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: <8852@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Mon, 10-Feb-86 02:58:37 EST Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.8852 Posted: Mon Feb 10 02:58:37 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Feb-86 06:19:44 EST References: <366@drutx.UUCP> <8660@ucla-cs.ARPA> <486@gymble.UUCP> <8747@ucla-cs.ARPA> <492@gymble.UUCP> Reply-To: lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (Edward Lor) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 141 > >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! > I hope you can rebute the two individual premises of my arguments: i) Villanova did not deserve a shot based on their regular season record. ii) Villanova, with a shot (deserved or not), proved they were the best among the field of 64 during the playoffs. I absolutely agree, these two premises, when put together, causes a contradiction. That is exactly the controversy generated by a 64-team tournament! I am not contradicting myself. >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. I hope you can distinguish a playoff of a selected field, and a playoff of almost everybody. The former can be represented by the Superbowl tournament, the latter by the NCAA basketball tournament. Since the AFL-NFL merger (1970), I have never heard of anybody saying: "The Superbowl champ is not the best team in the League." (Geez, I hope you can say that about your Bears!) When we talk about college football playoffs, I hope you realize that I am a fan of a playoff among the few elites, but NOT a 64-team field! >Well, yes. But the point is, THE BEST TEAM DOESN'T >ALWAYS WIN. Villanova is proof of that. You didn't even define what "THE BEST TEAM" is, best on paper? best record during the regular season? best talents? best execution during the playoffs? Anyway, I sort of agree with you about Villanova, a 64-team tournament can always provide such a proof. >>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. Like what? They only scenarios I can see are: Penn St. won the tournament, Miami won the tournament, Iowa won the tournament, or Oklahoma won the tournament. They were the best four teams, according to what they did ON THE FIELD. > 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? Fine, let's draw the line between 9-2-1 and 9-3. Oops, should be 8-2-1 and 8-3, considering the bowl games do not exist. >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. So let Michigan and Air Force fans protest. Michigan's REGULAR-SEASON record and Air Force's REGULAR-SEASON schedule proved that they did not belong in the top four. It's the record on the field (plus the quality of opponents) that counts! Also Florida finished with only 9-1-1. >>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. Had there been a playoff, the bowl games would not have existed. I am arguing the merits of playoff berths based on the REGULAR SEASON only. Please don't put the bowls into account. As I said, under the bowl system, I would not doubt Oklahoma's position as #1. Why do we bother to exchange had this bowl system been convincing? >Anyway, Penn State at 12-0 would have to be one of the two teams. I absolutely agree! >The point is that it's hard to say anything >definitive about a single game between two fairly evenly-matched teams. You said it! In all sports, results on the field are used to determine whether a team should advance to the next round. You lost to Miami, you lost the tie-breaker. Again, the sooners may have a better team on paper, but they should not have played in a championship game, if we have to choose one among Oklahoma, Miami, and Iowa. Should we start arguing the rationale of using head-to-head result as tie-breaker? >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. That's the problem. had there been a two team playoff censored by the NCAA, should Penn St. be allowed to choose the opponents? You got it right. Oklahoma was FORTUNATE to get the chance to play Penn St, and in other words, the title game. Should we say Oklahoma sneak into a national championship game at the expense of Miami? >In the second place, your statement makes your usual biased >assumption that Oklahoma plays no other opponents of any difficulty, which >is provably false. This is more or less true, but I am not using that to back up my points in this article. >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. I don't have to dodge the question. A 10-1 team (not a 19-10 Villanova) which breezes through the playoffs (among very legitimate contenders, no Villanovas) definitely is the best team in the country. I am sorry if you missed my indirect answer in the previous article, but please don't conjecture my feeling to strengthen your argument. >It's not analagous at all. Maybe you didn't see the similarities between Oklahoma and Ohio St. in your example but I sure did. Well, why bother? >My team won. It's perfectly reasonable for me >to claim they are the best. I hope you know what you are talking about: a playoff among the few legitimate contenders cannot produce the best team, while the winner between #1 Penn St and non-#2 Oklahoma (don't forget, they lost the tie-breaker to Miami) is the best team. I just don't follow. -- Eddy Lor ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!lor lor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Computer Science Department, UCLA