The assertion that a playoff system leads to teams benching starters in the final weeks of the regular season is not new. Nevertheless, the BCS propaganda machine has renewed this charge by pointing to the Indianapolis Colts as a prime example of what we can expect from an expanded college football playoff. These people are liars or idiots or both. A playoff system, no matter its size, is not responsible for sandbagging. The decision to rest starters in late season games happens when a team has clinched a playoff berth plus all possible home games and there are no significant competitive advantages to be gained or lost.
Fewer teams plus more games allows for greater separation in the standings which leads to increased opportunities for teams to bench their starters for inconsequential games. If the NFL only had a two-team playoff, the Colts would have still been able to bench its starters, lose its final two games, and suffer no consequences having already clinched a playoff berth even with the limited field. The NFL's 12-team format did not create the situation. Therefore, BCS supporters are either lying when they argue that an expanded playoff system will lead to sandbagging or they are too ignorant to understand these situations are not created by a playoff system.
Of course, the Colts are not the only example of sandbagging in the final weeks of the regular season. The Arizona Cardinals, Cincinnati Bengals, New England Patriots, New Orleans Saints, and San Diego Chargers could all be accused of this practice in the final weekend. Whether or not these teams are guilty as charged, the fact remains that these teams plus the Colts had little or nothing riding on the outcome of their final game. As a college football playoff supporter, I would hate to see six playoff bound teams taking their final game off because they have nothing to gain or lose. However, as I alluded to above, this happens more often with fewer teams especially when the pool of teams in direct competition with each other is reduced by a conference and/or division format.
What if the NFL did not have its conference/division format and operated as a single 32-team division with the top 12 teams qualifying for the playoffs, the top four teams earning byes, and the top two teams guaranteed homefield advantage throughout the playoffs? What impact would this have on sandbagging? I placed the 32 teams according their final records with best current streak and net points serving as the first and second tiebreakers in order to offer an example of the potential reduction in sandbagging minus the conference/division format. The hypothetical playoff field is listed below. Listed with each team is its final record, current streak, and best and worst possible seeds entering the final weekend.
1-Indianapolis (14-2) (L2) (1-1)
2-San Diego (13-3) (W11) (2-5)
3-New Orleans (13-3) (L3) (1-3)
4-Minnesota (12-4) (W1) (3-10)
5-Dallas (11-5) (W3) (4-10)
6-Green Bay (11-5) (W2) (5-10)
7-Philadelphia((11-5) (L1) (3-9)
8-New England (10-6) (L1) (4-10)
9-Arizona (10-6) (L1) (4-10)
10-Cincinnati (10-6) (L1) (4-10)
11-Houston (9-7) (W4) (11-E)
12-Pittsburgh (9-7) (W3) (11-E)
Under this format compared to the actual format, only one top two seed had been clinched compared to two, only one top four seed had been clinched compared to three, and only three top eight seeds had been clinched compared to seven. As for the six teams charged with sandbagging, only the Colts had nothing to gain or lose on the final weekend under this format versus the current structure. However, the remaining five teams would have had much greater stakes than they did in the real world. San Diego would have been playing to secure a first round bye with the potential for homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. New Orleans would have been playing to secure homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. New England, Arizona, and Cincinnati would have been playing for a first round home game with the potential for a first round bye.
Without the conference/division format, only one team compared to six had nothing to gain or lose in the final weekend. This same format applied to the previous 22 seasons only produced eight more teams like the Colts. That means that 267 of 276 playoff teams over the past 23 seasons under the one 32-team division format had one or more of the following to gain or lose in the final weekend: a playoff berth, a first round bye, and/or one or more home games. In some instances, the stakes for a single team ranged from a top two seed to missing the playoffs altogether. Of course, I would not expect the NFL to drop its conference/division format nor is their choice in the matter relevant. The point is that the NFL's structure, not the size of its playoff, is to blame for the increased opportunties for sandbagging.
What does this mean for college football? Given that college football has 120 teams compared to the NFL's 32 and teams play 12-13 games compared to 16, there is much less potential for teams to separate themselves in the standings. If my proposed playoff format included the top 16 teams, based on the final Power Points Standings, only five out of 512 playoff teams over the past 32 seasons would have had nothing at stake in their final game. Furthermore, all five teams played one more game than most teams. The extra game is a potentially significant advantage under the Power Points System. Therefore, it is fair to suggest that fewer than five teams would have clinched everything if all teams had played equal game regular season schedules. That said, given that all five teams were top two seeds, which guarantees homefield advantage throughout the playoffs under my proposed format, excluding teams that lose their final game from earning a top two seed is a possible remedy to further reduce or even eliminate the potential for sandbagging. If I applied this rule to the past 32 seasons, all 512 teams would have had something to gain or lose based on the outcome of their final game.
Once again, a playoff system, no matter its size, is not responsible for sandbagging and the people that continue to assert otherwise are frauds.
Fewer teams plus more games allows for greater separation in the standings which leads to increased opportunities for teams to bench their starters for inconsequential games. If the NFL only had a two-team playoff, the Colts would have still been able to bench its starters, lose its final two games, and suffer no consequences having already clinched a playoff berth even with the limited field. The NFL's 12-team format did not create the situation. Therefore, BCS supporters are either lying when they argue that an expanded playoff system will lead to sandbagging or they are too ignorant to understand these situations are not created by a playoff system.
Of course, the Colts are not the only example of sandbagging in the final weeks of the regular season. The Arizona Cardinals, Cincinnati Bengals, New England Patriots, New Orleans Saints, and San Diego Chargers could all be accused of this practice in the final weekend. Whether or not these teams are guilty as charged, the fact remains that these teams plus the Colts had little or nothing riding on the outcome of their final game. As a college football playoff supporter, I would hate to see six playoff bound teams taking their final game off because they have nothing to gain or lose. However, as I alluded to above, this happens more often with fewer teams especially when the pool of teams in direct competition with each other is reduced by a conference and/or division format.
What if the NFL did not have its conference/division format and operated as a single 32-team division with the top 12 teams qualifying for the playoffs, the top four teams earning byes, and the top two teams guaranteed homefield advantage throughout the playoffs? What impact would this have on sandbagging? I placed the 32 teams according their final records with best current streak and net points serving as the first and second tiebreakers in order to offer an example of the potential reduction in sandbagging minus the conference/division format. The hypothetical playoff field is listed below. Listed with each team is its final record, current streak, and best and worst possible seeds entering the final weekend.
1-Indianapolis (14-2) (L2) (1-1)
2-San Diego (13-3) (W11) (2-5)
3-New Orleans (13-3) (L3) (1-3)
4-Minnesota (12-4) (W1) (3-10)
5-Dallas (11-5) (W3) (4-10)
6-Green Bay (11-5) (W2) (5-10)
7-Philadelphia((11-5) (L1) (3-9)
8-New England (10-6) (L1) (4-10)
9-Arizona (10-6) (L1) (4-10)
10-Cincinnati (10-6) (L1) (4-10)
11-Houston (9-7) (W4) (11-E)
12-Pittsburgh (9-7) (W3) (11-E)
Under this format compared to the actual format, only one top two seed had been clinched compared to two, only one top four seed had been clinched compared to three, and only three top eight seeds had been clinched compared to seven. As for the six teams charged with sandbagging, only the Colts had nothing to gain or lose on the final weekend under this format versus the current structure. However, the remaining five teams would have had much greater stakes than they did in the real world. San Diego would have been playing to secure a first round bye with the potential for homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. New Orleans would have been playing to secure homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. New England, Arizona, and Cincinnati would have been playing for a first round home game with the potential for a first round bye.
Without the conference/division format, only one team compared to six had nothing to gain or lose in the final weekend. This same format applied to the previous 22 seasons only produced eight more teams like the Colts. That means that 267 of 276 playoff teams over the past 23 seasons under the one 32-team division format had one or more of the following to gain or lose in the final weekend: a playoff berth, a first round bye, and/or one or more home games. In some instances, the stakes for a single team ranged from a top two seed to missing the playoffs altogether. Of course, I would not expect the NFL to drop its conference/division format nor is their choice in the matter relevant. The point is that the NFL's structure, not the size of its playoff, is to blame for the increased opportunties for sandbagging.
What does this mean for college football? Given that college football has 120 teams compared to the NFL's 32 and teams play 12-13 games compared to 16, there is much less potential for teams to separate themselves in the standings. If my proposed playoff format included the top 16 teams, based on the final Power Points Standings, only five out of 512 playoff teams over the past 32 seasons would have had nothing at stake in their final game. Furthermore, all five teams played one more game than most teams. The extra game is a potentially significant advantage under the Power Points System. Therefore, it is fair to suggest that fewer than five teams would have clinched everything if all teams had played equal game regular season schedules. That said, given that all five teams were top two seeds, which guarantees homefield advantage throughout the playoffs under my proposed format, excluding teams that lose their final game from earning a top two seed is a possible remedy to further reduce or even eliminate the potential for sandbagging. If I applied this rule to the past 32 seasons, all 512 teams would have had something to gain or lose based on the outcome of their final game.
Once again, a playoff system, no matter its size, is not responsible for sandbagging and the people that continue to assert otherwise are frauds.
No comments:
Post a Comment