Mid Majors, playoffs and who "deserves" what

[ORD_Buckeye]

F9cking mid-majors, Dude. Nothing changes. Say what you will about Notre Dame's indie status, but at least it's an ethos.

 

[NateG]

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.

Well OSU played 2 1 v 2 games and that was how they set the bar that year. Then preseason ranks need to go. If you can move up due to beating a certain ranked team during the season why does it not matter at the end where those teams were. VT wasn't the 10th ranked team when USC played them. But the arguement is that the Pac 10 and Big 12 schedules didn't have as many premier teams to beat. USC had to put VT on there to cover up a weak schedule, similar to how Ohio State has to some years.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

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.

True. I've always been in support of your realignment proposal as it addresses that issue. The current system (with the mid majors, especially, but also your schedule light PSU's or TTUs and KSUs also bear mention) doesn't accomplish that. I'd be willing to accept Billmac's propsal - at least in theory - but not at 16 teams.

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?

Doesn't matter what I'd say. That's an argument about the bubble. The question is what did they do to earn the shot in the first place, not if they could do anything once afforded the opportunity.

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.

If any team at all finished unblemished.... I don't know how well we'd accept a 3 loss team winning it over a 1 loss team (who lost in an early round, say).

I figure a playoff is pretty well inevitable.... as you say, it's been in the works for 40 years, more or less.... I just hope the powers that be think it through. The bulk of proposals I hear bandied about are - in my opinion - bad for CFB or don't actually address the problems of the BCS in a meaningful way, and do so with cost and risk to the game.

 

[BayBuck]

Well OSU played 2 1 v 2 games and that was how they set the bar that year. Then preseason ranks need to go. If you can move up due to beating a certain ranked team during the season why does it not matter at the end where those teams were. VT wasn't the 10th ranked team when USC played them. But the arguement is that the Pac 10 and Big 12 schedules didn't have as many premier teams to beat. USC had to put VT on there to cover up a weak schedule, similar to how Ohio State has to some years.

Postseason rankings count because you've played your whole schedule by then and can be judged on results instead of hype. Virginia Tech actually started 2004 unranked but turned out to be a very good team, so at the end of the season that was actually a good win for USC, while LSU who started top-5 wasn't actually such a marquee opponent when all was said and done.

Bottom line: 3 teams were unbeaten, the computers considered their results against their respective schedules and the consensus said USC and OK had the better regular seasons. You say the SEC had more premier teams to beat, but Auburn's 3 ranked opponents were the only ones on their schedule with winning records; USC beat 4 winners, and OK beat 6, and both took on BCS opponents out-of-conference by choice.

 

[NateG]

Bottom line: 3 teams were unbeaten, the computers considered their results against their respective schedules and the consensus said USC and OK had the better regular seasons. You say the SEC had more premier teams to beat, but Auburn's 3 ranked opponents were the only ones on their schedule with winning records; USC beat 4 winners, and OK beat 6, and both took on BCS opponents out-of-conference by choice.

That is all fine... i can see that, but the preseason human "hype" polls had Okla and USC 1 and 2 to start. without them losing they wouldnt get jumped. It has never happened where 2 teams stayed up top the whole year regardless of other teams playing better games at times. If Auburn started at 5 or 10 then they may have made up the difference caused by the preseason "hype" gap. OSU got lucky that they didn't have a similar issue in 2002-2003. A loss put them in position for their undefeated record to be worth going to the title and we all know they started at 13. So I suppose we agree to an extent. If you feel VT ended up being a better team just like Auburn was then both teams got slighted in the preseason by the polls. So they need to be moved to after all teams have played a 1/3 of their schedule.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

That is all fine... i can see that, but the preseason human "hype" polls had Okla and USC 1 and 2 to start. without them losing they wouldnt get jumped. It has never happened where 2 teams stayed up top the whole year regardless of other teams playing better games at times. If Auburn started at 5 or 10 then they may have made up the difference caused by the preseason "hype" gap. OSU got lucky that they didn't have a similar issue in 2002-2003. A loss put them in position for their undefeated record to be worth going to the title and we all know they started at 13. So I suppose we agree to an extent. If you feel VT ended up being a better team just like Auburn was then both teams got slighted in the preseason by the polls. So they need to be moved to after all teams have played a 1/3 of their schedule.

I'd invite you to examine Penn State's 1994 season if you really think the Number 1 team doesn't get jumped. Pay special attention to the week PSU didn't molliwhoop Indiana.

 

[BB73]

I'd invite you to examine Penn State's 1994 season if you really think the Number 1 team doesn't get jumped. Pay special attention to the week PSU didn't molliwhoop Indiana.

In the AP poll of 1994, Nebraska hit #1 earlier in the year before PSU. They jumped Florida, and were then re-jumped by Florida without either team losing. They were later jumped by PSU, and then rejumped them for #1 a week BEFORE they gave up 2 late TDs to make the final score of the Indiana game close.

So jumping occurred at least four times that year in the AP poll without #1 losing, just not in the week you mentioned.

 

[JXC]

A good article that pretty much mirrors my feelings for a playoff and the debate I was having with BKB.

BKB: In another thread you mentioned that you were pulling for Nebraska, so TCU could get waxed by Alabama and we could end this mid-major debate. You know what else would end this mid-major debate? A playoff


Wetzel's playoff plan: Money talks - College Football - Rivals.com

BB73 Edit - click link to see article

I had never heard of Wetzel before I saw this today, but I think he lays out a great plan very well. A little different than what I planned because I would only have the first two rounds at home. I could go either way on either making it just the top 16, or making it the 11 conference winners and 5 at large. But his proposal is a good one. Here is what he has as the playoffs:

Troy @ Alabama
Georgia Tech @ Ohio State
Penn State @ Florida
LSU @ TCU
ECU @ Texas
Iowa @ Oregon
VTech @ Boise State
CMU @ Cincinnati

Assuming the home teams wins these games the second round would be:

Ohio State @ Alabama
Florida @ TCU
Oregon @ Texas
Boise State @ Cincinati
(These 4 games are more exciting than the 4 BCS games, and would mean more too.)


It'd be pretty fun to play GT at The 'Shoe in December. And I'd definitely drive down to Alabama if we won. That'd be awesome, and the money that would be brought in by this would be much more than is brought in now.

 

[NateG]

That is one long article to post here.....

 

[billmac91]

Not my ideal playoff scenario, but I'd gladly take it. Anything other than this ridiculous system that gueses who the best 2 teams are...I'm for anything that lets them play it out on the field.

 

[JXC]

That is one long article to post here.....

I know!!! Only if people weren't too lazy to click links.

You know the world is in trouble when people complain about having to click a link. Granted, with how slow my computer is, clicking a link can take hours.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Troy @ Alabama
Georgia Tech @ Ohio State
Penn State @ Florida
LSU @ TCU
ECU @ Texas
Iowa @ Oregon
VTech @ Boise State
CMU @ Cincinnati

Assuming the home teams wins these games the second round would be:

Ohio State @ Alabama
Florida @ TCU
Oregon @ Texas
Boise State @ Cincinati
(These 4 games are more exciting than the 4 BCS games, and would mean more too)

First round, like I showed in my hypos from 1998 forward to last year, is a big time snooze fest. Potential laughers: Troy Bama, LSU TCU, ECU Texas, CMU Cinci and maybe Vtech Boise State

Penn State Florida is probably a blow out, but I'll give the Nittany's the benefit of the doubt.

Your parens remark is absurd. Ohio State v. Alabama is more exciting than Bama Texas? To who? Ohio State fans? Florida TCU is More exciting than Florida Cinci? Nonsense Oregon Texas... more excting than Ohio State Oregon? Seriously? Boise Cinci... well... maybe that's more exciting than Boise TCU... hard to say...

You're letting the tail wag the dog now. It's not "better" because it's different, or is any playoff hypo, and therefore not the BCS. The 11+5 is precisely one reason why I became so adverse to a playoff. The first round games suck, the second round games produce rematches quite often, and ultimately you pretty well end up with what the BCS already gives us.

You think it looks decent this year... I'll even give you that... But, I've done the work.. and this hypo is bad.

 

[JXC]

First round, like I showed in my hypos from 1998 forward to last year, is a big time snooze fest. Potential laughers: Troy Bama, LSU TCU, ECU Texas, CMU Cinci and maybe Vtech Boise State

Penn State Florida is probably a blow out, but I'll give the Nittany's the benefit of the doubt.

Your parens remark is absurd. Ohio State v. Alabama is more exciting than Bama Texas? To who? Ohio State fans? Florida TCU is More exciting than Florida Cinci? Nonsense Oregon Texas... more excting than Ohio State Oregon? Seriously? Boise Cinci... well... maybe that's more exciting than Boise TCU... hard to say...

You're letting the tail wag the dog now. It's not "better" because it's different, or is any playoff hypo, and therefore not the BCS. The 11+5 is precisely one reason why I became so adverse to a playoff. The first round games suck, the second round games produce rematches quite often, and ultimately you pretty well end up with what the BCS already gives us.

You think it looks decent this year... I'll even give you that... But, I've done the work.. and this hypo is bad.

I've presented this almost every year, and it's looked pretty good every year.

I wasn't including the NCG when comparing the second round to the BCS. Reasoning was because in the playoff there eventually would be a NCG.

If you think the first round is a snooze fest that's fine, but so are most of the bowl games.

But besides the 8 games in the first round and the 4 in the second round, you'd have TCU vs. Alabama, Cincy vs. Texas, and Alabama vs. Texas anyway. Find 15 bowl games that are more exciting than these 15 games. And you add in the fact that all the games are for the National Championship, where-as none of the bowl games are.

The bowl games are a snooze fest. These games wouldn't be...even with Troy vs. Florida. The first and second round is the most exciting time for the NCAA tournament in basketball. Because each winner advances. Advancing makes a game exciting. Why would you think it would be different in football?

I can buy some of your arguments. But lack of exciting games in a playoff? That's not a good one. It would be exciting. If not to you personally, to almost all college football fans it would be. Definitely more exciting than the bowl games we have.

 

[jwinslow]

No, actually the only game that gets better in your hypothetical is the last matchup. The other three get worse, two of them much worse.

OSU-UO ********> OSU-Bama This isn't even close. Two ball-control teams milking the clock, or wild offense vs great defense?
UF-UC > UF-TCU (Kelly/ND, BCS conf, etc)
Bama-Texas ********> Ore-Tex The former is a matchup of undefeated NC hopefuls with heisman favorites. The latter is a track meet but not a better game.
Boise-UC <<<< Boise-TCU

If you think the first round is a snooze fest that's fine, but so are most of the bowl games.

I find Cal-Miami (or KU-Minn, or Ore-Ok St) more intriguing than almost every game in that first round. I think 6 of the 8 would be blowouts.

 

[JXC]

No, actually the only game that gets better in your hypothetical is the last matchup. The other three get worse, two of them much worse.

OSU-UO ********> OSU-Bama This isn't even close. Two ball-control teams milking the clock, or wild offense vs great defense?
UF-UC > UF-TCU (Kelly/ND, BCS conf, etc)
Bama-Texas ********> Ore-Tex The former is a matchup of undefeated NC hopefuls with heisman favorites. The latter is a track meet but not a better game.
Boise-UC <<<< Boise-TCU
I find Cal-Miami (or KU-Minn, or Ore-Ok St) more intriguing than almost every game in that first round. I think 6 of the 8 would be blowouts.

Well those match-ups could still exist with this playoff. So why is more exciting games bad?

I find it hard to argue that this playoff system would be less exciting than what we have now.

Maybe if you act like each match-up has the same at stake, then yes, the BCS may be more exciting. But when it's a NC at stake in every game, then at least to me, it makes the playoff games more exciting.