Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!lor From: lor@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.sport.football Subject: Re: College football playoffs Message-ID: <8747@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Thu, 6-Feb-86 01:54:52 EST Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.8747 Posted: Thu Feb 6 01:54:52 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 9-Feb-86 04:36:06 EST References: <366@drutx.UUCP> <8660@ucla-cs.ARPA> <486@gymble.UUCP> Reply-To: lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (Edward Lor) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 103 In article <486@gymble.UUCP> dday@gymble.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) writes: You raised some interesting points. Let me tell you what I think about a playoff system. At the end of each regular season, a few teams with the best records would claim themselves as the best team in the nation. Ideally, the playoff should simply be a mean for these teams to settle the issue. It should not be a national fanfare that gets every part of the country involved, as in a 64-team tournament. >So, let's by all means have a playoff, but let's not pretend that it will >settle everything. Does anyone out there really believe that Villanova, >a three-time loser to Georgetown, was really the best basketball team in >the NCAA in 1985?? Beano Cook also said before the 1985 football season: "A playoff system would not work. You can't convince me Villanova is the best team in the country." Let's face it. From 3/14/85 to 4/1/85, Villanova played the most inspiring basketball in the country. Demolishing powerhouses like Michigan, North Carolina, Memphis St., and Georgetown simply indicated their strength and character. A basic requirement for a champion is to win the games that count most. I never doubted their credentials as the best team in the playoffs. However, based on their performance from November, 1984 to early March 1985, Villanova should not have been playing basketball in the final weeks in March. A 19-10 (their record before the tournament) team certainly did not deserve a shot at the national title. A three-time loser to Georgetown just should not have had a fourth chance. A 64-team tournament is a joke! Had the title been won by Michigan, St. John, or Memphis St. (the other top seeds in the tournament,) instead of Georgetown, would you have doubted the playoff system? Let's go back to football. After the end of the 1985 regular season, several teams had legitimate claims as the best team in the country. If we have an eight-team playoff for non-probational teams, the entries would have been: Penn St, Miami, Iowa, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Michigan, and any two of UCLA, Alabama, Texas A&M and Nebraska. Well, maybe you'll say some of them still did not belong, let's trim the pool to Penn St., Miami, Iowa, and Oklahoma. Had any one of them won the tournament, you would not have resented the system, would you? Well, if we only have a two-team playoff, it would have been between Penn St. and Miami, or Iowa and Miami. Based on the regular season record, Oklahoma certainly did not belong because it lost to Miami at home (this is the so-called head-to-head tie-breaker for teams with equal records.) Oklahoma may have the best talents, but it's the score on the field that counts (look at the 1985 49ers). That is why I question the current bowl system, which just puts Oklahoma/Nebraska in the title game by default. Before the Orange Bowl, Switzer was asked whether Miami deserved to be national champ had it defeated Tennessee. He said: "We should be champions if we beat #1 Penn St." Looks like the Villanova scenario to me. Switzer just brought our attention to the end, but avoided answering whether his sooners should have been in a title game at the first place. >In the finals, 12-0 Alabama >has an off day and loses 24-23 to 9-3 USC. USC is then NCAA champion. But >is anyone other than USC fans going to be convinced that the best team won?. I don't think a 9-3 team deserves an opportunity to be the best team in the country. >Another scenario: in their traditional showdown, Michigan beats >Ohio State in Columbus 30-12, leaving both teams with 10-1 records. But then >10-1 UCLA pounds Michigan 36-6 in the Rose Bowl. In the playoffs, UCLA >stumbles when their quarterback goes down with an injury and Florida nips >them 17-16. Meanwhile, Ohio State breezes through the other bracket, edges >Florida in the finals and becomes NCAA champion. A 10-1 team certainly deserves a shot if it is a four/eight team playoff. There aren't many 10-1 teams in any given year. Don't forget, the teams in the other brackets are very legitimate contenders too. If Ohio State breezes through the tournament, wins the games which count most, would you question their merits? >Are you, Edward Lor, (and >remember, you're under oath) going to come on the network and say, "I admit >it, Ohio State was the best team this year."?? Not Crimson Tide likely. This is a perfect analogy. Oklahoma got embarrassed by Miami at Norman, got into the title game just because of this bowl system (they didn't even breeze through another bracket,) and won. Would you have (I presume you are under oath too) posted articles on the net saying Oklahoma was the best team and all others were sour grapes? -- Eddy Lor ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!lor lor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Computer Science Department, UCLA