Mid Majors, playoffs and who "deserves" what

[billmac91]

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

It is an improvement though...most years there is a controversy. You come up with a playoff format, include teams that deserve a shot, those teams play for it. Much fairer than saying Texas and Florida deserve it the most...they get to play for the title. Sorry Cincy and TCU...you're from smaller conferences and aren't as prestigious. Have a good BCS outing...

In the years there are just 2 deserving teams, they still get a chance to play for it. Much better than a year in which their are multiple deserving teams or the picture is cloudy and teams get left out. That tarnishes it, IMO.

 

[sepia5]

Not Bill, but I'd like to jump into this one if I may . . . .

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.

In my mind, there's a big difference between a scenario in which a mid-major goes undefeated and is left out because two teams from a BCS conference are also undefeated or one in which several one-loss teams are vying for a shot at the championship, and the one that Auburn found itelf in in 2004. At the end of the day, Auburn did everything it could have done and still didn't get a chance. I agree with JXC that the way the season ultimately played out, Auburn had no chance to win a title that season. What are they playing for then? Whether we like it or not, this isn't 30 years ago when a trip to the Cotton Bowl or Sugar Bowl or Rose Bowl was the ultimate goal. Today the ultimate goal is a national championship, like it or not. And Auburn apparently had no shot at attaining that goal in 2004.

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.

I don't think that's the case at all. OSU could have won more games. Auburn won all their games. Plus, there's a big difference between selecting the 65th team to a multi-round tournament, and two teams that will play one game for all the marbles--there should be far less room for error in the latter scenario.

If you're trying to say Auburn could have won by more points, or more impressively, I'll answer with two points. First, is that what we really want? A game in which teams are encouraged to decimate their opponents to impress pollsters that probably didn't even watch the game in order to give themselves a better shot at a championship, should a 2004 scenario play out again? Second, let's be honest. Auburn was not left out because of any objective criteria. They were left out because enough of the polling population subjectively felt that USC and Oklahoma were the two best teams in the country. Well, maybe they were, but we'll never have an objective reason to think that USC (or Oklahoma) was better than Auburn in 2004. That stinks.

I was living in Tampa in 2006. All the talk then, even on the local radio stations, was whether Florida should get a shot over the clearly superior Michigan team. When they got the bid, the talk switched to, "how close can Florida keep this game with Ohio State?" Subjectively evaluating teams to determine who will play in a BCS championship game is ridiculous.

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

No.

I don't know why that has to be the question. Pre-BCS, we had many seasons in which dual-championships were awarded. Neither of the champions were considered illegitimate in these years. Wasn't the BCS designed to award the championship to a single team? If so, then, to me, the appropriate question is not "Was USC an illegitimate champion?," it's "Did Auburn have a legitimate claim to a co-championship?" I say yes. They beat everyone put before them and played a BCS-conference schedule. Why shouldn't they call themselves co-national champions? If they can, then the BCS didn't work in 2004 and it is ineffective.

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???"

But how likely is it that there will be 5 undefeated BCS conference teams at the end of the season? 7? 9? Much less likely than 3. This is the point. The system now doesn't do what it was supposed to do, at least not absolutely. 2004 will happen again eventually.

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

I'd like to see 8. Sure, the 9th team may have a gripe some years, but not because they were undefeated. If you go undefeated, even as a mid-major, you're going to be in the top-8. Do your job on the field for 12 weeks, and you'll get your shot at an objectively determined championship.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

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....

Why are firm answers to these questions important? I mean, shit, isn't one of the great things about college football arguing "My team coulda beat your team!" I simply don't understand why this sort of controversy is "bad" It makes people talk about CFB year round. That's Good for business.

 

[billmac91]

Why are firm answers to these questions important? I mean, [censored], isn't one of the great things about college football arguing "My team coulda beat your team!" I simply don't understand why this sort of controversy is "bad" It makes people talk about CFB year round. That's Good for business.

I dont know. I don't understand that logic. People are going to talk about college football year round anyways, b/c its the greatest sport out there. It can be even better though...once they implement a playoff system, which will happen before I die, that first Saturday of games is going to glorious.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Not Bill, but I'd like to jump into this one if I may . . . .

No problem

In my mind, there's a big difference between a scenario in which a mid-major goes undefeated and is left out because two teams from a BCS conference are also undefeated or one in which several one-loss teams are vying for a shot at the championship, and the one that Auburn found itelf in in 2004. At the end of the day, Auburn did everything it could have done and still didn't get a chance. I agree with JXC that the way the season ultimately played out, Auburn had no chance to win a title that season. What are they playing for then? Whether we like it or not, this isn't 30 years ago when a trip to the Cotton Bowl or Sugar Bowl or Rose Bowl was the ultimate goal. Today the ultimate goal is a national championship, like it or not. And Auburn apparently had no shot at attaining that goal in 2004.

They didn't do everything they could. The chose to schedule the Citadel. They paid the consequences.

I don't think that's the case at all. OSU could have won more games. Auburn won all their games. Plus, there's a big difference between selecting the 65th team to a multi-round tournament, and two teams that will play one game for all the marbles--there should be far less room for error in the latter scenario.

If you're trying to say they could have won by more points, I'll answer with two things. First, is that what we really want? A game in which teams are encouraged to decimate their opponents to impress pollsters that probably didn't even watch the game in order to give themselves a better shot at a championship, should a 2004 scenario play out again? Second, let's be honest. Auburn was not left out because of any objective criteria. They were left out because enough of the polling population subjectively felt that USC and Oklahoma were the two best teams in the country. Well, maybe they were, but we'll never have an objective reason to think that USC (or Oklahoma) was better than Auburn in 2004. That stinks.

I don't have a problem with opponents decimating their opponents. Seriously, I really don't. This is fucking football, goddammit. If you dont' want my team to beat you by 60, get better. Period.

Your second part is based on a fallacy - that being that individual games played on the field determine who's better. They do not. Purdue is not a better football team than Ohio State. If Auburn beat OU or USC, we dont' know if they're better.. for all we know it's also an upset.

I mean.. yeah, we have to play games, and there's no other way to do it at all than to play em on the field.. but.. there needs to be a fair recognition of what a head to head game means.

And to the extent that we say "Well, it's good enough when Team X = Team Y when they're both highly ranked" (in other words, saying it's not related to a clear upset in any meaningful way) then you have to answer the serious question: OK, then why the fuck should Ohio State have to play a first round game against Penn State when OSU beat them already?

I don't know why that has to be the question. Pre-BCS, we had many seasons in which dual-championships were awarded. Neither of the champions were considered illegitimate in these years. Wasn't the BCS designed to award the championship to a single team? If so, then, to me, the appropriate question is not "Was USC an illegitimate champion?," it's "Did Auburn have a legitimate claim to a co-championship?" I say yes. They beat everyone put before them and played a BCS-conference schedule. Why shouldn't they call themselves co-national champions? If they can, then the BCS didn't work in 2004 and it is ineffective.

Disagree. For a thing to be changed, you have to establish it's broken... crowning illegitimate champs. I mean, really... at the end of the day, you're saying "My opinion about Auburn trumps the Pollsters opinion about Auburn." I dont' see the difference.

But how likely is it that there will be 5 undefeated BCS conference teams at the end of the season? 7? 9? Much less likely than 3. This is the point. The system now doesn't do what it was supposed to do, at least not absolutely. 2004 will happen again eventually.

Right... so... where do you draw the line? 4? Like I said.. I can live with that... I guess... but.. You're kidding yourself if you think 5 isn't going to bitch that it should have been #4 and not whoever is ranked 4. Whats' the difference between team 4 and team 5? The opinion of the SAME pollsters you object to now.

I'd like to see 8. Sure, the 9th team may have a gripe some years, but not because they were undefeated. If you go undefeated, even as a mid-major, you're going to be in the top-8. Do your job on the field for 12 weeks, and you'll get your shot at an objectively determined championship.

They will have a gripe in all years, because, again.. the analysis is what is the difference between #8 and #9. If the team rated #9 beat some team in the top 8, I assure you there will be MUCH bitching. Why do THEY get a shot when WE dont? We fucking beat them?!?!?

Again.. there has to be a line. I understand that. But, you can't argue that the line at 2 is unfair to any particular team. If you want to say 4 is a better line because there is data to support that in most years, at least 3 teams have a legitimate claim, then that's one thing... or.. setting the line at 8 limits the margin of error... that's another...

But don't fool yourself in to think Playoffs solve anything. It moves the lines around, nothing more. To say nothing of the risks in creating such a tournament (ie OOC Scheduling, etc.) It doesn't make a Champion any more or less legitimate. Playoffs are simply another way of doing it. But.. you have to establish there is a reason to change the current system... provide for me the thing that makes the BCS illegitimate - and how a Playoff answers/solves that problem without creating some other.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I dont know. I don't understand that logic. People are going to talk about college football year round anyways, b/c its the greatest sport out there. It can be even better though...once they implement a playoff system, which will happen before I die, that first Saturday of games is going to glorious.

Not true. I mean, it's easy to say that on this board, and to me. I love College football. I will always love it. But... if we're talking about College Basketball...

Eh... I don't fucking care. Call me in March. Until then, let's talk about something else.

 

[billmac91]

Not true. I mean, it's easy to say that on this board, and to me. I love College football. I will always love it. But... if we're talking about College Basketball...

Eh... I don't [censored]ing care. Call me in March. Until then, let's talk about something else.

Basketball is a different animal though....Way more games, unimportant games, not as much fun to watch. In football, every game means something. You can maintain that with a playoff, and still come up with a more legitmate champion than they currently do.

 

[BayBuck]

I don't know why that has to be the question. Pre-BCS, we had many seasons in which dual-championships were awarded. Neither of the champions were considered illegitimate in these years. Wasn't the BCS designed to award the championship to a single team? If so, then, to me, the appropriate question is not "Was USC an illegitimate champion?," it's "Did Auburn have a legitimate claim to a co-championship?" I say yes. They beat everyone put before them and played a BCS-conference schedule. Why shouldn't they call themselves co-national champions? If they can, then the BCS didn't work in 2004 and it is ineffective.

I can think of several examples where one of the "co-champions" was considered illegitimate (the going-away present for Representative Osborne springs to mind), and going back to the days of even more varied championships there are a lot of teams awarded titles that would be widely disputed ('70 OSU, National Football Foundation?)

As for Auburn, the most appropriate question is "Did Auburn have a legitimate claim to a spot in the BCS championship?" Seeing as the system they and their conference agreed to be a part of did not favor them in any of its determining elements, clearly they did not, and holding off VT 16-13 in the Sugar Bowl isn't a great argument that they were on par with 55-19 Orange Bowl champ USC. (And for the further record, USC beat VT that year 24-13)

 

[CleveBucks]

At the end of the day, Auburn did everything it could have done and still didn't get a chance. I agree with JXC that the way the season ultimately played out, Auburn had no chance to win a title that season. What are they playing for then? Whether we like it or not, this isn't 30 years ago when a trip to the Cotton Bowl or Sugar Bowl or Rose Bowl was the ultimate goal. Today the ultimate goal is a national championship, like it or not. And Auburn apparently had no shot at attaining that goal in 2004.

They did everything they could? How about scheduling at least one non-conference opponent with a pulse? Louisiana Monroe, Louisiana Tech, and the Citadel (I-AA). USC played a quasi-road game against Virginia Tech in DC and a mediocre ND team, while Oklahoma played Oregon (who turned out to not be very good) and BGSU (who turned out to be pretty good).

That's not to say it would have made a difference, but you can at least act like you're interested in avoiding the cupcakes. Auburn gave themselves no leverage in a possible tiebreaking situation by lining up the sisters of the poor.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Basketball is a different animal though....Way more games, unimportant games, not as much fun to watch. In football, every game means something. You can maintain that with a playoff, and still come up with a more legitmate champion than they currently do.

Disagree. Again, it's easy to make that claim on a board filled with college football fans. We all love the game. But, not every one thinks like we do.

Now, maybe you CAN maintain regular season importance and have a playoff. Develop such a system and I promise to fairly evaluate it.

As I said above, however, Playoffs do not generate more legitimate champions than the current system. The BCS has yet to produce an illegitimate one.. I thought we agreed.

Playoffs, actually DO produce illegitimate champions... See Nova, 1985 as the best example (NCAA Basketball, of course...)

 

[Bucklion]

The whole argument of "schedule tougher people" might hold up better if everyone didn't have to play 7-8 conference games. Back in the day when lots of teams were independent, then yes, you could, at least to an extent, determine how tough your schedule is (games are often scheduled years in advance, so a team good in 2010 could suck by 2015, but I digress). Now, however, we have to play Indiana if the Big Ten says so in the schedule. If they are 10-0 and beat Florida, that's great for us. If they're 0-10 and lose to Lake Superior State, then that's bad for us. It was completely out of our control. Conferences like the SEC inflates strength of schedule this year...the ACC, on the other hand, sucks poop. Still, if Miami went 12-0, they might very well be as good or better than any teams in the SEC...yet if the ACC is so bad, then the games they have to play against Duke and Maryland could cost them a shot at the MNC. Hell, if it were 1975 and it was the Big 2 plus 8 like it used to be, we could go undefeated almost every year and conceivably almost never play for the title. It's true that you can be rightly penalized for having Penn State's 2009 OOC schedule...but what about when the conference games cost you? You have zero control over how good another team is.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The whole argument of "schedule tougher people" might hold up better if everyone didn't have to play 7-8 conference games. Back in the day when lots of teams were independent, then yes, you could, at least to an extent, determine how tough your schedule is (games are often scheduled years in advance, so a team good in 2010 could suck by 2015, but I digress). Now, however, we have to play Indiana if the Big Ten says so in the schedule. If they are 10-0 and beat Florida, that's great for us. If they're 0-10 and lose to Lake Superior State, then that's bad for us. It was completely out of our control. Conferences like the SEC inflates strength of schedule this year...the ACC, on the other hand, sucks poop. Still, if Miami went 12-0, they might very well be as good or better than any teams in the SEC...yet if the ACC is so bad, then the games they have to play against Duke and Maryland could cost them a shot at the MNC. Hell, if it were 1975 and it was the Big 2 plus 8 like it used to be, we could go undefeated almost every year and conceivably almost never play for the title. It's true that you can be rightly penalized for having Penn State's 2009 OOC schedule...but what about when the conference games cost you? You have zero control over how good another team is.

All true. It is what it is. Not a lot Ohio State can do about Illinois being bad... except kick the living shit out of them. The BCS should not have removed MOV. If you beat the living shit out of a bad team... well.. it shouldn't cound against you for having played them, especially when you had to play them because they're in conference.

But.. people are going soft... "Awww... poor Illinois had the score run up on them by big meanie Ohio State"

Yeah? Well fuck Illinois.

 

[sepia5]

I don't have a problem with opponents decimating their opponents. Seriously, I really don't. This is [censored]ing football, goddammit. If you dont' want my team to beat you by 60, get better. Period.

I guess I don't have a huge problem with intentionally running up the score. What I do have a problem with is pollsters deciding that running up the score on a crappy team that is already defeated by halftime has anything to do with how good the team running up the score is.

Your second part is based on a fallacy - that being that individual games played on the field determine who's better. They do not. Purdue is not a better football team than Ohio State. If Auburn beat OU or USC, we dont' know if they're better.. for all we know it's also an upset.

I mean.. yeah, we have to play games, and there's no other way to do it at all than to play em on the field.. but.. there needs to be a fair recognition of what a head to head game means.

This is the part of your argument that I personally feel is the weakest. I mean, if you follow it through to it's logical conclusion, then you have to ask yourself, why do we play the games at all? What's the point? I agree that OSU is better than Purdue. I also agree that had Auburn beaten USC, many people, perhaps myself included, would still agree that USC was the better team in 2004. But for purposes of awarding a championship in 2004, had Auburn beaten USC after USC beat Oklahoma, Auburn gets to be champion because they won all their gams and USC and Oklahoma didn't. If you aren't going to put value in the outcome of games decided on the field, you might as well just award championships for recruiting. What happens on the field has to have serious ramifications, especially in terms of how we perceive undefeated teams that go head to head. If all the undefeated teams this season had one loss, and OSU still had their two losses, including to Purdue, we don't have a legitimate argument for getting to the National Championship game. Why? Because we lost a second game to Purdue, even though we undoubtedly are the better team, and even though we can argue that we're just as good if not better than Alabama and Florida and Texas. The results on the field have to matter and have ramifications.

And to the extent that we say "Well, it's good enough when Team X = Team Y when they're both highly ranked" (in other words, saying it's not related to a clear upset in any meaningful way) then you have to answer the serious question: OK, then why the [censored] should Ohio State have to play a first round game against Penn State when OSU beat them already?

I mean, this could potentially happen every now and again, but this is the case in any sort of sport where there is a regular season and then a tournament: rematches are possible. Hell, if it hadn't been for a bit of voter manipulation it would have happend in 2006 even WITH the BCS. It just has to be a possiblity and accepted as part of the system if there's going to be a playoff. The real question is whether such a system would be better than the one we have now. I think it would because an undefeated BCS conference team ALWAYS gets a chance to win the championship. As 2004 proves, the system we have right now does not.

Disagree. For a thing to be changed, you have to establish it's broken... crowning illegitimate champs. I mean, really... at the end of the day, you're saying "My opinion about Auburn trumps the Pollsters opinion about Auburn." I dont' see the difference.

I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I think USC was the best team that season. I'm saying that until Auburn is beaten, they have a legitimate right to claim a co-championship. And if they have a right to claim a co-championship, the BCS isn't doing what it was designed to do.

Right... so... where do you draw the line? 4? Like I said.. I can live with that... I guess... but.. You're kidding yourself if you think 5 isn't going to bitch that it should have been #4 and not whoever is ranked 4. Whats' the difference between team 4 and team 5? The opinion of the SAME pollsters you object to now.

They will have a gripe in all years, because, again.. the analysis is what is the difference between #8 and #9. If the team rated #9 beat some team in the top 8, I assure you there will be MUCH bitching. Why do THEY get a shot when WE dont? We [censored]ing beat them?!?!?

Again.. there has to be a line. I understand that. But, you can't argue that the line at 2 is unfair to any particular team. If you want to say 4 is a better line because there is data to support that in most years, at least 3 teams have a legitimate claim, then that's one thing... or.. setting the line at 8 limits the margin of error... that's another...

But don't fool yourself in to think Playoffs solve anything. It moves the lines around, nothing more. To say nothing of the risks in creating such a tournament (ie OOC Scheduling, etc.)

Again, I agree there will always be gripes. I'm making a distinction among those gripes in terms of degree of legitimacy. A one-loss BCS conference team's gripe is never as convincing as that of an undefeated BCS conference team. Why? Because the undefeated team did all it could to get a shot at the championship. That said, if you go to an 8 team playoff, it is highly unlikely that team #9 is going to be an undefeated, let alone an undefeated from a BCS conference.

You brought up a good point about scheduling. Auburn scheduled the Citadel in 2004. Puke. If a playoff were adopted, I would be all for requiring schools to schedule at least one game against an out-of-conference BCS school every year, and prohibiting D-1A schools from scheduling teams from lower divisions (or at least providing some stick, in terms of eligibility for the year-end playoff, for doing so).

 

[billmac91]

OK....so Auburn goes out and schedules Toldeo that year instead.....does it really make a difference??

There championship run was blocked by Citadel?? That's weak. I'd argue, you replace Citadel with an average BCS school, say Purdue, Clemson, Washington, etc....it wouldn't have mattered.

USC had the glamour, Oklahoma had AD, and there really wasn't anything Auburn could do about it. It was also pre-Florida beatdown of Ohio State. Perception has changed...I'm not sure 2009 Auburn gets left out for playing The Citadel if they run through the SEC undefeated. Thats the human element to the BCS...

 

[BayBuck]

USC had the glamour, Oklahoma had AD, and there really wasn't anything Auburn could do about it. It was also pre-Florida beatdown of Ohio State. Perception has changed...I'm not sure 2009 Auburn gets left out for playing The Citadel if they run through the SEC undefeated. Thats the human element to the BCS...

If 2004 had played out in 2009, I think Auburn would end up in the same exact position: USC and Oklahoma are still marquee programs with greater recent tradition than Auburn, and going undefeated would probably match them against each other in the title game. Sure, Auburn would be SEC champ, but that would mean Florida/Bama wouldn't be what they are, and the rest of the conference is kind of down this season, so that might be the kind of result that turns the media tide away from the SEC.