Why the SEC Should Hate the New Playoff System

[curmudgeon]

As you guys know, I'm a fan of statistical rankings of teams. I love the RPI, I think the BCS rankings are okay, even though using straight RPI (25% W-L, 50% Opponents W-L, 25% Opp. Opp. W-L) is even better. Its a great indicator.

Right now, by virtue of FSU's slightly tougher schedule, here are the top four teams by the RPI formula used in college basketball.

1. Florida State
2. Alabama
3. Ohio State
4. Baylor

While the eye test says that Alabama is better than FSU, you should note that Alabama beating Mississippi State (55th) on the road this weekend will be enough to move Bama ahead of FSU beating 61st ranked Syracuse at home this weekend. Plus, while FSU will end their season with two teams with losing records, Alabama still has to play Auburn and USC/Mizzou. All this to say, as it does in basketball, it all works out in the end.

However, there are going to be two new ratings systems used for the new college football playoff. The FPI (Football Power Index, based largely on stats) and the CDR (Championship Drive Index). The formulas are not out yet, but someone will figure it out. What's important here is that the rankings are not kind to the SEC. For example:

FPI Top 4
1. Florida State
2. Oregon
3. Baylor
4. Alabama

Full Rankings Here: http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings/_/tab/fpi

This is meant to calculate efficiency. Even though Oregon has a loss, their offensive efficiency is still third. Stanford, who has the same record as Oregon and a H2H win is fifth, and undefeated Ohio State is sixth. The 2010 Auburn Cam Newton team was fifth in this ranking.

The CDR Ranking is more like the RPI, its current top 4 looks like this:

1. Alabama
2. Stanford
3. Florida State
4. Ohio State

Full Ranking Here: http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings

Okay, but where is Baylor? 8th. Behind a 7-2 Arizona State team and a 7-2 Wisconsin team.

Using these two rankings and the eye test, only Alabama and Florida State would be safely in a playoff. Its going to be damn near impossible to get two SEC teams in this four team playoff I'm afraid.

[FlabLoser]

I don't know how anybody could possible prefer the current two-team BCS playoff to a 4-team CFP.

There are things I wish were different about the CFP. Like, why have a committee? Answer: politics. Computers and polls were allegedly good enough to pick two teams. Since it is always easier to pick the top 4 teams vs picking the top 2 teams, the same system should have been used to pick the top 4, amirite?

But whatever...

A 4 team playoff is gonna be awesome sauce. Its just gonna be a little bit frustrating to watch committee politics play a role.

[grayhairdontcare]

I think that was just ESPN talking about what COULD be at the disposal of the FPC when making their decisions. They did note in that same article that most of the members will be using good old fashioned eye test and watching tons of film. I think the article was basically pushing for metrics to be part of the argument for choosing the 4 teams and how it would affect The current top 5 battle going on right now.

It doesnt matter anyways cause as long as that old bear qb is sittin on that committee, we will never get considered for this playoff. Just another chance ESPN got to take down the bulldogs.

[curmudgeon]

I agree, I just think the SEC is going to have a hard time getting two in like they should most years because of a stacked deck.

RealTime RPI has the best rankings on the web, IMO. They also predict us to go 6-6, FWIW.

http://realtimerpi.com/football/ncaaf_1097_Men.html?Mississippi+St.

[dawgs]

the committee is there so that they aren't married to a formula when it spits out something weird like oregon #2 ahead of bama. just like the ncaa tourney committee doesn't have to seed teams exactly according to the RPI. sometimes a team ranked 6th or 7th or 8th in the RPI gets a 1 seed because of the eye test and other factors that aren't accounted for in the RPI.

and no, most years the SEC won't deserve 2 teams. the SEC will potentially deserve 2 teams if a pair of undefeated teams meet in the SECCG, or maybe if a 1 L team beats an undefeated team in the SECCG, otherwise, it's hard to argue the SEC gets screwed if a 2L team doesn't win the conference and loses to the conference champ and gets left out of the playoff in favor of undefeated or 1L conference teams from other major conferences.

i really hate SEC fans a lot of the times. not everyone is out to get you.

[engie]

I disagree. You are simply looking at data from a "down" SEC year and trying to make a sweeping assumption that wouldn't have been true for the past number of years. Fact is -- Bama is the only team in the conference this year that DESERVES to make a 4 team playoff this year as of now. The last time a year set up similarly was 2010.

Based on final, pre-bowl AP rankings, we would have deserved 2 in 2012, 2011, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006.

When we've continued to dominate, we won't be locked out.

[Vandownbytheriver]

Am I the only one who doesn't care if lsu, A&M or the Barn get screwed over one year? I say **** em all.

[dawgs]

The CDR Ranking is more like the RPI, its current top 4 looks like this:

1. Alabama
2. Stanford
3. Florida State
4. Ohio State

Full Ranking Here: http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings

Okay, but where is Baylor? 8th. Behind a 7-2 Arizona State team and a 7-2 Wisconsin team.

Using these two rankings and the eye test, only Alabama and Florida State would be safely in a playoff. Its going to be damn near impossible to get two SEC teams in this four team playoff I'm afraid.

and where is a 9-1 sec team that doesn't really have any impressive Ws when you consider florida and uga are walking infirmary wards? oh that's right, #5.

[dawgs]

Am I the only one who doesn't care if lsu, A&M or the Barn get screwed over one year? I say **** em all.

nope. not at all.

someone wake me up when i should feel bad that a 10-2 bama team that didn't win the conference "should have" made a playoff and i should be upset about it.

[DownwardDawg]

Am I the only one who doesn't care if lsu, A&M or the Barn get screwed over one year? I say **** em all.

I'm with ya!!!

[Martianlander]

Glad they are going to four team playoff. Don't like the selection committee because of politics. Not to defend the BCS but I believe they have had the best two teams except for one year when Auburn was undefeated and got left out. (Even though I'm not an Auburn fan especially after Cam Newton) I could be corrected on this but I can't off hand think of another year.

[FlabLoser]

The BCS computer stuff exists to have some objectivity. I always laught when the BCS rankings don't mirror the media polls. Everybody agreed to put the computers in there for objectivity. But whent he objectivity doesn't mirror the subjectivity, there's a problem for some. LOL.

So with the playoff we're going back to 100% subjectivity and politics. What could go wrong?

[dawgs]

which committee members are going to willingly sit around and let their school/conference get shoved around? sure they have to leave the room if the school they are tied to is discussed, but i don't think anyone is going to take a playoff shun quietly.

i seriously think the only controversies will be in situations like last year when 11-1 oregon was #4 in the BCS and 11-2 stanford was #5, but stanford has beaten oregon in the regular season and won the pac 12. committee most likely would pick stanford there despite the rankings, and it makes sense, but there would have been some "controversy". but i don't see anyone coming out of nowhere to take an undeserved playoff spot. not when there are only 4 spots. everyone knows the 4-8 teams that will be in the the discussion for the spots, and generally will know the pecking order: undefeated major conference champ > 1 L major conference champ > (and this is the only hairy part) 2 L major conference champs/1 L major conference teams that didn't win their conference. that last one won't play a role every year, and when it does, there will be a lot of studying of SoS and potential h2h matchups (like the aforementioned stanford-oregon situation from 2012), and i don't think "politics" will be a factor, i think they'll logically work their way to an answer the best they can while acknowledging that there are pros and cons to both teams up for debate.

[Madkinmecrazy]

Glad they are going to four team playoff. Don't like the selection committee because of politics. Not to defend the BCS but I believe they have had the best two teams except for one year when Auburn was undefeated and got left out. (Even though I'm not an Auburn fan especially after Cam Newton) I could be corrected on this but I can't off hand think of another year.

2003 was definitely the worst year for the BCS system. USC, LSU, and Oklahoma all finished undefeated, and the team that was ranked #1 in AP and ESPN polls got left out of the championship (USC). LSU got the win in the NC, and USC won the Rose Bowl. LSU finished the season as the BCS Champ, and USC finished as the AP champ.

[Quaoarsking]

The BCS computer stuff exists to have some objectivity. I always laught when the BCS rankings don't mirror the media polls. Everybody agreed to put the computers in there for objectivity. But whent he objectivity doesn't mirror the subjectivity, there's a problem for some. LOL.

So with the playoff we're going back to 100% subjectivity and politics. What could go wrong?

The BCS rankings are 1/3 coaches (really SIDs mostly) who don't watch many games or really even keep up with other conferences, 1/3 Harris Poll voters who are a mixed bag, but most are probably fine, and 1/3 computer polls with secret formulas that aren't even allowed to take score into account. It's a nonsense formula, and 5 of the 6 computer polls don't publish their formula, so who knows if they've ever made a mistake. The 1 poll with a public formula made a mistake in the final rankings in 2010 that caused LSU and Boise State to swap spots. If one of the other 5 computer polls did that, we'd never know.

The point of the computers is to appear objective, without really being valid at all. The committee won't be perfect by any stretch, but at least it won't pretend to be somethings it's not. When the playoff makes mega $$$ and they expand it to 8 teams in a couple years, the committee's subjectivity will be less important, because no one will care about #9 getting left out.

[Quaoarsking]

We should also eliminate this myth that the BCS "usually gets it right." There is often no objective right or wrong, but the BCS has left quite a few teams out who at least could have made a case:
1998 - Undefeated Tennessee played 1-loss Florida State rather than a slew of other 1-loss teams. Ohio State and UCLA had legitimate beef, as did Kansas State (even though it lost its conference championship game, it was in 2OT)
1999 - Florida State and Virginia Tech were the only 2 major undefeateds, so no real controversy
2000 - Oklahoma was undefeated, 1-loss Florida State got in ahead of the 1-loss Miami team who beat them. Miami's loss was to 1-loss Washington. Major controversy to this day.
2001 - Miami was undefeated. 1-loss Nebraska got in without winning its division. 1-loss Oregon was #2 in both human polls and at least had a case. Major controversy.
2002 - Miami and Ohio State only major undefeateds. No controversy.
2003 - Major cluster**** as USC, Oklahoma, and LSU all have a loss, Oklahoma's being a blowout in the Big 12 Championship game. USC is ranked #1 in both polls, but gets left out for the other 2. Major controversy.
2004 - USC and Oklahoma were #1 and #2 in the polls from the preseason on, so obviously they were going to get in if undefeated, regardless of the fact that undefeated Auburn had the hardest strength of schedule. Major controversy.
2005 - USC and Texas the only major undefeateds. No controversy.
2006 - Ohio State is the only major undefeated. 1-loss Florida gets in ahead of 1-loss Michigan. Not a huge controversy because no one really wanted a rematch, at least in this year.
2007 - 1-loss Ohio State gets in, as does 2-loss LSU. Not a huge controversy, but 2-loss USC and 2-loss Oklahoma had somewhat of a case. 2-loss Virginia Tech was the highest ranked team in the computers, since they stupidly aren't allowed to consider margin of victory and LSU's blowout of VT didn't enter into anything. Somewhat controversial.
2008 - Florida gets in with a loss, while 1-loss Oklahoma gets the spot over a 1-loss Texas team that beat them. Texas's loss was to 1-loss Texas Tech, who lost to Oklahoma. 1-loss USC had a pretty strong case too. Major controversy.
2009 - Alabama and Texas are undefeated, so no major controversy, also AQ team Cincinnati was too.
2010 - Auburn and Oregon were the only major undefeateds, so no real controversy.
2011 - Huge controversy as undefeated LSU rematches 1-loss Alabama (remember all those arguments in 2006?) instead of 1-loss Oklahoma State.
2012 - Undefeated Notre Dame plays 1-loss Alabama over 1-loss Oregon (not a conference champion), 1-loss Kansas State. Not a huge controversy since everyone expected it, but you can make a case for those others.
2013 - Looking like there will be 3 or more major undefeateds, but we'll see. Maybe 2 will get upset.

So out of 15 years in the books, the BCS has been controversy-free in 4 of them, at least as far as #1 and #2.

Why do I support a playoff? Because it gives us more awesome games to watch in January, and more awesome games to watch before then. Despite arguments to the contrary, the regular season will be better since more playoff bids means more games that affect the possibilities of said playoff bids. I like the fact that a single loss is less likely to derail a team's chances, because too often we see lame undefeated teams with easy schedules get in over 1-loss teams who could beat them. The SEC will get 2 teams in a lot of years, and once the playoff expands to 8, the SEC will have 3 teams in more often than it doesn't. It's going to be awesome.