Online Now 722

Wolverine247 Board

The place for discussion on the Michigan Wolverines

On this Board 453
Record: 2671 (1/26/2013)

Online now 673
Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)

Reply

Why is Brandon not in favor of a playoff?

  • MrWoodson said...

    Who are "we"? And I have no interest in your fabricated beliefs as to the ulterior motives of our AD in not favoring a playoff. He has repeatedly spoken on the subject and given his reasoning and not once has he said it is because a playoff will hurt UM's chances of winning a national
    championship.

    Then perhaps it's best we ignore each other. I don't know where Hollis is on this, but if he came out as the AD at Michigan did, I'd understand why. I'd also be upset with him if he said he takes that position because it gives MSU a better chance at a NC, but it really would, and I'm not here trying to fool myself. They need to be political as they do what's best for their school.

    Im also very sure that the Michigan AD believes they could win a playoff. I don't mean to get you that angry. Likee, I think a playoff will favor southern schools.......... Again. He's doing what he sees as being best for Michigan. I don't see why that would upset anyone.

    signature image signature image signature image

    DWags

  • inuyesta said...

    ...says you. How can you really know how LSU or Alabama would have fared against a legitimate passing attack like OK St or Stanford (or USC, if eligible)? If the NFL didn't play the Super Bowl but instead picked a champion based on polled opinion on who "would have won," Tom Brady would be sitting on an extra couple of championship rings right now. Teams should have to earn championships on the field, and that means a playoff.

    PS: A fair few people (including myself) thought Alabama would beat LSU last year, but no one but the most delusional homers thought Alabama would wafflecrush LSU the way they did. Predicting what will happen in football games, especially football games between two really skilled teams, is not that easy...if it were, we'd all be rich from sportsbetting.

    This is all great, but it is based on the underlying assumption that the best team always wins every game. Of course, we all know that is untrue.

    MrWoodson ●

  • Scooter305 said...

    Probably the best example you can present. +1 system would have been great for that year. Still think the best team won the MNC that year based on common opponents SOS and the like.

    Not that it matters and i don't want to go into a big debate on it but i am not so sure Auburn wasn't the best team that year. They were a damn good football team. Probably the beginning of the fast, physical SEC teams that have been winning the MNC the past 6 years.

    signature image signature image signature image

    WillyWolverine ●

  • NigelUno said...

    I bet it goes to 8 teams with (some) automatic conference qualifiers.

    imo this would be ideal. give major conferences automatic qualifiers and fill the other spots with wildcards. play games at home or at least regional stadiums, michigan at ford field.

    signature image signature image signature image

    MKatUmich ●

  • D.Wags said...

    Then perhaps it's best we ignore each other. I don't know where Hollis is on this, but if he came out as the AD at Michigan did, I'd understand why. I'd also be upset with him if he said he takes that position because it gives MSU a better chance at a NC, but it really would, and I'm not here trying to fool myself. They need to be political as they do what's best for their school.

    Im also very sure that the Michigan AD believes they could win a playoff. I don't mean to get you that angry. Likee, I think a playoff will favor southern schools.......... Again. He's doing what he sees as being best for Michigan. I don't see why that would upset anyone.

    I am not upset at our AD. I am upset when I see Sparty trolls such as yourself on our board taking cheap shots at Michigan. So stop doing it.

    MrWoodson ●

  • Scooter305 said...

    OSU lost to a 6-6 Iowa State. They don't have a defense. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who would win that game. Look no further than Vegas odds. OSU would have been a 10 pt underdog against LSU. Could have OSU won? Sure its possible, but it would have been an upset and I am challenge anyone to disagree. Stanford got beat up pretty badly by Oregon and LSU handled Oregon.

    Now you do bring up the root issue that many people have. The thought of earning it. The BCS was built to have the best football team in the country be crowned the champion. I think it has succeeded in that. I don't think it has been a failure if you look at this way.

    Now if you want a team to "earn it," then a playoff system is probably best. However, most teams earn it every week of the regular season in the current system. Like basketball, luck plays more of a role in a playoff system.

    I'm not saying OSU would have been a favorite vs LSU, obviously they wouldn't have been. But upsets happen in sports...why bother watching or even playing otherwise? The Giants were clearly the inferior team in both of their Super Bowls against the Patriots...but guess who won the game?

    As far as "earning it" in the regular season goes...OSU played a harder schedule than Alabama did and wound up with the same record. The Big 12 was the toughest conference in college football last year and OSU was its champion. And ohbytheway, Alabama had already had their shot at LSU and missed. Alabama might've been the best team in the country last year, but they didn't "earn" their way into the title game, they got in based on the SEC's prestige and their own storied history.

    inuyesta ●

  • MrWoodson said...

    He has spoken on the bowl v. playoff issue numerous times. Google is your friend. And not once has he said a playoff per se is unfair. He has objected to certain aspects of certain specific playoff proposals as unfair, but you are putting words in his mouth.

    I guess that's why I asked. I thought maybe somebody could clarify it.

    But, here is a longer quote..."This whole notion of a playoff is ridiculous because I don’t care what you come up with, it’s not going to be a fair playoff. You’ve got a bunch of teams that don’t play one another and play different competition and in different time zones in different conferences in different stadiums in front of different crowds and different weather and suddenly at some point in the year you are trying to arbitrarily decide which one is better and which one deserves to be in a four-team playoff or a six-team playoff."

    Now, my take from that is that he doesn't think a playoff system is going to be "fair". I don't think it's a stretch to say that. I don't think I'm putting words in his mouth. He doesn't like it.

    Are you in favor of the 4 team playoff? Or do you support your AD?

    NigelUno

  • Maize&Blue said...

    Not that it matters and i don't want to go into a big debate on it but i am not so sure Auburn wasn't the best team that year. They were a damn good football team. Probably the beginning of the fast, physical SEC teams that have been winning the MNC the past 6 years.

    Yeah they were very good. BCS was also very new at that point. The computers adjusted yearly and I believe that things would have been different if that year repeated itself.

    I am probably coming off as a BCS lover here and that was not my intent or the truth. However, I do not think that the suggested 4 team playoff is an upgrade or beneficial to the B1G and frankly that is all I care about.

    Scooter305

  • NigelUno said...

    I guess that's why I asked. I thought maybe somebody could clarify it.

    But, here is a longer quote..."This whole notion of a playoff is ridiculous because I don’t care what you come up with, it’s not going to be a fair playoff. You’ve got a bunch of teams that don’t play one another and play different competition and in different time zones in different conferences in different stadiums in front of different crowds and different weather and suddenly at some point in the year you are trying to arbitrarily decide which one is better and which one deserves to be in a four-team playoff or a six-team playoff."

    Now, my take from that is that he doesn't think a playoff system is going to be "fair". I don't think it's a stretch to say that. I don't think I'm putting words in his mouth. He doesn't like it.

    Are you in favor of the 4 team playoff? Or do you support your AD?

    See my post to you above. I support my AD as far as 4 team playoff is concerned for the reasons i stated. Now give me a 16 team playoff and i am all good.

    signature image signature image signature image

    WillyWolverine ●

  • Scooter305 said...

    Yeah they were very good. BCS was also very new at that point. The computers adjusted yearly and I believe that things would have been different if that year repeated itself.

    I am probably coming off as a BCS lover here and that was not my intent or the truth. However, I do not think that the suggested 4 team playoff is an upgrade or beneficial to the B1G and frankly that is all I care about.

    I think the 4 team playoff would give more teams a chance which is good but i still don't think it solves the problem the BCS has now.

    signature image signature image signature image

    WillyWolverine ●

  • inuyesta said...

    I'm not saying OSU would have been a favorite vs LSU, obviously they wouldn't have been. But upsets happen in sports...why bother watching or even playing otherwise? The Giants were clearly the inferior team in both of their Super Bowls against the Patriots...but guess who won the game?

    As far as "earning it" in the regular season goes...OSU played a harder schedule than Alabama did and wound up with the same record. The Big 12 was the toughest conference in college football last year and OSU was its champion. And ohbytheway, Alabama had already had their shot at LSU and missed. Alabama might've been the best team in the country last year, but they didn't "earn" their way into the title game, they got in based on the SEC's prestige and their own storied history.

    You really believe the Big 12 was the best conference? I mean you can honestly say that?

    I agree upsets happen and I think you are missing my point. The BSC had a job. It's job was to crown the BEST team the MNC. I think it succeeded in that. I think a majority would agree with just that statement.

    A playoff system is a different beast. But to say the BCS has fail at what it was designed to do is simply not true.

    Scooter305

  • NigelUno said...

    I guess that's why I asked. I thought maybe somebody could clarify it.

    But, here is a longer quote..."This whole notion of a playoff is ridiculous because I don’t care what you come up with, it’s not going to be a fair playoff. You’ve got a bunch of teams that don’t play one another and play different competition and in different time zones in different conferences in different stadiums in front of different crowds and different weather and suddenly at some point in the year you are trying to arbitrarily decide which one is better and which one deserves to be in a four-team playoff or a six-team playoff."

    Now, my take from that is that he doesn't think a playoff system is going to be "fair". I don't think it's a stretch to say that. I don't think I'm putting words in his mouth. He doesn't like it.

    Are you in favor of the 4 team playoff? Or do you support your AD?

    lol what a ridiculous quote. You could use the exact same logic to argue against the BCS championship game as currently constructed. A playoff helps ameliorate those concerns because it gives more teams a chance and lets them settle all those differences on the field.

    You're never gonna have a controversy-free system: if you have a 4 team playoff, the #5 team is gonna complain that it should've been in; if you have an 8 team playoff, the #9 team is gonna complain that it should've been in, etc etc etc. I fail to see how that's a relevant criticism of the idea of a playoff.

    inuyesta ●

  • Maize&Blue said...

    I think the 4 team playoff would give more teams a chance which is good but i still don't think it solves the problem the BCS has now.

    So do you think it is beneficial to Michigan for them to play USC out in Cali in the Rose Bowl, then have Michigan play Bama in Georgia or Florida for the NC? That is what would happen.

    Scooter305

  • Scooter305 said...

    OSU lost to a 6-6 Iowa State. They don't have a defense. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who would win that game. Look no further than Vegas odds. OSU would have been a 10 pt underdog against LSU. Could have OSU won? Sure its possible, but it would have been an upset and I am challenge anyone to disagree. Stanford got beat up pretty badly by Oregon and LSU handled Oregon.

    Now you do bring up the root issue that many people have. The thought of earning it. The BCS was built to have the best football team in the country be crowned the champion. I think it has succeeded in that. I don't think it has been a failure if you look at this way.

    Now if you want a team to "earn it," then a playoff system is probably best. However, most teams earn it every week of the regular season in the current system. Like basketball, luck plays more of a role in a playoff system.

    Sorry, but the fact that OSU was upset by Iowa State proves that we do not know who would have won a one-off game between OSU and LSU. That is one of the primary objections many people have with a playoff. Upsets frequently happen in college football. The "obviously best" team does not always win. A playoff is one way to determine the best team in the country in a given season. But it is not the only way. And it's not necessarily more or less accurate than selection by sportswriters, computer algorithm or some combination of both. It's just a different way of doing it.

    MrWoodson ●

  • MrWoodson said...

    I am not upset at our AD. I am upset when I see Sparty trolls such as yourself on our board taking cheap shots at Michigan. So stop doing it.

    Sorry to offend.

    signature image signature image signature image

    DWags

  • MrWoodson said...

    Sorry, but the fact that OSU was upset by Iowa State proves that we do not know who would have won a one-off game between OSU and LSU. That is one of the primary objections many people have with a playoff. Upsets frequently happen in college football. The "obviously best" team does not always win. A playoff is one way to determine the best team in the country in a given season. But it is not the only way. And it's not necessarily more or less accurate than selection by sportswriters, computer algorithm or some combination of both. It's just a different way of doing it.

    Agree with you on this 100%. It's simply different.

    I only can defend the BCS as I think that it achieved it's set goal. I am not saying it is the best system.

    I will agree with Brandon though as I do not think a playoff with be beneficial at all for Michigan or any B1G team for that matter.

    Scooter305

  • Maize&Blue said...

    See my post to you above. I support my AD as far as 4 team playoff is concerned for the reasons i stated. Now give me a 16 team playoff and i am all good.

    I don't think we'll ever see a 16 team playoff.

    NigelUno

  • inuyesta said...

    I'm not saying OSU would have been a favorite vs LSU, obviously they wouldn't have been. But upsets happen in sports...why bother watching or even playing otherwise? The Giants were clearly the inferior team in both of their Super Bowls against the Patriots...but guess who won the game?

    As far as "earning it" in the regular season goes...OSU played a harder schedule than Alabama did and wound up with the same record. The Big 12 was the toughest conference in college football last year and OSU was its champion. And ohbytheway, Alabama had already had their shot at LSU and missed. Alabama might've been the best team in the country last year, but they didn't "earn" their way into the title game, they got in based on the SEC's prestige and their own storied history.

    Excellent points. +1

    xxmgobluexx ●

  • Scooter305 said...

    So do you think it is beneficial to Michigan for them to play USC out in Cali in the Rose Bowl, then have Michigan play Bama in Georgia or Florida for the NC? That is what would happen.

    I would rather Michigan had the chance than be left out like in 2006. Like i have said though i am more in favor of a 16 team playoff. If i had my way the first round 8 teams would have home games. The next round would be played at the 4 BCS bowl locations. Then you can come up with neutral locations for the semi's and National championship game. I think places like Ford Field, Lucas Oil, etc... would be great places to hold a National Championship game.

    signature image signature image signature image

    WillyWolverine ●

  • Scooter305 said...

    I will agree with Brandon though as I do not think a playoff with be beneficial at all for Michigan or any B1G team for that matter.

    So do I.

    signature image signature image signature image

    DWags

  • Scooter305 said...

    You really believe the Big 12 was the best conference? I mean you can honestly say that?

    Look at all the strength of schedule ratings from last year (Sagarin, Massey, etc etc etc). The Big 12 was the strongest conference and OSU had a tougher schedule than Alabama.

    inuyesta ●

  • NigelUno said...

    I don't think we'll ever see a 16 team playoff.

    Well then in that case i support Brandon's position on a playoff system.

    signature image signature image signature image

    WillyWolverine ●

  • Maize&Blue said...

    I would rather Michigan had the chance than be left out like in 2006. Like i have said though i am more in favor of a 16 team playoff. If i had my way the first round 8 teams would have home games. The next round would be played at the 4 BCS bowl locations. Then you can come up with neutral locations for the semi's and National championship game. I think places like Ford Field, Lucas Oil, etc... would be great places to hold a National Championship game.

    That's a great way to do things - your 16 team format. Agree 100%. But if I have to choose between the current options I have in front of me, I have to agree with Brandon.

    Scooter305

  • inuyesta said...

    Look at all the strength of schedule ratings from last year (Sagarin, Massey, etc etc etc). The Big 12 was the strongest conference and OSU had a tougher schedule than Alabama.

    Let's match up the SEC vs Big 12 top to bottom and see who wins. SEC was the best conference. The eye test tells me so. The computers love offense, the Big 12 scores points. The Big 12 ranked up a bunch of SOS points for their win against FSU who ended up being just an ok team.

    Also got a bump for their ISU win vs Iowa. Iowa was terrible on the road all year.

    This post was edited by Scooter305 on 4/27/2012 at 1:03 PM

    Scooter305

  • Could Scooter or Maize&Blue elaborate on why a playoff has to have 16 teams in order for you to favor it? The logic of that position is not immediately obvious to me.

    inuyesta ●

Michigan
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports