PDA

View Full Version : A 4-team playoff makes the regular season better, not worse. 8 teams even moreso



Quaoarsking
11-17-2013, 04:21 PM
Under the current system, there were only 2 games that mattered last night:
Alabama 20, Mississippi State 7
Florida State 59, Syracuse 3

That's it. These two teams are very likely to be playing for the national title, and all that really mattered to the national championship hunt was two games against teams near the bottom of their conferences. Obviously, we were very interested in the MSU-Alabama game, but most around the country were not. You can argue that the Baylor-Texas Tech game mattered too, and to an even lesser extent the Ohio State-Illinois game, but the odds of Baylor making it to the national championship, no matter how big they win in November, are pretty low, and Ohio State even lower. Teams like Auburn and Stanford that are "still alive" (or at least were yesterday) probably have less than a 1% chance of making the game because it would take 3 of the above teams losing to even get them into the discussion.

Anyway, I think that makes the late regular season kind of a letdown. Sure, it's not all about who goes to the national championship and nothing else, but it was pretty obvious that nothing was going to change about the national championship picture yesterday, barring a monumental upset, so the season was stuck in a holding pattern yesterday. Guess what? It's even worse next week as Alabama plays Chattanooga and Florida State plays Idaho. Poor Baylor. There's absolutely nothing they can do to win a national title other than sit around and hope for a huge upset. Ditto for Ohio State, although I just don't like them and thus don't feel as bad for them.



Under the upcoming 4-team playoff, 4 games yesterday would have directly mattered:
Alabama 20, Mississippi State 7
Florida State 59, Syracuse 3
Baylor 63, Texas Tech 34
Ohio State 60, Illinois 35

Still 4 blowouts against clearly inferior teams, but 4 important games instead of 2. Not only that, it's a whole lot more likely that 1 of those 4 will lose than 3, so games played by Stanford, Auburn, Missouri (who was off), Oregon, and Oklahoma State would have all meant a lot more.

People argue that because there's no playoff, regular season games are like playoff games. I can understand this argument -- Florida State and Alabama had playoff-like games for themselves yesterday in the sense that if they had lost, they were most likely out. But under the 4-team playoff system, this is still true. If any of the 4 undefeated teams had lost yesterday, they would probably be out. Sure, Alabama would probably play their way back in with a loss to us if they beat Auburn and won the SEC, but that's no different than what the Tide has done the last 2 years, so if you consider that a problem, it's not something that the BCS is any better on.




What would make the regular season even better would be an 8-team playoff. These are the teams that would still be alive under an 8-team playoff:

Alabama, Florida State, and Baylor have strong enough resumes that they could lose just 1 time and should still make the playoff.
Ohio State needs to go undefeated to secure a spot. With 1 loss, it would have a chance, but its resume would be weak and it would be a bubble team, especially if the 1 loss was to Michigan State in the Big 10 championship game.
Oregon needed a Stanford loss yesterday and got it. If Oregon wins out and wins the Pac-12 Championship Game, it would be in at 12-1, but a loss would probably make it bubble out.
Stanford had a good chance coming into yesterday, but its chances are probably done. If Oregon loses another game and Stanford gets to play in the Pac-12 championship, or if a bunch of teams rack up two losses, it might make it, but it needs help.
Auburn can secure a spot with a win over Alabama, but a close loss and 10-2 record might get them in -- again, depends on what everyone else does.
South Carolina would need to beat Clemson, get into the SEC Championship Game, and win it. 3 losses would be too many, and if Missouri wins the East, SC's resume probably just isn't good enough.
Clemson's loss to Florida State was horrendous, but if it beat South Carolina it might sneak into one of the last slots at 11-1, depending on how everyone else goes.
Missouri would need to beat Ole Miss and Texas A&M at a minimum. Without playing the SEC Championship Game, it would just be behind too many other teams to have a chance. Winning the SECCG would lock up a spot in the game, but a close loss might still get them in.
Texas A&M is probably out, being depending on how other teams shake out, 10-2 might get them there. At the very least, Texas A&M would have a better shot of making an 8-team playoff than Ohio State does in real life of making the BCS Championship Game.
Oklahoma State is a longshot but a win over Baylor could lead them to an 11-1 record that would probably get them in.
Michigan State is an even longer shot, but if it finishes 12-1 with a win over Ohio State in the Big 10 Championship it probably gets a spot (and knocks Ohio State out of one)
UCLA at 8-2 is probably out, but if it can win the Pac-12 South and beat Oregon in the Pac-12 Championship Game, it might sneak in.
Arizona State - see UCLA word-for-word
Duke could possibly still make it at 11-2 if it somehow won its last two games and then pulled off a major upset of Florida State in the ACC Championship Game, but even then it would likely be out.
Fresno State and Northern Illinois would at least be in the conversation if they finished 13-0, but I don't think either has an impressive enough resume to have a serious chance. But small conference teams would at least have a chance from time to time to make it under this system.
Central Florida would be the longest of all longshots, but is likely to finish 11-1 with a 3-point loss to South Carolina. If South Carolina were the SEC Champion and a bunch of contenders all lost games near the end, they might have an off-chance of getting in, but pretty unlikely.


That's 17 teams who games still matter for the playoff each week. That's the potential for a dozen or more "playoff games" each week. Yes, a few of these teams can still take a loss and still make it, but most of them can't. Plus, I would rather that a single loss can't derail a team's season. I would much rather watch a really good team who screwed up (or just had bad luck) once or twice than a mediocre team get lucky a lot and play a weak schedule (like last year's Notre Dame or those Ohio State or Oklahoma teams that got shellacked).

I think the SEC has been lucky to have been so well-served by the BCS system. 5 of the 7 SEC champions during the streak have had a loss (or 2, in LSU's case), and in none of those years was there an undefeated team from another major conference to replace them. When the SEC teams needed to be undefeated, they were. Without some really implausible upsets (WV losing at home to 4-7 Pitt, USC losing multiple times to Oregon State or at home to UCLA or at home to 41-point underdog Stanford, Oklahoma State losing to a bad Iowa State team, Kansas State and Oregon both getting upset last year, etc.), weird scheduling decisions (VA Tech could have just not played LSU in 2007 and taken LSU's slot), and just flat out good luck with the human polls (Michigan could have gotten in over Florida in 2006, USC in 2007 or 2008, Oklahoma State over Alabama in 2011) the SEC's streak wouldn't be possible. Overall, the bigger the playoff should cause more SEC titles over a decade than the BCS, since it's all about the best teams all getting up to play each other, instead of the grind of dissimilar conference games (SEC schedules are much tougher) causing random results. Coincidentally, that's not how it played out.

I seen it dawg
11-17-2013, 04:25 PM
Good lord that's long but a thought provoking post that has merit. Nice work.

curmudgeon
11-17-2013, 04:42 PM
To me, I've decided an 8-team playoff is what college football needs.

Take the top 8 teams in the BCS rankings, and if a conference champion is ranked 9-12, they get in.

MSUDawg4Life
11-17-2013, 04:49 PM
Great post and I agree. An 8 team playoff would be good for college football. The four team playoff is a step in the right direction though.

Todd4State
11-17-2013, 04:56 PM
I think it all depends on what you want as a fan. If you want the two best teams during the regular season to face off, the current system works most of the time. If you want the top eight teams to fight it out, then of course a playoff is the way to go, but you also might end up with a three loss National Champion over a bunch of one loss teams.

I know I am in the minority, but I've always kind of liked a guaranteed number 1 vs. number 2 match-up.

MSUDawg4Life
11-17-2013, 05:03 PM
I think it all depends on what you want as a fan. If you want the two best teams during the regular season to face off, the current system works most of the time. If you want the top eight teams to fight it out, then of course a playoff is the way to go, but you also might end up with a three loss National Champion over a bunch of one loss teams.

I know I am in the minority, but I've always kind of liked a guaranteed number 1 vs. number 2 match-up.

Guaranteed?

Quaoarsking
11-17-2013, 05:11 PM
I think it all depends on what you want as a fan. If you want the two best teams during the regular season to face off, the current system works most of the time. If you want the top eight teams to fight it out, then of course a playoff is the way to go, but you also might end up with a three loss National Champion over a bunch of one loss teams.

I know I am in the minority, but I've always kind of liked a guaranteed number 1 vs. number 2 match-up.

I understand that line of thinking, but I think you're more likely to see the best 2 teams square off in the final game of an 8-team playoff than in the BCS. Like last year, Notre Dame would have lost in the 1st round, most likely. Upsets can always happen, but I think they're less likely in a playoff where every team is 100% keyed up than in the regular season, so I think the playoff is a better way to choose #1 and #2 than just letting people vote / statistically invalid computer formulas to just pick two with all the unequal schedules and all that.

I'm not worried about a 3-loss team winning a national title, because if you limit it to 8 and don't hand out autobids to national champions, I don't see how a 3-loss team ever makes it in -- it wouldn't have since the turn of the century, and probably further back than that. And if one of them did every 20 years, they'd still have to beat 3 "better" teams before they won the title, so it may literally never happen.
A 2-loss team has already won the BCS title and no one really cared, so that possibility doesn't really bother me in an 8-team playoff -- if they can beat three "better" teams, they probably deserve the title anyway. The only real bad scenario is that a playoff increases the possibility of a rematch where the regular season loser wins and knocks out the "better" team, but we also had that in real life in January 2012, and we all got over it.

Todd4State
11-17-2013, 05:13 PM
Guaranteed?

Or pretty close to it.

Todd4State
11-17-2013, 05:21 PM
I understand that line of thinking, but I think you're more likely to see the best 2 teams square off in the final game of an 8-team playoff than in the BCS. Like last year, Notre Dame would have lost in the 1st round, most likely. Upsets can always happen, but I think they're less likely in a playoff where every team is 100% keyed up than in the regular season, so I think the playoff is a better way to choose #1 and #2 than just letting people vote / statistically invalid computer formulas to just pick two with all the unequal schedules and all that.

I'm not worried about a 3-loss team winning a national title, because if you limit it to 8 and don't hand out autobids to national champions, I don't see how a 3-loss team ever makes it in -- it wouldn't have since the turn of the century, and probably further back than that. And if one of them did every 20 years, they'd still have to beat 3 "better" teams before they won the title, so it may literally never happen.
A 2-loss team has already won the BCS title and no one really cared, so that possibility doesn't really bother me in an 8-team playoff -- if they can beat three "better" teams, they probably deserve the title anyway. The only real bad scenario is that a playoff increases the possibility of a rematch where the regular season loser wins and knocks out the "better" team, but we also had that in real life in January 2012, and we all got over it.

I see that line of thinking too. I think a playoff means the "hottest" team wins more often than not. There is always going to be controversy in some form or fashion though because there is always going to be a "ninth" team that maybe should have gotten a shot as opposed to how it is now where this is basically the "third" team that maybe should have gotten a shot at the title.

I just don't like how a lot of people in the media portray a playoff as a "cure all" for the woes of the BCS and that it will solve all problems. Especially since the formulas and things that they currently use to decide the current BCS final two teams are likely going to be used to decide who the top eight are.

dawgs
11-17-2013, 05:56 PM
i agree and i've made the argument to staunch playoff opponents. at this point in the season, only a couple of games each weekend interest me. the msu game, the oregon game, and the games involving the teams on track to meet for the title (bama, f$u). baylor and tosu are mildly interesting to see if they keep winning, but i know that they won't make a title game without a L by bama or f$u, nor will they even get to play each other in a bowl game. however, a playoff suddenly makes a lot more games late in the season must watch tv for CFB fans.

scottycameron
11-17-2013, 06:15 PM
You guys are killing me. What is it with message board guys? So y'all want to get rid of the SECCG?

Quaoarsking
11-17-2013, 06:17 PM
You guys are killing me. What is it with message board guys? So y'all want to get rid of the SECCG?

... No? Has anyone in the history of Elite Dawgs ever advocated such a thing?

Martianlander
11-17-2013, 06:39 PM
Don't have a problem going to 8 but you are still going to have teams gripe because they didn't get in. Look how many teams go to the basketball NCAA championship and the "bubble" teams still complain if they don't get in.

Quaoarsking
11-17-2013, 06:42 PM
Don't have a problem going to 8 but you are still going to have teams gripe because they didn't get in. Look how many teams go to the basketball NCAA championship and the "bubble" teams still complain if they don't get in.

Yeah, there nothing you can ever do about that. But while people feel bad for #3, no one's gonna feel bad for #9 because #9 had plenty of chances to do better. Teams like 2004 Auburn, 2009 Cincinnati, and likely 2013 Baylor/Ohio State did everything they possibly could have in a major conference and it still wasn't enough. Similarly, while the teams left out in basketball are always mad, no one really cares about them for more than a day or so. We were furious in 2010, but there wasn't a national outcry because we had lots of chances and screwed them all up.

dawgs
11-17-2013, 08:26 PM
I see that line of thinking too. I think a playoff means the "hottest" team wins more often than not. There is always going to be controversy in some form or fashion though because there is always going to be a "ninth" team that maybe should have gotten a shot as opposed to how it is now where this is basically the "third" team that maybe should have gotten a shot at the title.

I just don't like how a lot of people in the media portray a playoff as a "cure all" for the woes of the BCS and that it will solve all problems. Especially since the formulas and things that they currently use to decide the current BCS final two teams are likely going to be used to decide who the top eight are.

Who said its a "cure all"? Of course there will be some bitching from the team(s) just outside the playoff, but much like the ncaa tourney, the bitching will last a few hours, maybe a day, and it'll pass. No avg fan worried that team #69 might have had a slightly better resume than #68. The fans of that team gets pissed but that's it, not a national outcry.

DownwardDawg
11-17-2013, 08:35 PM
I've always said it should be eight. An eight team playoff will get it as close to perfect as it'll ever be.

Quaoarsking
11-17-2013, 09:48 PM
Let's look at the least controversial BCS year, 2005. Texas and Ohio State were the only undefeated teams, and everyone was pretty sure they were the best 2. They played one of the greatest games ever and for once, nobody really complained about the BCS.


http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/35_17_11_13_9_42_14.png

This is a likely playoff bracket for that season*. And I say it would have been even better. We get 7 awesome games between the best teams in the country instead of just 1. If Oregon beats Texas (I'm betting the first round games would be at campus sites, so if Oregon goes into Austin and beats Texas), was it a fluky upset, or was it the result of fluky upsets that Texas was seeded higher? I think the playoffs will have all 8 teams playing at their full potential -- players should have no trouble getting up for it, so while either way is possible, and it would be difficult to prove, if Oregon beats Texas, it's more likely that Oregon really was the better team. And even if not, if Texas can't win a first round playoff game, I don't feel bad for them.

Even in the BCS's best year, I think an 8-team playoff is the best way to find a champion.



* - I'm also assuming a committee selects and seeds the team, rather than just expanding the BCS formula down to 8 slots. I don't necessarily object to a formula, but I strongly object to the BCS formula. Football is a very difficult game to mathematically model, and I'm just not sure that an objective formula can fairly be created to select the teams. A committee may be the best solution.

Quaoarsking
12-06-2013, 06:46 PM
Update:

Under the current system, it's Florida State vs. Ohio State with the Auburn-Missouri winner hoping one of them loses. Very small chance of both losing and Alabama gets in. Overall, pretty lame.

Under the 4-team playoff, Florida State and Ohio State are in if they win. The SEC Champion is in, and Alabama is in. Oklahoma State, Baylor, and even Arizona State might have a shot if OSU or FSU loses, and Michigan State might have a shot if they beat Ohio State. Maybe Florida State could still get in with a loss to Duke, but probably not. More interesting, and more likely to get the best team to win the title, or at least have a chance to play for it.

Under an 8-team playoff (my favorite system), these teams still have a shot:

Florida State is in and the #1 seed with a win over Duke tomorrow. I doubt they'd drop to #9 with a loss, so they've probably punched their ticket.
Similarly, Alabama is in at 11-1, regardless of how any games go tomorrow.
The SEC Champion, either Auburn or Missouri, would get in as the 3 seed at worst.
The Big 10 champion, either Michigan State or Ohio State, is definitely in.
The Pac-12 champion, either Stanford or Arizona State, would be 11-2 and make it in.
Oklahoma State would be in at 11-1 if they beat Oklahoma tomorrow.
Baylor would be in at 11-1 if they beat Texas tomorrow.

So that's 5 slots for sure, possibly 7 depending on whether Oklahoma State and Baylor win. So competing for the last 1-3 slots we have:


The loser of the SEC Championship Game, either Auburn or Missouri, would have a pretty good resume still.
If Duke pulls the upset on Florida State, they'd have a good shot at 11-2 especially with the big win to cap their season.
If Ohio State loses to Michigan State, they'd still have a shot, but I'd bet on them being out.
South Carolina at 10-2 would at least be considered, as would 10-2 Oregon and 11-1 Central Florida. I guess if Oklahoma pulled the upset on Oklahoma State they'd be in the conversation, but it's probably too little, too late.
If Baylor or Oklahoma State lost tomorrow, they'd still get consideration, but probably wouldn't be in.
Northern Illinois would get consideration at 13-0 with a win tonight, but their resume probably isn't strong enough.


That would still be 16 fanbases dreaming of a playoff bid, and practically every game tomorrow would be meaningful.

PassInterference
12-06-2013, 07:04 PM
There is an argument that a playoff makes the regular season less meaningful. Well that's not relevant because those games like the Iron Bowl which were so epic are now gonna be even more epic in a playoff format.

While a playoff probably won't replace the intensity of a rivalry game, it is very very rare that a rivalry game is as important at the 2013 Iron Bowl was.

Regardless, each and every game in the CFP will be epic. As will play-in type games at the end of the season where teams are trying to earn their right in. And the bigger the playoff, the more of these "play in" type regular season games there are.