College Playoff

[buckiprof]

The funniest part about this debate - and there are many - is that no one, and I mean no one, who is a Buckeye fan would be defending the status quo if this game had a different outcome:

Iowa State 36
Iowa 31

September 14, 2002

If Iowa wins that game, they play Miami in the NC game instead of us. Hell, there were people saying they belonged there ahead of us even with that loss. They were perceived by many as the best team in the Big Ten, their QB was Heisman runner-up, and we were the "Luckeyes". No way we get in if we're both unbeaten.

Undefeated, third ranked Ohio State gets left out of the NC game - even though "every game means everything" - and Buckeye Nation goes into full meltdown. People would still be [censored]ed about it to this day, and they would NOT be defending the BCS over a playoff. No chance in hell.

100% false.

BCS used a different formula in 2002. Go ahead and give Iowa that extra win and they still have 1 loss on their record. BCS formula. Remember that the formula at that time had 1 point added to your score for each loss. So even if the AP and USA Today (the polls used at that time) had a 1 loss Iowas team ranked ahead of a zero loss Ohio State team (which I really, really doubt!), the one point penalty for that 1 loss would have knocked Iowa well below Ohio State.

So first, I do not believe there is any way that the AP or the USA Today polls would have had a 1 loss Iowa ranked ahead of an undefeated OSU and even if they did, according to the BCS formula at that time, that one loss would have added a penalty point to Iowa's composite score and there is no mathematical way in hell with that one point penalty Iowa would have been in the BCSNCG over OSU.

 

[BB73]

The system for I-AA, II, and III work perfectly. They play the same number of regular season games, and having too many playoff spots would water it down. Having 16 spots from a pool of about 120 teams (I-AA) is about right.

Expanded playoffs crept into I-AA (FCS) last year. They expanded from 16 teams to 20, and included a Georgia Southern team that was 7-4 in the regular season.

Playoff.pdf

 

[Nutriaitch]

Expanded playoffs crept into I-AA (FCS) last year. They expanded from 16 teams to 20, and included a Georgia Southern team that was 7-4 in the regular season.

Playoff.pdf

The NFL playoffs that everyone seems to love so much allowed a 7-9 team (Seattle) to get in over a 10-6 team (Tampa) that beat them by 23 and a 10-6 team (NY Giants) that beat them by 34 during the regular season.

 

[BayBuck]

100% false.

BCS used a different formula in 2002. Go ahead and give Iowa that extra win and they still have 1 loss on their record. BCS formula. Remember that the formula at that time had 1 point added to your score for each loss. So even if the AP and USA Today (the polls used at that time) had a 1 loss Iowas team ranked ahead of a zero loss Ohio State team (which I really, really doubt!), the one point penalty for that 1 loss would have knocked Iowa well below Ohio State.

So first, I do not believe there is any way that the AP or the USA Today polls would have had a 1 loss Iowa ranked ahead of an undefeated OSU and even if they did, according to the BCS formula at that time, that one loss would have added a penalty point to Iowa's composite score and there is no mathematical way in hell with that one point penalty Iowa would have been in the BCSNCG over OSU.

FYI, the loss to Iowa State was Iowa's only regular-season loss that year; their 2nd loss was in the Orange Bowl to USC. So the comparison would be between 2 unbeatens (though OSU was 13-0 while Iowa would have been 12-0), but I still don't believe previously-unranked Iowa would have actually climbed above an OSU team that was top-10 in every regular-season poll. It's debatable for sure, but there's not "no way" the Buckeyes would have still been in the BCSNCG.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Actually, there are 120 D1 teams. So if 19 were undefeated at the end of September, his statement was pretty close - 84.2% of teams are [censored]ed at that point as far as the BCSNCG goes, seeing as it usually takes an undefeated season to reach the NC, (Or if not, the odds of you losing another game when you have lost one in September already is generally pretty high, considering the beginning of most teams seasons are OOC cupcakes).

And not to pick fights, but your point about suspense seems a bit non-sensical. Sure, #1 tOSU vs #2 scUM is less suspenseful at the end of the season if there is a playoff that involves both of them to follow. However, that playoff itself would surely be of equal or more suspense, would it not? I mean, say what you will about tournaments, but I don't think anyone can argue that March Madness is not madness, nor that the madness does not equate to suspense.

Let's make sure those teams have a shot at the 'ship.

 

[SmoovP]

The system for I-AA, II, and III work perfectly.

If you believe tournament winner equates with 'National Champion' then I guess you could say it works perfectly.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

FYI, the loss to Iowa State was Iowa's only regular-season loss that year; their 2nd loss was in the Orange Bowl to USC. So the comparison would be between 2 unbeatens (though OSU was 13-0 while Iowa would have been 12-0), but I still don't believe previously-unranked Iowa would have actually climbed above an OSU team that was top-10 in every regular-season poll. It's debatable for sure, but there's not "no way" the Buckeyes would have still been in the BCSNCG.

Ohio State started 13th

Still well ahead of Iowa.

 

[AuburnBuckeye]

You're making a big assumption on this one Jake. 2002 Iowa started the season unranked and I don't really see how they would have jumped top-10 and unbeaten OSU at any point after an alternate-reality win over Iowa State. OSU had a much tougher schedule that season, and Iowa had their share of narrow wins, and despite the media love for 1-loss Iowa late in the season, I'm not at all convinced there's "no way" OSU still finishes ahead of unbeaten '02 Iowa.

So you'd just rather wait until it actually happens to OSU to do anything about it instead of changing now before it's too late? Granted, OSU isn't a very likely victim of this because they are a big name brand and would get in in front of most teams.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

So you'd just rather wait until it actually happens to OSU to do anything about it instead of changing now before it's too late? Granted, OSU isn't a very likely victim of this because they are a big name brand and would get in in front of most teams.

Can't speak for Bay, but for my part, if Ohio State gets left out of the title game under the BCS formula, I'll complain about them having too weak a schedule.

 

[matcar]

Can't speak for Bay, but for my part, if Ohio State gets left out of the title game under the BCS formula, I'll complain about them having too weak a schedule.

Agreed. Color me not worried. Is the BCS a money sham...probably, but I still prefer it to playoffs which is just another way to crown a winner, but not necessarily the best team.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Agreed. Color me not worried. Is the BCS a money sham...probably, but I still prefer it to playoffs which is just another way to crown a winner, but not necessarily the best team.

Don't tell that to VCU or Butler.

 

[Gatorubet]

I like the imperfect bowl system with all of the bitching and discussion about who is better and who should have played where. I don't want to see a small number of teams in a playoff where I have to see the same team playing several more games, one after the other. I want to keep it where the bowl season brings a large number of different teams playing each other once. If you make those kids play a 14 or 15 game season you'd better pay them.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I like the imperfect bowl system with all of the bitching and discussion about who is better and who should have played where. I don't want to see a small number of teams in a playoff where I have to see the same team playing several more games, one after the other. I want to keep it where the bowl season brings a large number of different teams playing each other once. If you make those kids play a 14 or 15 game season you'd better pay them.

Oh, I'm pretty sure the cash flow is just fine for today's "student athlete."

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Not really. #9-16 have a lot of mediocre squads.

YSU won the 1991 national title as low seed with 3 losses (IIRC, they were seeded 11th). They also won the won the 1993 and 1997 national titles with 2 losses. They also went into the 1992 and 1999 playoffs with 2 losses (lost 1992 title game to Marshall and 1999 title game to Georgia Southern). In each of those four years entering the playoffs with 2 losses, YSU was seeded either just inside or just outside the top 8.

And now since more and more I-AA teams are playing upper-level I-A teams early in the season, a solid I-AA team could have 3 losses entering the playoffs. So, you can't sit there and claim a 2- or 3-loss team is mediocre just because of their record. As for I-A, most teams in the top 16 of the BCS at the end of the regular season and conference championship games will have only 1 or 2 losses.

I keep harping on the I-AA, II, and III playoff systems simply because they flat out work, and have worked for decades....

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

If you make those kids play a 14 or 15 game season you'd better pay them.

You mean like they pay the division I-AA, II, and III players?