Conclusion
I hope you have enjoyed my efforts in presenting this information. If your read every word of every post, thank you for sticking with me through all the examples and hypotheticals and so on. I realize that there are other ways to analyze the data I presented. I likewise realize that my bias against a playoff probably was not as well hidden as it probably should have been if I were a professional writer. That said, I did effort to be as fair as I could, because I don't want to sound like a blow hard but instead present facts and evidence, in the form of reasonable hypothetical bowl season from years past, to examine precisely what a playoff system may have looked like and how it differs from the current system. I have discovered the following:
1) There is probably no "real" desire for a "principled" playoff system. By this I mean based on a principle of everyone in Division IA getting the same realistic shot at playing for the National Championship, by simply winning their own conference. While it's easy to say we should add the Mountain West Conference to the BCS pool, doing so is no more principled that saying we should keep it at auto bids. Likewise, 4 Independent schools would have to be made to join a conference or miss out. That said, there's no particular problem adding the MWC to the BCS auto bid pool. But, I object to people telling me that doing so is "Better" or "More Fair" or "principled" All it is is different. It is as legitimate as the BCS in this regard. No. to be Fair or Principled (Better, I'm not so sure) you need to invite all 11 Div IA conferences not just the ones we, as a group, think "deserve" consideration.
2) If you hear anyone talking about a Six Plus Two and how that solves the mid major problem and gives us great games, you can be reasonably sure that person hasn't really looked at the problem critically. In no year would a mid major been included in a Six Plus Two format - unless the rules for that format were similar to what we have in the BCS already. While that's fine for what it's worth, proponents of this playoff system must concede that it is subject to the very same criticisms as the current system in terms of arbitrary selection processes and favoring of the Power Conferences over mid majors. Likewise, the propensity of the Six Plus Two to create rematches strikes me as an additional problem people might not have realized, and one which is rare in the BCS (though not unheard of).
3) The BCS Top 8 formula is even more removed from principle than the Six Plus Two format, often giving a single conference multiple opportunities while not doing much (though doing something) to address the mid major issue. Likewise, while the match-ups look great on paper, as the "bubble teams" demonstrated, the use of a playoff would do little to limit controversy. And it's not just teams complaining about not getting in just for the sake of complaining. On occasion there are strong reasons, including beating a team that qualifies head to head, while you do not qualify.
4) If 2001 was a problem for the BCS because Nebraska was given a chance to win the Title despite not winning the Big XII (or their own division) a playoff does nothing to resolve this issue as as many as 3 teams for the same conferences could be qualifying for playoff spots, and only one of them can be their conference champion (this number only goes up with more playoff spots (ie 16 team) and could be as many as 5 bids for one conference! (see Big Ten 1999) while other conferences get one bid, or even zero (See Big Ten 2000, Top 8 Format.) A playoff is hardly any more principled or fair in this respect than is the current system. But at least mid major fans get to see their teams play BCS games the way things are now.
5) If you name a problem the BCS has, I think the data present in this series can firmly establish a playoff could well suffer the same problem if you look at it fairly. I have no issue with people saying a playoff is a legitimate way to crown a Champion. It is legitimate. But, it's not fail safe and it's not better simply by its nature. Again, there are times when it's far from better, but much, much worse than the system already in place. In 2 years out of 10, a Playoff would have produced something materially different (Not including the Conference Champion Only format). In terms of mid major bids, a playoff does little to meet those goals - at least in the systems examined here - and the more "fair" we are across Division IA, the less interesting the games become. The Playoffs, I was surprised to see, had an alarming propensity to create actual rematches, or set up the potential for rematches, some of which were blow outs and not worth seeing again. Playoff proponents must address this issue.
6) None of this considers the amount of problems a playoff creates logistically and financially. Truth is, people will find a way to profit on a playoff format. But, if you're the Liberty Bowl, or a Business in Orlando which banks of a good Citrus Bowl crowd, you're not excited about having your bowl game turned in to the NIT, essentially. There are serious business concerns at issue, and I have tried to avoid them here. It is enough, I think, to simply point out the problem is much much larger than "But, Utah deserved a shot" there are consequences, some not so big, some very big, in creating a system where teams alleged to be deserving get their chance. People must come to realize this and address it.
7) In case it's not clear by now - You can't simply look at a team, say Auburn 2004 and say "Well, they should have had the opportunity" and then jump right to "Playoffs would have settled the matter." While one can make a reasoned argument that Auburn did deserve a chance, when they are given that chance some team who isn't so deserving also gets invited. There's nothing inherently wrong with that really, but I think it may be more than fans are really bargaining for. You should go in to a playoff with your eyes open. I'm not sure Auburn's chance should come with the chance that 7-5 North Texas (Sun Belt Champ in 2004) ends up with a chance too.
8) As touched on in the last part of the 2008 analysis, the real problem is that no system, BCS or a Playoff, can possibly be based on objectivity. There are some 120 teams competing at the D-IA level. We will always require some manner of distinguishing between otherwise like teams, and someone will always be able to complain they're getting screwed. This seems plain enough when we realize NCAA Basketball teams that miss the Big Dance which takes 65 teams, still manage to complain.
But, there is an actual reason why this might occur and I think it is this: There simply are way too many teams to consider, and not near enough games to properly evaluate them. A playoff will not change these critical issues. The fact is, not all 12-1 records are the same. Simply running through a schedule rated 132 (Hawaii 2007) in the nation unscaethed does not establish you "deserve" anything, and especially not when there are other teams out there who also went 12-1 against a better (though still poor) schedule (Kansas 74th) and several teams with vastly more challenging roads to a playoff birth with similar records (ie 11-1, 10-2) True enough both of these teams would qualify for certain types of Playoffs. I'd remind you that both of them also qualified for the BCS. A Playoff gives us nothing we don't already have.
9) Finally, After reviewing all this information, I have come to the conclusion that if we must go to a playoff, that playoff should be 16 teams. Each conference champion should be invited - as this will achieve the "principle" consideration by giving every Division I team a chance to compete for the Crystal. Likewise, the format should include 5 At Large teams which thus gives non champion, but perceived as outstanding teams (ie Texas 2008), an opportunity to prove their worth. I think that doing so will increase the likelihood of the dreaded "rematch" and really is nothing more than the same mask the NCAA basketball tournament puts on the very same problem - too many teams, not enough games to really know who's who and how to objectively compare them.
Or, in another way putting it: in creating March Madness the NCAA was able to achieve "fairness" without actually being fair. Sure, every champion gets an invite (that's the principle fairness), but with all the at large selections, those lower level champions (the MEAC, for example) are set up to fail most times. Indeed, it's not unusual for a low mid major basketball conference champion to be seeded 16th in a region. They happily go to the big dance to get outclassed by the 1 seed, and every one is happy. They got their shot.. but.. not really.
As such, it seems the "best" playoff format for College Football, if we're made to accept one, is to provide fairness without really providing fairness. No one wants to watch Hawaii play Troy in a playoff, they want to see Texas play USC or Ohio State play Oklahoma or some other high caliber contest. But, to be fair, you give even the "worst" conference champion a shot, but you include enough high powered at large teams to better the probability that they don't really win anything important, like the National Championship. Thus, while we see the rare #15 over #2 upset in Basketball, we never expect that 15 seed to end up winning it all. The same should probably end up being true for Football. Give everyone a fair shot... but.. not too fair. We're not really interested in fairness. We want big time games. But, we like feeling equitable too. If that's the case, then a 16 team format is the way to go, inviting the 11 conference champions and 5 at large teams.
I did not fully evaluate such a system, and maybe some day I will. But, my instinct after all this is that it would end up suffering from it's own particular problems, not the least of which is serious logistical problems. Let me put it this way, would you be willing to drop 4 OOC games for a playoff? Even if you'd personally be willing to go without Ohio State v. Texas in the Shoe, do you for one minute think Ohio State or Texas will? Of course not. A 16 team playoff adds 4 games for 2 teams, but we don't know which 2 teams going in. Now, we could simply just add as many as 4 games to the current 12 game schedule (the two teams playing for all the marbles would play 16, BYU once played 15 so it's not completely out of line), but already we have 17 games for the SEC, Big XII and ACC if we take their title games in to account. That may be pushing it. Not that I care, frankly. More football is better as far as I'm concerned. But... that's just me being selfish and unreasonable.
Again, There are probably other conclusions to be drawn, more data to be crunched - results to be calculated (I had intended on finding out how many times in 10 years the Conferences (power and mid major) would be represented under each format (I get the sense that the SEC and Big XII are over represented, with the Big 10 getting several looks as well in the form of multiple bids.) But, after all the effort, I think I'm just best to end this discussion here for now.
Again, I thank you for reading this, and I hope you enjoyed it.
http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/612683-2008-playoff-hypos.html
Link to Methodology
Link to 1998 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 1999 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2000 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2001 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2002 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2003 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2004 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2005 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2006 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2007 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2008 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to Conclusions
I hope you have enjoyed my efforts in presenting this information. If your read every word of every post, thank you for sticking with me through all the examples and hypotheticals and so on. I realize that there are other ways to analyze the data I presented. I likewise realize that my bias against a playoff probably was not as well hidden as it probably should have been if I were a professional writer. That said, I did effort to be as fair as I could, because I don't want to sound like a blow hard but instead present facts and evidence, in the form of reasonable hypothetical bowl season from years past, to examine precisely what a playoff system may have looked like and how it differs from the current system. I have discovered the following:
1) There is probably no "real" desire for a "principled" playoff system. By this I mean based on a principle of everyone in Division IA getting the same realistic shot at playing for the National Championship, by simply winning their own conference. While it's easy to say we should add the Mountain West Conference to the BCS pool, doing so is no more principled that saying we should keep it at auto bids. Likewise, 4 Independent schools would have to be made to join a conference or miss out. That said, there's no particular problem adding the MWC to the BCS auto bid pool. But, I object to people telling me that doing so is "Better" or "More Fair" or "principled" All it is is different. It is as legitimate as the BCS in this regard. No. to be Fair or Principled (Better, I'm not so sure) you need to invite all 11 Div IA conferences not just the ones we, as a group, think "deserve" consideration.
2) If you hear anyone talking about a Six Plus Two and how that solves the mid major problem and gives us great games, you can be reasonably sure that person hasn't really looked at the problem critically. In no year would a mid major been included in a Six Plus Two format - unless the rules for that format were similar to what we have in the BCS already. While that's fine for what it's worth, proponents of this playoff system must concede that it is subject to the very same criticisms as the current system in terms of arbitrary selection processes and favoring of the Power Conferences over mid majors. Likewise, the propensity of the Six Plus Two to create rematches strikes me as an additional problem people might not have realized, and one which is rare in the BCS (though not unheard of).
3) The BCS Top 8 formula is even more removed from principle than the Six Plus Two format, often giving a single conference multiple opportunities while not doing much (though doing something) to address the mid major issue. Likewise, while the match-ups look great on paper, as the "bubble teams" demonstrated, the use of a playoff would do little to limit controversy. And it's not just teams complaining about not getting in just for the sake of complaining. On occasion there are strong reasons, including beating a team that qualifies head to head, while you do not qualify.
4) If 2001 was a problem for the BCS because Nebraska was given a chance to win the Title despite not winning the Big XII (or their own division) a playoff does nothing to resolve this issue as as many as 3 teams for the same conferences could be qualifying for playoff spots, and only one of them can be their conference champion (this number only goes up with more playoff spots (ie 16 team) and could be as many as 5 bids for one conference! (see Big Ten 1999) while other conferences get one bid, or even zero (See Big Ten 2000, Top 8 Format.) A playoff is hardly any more principled or fair in this respect than is the current system. But at least mid major fans get to see their teams play BCS games the way things are now.
5) If you name a problem the BCS has, I think the data present in this series can firmly establish a playoff could well suffer the same problem if you look at it fairly. I have no issue with people saying a playoff is a legitimate way to crown a Champion. It is legitimate. But, it's not fail safe and it's not better simply by its nature. Again, there are times when it's far from better, but much, much worse than the system already in place. In 2 years out of 10, a Playoff would have produced something materially different (Not including the Conference Champion Only format). In terms of mid major bids, a playoff does little to meet those goals - at least in the systems examined here - and the more "fair" we are across Division IA, the less interesting the games become. The Playoffs, I was surprised to see, had an alarming propensity to create actual rematches, or set up the potential for rematches, some of which were blow outs and not worth seeing again. Playoff proponents must address this issue.
6) None of this considers the amount of problems a playoff creates logistically and financially. Truth is, people will find a way to profit on a playoff format. But, if you're the Liberty Bowl, or a Business in Orlando which banks of a good Citrus Bowl crowd, you're not excited about having your bowl game turned in to the NIT, essentially. There are serious business concerns at issue, and I have tried to avoid them here. It is enough, I think, to simply point out the problem is much much larger than "But, Utah deserved a shot" there are consequences, some not so big, some very big, in creating a system where teams alleged to be deserving get their chance. People must come to realize this and address it.
7) In case it's not clear by now - You can't simply look at a team, say Auburn 2004 and say "Well, they should have had the opportunity" and then jump right to "Playoffs would have settled the matter." While one can make a reasoned argument that Auburn did deserve a chance, when they are given that chance some team who isn't so deserving also gets invited. There's nothing inherently wrong with that really, but I think it may be more than fans are really bargaining for. You should go in to a playoff with your eyes open. I'm not sure Auburn's chance should come with the chance that 7-5 North Texas (Sun Belt Champ in 2004) ends up with a chance too.
8) As touched on in the last part of the 2008 analysis, the real problem is that no system, BCS or a Playoff, can possibly be based on objectivity. There are some 120 teams competing at the D-IA level. We will always require some manner of distinguishing between otherwise like teams, and someone will always be able to complain they're getting screwed. This seems plain enough when we realize NCAA Basketball teams that miss the Big Dance which takes 65 teams, still manage to complain.
But, there is an actual reason why this might occur and I think it is this: There simply are way too many teams to consider, and not near enough games to properly evaluate them. A playoff will not change these critical issues. The fact is, not all 12-1 records are the same. Simply running through a schedule rated 132 (Hawaii 2007) in the nation unscaethed does not establish you "deserve" anything, and especially not when there are other teams out there who also went 12-1 against a better (though still poor) schedule (Kansas 74th) and several teams with vastly more challenging roads to a playoff birth with similar records (ie 11-1, 10-2) True enough both of these teams would qualify for certain types of Playoffs. I'd remind you that both of them also qualified for the BCS. A Playoff gives us nothing we don't already have.
9) Finally, After reviewing all this information, I have come to the conclusion that if we must go to a playoff, that playoff should be 16 teams. Each conference champion should be invited - as this will achieve the "principle" consideration by giving every Division I team a chance to compete for the Crystal. Likewise, the format should include 5 At Large teams which thus gives non champion, but perceived as outstanding teams (ie Texas 2008), an opportunity to prove their worth. I think that doing so will increase the likelihood of the dreaded "rematch" and really is nothing more than the same mask the NCAA basketball tournament puts on the very same problem - too many teams, not enough games to really know who's who and how to objectively compare them.
Or, in another way putting it: in creating March Madness the NCAA was able to achieve "fairness" without actually being fair. Sure, every champion gets an invite (that's the principle fairness), but with all the at large selections, those lower level champions (the MEAC, for example) are set up to fail most times. Indeed, it's not unusual for a low mid major basketball conference champion to be seeded 16th in a region. They happily go to the big dance to get outclassed by the 1 seed, and every one is happy. They got their shot.. but.. not really.
As such, it seems the "best" playoff format for College Football, if we're made to accept one, is to provide fairness without really providing fairness. No one wants to watch Hawaii play Troy in a playoff, they want to see Texas play USC or Ohio State play Oklahoma or some other high caliber contest. But, to be fair, you give even the "worst" conference champion a shot, but you include enough high powered at large teams to better the probability that they don't really win anything important, like the National Championship. Thus, while we see the rare #15 over #2 upset in Basketball, we never expect that 15 seed to end up winning it all. The same should probably end up being true for Football. Give everyone a fair shot... but.. not too fair. We're not really interested in fairness. We want big time games. But, we like feeling equitable too. If that's the case, then a 16 team format is the way to go, inviting the 11 conference champions and 5 at large teams.
I did not fully evaluate such a system, and maybe some day I will. But, my instinct after all this is that it would end up suffering from it's own particular problems, not the least of which is serious logistical problems. Let me put it this way, would you be willing to drop 4 OOC games for a playoff? Even if you'd personally be willing to go without Ohio State v. Texas in the Shoe, do you for one minute think Ohio State or Texas will? Of course not. A 16 team playoff adds 4 games for 2 teams, but we don't know which 2 teams going in. Now, we could simply just add as many as 4 games to the current 12 game schedule (the two teams playing for all the marbles would play 16, BYU once played 15 so it's not completely out of line), but already we have 17 games for the SEC, Big XII and ACC if we take their title games in to account. That may be pushing it. Not that I care, frankly. More football is better as far as I'm concerned. But... that's just me being selfish and unreasonable.
Again, There are probably other conclusions to be drawn, more data to be crunched - results to be calculated (I had intended on finding out how many times in 10 years the Conferences (power and mid major) would be represented under each format (I get the sense that the SEC and Big XII are over represented, with the Big 10 getting several looks as well in the form of multiple bids.) But, after all the effort, I think I'm just best to end this discussion here for now.
Again, I thank you for reading this, and I hope you enjoyed it.
http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/612683-2008-playoff-hypos.html
Link to Methodology
Link to 1998 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 1999 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2000 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2001 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2002 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2003 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2004 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2005 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2006 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2007 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to 2008 Playoff Hypotheticals
Link to Conclusions
Last edited by a moderator:
Edit: Better yet, we should start a website and charge people for our genius. I'm thinking $49.95 intro rate, but then regularly $77.00. What do you think?
