Heard it all now. "The Media" can't make up their mind.

[Bulldog Bruce]

On the Scott Van Pelt show today, Ryen Russillio questioned if the NFL playoffs is a flawed system and that maybe the BCS is closer to having it right. He sites that the past few years the SuperBowl winner was not necessarily the best team. These Wild Card teams have done better than they should. He said the regular season is not really providing definitive info on the best team. Also said Home field is not enough of an advantage anymore. He also referred to the playoffs as "the tournament", as I have heard many media folks do this past year.

He is a Boston guy so I guess the Jets victory has him upset. It is obvious that the Patriots should be in the SuperBowl according to him. That's who the people want to see.

The media has defintely gotten into correlating popularity to good. They think the NBA finals should always be Lakers Vs Celtics or Knicks. Baseball should be Yankees Vs Boston (they are not sure of the national league team). They always have an opinion on what would be the best or highest rated match-up and are disappointed when it does not come to fruition. They are more interested in outcome than the true "playing it on the field" to determine outcome.

I guess they need something to talk about during their shows. Still hard to believe anyone went there.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

On the Scott Van Pelt show today, Ryen Russillio questioned if the NFL playoffs is a flawed system and that maybe the BCS is closer to having it right. He sites that the past few years the SuperBowl winner was not necessarily the best team. These Wild Card teams have done better than they should. He said the regular season is not really providing definitive info on the best team. Also said Home field is not enough of an advantage anymore. He also referred to the playoffs as "the tournament", as I have heard many media folks do this past year.

He is a Boston guy so I guess the Jets victory has him upset. It is obvious that the Patriots should be in the SuperBowl according to him. That's who the people want to see.

The media has defintely gotten into correlating popularity to good. They think the NBA finals should always be Lakers Vs Celtics or Knicks. Baseball should be Yankees Vs Boston (they are not sure of the national league team). They always have an opinion on what would be the best or highest rated match-up and are disappointed when it does not come to fruition. They are more interested in outcome than the true "playing it on the field" to determine outcome.

I guess they need something to talk about during their shows. Still hard to believe anyone went there.

 

[Stormrider81]

I'm not a big fan of the Pats, but I was hoping they would beat the Jets if for nothing else than to shut them up. But, the Jets deserve to be in the AFC title game. They went on the road and beat the Pats. That's a tough thing to do. They beat Brady at home in the playoffs with a very prolific team. This is what makes a playoff our tournament exciting. It doesn't matter what your record was in the regular season. It's all 0-0 when the playoffs start. Win or go home. Anyone that argues against this system is just dumb.

What would you do with a team like Green Bay, which might be the best team in the NFL and should be considered as having a great shot at winning the whole thing? It's not their fault they had so many injuries this year. Under a BCS type system they don't have a shot at anything. Yet, because of the playoff system, they have a legit shot at playing their way intoa championship now that they have injured players back. That's what great about a playoff and what stinks about the BCS. </p>

 

[RebelBruiser]

It determines a "champion", but not necessarily the best team, especially when it is limited to single or double elimination.

If you have a 7 game series in place, then it's a better indicator of "best team", though that's not always going to be the case.

To me "best team" is something that can be argued. If you set up the NFL playoffs for example and you played them 10 times in a row, you'd probably end up with at least 4 or 5 different champions.

Which one is the best team? The one that would win more often than not, but you can't really determine that unless you were able to play a very large sample size. Playoffs allow for momentum and for a team to get hot or for a team to have some bounces go their way.

I'll give the Giants's Super Bowl as an example. I still will contend that the Patriots 18-0 prior to the Super Bowl were the best team in the NFL that year, but in one game they lost to the Giants, and the Giants won the championship. The Giants may not have even been the best team in the NFC that year. They were hot at the time and rode a wave of confidence. I still think the Cowboys were better and they were fortunate to get by the Cowboys. That's the case most seasons.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

that the same folks generally say that there should be a playoff in D1 football. Now they complain about a true playoff system.

The problem the whole BCS/playoff argument almost always ignores is that the Championship Team each year is not always the Best Team. The talk is always that we want the best team crowned. Well a playoff system does not always crown the best team. The BCS does not always crown the best team.

Again they generally are more worried about a predetermined outcome than the natural outcome.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

And Auburn got beat in the second round by, say, Boise State. There would be those who would come out and say that the best team did not win, but there are others who say that if Auburn could not beat them, then the regular season did not really say much about the teams. This is where those who say the regular season doesn't matter would step in and say precisely that. I would argue that the regular season matters even more because of the playoffs. Without wildcards (or especially a playoff), the Jets would have had nothing to play for the final weeks of the season. Instead, they keep their playoff hopes alive and emerge victorious thus far. In college this year, that would have meant that the LSU/Arkansas game would not have been for a Sugar Bowl spot but for a playoff spot (some might argue both teams would make a 16 team field, but the winner surely would have gone on).<div>
</div><div>If you want the "best" team, just get a bunch of overweight former players to sit around a table before a game broadcast and pick the winners. Don't even bother looking at the score of the game. Just go with what they say. That way the Patriots would have won last night.</div>

 

[patdog]

What would you do with a team like Green Bay, which might be the best team in the NFL and should be considered as having a great shot at winning the whole thing? It's not their fault they had so many injuries this year.</p>

You can't make a case for Green Bay being the best team in the league because you've got to play with you you've got. They did an unbelievable job with the amount of injuries they had, but they weren't the best team in the league.

I just don't understand why people are suddenly bitching about this now. It's not like this is the first time the best team won't win the Super Bowl.

 

[state5]

that we are talking about sports. We will never have a perfect situation. I think that a playoff gives the mostpeople the opportunity to be the champion, but it will always be argued that the team that won it all wasn't the "best team" It doesn't matter what format you use.

 

[1549 miles away]

Mora

 

[Goat Holder II]

so I don't see what they are bitching about. You can't play a best of 7 series. Although they may have a point about the attractiveness of the game.....Super Bowl would have been Atlanta vs. New England. Alot better than Chicago/Green Bay vs. NYJ/Pittsburgh, to me anyway, based on the season and having two 14-2 teams.

 

[BDTS]

BCS Matchups<div>1998: Tennessee (12-0) vs. Florida State (11-1) AGREE</div><div>1999: Florida State (11-0) vs. Virginia Tech (11-0) AGREE</div><div>2000: Oklahoma (11-0) vs. Florida State (10-1) AGREE</div><div>2001: Miami (11-0) vs. Nebraska (11-1) AGREE</div><div>2002: Ohio State (13-0) vs. Miami (12-0) AGREE</div><div>2003: LSU (12-1) vs. Oklahoma (12-1) AGREE</div><div>2004: USC (12-0) vs. Oklahoma (12-0) DEBATABLE (AUBURN)</div><div>2005: Texas (12-0) vs. USC (12-0) AGREE</div><div>2006: Florida (11-1) vs. Ohio State (12-0) AGREE</div><div>2007: LSU (11-2) vs. Ohio State (11-1) DEBATABLE (SEVERAL)</div><div>2008: Florida (12-1) vs. Oklahoma (12-1) AGREE</div><div>2009: Alabama (13-0) vs. Texas (13-0) AGREE</div><div>2010: Auburn (13-0) vs. Oregon (12-0) AGREE</div><div>
</div><div>There's no doubt that the BCS is a better system for matching up the two best teams in college football compared to the playoffs leading up to the Super Bowl. Of course the NFL playoff system is more "fair," but more often than not a team that is not viewed as being one of the top two teams is playing for the trophy. Like RebelBruiser pointed out, the best system would be a playoff with several games in each series, but obviously that cannot be achieved because of the physical toll that each game has on teams. </div><div>
</div><div>I however prefer to see a playoff, not because of the fairness but mainly because of the increase in entertainment that it would offer. The only BCS games I enjoyed this year were Rose, Sugar, and BCS championship. With an 8 or 16 team playoff, that number would automatically increase to 7 or 15. Obviously there would have to be a lot of restructuring in college football and the bowl season toaccommodatethis, but it would definitely be worth the increase in entertainment and revenue.</div><div>
</div>

 

[1549 miles away]

matching the best two teams from the BCS conferences. It does a lousy job of finding a cinderella. It purposely keeps the non BCS schools out of the championship. The cinderella team is what makes the NCAA tourney so fun to watch. Interesting that if the NFL were run by the BCS, Seattle never would have had a chance to beat the Saints.

 

[8dog]

They are the poster children for a playoff

 

[Todd4State]

matching the best two teams from the BCS conferences. It does a lousy job of finding a cinderella. It purposely keeps the non BCS schools out of the championship. The cinderella team is what makes the NCAA tourney so fun to watch. Interesting that if the NFL were run by the BCS, Seattle never would have had a chance to beat the Saints.

It's specifically meant for the best to meet up with the best. As a fan of a 9-4 SEC team, I still have a problem with a team from the WAC going undefeated and having to play for a NC. Personally, I would rather watch a 13-0 team from the SEC face a 13-0 team from the PAC 12 than watch a 12-2 Arkansas team that "got hot" vs an undefeated Auburn team.

 

[EmoryBellard]

Most non-descript 14-2 team EVER. No really interesting stories or any reason for non-ATL fans to cheer for them. Three of the most storied franchises in the league are left, and the Jets are interesting, even if they piss you off.

/ Saints fan

//But I'm right

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

Thank goodness.<div>
</div><div>I'd like to see the Jets win it all at this point. I like the way they play and the entertainment value is certainly there. I'm guessing Jets vs. Bears is the dream match up for those who are selling ads.</div>

 

[RebelBruiser]

If you aren't going to have a playoff though, I still say you have to use the human polls only, with computer polls only used as a tiebreaker.

With a sample size of only 12 games, human polls using the eye test are always going to be better than a computer generated program, though there are inherent problems with the human polls as well, namely that the voters in most cases only get to see one or two games per weekend typically, and they rarely get to see anyone outside of their region. The thing that helps balance the human polls out is a good regional spread of voters, so that any regional bias based on only seeing certain teams can be negated to an extent by voters in other regions.

 

[dogfan96]

what, because most people hate the Patriots? I'd call them the anti-Yankees.. they do it under a salary cap, mostly through the draft, and without a ton of star power outside of Brady.

 

[EmoryBellard]

So there.

 

[GloryDawg]

With the40 daylay off I don't think you get the best game. Also the whole BCS thing was to stop the split national championship but we have had it at lest once since the BCS was started. If the AP thinks someone else should be number 1 then we got two. That could have easily happen this year with TCU.

 

[8dog]

if you are going to not have a playoff, then have a selection committee just like the one proposed for the playoff.

You cannot leave it to a bunch of coaches or SIDs that never watch a lot of other games or have regional conference biases. And the Harris Poll is just a random group of people.

 

[1549 miles away]

matching the best two teams from the BCS conferences. It does a lousy job of finding a cinderella. It purposely keeps the non BCS schools out of the championship. The cinderella team is what makes the NCAA tourney so fun to watch. Interesting that if the NFL were run by the BCS, Seattle never would have had a chance to beat the Saints.

It's specifically meant for the best to meet up with the best. As a fan of a 9-4 SEC team, I still have a problem with a team from the WAC going undefeated and having to play for a NC. Personally, I would rather watch a 13-0 team from the SEC face a 13-0 team from the PAC 12 than watch a 12-2 Arkansas team that "got hot" vs an undefeated Auburn team.

what you would rather watch. I would rather see undefeated teams from non-BCS conferences get a CHANCE to put up or shut up.

 

[RebelBruiser]

if you are going to not have a playoff, then have a selection committee just like the one proposed for the playoff.

You cannot leave it to a bunch of coaches or SIDs that never watch a lot of other games or have regional conference biases. And the Harris Poll is just a random group of people.

That might be even better, but my point was that the eye test is better than computer polls for college football. I still don't like it, but the more people you have involved giving their eye test, the more accurate your poll is likely to be.