College Playoff

[jwinslow]

You're playing the "Ohio State is disrepected in the media" card and expecting me to worry about that. I cant, and I wont.

Is there any reason you won't do it besides the chance that it could reveal a flaw in the system? How many hundreds of hypotheticals have you engaged in over the course of this thread? What happens if USC somehow figures out how to not lose to a terrible pac-10 team every year?

The system does not address the problem whatsoever, that's my problem with it. It just sits back and hopes that the games circumvent the trainwreck on their own.

 

[jwinslow]

I grew up when going to Pasadena was reward enough.. when winning the Big 10 was reward enough. Yes, it sure feels good to win the NC... but, I refuse to devalue the rest of the season for it.

So it would be enough for you if Pryor had to settle for a rose bowl win in 2010 while OU & SEC play for a NC? I have a hard time believing that.

You don't know that. It's never happened in your life time.

I've also never seen OU get left out, despite teams ranked higher (USC) & teams that beat them head to head. The SEC is not going to be left out if all things are equal vs OSU.

Are you claiming it's an unrealistic hypothetical?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Is there any reason you won't do it besides the chance that it could reveal a flaw in the system? How many hundreds of hypotheticals have you engaged in over the course of this thread? What happens if USC somehow figures out how to not lose to a terrible pac-10 team every year?

I wont do it because it's irrelevant, Jwins, not because it reveals a flaw. What ever are my personal desires are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a Playoff or if the BCS is the better system. Again, I like to think I reached my position based on a rationale and not just "gut" feeling. EDIT: Truth is, before I actually thought about it, I was a Playoff guy.

I can't do anything about USC... but, I do know this... I have been around long enough to realize, these things have a way of working themselves out. Yes, every now and again, my team could get "screwed" I DONT CARE - chances are they aren't as "screwed" as I think... It's easy for me to argue that Auburn wasn't screwed in 2004. I know if I was an Auburn fan, I probably wouldn't be quite as objective about it. It's true for Ohio State too... I admit it. But, I won't knowingly devalue the regular season for it.

The system does not address the problem whatsoever, that's my problem with it. It just sits back and hopes that the games circumvent the trainwreck on their own.

That's fine and dandy. Propose a system which does address it. Playoffs do not. Change for the sake of change makes little sense. You said it yourself, Jwins... you use the BCS to detemrine seeds.... if you think OSU is disrespected now, how are they going to be less so if there's 8 teams to choose from?

 

[jwinslow]

That's fine and dandy. Propose a system which does address it.

A 4 team semi-final includes every well-acknowledge snub... 08 Texas, 06 Mich, 04 Aub, 03 USC, 00 Miami, 98 OSU. It's not perfect, and it still doesn't fix the Utah thing... but I think it helps more than it hurts.

Add a 5th BCS game to bring in more revenue and grease the palms of the decision makers.
Use 2 of the 5 BCS games for a 2 team semi-final. One BCS bowl hosts the NC a week later (I don't really care where).

1) It keeps the regular season "playoff" intact.

2) It does not include bad teams like march madness or a 16 team tourney (or to a lesser extent, 8 team tourney).

3) It gives us 3 compelling matchups, on paper.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

So it would be enough for you if Pryor had to settle for a rose bowl win in 2010 while OU & SEC play for a NC? I have a hard time believing that.

I don't know why you keep throwing Pryor's name out there. My liking him as a player doesn't change anything. But, yeah, it would be enough for me if Pryor left OSU with a Rose Bowl win in 2010 even if OU and the SEC play for the NC. I expect 2010 will work out however it does and if it comes to it, I'll have enough knowledge to understand how or why OSU was on the outside looking in.

If it is a blatant conspiracy I reserve the right to yell and scream. But, I highly doubt there will be any actual conspiracy, Josh.

I've also never seen OU get left out, despite teams ranked higher (USC) & teams that beat them head to head. The SEC is not going to be left out if all things are equal vs OSU.

When was USC ranked higher than OU? Oh... you mean 2003... Newsflash... USC was ranked LOWER than OU, that's why USC didn't play for the title in 2003.

Pick a position... you can't call the AP poll illigitmate and then use it in support of some kind of OU conspiracy.

Are you claiming it's an unrealistic hypothetical?

No, I'm calling it conspiratorial. It's right in the "Buckeye fan's" wheel-house as we tend to really take any slight towards our team as more than it probably really is. We get played by the media, Josh, because we get upset and we give them internet hits and so on. If we just let them say whatever without firing off 1,000,000 e-mails they'd attack someone else.

 

[zincfinger]

So it would be enough for you if Pryor had to settle for a rose bowl win in 2010 while OU & SEC play for a NC? I have a hard time believing that.
I've also never seen OU get left out, despite teams ranked higher (USC) & teams that beat them head to head. The SEC is not going to be left out if all things are equal vs OSU.

Are you claiming it's an unrealistic hypothetical?

I think this issue has already been covered to some extent, but I'll weigh in. I'd agree that one can envision hypothetical scenarios where some particularly crafted playoff would be the best fit to that specific scenario. The problem is that you can't craft your post-season structure at the end of the season on a season-by-season basis, and that playoff structure that may have been preferable one season, is going to be clearly less preferable in some other season. Suppose you have 4 undefeated BCS teams. Unlikely, but possible. A 4-team playoff would be the best way to resolve that. But the next season, you've got two undefeated BCS teams, followed by two 1-loss BCS teams, and one of the undefeateds has already beaten one of the 1-loss teams. A 4-team playoff is clearly not the best option there. In fact, I'd say it is, in some measure, less fair. The point being, and considering solely the question of "fairness", any post-season structure has its advantages and disadvantages, and those advantages and disadvantages will be highlighted or diminished on a year-to-year basis by the particular circumstances of that year. But you have to pick one system and go with it, and I'm not seeing any preponderance of all-situations "fairness" for any of them.

A 4 team semi-final includes every well-acknowledge snub...

Yes it does. But, while it doesn't include any "bad" teams, it does include quite a few teams that deserve to be there considerably less than #'s 1 & 2 do. And as far as snubbing goes, it just moves the snub back two slots, but maintains an arbitrary line.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

A 4 team semi-final includes every well-acknowledge snub... 08 Texas, 06 Mich, 04 Aub, 03 USC, 00 Miami, 98 OSU. It's not perfect, and it still doesn't fix the Utah thing... but I think it helps more than it hurts, and keeps the regular season "playoff" intact.

You're basically proposing the +1, albeit more "true playoff" format.

Nothing inherently wrong with it...

It's fine for what it's worth... but it's not "fair" or "principled." It does address a particular problem, but don't kid yourself in to thinking it's anything more than doing the same thing the BCS did incorrectly - Tweaking itself to offer some kid of "fix" to some perceived problem.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I think this issue has already been covered to some extent, but I'll weigh in. I'd agree that one can envision hypothetical scenarios where some particularly crafted playoff would be the best fit to that specific scenario. The problem is that you can't craft your post-season structure at the end of the season on a season-by-season basis, and that playoff structure that may have been preferable one season, is going to be clearly less preferable in some other season. Suppose you have 4 undefeated BCS teams. Unlikely, but possible. A 4-team playoff would be the best way to resolve that. But the next season, you've got two undefeated BCS teams, followed by two 1-loss BCS teams, and one of the undefeateds has already beaten one of the 1-loss teams. A 4-team playoff is clearly not the best option there. In fact, I'd say it is, in some measure, less fair. The point being, and considering solely the question of "fairness", any post-season structure has its advantages and disadvantages, and those advantages and disadvantages will be highlighted or diminished on a year-to-year basis by the particular circumstances of that year. But you have to pick one system and go with it, and I'm not seeing any preponderance of all-situations "fairness" for any of them.
Yes it does. But, while it doesn't include any "bad" teams, it does include quite a few teams that deserve to be there considerably less than #'s 1 & 2 do.

I've "bolded" the best part of Zinc's post. +1

 

[jwinslow]

If it is a blatant conspiracy I reserve the right to yell and scream. But, I highly doubt there will be any actual conspiracy, Josh.

It's not a conspiracy. OSU has performed at an inferior level on the big stage lately. Past performance would factor into a 3-way tie. I don't like it, but I'm not sure they're wrong to think that way.

When was USC ranked higher than OU? Oh... you mean 2003... Newsflash... USC was ranked LOWER than OU, that's why USC didn't play for the title in 2003.

wikipedia

Before the postseason, both the coaches' poll and the AP Poll ranked USC number #1, but the BCS - which also gave consideration to computer rankings - ranked Oklahoma first, another one-loss team but one that had lost its own Big 12 Conference title game 35?7, with USC ranked third.

CJOnline.com - BCS snubs No. 1 USC

College football fans, get ready to crown not just one, but possibly two national champions.
That's because the computer rankings had Oklahoma as the country's top team Sunday while the human poll voters picked Southern California.
Despite getting walloped by Kansas State 35-7 on Saturday night, Oklahoma will take its 12-1 record to the Sugar Bowl against LSU, which won the Southeastern Conference championship by beating Georgia 34-13.
The winner in New Orleans on Jan. 4 automatically captures the coaches' title under Bowl Championship Series format.
USC, which finished third in the BCS rankings, could win The Associated Press championship by beating No. 4 Michigan in the Rose Bowl, with a split national title certain to leave more people calling for a playoff.
The No. 1 team in the AP poll has never dropped after winning its bowl game. The USA Today/ESPN coaches' poll must give its championship to the Sugar Bowl winner.

 

[jwinslow]

excellent post, zinc.

It's fine for what it's worth... but it's not "fair" or "principled."

No, but it actually attempts to deal with the problem rather than kicking back and waiting to see if there will be fireworks or carnage.

It does address a particular problem, but don't kid yourself in to thinking it's anything more than doing the same thing the BCS did incorrectly - Tweaking itself to offer some kid of "fix" to some perceived problem.

I think it's a fix based on a decade's worth of data/evaluation, and addressing the major problems that popped up in that span. You are right it still isn't "fair", but I think it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

It's not a conspiracy. OSU has performed at an inferior level on the big stage lately. Past performance would factor into a 3-way tie.

And?

Are you seriously contending that OSU is at a disadvantage in a 2 team system, but it's all shits and grins in a 4 team?

Besides, that's what computers are for. They don't care what Ohio State did in 2006, 2007 or 2008 (OR 1968, for that matter).

wikipediaCJOnline.com - BCS snubs No. 1 USC

Yeah, I know... like I said, if USC was rated #1 or #2 they would have played in Nawlins that year. Unfortunately, they weren't #1 or #2, but instead #3.

The BCS didn't snub USC, it selected two other teams using it's formula - which was specifically developed to reduce the very same BIAS you now tout as evidence that SC got snubbed int he first place. So what if Humans though SC was better... Humans can get it wrong.

Likewise, do you forget that a late season loss isn't any better or worse, so your "Big Twelve Championship game loss" angle losses it's luster quite a bit.

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

excellent post, zinc.
No, but it actually attempts to deal with the problem rather than kicking back and waiting to see if there will be fireworks or carnage.I think it's a fix based on a decade's worth of data/evaluation, and addressing the major problems that popped up in that span. You are right it still isn't "fair", but I think it's a step in the right direction.

:highfive:Good post, also good post from zinc

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

excellent post, zinc.
No, but it actually attempts to deal with the problem rather than kicking back and waiting to see if there will be fireworks or carnage.I think it's a fix based on a decade's worth of data/evaluation, and addressing the major problems that popped up in that span. You are right it still isn't "fair", but I think it's a step in the right direction.

Fair enough, I don't have a problem with you addressing a problem and offering a solution while being "honest" about what you're doing.

I could be persuaded to a 4 team playoff, even still. though I am aware of the "slippery slope" too and that's a serious factor for me.

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

Fair enough, I don't have a problem with you addressing a problem and offering a solution while being "honest" about what you're doing.

I could be persuaded to a 4 team playoff, even still. though I am aware of the "slippery slope" too and that's a serious factor for me.

I as well am all aboard for this idea, and if they start trying to add more teams we can start an angry mob and burn there houses down.

 

[zincfinger]

I could be persuaded to a 4 team playoff, even still. though I am aware of the "slippery slope" too and that's a serious factor for me.

I'd think that most people who don't like the idea of a playoff are going to dislike a smaller playoff less than a larger, more inclusive one, because the harm that the playoff does to the regular season is obviously going to be proportional to the size and inclusiveness of the playoff.

But if someone believes that the idea of a "true", "objective" college football national champion is a phantom that can never be achieved, how is it possible to believe that a relatively small playoff would be the end of it? The BCS is, in effect, the smallest possible playoff, and at one time that was thought to be the end of it. But it's not. There will always be people chasing that phantom. Always people saying, "this didn't quite do it, but if we just add one more layer, that will get us our true national champion". Even if given some inviolable guarantee that it would never metastasize, I wouldn't elect to have a 4-team playoff, but I would certainly greatly prefer it to an 8-team playoff. But if we started at four, I would have zero confidence that it would be more than a couple years before the moans and groans started that it needed to be bigger, more inclusive. Exactly as happened with the 2-team playoff.