March 1, 2009

How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season

Subtitle: Why I want Utah to lose the MWC tournament

First it is necessary to apologize for the basketball content in this thread. This is a college football site and this content is included to contrast with the current arrangement in football.

In short the MWC stands to get 3 teams in the tournament, and can gain a fourth if another team wins the MWC tournament. It is in the best interest of those teams in the NCAA tournament for another team to win the MWC tournament and bring more revenue to the conference. Utah has been riding high and a loss in the MWC tournament could make them hungry to avoid disappointment in the NCAA tournament. Think 1998.

Recent tournament projections have Utah(6 seed), BYU(8 seed) and UNLV(9 seed) in the NCAA tournament with SDSU and New Mexico just outside.

BYU's recent win over Utah could swap their respective positions. Utah at New Mexico will either put New Mexico and Utah just over the bubble or solidify Utah's bid and knock New Mexico out of at large consideration. UNLV finishes the season with SDSU for a spot above the bubble.

A win by Air Force, TCU, CSU or Wyoming over any of these 5 teams is a loss for the conference. A likely MWC tournament bracket could look like this:

Utah-CSU
SDSU - UNLV

New Mexico - Wyoming
BYU - TCU

Utah, BYU and New Mexico should advance. The winner of the SDSU-UNLV games could move over the bubble with a win over Utah. New Mexico could recover from a loss to Utah with a win over BYU in the tournament. With a New Mexico win in the MWC final Utah, BYU, UNLV/SDSU and New Mexico could end up in the tournament. Many other permutations exist ending with 3 at large teams and an underdog champion. If Utah or BYU win the MWC championship they cost the conference a 4th team in the NCAA.

Notice that only one team is not present in the MWC tournament and the winner goes to the NCAA tournament. Although the NCAA tournament only includes 65 teams the conference tournaments extend the field to almost all teams, with teams able to garner an at large bid being in a double elimination tournament starting at the conference level. Other than determining a little bit of seeding the regular season has almost no bearing on the national title at all.

No one would like to see their team lay down and lose. I would not mind seeing Utah lose to an excited and out for everything UNLV or SDSU team in the tournament. The taste of a loss can inspire teams to be hungry to avoid disappointment again. I would rather be an underrated 9 seed than an overrated 4 seed.

Utah is by no means the team they were in 1998. In that year they lost in the first round of the MWC tournament and several accused them of losing on purpose. The truth is they came out flat, played their game and did not dig in deep at the end when the other team got fired up and upset them. With the extra time they prepared and ran through the NCAA tournament, ending with a loss to Kentucky in the NCAA championship game.

The comparison to football where a single loss eliminates you is not really fair. Going undefeated in football is about as difficult as going 30-3 in the basketball regular season. A 1 loss season in football would be closer to a 25 win season in basketball. The NCAA tournament is like allowing any team with a winning record into a Bowl game.

But with the regular season being cut out of the title chase one has to question if interest is hurt. Does college basketball really get attention before January? Maybe in Kentucky of North Carolina, but anywhere else?

Would regular season attendance in college football suffer if the teams are a lock for a tournament? Would teams not play competitively, like Utah in 1998, if they have a place secured? Losing a game to avoid a conference championship game and get an extra week to prepare for the national tournament could be a real possibility.

A tournament may be a more lucrative post season for college football but what is the cost to the regular season. 34 games vs. 700+ games, the regular season generates significantly more revenue for the sport than the post season. Shorten the regular season by 1 week? That is 60+ games gone from the schedule. Does that equal a handful of added tournament games?

We at Fanblogs are not a fair sample of the public. We are the college football addicts that are in our annual 8 month withdrawal from our drug of choice. We will watch as many games as possible and dig up as much as one can find on the teams or run as many permutations of scenarios as can be dreamed. A far greater number of fans would simply wait for the tournament to come along to start to follow the teams that are hot. Currently these fans join the excitement halfway through the season.

Hate them as we will, the band wagon jumpers buy merchandise of whoever is hot at the time. They help drive the football economy, like sheep driven by the shepard known as ESPN. The BCS controversy draws attention, makes ESPN and college football money. As a marketing ploy it is unbeatable.

Did anyone die from not winning the national title? Are Utah 2008 team members and fans disappointed in how their team performed? Without the BCS would they have played a team like Alabama in their bowl game? Without that win would 1 in 4 people consider them as worthy of title consideration?

I believe the MWC has been hurt in bowl negotiations (Tie-ins worse than the WAC and C-USA) because many bowls look at them and think it is very likely their top team will go to the BCS. The Holiday Bowl might look at the MWC's top team, but the #2 team might not be so attractive. Given this past year that may change. Even with the Holiday Bowl they would be paired with the PAC 10's #3 or 4, not a top 5 team like Alabama.

Hate it even worse than a bandwagon jumper, the BCS is not really a losing proposition for anyone. The only cost is the lack of a guaranteed consensus of the champion, of who the top two teams are that should play in the champinoship game. Do we really need to have the decisiveness of the Super Bowl like system for college football?

For the accountants we don't.

Comments:

How an expanded playoffs undermines the regular season
Subtitle: Why I want Utah to lose the MWC tournament First it is necessary to apologize for the basketball content in this thread. This is a college football site and this content is included to contrast with the current arrangement in football. In short the MWC stands to get 3 teams in the tournament, and can gain a fourth if another team wins the MWC tournament. It is in the best interest of those teams in the NCAA tournament for another team to win the MWC tournament and bring more revenue to the conference. Utah has been riding high and a loss in the MWC tournament could make them hungry to avoid disappointment in the NCAA tournament. Think 1998. Recent tournament projections have Utah(6 seed), BYU(8 seed) and UNLV(9 seed) in the NCAA tournament with SDSU and New Mexico just outside. BYU's recent win over Utah could swap their respective positions. Utah at New Mexico will either put New Mexico and Utah just over the bubble or solidify Utah's bid and knock New Mexico out of at large consideration. UNLV finishes the season with SDSU for a spot above the bubble. A win by Air Force, TCU, CSU or Wyoming over any of these 5 teams is a loss for the conference. A likely MWC tournament bracket could look like this: Utah-CSU SDSU - UNLV New Mexico - Wyoming BYU - TCU Utah, BYU and New Mexico should advance. The winner of the SDSU-UNLV games could move over the bubble with a win over Utah. New Mexico could recover from a loss to Utah with a win over BYU in the tournament. With a New Mexico win in the MWC final Utah, BYU, UNLV/SDSU and New Mexico could end up in the tournament. Many other permutations exist ending with 3 at large teams and an underdog champion. If Utah or BYU win the MWC championship they cost the conference a 4th team in the NCAA. Notice that only one team is not present in the MWC tournament and the winner goes to the NCAA tournament. Although the NCAA tournament only includes 65 teams the conference tournaments extend the field to almost all teams, with teams able to garner an at large bid being in a double elimination tournament starting at the conference level. Other than determining a little bit of seeding the regular season has almost no bearing on the national title at all. No one would like to see their team lay down and lose. I would not mind seeing Utah lose to an excited and out for everything UNLV or SDSU team in the tournament. The taste of a loss can inspire teams to be hungry to avoid disappointment again. I would rather be an underrated 9 seed than an overrated 4 seed. Utah is by no means the team they were in 1998. In that year they lost in the first round of the MWC tournament and several accused them of losing on purpose. The truth is they came out flat, played their game and did not dig in deep at the end when the other team got fired up and upset them. With the extra time they prepared and ran through the NCAA tournament, ending with a loss to Kentucky in the NCAA championship game. The comparison to football where a single loss eliminates you is not really fair. Going undefeated in football is about as difficult as going 30-3 in the basketball regular season. A 1 loss season in football would be closer to a 25 win season in basketball. The NCAA tournament is like allowing any team with a winning record into a Bowl game. But with the regular season being cut out of the title chase one has to question if interest is hurt. Does college basketball really get attention before January? Maybe in Kentucky of North Carolina, but anywhere else? Would regular season attendance in college football suffer if the teams are a lock for a tournament? Would teams not play competitively, like Utah in 1998, if they have a place secured? Losing a game to avoid a conference championship game and get an extra week to prepare for the national tournament could be a real possibility. A tournament may be a more lucrative post season for college football but what is the cost to the regular season. 34 games vs. 700+ games, the regular season generates significantly more revenue for the sport than the post season. Shorten the regular season by 1 week? That is 60+ games gone from the schedule. Does that equal a handful of added tournament games? We at Fanblogs are not a fair sample of the public. We are the college football addicts that are in our annual 8 month withdrawal from our drug of choice. We will watch as many games as possible and dig up as much as one can find on the teams or run as many permutations of scenarios as can be dreamed. A far greater number of fans would simply wait for the tournament to come along to start to follow the teams that are hot. Currently these fans join the excitement halfway through the season. Hate them as we will, the band wagon jumpers buy merchandise of whoever is hot at the time. They help drive the football economy, like sheep driven by the shepard known as ESPN. The BCS controversy draws attention, makes ESPN and college football money. As a marketing ploy it is unbeatable. Did anyone die from not winning the national title? Are Utah 2008 team members and fans disappointed in how their team performed? Without the BCS would they have played a team like Alabama in their bowl game? Without that win would 1 in 4 people consider them as worthy of title consideration? I believe the MWC has been hurt in bowl negotiations (Tie-ins worse than the WAC and C-USA) because many bowls look at them and think it is very likely their top team will go to the BCS. The Holiday Bowl might look at the MWC's top team, but the #2 team might not be so attractive. Given this past year that may change. Even with the Holiday Bowl they would be paired with the PAC 10's #3 or 4, not a top 5 team like Alabama. Hate it even worse than a bandwagon jumper, the BCS is not really a losing proposition for anyone. The only cost is the lack of a guaranteed consensus of the champion, of who the top two teams are that should play in the champinoship game. Do we really need to have the decisiveness of the Super Bowl like system for college football? For the accountants we don't.