When is a game meaningless?

[CJHawkeyes]

Of course, this question is tied to the playoff debate. It seems every time I involve myself in another playoff debate, a playoff opponent will assert that a playoff will render several season-ending games meaningless and allow teams to rest their starters as often happens in the NFL. For starters, this happens in the NFL when a team has nothing to gain or lose in the final weekend no matter the outcome of all regular season finales. Furthermore, the size of the playoff does not cause this to happen. If there were only a two-team playoff in the NFL, the Patriots and Cowboys would have clinched early last year and been able to rest their starters prior to the Super Bowl.

That said, the assertion that this would be commonplace in college football if it had a 16 team playoff is based on NOTHING. It is assumed because it happens in another league, that it would happen in every league. Yet, it happens as often as it does in the NFL because it is a 32 team league with 16 game schedules. Those dynamics allow for much greater separation between teams. Out of curiosity, I applied my playoff idea to the top 16 for the past 30 seasons and only five of 480 "playoff" teams had nothing to gain or lose based on changing the results in any combination of regular season finales and those five teams played an extra game.

Perhaps, playing for additional home games does not ring everyone's excitement bell, but how, for example, is a game meaningless when the loser makes the playoffs anyway if the difference between a win and a loss is homefield throughout or no home games at all?

[ZOOMBAG]

In my scenario, there is yet a single team that could afford to rest its starters. Between battling for conference championships, at-large bid, first round byes, or a favorable seeding guaranteeing a home game in round #1, No one would be sand bagging heading into a playoff.

[aufan59]

A playoff could possibly make a team rest its starters in a game to prepare for the playoff.

Even in meaningless games in the current system, the teams have no incentive to not play their hardest. Any system that could introduce a situation where it is acceptable to lose is what people want to avoid.

[CJHawkeyes]

A playoff could possibly make a team rest its starters in a game to prepare for the playoff.

Even in meaningless games in the current system, the teams have no incentive to not play their hardest. Any system that could introduce a situation where it is acceptable to lose is what people want to avoid.

That is the point I was addressing. 120 teams and 12 games schedules make it very unlikely that teams could rest their starters. Again, while my actual playoff proposal includes auto bids, I applied it to the top 16 teams for the past 30 years and only FIVE teams could have taken their last game off. And all five of those teams played an extra game in those years which amounts to a significant competitive advantage. I have actually gone over the first six I-A seasons thoroughly and 92 of 96 teams could either lose a playoff berth and/or gain/lose at least one additional guaranteed home game under my particular format just by changing the result of ONE regular season finale. The four others could gain or lose something by changing 2-4 games.

[ZOOMBAG]

If you take a look at the top eight teams in the BCS rating, you can see that in the SEC and Big 10 that Alabama AND Florida as well as Texas and OU are probably in the field no matter what, provided all close out the regular season. But at stake are conference championships, a first round-bye, and at the very least, seeding and ensuring that if you do not get a bye you at least get a home game in round one. No chance any team in group has an opportunity to take a week off and empty the bench.