(12-26-2020 06:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-25-2020 04:55 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(12-25-2020 04:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-25-2020 03:08 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Outside of that outlier and 2014 UCONN, who else has won the NCAA tournament that was a shocker cinderella? Very rare indeed. A #1 seed has won the chip 63% of the time, #2 14% and #3 11% since the field was expanded to 64. That means 88% of the winners have come from the top 12 teams seeded in the tourney. That is a good array of blue blood winners with those programs that aren't always in the upper tier. That's why the NCAA tourney is so popular with fans and generates tremendous interest every year.

I agree that the NCAA tournament often does pick the best team as champion. But the CFP is pretty much perfect at that.

Was Virginia the best basketball team in 2018-2019? Maybe, but boy they got some near-miracle finishes to win. They came within an eyelash of not winning.

In contrast, there's far less doubt that LSU was the best football team in 2019, Clemson was best in 2018, etc.

IMO, you can have the best of the both worlds if you expand the CFP similar to what you have in the NCAA tourney. That is, most years the best team wins but it falls across a wider slate of the better teams to have a chance to win. Consider the last 20 NCAA tourney winners and seed:

2019 Virginia 1
2018 Villanova 1
2017 North Carolina 1
2016 Villanova 2
2015 Duke 1
2014 UConn 7
2013 Louisville 1
2012 Kentucky 1
2011 UConn 3
2010 Duke 1
2009 North Carolina 1
2008 Kansas 1
2007 Florida 1
2006 Florida 2
2005 North Carolina 1
2004 UConn 2
2003 Syracuse 3
2002 Maryland 1
2001 Duke 1
2000 Michigan St 1

That's a good mix of winners - 12 different teams- and most were top seeded. You have some programs that only won one title and you have several that won multiple titles [UNC, Dook, UConn, Nova and Florida]. Contrast that with the CFP [winner listed first]:

2019 LSU vs Clemson
2018 Clemson vs Alabama
2017 Alabama vs Georgia
2016 Clemson vs Alabama
2015 Alabama vs Clemson
2014 Ohio St vs Oregon

I think most of us believe Bama or Clemson will take the 2020 title. So assuming that, Bama or Clemson will have won 5 of 7 titles and appeared in the majority of CFP finals. Widen the field and I don't believe that remains as statistically probable.

Most were 1 seeds. That doesn't mean the top seed. It simply means they were in the top 4. In 2015, for example, Kentucky was the #1 seed. Duke was #2 overall.

At best the NCAA tournament selects the “best” team about half the time. I believe that if college basketball played best of 7 series (like the NBA), the following teams were better than the eventual tournament champions:
2014 - probably about a dozen teams were better than Connecticut; including Louisville, Arizona, Florida, Virginia, Wichita State and Wisconsin
2015 - Kentucky and Wisconsin were likely better than Duke
2017 - Gonzaga and Villanova were likely better than North Carolina
Three out of the last six champions were not necessarily the “best” teams.

Six rounds of win or go home tournaments introduce an element of luck...the role of chance is actually significant. Not suggesting that Connecticut, Duke nor UNC weren’t worthy champions; I’m just not convinced that they were the best teams in college basketball that season. The NCAA tournament is designed as a television entertainment event...it’s not designed as a means for selecting the best team in a given season.

A good case study that explains the intent of the NCAA tournament is 1983. During the regular season Virginia beat NC State at Reynolds Coliseum by 8 points; then beat them again at home at University Hall by 9 points. I was at that game, and Virginia was far superior. Yet the regular season games didn’t really matter. NC State went on a magical run that included a 63-62 win over #1 seeded Virginia in the NCAA tournament. The NCAA tournament is a TV event designed for Cinderella story-lines.

NC State also beat UVa in the ACC Tournament.

(12-26-2020 09:30 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  The best team always wins the college basketball title.

You cannot say that about college football

You can't say it about college basketball either. Determining who the best team is is not the goal of the NCAAT. "Champion" doesn't mean "Best". It just means the winner of a tournament.

In the modern era, the NCAAT has done a good job of producing a champion from a field that includes all the teams that could be considered realistic candidates to be described as the "best". That wasn't always the case.

The BCS "champion" didn't win such a tournament, and we can make a good case that in many years of the BCS a team that wasn't invited to play in the championship game might very well have been the "best", and some of those might have actually won had they been given a chance to play.

Even with only a four team tournament, the CFP has done a pretty good job of including every team that could have won that tournament, and maybe even could have won an 8 team tournament. It's why the winner is almost universally accepted as a worthy champion. But like the NCAAT, no college football playoff can ever be said to determine which team is "best". Not even the Super Bowl does that.

(12-26-2020 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 11:30 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  I’m not sure why you would measure it any other way then who’s best at the end of the season

It’s a relevant how well they did in December or January other than to influence seeding

By your logic if a runner leads a marathon for 26 miles but then fades at the end and gets pass by five runners he should be declared cochampion

Only one thing matters how - you finish


College football fails in that regard

Best in one game does not mean best in the season. And you may not have played many of the other best teams. They may have had an off night and lost.

It happens in college football too. Almost nobody believes 1983 Miami, the MNC, was better than pre bowl #1 Nebraska, or that Georgia was better than pre bowl #2 Texas. But they both won by 1 point in their bowl games. That got Miami moved up to win the MNC. But that didn't make them the best team, only the champion.

The bolded is the issue. I don't care what you believe, you have to prove it on the court or field. The NCAA tournament does that for every sport but FBS. The CFP does not do that. Which is why the NCAA awards national championships in every sport but FBS, where it only recognizes claims.

One is done, acknowledge, and no one debates it.
The other is debatable at best, often full of controversy and rarely accepted. Even during the CFP era.

(12-26-2020 08:39 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Six rounds of win or go home tournaments introduce an element of luck...the role of chance is actually significant. Not suggesting that Connecticut, Duke nor UNC weren’t worthy champions; I’m just not convinced that they were the best teams in college basketball that season. The NCAA tournament is designed as a television entertainment event...it’s not designed as a means for selecting the best team in a given season.

Yes, just look at Virginia in 2018 and 2019. In 2018 Virginia was likely the best team or very close to it, and lost vs the #16 seed in the first round. The next year, Virginia wasn't any better than in 2018, but won the title after winning three razor-thin games where they looked beaten in two of them.

Basically the same team, two radically different outcomes.

(12-26-2020 11:40 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  One is done, acknowledge, and no one debates it.

The other is debatable at best, often full of controversy and rarely accepted. Even during the CFP era.

I don't believe that either of those statements are true. And that's a good thing. because once college sports stops generating debate about who is/was the "best" they will die a slow death. Then they are just another minor league providing talent to the pros.

(12-26-2020 11:40 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 11:30 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  I’m not sure why you would measure it any other way then who’s best at the end of the season

It’s a relevant how well they did in December or January other than to influence seeding

By your logic if a runner leads a marathon for 26 miles but then fades at the end and gets pass by five runners he should be declared cochampion

Only one thing matters how - you finish


College football fails in that regard

Best in one game does not mean best in the season. And you may not have played many of the other best teams. They may have had an off night and lost.

It happens in college football too. Almost nobody believes 1983 Miami, the MNC, was better than pre bowl #1 Nebraska, or that Georgia was better than pre bowl #2 Texas. But they both won by 1 point in their bowl games. That got Miami moved up to win the MNC. But that didn't make them the best team, only the champion.

The bolded is the issue. I don't care what you believe, you have to prove it on the court or field. The NCAA tournament does that for every sport but FBS. The CFP does not do that. Which is why the NCAA awards national championships in every sport but FBS, where it only recognizes claims.

One is done, acknowledge, and no one debates it.
The other is debatable at best, often full of controversy and rarely accepted. Even during the CFP era.

Lack of debate is not necessarily a good thing. It can mean a kind of 'groupthink' or brainwashing has set in where people accept things they really shouldn't.

E.g. Look at the NFL this year - someone is going to win the NFC East with a 7-9 record and make the playoffs. Someone else in the NFC might go 10-6, including with a win over the NFC East champ, and miss the playoffs.

That's utterly ridiculous and wrong, but because "everyone knows that's the system" and "we all knew the rules before the season started" it will not be much debated, so a wrong goes unchallenged.

Sadly, sports fans are conditioned to accept playoff systems as inherently valid without much questioning them. Bottom line is the CFP probably does pick the "true best football team" more often the NCAA hoops tournament does the same for basketball.

Reading a number of posts within this thread, there is really only one true way to guarantee a fair, equitable and equal college football playoff:

A 130-team playoff, with each matchup a best-of-seven and the elimination of conferences altogether. This way, the Coastal Carolinas, Liberties, Cincinnatis, Boise States and UCFs not only have a guaranteed shot at a true national championship, but enough set games against the P5, which will provide a great reset to the historical inequalities and conference associations that plague college football.

The only downfall would be that such a system would easily take over 250 games to complete, and likely take multiple seasons to conduct, but it is a necessary sacrifice to bring order and justice to the collegiate football landscape.

(12-27-2020 11:02 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Reading a number of posts within this thread, there is really only one true way to guarantee a fair, equitable and equal college football playoff:

A 130-team playoff, with each matchup a best-of-seven and the elimination of conferences altogether. This way, the Coastal Carolinas, Liberties, Cincinnatis, Boise States and UCFs not only have a guaranteed shot at a true national championship, but enough set games against the P5, which will provide a great reset to the historical inequalities and conference associations that plague college football.

The only downfall would be that such a system would easily take over 250 games to complete, and likely take multiple seasons to conduct, but it is a necessary sacrifice to bring order and justice to the collegiate football landscape.

I'm trying to imagine the angst of the teams that are eliminated in the first round, knowing it might be years before they get to play again.

(12-27-2020 09:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 08:39 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Six rounds of win or go home tournaments introduce an element of luck...the role of chance is actually significant. Not suggesting that Connecticut, Duke nor UNC weren’t worthy champions; I’m just not convinced that they were the best teams in college basketball that season. The NCAA tournament is designed as a television entertainment event...it’s not designed as a means for selecting the best team in a given season.

Yes, just look at Virginia in 2018 and 2019. In 2018 Virginia was likely the best team or very close to it, and lost vs the #16 seed in the first round. The next year, Virginia wasn't any better than in 2018, but won the title after winning three razor-thin games where they looked beaten in two of them.

Basically the same team, two radically different outcomes.

You’re right. It’s amazing that 1) UMBC absolutely clobbered UVA and 2) Purdue, Auburn and Texas Tech all had stretches in the final minutes were they were favored. Those teams were both excellent, but it took a streak of 1983 NC State-like luck to claim the championship.

(12-27-2020 09:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 11:40 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 11:30 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  I’m not sure why you would measure it any other way then who’s best at the end of the season

It’s a relevant how well they did in December or January other than to influence seeding

By your logic if a runner leads a marathon for 26 miles but then fades at the end and gets pass by five runners he should be declared cochampion

Only one thing matters how - you finish


College football fails in that regard

Best in one game does not mean best in the season. And you may not have played many of the other best teams. They may have had an off night and lost.

It happens in college football too. Almost nobody believes 1983 Miami, the MNC, was better than pre bowl #1 Nebraska, or that Georgia was better than pre bowl #2 Texas. But they both won by 1 point in their bowl games. That got Miami moved up to win the MNC. But that didn't make them the best team, only the champion.

The bolded is the issue. I don't care what you believe, you have to prove it on the court or field. The NCAA tournament does that for every sport but FBS. The CFP does not do that. Which is why the NCAA awards national championships in every sport but FBS, where it only recognizes claims.

One is done, acknowledge, and no one debates it.
The other is debatable at best, often full of controversy and rarely accepted. Even during the CFP era.

Lack of debate is not necessarily a good thing. It can mean a kind of 'groupthink' or brainwashing has set in where people accept things they really shouldn't.

E.g. Look at the NFL this year - someone is going to win the NFC East with a 7-9 record and make the playoffs. Someone else in the NFC might go 10-6, including with a win over the NFC East champ, and miss the playoffs.

That's utterly ridiculous and wrong, but because "everyone knows that's the system" and "we all knew the rules before the season started" it will not be much debated, so a wrong goes unchallenged.

Sadly, sports fans are conditioned to accept playoff systems as inherently valid without much questioning them. Bottom line is the CFP probably does pick the "true best football team" more often the NCAA hoops tournament does the same for basketball.

Well the advantage is they generally have rules in place and everyone knows what they have to do. 1973 Mets went 82-79 and won their division, beat the Reds in a best of 5 and lead 3-2 over the A's before losing the last two games in the World Series. 1981 was the exception. With the strike, they changed the rules in the middle of the season and made it half-seasons. The Reds, the team with the best record in baseball and the Cardinals, with the 3rd best (A's had 2nd best) didn't even make the playoffs, both finishing 2nd in one half by virtue of playing one less game.

1968 Colts were one of the best teams of all time, finishing 13-1 and destroying the Browns, the only team to beat them in the regular season, in the NFL title game, but the Colts were thoroughly outplayed by the 11-3 Jets in the Super Bowl. The Jets were the undisputed champions.

Sometimes its a tough call. 1967 Colts didn't make the playoffs even though they tied for the best record in the NFL at 11-1-2 and only lost in the final game of the season, but they lost that game to the Rams, who won the tiebreak and also went 11-1-2. And then lost to the Packers.

(12-27-2020 01:44 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 09:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 08:39 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Six rounds of win or go home tournaments introduce an element of luck...the role of chance is actually significant. Not suggesting that Connecticut, Duke nor UNC weren’t worthy champions; I’m just not convinced that they were the best teams in college basketball that season. The NCAA tournament is designed as a television entertainment event...it’s not designed as a means for selecting the best team in a given season.

Yes, just look at Virginia in 2018 and 2019. In 2018 Virginia was likely the best team or very close to it, and lost vs the #16 seed in the first round. The next year, Virginia wasn't any better than in 2018, but won the title after winning three razor-thin games where they looked beaten in two of them.

Basically the same team, two radically different outcomes.

You’re right. It’s amazing that 1) UMBC absolutely clobbered UVA and 2) Purdue, Auburn and Texas Tech all had stretches in the final minutes were they were favored. Those teams were both excellent, but it took a streak of 1983 NC State-like luck to claim the championship.

A championship I was gratified to see you guys win, btw. I grew up in the DC area watching ACC basketball. My first recollection of UVA hoops was in 1976, when Wally Walker led you guys to an upset win in the ACC tournament. That remains IMO on of the all-time great conference tournament upsets. You guys went through three powerhouse teams in three days.

I was a Maryland fan at the time, but over the years I always felt UVA and Maryland were kind of in the same boat, always butting heads with and losing out to the Carolina teams. So just as I was glad when Maryland finally rang the bell in 2002, ditto for Virginia in 2019.

(12-27-2020 01:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 09:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 11:40 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 11:30 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  I’m not sure why you would measure it any other way then who’s best at the end of the season

It’s a relevant how well they did in December or January other than to influence seeding

By your logic if a runner leads a marathon for 26 miles but then fades at the end and gets pass by five runners he should be declared cochampion

Only one thing matters how - you finish


College football fails in that regard

Best in one game does not mean best in the season. And you may not have played many of the other best teams. They may have had an off night and lost.

It happens in college football too. Almost nobody believes 1983 Miami, the MNC, was better than pre bowl #1 Nebraska, or that Georgia was better than pre bowl #2 Texas. But they both won by 1 point in their bowl games. That got Miami moved up to win the MNC. But that didn't make them the best team, only the champion.

The bolded is the issue. I don't care what you believe, you have to prove it on the court or field. The NCAA tournament does that for every sport but FBS. The CFP does not do that. Which is why the NCAA awards national championships in every sport but FBS, where it only recognizes claims.

One is done, acknowledge, and no one debates it.
The other is debatable at best, often full of controversy and rarely accepted. Even during the CFP era.

Lack of debate is not necessarily a good thing. It can mean a kind of 'groupthink' or brainwashing has set in where people accept things they really shouldn't.

E.g. Look at the NFL this year - someone is going to win the NFC East with a 7-9 record and make the playoffs. Someone else in the NFC might go 10-6, including with a win over the NFC East champ, and miss the playoffs.

That's utterly ridiculous and wrong, but because "everyone knows that's the system" and "we all knew the rules before the season started" it will not be much debated, so a wrong goes unchallenged.

Sadly, sports fans are conditioned to accept playoff systems as inherently valid without much questioning them. Bottom line is the CFP probably does pick the "true best football team" more often the NCAA hoops tournament does the same for basketball.

Well the advantage is they generally have rules in place and everyone knows what they have to do. 1973 Mets went 82-79 and won their division, beat the Reds in a best of 5 and lead 3-2 over the A's before losing the last two games in the World Series. 1981 was the exception. With the strike, they changed the rules in the middle of the season and made it half-seasons. The Reds, the team with the best record in baseball and the Cardinals, with the 3rd best (A's had 2nd best) didn't even make the playoffs, both finishing 2nd in one half by virtue of playing one less game.

1968 Colts were one of the best teams of all time, finishing 13-1 and destroying the Browns, the only team to beat them in the regular season, in the NFL title game, but the Colts were thoroughly outplayed by the 11-3 Jets in the Super Bowl. The Jets were the undisputed champions.

Sometimes its a tough call. 1967 Colts didn't make the playoffs even though they tied for the best record in the NFL at 11-1-2 and only lost in the final game of the season, but they lost that game to the Rams, who won the tiebreak and also went 11-1-2. And then lost to the Packers.

That last one is another example of how playoffs can be structured dumb. The reason the Rams lost to the Packers was the game was in frigid Green Bay, despite the fact that the Rams were 11-1-2 to Green Bay's 9-3-1, including a win over Green Bay during the season. But back then, home field for playoff games rotated among divisions, it was not based on record. So the sunny-side-up LA Rams had to play on the Frozen Tundra.

The temperature at game time was 13 degrees with a 15 mph wind creating a wind chill of -3.

(12-27-2020 02:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 01:44 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-27-2020 09:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 08:39 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Six rounds of win or go home tournaments introduce an element of luck...the role of chance is actually significant. Not suggesting that Connecticut, Duke nor UNC weren’t worthy champions; I’m just not convinced that they were the best teams in college basketball that season. The NCAA tournament is designed as a television entertainment event...it’s not designed as a means for selecting the best team in a given season.

Yes, just look at Virginia in 2018 and 2019. In 2018 Virginia was likely the best team or very close to it, and lost vs the #16 seed in the first round. The next year, Virginia wasn't any better than in 2018, but won the title after winning three razor-thin games where they looked beaten in two of them.

Basically the same team, two radically different outcomes.

You’re right. It’s amazing that 1) UMBC absolutely clobbered UVA and 2) Purdue, Auburn and Texas Tech all had stretches in the final minutes were they were favored. Those teams were both excellent, but it took a streak of 1983 NC State-like luck to claim the championship.

A championship I was gratified to see you guys win, btw. I grew up in the DC area watching ACC basketball. My first recollection of UVA hoops was in 1976, when Wally Walker led you guys to an upset win in the ACC tournament. That remains IMO on of the all-time great conference tournament upsets. You guys went through three powerhouse teams in three days.

I was a Maryland fan at the time, but over the years I always felt UVA and Maryland were kind of in the same boat, always butting heads with and losing out to the Carolina teams. So just as I was glad when Maryland finally rang the bell in 2002, ditto for Virginia in 2019.

Unfortunately, I was also a huge Maryland basketball fan in the 1970s. I was crushed because the 1976 tournament was at the Cap Centre (negating the usual fan bias) and John Lucas & Mo Howard were seniors. Wally Walker just had an amazing tournament (and an underrated professional career afterwards).

There is a lot of basketball talent in the mid-Atlantic corridor. Both championships were great rides and well deserved.

(12-26-2020 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 11:30 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  I’m not sure why you would measure it any other way then who’s best at the end of the season

It’s a relevant how well they did in December or January other than to influence seeding

By your logic if a runner leads a marathon for 26 miles but then fades at the end and gets pass by five runners he should be declared cochampion

Only one thing matters how - you finish


College football fails in that regard

Best in one game does not mean best in the season. And you may not have played many of the other best teams. They may have had an off night and lost.

It happens in college football too. Almost nobody believes 1983 Miami, the MNC, was better than pre bowl #1 Nebraska, or that Georgia was better than pre bowl #2 Texas. But they both won by 1 point in their bowl games. That got Miami moved up to win the MNC. But that didn't make them the best team, only the champion.

So you DON'T want the champion determined on the court or the Field. Let's ban all post-season and have a popular vote.

(12-26-2020 07:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 11:30 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  I’m not sure why you would measure it any other way then who’s best at the end of the season

Well because the end of the season is just part of the season. It's not the whole season.

So why have a post-season at all? Or have a champion for each month. Makes as much sense as what you are saying.

(12-26-2020 10:08 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 09:30 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  The best team always wins the college basketball title.

You cannot say that about college football

You can't say it about college basketball either. Determining who the best team is is not the goal of the NCAAT. "Champion" doesn't mean "Best". It just means the winner of a tournament.

In the modern era, the NCAAT has done a good job of producing a champion from a field that includes all the teams that could be considered realistic candidates to be described as the "best". That wasn't always the case.

The BCS "champion" didn't win such a tournament, and we can make a good case that in many years of the BCS a team that wasn't invited to play in the championship game might very well have been the "best", and some of those might have actually won had they been given a chance to play.

Even with only a four team tournament, the CFP has done a pretty good job of including every team that could have won that tournament, and maybe even could have won an 8 team tournament. It's why the winner is almost universally accepted as a worthy champion. But like the NCAAT, no college football playoff can ever be said to determine which team is "best". Not even the Super Bowl does that.

Actually you can. The best team is the one that can win 6 in a row when it really matters.

If you lose in the tournament, you just proved you aren't the best team. I thought that was the whole point of sports - to determine the winner on the field. Otherwise, why bother to play?

(12-28-2020 11:16 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 11:30 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  I’m not sure why you would measure it any other way then who’s best at the end of the season

It’s a relevant how well they did in December or January other than to influence seeding

By your logic if a runner leads a marathon for 26 miles but then fades at the end and gets pass by five runners he should be declared cochampion

Only one thing matters how - you finish


College football fails in that regard

Best in one game does not mean best in the season. And you may not have played many of the other best teams. They may have had an off night and lost.

It happens in college football too. Almost nobody believes 1983 Miami, the MNC, was better than pre bowl #1 Nebraska, or that Georgia was better than pre bowl #2 Texas. But they both won by 1 point in their bowl games. That got Miami moved up to win the MNC. But that didn't make them the best team, only the champion.

So you DON'T want the champion determined on the court or the Field. Let's ban all post-season and have a popular vote.

Are you that dense or just like to argue? Why do you just make up stupid statements?

Best is not necessarily equal to champion. That's a simple definition that is obvious.

Most people prefer a system that makes it more likely to have your best as the champion, but the only way to be sure of that is to have everyone play each other multiple times. We had that in the National League and American League before divisions. But the pros discovered playoffs are profitable.

(12-28-2020 11:21 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 10:08 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 09:30 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  The best team always wins the college basketball title.

You cannot say that about college football

You can't say it about college basketball either. Determining who the best team is is not the goal of the NCAAT. "Champion" doesn't mean "Best". It just means the winner of a tournament.

In the modern era, the NCAAT has done a good job of producing a champion from a field that includes all the teams that could be considered realistic candidates to be described as the "best". That wasn't always the case.

The BCS "champion" didn't win such a tournament, and we can make a good case that in many years of the BCS a team that wasn't invited to play in the championship game might very well have been the "best", and some of those might have actually won had they been given a chance to play.

Even with only a four team tournament, the CFP has done a pretty good job of including every team that could have won that tournament, and maybe even could have won an 8 team tournament. It's why the winner is almost universally accepted as a worthy champion. But like the NCAAT, no college football playoff can ever be said to determine which team is "best". Not even the Super Bowl does that.

Actually you can. The best team is the one that can win 6 in a row when it really matters.

If you lose in the tournament, you just proved you aren't the best team. I thought that was the whole point of sports - to determine the winner on the field. Otherwise, why bother to play?

This is how bad the CFP has effected college sports, its creeping into everything. The best team is no longer the team capable of winning a competition that forces everyone to compete under the same rules. It has now become the champion is who your bias tells you it is.

All other NCAA sports, the NFL, MLB, NHL, MLS have got it wrong, you don't have to play to be champion, just get some of your friends together once a week to hype you up for a month. Then play against other popular teams who got hyped by their friends for a few weeks in a row. That's how sport is supposed to be played, not a competition, just a participation trophy for being most popular.

(12-28-2020 11:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-28-2020 11:16 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 11:30 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  I’m not sure why you would measure it any other way then who’s best at the end of the season

It’s a relevant how well they did in December or January other than to influence seeding

By your logic if a runner leads a marathon for 26 miles but then fades at the end and gets pass by five runners he should be declared cochampion

Only one thing matters how - you finish


College football fails in that regard

Best in one game does not mean best in the season. And you may not have played many of the other best teams. They may have had an off night and lost.

It happens in college football too. Almost nobody believes 1983 Miami, the MNC, was better than pre bowl #1 Nebraska, or that Georgia was better than pre bowl #2 Texas. But they both won by 1 point in their bowl games. That got Miami moved up to win the MNC. But that didn't make them the best team, only the champion.

So you DON'T want the champion determined on the court or the Field. Let's ban all post-season and have a popular vote.

Are you that dense or just like to argue? Why do you just make up stupid statements?

Best is not necessarily equal to champion. That's a simple definition that is obvious.

Most people prefer a system that makes it more likely to have your best as the champion, but the only way to be sure of that is to have everyone play each other multiple times. We had that in the National League and American League before divisions. But the pros discovered playoffs are profitable.

I could say the same of you. It is ignorant to claim that the best team is not determined on the field/court in a tournament that everyone has access to.