College Playoff

[blueinfla]

I can understand your point about how if you could still make the playoffs even if you dropped an OOC game or two. That said, there is no benefit in scheduling cupcakes in the current system. If you don't believe me, ask Auburn 2004. True enough, there is a fine line to be walked between "hard enough" and not "too hard" though.

I certainly agree with your last sentence. However, as a rebuttal to your Auburn argument, I'd say that PSU would have been in the MNC game had they beat Iowa this past year. But, your statement is correct; going to soft for OOC could be bad.

 

[blueinfla]

You're right, scheduling Texas, USC, Miami, California, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma & Tennessee isn't done by anyone.

What???

 

[jwinslow]

What???

OSU's annual OOC opponents from 2005-2019, except 07 (which finished off an old series).

 

[blueinfla]

OSU's annual OOC opponents from 2005-2019, except 07 (which finished off an old series).

Where did I say ANYWHERE one a year? I'm not talking about any one particular team's schedule. I"m talking hypothetical here. With a playoff, one or two OOC losses aren't going to ruin your season. In the BCS, they do; which is why every team schedules cupcakes. And, yes, for the revenue as well.

 

[jwinslow]

why is there a need to schedule 100% NC contender games? The purpose of big OOC matchups is an exciting challenge for your squad. No team in football on any level avoids bad teams altogether.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I had a few moments and pieced together an Eleven + Five scenario for 2008. If there is to be a playoff, I think this is more in line with what would need to happen (again, saving for LJB's complete reorganization of CFB) Note: I took this from my 2008 Playoff hypos thread... I did not do additional research than what I could glean from that thread, which accounts for some of the missing data (e.g. Ohio State's missing SOS, AP etc.)

Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Virginia Tech...19...10-4...26...15....18
Big XII....Oklahoma.........1...12-2....7....5.....3
Big East...Cincinnati......12...11-3...60...17....34
Big Ten....Penn State.......8...11-2...55....8.....8
C-USA......East Carolina...NR....9-5...67...NR....54
MAC........Buffalo.........NR....8-6...92...NR....76
MWC........Utah.............6...13-0...56....2.....5
Pac 10.....USC..............5...12-1...16....3.....2
SEC........Florida..........2...13-1....4....1.....1
Sun Belt...Troy............NR....8-5..117...NR....70
WAC........Boise State......9...12-1...94...11....12
Big XII....Texas............3...12-1...14....4.....4 At Large 1
SEC........Alabama..........4...12-2...28....6.....6 At Large 2
Big XII....Texas Tech.......7...11-2...27...12.....9 At Large 3
Big Ten....Ohio State......10...10-3................ At Large 4
MWC........TCU.............11...11-2................ At Large 5

First Round:
1) Oklahoma 12-2 v. 16) Buffalo 8-6
2) Florida 13-1 v. 15) Troy 8-5
3) Texas 12-1 v. 14) East Carolina 9-5
4) Alabama 12-2 v. 13) Virginia Tech 10-4
5) USC 12-1 v. 12) Cincinnati 11-3
6) Utah 13-0 v. 11) TCU 11-2
7) Texas Tech 11-2 v. 10) Ohio State 10-3
8) Penn State 11-2 v. 9) Boise State 12-1

Possible Second Round:
1) Oklahoma v. 8) Penn State
2) Florida v. 10) Ohio State
3) Texas v. 6) Utah
4) Alabama v. 5) USC

Possible Semi Finals:
1) Penn State v. 5) USC
2) Florida v. 3) Texas

Possible Finals
5) USC v. 2) Florida

First Round snoozers:
OU - Buffalo, Florida - Troy, Texas - ECU, USC - Cincy, and maybe PSU - Boise State

First round "good games"
I took Ohio State over TTU, partly because I'm a homer and partly because I do think OSU's defense would have been fine against TTUs offense, while TTU would not have been able to keep the Buckeyes off the scoreboard. TCU v. Utah would be a good game (Utah won 13-10 on 11/6/08), I think, though, not a big national draw. Alabama v. Virginia Tech might have been interesting, but I could also see Bama beating the snot out of a relatively hapless (offensively) Hokie squad.

Second round snoozers:
None... the second round actually looks pretty good, though I think Texas dismantles Utah.. still, Utah did finish 13-0 and beat Alabama handily.

Second round "good games"
Each looks pretty good. Ohio State gets a chance to avenge it's 06 loss to the Gators and I think OU v. PSU would have been compelling. USC would probably have destroyed Bama, but in terms of "storied" programs, the game would have sold well.

Semifinals -
I took PSU over OU, but that was just a little big ten homerism and a distaste for OU. In any case, we saw USC v. PSU in the Rose Bowl and thus I had to take SC over the Nits. Florida Texas sounds interesting as well. I could see that going either way, but took eventual champion Florida.

Finals -
Florida v. USC.... Well, the national media would have been thrilled... God's gift to football (Tim Tebow) against God's gift to football (USC)....

Seems to me, this is the sort of scenario playoff proponents envision when they talk playoffs. It would have worked pretty well in 2008. I have not run all the scenarios from the previous BCS years, but my guess is the rounds would tend to be similar in most cases.

The 11+5 was chosen because it is "fair" in terms of giving each school a chance to compete - all they have to do is win their conference. Likewise, it gives teams like Texas an allegedly "deserved" second chance.

See, playoff proponents, that wasn't so hard.... This is what I have been talking about when I say "prove" how a playoff would be better.... I'm not sure the above "proves" it, but at least we now have something to consider.

All that said, and I have yet to run the scenarios, I'm not so sure that previous years don't end up looking uglier... indeed, I looked at 1998 quickly and saw several potential rematches. Perhaps if I get the time I'll run all the years under this format.... But, anyway.... there you have it....

 

[martinss01]

Where did I say ANYWHERE one a year? I'm not talking about any one particular team's schedule. I"m talking hypothetical here. With a playoff, one or two OOC losses aren't going to ruin your season. In the BCS, they do; which is why every team schedules cupcakes. And, yes, for the revenue as well.

so every 2 loss team gets into your hypothetical playoff?

If nothing else, a playoff would force the SEC to play a game of consequence outside of their region to earn a NC bid. Teams like Florida & Georgia would have to leave their comfort zones.

i see no reason to believe this to be true. judging by the dates the games would be played its exceedingly likely they would be played in the same locations the current bowl games are. no way no how you get a southern team to agree to playing a january game in the snow belt.

A 4 team playoff after the bowl games could send both Texas & OU, if OU had won (a very real possibility).

could you provide more information on how this playoff system would work? are you stating that the winners of the 4 bcs games would play each other for a shot at the nc?

It depends on the system you have in mind, and this is the part that [censored]es me off about playoff proponents... Instead of doing the work, they simply say Team A deserved a shot and don't consider the consequences of any proposed system. So, I ask - what system? How many teams? What selection criteria? Do you take only some conference champs, or all? In other words, present a solution to the problem of how the playoffs would even be set up...

Again, I ran 3 separate scenarios: BCS Top 8 format, Conference Champs format and a 6+2 system.... Not one of them was without serious problems... The Conf. Champ system produced dreadful games... The 6+2 system did nothing to help the midmajor schools.. in fact, such a system actually hurt them... the BCS top 8 format produced better "on paper" match ups, but was usually not materially different from the current BCS, and is likewise based on the same alleged fault with the current BCS in terms of selection (while also keeping the power with the big schools).

So... what is your proposal? I don't mean to put you specifically on the spot... but, no one on the "playoffs" side has bothered to demonstrate a workable solution... instead they simply keep repeating the "It's time for a playoff" mantra without any criteria

GPA?

no playoff system brought up thus far has been any more affective than the bcs when measured over time. there is no way to have a playoff with fewer than 16 teams in a league with almost 120 members and call it "fair". the only way your ever going to put together a fair playoff system for college football is to follow the college basketball model. no way no how will any member institution agree to that. we're much better off putting our energy towards making the bcs more palatable and moving on with our lives.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Martin - with regard to your question to Jwins... I think a plus one is absurd (that's essentially what you have here, I think). I have no idea why we are supposed to believe that the BCS is incapable of picking 2 teams worthy of NC consideration after a full 12 games, but that with one round of bowl games, all of a sudden it all becomes clear.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I didn't say A texas, or A georgia. I'm saying you play ALL of those teams, or teams of that caliber every year for your non-conference schedule. Those games are going to draw more attention and excitement than Youngstown St, Ohio, Akron, etc....

Says a fan of the team that was considering scheduling I-AA UMass for their stadium "dedication" game...

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Not to be a dick, but shouldn't it be obvious? Texas gets a shot at the title, which they did not under the current system.



How many other teams are there that have a 11-1 record and beat the team that's heading to the title game?

Sorry, didn't see this earlier..

So.. your proposal is to include teams we think - after the fact - should get another bite at the apple? How do we add only Texas to the deal since they're the only one that went 11-1 and beat a team that went to the NC game? Who does Texas play? OU? Why? They already beat OU. Should the play Florida? Why? Florida didn't do anything to deserve being dragged in to the Big XII's mess.... Why should they have to beat Texas AND OU?

So, no.. it's NOT obvious how your hypo addresses the deal because you're not making an evaluation.... You're simply saying "I feel bad for Texas" and assuming everyone else agrees.

Take 2002... Miami and Ohio State were the only undefeated major programs out there... who else "deserved" anything? What's your principle for having a playoff, or are you just making this up as you go? Because it sounds to me like your "plan" is more arbitrary than the hated BCS...

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Take 2002... Miami and Ohio State were the only undefeated major programs out there... who else "deserved" anything? What's your principle for having a playoff, or are you just making this up as you go? Because it sounds to me like your "plan" is more arbitrary than the hated BCS...

Having only two undefeated major teams at the end of the regular season is rare. And there were quite a few pundits back in 2002 that thought that even though we were 13-0 we didn't deserve to be in the NC game because of all the close calls (at Cincy, at Purdue, at Illinois, vs. Michigan). Even if there are only two undefeated teams, at least they'll get the #1 and #2 seeds under a playoff system...

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Having only two undefeated major teams at the end of the regular season is rare. And there were quite a few pundits back in 2002 that thought that even though we were 13-0 we didn't deserve to be in the NC game because of all the close calls (at Cincy, at Purdue, at Illinois, vs. Michigan). Even if there are only two undefeated teams, at least they'll get the #1 and #2 seeds under a playoff system...

And that's fine, but my question to tresselbeliever relates to what principle is at issue... I may be misunderstanding him, but it seems to me he wants a correction to a particular issue, and then without any analysis jumps to "playoff" being the solution.. without any regard for how that "fix" plays in to the larger picture. In short, his opinion as I understand it is nothing better than the BCS making tweaks to make up for the prior years failings (which is a mistake the BCS makes)

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

Don't throw the NCAA tourney in my face either. College football is different... we want our champion to have been "the best" (whatever that means) in basketball we settle for whatever team was the "hottest" for an arbitrary set of games in March.

In reality, the college football does use the "hottest team" equation in picking the BCS teams. If a team loses the second or third week of the season, that team has time to win the rest of their games and get into the BCS title game. Therefore they "got hot" and went on a winning streak. Now take a team who loses a game late in the year. They have no chance of getting into the BCS game.

Why do you say basketball games are arbitrary in March? What is your definition of arbitrary?

 

[BB73]

In reality, the college football does use the "hottest team" equation in picking the BCS teams. If a team loses the second or third week of the season, that team has time to win the rest of their games and get into the BCS title game. Therefore they "got hot" and went on a winning streak. Now take a team who loses a game late in the year. They have no chance of getting into the BCS game.

In 2007, tOSU lost their next-to-last game of the regular season, and LSU lost their last game of the regular season, and they met in the BCS Title game.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

In 2007, tOSU lost their next-to-last game of the regular season, and LSU lost their last game of the regular season, and they met in the BCS Title game.

I think, with the exception of Kansas, Ohio State was the only one loss team that year. Ohio State Loses Nov 10 and Kansas loses Nov 24. Ohio State was the "hotter" team of the two. LSU is from the SEC and that trumps everything. That year there was a lot of top ten teams losing during the last few weeks of the season that propelled LSU into the title game.