Post by hifigator on Jan 18, 2010 14:35:24 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure most of us here are college football advocates. For that matter, the overwhelming majority of opinions that I see, hear and read are as well.
There is one host of a local show down here, however, that has been a supporter of the bowl system. His primary supporting argument is that a playoff would somehow "cheapen" the regular season. While I disagree with hi, recently he has luckily stumbled onto some supporting evidence. Given that most proposed playoff systems start with automatic bids to conference champions, he points out the decreased significance of many year ending rivalry games. While Ohio State-Michigan would still have tremendous importance most years, other games like Florida-FSU would not from that perspective. He often mentions the '92 UF-FSU game in this argument. Quickly for those who don't remember, Florida had clinched a spot in the SEC title game against Bama the next week. As a school that had never officially won an SEC title, Spurrier had that as the ultimate goal, so he chose to rest many key players and not risk injury, including starting QB Shane Matthews. While a loss in that game would certainly hurt either team in the rankings, if it's a conference title that gets you into the playoffs, then it's tough to argue that logic.
Similarly, this year teams like the Bengals, Colts, Saints and Chargers had sewn up their playoff bids and for the most part, their seeding as well. Therefore we were subjected to many rather boring games the last weekend or two. Additionally, certain teams benefitted greatly by the sheer luck of a favorable schedule. Who would have thought that the Jets finishing with the Colts and Bengals would work in their favor, but it did.
Lastly, he points out the very lackluster games of the first two weeks of this year's NFL playoffs. I don't know where he is going with this argument, but again, at least on the surface he makes a valid point. Last weekend, in the wildcard games, there was really only one "good" game, the Cardinals-Packers. And if truth be told, only really one good half. The first half of that game was also lackluster.
This past weekend, again there were 3 mostly uncontested games and one -- at least in my opinion -- rather boring close game in the Jets victory over the Chargers. The host then follows up that point by pointing out that the Jets were a 9-7 team and that would be akin to a 7-5 college team making the playoffs and rhetorically asking if we "really want a 7-5 Georgia team in the playoffs for example.
Ultimatey he seems to tie it all together with the Jets, suggesting that here's a team that luckily benefitted by playing a couple of teams that were mailing it in the last two weeks of the regular season to get in the playoffs and then put together a solid couple of games to get within one win of the Super Bowl. At least in this regard, his point of the playoffs lessening the importance of the regular season is tough to argue.
Thoughts??
There is one host of a local show down here, however, that has been a supporter of the bowl system. His primary supporting argument is that a playoff would somehow "cheapen" the regular season. While I disagree with hi, recently he has luckily stumbled onto some supporting evidence. Given that most proposed playoff systems start with automatic bids to conference champions, he points out the decreased significance of many year ending rivalry games. While Ohio State-Michigan would still have tremendous importance most years, other games like Florida-FSU would not from that perspective. He often mentions the '92 UF-FSU game in this argument. Quickly for those who don't remember, Florida had clinched a spot in the SEC title game against Bama the next week. As a school that had never officially won an SEC title, Spurrier had that as the ultimate goal, so he chose to rest many key players and not risk injury, including starting QB Shane Matthews. While a loss in that game would certainly hurt either team in the rankings, if it's a conference title that gets you into the playoffs, then it's tough to argue that logic.
Similarly, this year teams like the Bengals, Colts, Saints and Chargers had sewn up their playoff bids and for the most part, their seeding as well. Therefore we were subjected to many rather boring games the last weekend or two. Additionally, certain teams benefitted greatly by the sheer luck of a favorable schedule. Who would have thought that the Jets finishing with the Colts and Bengals would work in their favor, but it did.
Lastly, he points out the very lackluster games of the first two weeks of this year's NFL playoffs. I don't know where he is going with this argument, but again, at least on the surface he makes a valid point. Last weekend, in the wildcard games, there was really only one "good" game, the Cardinals-Packers. And if truth be told, only really one good half. The first half of that game was also lackluster.
This past weekend, again there were 3 mostly uncontested games and one -- at least in my opinion -- rather boring close game in the Jets victory over the Chargers. The host then follows up that point by pointing out that the Jets were a 9-7 team and that would be akin to a 7-5 college team making the playoffs and rhetorically asking if we "really want a 7-5 Georgia team in the playoffs for example.
Ultimatey he seems to tie it all together with the Jets, suggesting that here's a team that luckily benefitted by playing a couple of teams that were mailing it in the last two weeks of the regular season to get in the playoffs and then put together a solid couple of games to get within one win of the Super Bowl. At least in this regard, his point of the playoffs lessening the importance of the regular season is tough to argue.
Thoughts??
