Playoff Talk

[GatorGrad]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2885646

Check out that article. The SEC meetings started today in Destin and Dr. Machen, the University of Florida President, is going to make his playoff proposal. I find a few lines of that article interesting:

"Machen says he has a plan that involves setting up a corporation to run a playoff separate from the NCAA and BCS commissioners."

"By the end of the week, the SEC will announce a record payout that should exceed $120 million, surpassing last year's record of $110.7 million. That would mean each of the 12 league members will receive at least $10 million for the first time."

"Khayat said he's looking forward to hearing what Machen has to say, though Khayat believes there are a lot of roadblocks in the way for any playoff. For one, no money figure has been discussed. The payout for such a playoff would have to be outlandish enough to turn the heads of school presidents, most of whom have fought the idea of a playoff for many reasons, including stretching the season even longer and damaging current bowl relationships."

"The interests of the SEC are we have a great regular season TV package, great attendance, great fan interest. We have a great championship game. We have eight bowl relationships and we believe in the bowl system."

[Blue Hen]

I read it, GG.

Funny......these SEC people become interested in a CF championship when it looks like their teams might be denied a chance to compete for a National Championship. No concern about all the other deserving, non SEC teams, that were denied a chance to compete for one over the years. Predictibly, self serving.

[GatorGrad]

Yes, the conferences definitely look out for themselves. It's all about how can their own schools make the most amount of money. My prediction is that while some will push for an 8 or 16 team playoff, most will think that this is too radical of a change right now and the compromise will be the 4-team playoff. This would allow the BCS to stay in place, and the BCS Conferences to stay in control and reap the financial benefits. In fact, it would probably make more money as FOX, ABC, etc have already stated that they would be willing to pay a lot more for a plus-one model vs the current model.

It wouldn't prolong the season as the structure of BCS games on Jan 1st with the title game one week later is already in place. Only two teams would end up playing one extra game. It wouldn't solve all of the problems, but it is definitely a step in the right direction and I think it would open the eyes of the powers that be. Once you get a taste of playoff football, everyone will want more...it wouldn't be long before everyone demands an 8 and then 16 team playoff.

[Blue Hen]

Yeah, a 4 team BCS playoff keeps control of the post season in the hands of the rich, powerful leagues, but it's not a 'step in the right direction', imo. It's still a playoff arrangement for 55% of CF....no good.

[GatorGrad]

But don't you think that we are more likely to see a change from a 4 team playoff to an 8 or 16 team playoff vs the current BCS 2 team playoff up to 8 or 16 teams? The 4 team playoff could open the eyes of some to the entire playoff idea. I just think that we would be closer to a real 16-team playoff if we already have a 4-team playoff than we are right now.

[CJHawkeyes]

Yeah, a 4 team BCS playoff keeps control of the post season in the hands of the rich, powerful leagues, but it's not a 'step in the right direction', imo. It's still a playoff arrangement for 55% of CF....no good.

I probably sound like a broken record, but nothing allows the BCS conferences to maintain control more than the lack of transparent objective rules. The BCS formula is unaccountable and aribitrary. As things stand, unwritten rules virtually guarantee BCS schools a top 2 finish, but in years with several unbeatens or one-loss teams in contention, the exact difference between 2nd and 3rd is unknown. Besides a win versus Ohio State, what exactly did Michigan's resume need to place the Wolverines ahead of Florida? The BCS rules do not and cannot tell us that whereas the difference under systems like mine would be self-evident. The same problem would exist even if choosing between 4th and 5th. This problem is also responsible for one of the more lame excuse against a playoff. The argument being that even if we get a playoff, teams just outside making it will complain. However, these teams can only complain so long as the rules in place allow A > B and B > A to both be true given the same exact results. Nobody in the pro sports questions why they missed the playoffs because transparent objective rules make it known why they missed the playoffs. As for nonBCS schools, transparent objective rules would provide a transparent objective path to a playoff berth which, if met, could not denied by someone's arbitrary and unaccountable opinion.

[GatorGrad]

I agree, CJ. I think one of the problems with having legit rules is the # of D1 teams competing in the BD. There are over 100 so it's so hard to compare schedules unlike the pros where the # of teams is only in the 20's and 30's and there is much more parity and more games between each other which makes actual standings more relevant. That's why you cannot simply go by overall record. Otherwise, there is no incentive to schedule good teams or play in a tough conference. I would like to see your proposal one more time. Can you cut and paste it? I think it had something to do with overall record + opponent overall record, etc etc etc. What was that formula and what would the standings have looked like had this been in place during the 2006 season?

[CJHawkeyes]

I agree, CJ. I think one of the problems with having legit rules is the # of D1 teams competing in the BD. There are over 100 so it's so hard to compare schedules unlike the pros where the # of teams is only in the 20's and 30's and there is much more parity and more games between each other which makes actual standings more relevant. That's why you cannot simply go by overall record. Otherwise, there is no incentive to schedule good teams or play in a tough conference. I would like to see your proposal one more time. Can you cut and paste it? I think it had something to do with overall record + opponent overall record, etc etc etc. What was that formula and what would the standings have looked like had this been in place during the 2006 season?


While I think a strong argument could be made for ranking teams by records, I do favor rules that encourage stronger scheduling. I also don't think the number of teams and diverse schedules is a problem. It is only seems to be a problem for those that expect objective results to mirror their subjective opinions. However, as I see it, the regular season is a game. If, for example, teams were ranked their records, the object of the game would to be post the best record. If such rules encouraged weak schedules, the pursuit of such schedules would be a fair strategy available to all teams. That said, under the rules I devised, win/loss point values are determined by an opponent's record. Last year, a four team playoff under those rules would likely have included Florida, Ohio State, Michigan, and Boise State. In 2005, USC, Texas, Penn State, and Ohio State.

[GatorGrad]

Can you explain how your win/loss point values using the opponent's record would work? Given the # of teams and the unbalanced schedules, I would not agree with a format where you simply ranked teams based on overall record followed by record of opponents and then record of opponents opponents, etc as the tiebreakers. This would strongly favor playing a weak schedule which would be bad for college football.

However, I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of mathmatical formula that made sense that used 50% overall record + 35% record of opponents + 15% record of opponents opponents. Or something like that...something that would reward overall record, but not allow an unbeaten team that played absolutely nobody to end up ahead of a one-loss team that played a ridiculously hard schedule.

[EvilVodka]

Just thought I'd throw this in...its from the Big 12 meeting

The committee reaffirmed the conference's strong opposition to any major playoff proposal. However, the league would be open to a plus-one system, under the right circumstances. Such a system would settle which team is No. 1 by playing an extra game.

"A number of criteria would have to be satisfied," said Harvey Perlman, Nebraska's chancellor and chairman of the board of directors. "No more than 14 games, no games during finals, no reduction in the regular season and a compatibility with the bowl structure."

http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/10195972

So how the hell do you play only 14 games with a plus 1?

12 regular season games
1 Big XII Championship
1 semifinal game (Orange, Sugar, Rose, Fiesta)
1 BCS Championship game

thats 15 folks

[CJHawkeyes]

Can you explain how your win/loss point values using the opponent's record would work? Given the # of teams and the unbalanced schedules, I would not agree with a format where you simply ranked teams based on overall record followed by record of opponents and then record of opponents opponents, etc as the tiebreakers. This would strongly favor playing a weak schedule which would be bad for college football.

However, I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of mathmatical formula that made sense that used 50% overall record + 35% record of opponents + 15% record of opponents opponents. Or something like that...something that would reward overall record, but not allow an unbeaten team that played absolutely nobody to end up ahead of a one-loss team that played a ridiculously hard schedule.

Under ideal conditions, the rules I devised are statistically equal to 50% own record and 50% opponents' opponents' record. However, win-loss percentages are not involved. That said, the rules reward teams that schedule and beat winners. Subsequently, teams that own worse records are able to earn more points than teams with better records. Last year, 11-1 Florida placed higher than 12-0 Ohio State at the end of the regular season. Throughout the years, there are many instances of teams overcoming two game deficits due to strong schedules. In rare instances, three games deficits have been overcome.

[CJHawkeyes]

Just thought I'd throw this in...its from the Big 12 meeting

The committee reaffirmed the conference's strong opposition to any major playoff proposal. However, the league would be open to a plus-one system, under the right circumstances. Such a system would settle which team is No. 1 by playing an extra game.

"A number of criteria would have to be satisfied," said Harvey Perlman, Nebraska's chancellor and chairman of the board of directors. "No more than 14 games, no games during finals, no reduction in the regular season and a compatibility with the bowl structure."

http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/10195972


So how the hell do you play only 14 games with a plus 1?

12 regular season games
1 Big XII Championship
1 semifinal game (Orange, Sugar, Rose, Fiesta)
1 BCS Championship game

thats 15 folks

Apparently, that 12th game versus a I-AA opponent is more valuable a four team playoff.

[Blue Hen]

" and a compatibility with the bowl structure "..............there's the underlying reason we'll never have a legitimate championship post season...bowls (PSEGs)

[GatorGrad]

"Under ideal conditions, the rules I devised are statistically equal to 50% own record and 50% opponents' opponents' record. However, win-loss percentages are not involved."

Can you clarify? Why would you use opponents' opponents' record, but not opponent record? And why wouldn't win-loss percentages be involved?

[GatorGrad]

" and a compatibility with the bowl structure "..............there's the underlying reason we'll never have a legitimate championship post season...bowls (PSEGs)

Yes, the bowl system would have to go, or at least take a major step back, in order for the NCAA to put together a real 16-team playoff. Unfortunately, too many people like the financial security that the bowl system has provided. That needs to change. And bowls aren't going to host all 15 games in a 16-team tournament. Not a chance. A 16-team tournament would require at least some games, probably at least the first two rounds, to be played on campus.

[CJHawkeyes]

"Under ideal conditions, the rules I devised are statistically equal to 50% own record and 50% opponents' opponents' record. However, win-loss percentages are not involved."

Can you clarify? Why would you use opponents' opponents' record, but not opponent record? And why wouldn't win-loss percentages be involved?

So much for my genius. That should read opponents' record. That said, under my system, any win added to any resume always produces a more valuable resume. However, that is not always the case if percentages are used. For example, a win versus 0-12 Florida International would likely reduce the value of a team's resume. Of course, it makes no sense that a win would have less value than not playing at all. On the opposite end, a loss can increase the value of a team's resume. Although no one would get away with it, the very idea that declaring a forfeit loss to a particular opponent would improve a team's "score" is ridiculous. This is why the rules do not use win-loss percentages.

[GatorGrad]

This is another example of why I focus much more on the SEC race. There is a mathmatical legitimate formula for how to win the conference. We know that if we go 8-0 in SEC play, we will win the SEC East and play in the SEC Championship Game against the SEC West Champ for all of the marbles. No rankings, polls, computers, etc...just pure standings with legitimate tie-breakers in place to produce one and only one undisputed champion. No co-champs, no campaigning, etc. It wasn't always like this however. Prior to 1992, the SEC could have co-champions which I never liked.

[Blue Hen]

STANDINGS are always...always !....better than RANKINGS


....standings are non-voted, while rankings are opinionated. Big time CF will always be a 'mythical' sport as long as it's powered by opinions(rankings).

[GatorGrad]

I agree, Hen. But the trick is...how do you get a playoff based on nothing but true standings? In a 16-team format, you could have 11 conference champs based on standings and tie-breakers using whatever system the conference uses. But unless you have a playoff made up of conference champs only, which would be very unlikely, you still would likely have some "at large" berths based on some sort of rankings, polls, or committee selection...just like you have the committee select the at large berths in the basketball tournament, right?

Would using a subjective format to determine at large bids be OK with you as long as all conference champs (based on standings) were guaranteed a shot at a National Championship? In other words, every team would control their own destiny and know what has to be done to play for a National Title. But if you do not fulfill the requirement for guaranteeing yourself a shot (by winning your conference), you then have to rely on subjective methods. Would you be OK with this?

[CJHawkeyes]

I agree, Hen. But the trick is...how do you get a playoff based on nothing but true standings? In a 16-team format, you could have 11 conference champs based on standings and tie-breakers using whatever system the conference uses. But unless you have a playoff made up of conference champs only, which would be very unlikely, you still would likely have some "at large" berths based on some sort of rankings, polls, or committee selection...just like you have the committee select the at large berths in the basketball tournament, right?

Would using a subjective format to determine at large bids be OK with you as long as all conference champs (based on standings) were guaranteed a shot at a National Championship? In other words, every team would control their own destiny and know what has to be done to play for a National Title. But if you do not fulfill the requirement for guaranteeing yourself a shot (by winning your conference), you then have to rely on subjective methods. Would you be OK with this?


This goes against the point I'm trying to argue. The use of subjectivity is neither necessary nor okay. The results produced by my system can rightly be called standings or rankings. The words are interchangeable. The word "rankings" does not necessarily imply subjectivity. While I understand what Blue Hen means when he speaks out against rankings, relying on a system like mine is no different than relying on objectively determined standings because that is what they are. Last year, my system and the AP poll would have agreed on the same five at-large teams. The difference is that my system's results cannot disputed under its rules whereas polls have no actual rules and can produce different rankings given the same results.

[GatorGrad]

I would love to see an objective ranking system like yours in place.

Polls and computers are silly.

[CJHawkeyes]

I would love to see an objective ranking system like yours in place.

Polls and computers are silly.

Actually, my system would be called a computer ranking. All "computers" are objective ranking systems and I think whoever decided to called them computer rankings did them a great disservice. Of course, that doesn't mean some of them aren't silly.

[Blue Hen]

Standings, of course, would give us the 11 auto slots. The 5 'at large' entries would come from the selection committee. Put 6-8 honest, unbiased and knowledgeable people in a room for a day and they'll come up with 5 deserving teams. I'm confident of that. They may refer to records, polls, computer rankings or anything else in debating these 5 selections. This system generally works pretty good for all other NCAA championships.

[CJHawkeyes]

Standings, of course, would give us the 11 auto slots. The 5 'at large' entries would come from the selection committee. Put 6-8 honest, unbiased and knowledgeable people in a room for a day and they'll come up with 5 deserving teams. I'm confident of that. They may refer to records, polls, computer rankings or anything else in debating these 5 selections. This system generally works pretty good for all other NCAA championships.

This is probably the one issue we disagree on. I don't care how honest and knowledgeable a selection committee may be, the answers they provide are arbitrary and unaccountable and, as a result, render on-field results meaningless. There must be a fixed objective reason one team qualifies ahead of another. The absurdity of selection committees is that teams will win berths just because they have better advocates. Look at how much debate there was over Florida and Michigan last year. There is no doubt in my mind that each side would have adopted the other's arguments if the team's roles were reversed. I believe people are predisposed to favoring one team over another and adopt arguments that favor their chosen team, arguments they would oppose if they applied to the disfavored team. Throughout the short history of the BCS, fans and pundits alike have adopted arguments to fit the moment without regard to how they contradict arguments adopted in previous years. Subjectivity should have no bearing on the qualification process. Agreeing to an objective ranking system should be rather simple.

[GatorGrad]

I personally wouldn't have an issue with 5 at large bids being selected by a committee as long as the 11 other bids were based on standings via conference championships. At least no team in D1 could claim that they could not control their own destiny. If a team went unbeaten in conference play, they would get a shot at the national championship. Unless you're the Big Ten I guess where going 8-0 doesn't guarantee that you are the undisputed Big Ten Champ - they would need to have a tie-breaker in place if they didn't ever move to a 12-team league w/ CCG format. Although it might be a moot point if the team that misses out via tie-breaker ends up getting an at large bid anyways at 8-0, depending on their overall record.

But choosing the 5 other at large bids via a legitimate objective ranking system would be OK too. I guess the bottom line for me is, I don't really care how they select the other 5 teams as long as every team can control their own destiny where even if they don't have a strong schedule or they don't play in a tough conference, they would still get a chance to prove themselves at the end of the day if they do everything that is asked of them.

There should be news coming out of the SEC Meetings in Destin, FL soon. Dr. Machen was supposed to give his pitch today. I am interested to see what the reaction was.

[Blue Hen]

Oh sure, CJH, your completely objective system would be ideal. I'm just offering that NCAA selection committees have done pretty good jobs in college sports championships and would be acceptable to me. But again, I'm a fan of your system.

[Blue Hen]

You are for fairness and inclusion, GG. Very good.... not all that common a view for a Bogus Cartel Syndicate, mega power fan.

[GatorGrad]

You are for fairness and inclusion, GG. Very good.... not all that common a view for a Bogus Cartel Syndicate, mega power fan.

A certain someone on this board doesn't think so...

[Blue Hen]

He doesn't get that you actually agree with his idealism and the 'right thing' to do.

[yhcdawg]

If there ever was a playoff, polls and rankings should only serve as one tool for a human selection committee like they do in college basketball. And the committee should be made up of representatives from all across the nation and from every major conference. JMO...

BTW, I didn't read this entire thread so I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record right now. :)

[Blue Hen]

That approach has worked well for alll the other 'legitimate' college sports championships over the years. Don't see why it wouldn't work for 1A football.

[HellYeahHokie]

He doesn't get that you actually agree with his idealism and the 'right thing' to do.

He doesn't get a lot.

[GatorGrad]

Bad news...

I am hearing that our president's playoff push was shot down at the SEC Meetings today in Destin, FL, and that the SEC will not push for a playoff, but will try to push a "plus one" while keeping the BCS / Bowl system in place. Dr. Machen wanted to work on a system that would distribute revenue to all 119 Division I-A schools instead of keeping most of the money for the schools in the six BCS conferences. They shot that down. I wonder why. The word "money" comes to mind.

Seems like the best we can hope for at this point is that the "plus one" is a 4-team playoff matching up the top 4 BCS teams in two BCS Bowls, with the winners advancing to the title game. If it's just picking the "top two teams" after the BCS Bowls without matching up the top four, that doesn't solve anything and is not a real playoff. A 4-team plus one playoff wouldn't be ideal, I think we all agree on that. But I believe it would be a babystep in the right direction. Who knows - once everyone gets a taste of the mini playoff and sees the excitement and revenue that it brings, hopefully they will want more and it could possibly grow from there.

[Blue Hen]

I knew his ideas wouldn't go anywhere, but kudos to Dr. Machen for rocking the boat, a little. The concept of 'share' or 'equal opportunity', is repulsive to the 'chosen' leagues. The Post Season Exhibition Game system and the reality of greed will continue to dictate the post season. I invite everyone to turn their attention to the NCAA championship divisions of college football when December rolls around. These kids are playing for NCAA national championship trophies, not corn chip trophies ( although the corn chip and cell phone trophies come with a much bigger check ).

[GatorGrad]

The more I think of it, the more I think that you will someday see the BCS Conferences break away to form their own league of sorts with their own playoff, whether it be a 4 or 8 team deal. Unless the NCAA steps in and works some miracles.

[Blue Hen]

Really ? That's what the BCS leagues have been doing since 1998.....puting on their own little mythical championship, independent of the NCAA. Or, GG, are you talking complete secession from the NCAA ? That would never happen because of all the other NCAA sports that the FB Cartel participates in.

[GatorGrad]

Really ? That's what the BCS leagues have been doing since 1998.....puting on their own little mythical championship, independent of the NCAA. Or, GG, are you talking complete secession from the NCAA ? That would never happen because of all the other NCAA sports that the FB Cartel participates in.

Well this actually started in 1992 when the Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange started the Bowl Coalition / Bowl Alliance. It was pretty much the same deal as the BCS, except the Big Ten / PAC 10/ Rose Bowl did not participate. The goal was to match up the top two teams in a bowl which is more than what we used to have where the top two teams would usually never get to play. Say what you want about the current system, but at least they try to match up the top two teams unlike all of the years prior...although how they select these two teams is certainly up for debate. It took several years with teams like Penn State and Arizona State getting left out of the MNC Game before the Big Ten/PAC10/Rose finally gave in and joined what is now called the BCS in 1998. I wouldn't be surprised if they went to a 4-team playoff, if that same trio sat it out as the Rose Bowl has no interest in being a semi-final game. It would be a mess.

But to answer your question, I don't think that the BCS would leave the NCAA completely, but I could see them separating themselves even more by having their own playoff, scheduling games only againt each other, having their own bowls where nonBCS teams did not play in, etc. That sure seems to be the direction we are headed.