Mid Majors, playoffs and who "deserves" what

[billmac91]

The myth that Aubirn was screwed by the human preseason polls is simply a myth. It was a bad break they went undefeated in a year when there were two other undefeated BCS teams that had played better schedules, but that's all that happened, They weren't screwed by the BCS.

Auburn was third in the computer rankings at the end of the 2004 regular season. Their BCS computer score averaged exactly '3' in the final BCS standings. Oklahoma had a .990 computer score, USC a .970, and Auburn a .920)

Their final BCS score was higher in the human polls (.9385 from AP, .9410 from Coaches) than in the computers (.920). So they weren't screwed by the human polls, or by the BCS. They didn't deserve to be ranked higher than #3 based purely on schedules and results.

Link

I didn't say anything about preseason polls....but hypothetically, if voters thought Auburn was a better team than Oklahoma or USC, and they were voted as #2 unaminously in the coaches and Harris poll(think it was AP that year), they'd have been in the title game. In that sense, it bothers me. It bothers me because the media/Harris poll voters aren't really different from you or I, and coaches have significant biases. But they have 2/3rd's of the power, so it feels like they dictate who the best 2 teams are. And I think the overhwhelming favorite in the championship game is about .500....which isn't a very good percentage.

Let them play it out on the field.

But Preseason polls are a joke as well, although removing them would do very little to curve predispositions to certain teams after analyzing each team in the offseason. For that reason, I see little reason to do away with them.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Boise State's asking price may be a little high, but it's not that far off. New Mexico State was reportedly paid $850,000 for their trip to the 'Shoe this year.

Link

Hmm, I thought the going rate was 300-400K. Then again consider that is OSU specifically, I would imagine they are in the top 5 of pay outs? So while it may only be a smidge over OSU's pay rate it may be double what an Auburn/VT or someone like that may pay?

Not sure exactly but it seems they are definitely asking for more money and presenting more risk to a big school. That is not a good recipe for landing a gig.

 

[Tlangs]

Hmm, I thought the going rate was 300-400K. Then again consider that is OSU specifically, I would imagine they are in the top 5 of pay outs? So while it may only be a smidge over OSU's pay rate it may be double what an Auburn/VT or someone like that may pay?

Not sure exactly but it seems they are definitely asking for more money and presenting more risk to a big school. That is not a good recipe for landing a gig.

I would pay Boise a million bucks for a 1 time game in the shoe. In my opinion, Boise St. has earned respect as an elite non BCS team. Losing to them doesn't hurt you any more than losing to a BCS team.

You tell me if BSU played OSU.... that wouldn't be an 8 o'clock ABC game with gameday in Columbus and Herbie shouting "he covered the tip" as we throw a halfback pass for a touchdown to tie the game (vague Stanford vs. ND refrence)?

 

[Steve19]

Oh you are confusing my argument. I agree they don't deserve to be in the title game due to their SOS. No problem there,...I just don't agree that they have the power to change their lot in life. They are stuck, they can't upgrade to a BCS conference for multiple of reasons, and even if they create an all-star mid-major football conference it is so unrealistic and expensive (ie travel costs) that it can't happen.

And that is the point on which we disagree. I don't think they are stuck. I think that they lack will and vision.

 

[BB73]

Hmm, I thought the going rate was 300-400K. Then again consider that is OSU specifically, I would imagine they are in the top 5 of pay outs? So while it may only be a smidge over OSU's pay rate it may be double what an Auburn/VT or someone like that may pay?

Not sure exactly but it seems they are definitely asking for more money and presenting more risk to a big school. That is not a good recipe for landing a gig.

I think there's been notable inflation in the amounts over the last coupe of years. Without doing research, my memory thinks that the going rate was $400K-$500K a couple of years ago, but that it was between $600K-$800K this past year.

 

[Jaxbuck]

I would pay Boise a million bucks for a 1 time game in the shoe. In my opinion, Boise St. has earned respect as an elite non BCS team. Losing to them doesn't hurt you any more than losing to a BCS team.

You tell me if BSU played OSU.... that wouldn't be an 8 o'clock ABC game with gameday in Columbus and Herbie shouting "he covered the tip" as we throw a halfback pass for a touchdown to tie the game (vague Stanford vs. ND refrence)?

The AD would just have to do the math. I don't know how you quantify the extra revenue of being a prime time game. Without knowing that its still a simple matter of them asking nearly a 20% premium and giving OSU what in return? We have the national exposure and one major OOC game a year scheduled for the foreseeable future. We don't recruit from Boise Idaho all that much so again if I take off my fan hat and look at it as a business decision it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Now look at it from as an AD from a school that usually pays say 500K for a home game and doesn't like to schedule any kind of strong OOC teams. Boise is asking me to pay them a 100% premium and stands a better than average chance of coming in here, beating my team and fucking up a shot we may have at a better(higher payout) Bowl game at the end of the year. Pass on that shit and have my secretary get Ohio University on the phone.

 

[BayBuck]

....but hypothetically, if voters thought Auburn was a better team than Oklahoma or USC, and they were voted as #2 unaminously in the coaches and Harris poll(think it was AP that year), they'd have been in the title game. In that sense, it bothers me. It bothers me because the media/Harris poll voters aren't really different from you or I, and coaches have significant biases. But they have 2/3rd's of the power, so it feels like they dictate who the best 2 teams are.

So what's the problem exactly? Auburn was #3 in both human polls and the computer average, but if they were higher in any they may have gotten in to the title game. Where does this hypothetical come from, and why are you taking issue with human bias just a few posts after you said "Going undefeated in the SEC should get a chance to win the title on the field"?

 

[billmac91]

So what's the problem exactly? Auburn was #3 in both human polls and the computer average, but if they were higher in any they may have gotten in to the title game. Where does this hypothetical come from, and why are you taking issue with human bias just a few posts after you said "Going undefeated in the SEC should get a chance to win the title on the field"?

Because humans are often wrong....Auburn should have had a shot at the title, but didn't. It stains the championship, IMO. The championship last year was stained after Utah lit Alabama up.

The BCS has done a better job of putting a championship game together, but it isn't at the level it needs to be. Let deserving teams play for it on the field instead of guessing who has the better team, and what teams should be playing for it.

BTW, are voters supposed to be vote based on they think the better team is, or who the most deserving team is? Either way, I think its crap.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Because humans are often wrong....Auburn should have had a shot at the title, but didn't. It stains the championship, IMO. The championship last year was stained after Utah lit Alabama up.

The BCS has done a better job of putting a championship game together, but it isn't at the level it needs to be. Let deserving teams play for it on the field instead of guessing who has the better team, and what teams should be playing for it.

BTW, are voters supposed to be vote based on they think the better team is, or who the most deserving team is? Either way, I think its crap.

Bill - what makes you think Auburn 2004 was not the number 3 team in the nation? I mean, that's really the first question isn't it? I realize you're saying they "deserved a shot" to prove it in some playoff context, but... the more I see these discussions the more I am convinced is that this argument is about bubble teams. Auburn's being left out of the NC game is the exact same thing as Ohio State having to go play in the NIT tournament instead of the NCAA when they were close, but not close enough.

The other question is this - Was USC an illegitimate champion? Has the BCS ever produced a Champion which people think "Huh?"

No.

Lines are drawn. The BCS draws it at 2. If they drew it at 4, number 5 would be saying "What the hell? We only lost 1 game too, why does Team X go and not us???"

Is your argument you think the line should be at 4? 8? 16?

It seems to me you still want to utilize the BCS top X number of teams... so how many teams does it take to satisfy "Human Error" problems?

 

[billmac91]

Bill - what makes you think Auburn 2004 was not the number 3 team in the nation? I mean, that's really the first question isn't it? I realize you're saying they "deserved a shot" to prove it in some playoff context, but... the more I see these discussions the more I am convinced is that this argument is about bubble teams. Auburn's being left out of the NC game is the exact same thing as Ohio State having to go play in the NIT tournament instead of the NCAA when they were close, but not close enough.

The other question is this - Was USC an illegitimate champion? Has the BCS ever produced a Champion which people think "Huh?"

No.

Lines are drawn. The BCS draws it at 2. If they drew it at 4, number 5 would be saying "What the hell? We only lost 1 game too, why does Team X go and not us???"

Is your argument you think the line should be at 4? 8? 16?

It seems to me you still want to utilize the BCS top X number of teams... so how many teams does it take to satisfy "Human Error" problems?

My comeback question would be....what makes them not the #2 or #3 team?? I have a feeling if tOSU had run through the Big 10 undefated and got left holding the bag, some people would feel a bit differently. The fact that Auburn ran the table in a very difficult conference, but had no chance to play for the title, stains the title IMO.

And the argument for a bubble team in the NCAA Bball tourny is in another stratosphere...we're talking about several teams with undefeated records, but only 2 getting a shot at the title. And we have voters telling the public who those teams are. The same voters who told tOSU they couldn't hang with Miami and that 2005 USC was the best college football team of all time.

I don't care where the line is drawn honestly....anything more than 16 would be ridiculous. But only picking 2 leaves a lot of deserving teams in the cold. Texas and Utah last year being the most recent examples.

Personally, I'd go 16 teams, build in home-field advantage, and set a criteria for qualification into the playoff. So if you win your conference, but are 8-4, you aren't just "in". Say...conference winners, but must be top 20 in BCS, the rest of the field is filled by highest ranking in BCS.

Team #17 can cry all they want in that scenario....if you didn't play well enough to be #16 or better I have little sympathy. I do have sympathy for Utah when they put it on Alabama better than Florida did, and Texas beat Oklahoma in the regular season, and only had 1 loss matching Oklahoma. That is an injustice, IMO.

Not to mention, they're blowing a huge opportunity to make even more money, to make the season more interesting for teams with an early loss, make conference play more important, and allow teams to schedcule big opponents b/c you can lose a regular season game, but still make a playoff.

Think of the first day of March Madness, and multiply it by 10 when college football plays a slate of playoff games in early December. It'd be huge...I think they're missing the boat by a wide margin.

The other question is this - Was USC an illegitimate champion? Has the BCS ever produced a Champion which people think "Huh?"

No.

Illegitmate champion? I'd say no...but that isn't good enough for me. How do we know Utah wasn't the best team last year? Why was Oklahoma more deserving than Texas? How do we really know Texas is better than TCU this year? We can hypothesize as to why Texas is better, but it isn't a fact. Seems to me TCU should have a chance to play for it. If they snake-bite a big boy, so be it...thats why you play the game. Last year I'd have laughed at the thought of Utah playing for a National Title...until they dominated Alabama. If TCU domiantes a Bama or Florida this year in the Orange Bowl, then what? It tarnishes the title IMO...theres no way to factually say TCU couldn't have beaten the champion.

The BCS was a step in the right direction, but it needs to go further....

 

[Piney]

I think there's been notable inflation in the amounts over the last coupe of years. Without doing research, my memory thinks that the going rate was $400K-$500K a couple of years ago, but that it was between $600K-$800K this past year.

I know the current going rate is in the $600k-$800k as I recall Ohio University got 750k for going to Tennessee.

Seems like older contracts (signed 4-5 years in advance) are in the $400k-$500k range whereas newer contracts are similar to New Mexico St. In addition the farther ahead you schedule the cheaper the price as I know Ohio backed out of playing Northwestern since it was an old contract and only got Ohio about $300k and turned it around for a $600k payday (can't recall the team)

Another example was in 2007 Ohio State played Kent St & Akron. Akron was an older contract and Kent State signed on late (as a replacement) and Kent got about $200-$300k more than Akron did.

 

[Piney]

Lines are drawn. The BCS draws it at 2. If they drew it at 4, number 5 would be saying "What the hell? We only lost 1 game too, why does Team X go and not us???"

Is your argument you think the line should be at 4? 8? 16?

It seems to me you still want to utilize the BCS top X number of teams... so how many teams does it take to satisfy "Human Error" problems?

EXACTLY!!!

This is the problem with the playoff people. What number is good enough? And the way each college season is different the number is VERY fluid. You have years like Miami v Ohio St & Texas v USC when there are only 2 deserving teams and other years where you can find 6-7 teams that could be in the hunt or some where it is only 3 or 4, or just 1 deserving team and then 3-4 similar teams.

One reason why I prefer the playoff models that just use conference champions or some combination that only take 1-2 at-large teams. I just hate the people that say just take the top 8 in the BCS standings cuz it throws out the fact that a few of those teams didn't even win their conference.

 

[Ttown]

Playoffs only transfer the arguements to who should get in from the NC game to the playoffs so it's not an improvement.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

My comeback question would be....what makes them not the #2 or #3 team?? I have a feeling if tOSU had run through the Big 10 undefated and got left holding the bag, some people would feel a bit differently. The fact that Auburn ran the table in a very difficult conference, but had no chance to play for the title, stains the title IMO.

The answer is simple- what makes them not the #2 team is that the BCS formula determined Auburn was the number 3 team. The Formula - imperfect as it is - attempts to limit any human bias by using the computers, for example. Now, that said, the BCS has made huge mistakes (in my opinion) in essentially turning the Human polls back in to the most significant factor. What bothers me is that we wanted a system that limited bias, we had such a system, but then USC didn't get selected despite being #1 in the human polls, everyone had a shit fit, and so now we have a watered down BCS formula. THAT is the BCS' problem, not WHO they select to be the 2 teams.

As for if OSU was in Auburn's position... as a fan of Ohio State, I would be upset. No question. But, that's because I'm a fan of Ohio State, not because I believe they "deserve" something when their schedule, as compared to the other contenders, isn't good enough. Again, this isn't about "fault" it's about 2 other teams proving it a little bit more than the Buckeyes (in this hypo) were able.

I might experience the same level of "BULLSHIT!" if Ohio State gets left out of a 16 team tourney when I think they were better than whoever gets in as the 16 seed. I think you're kidding yourself if you think there wont be an "argument.

I would agree that team #17 can't seriously argue they should be #1... or get a shot at it... but.. they CAN, and will, argue, "We are certainly as good as #16, though"

Again, you have to draw a line. Someone will get "screwed."

And the argument for a bubble team in the NCAA Bball tourny is in another stratosphere...we're talking about several teams with undefeated records, but only 2 getting a shot at the title. And we have voters telling the public who those teams are. The same voters who told tOSU they couldn't hang with Miami and that 2005 USC was the best college football team of all time.

Sure.. but I also don't see any one saying Ball State should have had a shot when they were 12-0 before the MAC Championship game... and why not? Because these same voters "knew" that they were fake good.

Are the voters perfect? Of course not. But, it's not like it's one guy's opinion. It's 50 or whatever people's opinion... that data set tends to minimize biases. Perfectly? No. But, enough.

We might think Auburn was good enough, as individuals. We might think, no OU was better, as individuals. But... so what? The line was drawn at 2.

I don't care where the line is drawn honestly....anything more than 16 would be ridiculous. But only picking 2 leaves a lot of deserving teams in the cold. Texas and Utah last year being the most recent examples.

You have to care (Well, no you dont... but... to argue it, you have to have a goal) I might live with the line being at 4... I'm not sure I can live with 8 or 16... the problems and issues I have are on a sliding scale of relevance. In other words, a 4 team playoff, to me, doesn't come with pre-season OOC scheduling consequences I've talked about in the same way it might become an issue in a 16 team bracket.

Team #17 can cry all they want in that scenario....if you didn't play well enough to be #16 or better I have little sympathy.

How do we know they didn't play well enough to be 16? What's the difference between team 16 and team 17? That's the question.. not what's the difference between team 17 and team 1.

I do have sympathy for Utah when they put it on Alabama better than Florida did, and Texas beat Oklahoma in the regular season, and only had 1 loss matching Oklahoma. That is an injustice, IMO.

It's not an injustice.

It might not even be "fair" But.. life aint fair. So what?

Not to mention, they're blowing a huge opportunity to make even more money, to make the season more interesting for teams with an early loss, make conference play more important, and allow teams to schedcule big opponents b/c you can lose a regular season game, but still make a playoff.

Think of the first day of March Madness, and multiply it by 10 when college football plays a slate of playoff games in early December. It'd be huge...I think they're missing the boat by a wide margin.

I have to disagree with you. When the goal becomes winning enough games to get to 16 or better, you are going to schedule more crap. There's no reason to risk a loss, when the goal is to get to "the dance"

Likewise, none of this actually helps the mid major (historically) as my hypo threads proved. It actually hurts them in the long run. So, in order to be "fair" you'd have to include Bullshit teams like Sun Belt Champ Troy.

You get a first round akin to North Carolina v. East Nobody State in the NCAA tournament.

Sorry... but that's not the "great games" were looking for.

 

[BayBuck]

Because humans are often wrong....Auburn should have had a shot at the title, but didn't. It stains the championship, IMO. The championship last year was stained after Utah lit Alabama up.

Okay, so humans are often wrong, but in this case the computers agreed with the human polls, so how exactly should the BCS have overcome all that wrongnesss? I assume they should have just instituted the current "SEC Champion deserves a title game spot" rule? Sorry, but 2004 Auburn is just a terrible example to make whatever point you're driving at.