Chuck Klosterman on the thought of a Playoff

**Mr Janny** · 01-03-2007, 05:08 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...sterman/070103

I don't know if I necessarily agree with him, but he sure makes a compelling argument. Regardless, it's a good read.

**247cy** · 01-03-2007, 05:29 PM

I don't buy the argument that "it's ALWAYS the playoffs". While true there is a lot of excitement for key match ups during the regular season, and the perceived lose-and-you're-done consequences for the national title, the premise only works when there are 2 undefeated teams going into bowl week. What happens if you have a bunch of one loss teams? Who gets the shot? Well...then it's decided on paper by "experts" and computer formulas. That's the problem.

Also, where's that leave a team like Boise State, who ran the table, but weren't considered "good enough" for a shot at Ohio State? Ask OU if Boise deserves a shot against a "BCS School" in the title game.

Let the kids decide it ON THE FIELD! Anything less makes the coveted "National Title" a figment of everyone's imagination.

**Mr Janny** · 01-03-2007, 05:47 PM

I agree. Just because teams would be competing for one of the four or eight prospective playoff spots, instead of the two national title spots wouldn't necessarily take anything away from regular season matchups. Maybe his idea of a playoff would be for a March madness style 32 team tourney? I don't know. My thought is that an end of year tournament would do nothing but ADD excitement to the season.

**amyk33** · 01-03-2007, 06:42 PM

I *heart* Chuck. One of my favorite writers.

Do you still have the link about Muhammad Ali?

**ajjohnson** · 01-03-2007, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by jdewaard

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...sterman/070103

I don't know if I necessarily agree with him, but he sure makes a compelling argument. Regardless, it's a good read.

What a stupid argument. You still have to play your way into the playoffs, meaning the vast majority of the games he listed as meaningful would still be that way. Plus conference championships are meaningful now and would still be with a playoff. Almost all those games had conference championship implications, and many are heated rivalries that will always have meaning to the fans.

The argument doesn't even make sense. He says he could have ignored all 10 games he lists if there was an 8 team playoff? There are like 14 separate teams playing in those games, and they would not be meaningful in an 8 team playoff? The majority of the losers of these games wouldn't make the playoffs if 8 are selected, what is he thinking?

**Mr Janny** · 01-04-2007, 11:23 AM

Yikes, AJ. Guess he touched a nerve, huh? So much anger. I tend to agree with you, but just not as fervently, I guess.

**amyk33** · 01-04-2007, 11:33 AM

Maybe I'm playing the devil's advocate, but I don't understand why a playoff is so needed and desired? I kind of side with Chuck...mostly b/c like he says...what's going to happen is going to happen and we really can't do much about it. I kind of like the multiple bowl games. I do think it's all controlled by money which is sad for any amateur sport, but I don't exactly hate it either.

**cycloneworld** · 01-04-2007, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by amyk33

Maybe I'm playing the devil's advocate, but I don't understand why a playoff is so needed and desired?

I don't think it's NEEDED but it's definitely desired...Could you imagine choose 2 NFL teams right now who would play for the Super Bowl and then let 14 other teams play in a meaningless exhibition game? That's what happens with college football...except they have to choose 2 teams out of 119.

**CY ST8T** · 01-04-2007, 12:03 PM

The point I actually liked on ESPN the other night was that the playoff system is actually detrimental to teams like Boise or other lower conference teams. WHY? Because of depth of teams like OU and others that play a schedule where you play tough teams many weeks in a row. Teams like Boise are great when they have 4 weeks to prepare for an OU, but if they play OU and then have to prepare for a USC the next week and in a third week against an OSU you would see these lower tier teams drop off the map.

**clone52** · 01-04-2007, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by jdewaard

I agree. Just because teams would be competing for one of the four or eight prospective playoff spots, instead of the two national title spots wouldn't necessarily take anything away from regular season matchups. Maybe his idea of a playoff would be for a March madness style 32 team tourney? I don't know. My thought is that an end of year tournament would do nothing but ADD excitement to the season.

The Ohio State Michigan game would have been a lot less meaningful this year if there were a playoff. Both of the knew they'd make the playoffs so you wouldn't have had as much intensity. Also, what if either team had kept some of their players on the bench for part of the game just to keep them fresh. The would become prevalent espcially if there were only a week or two until the tournament started. Also, you would have to go back to 11 or maybe even 10 game regular seasons. How would all the schools that don't make the tournament feel about losing that revenue.

Not to mention that the Ohio State, Texas game at the beginning of the year wouldn't have meant as much. Instead of the commentary about how this puts the winner in the lead for a national title, you would have had bland commentary talking about the likely rematch in the playoffs. I'm sorry, but when you can be talking about games with national championship implications each week of the year, that is pretty sweet.

**ISUFan22** · 01-04-2007, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by clone52

The Ohio State Michigan game would have been a lot less meaningful this year if there were a playoff. Both of the knew they'd make the playoffs so you wouldn't have had as much intensity.

How can you say that?

The winner of that game would receive the #1 seed - giving them the easier road. The loser likely dropped to a #3 seed.

In the NFL, coaches don't sit their players until they have nothing to play for. They don't just play their 16 regular season games to get into the playoffs - they play to win their division and get the best seed possible.

OSU and Michigan would have a lot riding on that game - playoffs or no playoffs.

I've yet to buy an argument that made much sense against a playoff system. Think about having March Madness in December/January - the football version. The money is still there too - there would be more games. Traveling isn't easy - yet these schools do it during the year - why not in the post-season?

Every conference winner automatically gets in plus however many at large teams to fill the pool. Seed 'em, pair 'em up and let them beat the crap out of one another until just one is left standing.

Boise State actually gets their shot at OSU in the 2nd round. Michigan and Florida square off in the semi-finals. ND is ousted in the first round. Wisky shows they're not just a one-loss team with an easy schedule. Rutgers shocks everyone and wins a couple games.

How can that not benefit college football?

**247cy** · 01-04-2007, 12:16 PM

D-1 college football is the only sport I can think of that does not use a tournament format to decide it's champion. A playoff is absolutely NEEDED. What happens if Florida beats Ohio State? Who is the National Champion? Boise State at 13-0? What about Wisconsin or Louisville both at 12-1? Both of those teams would have the same record as Florida at that point.

I'm not saying open it up to a bracket the size of basketball, but some of these teams deserve a shot to prove it on the field. An 8 to 10 team bracket would probably get it done. The non D1 schools seem to make this work. Save the bowls to decide the outcome of the champion and consolation games - wich is kind of what they are now.

**wonkadog** · 01-04-2007, 12:58 PM

I'm just baffled at how some of you can still be against a playoff. Here's a newsflash...we can have a playoff system that still includes the bowl games!! As for the argument about lesser conference teams being worn out more after playing 3 or 4 games in a row, give me a break. There are some legitimate arguments out there against a playoff but THAT is not one of them. How in the world can some of you say that it would be a good thing if Florida wins Monday night and we declare them the National Champions over how many other 1 loss teams and an undefeated team???

**amyk33** · 01-04-2007, 01:20 PM

Ok, you all make great arguments, so why is nothing happening? Why isn't it a playoff? Why does the NCAA not adopt a system more like the NFL? It has to be money driven.

**ISUFan22** · 01-04-2007, 01:21 PM

I wonder if it's more of a "this is the way we've always done it" type of thing. The money, travel, etc - are just excuses in my book.

It's hard for people to admit and accept change can be a good thing.