2017 College Football Playoffs (and Other Bowl Games)

[lvbuckeye]

Maybe, but they only beat 8-3 VT by 2 and VT had (5) turnovers.

Interesting 2004 Southern Cal is/was looked at as a whirlwind unstoppable force, but they only beat Stanford by 3, Cal by 6 and UCLA by 5. And of course the Reggie Bush investigation/sanctions voided their BCS NC.

Hmm. True. Nebraska's closest game in 1995 was 14 points over a Kansas team that actually won ten games.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

I know @MililaniBuckeye is going to disagree with me, but I've given more thought to why P5 schools should be getting an auto-bid. And that's because right now, there is a huge disincentive to playing marquee out of conference games. Ohio State didn't have a choice in playing Iowa, but we had a choice in playing Okie. Had we brought in Fredo or Beavis for a ritualistic disemboweling instead, we're 12-1 conference champs and get in over bama. And don't think the coaches and AD's aren't making the same note. I really don't want to go back to playing crappy ooc games that generate zero interest.

 

[Jaxbuck]

I know @MililaniBuckeye is going to disagree with me, but I've given more thought to why P5 schools should be getting an auto-bid. And that's because right now, there is a huge disincentive to playing marquee out of conference games. Ohio State didn't have a choice in playing Iowa, but we had a choice in playing Okie. Had we brought in Fredo or Beavis for a ritualistic disemboweling instead, we're 12-1 conference champs and get in over bama. And don't think the coaches and AD's aren't making the same note. I really don't want to go back to playing crappy ooc games that generate zero interest.

how does that relate to auto bids?

 

[zincfinger]

how does that relate to auto bids?

Because playing, and sometimes losing, tough OOC matchups is a zero risk, or at least much lower risk, proposition if winning your conference automatically puts you in the playoff. Elite programs will have more incentive to play cross-conference matchups against each other if those matchups have little effect on their likelihood of making the playoff.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Because playing, and sometimes losing, tough OOC matchups is a zero risk, or at least much lower risk, proposition if winning your conference automatically puts you in the playoff. Elite programs will have more incentive to play cross-conference matchups against each other if those matchups have little effect on their likelihood of making the playoff.

got it

The trade off is big OOC matchups vs The Game then

Last game of the year rivalries are immediately at risk when you have an auto bid game the following week (unless you are going to get rid of CCG's).

 

[zincfinger]

got it

The trade off is big OOC matchups vs The Game then

Last game of the year rivalries are immediately at risk when you have an auto bid game the following week (unless you are going to get rid of CCG's).

There's definitely a pro/con analysis to be had there. One of the cons is Mililani's, where you've got an avenue for plainly mediocre teams to get in (unless you get rid of CCG's). And one is yours, where an end-of-regular-season rivalry game will be made practically unimportant, because it will erase the "spoiler" scenario at least sometimes.

Obviously, it's often going to be the case that OSU is in contention for the CCG and Michigan is not, heading into The Game. But the only time the spoiler scenario is eliminated is when OSU already has it locked up - which will happen, but not always.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

how does that relate to auto bids?

Losing to Okie (or Iowa for that matter) would not have knocked us out of the playoffs as long as we won the B!G. Right now, the system has inadvertently pushed schools back to the old poll mentality where to minimize risk of an extra ooc loss, you schedule creampuffs ooc. Look at whom Ohio State was playing ooc in the 70s and 80s. It was one big annual parade of garbage.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Losing to Okie (or Iowa for that matter) would not have knocked us out of the playoffs as long as we won the B!G. Right now, the system has inadvertently pushed schools back to the old poll mentality where to minimize risk of an extra ooc loss, you schedule creampuffs ooc. Look at whom Ohio State was playing ooc in the 70s and 80s. It was one big annual parade of garbage.

I don't think one year of the CFP committee finding a way to get Bama in equates to such a sweeping generalization about future scheduling.

You could make the case that OSU beating OU in '16 helped them get in the CFP.

Auto bids may help solve a problem that may or may not even exist whereas auto bids unequivocally put rivalry games at risk.

I personally don't see the risk/reward making any kind of sense.

 

[zincfinger]

I don't think one year of the CFP committee finding a way to get Bama in equates to such a sweeping generalization about future scheduling.

You could make the case that OSU beating OU in '16 helped them get in the CFP.

Auto bids may help solve a problem that may or may not even exist whereas auto bids unequivocally put rivalry games at risk.

I personally don't see the risk/reward making any kind of sense.

It's likely that OSU's win in Norman in '16 helped get them into the playoff. But I don't think you can deny that auto bids would make tough OOC matchups nearly risk-free. And from that standpoint, a risk/reward analysis for auto bids makes sense. The rewards include that elite programs can play big OOC matchups virtually risk free, and so are more likely to play them. The risks include that mediocre teams will probably occasionally make the playoff, and that late regular season rivalry games will sometimes have no effect on a team's chances of making the playoff, and that everyone will know that to be the case going into the game.

I edited the last sentence to further say that "everyone will know that to be the case going into the game" because the "no effect" situation already exists. Alabama's loss in the iron bowl ultimately had no effect on their playoff participation (only on their seed), but there was no way for them to know that at the time. Meaning, right now, you can lose your end-of-regular-season rivalry game and still make the playoff. But the auto-bid can make it so that you know going in that whether you win or lose will have no effect on your playoff participation.

 

[Jaxbuck]

The rewards include that elite programs can play big OOC matchups virtually risk free, and so are more likely to play them.

Playing big time OOC games is about money as much as SOS. Those games are home and home, thereby costing the participants a payday home game against a smaller school so I don't agree there would be a direct causation of autobid= more big OOC games. You could just as easily say "I'm in if I win my conference, why not fill the coffers with 3/4 cupcake home games?"

The risks include that mediocre teams will probably occasionally make the playoff, and that late regular season rivalry games will sometimes have no effect on a team's chances of making the playoff, and that everyone will know that to be the case going into the game.

Agreed.

So if the first part of the decision is 50/50 and the second is a certainty, why take the risk? What will we have gained?

Maybe better OOC games in return for certainly damaging rivalry games. To each his own on what they consider the real value of CFB but for me, I'll pass on that trade off 7 times a week and twice on Sunday's.

Give me regular season and The Game over the ESPN Invitational tournament.

 

[zincfinger]

Playing big time OOC games is about money as much as SOS. Those games are home and home, thereby costing the participants a payday home game against a smaller school so I don't agree there would be a direct causation of autobid= more big OOC games. You could just as easily say "I'm in if I win my conference, why not fill the coffers with 3/4 cupcake home games?"

You could be right from a short term financial perspective. Two home games against MAC teams will obviously bring in more ticket receipts at Ohio Stadium than will one home game and one away game against an elite opponent. But I view it as more of a medium-to-long-term PR move. Big time programs thrive on - and in the long term, build competitive and financial success on - interest and attention. And a home-away series against a big timer, both legs of which are broadcast at 8 pm on Saturday on ABC, creates a lot more interest and attention than do two home matchups against MAC schools that are broadcast on the BigTen network at 12 and 3:30.

I would say that interest and attention is a large part of what distinguishes Ohio State from Purdue, and large part of why it is to OSU's benefit to schedule Oklahoma or equivalent out of conference. The question then becomes balancing that against the likelihood of gaining or losing interest and attention in a playoff appearance.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

I don't think one year of the CFP committee finding a way to get Bama in equates to such a sweeping generalization about future scheduling.

You could make the case that OSU beating OU in '16 helped them get in the CFP.

Auto bids may help solve a problem that may or may not even exist whereas auto bids unequivocally put rivalry games at risk.

I personally don't see the risk/reward making any kind of sense.

What really hurts the rivalry is one team dominating it, whether that's us or them. If the rivalry ever gets back to the parity it enjoyed in the 70s and 80s then, it'll take on even more importance because it'll become the de-facto first playoff game for Ohio State and Michigan.

 

[Jaxbuck]

You could be right from a short term financial perspective. Two home games against MAC teams will obviously bring in more ticket receipts at Ohio Stadium than will one home game and one away game against an elite opponent

The math of this is easy and there is no real argument against it. The $ and difficulty of finding willing OOC partners is the biggest reason you don't get a lot of quality OOC games imo, no so much playoff fears.

But I view it as more of a medium-to-long-term PR move. Big time programs thrive on - and in the long term, build competitive and financial success on - interest and attention. And a home-away series against a big timer, both legs of which are broadcast at 8 pm on Saturday on ABC, creates a lot more interest and attention than do two home matchups against MAC schools that are broadcast on the BigTen network at 12 and 3:30.

Completely agree. Gene Smith would seem to agree as well.

The question then becomes balancing that against the likelihood of gaining or losing interest and attention in a playoff appearance.

I think it is already seen as essentially riskless (winning or losing a marquee early season OOC game) in terms of CFP and therefore I do not agree with the premise that auto bids will reduce fear of damaging playoff chances and increase early season OOC matchups. I think the only certain consequence of auto bids is to damage rivalry games.

 

[Jaxbuck]

What really hurts the rivalry is one team dominating it, whether that's us or them. If the rivalry ever gets back to the parity it enjoyed in the 70s and 80s then, it'll take on even more importance because it'll become the de-facto first playoff game for Ohio State and Michigan.

One side dominating it does not equal both teams being at the top of their division and making it a de facto play off game.

Auto bids would, to continue the financial metaphors, be leveraging The Game. In years when it mattered for a playoff berth it would be extra important but in years (like 2017) when it didn't act as a play in game, it would be essentially meaningless (in terms of CFP).

I, personally, would not be willing to make that trade off if given a vote.

 

[zincfinger]

I think it is already seen as essentially riskless (winning or losing a marquee early season OOC game) in terms of CFP and therefore I do not agree with the premise that auto bids will reduce fear of damaging playoff chances and increase early season OOC matchups. I think the only certain consequence of auto bids is to damage rivalry games.

I'm surprised you disagree with this. You don't think that, under the current scenario, a 4-0 record against OOC weaklings would be more likely to get you into the playoff than would a 3-1 OOC record with the one loss being against the one good opponent you played? Or, to make it specific to '17 OSU, that if OSU had blasted Kent State in week 2 instead of losing to Oklahoma, and everything else being the same, they'd have been more likely to make the playoff?