Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!ut-sally!topaz!lll-crg!gymble!dday From: dday@gymble.UUCP Newsgroups: net.sport.football Subject: Re: College football playoffs Message-ID: <492@gymble.UUCP> Date: Fri, 7-Feb-86 11:50:44 EST Article-I.D.: gymble.492 Posted: Fri Feb 7 11:50:44 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 9-Feb-86 08:23:08 EST References: <366@drutx.UUCP> <8660@ucla-cs.ARPA> <486@gymble.UUCP> <8747@ucla-cs.ARPA> Reply-To: dday@gymble.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) Organization: U of Maryland, Laboratory for Parallel Computation, C.P., MD Lines: 121 In article <8747@ucla-cs.ARPA> lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (Edward Lor) writes: > You raised some interesting points. Let me tell you >what I think about a playoff system. > 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. You seem to contradict yourself here. On the one hand you seem to say that Villanova deserved to be champions because they showed a lot of heart and won the games that mattered; on the other hand you say they shouldn't have been allowed on the tournament at all! Let me just remind other readers at this point that the argument centers around Mr. Lor's claim that a college football playoff would settle once and for all the annual argument about which team was the best of a given year. I admit that I would like to see a playoff simply because I would get to see some great games, but I certainly don't believe a playoff would settle the "Who's #1" issue. > 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? This is a truly illogical question. You might as well ask, "If the playoffs always ended with the best team winning the finals, would you admit that the best team always wins?" Well, yes. But the point is, THE BEST TEAM DOESN'T ALWAYS WIN. Villanova is proof of that. > 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? I certainly wouldn't have. But it's not hard to imagine any number of scenarios where many would an injustice had been done. An eight-team playoff is probably too large, requiring 3 extra games. Your proposed eight team field contains three teams with 9-2-1 records, and yet you say that a 9-3 team shouldn't be allowed a chance at the national title. Just where do you draw the line? Suppose then that we have a four team playoff. The four you choose seem reasonable. But aren't the fans of 10-1-1 Michigan going to say "We belong there. We were only four points away from an undefeated season. Let us play Iowa on a neutral field." Many neutral observers thought Michigan was the best team in football this season. And the fans of 11-1 Air Force will say they belong. U. of Florida supporters will say it's all meaningless because the best team wasn't allowed to play. So it's really not that much different than the present situation. >Well, if we only have a two-team playoff, it would have been >between Penn St. and Miami, or Iowa and Miami. This is the worst possible possibility. It would settle nothing. Iowa and Miami both got blasted in bowl games, but in your second choice of teams one of them would have won the title. Anyway, Penn State at 12-0 would have to be one of the two teams. The point is that it's hard to say anything definitive about a single game between two fairly evenly-matched teams. If, as in baseball, you could have a best-of-seven series, you could be more certain the best team had won. But you can't do that in football. >That is why I question the current bowl system, which >just puts Oklahoma/Nebraska in the title game by default. That's completely absurd. In the first place, it was Penn State who had the power this year to determine who would be in the title game. The title game would be wherever they went. Fortunately for Oklahoma, they chose the Orange Bowl. In the second place, your statement makes your usual biased assumption that Oklahoma plays no other opponents of any difficulty, which is provably false. >>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. >>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? It's not analagous at all. My team won. It's perfectly reasonable for me to claim they are the best. You completely dodged my question to you. Under those circumstances I outlined, there is no way that you or any other UCLA fan is going to feel Ohio State was the best. But such a scenario could easily occur. And so the controversy goes on, just as it always has. -- UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!dday Dennis Doubleday CSNet: dday@umcp-cs University of Maryland ARPA: dday@gymble.umd.edu College Park, MD 20742 Fan of: Chicago Cubs, Chicago Bears, OU Sooners (301) 454-6154