Inherient FLAW with any playoff system

[PCHawk]

I think the regular season is plenty meaningful. It provides revenue and entertainment. Not to mention it provides an easier path in the tourney for the best teams. In football you have to win every game to win a championship. It's just as likely that the best team won't do that in football as it is that the best team won't win the tournament in basketball.

 

[LG210]

The term "defending Champion" is one of the most overused and misused terms in sport.

Boxing has a defending Champion. Pro wrestling has defending Champions. You keep the belt until someone knocks you off.

Team sports do not. They have defined seasons, and each season is independent of previous seasons. The players are different too. The 2013 Champion is no closer to becoming the 2014 Champion than any other team. They have to go through the playoffs and win it like every other team. And if they lose, that does not take away their 2013 Championship.

Returning Champion... ok. But they're not "defending" anything.

Interesting. What are your thoughts on using "defending champion" in the following scenarios?

What about doubles tennis with same players in same tournament? Would it make a difference if it is an "open" tournament?

Ryder Cup? Same cup always at stake. Same geo-political foes. Generally different coaches and team rosters from year-to-year.

America's Cup? The captain is the only important fella there, no? What if it is the same captain that won the previous time?

Cy-Hawk trophy/Floyd of Rosedale? Same trophy--you lose it goes to other school. Same two schools.

 

[tm3308]

Interesting. What are your thoughts on using "defending champion" in the following scenarios?

What about doubles tennis with same players in same tournament? Would it make a difference if it is an "open" tournament?

Ryder Cup? Same cup always at stake. Same geo-political foes. Generally different coaches and team rosters from year-to-year.

America's Cup? The captain is the only important fella there, no? What if it is the same captain that won the previous time?

Cy-Hawk trophy/Floyd of Rosedale? Same trophy--you lose it goes to other school. Same two schools.

The Stanley Cup is also a traveling trophy. Winner keeps it until a new champion is crowned.

 

[LG210]

The NCAA Tournament is not a playoff system. It is a single elimination tournament. This is nothing like the NBA or MLB where teams play a best of 5/7 series, where the better teams usually win.. Comparing a tournament to a true PLAYOFF is an apples and oranges comparison.

And nobody can tell me that the regular season doesn't mean anything because of the NCAA Tournament. You don't get to the NCAA Tournament without having a good regular season. I will have the same response to those who claim that a college football playoff system (although it will technically be a single elimination tournament) will have the same effect on the meaning of the regular season: Without a good regular season, you won't be in the playoffs.

Playoffs in football would certainly decrease the importance of individual games in the regular season. Without the playoff, it requires a great, if not perfect, regular season to play for the title. With the playoff it may only require a very, very good to great regular season to play for the title.

 

[LG210]

The Stanley Cup is also a traveling trophy. Winner keeps it until a new champion is crowned.

Yep...

 

[MisterLucky]

I don't think the system is broke and I wouldn't fix it. To win the NCAA tournament, you pretty much have to be one of the top teams in the country as the tournament is being played and you have to prove it several times. If you don't like the current system, why not have some computer rank all the teams and have the top two play? Not much fun, but at least on paper you would have the top team named champion. Who wants that though?

 

[Xerxes]

I'm fine with this year's tournament final. Kentucky at their best, is better than any other team I've seen at their best this year. They had chemistry issues earlier this season, got them figured out, and now are playing up to their potential. They have the best talent in the nation (June's NBA draft will prove that beyond any doubt) and they're in the finals. Best team in the finals. Sounds like a playoff system that worked pretty well.

UConn is the hot team that has the best player at the most important position and quite frankly got lucky when an opponent lost a vital player to injury.

Regardless of the sport or particular system, playoffs usually favor teams with A) the most talent, B) teams with the best player at the most important position, & C) teams that play teams with injury issues. Once again, sounds like a playoff system that worked well.

 

[PCHawk]

I don't think the system is broke and I wouldn't fix it. To win the NCAA tournament, you pretty much have to be one of the top teams in the country as the tournament is being played and you have to prove it several times. If you don't like the current system, why not have some computer rank all the teams and have the top two play? Not much fun, but at least on paper you would have the top team named champion. Who wants that though?

Unless the second best team won in the championship game.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Playoffs in football would certainly decrease the importance of individual games in the regular season. Without the playoff, it requires a great, if not perfect, regular season to play for the title. With the playoff it may only require a very, very good to great regular season to play for the title.

You're right. As it is now, each and every game is absolutely critical unless you get some help. With the new system, you may be able to slip up one extra time, particularly if it's early in the season. The regular season will still be quite important, though.

To me, the new playoff system is a good thing and doesn't ruin the regular season. Sure, instead of having to be in the Top 2, you have to be in the Top 4. It will still be a pretty exclusive club, though, and require a heck of a good season to make it. Now if they go to 8 or 16 teams someday, that changes things quite a bit more drastically.

 

[LG210]

You're right. As it is now, each and every game is absolutely critical unless you get some help. With the new system, you may be able to slip up one extra time, particularly if it's early in the season. The regular season will still be quite important, though.

To me, the new playoff system is a good thing and doesn't ruin the regular season. Sure, instead of having to be in the Top 2, you have to be in the Top 4. It will still be a pretty exclusive club, though, and require a heck of a good season to make it. Now if they go to 8 or 16 teams someday, that changes things quite a bit more drastically.

Agreed.

And I think it will go to 8 pretty quickly, because, quite frankly, it is going to generate HUGE TV numbers.

 

[IowaFan81]

So, the championship game in NCAA basketball pits a 7 seed against an 8 seed. IMO, real problems, here... <P> First of all, is the regular season even relevant? Were UConn and UK relevant in NCAA college basketball in, lets say, January? No, they weren't... It's understandable all conferences have championship playoffs at the end of their regular season to determine the league champion. It also (probably more important) gives the NCAA Final Four selection committee a 'snapshot' of teams most likely to win the NCAA championship. Who's hot. Who's not. If a team is going to win the NCAA Final Four championship, they have to be hot.. or get hot real soon... or be extremely lucky. What if a team that had at best a .500 record before the conference tournament gets extremely hot during the conference tournament and qualifies for the NCAA Final Four tournament? Should they be let into the NCAA Final Four tournament? Should they be given the same opportunity to win as, let's say, the number 1 seed in this years tournament, Florida? What about teams like, for instance, St. Louis U., who flew through the regular season until their last 5-6 games? Should the NCAA Final Four committee give St. Louis U. any 'leeway' in seeding?<P> What do I mean by a leeway in seeding? I think to make the regular season relevant, the top, let's say, 12 seeds have a bye into the 3rd round (1st round the Iowa/qualifying round, 2nd round where some of the 64 teams begin to compete against each other). As an example, Florida's first game would be against the winner of an, for example, 8-9 seed matchup.<P> I understand teams would have to be rated, computer or otherwise, to determine the best, let's say, 12 teams in the NCAA tournament. <P> Playoff football will be the same. The hottest team at the time of the playoffs will win the championship. Wish I knew how to spell inherent before creating the thread head......

You lost me at UK wasn't relevant. Maybe not relevant to you but to say so based on mid-season with the talent they have and past success is idiotic at best. Compare that to how Iowa looked at mid-season. Who would of won then. Probably Iowa 7 out of 10. Now probably Kentucky 8 out of 10. A 3 or 5 game series would probably be needed to see who is the better team of 2 teams. Not ever going to happen in CBB. Just sit back and enjoy it or not.

 

[gohawkz]

Guess you don't care that the national basketball champion crowned with the NCAA Final Four tournament may not actually be the best overall team this season...

Well, if those better teams wanted to win it they should have stepped up and won games when the pressure was on. They didn't. They lost and they deserve to be sitting home watching the games on tv.

If the underdog wins the Super Bowl I never hear people crying and whining that the losing team is actually better. I don't care how good you think you are, if you **** down your leg when the bright lights are on, you don't deserve the championship.

 

[TecmoBowl]

Based on the sheer amount of parity in college basketball this year, I'm not surprised its a 7 vs an 8. I figure either this sort of championship game would occur, or we would sit through in an incredibly boring chalk like tourney.

This year we got more overtime games than ever, and Kentucky has 3 game winning 3 pointers to their resume. Had a decent number of 10+ seeds reach the round of 32/16. I think it's been one of the more entertaining NCAA tourney's.

 

[hawkdrummer1]

The Stanley Cup is also a traveling trophy. Winner keeps it until a new champion is crowned.

This is a good example of an exception. The Champ does keep the trophy until unseated, even though the title is for a specific season.

Cy-Hawk, Floyd etc...no. They're trophies you play to win and want to hold on to, but they don't represent a "Championship" per se.

The term DEFENDING CHAMPION, infers you are the continuous Champion until somebody unseats you. Teams have won the NCAA bball title and lost a lot of games the next year. Does the first team that beat them unseat them? Nope...therefore they're not "defending" their title.

BTW, this is the kind of fun debate I miss on these boards. No pizzing, childish name-calling and "you're an idiot" crap...just a great discussion. Salut', gentlemen.

 

[Seth53]

For those of you railing on the NCAA tourney.....you'd rather *not* have a tourney, but instead, leave it up to the homer-writers and some flawed computer system to "anoint" a champion?

Or at best, elect two teams to play a NC BB game?

You must be kidding.

 

[PCHawk]

For those of you railing on the NCAA tourney.....you'd rather *not* have a tourney, but instead, leave it up to the homer-writers and some flawed computer system to "anoint" a champion?

Or at best, elect two teams to play a NC BB game?

You must be kidding.

I think if the reason to not play a tournament is because the best team might not win, then it would defeat the purpose to have a championship game because the best team may not win that game either.

 

[HomerChampless]

Nope. My only advice to you is to just skip basketball and get ready for college football if you don't like college basketball's system. I, for one, think it's great that the little guy has a fighting chance rather than just simply giving the award to Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, etc. at the end of each regular season.

Don't you see the mistake of your thinking? A broken bone, a bad shooting night and the better team loses (a better team to put up better competition throughout the tournament). Better team proven by at least 30 regular season games.

In my alternative scenario, every team in the Final Four tournament has a chance of winning. And the regular season will mean a whole lot more than 4 X 16 + 4 seeds.
The University of Southern Louisianas of the world will always play the Floridas of the world, and the USLs of the world have as much chance of winning as the Floridas of the world.. 50/50. If you give the USLs of the world more of a chance to win against the Floridas of the world, then the regular season means a lot less. This should not be a handicap system like in golf or bowling. It would be a handicap system if the USLs of the world played possibly 1 of 4 first round seeds - if the USLs were to win against a 1 seed, and their next opponent defeated a higher seed, then there's an example of a handicap system in action... and the regular season would mean very little in determining the 'national champion'.

 

[HomerChampless]

For those of you railing on the NCAA tourney.....you'd rather *not* have a tourney, but instead, leave it up to the homer-writers and some flawed computer system to "anoint" a champion?

Or at best, elect two teams to play a NC BB game?

You must be kidding.

Someone has to determine the seeds and where they play, so yeah, there's some rating now.

 

[HomerChampless]

You're right. As it is now, each and every game is absolutely critical unless you get some help. With the new system, you may be able to slip up one extra time, particularly if it's early in the season. The regular season will still be quite important, though.

To me, the new playoff system is a good thing and doesn't ruin the regular season. Sure, instead of having to be in the Top 2, you have to be in the Top 4. It will still be a pretty exclusive club, though, and require a heck of a good season to make it. Now if they go to 8 or 16 teams someday, that changes things quite a bit more drastically.

How long will the football playoff system remain with only 4 teams? Will the playoff expand to 8 - to 16 teams in the near future? How about 64 as the ratings skyrocket for the playoff games?

 

[LG210]

This is a good example of an exception. The Champ does keep the trophy until unseated, even though the title is for a specific season.

Cy-Hawk, Floyd etc...no. They're trophies you play to win and want to hold on to, but they don't represent a "Championship" per se.

The term DEFENDING CHAMPION, infers you are the continuous Champion until somebody unseats you. Teams have won the NCAA bball title and lost a lot of games the next year. Does the first team that beat them unseat them? Nope...therefore they're not "defending" their title.

BTW, this is the kind of fun debate I miss on these boards. No pizzing, childish name-calling and "you're an idiot" crap...just a great discussion. Salut', gentlemen.

I have a feeling we could have about a 15 page thread hashing this one out, but this is what I am hearing as your criteria for using the term "defending champion". Please correct me where I am wrong.

You criteria for using the term "defending champion":

(1) The game/event must be labeled a "championship" or something on par therewith.

(2) There must be a travelling trophy/belt and/or the "title" of "champion" must be subject to forfeiture upon loss.

(3) Teams with in-flux rosters are not eligible.

I think this is a decent start, but there are so many possible exceptions. For example, this is Masters week (one of the best weeks of the year BTW). Is Adam Scott the defending champion of the Masters? I would say "yes", but I'm not sure that would be the case under the criteria above. Afterall, once a Masters champion, you get to keep your jacket, get to play in the tourney forever, and get to be called "Masters champion" until the end of time.

Perhaps their needs to be a two-path set of criteria for team sports and individual sports?