'm a Cubs fan, too. Wait 'til next year. ;-)
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby HskrPwr13 » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:58 am

knapplc wrote:
HskrPwr13 wrote:That seems like a sorry reason to have a playoff: determine a champion, not determine who's best. I disagree with your assessment of 10k years of sports being determined by a playoff. They were determined by tournaments. I'd be fine if college football, or any other sport, wanted to hold a tournament. They don't because there'd be less games, i.e. less profit. Playoffs in American sports were the brain child of greed and because they've been around all of our lives, we're conditioned to believe that its the "fair" and "correct" way of crowning a champion.

Define "tournament." In every tournament I've ever competed in, there's a pool-play division followed by a playoff. What new kind of "tournament" are you talking about here?


I'm talking about a bracketed tournament much like the College World Series. I'll agree that they use a playoff to get there, but once there they use a double elimination bracket. It wont happen due to what I mentioned above. I agree that a single elimination, like March Madness, very much resembles a playoff.

knapplc wrote:
HskrPwr13 wrote:The NFL had very few playoff games in its inception and everyone was fine with that. The NFL saw an opportunity to cash in so they added more teams and divisions which created more playoff games. Those were profitable so they added a "wild card". They didnt make these changes because they felt they hadnt been crowning a true champion, they did it for revenue, and they're probably further away from crowning the best team champion than they were in the days before most of us were born.

The bottom line is that they had a playoff from their inception because it's the most logical thing to do to determine the "winner" of the year. The added games were put in for more revenue, yes, but that means nothing to the overall conversation that a playoff is the best way of determining a champion.

You've way over simplified it to try to prove your point. The below is from Wikipedia, but I believe it to be correct based on my knowledge:
NFL post-season history can be traced to the first NFL Championship Game in 1933, though in the early years, qualification for the game was based solely on regular season records. The first true NFL playoff began in 1967, when four teams qualified for the tournament. When the league merged with the American Football League in 1970, the playoffs expanded to eight teams. The playoffs were expanded to ten teams in 1978 and twelve teams in 1990.
No they ddnt think it was the most logical thing to do. Everyone basically played each other so there was hardly ambiguity about who the best team(s) were.

knapplc wrote:
HskrPwr13 wrote:Interesting enough Steward Mandel (SI.com) just put out an article on this. He equates the Cards shot at the title as the equivalent of VTech getting into the NC game via a playoff.

Stewart Mandel’s opinion on playoffs/bowls is very self-serving, since he’s allowed far more control over the champion by his media vote. Let’s not forget that – the media are all for continuing the bowls, and the loudest voices in the media are the ones with votes. They’re not impartial parties like you and I.

You don't buy his analogy because he has a vote? I dont understand why his having a vote invalidates the analogy.

knapplc wrote:
HskrPwr13 wrote:I certainly disagree with the spirit of the playoffs being so that everyone who had an outstanding season gets a shot at the title as Fleshner suggests. If thats the case, I'd want there to be a Season Champion and then also a Playoff Champion with the Season Championship meaning more. I'd hate to look back at which teams we might consider "champions" since 1970 if some obscure playoff system was in place. As Stuart Mandel has always said, and I agree 100%, college football probably crowns the best team that season as champion moreso than any other sport that has a playoff. Especially the NFL considering its a "one and done" playoff.

So you’re basically saying that college football, which determines the two teams worthy of playing for their championship by the votes of people who watch at best 1/3 of all games is better than the method of determining a champion used by the NBA, NFL, Division II college football, MLB, MLS, the CFL, college basketball (Men’s & Women’s), the WNBA, Premier League Soccer, Australian Rules Football, college volleyball (Men’s & Women’s)… how many more leagues would you like? Because College Football is the only one who determines their champion via votes like this.

Thats a fair leap, but no, that's not what I'm trying to say. I'm just pretty confident that the best cf team on a yearly basis gets voted as the national champion by a higher margin than pro football. How many more wild card or barely over not much more than .500 teams need to get a shot at the title before you realize that the correct teams arent getting fairly rewarded? Look at the Cards this year. Everything had to break correctly for this mediocre team to reach the Super Bowl. They get to be in probably the weakest divison. They got to play a rookie QB on the road in the first round. Great win against Carolina. Then they had the fortune of Philly beating NY Giants to set up a revenge home game. They're a middling team, who got things to break correctly for them in the playoffs, and since they were there they decided to turn their game up a notch. The problem is that they didn't deserve the opportunity in the first place. At least with the other sports, including volleyball (sets), you have multiple games to help weed out the luck factor. Knowing that cf is not going to go to the 10 conference championship playoff, if they institutes a double-elim bracket or some type of series to eliminate the "on any given Saturday" factor, I'd buy into a playoff much easier.
I doubt were not going to see eye-to-eye on this point. You want a "playoff" champion. I want a "season" champion.
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Re: 2008 Bowl Game Talk

Postby Metroid » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:18 am

But see a playoff system is to crown a National Champion, not find the "best team." I know who the best team is, it's about finding a National Champion, if that happens to be the team that was the best during the regular season then great. Sometimes the "best team" will slip up in the playoffs(which shouldn't happen if they're truely the best team IMO) and we'll get a lesser team as National Champ(see NYG last year in the NFL). I don't have a problem with that at all. Teams get hot at the right time...it happens in all sports, that's what was great about the Giants last year. I loved watching them knock of the "unbeatable" Pats in the Superbowl. Ands I have loved to see Utah push around Florida and become National Champs this year(not saying that would happen just making an example) I would enjoy this much more than what we have now and most college football fans would too. Like knapp said EVERY other sport does it this way, it's insane that college football does not. You still have to play very well during the regular season to get in the playoffs, we can still have the bowls the way they are, just add a handful of games after the bowl season is all I'm asking for. Sure some teams still will be left out, but it'd be better than what we have now and we'd be way closer to finding a "true" National Champion.
Image
Metroid
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicCafe RankerGraphics ExpertEagle Eye
Posts: 22544
Joined: 9 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Bringing the funk in P-Town!

PreviousNext

Return to College Football

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 5:07 hours
(and 44 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact