College Playoff

[SloopyHangOn]

....Because comparing 44 championships to 12 is the exact same thing, right?

:-

Using the argument you were trying to push, yes. Yes it is the exact same thing.

 

[BB73]

....Because comparing 44 championships to 12 is the exact same thing, right?

:-

You first mentioned the arbitrary cutoff point of 7 points, but you chose to use 'less than 7 points' metric since it better served your position.

IronBuckI simply switched to '7 points or less', but he then used the full sample size for both the Super Bowl and the BCS Title Game, using all the data available. To me, his point seems at least as valid as the one you made.

 

[cjmik_75]

If there were a playoff what would it look like this year?

First, how would you seed teams? or decide who gets an invite? - By rankings for at large or wilcard bids (BCS formula from this year) and conference champions that finish in the top 25 BCS rankings
ie. AUBURN, OREGON, TEXAS CHRISTIAN, WISCONSIN, OKLAHOMA, VIRGINIA TECH, NEVADA and CENTRAL FLORIDA automatically qualify and the remaining spots would be at large or wildcard spots selected from the top of the BCS rankings down to fill 16 teams.

I would also propose to keep the bowls integrated into a playoff scenario, something like this:

ROUND 1
12/16
Central Florida @ Auburn 5:30PM ET
Nevada @ Oregon 9:00PM ET
12/17
Oklahoma St @ Texas Christian 2:00PM ET
Virginia Tech @ Stanford 5:30PM ET
Missouri @ Wisconsin 9:00PM ET
12/18
Louisiana St @ Ohio St 2:00PM ET
Boise St @ Oklahoma 5:30PM ET
Michigan St @ Arkansas 9:00PM ET

ROUND 2
1/1
ROSE BOWL - Oregon v Oklahoma 5:00PM ET
ORANGE BOWL - Stanford v Wisconsin 9:00PM ET
1/2
SUGAR BOWL - Auburn v Arkansas 5:00PM ET
FIESTA BOWL - Texas Christian v Ohio St 9:00PM ET

SEMI FINAL ROUND
1/10
SEMI FINAL 1 - Auburn v Wisconsin 5:00PM ET
SEMI FINAL 2 - Oregon v Ohio St 9:00PM ET

CHAMPIONSHIP ROUND
1/20
WISCONSIN v THE OHIO STATE 9:00PM ET


HA!!! Gotcha!

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Disagree. If Ohio State lost that game in a playoff world, who cares? They're still in, assuming they won out. It was more than 60 minutes of football on the line that day. A lot more.

If we had lost, although we were "still in" we were "in" at a much lower seed. Also, in the current non-playoff world, we would've still been "in" to an extent in that the loss did not completely elminate us from title contention (see below).

If Ohio State lost that game, the possibility of going to the Fiesta Bowl was more or less gone.

No one knew that at the time. Look what happened in 2007 when we lost late in the season to Illinois and still played in the NCG. In fact, the 2002 Purdue game was the second-to-the-last regular season game (11th of 13)...the 2007 Illinois game was the next-to-the-last (11th of 12). So, if we were able to get into the 2007 national title game with only one regular season game left after the Illinois loss, it's even more plausible that we could've make it to the title game in 2002 when we had two more regular season games left following the hypothetical loss at Purdue.

 

[GulfScott]

This isn't the thread where we talk about how exciting the college playoffs are? I'm pulling for Delaware vs Villanova to get to the National Championship.

In the not too distant future, I see the scenario MililaniBuckeye brought up being put into action. The 4 current BCS bowls as round one. 2 other bowls, either new or by moving high profile non-BCS bowls, as 2nd round. Then the final game as the BCS Championship like we have now.

It would create just as much "unfairness" as it would fix. Teams could play 3 times in one season. That would suck. A 2 loss team could win the trophy over a 1 loss team. That would also suck.

 

[cjmik_75]

A 2 loss team could win the trophy over a 1 loss team. That would also suck.

Would it suck as much as 2007, when 2 loss LSU beat 1 loss Ohio St?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

If we had lost, although we were "still in" we were "in" at a much lower seed. Also, in the current non-playoff world, we would've still been "in" to an extent in that the loss did not completely elminate us from title contention (see below).

What difference does seed make? I probably undercut the value of seeding more than most, but.. really.. who cares what seed you are? This is exaggerated in your hypo by including the bowl structure. So, Ohio State gets to wear Scarlet in the Cotton Bowl instead of White? Big fuckin deal.

No one knew that at the time. Look what happened in 2007 when we lost late in the season to Illinois and still played in the NCG. In fact, the 2002 Purdue game was the second-to-the-last regular season game (11th of 13)...the 2007 Illinois game was the next-to-the-last (11th of 12). So, if we were able to get into the 2007 national title game with only one regular season game left after the Illinois loss, it's even more plausible that we could've make it to the title game in 2002 when we had two more regular season games left following the hypothetical loss at Purdue.

2007 was an aberration. If it were a typical thing, then Ohio State would be playing for a title this season. Hell, OSU lost to Wisconsin well before the 11th game of the season....

Fact is - when Ohio State lost.. in 07 and in 10 for that matter... the title hopes were put in serious jeopardy - not foreclosed, but more or less gone. The fact that things took the incredible turn they took in 07, while a consideration, is not compelling. Furthermore..... it was regular season games (and a couple conf. champ games, I guess) that we all hung on that glorious Saturday. Not playoff games. I don't know... that was pretty damn exciting.... Maybe if we already knew Ohio State was going to be a 6 seed or whatever we don't care if WVU takes it up the ass to the Stache that day.

 

[HineyBuck]

What difference does seed make?

If the playoff is tied to existing bowl sites, maybe not much. But here's an example where it might matter:

App State (#1 seed) lost to Villanova (unseeded). Villanova now has to travel all the way to Eastern Washington (disadvantage Cats). But if App State had won, Eastern Washington would have had to travel all the way to Boone, NC (advantage Mountaineers).

 

[Nutriaitch]

I want 16 teams with AT LEAST the first two rounds at the higher seeded team's place. I relish Miami, UF, LSU, FSU coming to Ohio Stadium in December.

Living in Minneapolis is no treat this time of the year... lets say someday they are actually a higher seeded team and a southern team comes here? HAHAHAHAHA. 2 freaking feet of snow last night/today.

i read and hear this opinion quite often.
but I have a question.

what negative impact does the weather play on Northern teams in Bowl games?

the weather is usually similar to what most of the season is played in up north.


if you want to argue that the atmosphere (fan attendance, travel time, etc.) favors the southern team, I can agree with that.
but you won't convince me that playing in 50-70 degree weather on a clear day (or in a dome) creates a disadvantage for teams from the Big Ten.


so why do y'all need a weather advantage if nobody else gets one?

if you want to see games played in Detroit, Indy, or if the Metrodome is repaired, to swing the attendance numbers y'all way, then yeah I think it's a good idea.

but i'm not a big of seeing games where the weather truly benefits one team while seriously impairing the other.

 

[cjmik_75]

i read and hear this opinion quite often.
but I have a question.

what negative impact does the weather play on Northern teams in Bowl games?

the weather is usually similar to what most of the season is played in up north.


if you want to argue that the atmosphere (fan attendance, travel time, etc.) favors the southern team, I can agree with that.
but you won't convince me that playing in 50-70 degree weather on a clear day (or in a dome) creates a disadvantage for teams from the Big Ten.


so why do y'all need a weather advantage if nobody else gets one?

if you want to see games played in Detroit, Indy, or if the Metrodome is repaired, to swing the attendance numbers y'all way, then yeah I think it's a good idea.

but i'm not a big of seeing games where the weather truly benefits one team while seriously impairing the other.

I don't think weather has any negative impact on northern teams in bowl games. But there is a slight home field advantage for say, Louisiana State to play in New Orleans Louisiana or the University of Southern California to play in Pasedena California or the University of Florida to play in Tampa Florida.

I don't think it's as much the weather as it is a local venue however, if the Sugar bowl were played in Cincinnati Ohio on January 4th between the Razorbacks and the Buckeyes I think the weather might be part of the bowl discussion. Just sayin'.:tongue2:







I'm sure Toledo will use their home field advantage and weather advantage when they take on Florida International at Ford Field in Detroit.:ho::ho::ho:

 

[IronBuckI]

You first mentioned the arbitrary cutoff point of 7 points, but you chose to use 'less than 7 points' metric since it better served your position.

IronBuckI simply switched to '7 points or less', but he then used the full sample size for both the Super Bowl and the BCS Title Game, using all the data available. To me, his point seems at least as valid as the one you made.

Also, his bolded point was using all of the BCS sample versus only the last five super bowls. If I pick any time period of 12 consecutive years of Super Bowls, I can find as few as 2 margins of one score or less ( 1-7 points) or as many as 7 margins of one score or less.

The average number of times that the superbowl produces a margin of victory of one score or less during any 12 year period is ~3.63 times every twelve years. Compared to 4 for the NCG.

The reason I switched it to 7 points or less is because one score makes it a tie game. I could have used 8 points, but seeing as the NFL didn't adopt the 2-point conversion until 1994, and 2 point conversions aren't as "automatic" as an extra point is, I decided to stick with seven. Also, no super bowl or national title game has ever been decided by 8 points.

If we want to stick with less than seven points, then that margin has occurred, in the super bowl, as few as one time over twelve years, and as many as 5 times over a twelve year span. The average number of times that the super bowl produces a margin of victory of 6 points or less over any 12 year period is 2.72 times every twelve years. Compared to 1 for the NCG.

Regardless of which arbitrary cutoff number we use, the NCG and Super Bowl have had almost the same results.

In addition, the average margin of victory for the Super Bowl is 14.772. The average margin of victory for the NCG is 14.833.

The highest 12 year average for super bowls is 23 points, and the lowest 12 year average is 10.17 points.


Spreadsheets are great!

 

[zincfinger]

Reading back on this thread, it seems the consistent theme is that BKB (and less specifically, a handful of others) holds a staunch opinion on the matter at hand which is based entirely upon preference and perspective and he is unwilling to concede it regardless of the arguments, preferences or perspectives brought up by anyone else in contention with it.

My name is Yon Yonson, I come from Wisconsin...

If you have read through the entire thread, I think you must see that there is a rational counter-argument to every argument for a playoff. You don't have to agree with the counter-arguments, but they are reasoned.

There are really three main arguments for a playoff:
1) It will produce more money.
Counter-argument: That may be true, I don't really know, but that's not my primary concern.
2) It will be "more fair" or "more accurate" in its determination of national champion.
Counter-argument: No, in general, it will not. Each season is unique in terms of the number of teams that "deserve" to be playing for a national championship. As such, there is no post-season situation which is "more fair" as a general rule. Any post-season arrangement will be the best in some situations, and will be less than the best in some others. The fact of the matter is that there is no certain way to determine the "best" team, when you have ~120 participants (or ~65 BCS participants) and 13 or even 15 games to sort it out (and when there usually is no one team that is clearly superior to all others). A playoff merely determines a different, but not objectively better, type of champion - the team that was playing the best football at the end of the season, as opposed to the team that played the best football, on average, over the course of the entire season.
3) It would be hella fun.
Counter argument: This is obviously purely subjective, and I personally find the bowls fun. But the real counter argument is regular season diminution.

Which brings us to the main anti-playoff argument; that an expanded playoff would (in proportion to its size/inclusiveness) substantially harm the importance of, and interest in, the regular season. I have yet to see anyone seriously counter this.

 

[matttank]

My name is Yon Yonson, I come from Wisconsin...

1) It will produce more money.
Counter-argument: That may be true, I don't really know, but that's not my primary concern.

I've done research about this by comparing the deals that the BCS has with TV and an approximation of the deal that the NFL has for their playoffs (their $3 billion a year TV deal includes both regular and post-season) in relation to the ratings they bring in, and came up with a very (ie worst-case-deal scenario) conservative guess that a playoff would bring in 2.5x the TV revenue that the BCS does. Since this doesn't matter to the anti-playoff crew, I won't go further in depth on this subject. (although I will say that neither side of the argument really cares about this as fans, this argument is aimed at the decision makers that like to point at the finances involved to try and make the BCS seem more financially viable than a playoff).

2) It will be "more fair" or "more accurate" in its determination of national champion.
Counter-argument: No, in general, it will not. Each season is unique in terms of the number of teams that "deserve" to be playing for a national championship. As such, there is no post-season situation which is "more fair" as a general rule. Any post-season arrangement will be the best in some situations, and will be less than the best in some others. The fact of the matter is that there is no certain way to determine the "best" team, when you have ~120 participants (or ~65 BCS participants) and 13 or even 15 games to sort it out (and when there usually is no one team that is clearly superior to all others). A playoff merely determines a different, but not objectively better, type of champion - the team that was playing the best football at the end of the season, as opposed to the team that played the best football, on average, over the course of the entire season.

Completely disagree with the conclusion that you came to, although I think your thinking was solid until you last sentence. Firstly, the current system does reward who is playing the best at the end of the year, because teams who lose early have an advantage in the human polls over teams who lose late. One other problem: How do you know who played the best football, on average, over the course of an entire season? Just because Wisconsin lost 1 game and Oregon didn't means that Oregon is better or was better on average even though they only played 1 common opponent? You realize that teams in BCS conferences only play 14%-15% of the other 65 BCS teams, and all but 1 or 2 of those games come against conference opponents, but think we still can determine the "best on average"? My point is we can really only determine the best team in a conference (assuming there is at least a round-robin or CCG). A playoff between, at the very least, the conference champions of the BCS conferences, would at least be more fair because then they have to play multiple games against teams that have proven as much as they have. Any system that plays more games between the top teams produces a "fairer" result than any system that plays less.

And really, the "legitmacy" of any championship is determined in the eyes of the people that follow and care about the game. And you don't see anyone putting a "M(ythical)" in front of the championships won under playoff systems in any sport like they do with the MNC when referring to the D-1 college football champions.

3) It would be hella fun.
Counter argument: This is obviously purely subjective, and I personally find the bowls fun. But the real counter argument is regular season diminution.

Fair enough. I find the bowls to be fun as well and don't think a playoff would destroy the bowls or that they would need to get rid of them. The more football the better I say. But there are a helluva lot of surveys out there that say that most people think that a playoff would be more fun, and I tend to agree.

Which brings us to the main anti-playoff argument; that an expanded playoff would (in proportion to its size/inclusiveness) substantially harm the importance of, and interest in, the regular season. I have yet to see anyone seriously counter this.

Firstly, I get that you like the idea that every game, big or small, can determine whether or not you win a NC in any given year. But like how you pointed out that not all people think a playoff is the best way to determine a NC, not all people like that idea either. I could get behind it if everyone played a very similar schedule, but since there are virtually no common opponents amongst top 10 teams not in the same conference, I find the idea a little bit silly and archaic in an age of greater parity. But in this case, I can concede that everyone has an IMO.

What I vehemently disagree with is the argument that interest in the regular season would decline substantially. In what tangible way would this occur? Who is going to stop watching/attending/talking about games? Just because 1 loss would no longer doom your season doesn't mean people are going to stop watching games to see if teams win/lose. Lets look at a typical make-up of a college football audience for any given game:

1) The alumni/fans of the teams playing. This group probably makes up a strong majority of viewership for any given college game. This group isn't going to stop watching games or buying tickets because the game isn't do or die. Their fans of the team, win or lose, championship or not, they watch.

2) The hardcore college football fans. The people like most on this board that will watch Toledo vs. BG on a Tuesday night just because they like football. Again, this group watches rain or shine, dud or classic, playoffs or BCS.

3) The casual college football/sports fans. The people who don't really have a team and only watch the biggest games of the weekend or wherever Gameday happens to be that weekend. As long as there are big names or gaudy records, they will probably watch regardless of the implications. We may see a small dropoff here I suppose, they could decide to miss an extra game or 2 if they know there isn't a direct impact on the NC game to be made, but probably not.

4) The spectacle watchers. The people who only watch because of the event. They only watch if it is what everyone is doing, or because it's a top 5 match-up and therefore must be good. These are the people that drive the Superbowl ratings over-the-top, and might be more inclined to miss regular season games, but more likely to watch all of the playoffs like they do the NCAA hoops tourney. They don't make up much of the typical regular season game audience currently and their lack of interest would largely go unnoticed if it were to occur.

5) Fans of opposing teams. These are people tuning in to see one of the participants lose (see: the majority of Boise's audience this year) in order to help out their bid for a NC under the current system. This group would still watch, it would just shift from the teams ranked 3-6 at the end of the year to the teams on the bubble of making the playoffs, which will probably end up being a larger group when you think about it. Again, not likely to diminish in size or voice.

So again, I ask, who is it that won't be watching/talking about/attending these games/the season? I actually think a strong argument could be made that interest in the regular season would increase, because more teams would be in the championship conversation and would have something great to play for. Under a playoff system, a last game of the season #6 Oklahoma vs. #12 Oklahoma St. has a whole lot more importance because it could still decide both teams NC fate, not just be for bowl jockeying. I mean, under the current system, you would lose people in group 5 (that want to see teams lose), because outside of the Big 12 - 2 that game would have virtually no impact on the NC.

Also, this isn't like the NBA or MLB. We aren't inundated with so many games that a 3 game losing streak means virtually nothing. The NFL draws more than twice (16.6 million vs. 7 millionish) the viewership for an average regular season game than the biggest (that 7 # was from SEC on CBS and Saturday night on ABC games) college games. And the polls of people who identify themselves as NFL fans is not 2x greater than those that indentify themselves as college fans. Not close. Point being, that there are still so few games that they are a wanted commodity.

Now since I made all the counterarguments to your counterarguments, I might as well put forth what I think would be a palatable playoff system to all parties. I will put this in another post since this one got so long.

 

[matttank]

Part 2. Sorry about the length of the first post. Brevity sometimes eludes me. Here is my obligatory playoff proposal:

-12 teams, NFL style. Top 4 seeds get a bye (see seeding procedure below). 1st two rounds played on the higher seeds home field. This keeps the regular season importance at a high level. Getting that bye would be a huge goal for all teams, as would getting the home games. The home games also make logistical sense, the system would only have to account for 1 team's travels, and the games would be assured sellouts.

-First 2 rds in 1st/2nd/3rd weekends of December (depends on how calendar falls in August. Only 1 bye during the regular season, and season starts last weekend of August). Semi-Finals Jan.1 at 2 current BCS bowl sites. Finals a week later at another BCS bowl. BCS bowl left out each year gets top pick of teams not left in tourney, played Jan. 2.

-Bowls minus all-but-one BCS bowl still exist (why couldn't they?), teams eliminated after 1st 2 rounds still eligible for bowl games.

Seeding procedure:

- AQ conferences keep their auto-bids, but must either play a CCG or have a round robin schedule (this means you current Big 12 - 2). Same system as currently in place for non-AQ conferencevs to earn AQ status, and for AQ conferences to lose said status.

- Seeds are decided by some type of ranking procedure similar to the BCS. If all the AQs are top 12, then the seeds are set. If an AQ is outside the top 12, then they replace the lowest seeded non-cc in the top 12 and are. If you can't win your AQ conference, then you have no argument for being left out just like the bubble teams in the hoops tourney have no argument for being left out). If a non-AQ finishes in the top 12, they are in (so if say, the Big Least champ was outside the top 12 and a BSU was 12th, they would replace the lowest seeded non-cc but would still be the 12 seed). This not only would satisfy the congressional whining about non-inclusiveness, I think this would stop the shameful voting and politicking the Boise's of the world have produced (no more voting them 3rd preseason just so they have a shot at the NC).

Questions and counterarguments?

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Haven't heard much from "Spider" Benson or that hack prez at boysee since Delaney and his boys laid down their public beating.

Now, Mark [censored]ing Cuban is going to be the mid-majors' savior and bring them to the promised land of playoffs and storied pots o' gold. Seriously, the guy is a pariah within the NBA, and major league baseball wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole. But he's going to start lobbying Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio State, UCLA and Texas donors and convince them to stop supporting their alma maters so he can start a playoff.

Here's a piece of idiocy that I pulled off a mid-major board from an anonymous retard.

In my opinion the only way a playoff happens is two ways: some Member of Congress gets a bill pushed through cutting off all Federal grants and research to any school not supportive of a playoff

I'm sorry Stanford. You have your comprehensive cancer institute and world class researchers. However, you don't support a playoff, so from now on, the NIH will be giving your research funding to Boysee Fucking State Truck Driver College. Gee, Delaney and the powers that be know damn well it will never end with just a playoff. Until these schools force through some form of revenue sharing, they will never be able to compete and thus won't be satisfied. Gee knows where this ends up, and he's right for drawing a line in the stand. Fuck the mid-majors. Let them go get their fucking shineboxes.