423 replies to this topic

[Rhom]

Bronn Stone, on 28 June 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

I still believe the best solution is an 8-team tournament of champions.  You want in, win your league.  The six top ranked league champions, the 7th slot the highest ranked remaining champion or independent and only one at-large slot.  The at-large slot can only go to a team from a without a conference championship game who lost a tie-breaker or a team that failed to get in to its championship because of a tie-breaker.  Or failing any of those, an 8th champion.

Conference championship games are and should be playoff games.  You lose a playoff game, you are gone.

Under that plan, where's the benefit in playing a tough OOC?  One loss outside the conference on top of losing your league will eliminate you from that at large.

[Bronn Stone]

Playing a tough OOC and winning may give the boost.  But in general, OOC neither helps nor hurts.  Winning your league is everything.  As it should be.

[kalbear]

If all conferences were even remotely balanced I'd think thatd be fine. They're not. And that fucks it up big time. What, the sun belt gets as many people in as the sec? Doesn't work.

[Triskele]

I think 8 is the sweet spot.


Obviously college football has had a uniquely meaningful regular season in sports.  I absolutely think that there's a playoff expansion that would go too far for this, and 16 sounds like that point.  That would be far enough to make top teams shrug off losses.  At four, nobody shrugs off a loss, but I think at eight a loss is still pretty scary.  And I think splitting hairs over who is the 4th best team versus the 5th best team is a really potentially intense fight.  I think an argument about how is 8th best and who is 9th best is one that carries a lot less potential for mass-controversy.

I guess my ultimate goal is to leave the BCS and have a playoff, but to do so in a way that mostly preserves the awesomeness of every big Saturday game in the Fall.  I think four teams does that, I think eight probably would also.  I look forward to seeing how it plays out.

[S John]

Yea I like Bronn's idea.  You basically have to win your conference to get in, but an exceptional team that didn't still has a shot.  That's where a tough OOC may come in handy, for those wild card slots.  I'd be fine with something resembling the BCS auto-bid given to the top 5 (or 6) conferences.  Which conferences these are could be determined on a rotating basis based on performance, but I'd imagine they'd be familiar faces, all.  So 5 auto + 3 at large that can be from any conference, even one that is already represented.  I'd be fine with that in an 8 team playoff.  I don't like 2 teams from the same conference in a 4 team set-up, but 8 definitely allows for it.  In an 8 team playoff this year under that set up we probably would have had:

Auto-bids - LSU, Oklahoma State, Wisconsin, Oregon, Clemson, West Virginia (assuming the Big East is an auto-bid conference, debatable in the future so maybe 3 at-large will be available instead of only 2)

Likely At-large - Alabama, Stanford.

In that scenario you'd be arguing about who is more worthy between Stanford, Boise State, and Arkansas. Maaaaybe Houston, who was only a 1 loss team.  I think Alabama would have clearly locked up the one at-large, but the second at-large is debatable.  Do all of those teams have an argument?  Yes, I think so.  

I'd put Stanford and Arkansas as equally deserving.  But I'd personally give preference to Stanford because the SEC west is already well represented in that playoff - Arkansas lost to two teams already in that field (Bama and LSU).  Probably this is where Boise and Houston's SoS hurts them.  Maybe that 8 team playoff isn't perfect, but I think its pretty fair.  A couple teams barely missed it, certainly a tough break for Arkansas.  Boise and Houston would realistically need to have been undefeated.

Point is, that's fairly inclusive and it doesn't diminish the regular season of any of the teams in there.  The first 6 had to win thier conference.  The second 2 didn't but they had to kick a lot of ass to be in consideration.  The only thing wrong with this year's picture is that there is no mid-major in the field.  However I think if Boise had been 12-0 then you consider replacing Stanford with them.

Edited by S John, 29 June 2012 - 01:00 AM.

[Bronn Stone]

Kalbear, on 28 June 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

If all conferences were even remotely balanced I'd think thatd be fine. They're not. And that fucks it up big time. What, the sun belt gets as many people in as the sec? Doesn't work.

It works a heck of a lot better than the arbitrary "the SEC is tough because all its teams played SEC opposition" system that is the alternative.  Roy Kramer was quite successful in monkeying the 'strength of schedule' factor to not genuinely reflect strong schedules (treating all Div1 conferences as equivalent and then jockeying to get the Sun Belt waived in as Div1, disregarding home and road factors).

Winning your league is the one measure that can't be fudged.  Losing your conference title game should be an elimination factor, or those games cease to matter (see 2011 SEC title game).  Nobody claims the Super Bowl was a failure to find a true champion in those years in which wild card teams won.

There is no way in college football to give ALL the small fry conferences a chance every year.  But I'd rather see a Sun Belt team that went 12-0 go to an 8-team tourney than a 3rd place SEC team - or even a 2nd place Cal team.  Want to win the national title?  Win your region first!

[Ken Stone]

Rhom, on 28 June 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Under that plan, where's the benefit in playing a tough OOC?  One loss outside the conference on top of losing your league will eliminate you from that at large.

If you make the playoffs you are going to be playing against the top teams in the nation.  Shouldn't that count for a tough OOC schedule?  If a team plays powderpuffs in the regular season but then tears through the top 8 teams at the end of the season, doesn't that count for anything?  To be in the playoff you won your conference meaning you had to beat some tough teams there.  Then you play the best of the best.  In world without a playoff OOC is super important.  When you finally have a playoff it doesn't matter so much.  And that's okay.  It only mattered in the past because everything was so screwed up.

[kalbear]

And what will that cause, Bronn: it'll cause teams like the Miami of the 80s to go join some shitty conference that they can dominate because it's worth it to get their foot in the door. That's bullshit and a bad product in general; when there's a legitimately awesome team being left out so you can get some shitty 9-3 connecticut team in the door, fuck that noise.

You're making a bad comparison - you're assuming the 12-0 as the conference champ. I'm looking back at conference champs and seeing a whole lot of ACC 9-3 teams and a whole lot of Big East fuckwittery. You really want that instead of a 10-2 team who only lost to the #1 and #2 teams in the nation? Fuck that. A system that actually can make decisions based on a lot of factors is significantly more advantaged than that. Yes, some years that'll mean 3 teams from the SEC could get in - but it also makes it a lot more likely that that 12-0 team gets in too, while excluding 8-4 teams that happen to win their conference despite playing asstastic.

[kalbear]

Quote

To be in the playoff you won your conference meaning you had to beat some tough teams there.

It doesn't mean anything of the kind.

[Maithanet]

Kalbear, on 29 June 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

It doesn't mean anything of the kind.

I agree Kalbear, that winning your conference shouldn't be a prerequisite for going to the playoff.  Personally, I like the 4 team system.  I understand that there is going to be debate about who is most deserving, but most years the 5th most deserving team probably isn't the best.  Some years it isn't going to be clear, and thems the breaks, no system is perfect.

Without knowing exactly how the 4 teams will be selected it is hard to say how good this proposal is, but I think that it is infinitely preferable to the 2 team system, and if done well, would be enough to say with some certainty that it is selecting the proper national champion.

[Rhom]

Maithanet, on 29 June 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

I agree Kalbear, that winning your conference shouldn't be a prerequisite for going to the playoff.  Personally, I like the 4 team system.  I understand that there is going to be debate about who is most deserving, but most years the 5th most deserving team probably isn't the best.  Some years it isn't going to be clear, and thems the breaks, no system is perfect.

Without knowing exactly how the 4 teams will be selected it is hard to say how good this proposal is, but I think that it is infinitely preferable to the 2 team system, and if done well, would be enough to say with some certainty that it is selecting the proper national champion.

I honestly can't think of a year in the last decade where the argument honestly went beyond number 3.

[Maithanet]

Rhom, on 29 June 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

I honestly can't think of a year in the last decade where the argument honestly went beyond number 3.

This article looks at the last five years with a 4 team playoff.  Summary:
2007 - 5th Best team was 10-2 Georgia.  4 team playoff is fine.
2008 - The final four teams in the BCS were Oklahoma, Florida, Texas and Alabama.  But it's uncertain if Texas or Alabama would be selected ahead of #5 USC (11-1, PAC-10 winner) or #6 Utah (12-0).  I would hope it would be Oklahoma, Florida, USC and Utah, but maybe I'm being optimistic.  Utah crushed Alabama in their bowl game, if you remember.
2009 - This is the messy year.  Boise State, Cincinnatti, Alabama, Texas and TCU all went undefeated.  One of those teams would have to be left out (possibly two if defending champs Florida could lobby their way in at 12-1).
2010 - Oregon, LSU, TCU all undefeated, along with 11-1 Wisconsin.  No problems for 4 teams.
2011 - LSU, Alabama, OSU, and Oregon.  I have no problem with that.

Looking at just this small sample, three years (2007, 2010, 2011) would work just fine with a 4 team playoff.  2008 is a bit of a mess, although if the selection committee can get off the SEC/Big 12 bandwagon, then it would work fine.  2009 is the only year that really required 8 teams, since there were 5 undefeated teams and all of them had put together pretty impressive seasons.  In such a case, I would lobby for Cincinnati to be the odd man out, because that year they really didn't beat anyone particularly good, although you could make the case that Boise has only one quality win at home against Oregon.
Regardless, I feel pretty satisfied with these results.  They preserve the integrity of the regular season, because some years you have to win em all just to make it.  And at the same time, the winner has to at least win two tough, neutral field games, so their final resume is going to be far stronger than anyone else.

[Triskele]

That's a good breakdown.


I think there are at least a couple of ways to look at it.  Do we look at the size of the group whether it's four or eight and say "Did the four most deserving teams get in?" or "Did the eight most deserving teams get in?"  You can look at it that way or you can look at it more like "Was there any team that was left out that arguably should be national champion?"

If you do it that way, I think the scenario with four teams will create a "maybe" response to that question every once in a while while the scenario with eight will create a "maybe" response very rarely.

[Ken Stone]

Kalbear, on 29 June 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

It doesn't mean anything of the kind.

Then you would get your ass kicked in the first game in the playoff and that would be that.  The argument you seem to be making is that the CC from a shitty conference doesn't deserve to go in over a non-conference champ in stronger conference.  What's the fear here?  That an undeserving team may win?  That doesn't make any sense?  That an undeserving non champion might not get a spot?  I would argue that by virtue of not winning your conference, you don't deserve a spot.  Settle it on the field not in the minds of voters.

[Maithanet]

Trzysztof Trieślowski, on 29 June 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

That's a good breakdown.

I think there are at least a couple of ways to look at it.  Do we look at the size of the group whether it's four or eight and say "Did the four most deserving teams get in?" or "Did the eight most deserving teams get in?"  You can look at it that way or you can look at it more like "Was there any team that was left out that arguably should be national champion?"

If you do it that way, I think the scenario with four teams will create a "maybe" response to that question every once in a while while the scenario with eight will create a "maybe" response very rarely.

I agree, that 8 teams makes it less likely to have someone get left out, like they would have been in 2009.  However, there's also the other side of maintaining the importance of the regular season.  If we're talking about an 8 team playoff, then that big Alabama-LSU game is meaningless, except for bragging rights and seeding.  Both those teams were going to go to the playoff, regardless of what else happens around the country.  Likewise the Oregon-Stanford game takes on a "will these teams both make it?" kinda vibe.  I don't like watching college games where a loss means that the loser now has a narrower margin for error (now that you've lost to the #2 team in the country, you have to make sure you crush your two remaining opponents, or you won't also make the championship!)

I think 4 teams is a good balance.  I don't necessarily think more games=better.  I love the short seasons football has and hate baseball's interminable monotony.  I only start watching the NBA in the playoffs and the "season" still feels too long.

[Bronn Stone]

The much greater abomination is the idea that you can be division runner-up but National Champion.  Works okay in the NFL where there are many games and few teams.  Not so much in college where there are far too many teams to justify rematches.

[kalbear]

Quote

Then you would get your ass kicked in the first game in the playoff and that would be that.  The argument you seem to be making is that the CC from a shitty conference doesn't deserve to go in over a non-conference champ in stronger conference.  What's the fear here?  That an undeserving team may win?  That doesn't make any sense?  That an undeserving non champion might not get a spot?  I would argue that by virtue of not winning your conference, you don't deserve a spot.  Settle it on the field not in the minds of voters.

How is excluding someone who could legitimately have a shot at winning it all over a champ of a conference that will be utterly obliterated settling it on the field? It's not.

The two best teams in the nation could very easily be from the same conference. This isn't a hard thing to fathom. In some conferences they may not even play each other. Are you telling me that you'd rather leave the second best team in the nation out of the playoffs so you can bring a conference champion who deserves shit because they beat a bunch of crappy teams?

The fear isn't that an undeserving team will win it all. The fear is that you're setting yourself up for a really shitty product to sell, a really shitty game, and a really horrible way to game the system.

BTW, here's the article showing the last 14 years and how it breaks down. The last few years haven't been horrible, but before that? Some really shitty times. 2009 has BSU getting hosed over TCU and Cinci (yes, there were 5 undefeated teams that year). 2008 has USC beating out Utah and Alabama (ouch). 2007 was the clusterfuck of epic proportions where no one appeared to actually want to go - but Hawaii still loses out despite being undefeated because, well, they sucked ass. 2006 might have BSU sneak in, but it's likely Louisville makes it in instead. 2005 has a ton of teams for the 4th position, none of which were particularly awesome; I would have picked Georgia over Oregon (Oregon wasn't good that year and had lost hugely to USC), but it probably wouldn't matter. 2004 has a better Cal and Texas team over undefeated Utah, but the utes would likely get the nod. 2003 isn't so bad (take Michigan and the 3 good teams). 2002 is actually worse for having 4 teams (like 2005). 2001 isn't so bad other than Nebraska and Colorado both going; the alternative is a bad Florida team or a really bad Illinois team. 2000 has Washington get in, barely.  

[Triskele]

Maithanet, on 29 June 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

I think 4 teams is a good balance.  I don't necessarily think more games=better.  I love the short seasons football has and hate baseball's interminable monotony.  I only start watching the NBA in the playoffs and the "season" still feels too long.

I didn't quote the whole post, but it was a great post.  I'm thinking that maybe 4 is the sweet spot and not 8 as I've been saying.  I still believe that 4 holds much more potential to royally screw someone some years than 8 does, but maybe I'm not giving enough credo to the cheapening of the regular season.

Your LSU v. Alabama and Standford v. Oregon examples from last year were good ones.  With 8 it would have felt like the loser was still likely to be very safe.  With 4 those games would have still felt like a loss was potentially catastrophic which is part of what is so awesome about college football now.

I also think there's a 6 scenario that might be  cool.  What if you had six, and it was like a conference in the NFL?  The two highest ranked in a BCS-like poll get a by, so they get rewarded for their great regular season and they get to defend the notion that they are the best.  But then four other teams get in.  So teams 3-6 in the nation play two games, and the two winners play teams 1 and 2, and then the winners play in the national title game.

I realize that has flaws too, but so do all possible proposals.  I'm just trying to think through the possibilities.

I think we have to remind ourselves to think about what the ultimate goal is.  Is it to minimize controversy about who got in?  Is it to expand as much as possible without hurting the regular season even if that halts the expansion at four?

[Ken Stone]

Kalbear, on 29 June 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

How is excluding someone who could legitimately have a shot at winning it all over a champ of a conference that will be utterly obliterated settling it on the field? It's not.

The two best teams in the nation could very easily be from the same conference. This isn't a hard thing to fathom. In some conferences they may not even play each other. Are you telling me that you'd rather leave the second best team in the nation out of the playoffs so you can bring a conference champion who deserves shit because they beat a bunch of crappy teams?

Here's the problem I see.  This notion of the "best team".  You want to base that notion on the skills of the players, coaching, etc, of the teams.  I want to base it on their on-field performance.  The regular season serves to weed teams out of the NC discussion, even if they are technically the better team.  You prove you deserve to go to the playoff by winning your conference.  It doesn't matter how good people believe you are.  I want to base it on results and evidence, not potential and beliefs.

[kalbear]

Quote

Here's the problem I see.  This notion of the "best team".  You want to base that notion on the skills of the players, coaching, etc, of the teams.  I want to base it on their on-field performance.  The regular season serves to weed teams out of the NC discussion, even if they are technically the better team.  You prove you deserve to go to the playoff by winning your conference.

That's certainly one way, assuming your conference is worth shit. And no, I don't want to base it on the skills of the players, coaching, etc. I just don't want a single, hugely flawed metric to be the sole arbiter.

Did connecticut prove that it deserved to go the the playoffs? How about Pittsburgh?

See, that's the problem - you're assuming that winning your conference means fuck all. Sometimes, it really doesn't. Sometimes it means that you were Miami in the Big East and the rest of your opponents sucked balls. Sometimes it means that you're Ohio State, didn't play anyone of note out of conference and got your ass handed to you by a supposedly inferior team in the SEC - twice.

Quote

It doesn't matter how good people believe you are.  I want to base it on results and evidence, not potential and beliefs.

I want that too; where we differ is the notion that results and evidence are equivalent to conference champs. Now, I'm totally happy giving conf champs a fairly high weight in the world - but strength of schedule, OOC schedule, dominance of wins, quality of wins - these things matter to me as well.

Fundamentally I disagree with Bronn; at the end of the day I want the best matchups I can possibly have in the 4 team playoff. If that means that a second team from the same conference comes in, that's fine. I am happy to exclude West Virginia or Wisconsin if it means bringing in Alabama, because Alabama was simply a great team last year. I'd also be somewhat okay with excluding them on the grounds that the only team they played that was at all good was LSU, they had a cake OOC and they lost at home. That's reasonable too.

What I don't want is to completely kill the dialog. That leads us to shitty conference champs playing LSU in the first round, boring all of us to shit while (for example) Oregon and OKST slug it out for the right to lose to LSU. That isn't going to make me want this playoff more.

Selection committees have a good record in the NCAA. They do fairly good, and they've shown that they largely have transparent judging. There are very few quibbles. and an intelligently guiding group of humans are going to always be better than a random objective set of rules as far as producing the best overall outcome. It's only when it's not guided well that things can suck - but is that any worse than the BCS has been in the last 12 years?