College Playoff

[Buckeye86]

I'm just a curmudgeon I guess because I hate the thought of losing what I love about the bowls and also the loss of the valuable regular season...starting with that first game in early Sept. Having said that, if a playoff HAD to happen...4 teams would make it pretty darn elite. I could accept that MUCH easier than 8 or 16.

+1

Plus a four team playoff would hopefully have the side affect of forcing mid majors to schedule more than one competitive game a season if they want a shot at the national title.

Who knows though, the talking heads seem to be fine with putting them in the top 2 now based on one game, but hopefully the voters at large would set the standard a bit higher than that.

 

[jwinslow]

+1

Plus a four team playoff would hopefully have the side affect of forcing mid majors to schedule more than one competitive game a season if they want a shot at the national title.

:cheers:

Who knows though, the talking heads seem to be fine with putting them in the top 2 now based on one game, but hopefully the voters at large would set the standard a bit higher than that.

Well the most prominent talking heads are the official home for most of their mid-week football games

 

[BUCKYLE]

I had a thought during this year's basketball tournament: I would rather guarantee good (or at least interesting) match ups in bowl games by selecting the two teams artificially than throwing sixteen teams (or whatever) together and hoping for good games to occur organically.

Maybe I am wrong, but VCU versus Butler had to be one of the least interesting, least watched final four game in a long time. Cinderella's are fun, but only if they are playing a juggernaught that everyone can root against.

I guess the bottom line is that I am just not that interested in a bunch of shitty teams from the WAC or MWC going undefeated and crashing a playoff system and creating a bunch of uninteresting match ups. I just DO NOT give a fuck about those teams playing in important bowl games, particularly when it is well established that they game the system to get in in the first place.

I also have a problem with the shit teams from shit conferences playing in a prestigious bowl game that is only prestigious because of decades of powerhouse programs from major conferences making the games what they are. The Rose Bowl isn't the Rose because of fucking TCU.

 

[BB73]

So, like I said, your point is that you have no point.

Fair enough.

Or his point could be that people have been expressing concepts like 'the grass is always greener' or 'build a better mousetrap' for a helluva long time, and didn't have to fancy it up with a bunch of big words in order to act like it was a concept unique to modern society.

But some folks may choose to be dismissive and insulting, rather than trying to see someone else's point.

Fair enough.

You can PM me if you want to, but now that this thread is back to talking about potential playoff scenarios, let's take the sociological discussion elsewhere.

 

[zincfinger]

Or his point could be that people have been expressing concepts like 'the grass is always greener' or 'build a better mousetrap' for a helluva long time, and didn't have to fancy it up with a bunch of big words in order to act like it was a concept unique to modern society.

But some folks may choose to be dismissive and insulting, rather than trying to see someone else's point.

Fair enough.

You can PM me if you want to, but now that this thread is back to talking about potential playoff scenarios, let's take the sociological discussion elsewhere.

Meh.

The one thing this thread was lacking was a repetition of the same arguments AuburnBuckeye was making two years ago, except this time dressed up with attitude.

But no longer.

Anyway, as BB73 says, back to your scheduled programming.

 

[SloopyHangOn]

I also have a problem with the shit teams from shit conferences playing in a prestigious bowl game that is only prestigious because of decades of powerhouse programs from major conferences making the games what they are. The Rose Bowl isn't the Rose because of fucking TCU.

Last year's TCU team could've beaten just about anybody. To say that the Rose Bowl taking them is somehow contradictory to its prestige is kinda backwards, IMO. I would argue that the weight of the Rose (and other prestigious bowls) is as much about the venue and tradition (on a whole) as it is about the teams that play in it every year.

To me they're complimentary ideas, not mutually exclusive ones.

 

[jwinslow]

Last year's TCU team could've beaten just about anybody. To say that the Rose Bowl taking them is somehow contradictory to its prestige is kinda backwards, IMO. I would argue that the weight of the Rose (and other prestigious bowls) is as much about the venue and tradition (on a whole) as it is about the teams that play in it every year.

And if TCU, Boise State, Utah, Hawaii get regular invitations on the basis of winning 1-2 mildly difficult games and 10-12 cakewalks, it will greatly diminish the tradition of the bowl game.

There is a reason the Fiesta Bowl loves having the Buckeyes instead of the Big East.

 

[SloopyHangOn]

And if TCU, Boise State, Utah, Hawaii get regular invitations on the basis of winning 1-2 mildly difficult games and 10-12 cakewalks, it will greatly diminish the tradition of the bowl game.

There is a reason the Fiesta Bowl loves having the Buckeyes instead of the Big East.

I suppose that's one side of the coin.

The best bowls look to snag the best teams, both in terms of ticket sales AND performance. If TCU, Boise State, Utah & Hawaii are consistently landing in the top of the heap, eligible for BCS bowl games, then they must be doing something well on the field.

Would they do that well in another conference? Most of the time, no. But the Fiesta Bowl doesn't love having the Buckeyes because they always field a consistent team. They love them because we buy tickets, we draw viewership, we get swag. It's less about the tradition and more about the branding. So if these non-BCS teams are drawing fans, selling tickets and can hold their weight on the field then I can't see that diminishing the bowl's tradition in any way.

Then again, it also depends on what you see a bowl's tradition as.

If it's about historical and big named programs then you're right, these programs would diminish that.

To me a bowl's tradition is about a high quality of competition, great stories and great players and you can get that from these teams just as easily as you can from the Ohio States, Notre Dames, USCs, Alabamas, etc... of the world.

 

[Buckeye86]

Utah

It will be interesting to see how Utah hangs now that they are in the PAC-10.

 

[SloopyHangOn]

It will be interesting to see how Utah hangs now that they are in the PAC-10.

I'm rooting for business as usual.

I'm betting they make a Pac-10 championship game within the first 3 seasons.

 

[muffler dragon]

It will be interesting to see how Utah hangs now that they are in the PAC-10.

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-11/mtn-west/2011-utah-utes-football-schedule.php

Montana State
at USC
at BYU
Washington
Arizona State
at Pitt
at California
Oregon State
at Arizona
UCLA
at Washington State
Colorado

I see a 9 win (+/-) season.

 

[Buckeye86]

I'm rooting for business as usual.

I'm betting they make a Pac-10 championship game within the first 3 seasons.

Going from 2-4 competitive games a year to 6-8 will be a pretty big adjustment, especially for the depth chart. I think it will take a bit for the benefits of PAC-10 recruiting to hit their depth chart and allow them to be competitive, but that's just me.

When your star RB tweaks his ankle in the Mountain West and is less than 100% for the next four games, it doesn't matter because you are lucky enough to play Air Force, New Mexico, San Diego State, and Wyoming.

When your star running back tweaks his ankle and your next game is on the road against Oregon State? That's a little bit different.

Expand to dings across the board and I think that is the biggest difference between mid majors and majors.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Not updated:

In their last 9 games against BCS foes:

TCU's Record v. BCS Teams

Year..Opponent..(Record)...Score..W/L
2009..@ Virginia..(3-9)....30-14...W
2008..Oklahoma...(12-2)....10-35...L
2008..Stanford....(5-7)....31-14...W
2007..Stanford....(4-8)....38-36...W
2007..Texas......(10-3)....13-34...L
2007..Baylor......(3-9)....27-0....W
2006..Texas Tech..(8-5)....12-3....W
2006..Baylor......(4-8)....17-7....W
2005..Iowa State..(7-5)....27-24...W
​

Overall Record v. BCS opponents: 7-2
Record against BCS teams with a winning record: 2-2
Combined Record of Opponents beaten: 34-51 .400
Combined Record of Opponents who beat TCU: 22-5 .814

Clearly TCU has fared pretty well against BCS Schools over the course of their last 9 contests against them. However, the teams they are beating are bottom feeder BCS Schools more often than not. This lends support to perhaps making TCU a "BCS School" and removing Baylor from the ranks, but I'm not sure it means TCU should be given any particular credit for their facially impressive 7-2 record.

In any event, forgiving the more obvious flaws with this analysis (for example, it spanning several seasons - which itself might be offset by TCU having to play these teams in successive weeks) if TCU played in a BCS conference, and if we assume TCU wins it's other 3 games (to make a 12 game season) we see they are at best a 10-2 team. That's still pretty good, no question about it. But, it's decidedly NOT National Championship caliber.

Boise State's Record v. BCS Teams

Year..Opponent..(Record)...Score..W/L
2009..Oregon......(9-2)....19-8....W
2008..Oregon.....(10-3)....37-32...W
2007..Washington..(4-9)....10-24...L
2007..Oklahoma...(11-3)....43-42...W
2006..Oregon St..(10-4)....42-14...W
2005..Boston Col..(9-3)....21-27...L
2005..Oregon St...(5-6)....27-30...L
2005..Georgia....(10-3)....13-48...L
2004..Oregon St...(7-5)....53-34...W
​

Overall Record v. BCS opponents: 5-4
Record against BCS teams with a winning record: 5-2
Combined Record of Opponents beaten: 47-17 .734
Combined Record of Opponents who beat BSU: 28-21 .571

One thing becomes fairly clear when we look at Boise State's play against BCS teams - Boise State is able to "get up" for a perceived big game. Their record against BCS teams with winning records is an impressive 5-2, and that is to their credit. However, despite the "big game" success Boise State is just 1 game better than .500 against BCS competition, losing some games to some bad teams, most notably 4-9 Washington.

As it is, if Boise State was in the Pac 10, for example, they would generally be a 7-5 club - if we assume as we did with TCU that Boise State would win each of it's OOC games. There are teams out there who are able to "get up" for the big games. Michigan State comes to mind. Texas Tech or Oklahoma State might do the same from time to time. USC killer Stanford might be an excellent correlary. But, none of these teams "deserve" a shot at the National Championship simply because they win games they probably should not.

BYU's Record v. BCS Teams

Year..Opponent..(Record)...Score..W/L
2009..Florida St..(6-6)....54-28...L
2009..Oklahoma....(7-5)....14-13...W
2008..Arizona.....(8-5)....21-31...L
2008..UCLA........(4-8)....59-0....W
2008..Washington.(0-12)....28-27...W
2007..UCLA........(6-7)....17-16...W
2007..UCLA........(6-7)....17-27...L
2007..Arizona.....(5-7)....20-7....W
2006..Oregon......(7-6)....38-8....W
​

Overall Record v. BCS opponents: 6-3
Record against BCS teams with a winning record: 2-1, the best of which is 2009 Oklahoma (7-5)
Combined Record of Opponents beaten: 29-45 .392
Combined Record of Opponents who beat BYU: 20-18 .526

Here again we see a mid major with a fairly respectable W/L record against BCS teams. BYU is 6-3 against their last 9 BCS teams played. But, the teams they have beaten have been pathetic, on the whole. The Cougars best win is over 2009 Oklahoma, which currently stands at 7-5.

Since winning the MNC in 1984, BYU is the traditional Mid Major power and might be considered the most "storied" of those schools. Still, if they were in a BCS conference, in this case the Pac 10, and they were able to play UCLA 3 times a year and a laughable Washington, they'd still only be a 9-3 team. Of course, no one is suggesting BYU deserves anything in 2009. Nor should they. Like TCU and Boise State, BYU might be good enough to be considered a team which should join a BCS conference, and they'd stand a decent chance of being a bowl eligible team most years. But, I don't think we can expect them to be competing for National Titles with any frequency.

Houston's Record v. BCS Teams

Year..Opponent..(Record)...Score..W/L
2009..Texas Tech..(8-4)....29-28...W
2009..Oklahoma St.(9-3)....45-35...W
2008..Oklahoma St.(9-4)....37-56...L
2007..Alabama.....(7-6)....30-24...L
2007..Oregon......(9-4)....27-48...L
2006..South Car...(8-5)....36-44...L
2006..Miami, Fla..(7-6)....13-14...L
2006..Oklahoma St.(7-6)....34-25...W
2005..Kansas......(7-5)....13-42...L
​

Overall Record v. BCS opponents: 3-6
Record against BCS teams with a winning record: 3-6
Combined Record of Opponents beaten: 24-13 .649
Combined Record of Opponents who beat Houston: 47-30 .610

As with BYU, no one is suggesting that Houston is being treated unfairly by the BCS. I have considered them here nonetheless so as to provide a picture of the occasional "hot" non-BCS school which might raise up any particular year before falling off again. Schools like Bowling Green, Miami of Ohio, Southern Mississippi and the like.

To Houston's credit, they are the only Mid Major considered thus far which has faced only BCS teams with winning records. That tells me two things. First, they are a scheduled win for those schools, and second, it's not quite fair to evaluate them on this metric because it is a rare conference indeed which has nothing but winning teams, even if the bulk of those teams are just above .500.

At 3-6, we maybe don't have to assume Houston would win its non-BCS games which would be their OOC schedule. Even if we do give them the benefit of the doubt, their a 6-6 club. In my mind, Houston is like your Indiana's or Illinois' They're able to put it together on rare occasion, but tend to be little more than conference filler.

Utah's Record v. BCS Teams

Year..Opponent..(Record)...Score..W/L
2009..Oregon......(9-2)....31-24...L
2009..Alabama....(12-2)....31-17...W
2008..Oregon St...(9-4)....58-10...W
2008..Michigan....(3-9)....25-23...W
2007..UCLA........(6-7)....44-6....W
2007..Oregon St...(9-4).....7-24...L
2006..UCLA........(7-6)....10-31...L
2005..Georgia Tech(7-5)....38-10...W
2005..North Car...(5-6)....17-31...L
​

Overall Record v. BCS opponents: 5-4
Record against BCS teams with a winning record: 3-3
Combined Record of Opponents beaten: 37-27 .578
Combined Record of Opponents who beat Utah: 36-18 .667

Finally, last year's torch bearer of the Mid Major being "screwed" out of things. After struggling to beat what would turn out to be a 3-9 Michigan team, Utah never looked back on its way to defeating an Alabama team which was uninspired to be in the Sugar Bowl after failing to make the BCS Championship game. They had a very good season. No question about it.

But, they're only 5-4 against their last 9 BCS opponents and seem to be about the same as Boise State - able to get up for the "bigger" games, but not particularly special in other games on this hypothetical schedule. Giving them 3 OOC wins, they're just an 8-4 team. Are they better than Clemson? Maybe. Are they better than Duke? Yeah, I'd say so. But, they're not competing for National Titles if they were made to play in a BCS conference.

 

[Buckeye86]

Not updated:

great analysis, but I still think it fails to factor in playing a BCS caliber team every single weak in conference play and the attrition and strain that causes on a depth chart

in each of your examples, the team spreads out a BCS conference schedule over 4 years or so

Boise State is able to "get up" for big games against BCS teams because they can literally spend the entire off season preparing for their regular season big game and then spend the entire regular season against their shit conference preparing for their bowl game

 

[Muck]

great analysis, but I still think it fails to factor in playing a BCS caliber team every single weak in conference play and the attrition and strain that causes on a depth chart

Note...

.../snip/...In any event, forgiving the more obvious flaws with this analysis (for example, it spanning several seasons - which itself might be offset by TCU having to play these teams in successive weeks.../snip/...