Mid Majors, playoffs and who "deserves" what

[Woody1968]

The AP takes itself too seriously, and has become a backseat passenger to the BCS Title. When the AP pulled out, they became irrelevant.

Why does every valid sports news outlet continue to post the weekly AP poll, if it is irrelevant? Why does ESPN cover the final AP poll and report on who the AP has crowned as national champion? Why do people post the AP poll on BP and why do they care where we are ranked in it? You can bet a dollar to a donut that if OSU was shut out of the NC game, but was crowned AP champion, we would all be claiming how it is the relevant poll and the BCS poll is crap, and then you would have a lot more support for a playoff.

 

[billmac91]

Why does every valid sports news outlet continue to post the weekly AP poll, if it is irrelevant? Why does ESPN cover the final AP poll and report on who the AP has crowned as national champion? Why do people post the AP poll on BP and why do they care where we are ranked in it? You can bet a dollar to a donut that if OSU was shut out of the NC game, but was crowned AP champion, we would all be claiming how it is the relevant poll and the BCS poll is crap, and then you would have a lot more support for a playoff.

Seriously?? They post the AP report b/c they are the AP. College football has recognized the BCS as their title game though. The AP was included in that until they pulled out and the Harris Poll stepped in. The BCS Title is the only Title recognized by college football. If you want to include AP Polls fine, but I've never listened to USC fans when they try and say they won 2 titles, or were going for the 3-Pete. It was and is a figment of their imagination.

 

[Woody1968]

Seriously?? They post the AP report b/c they are the AP. College football has recognized the BCS as their title game though. The AP was included in that until they pulled out and the Harris Poll stepped in. The BCS Title is the only Title recognized by college football. If you want to include AP Polls fine, but I've never listened to USC fans when they try and say they won 2 titles, or were going for the 3-Pete. It was and is a figment of their imagination.

I guess it is also a figment of the NCAA's imagination, since the NCAA recognizes USC's AP title as a consensus national championship, and includes both AP and Coaches Poll championships as consensus championships in the Official NCAA Records Book. The BCS itself is not what crowns the champion. It is still the Polls, although the Coaches' poll is contractually obligated to declare the winner of the BC championship game, the BCS only ranks teams up to the bowls for the purpose of selecting participants, not determining the actual champion.

 

[billmac91]

I guess it is also a figment of the NCAA's imagination, since the NCAA recognizes USC's AP title as a consensus national championship, and includes both AP and Coaches Poll championships as consensus championships in the Official NCAA Records Book. The BCS itself is not what crowns the champion. It is still the Polls, although the Coaches' poll is contractually obligated to declare the winner of the BC championship game, the BCS only ranks teams up to the bowls for the purpose of selecting participants, not determining the actual champion.

OK fine....I was wrong. I'm still going with what coaches are obligated to vote for.. I still don't recognize USC's second title. And I'll still laugh at any USC fan that tells me USC was going for the 3-Pete against Texas.

Irregardless of all this, it doesn't exclude my main thesis that title game doesn't 100% get it right. Let the teams play for it on the field. Just a sidenote, but how2many elite teams do you think wanted to play TCU this year, home or otherwise?? Especialy after Gary Patterson was coming off of a great defensive year in 2008. The fact that they got Clemson on he schedule is pretty impressive to me.

 

[NateG]

Not to fully get into this mess but Auburn played and beat these teams... that I guess are nobodys.

#4 ranked LSU, #7 ranked Tenn, #5 ranked Georgia, # 15 ranked Tenn only games that were close were the LSU game (10-9), @ Ala 21-13, and Bowl vs VT after all the distraction of the NCG issue (16-13). 3 regular season 10 point or less wins.

USC-Cal#7, ASU#19, - 4 games 8 point wins or less(all regular season)
OKLA-TEX#5, OKLA ST#20, TA&M #22 - 4 games of 12 points or less wins(all regluar season)

Just giving the stats.... Citadel shouldn't cover over those wins.

 

[MaliBuckeye]

I guess it is also a figment of the NCAA's imagination, since the NCAA recognizes USC's AP title as a consensus national championship, and includes both AP and Coaches Poll championships as consensus championships in the Official NCAA Records Book. The BCS itself is not what crowns the champion. It is still the Polls, although the Coaches' poll is contractually obligated to declare the winner of the BC championship game, the BCS only ranks teams up to the bowls for the purpose of selecting participants, not determining the actual champion.

Agreed, but only technically. The NCAA recognizes these champions, but does not "sanction" their championships or processes. Football is the only NCAA sport without a sanctioned championship. Which is ironic, given that the NCAA was created out of a concern that football had no accountability or supervision at a larger level.

Fact of the matter is that none of this will change until a way is discovered to address the money situation. And, there may even be legal issues with any attempt to rectify the situation.

 

[Woody1968]

OK fine....I was wrong. I'm still going with what coaches are obligated to vote for.. I still don't recognize USC's second title. And I'll still laugh at any USC fan that tells me USC was going for the 3-Pete against Texas.

Irregardless of all this, it doesn't exclude my main thesis that title game doesn't 100% get it right. Let the teams play for it on the field. Just a sidenote, but how2many elite teams do you think wanted to play TCU this year, home or otherwise?? Especialy after Gary Patterson was coming off of a great defensive year in 2008. The fact that they got Clemson on he schedule is pretty impressive to me.

Oh, I have no doubt that TCU is a good football team and would be, at the very least, a trap game for anyone. My concern with them is that they lack the depth to withstand a season playing in a major conference - I think the MWC is distancing itself from the WAC, MAC and Sun Belt, but it isn't quite at the level of the ACC, which I think is the weakest major conference this year. Clemson looks good on the resume, considering they are in the ACC chamionship game, but let's face it, they aren't really a powerhouse. Still I give props to TCU for playing two ACC teams, even if Clemson has been inconsistant and Virginia was dreadful this year. I also think that they will play well in their bowl game, and I hope that they get to play someone besides Boise. Like I say, they have enough talent to get up for any game, but I think if they played in a more physical conference, they would not be undefeated at this point. Of course that is an opinion, and I would not be upset if they made it into the NC game if Texas loses to Nebraska, although I do think an undefeated Cincinnati would also be a equally valid choice to play the SEC champ in that situation.

I know people think that only some teams have a realistic chance to win the NC, and in any given season, that's correct. But over time, fortunes can change, and the programs that are strong now may be tomorrow's also-rans. We are only 25 years removed from BYU's national championship, and in the early 1990's Georgia Tech, which had been a mediocre program for years, won a share of the national championship. 35 years ago, Florida State was nothing, So anything can happen, especially if a program gets a coach who is committed to build something.

 

[Woody1968]

Agreed, but only technically. The NCAA recognizes these champions, but does not "sanction" their championships or processes. Football is the only NCAA sport without a sanctioned championship. Which is ironic, given that the NCAA was created out of a concern that football had no accountability or supervision at a larger level.

Fact of the matter is that none of this will change until a way is discovered to address the money situation. And, there may even be legal issues with any attempt to rectify the situation.

Yes, there is no "official NCAA championship," but the NCAA recognizes championships awarded by other outlets for college football in their records. The only 2 championships that it considers to be consensus are the Coaches Poll and the AP Poll.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

merge

After 12 games, we all have a pretty good idea as to who "deserves" a chance. Some seasons its 2 teams, others its 3 or 4. But, it's never 8. It's certainly never 16.

Except that this year, it's 6 ... and if Florida beats Alabama by one point in OT on a blocked extra point, it's still 6 after 13 games.

And it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to come up with a scenario where 8 teams would be deserving ... what if Ohio State and Georgia Tech had run the table this year as well as the current six unbeatens? Then we'd have 8 teams with a claim to be in the NC game.

In any given year, you might have a couple of teams which might be better than 2 other teams which make the NC game. But, like bubble teams in the NCAA - there's a line. You're either over it, or you are not. There's not a lot we can do about it. I suppose I could live with a 4 team playoff, because the difference between 1 and 4 isn't much... but.. the difference between 1 and 8 is... and 1 to 16 is no contest, really. (Baring upsets, of course).

I don't think that 8 or 16 is over the line ... the lower CFB divisions use a 16-team play-off system, and it seems to work pretty well.

No, it's a comment on bracket size. The BCS is a 2 team playoff. You propose a 16 team playoff. Why not a 32? 64? Hell, why not get 8 more teams in D-I and have a 128? That's a shit ton of great games, no?

A two-team play-off is too arbitrary ... a 32-team play-off is too inclusive ... 12 or 16 teams would be a good number.

Cry me a river. TCU won all their games. So did Boise State. I might be impressed with that if all schedules were equal. But, I'm not impressed with it because both TCU and Boise benefit from significantly easier schedules than any BCS team under consideration.

* * *

As I noted above, you come from the angle that all schedules are equal. As if CFB was the NFL, or MLB or the NHL. They simply are not. TCU and Boise play 8 or 9 games against teams which the "big boys" schedule as "gimme" wins. The Big Boys get 3 of those games, maybe 4. TCU and Boise get 8 or 9... hell, this year they got as many as 11 "gimmes" and you want them in the dance? And you want to talk about "fair?"

First off, NFL schedules are not "equal" ... in fact, they are deliberately unequal in order to create parity within the league.

But you have hit upon the crux of the problem with the current FBS system - there are vast differences in the strength of each conference and each team's schedule. I am in favor of a play-off system, but I understand that a play-off will only work in college football (1) if the conferences are equal in size; (2) if the conferences are made equal (or at least far more equal) in strength; and (3) if each team's schedule is made as equal as possible.

You give the example of Boise State (or Utah or TCU or Marshall or Tulane or whomever) going undefeated playing 11 nobodies ... what about a team like LSU that goes 9-3 playing a very difficult schedule? Should that team automatically be left out of the NCG discussion because it has a few tough losses? Under the current system, both teams are left out. Under a 4-team or 8-team system, only the 12-0 teams with cream puffs schedules get in ... the teams who go 9-3 or 10-2 playing in tough conferences with decent non-conference schedules still get left out. A 12-team or 16-team play-off system probably lets in everybody who really deserves a shot.

But back to equalizing conferences and schedules ... ideally, with an even playing field, you won't have two or three undefeated majors at the end of the year like 2004 (Southern Cal, Oklahoma, Auburn) ... or a bunch a 12-0 nobodies begging for a shot like 2009 ... you're more likely to have a bunch of teams with one or two or three losses with no clear-cut favorite, like in 2007. With equalization, it would be a lot easier to accept the idea of a 9-3 team making the play-offs, knowing that that team played a legitimate schedule as the member of a legitimate conference.

I know that it's a pipe dream, but conference realignment and scheduling reform is necessary for any system to work properly.

 

[BayBuck]

I stated this earlier...but a part of humans brain make-up is inherent bias.

Yep, we're either inherently for a playoff or against it, and good luck ever changing that! :tongue2:

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'd be on board with your re-alignment, for sure.

We don't know that 6 "deserving teams" wont turn in to 3 real fast (Cinci loses to Pitt, Texas loses to Nebby, Florida or Bama gets blown out)... and that's assuming we agree TCU or Boise "deserve" anything.

In any case, why should I believe the 16th rated team has any serious claim on the National Title? I don't even think Ohio State, at 8, has a serious claim... it's a tough sell that Oregon State should get a shot.

 

[BayBuck]

Not to fully get into this mess but Auburn played and beat these teams... that I guess are nobodys.

#4 ranked LSU, #7 ranked Tenn, #5 ranked Georgia, # 15 ranked Tenn only games that were close were the LSU game (10-9), @ Ala 21-13, and Bowl vs VT after all the distraction of the NCG issue (16-13). 3 regular season 10 point or less wins.

USC-Cal#7, ASU#19, - 4 games 8 point wins or less(all regular season)
OKLA-TEX#5, OKLA ST#20, TA&M #22 - 4 games of 12 points or less wins(all regluar season)

Just giving the stats.... Citadel shouldn't cover over those wins.

To be clear, those appear to be rankings from when they played, which aren't as meaningful looking back 5 years later. After the season it was more like (AP) : #16 LSU, #13 Tennessee, #7 Georgia, so not really the three top-10 schedule you describe. And don't forget to include #10 VT with USC's schedule, along with Ty-era ND, while Auburn includes LA-Monroe and LA-Tech along with Citadel. None of that changes the fact that both humans and computers, fully aware of the schedule situation in-conference and out, rated Auburn below two other major-conference unbeatens. That horse is quite dead.

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

I know that it's a pipe dream, but conference realignment and scheduling reform is necessary for any system to work properly.

Didn't you posit such an arrangement last year in a seperate thread, LJB? I recall a thorough and exhaustive treatise on Major College Football conference realignment that someone (I think it was you) put together...

 

[LordJeffBuck]

In any case, why should I believe the 16th rated team has any serious claim on the National Title? I don't even think Ohio State, at 8, has a serious claim... it's a tough sell that Oregon State should get a shot.

It would be a lot easier to believe if you knew that the #16 team played in a similar conference with a similar schedule to the #1 team.

Ohio State, with a 10-2 record and a #8 ranking, doesn't have a serious claim on the National Title ... at least not right now. But, if Ohio State could beat, say, Alabama, TCU, and Florida in the play-offs, then what would you say?

College football has been inevitably drifting toward a play-off ever since the AP and UPI started awarding their "national titles" after the bowl games. Before that time (the late 60's, early 70's), bowl games were just exhibitions that didn't really mean anything. Then, you had 1970, when #1 Texas (UPI pre-bowl title) was upset by Notre Dame in the Cotton Bowl, #2 Ohio State was upset by Stanford in the Rose Bowl, and #3 Nebraska walked away with the AP post-bowl title by beating LSU in the Orange Bowl. By this point, it was pretty obvious that the bowl games were important, perhaps necessary, factors in determining the national champion. But the bowl system alone couldn't prevent split championships in 1978, 1990, 1991, and 1997 ... and even the BCS couldn't prevent a split championship in 2003 ... and "disputed" championships in 2004 2006, and 2008, where a team with a perfect record was left out of the NCG game. A play-off would certainly not be a panacea, but at least it would ensure that only one team would finish the season with a perfect record.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

Didn't you posit such an arrangement last year in a seperate thread, LJB? I recall a thorough and exhaustive treatise on Major College Football conference realignment that someone (I think it was you) put together...

Yes - here it is: LINK