<p>1) In the regular season, the top offenses run up the score on weaker teams. The playoffs is a mudfight among the top 8 teams in the league, and score-running capabilities are rendered useless.</p>
<p>2) Cold playoff weather puts a damper on passing offenses. Therefore, vertical offenses lose their flexibility and unpredictability, allowing stingy defenses to put 8 guys in the box.</p>
<p>3) Defense is more of a group-oriented than offense, and aren’t as susceptible to individual off-days that an offense is. On defense, if you miss a tackle or misread a play, you still have other guys to back you up. On offense, if you throw a bad pass into traffic or drop a reception, nobody has your back. In pressure-filled playoff situations, having backup helps your mentality.</p>
<p>4) After a season’s worth of football on film, great defensive coordinators have enough material to pick apart even the most elite offenses. </p>
<p>College football has the right idea for a postseason (besides the fact that a lot of 0 or 1 loss teams don’t get to play for the championship each year) in that all of the games are played in warm, neutral sites. For example, it’s harder for the Chargers, Dolphins, Bucs, Saints, etc. to win a Super Bowl without a #1 seed because they aren’t used to cold weather.</p>
<p>I think your fourth point comes the closest to it, but it’s not necessarily true that the best defense wins 100% of playoff games, you still need a productive offense (the saying is more that if a team with a good offense and great defense plays a team with a great offense and a good defense, the great defense wins)</p>
<p>Logic: I see where you’re coming from with the neutral site thing, but I wouldn’t say anything about the college football postseason is “right” - that’s for another thread though</p>
<p>b/c the skins havent won a supa bowl in recent yrs and have a top 5 defense. b/c the colts had an amazing D and a ****ty O (yes sarcastic). dude the teams that win have good OFFENSE AND D. last years giants had a suck offensive line and d w/ strahan. patriots were well balanced and colts were offense heavy but still had a decent defense when the playoffs came around (yeah bob sanders)</p>
<p>To expand further, college football needs to take the 6-team elimination format from the NFL, and the NFL needs to take the overtime rules and neutral playoff sites from the NCAA.</p>
<p>Since I don’t feel like making a new thread, here’s how college football playoffs should be:</p>
<p>Take the top 6 conference champions as ranked by the BCS. In 2008 this would have been:</p>
<p>Then it would go like an NFL playoff bracket. Boise St. would play USC, Penn St. would play Utah, the lowest remaining seed would play Oklahoma, the highest remaining seed would play Florida, and then the winners would meet in the championship game.</p>
<p>That’s 5 games, so no extra bowl games would need to be scheduled, the conference championships still matter since there are no wild cards, and there would be no debate about who is #1.</p>
<p>College football is also played among boys, not men. In other words, on every down in an NFL game, everybody faces the real danger of getting their spinal cord snapped. I think the league is wise in trying to make games as short as possible for the safety of the players.</p>
<p>That’s a risk they choose to take when the sign their multi-million dollar contract and put on their helmet. Besides that, your chance of getting seriously injured in a college football game isn’t that much lower than in an NFL game.</p>
<p>The NFL’s not going to risk injury to their star players unless they see some profit. That’s why the league will create preseason or extend the regular season to possibly 17 games, because they’ll generate more ticket and television revenue. But extending overtime games will not bring in any more money, so the NFL will never consider it.</p>
<p>I think defense wins championships because in almost all sports the defense has an innate advantage. This phrase is often applied to both baseball and basketball too. The other reason is that it’s become a popular cliche and nobody really checks anymore to see if it has any factual backing.</p>
<p>^Are u sure about that? At least in football I would assume the offense always has the advantage of acting and knowing what to do whereas the defense has to react to the offense. The fact that the offensive players know the play and know what they have to do gives them the advantage over defensive players who are forced to react… that’s especially tough for cornerbacks in the nfl who have to read and react to the route of the wide recievers. I could be wrong since i’ve never actually played football in high school/college so it is merely an assumption/generalization i’ve had from playing backyard football lol.</p>
<p>so if pittsburgh wins the superbowl, then defense wins championship. If arizona wins, then offense wins championship? This is not necessary true in all sports though. In tennis, you can’t really win by defense. In soccer, Brazil doesn’t play defense at all, but they have the most championships in the world.</p>
<p>defense wins championships unless you’re on kurt warner’s team. Then offense wins them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yes you can. There’s a type of player that we call a pusher or a retriever. A lot of clay court players just retrieve the ball (defense) until you hit it out. They don’t try to hit the corners, they just hit back to the middle of the court until you make a mistake. Michael Chang was like this.</p>
<p>And they’re very common at the club level on all surfaces.</p>
<p>A 100% defensive team that grinds out all their wins 14-7 or 10-3 or the like is at a disadvantage over a solidly balanced team with a high powered offense, since all it takes is one or two big plays to completely change the game</p>
<p>Arizona’s defense has been pretty good so far in these playoffs. Even a team like the Colts couldn’t win championships by outgunning everybody; Indianapolis won because their run-stopping defense finally decided to show up. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nadal’s another grinder type.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true. Football playoff games seem to favour strong defensive teams that have the capability to make a few key offensive plays when necessary. For example, the 2008 New York Giants weren’t an offensive powerhouse by any means, but with their dominating D-line, they held a far superior offense in check; and because their offense was capable, they were able to strike when necessary in the last minute. In contrast, a totally offensively-hapless team like the 2007 Chicago Bears went nowhere because even though they held the Colts’ offense down, they couldn’t generate any offense of their own.</p>
<p>So while neither offensive/defensive extreme is desirable, having a better defense than offense seems to be preferable.</p>