Mid Majors, playoffs and who "deserves" what

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

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.

That doesn't go away in the Playoff system I assume you're proposing (one based on a BCS top 8) As such, it neither helps nor hinders either system's implementation.

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? ...

(Just an FYI, I deleted the bulk of this just to shorten the length of this post, but used the limited quote so you know what part of your comments I am addressing)

No doubt. You do have to play the games and there is no alternative. But, we should not let ourselves believe these games stand for something they do not actually stand for.

Again, if the goal of a playoff is in some way related to "legitimacy" of champion - then head to head results are not the determinative factor. Beating a team head to head is evidence that you're better - it does NOT settle the issue. Proof of that remark is found in obvious upsets.

Again, of course you have to play the games. But, don't let that result stand for more than what it actually means.

I mean, this could potentially happen every now and again, but this 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 team ALWAYS gets a chance to win the championship. As 2004 proves, the system we have right now does not.

When I ran my playoff hypos a year or so ago, it wasn't that they will happen every now and again. They happen with disturbing frequency. Now, that is - as you point out - the nature of the beast. But.. that beast completely undercuts the reason for implementing a change - finding a "legitimate" champion.

Why should the NE Patriots have to play the NY Giants again when they already proved they could (and did) beat them? This goes hand in had with the "what do head to head games really mean" discussion above. Why should the Buckeyes, who already proved they can and did beat Penn State have to play them again, if we think head to head match-ups "settle the issue?"

Again - it's a disconnect between the rationale for change and the argument in support of effectuating that change.

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.

Disagree. The BCS was designed to differentiate between otherwise like teams. It did its job in 2004. Can Auburn bitch and complain and say "We deserved a shot" and "We were better?" Sure. No problem. Maybe they were. But, I do know this... Georgetown was a better basketball team than Nova in 1985. It beat them in 2 of the 3 games they played. But, Nova was your champion because it won in March. Fair?

This, of course, goes directly counter to the very reason for implementing a playoff - The myth that a Playoff generates "legitimate" champions. Fact is this - the BCS has never produced an illegitimate champion. Playoffs do... and do so fairly regularly. NY Giants over the NE Patriots comes to mind too...

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 along an undefeated from a BCS conference.

It's also highly unlikely that there will be 8 or 7 or 6 or 5, so why not draw the line at 4? I'd have to examine the data to know how often there are 3 or more teams undefeated to know for sure where that line should be drawn. My instinct is that 4 is the upper limit in most cases.

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).

I'm all for a balancing of the schedules in some way. That way we'll have a better idea how good a mid major is as compared to a BCS program on a metric which hopefully is more "acceptable" than Jeff Sagarin's computer models (or whichever system of SOS you want to believe)

 

[Woody1968]

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.

I agree with most of what BKB is saying, so I'm not going to try and make some grand argument here, but I will say that Auburn had a chance to be a legitimate co-champion, and that was in the AP poll. The BCS only determines who the coaches poll crowns. I believe that the year before, the AP selected USC as champion while LSU won the Coaches poll/BCS. I can understand that some people may feel that the AP was biased towards USC, since they are media darlings, but ultimately, they chose not to name Auburn as their champion due to the easy schedule and the fact that it was a "down year" for the SEC, apparently. So no championship claim for Auburn, sorry charlie to them.

But the bigger question is that since the BCS crowns the Coaches Poll champion, doesn't it seem that it DID work, since USC and Oklahoma were the #1 and #2 teams according to the coaches poll before the game?

I mentioned this on the other thread, but suppose Kansas State had beaten Nebraska and gotten into the Big 12 championship, and some how beaten Texas. Now Kansas State would have a record of 7-6 and an automatic bid into a tournament as the Big 12 champ. Now say that they got hot and won this playoff, would they be a legitimate National Champion? What about if Nebraska wins the Big 12 championship this week, and runs through the imaginary playoff? Would they be a legitimate National Champion? This is why I don't follow the NFL, it is fun to watch individual performances, but it is no fun to have a "champion" that goes 9-7 in the regular season and gets into the playoffs as a wild card.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

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...

I don't know if it would have made a difference. It may have. I'm not suggesting that striking the right balance between enough wins and strong enough competition is easy. But, having to strike that balance encourages better games over the long haul.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Ironically, we've been focusing on 2004 Auburn as "evidence that the system is broken" somehow when the exact opposite happened to LSU in 2003. That is in 2003 humans thought USC was the #1 team... but... the computers and etc. disagreed, said it's OU and LSU.

My point in bringing this up is to suggest you can't have it both ways. You can't say Auburn got screwed by being "left out" when LSU did NOT get screwed by the very same system that left out USC a year before. (I recognize the BCS, incorrectly in my opinion, made changes as between 2003 and 2004)

The point is - if Auburn was deserving, the system in place would have voted them 1 or 2. It "proved" it's willingness as a system to do just that the year prior in taking LSU instead of weak scheduled USC

Perhaps the biggest irony is that in "fixing" the alleged problems of the 03 season, those very fixes had the precise opposite effect in retrospect.

 

[sepia5]

I mentioned this on the other thread, but suppose Kansas State had beaten Nebraska and gotten into the Big 12 championship, and some how beaten Texas. Now Kansas State would have a record of 7-6 and an automatic bid into a tournament as the Big 12 champ. Now say that they got hot and won this playoff, would they be a legitimate National Champion? What about if Nebraska wins the Big 12 championship this week, and runs through the imaginary playoff? Would they be a legitimate National Champion? This is why I don't follow the NFL, it is fun to watch individual performances, but it is no fun to have a "champion" that goes 9-7 in the regular season and gets into the playoffs as a wild card.

I don't think this would ever happen if we had a playoff, and there's a very simple reason for that. We'd no longer have time for conference championship games. The only reason we have them now is that they're a cash-cow for the conferences that choose to use them. But the reality is, if you impliment an 8-team playoff, you've got three extra weeks of football. You've got to give the teams at least a bye week after the regular season is over, IMO. You'd just about have to do away with conference championship games in order to have enough time to pull off a tournament. In turn, I would be an advocate of doing what the PAC-10 does and have every team play every other team in conference. This would go a ways to ensuring that the actual conference champ getting the automatic bid has actually demonstrated it is the most deserving of that bid, and would also cut out one out-of-conference cupcake.

 

[NateG]

Because of your second paragraph, I can't see how that's any different than the current system, and it undercuts the point you made in the first paragraph. That is - if Ohio State plays Texas and loses, you still think Ohio State should maybe get the nod ahead of some undefeated Mid Major team. While I agree that that result is perfectly acceptable, it's exactly how it works now and is the sort of thing Playoff guys get mad about. All you've really done is move the bubble and the nature of the argument bubble teams make when they whine about not making it.

Since the discussion moved here I'll place this here.

BKB-My beginning of the post was strictly in terms of why Big OOC games wouldn't stop not why a playoff is better. It was an answer to the hypothetical "If a playoff was implemented." I feel you think I was saying it is a reason to create a playoff.


The argument that team A isn't better than team B because of outside games and not what happened on the field is crap. How do you know, say, Utah isn't better than Alabama. They won. Or even to the same degree Purdue isn't better than Ohio State. They won. That is why it is a team game. The argument that Ohio State was tired and would have won if they were rested is garbage. That is why you have backups. That is why you have to win when you aren't fully healthy. You are on a "team". This is how the Title is determined. 1 vs 2 play and that winner wins. So the premise that on one day in a playoff a MWC opponent could win and that makes it illegitmate is wrong. If say Florida played Boise and they didn't win in round one, tough crap. You aren't the best team, you lost. I can't sit here as an OSU fan and say..."well if OSU wouldn"t have had this happen yadda yadda yadda they would have beat Florida"(who was seen as a vastly lesser team before kickoff). They won. Ohio State was not the best team that year. Fair and square.


The human voting puts teams in that they want. I.E. LSU in 07-08. So to say Auburn did or didn't deserve it won't ever matter because the voters pick who they want in a title game unlike how the bowls pick their matchups out of qualifying teams. Even Texas/TTU last year fell victim to that because human voting could have pushed their BCS rank up to allow them to play the B12 title and have the shot at the Title. But we will never know what would have happened.

Last year was a great year for an 8 team playoff. many 1 loss team and the highest mid major gets in. Would have looked like this per the BCS ranks as seed determiners:
1.OKLA vs 8.State Penn 2.Florida vs 7.TTU 3.Texas vs 6.Utah 4.Alabama vs 5.USC
Pretty good matchups for the first round I'd say. Then possible matchups of Florida/USC and a rematch of Tex/OKLA(that people would want at that point). Just playing Devil's advocate on this last part.

 

[Woody1968]

I don't think this would ever happen if we had a playoff, and there's a very simple reason for that. We'd no longer have time for conference championship games. The only reason we have them now is that they're a cash-cow for the conferences that choose to use them. But the reality is, if you impliment an 8-team playoff, you've got three extra weeks of football. You've got to give the teams at least a bye week after the regular season is over, IMO. You'd just about have to do away with conference championship games in order to have enough time to pull off a tournament. In turn, I would be an advocate of doing what the PAC-10 does and have every team play every other team in conference. This would go a ways to ensuring that the actual conference champ getting the automatic bid has actually demonstrated it is the most deserving of that bid, and would also cut out one out-of-conference cupcake.

Well it is easy to do that for the Pac-10, they only have 10 teams. But the SEC, Big 12 and ACC all have 12, so they would either have to play 11 conference games with only 1 OOC? Seems to me that that would only further the divide between the haves and the have-nots. A team like Boise would have less of a chance to schedule quality OOC games and have less of a chance to make the playoffs than they do to reach the BCS.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Nate -

I'm willing to accept that Utah was better than Alabama last year. They did indeed win on the field. It is indeed evidence that Utah was the better team. But, I refuse to draw a bright line rule about wins head to head, otherwise I have to play stupid games with upsets. If Ohio State would make a 8 team playoff, someone has to explain to Purdue why they're not really better than Ohio State despite beating them.

The way you do this, of course, is by pointing to how these teams performed in other games. Purdue lost.. what 6? Ohio State 2. So... we know the Purdue Ohio State game was an "upset" based on other games than the one played on the field.

I just don't see what playoffs have to do with any of that. If we were talking about strictly undefeated team, yeah... maybe you're right... but... beyond a 4 team bracket, it seems silly. Hell, we're not even assured we'll have 2 undefeateds every year, much less 3 or 4.

The playoff bracket you put together does look pretty good, I have to admit. But... are those games materially different from the games the BCS actually gave us?

Eh... not really... Plus, I can't help but notice there's no ACC, or Big East teams represented in your playoff system, but there are 3 Big XII teams... You think you can sell that to the Conference brass?

Suppose TTU upsets Florida and somehow ends up Playing OU for the Crystal... how do you sell that one? OU 65 TTU 21 11/22/2008

To say nothing about the fact that, as I discuss several times, the entire system is STILL based on the allegedly "broken" polling system in the first place.

 

[NateG]

Nate -

I'm willing to accept that Utah was better than Alabama last year. They did indeed win on the field. It is indeed evidence that Utah was the better team. But, I refuse to draw a bright line rule about wins head to head, otherwise I have to play stupid games with upsets. If Ohio State would make a 8 team playoff, someone has to explain to Purdue why they're not really better than Ohio State despite beating them.

The way you do this, of course, is by pointing to how these teams performed in other games. Purdue lost.. what 6? Ohio State 2. So... we know the Purdue Ohio State game was an "upset" based on other games than the one played on the field.

I just don't see what playoffs have to do with any of that. If we were talking about strictly undefeated team, yeah... maybe you're right... but... beyond a 4 team bracket, it seems silly. Hell, we're not even assured we'll have 2 undefeateds every year, much less 3 or 4.

The playoff bracket you put together does look pretty good, I have to admit. But... are those games materially different from the games the BCS actually gave us?

Eh... not really... Plus, I can't help but notice there's no ACC, or Big East teams represented in your playoff system, but there are 3 Big XII teams... You think you can sell that to the Conference brass?

To say nothing about the fact that, as I discuss several times, the entire system is STILL based on the allegedly "broken" polling system in the first place.

The OSU-Purdue part was a very diminished version of my argument. And I was mainly speaking of a Utah or Boise beating a BCS conference school. The difference though between this and your Basketball Tourney issue is different. Playing another team 3 times in College football will never happen. It rarely happens twice.

Per the playoff teams I put there- I just took the top 8 from last year's BCS pre bowl ranks. Didn't take alot of research. I understand that the ACC and Big East could be pissed, but then that tells your conference brass to filter to the teams to play bigger matchups out of conference like we would tell the mid majors. But when TTU beat Texas and was a part of the 3 team B12 dibacle, they should be mentioned. Maybe not in, but mentioned. So from what I did OSU wouldn't have played in the BCS but they lost twice and probably didn't deserve it. See these little issues....why isn't the ACC and big East in?... are why a playoff will probably never show up. Figuring out a formula that puts like teams in along with conference champs will be very inconclusive. Because as said before a 8-4 or 9-3 team would be in when a 1 loss BCS team wouldn't.

 

[NateG]

Just went back and Cincy(11-2) and Georgia Tech(9-3) would have been the 2 missed. so then outside of TTU, who else would have gotten dropped? Someone is SCREAMING. Tell Alabama(12-1/USC(11-1)/State Penn(11-1)/Texas(11-1)/Utah(12-0) that they aren't better than GT at 9-3. Good luck. lol.

So it would have to be one way or the other. Either conference champs are there with 2 at larges or the BCS is the ranking system and that's it.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The OSU-Purdue part was a very diminished version of my argument. And I was mainly speaking of a Utah or Boise beating a BCS conference school. The difference though between this and your Basketball Tourney issue is different. Playing another team 3 times in College football will never happen. It rarely happens twice.

Per the playoff teams I put there- I just took the top 8 from last year's BCS pre bowl ranks. Didn't take alot of research. I understand that the ACC and Big East could be pissed, but then that tells your conference brass to filter to the teams to play bigger matchups out of conference like we would tell the mid majors. But when TTU beat Texas and was a part of the 3 team B12 dibacle, they should be mentioned. Maybe not in, but mentioned. So from what I did OSU wouldn't have played in the BCS but they lost twice and probably didn't deserve it. See these little issues....why isn't the ACC and big East in?... are why a playoff will probably never show up. Figuring out a formula that puts like teams in along with conference champs will be very inconclusive. Because as said before a 8-4 or 9-3 team would be in when a 1 loss BCS team wouldn't.

Fact is, the only way to sell it to the Brass is to assure them that their Champion will be in the mix.

So, you have 6 teams right there. Now, you could add two at large bids.. if you do, nothing is done to help the mid major in most season (I know this because I ran this scenario in my hypos, though this year, TCU would be included). And you're still leaving out some of the heavier hitters you noted in your example, because they've been replaced by Big East and ACC champs who don't "deserve it"

Or, you could be "fair" to the mid majors too, and include ALL conference champs.. and then you're stuck with Sun Belt Champs playing SEC Champs in the first round... that game sucks in September and it sucks in a Playoff. Period.

I don't mean to ignore the first paragraph of your post, I just don't have anything to add to what I've already said, really.

Edit: Looks like you and I are on the same page re: the system that would be produced but were posting at the same time.

 

[NateG]

Edit: Looks like you and I are on the same page re: the system that would be produced but were posting at the same time.

by the way can you get out of my bathroom... I really have to go.

 

[MaliBuckeye]

My 'solution'- Looks like three of us have similar ideas.

1. Start over: give conferences a chance to re-organize to 12 members. "Mid majors" can bump up, current conferences can cut dead weight. Pac 10 may add two, or cut Wazzu and add three, or whatever. Big East gains schools, Big t1e1n gains, SEC/ACC/Big 12 stay as is unless they want to cut and add.
2. End with six 12 team conferences, each with a conference championship game. Let them figure out how teams get there.
3. Conference championship is round one of the playoffs- Winners move on, losers are done. Makes conference championship an important goal, and maintains the regular season.
4. Take six winners along with top two other teams into an eight game playoff. Caveat- the other two teams can't be ones who lost their conference championship- could be a "mid major", could be a Texas 08 situation where they didn't win their division and didn't get to play for the title. But, once you've lost the championship game, you're out of the "playoff". Could still go to a bowl, though.
5. If you have a situation where two teams from the same conference go to the playoff, they play in the first round. By the time you get to the final four, you've got only one representative per conference.
6. Seed it regionally, and use the current bowls. Add a bowl in the North/Northeast to remove the "home field" that the southern/western schools have had for years.
7. Add one additional game, played in the middle of the country (St. Louis? Dallas? Indy- NCAA headquarters?) for the championship- played the week before the Super Bowl.

But, you're still going to have problems- How do you determine the "at large" teams? "Our third place team is better than your conference champion"... Etc.

And, you may only be proving who's playing the best at the end of the year (NY Giants) and not the "best team that season" (NE Patriots). Like UC's Kelly said, you only have to win one game.

Anywho- my $.02. I've been looking through this for the last couple of bowl seasons: 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Mali -

First, I like the idea of reorganizing. I think this is a must and helps settle a lot of the issues. Send the "shit" teams packing, let them go play for a championship amongst themselves... let them actually have a chance for a title rather than this bullshit pipe dream that they might win a BCS Championship.

You say 6 conferences of 12, after the re-org, and then you go on to try and come up with a bracket... but..

Why not just do 8 conferences of 12.. or 8 of 10.. whatever...

I like your idea of conference championship games being, essentially "first round" playoff games. Assuming the Conf. Champ. games are between division winners....

In doing this, you're systematically "pairing down" the participants, and that makes sense to me... rather than simply making a different "faulty" selection than the "faulty" selection we currently take.

I would be FAR more willing to accept a playoff in such a system than I am to accept one based on the present arrangement.

 

[MaliBuckeye]

Mali -

First, I like the idea of reorganizing. I think this is a must and helps settle a lot of the issues. Send the "shit" teams packing, let them go play for a championship amongst themselves... let them actually have a chance for a title rather than this bullshit pipe dream that they might win a BCS Championship.

You say 6 conferences of 12, after the re-org, and then you go on to try and come up with a bracket... but..

Why not just do 8 conferences of 12.. or 8 of 10.. whatever...

Great idea- I was trying to work as closely as I could with the "traditional" powers rather than giving the Sun Belt, Conference USA, or the WAC/MWC conference more to worry about. Plus, to be honest, once you switch everything around, I'm not sure there are more than 74 teams of this caliber. Maybe less- if you really want to eff things up, how about four 12 team superconferences? Although, then you'd have a bunch of people on the outside bitching about how unfair it is... you know, like now.