"Champion" vs "Best Team"

[TUSooner]

They are not always synonymous.
What got me thinking was someone saying in one of the many CFB playoff threads that a playoff would crown a champ based on only 2 games (or however many playoff games there might be). By contrast (they say) the old polls-only method anointed the "real" best team in the land. Somebody else was joking about the Giants being in the NFC Champ game despite a dodgy regular season. On the one hand, I agree that tournaments crown a champ that may not be the best team under several other criteria. For example, consider the NCAA basketball tourny when Kansas beat OU in the final, after OU had beaten them twice during the season. The problem seems to be that end-of-season tournament games are by definition more important that regular season games, so a team can beat everybody in in sight during the season but lose the crown due to 1 or 2 freaky plays (See Pats vs Giants superbowl.)

Is that a problem? The only way I can see of determining the really most excellent team in a season is to have all of teams play each other in a colossal round robin, like in the European soccer leagues do, and like the Major baseball Leagues used to do. That is obviously not practical with college football or the NFL or many of our favoriote sports.

My points, if I have any are:
(1) Fans need to take it to heart that tournaments & playoffs often reward hot or lucky teams at the expense of more consistently excellent teams... but we really don't care about it or think about it much. We Americans love tournaments because we get a clear winner at the end of the day, we don't have to wait months to see who is best, and we don't have to be bored by "meaningless" games that get played even though the best team already has an insurmountable lead. (One ought to define meaningless.) We generally like it when the "best" team wins a tournament, but even if a not-best team wins, nobody ever argues seriously that the winner is not the true champ.

(2) To oppose a CFB playoff system simply because it might crown the luckiest team rather than the best team, is not valid, because we accept that possibility all the time in other sports. (Besides, Les Miles got tremendously lucky when his 2-loss LSU team got to play a home BCS MNC game vs perennially overrated Big 10 chumps tOSU.)

(3) The best tournaments are seeded to give the teams with a better body of work some advantages. (Sorry, this did not help Green Bay this year, did it?)

Do we just want a winner and not really care who best by any other measure? Should I walk away from the keyboard, take out the trash, and go up to bed?
:fatigue:

[12]

You sure put some thought into this.

I think our last title team wasn't the best team in the nation. Certainly a team with great character and will, but clearly not the best, most talented team.

A limited playoff would fix the problem, to some extent. A team on a hot streak could beat a better team, which is why there is a game at all.

[StoopTroup]

They are not always synonymous.
What got me thinking was someone saying in one of the many CFB playoff threads that a playoff would crown a champ based on only 2 games (or however many playoff games there might be). By contrast (they say) the old polls-only method anointed the "real" best team in the land. Somebody else was joking about the Giants being in the NFC Champ game despite a dodgy regular season. On the one hand, I agree that tournaments crown a champ that may not be the best team under several other criteria. For example, consider the NCAA basketball tourny when Kansas beat OU in the final, after OU had beaten them twice during the season. The problem seems to be that end-of-season tournament games are by definition more important that regular season games, so a team can beat everybody in in sight during the season but lose the crown due to 1 or 2 freaky plays (See Pats vs Giants superbowl.)

Is that a problem? The only way I can see of determining the really most excellent team in a season is to have all of teams play each other in a colossal round robin, like in the European soccer leagues do, and like the Major baseball Leagues used to do. That is obviously not practical with college football or the NFL or many of our favoriote sports.

My points, if I have any are:
(1) Fans need to take it to heart that tournaments & playoffs often reward hot or lucky teams at the expense of more consistently excellent teams... but we really don't care about it or think about it much. We Americans love tournaments because we get a clear winner at the end of the day, we don't have to wait months to see who is best, and we don't have to be bored by "meaningless" games that get played even though the best team already has an insurmountable lead. (One ought to define meaningless.) We generally like it when the "best" team wins a tournament, but even if a not-best team wins, nobody ever argues seriously that the winner is not the true champ.

(2) To oppose a CFB playoff system simply because it might crown the luckiest team rather than the best team, is not valid, because we accept that possibility all the time in other sports. (Besides, Les Miles got tremendously lucky when his 2-loss LSU team got to play a home BCS MNC game vs perennially overrated Big 10 chumps tOSU.)

(3) The best tournaments are seeded to give the teams with a better body of work some advantages. (Sorry, this did not help Green Bay this year, did it?)

Do we just want a winner and not really care who best by any other measure? Should I walk away from the keyboard, take out the trash, and go up to bed?
:fatigue:

Just from some of the things I've said today....you surely know I agree with you on many points. No reason to bash on you either. I know you are well educated and the type of person to think things through instead of the **** Off Dip**** responses or the No your wrong....only a playoff will fix what's broken!

I'm sure if ESPN was to call me and say that they now have the right to the Sugar Bowl and want me to run it and hire you to advise me....that we might not care what anyone thinks as long as he make our $750,000 this year for taking over.

At least we as fans of College Football take a bit of a conservative approach when talking about what might be the best thing for CFB.

[mdklatt]

People confuse "fair" with "arbitrary" all the time (c.f. the flat tax). Any playoff system, like you said, is arbitrary. Regardless of what you did in the regular season, win these games and you're the champion. Yes, you have to be fairly accomplished to make it to the playoffs in the first place--except for the NBA; the AFC South, AFC West, and NFC East this year; the AL Central most years; many college teams that get an automatic bid by simply going on a 3-game hot streak to win their conference tournament, etc. Yes, playoffs are stacked in favor of the better teams. But nobody is ever going to convince me that that NY Giants were the best team in the NFL when they beat the Patriots, or that the St. Louis Cardinals were the best team in baseball a few years ago when they had to win the World Series just to get to .500.

BCS haters can hate on the BCS all they want because there are many legitimate reasons to do so, but don't think that a playoff system is any more "fair", because it's just as arbitrary.

So I guess the short answers is no, "champion" and "best team" are not necessarily the same thing, especially in one-and-done tournaments.

[cccasooner2]

Just from some of the things I've said today....you surely know I agree with you on many points. No reason to bash on you either. I know you are well educated and the type of person to think things through instead of the **** Off Dip**** responses or the No your wrong....only a playoff will fix what's broken!

I'm sure if ESPN was to call me and say that they now have the right to the Sugar Bowl and want me to run it and hire you to advise me....that we might not care what anyone thinks as long as he make our $750,000 this year for taking over.

At least we as fans of College Football take a bit of a conservative approach when talking about what might be the best thing for CFB.

So we should have fired Venables instead of letting this drag on?

[StoopTroup]

So we should have fired Venables instead of letting this drag on?

No Clemson should have hired him when they had the chance. Aren't you reading any of this stuff.....lol? ;)

[TUSooner]

I thought the correct response was that I should "walk away from the keyboard, take out the trash, and go up to bed."
Well, I DID take the trash out.

[StoopTroup]

Wait around....you might get that response by morning....lol

[jkjsooner]

You understate how much being hot at the right time impacts the champion in the current system. National champion caliber teams only play 2 or 3 teams that should have any chance to beat them. In many cases it comes down to one game and the team that happens to be hot that week will make it to the BCS championship game.

Also let's not forget that an undefeated team can play horrible games as long as they play them agaist the right opponents. Some of this can be controlled but some of it is luck.

We're talking about a 4 team playoff right now. Anyone who qualifies for such a tournament and wins it will have had the best season in college football even when considering all games (regular and postseason) equally.

Had there been a 4 team playoff and had OSU beaten both Bama and LSU, they would have easily had the best season in college football.

To summarize:

1. Being hot at the right time matters just as much now as it will with a playoff system.
2. For a team to win a small playoff, they will have had to have a great season.

[jkjsooner]

Oh, and to address the title. No system guarantees that "champion" and "best team" are always equal.

We don't crown a best team in any sport. We attempt to crown the most deserving team.

[StoopTroup]

Great Season = 10-3 Baylor

Bad Season = 10-3 OU

????

[jkjsooner]

But nobody is ever going to convince me that that NY Giants were the best team in the NFL when they beat the Patriots

Haven't we pointed it out enough that the college equivalent of the Giants are not making it to a playoff? I suppose if you keep ignoring that point you'll keep convincing yourself that there no rational argument for a playoff.


BCS haters can hate on the BCS all they want because there are many legitimate reasons to do so, but don't think that a playoff system is any more "fair", because it's just as arbitrary.

It's just my opinion but I disagree 100% with this statement. If we played 30 games like they do in basketball I think you'd have a point. We don't. We play 11 or 12 games and all but a few are in our own little conference bubble.

Picking a champion with so few games and even fewer inter-conference games is the ultimate in arbitrary.

We may end up with two undefeated teams from conference A and B. We have no real idea if those teams are worthy of a championship. For all we know, conference A and B might have been horrible that year and the undefeated teams might not be able to hold a candle to the one loss teams out there.


You'd have a lot better argument if you were arguing MLB. In MLB you have a good idea who the best team is when the regular season ends. In college football, it's a crapshoot.


We might as well invite an undefeated high school team to the BCS title game.

[TUSooner]

Oh, and to address the title. No system guarantees that "champion" and "best team" are always equal.

We don't crown a best team in any sport. We attempt to crown the most deserving team.

True enough. I assume that attempting to crown the "most deserving" means we hope our champion is the best team, or close enough.
I have nothing against the St Louis Cards, but I do NOT think they were the best baseball team of 2011. Baseball is not really a good "tournament game," but some modern fans don't seem to have the patience to savor a summer of baseball; they just want to get to "who won" and be done with it. So baseball has an expanding tournament.

I also agree that a 4-team CFB playoff gets closer to the goal than the BCS now does. 8 teams might be too many, or not. 16 would be too many, IMO, because I don't really want a 3 or 4-loss team have their losses swept aside by giving them even 1 roll of the dice against an undefeated team.

[jkjsooner]

True enough. I assume that attempting to crown the "most deserving" means we hope our champion is the best team, or close enough.

I suppose it depends on how you want to define the best team. There's a million ways to define it. Is it the team with the most talent? Is it the team that plays the very best when on the top of their game? is it the team that is most consistent?

Anyway, I don't even hope that the best team is the most deserving. I simply want the most deserving to be most deserving.

If a group of mediocre players can find a way to beat the "best" teams then power to them.

[cccasooner2]

Well, for one thing, the USA media needs a job. Can you imagine life waiting for a "final" result? Absolute silence on college football until a playoff is completed and then: "OU wins its eighth national championship, details at 11".

[thecrimsoncrusader]

You sure put some thought into this.

I think our last title team wasn't the best team in the nation. Certainly a team with great character and will, but clearly not the best, most talented team.

A limited playoff would fix the problem, to some extent. A team on a hot streak could beat a better team, which is why there is a game at all.

The 2000 Oklahoma team may not have been the most talented team, but I have a hard time seeing how they weren't the best team given that 8 of their 13 foes were bowl teams and 5 of those 8 bowl teams won their bowl games. And unlike Miami who on top of losing to Washington, gave up 423 passing yards and 3 TD passes to Chris Weinke who played in a walking boot IN Miami, Oklahoma actually shut Florida St.'s offense down. Oklahoma would have beaten Miami worse than Florida St. in the 2000. I know you didn't mention Miami, but way too many people have in the past and for no good reason.

[XingTheRubicon]

We already have a playoff. It starts in September.

[thecrimsoncrusader]

We already have a playoff. It starts in September.

Is it a double-elimination play-off?

[PrideMom]

In 1988, the OU Men's Basketball team beat Kansas three times: once at home, at Kansas, and in the Big 8 Championship. Then when the NCAA tournament came, OU had to face Kansas in the Championship game in Kansas City, although Kansas won THAT game, they were not the BEST team. A playoff will NOT solve anything. How come no one sees this?

[goingoneight]

Anti playoff folks change their mind the very nanosecond that the BCS screws their home team. Period.

[XingTheRubicon]

Is it a double-elimination play-off?

sometimes

[SoonerTerry]

Regardless of what you did in the regular season,

A team still has to win thier division or have enough wins to make it in on a wildcard. So the regular season still means something.

[MeMyself&Me]

They are not always synonymous.
What got me thinking was someone saying in one of the many CFB playoff threads that a playoff would crown a champ based on only 2 games (or however many playoff games there might be). By contrast (they say) the old polls-only method anointed the "real" best team in the land. Somebody else was joking about the Giants being in the NFC Champ game despite a dodgy regular season. On the one hand, I agree that tournaments crown a champ that may not be the best team under several other criteria. For example, consider the NCAA basketball tourny when Kansas beat OU in the final, after OU had beaten them twice during the season. The problem seems to be that end-of-season tournament games are by definition more important that regular season games, so a team can beat everybody in in sight during the season but lose the crown due to 1 or 2 freaky plays (See Pats vs Giants superbowl.)

Is that a problem? The only way I can see of determining the really most excellent team in a season is to have all of teams play each other in a colossal round robin, like in the European soccer leagues do, and like the Major baseball Leagues used to do. That is obviously not practical with college football or the NFL or many of our favoriote sports.

My points, if I have any are:
(1) Fans need to take it to heart that tournaments & playoffs often reward hot or lucky teams at the expense of more consistently excellent teams... but we really don't care about it or think about it much. We Americans love tournaments because we get a clear winner at the end of the day, we don't have to wait months to see who is best, and we don't have to be bored by "meaningless" games that get played even though the best team already has an insurmountable lead. (One ought to define meaningless.) We generally like it when the "best" team wins a tournament, but even if a not-best team wins, nobody ever argues seriously that the winner is not the true champ.

(2) To oppose a CFB playoff system simply because it might crown the luckiest team rather than the best team, is not valid, because we accept that possibility all the time in other sports. (Besides, Les Miles got tremendously lucky when his 2-loss LSU team got to play a home BCS MNC game vs perennially overrated Big 10 chumps tOSU.)

(3) The best tournaments are seeded to give the teams with a better body of work some advantages. (Sorry, this did not help Green Bay this year, did it?)

Do we just want a winner and not really care who best by any other measure? Should I walk away from the keyboard, take out the trash, and go up to bed?
:fatigue:

I'll have to disagree with point number two. It's only not valid because you prefer the method of a tournament. I'v always preferred college football's method. It doesn't have to look like other sports.


People confuse "fair" with "arbitrary" all the time (c.f. the flat tax). Any playoff system, like you said, is arbitrary. Regardless of what you did in the regular season, win these games and you're the champion. Yes, you have to be fairly accomplished to make it to the playoffs in the first place--except for the NBA; the AFC South, AFC West, and NFC East this year; the AL Central most years; many college teams that get an automatic bid by simply going on a 3-game hot streak to win their conference tournament, etc. Yes, playoffs are stacked in favor of the better teams. But nobody is ever going to convince me that that NY Giants were the best team in the NFL when they beat the Patriots, or that the St. Louis Cardinals were the best team in baseball a few years ago when they had to win the World Series just to get to .500.

BCS haters can hate on the BCS all they want because there are many legitimate reasons to do so, but don't think that a playoff system is any more "fair", because it's just as arbitrary.

So I guess the short answers is no, "champion" and "best team" are not necessarily the same thing, especially in one-and-done tournaments.

The "fairness" arguments do get old after a while cause it works both ways. But those that want a tournament will only see it their way.


You understate how much being hot at the right time impacts the champion in the current system. National champion caliber teams only play 2 or 3 teams that should have any chance to beat them. In many cases it comes down to one game and the team that happens to be hot that week will make it to the BCS championship game.

Also let's not forget that an undefeated team can play horrible games as long as they play them agaist the right opponents. Some of this can be controlled but some of it is luck.

We're talking about a 4 team playoff right now. Anyone who qualifies for such a tournament and wins it will have had the best season in college football even when considering all games (regular and postseason) equally.

Had there been a 4 team playoff and had OSU beaten both Bama and LSU, they would have easily had the best season in college football.

To summarize:

1. Being hot at the right time matters just as much now as it will with a playoff system.
2. For a team to win a small playoff, they will have had to have a great season.

Regarding your four team tournament, the only reason I would never support that idea is because the only people that want to move to that model see it as a 'step', not the endgame.


Oh, and to address the title. No system guarantees that "champion" and "best team" are always equal.

We don't crown a best team in any sport. We attempt to crown the most deserving team.

I'll agree with that point. Champion should equal most deserving, not best team. Unfortunately, tournaments allow less deserving teams a chance they shouldn't have. And you can even see in this years 2 team tournament. LSU went 1 - 1 with Alabama, has more wins than Alabama, is not only division winner but conference winner from a conference championship game, AND played a tougher schedule than Alabama. Yet Alabama won the tournament and that's all that matters.

[MeMyself&Me]

In 1988, the OU Men's Basketball team beat Kansas three times: once at home, at Kansas, and in the Big 8 Championship. Then when the NCAA tournament came, OU had to face Kansas in the Championship game in Kansas City, although Kansas won THAT game, they were not the BEST team. A playoff will NOT solve anything. How come no one sees this?

Because all the tournament people can see is that really cool playoff thing. Gives them tunnel vision so they can't see the bigger picture.