bcs championship

Yet Another Method Of Ranking Teams

By biakabutuka exp... — December 9th, 2012 at 2:02 AM — 10 comments
Filed under:

Intro

An idea has been nagging me for the last few weeks that goes like this: to say a team's goal is to win the game is needlessly over-specific. Any rational team’s goal is to have the lead all game. So every second you don’t have the lead is a failure to some degree. Not only that, but a measurable failure.

With this in mind, I was surprised that none of the computerized rankings sound like they take lead time into account. Sagarin, Massey, Colley, Wolfe and Harris don’t mention it on their sites. This fed my curiosity of whether it’s any good as a metric. For the record, I didn't seek out to prove anything. Most of all, I just wanted to take a look at the season through a different lens. With that said, onto the…

Data

I started with the 2012 per-drive data from cfbstats.com (H/T to mgousesr TSS for pointing me there), then calculated lead times in each game. Then I weighted those leads against the strength of the team the lead was against. I used my own results from the first calculation for the team strength metric, so that my results were not skewed in the slightest by anyone else’s formula. Then I weighted those results one more time for good measure, so opponents’ opponents are weighed in. The only factor considered is amount of time teams had the lead in games.

Charts

The Norm 1 (or normalized 1 time) ratings rank teams based on the amount of time they had a lead this season, nothing else. Norm 2 weights lead times against the Norm 1 rating of the opponent. Norm 3 weights lead times against the Norm 2 rating of the opponent.

The list, in three parts:

  

Top teams in graph form:

 

Some important notes with the data and/or formula

  • No 2-pt conversions or missed extra points are accounted for because the data I used doesn’t mention them. All touchdowns are assumed to be 7 points.
  • After calculating the running score in games, some of the outcomes of games were...off. Just a little bit. This is probably because of the last bullet.
  • Tie scores are ignored. I think it might be worth it to value them somehow, but I didn’t have time.
  • Because of the last caveat, a constantly tied slugfest is worth less than a back and forth game. This should only affect the kinds of teams that get into these kinds of games, i.e. the middling ones, but it still bothers me.
  • To add to the last point, I therefore believe the very best and very worst teams are ranked the most accurately
  • Overtime is ignored
  • Even with team weightings, you are rewarded slightly more for leading the whole game against #19 Utah State than for leading for half of the game against #1 Alabama.
  • You are rewarded more for giving away a game where you led all the way than for being on the other side of that.
  • Injuries that affect today’s team are not factored into yesterday’s results.
  • A strategy to wear other teams out may arguably be lead-agnostic early in the game. However, Oregon and Alabama are the kings of this strategy—in radically opposite ways no less—and they are the top two teams rated. So there’s that.

But anyway, onto…

Analysis

Well, the results are unique, that's for sure. But they're not exactly out of left field, either. And some of them are downright acceptable.

Surprise Bullets

  • Michigan: I have to admit, part of the reason I did this was to prove that Michigan is better than their record. This may still be true, but not according to my formula. Why would this be? It's simple, really. I've given them a lot of credit for playing top teams, but they rarely led in these games. Deep down, what's the difference between losing all game and never showing up? In regards to the Alabama game I can say not much. Furthermore, their most dominant performances came against the worst opponents on their schedule. That shouldn't be a surprise, but if it’s true, neither should the fact that they are properly rated. I am disappoint.
  • Oklahoma State: A 7-5 team that was competitive in every loss but one is my #6 team. I wonder if their fans and MSU’s fans have a support group, and if so, where would they find a couch.
  • Ole Miss: I barely noticed this team this year. I wonder how their fans feel about their season. They were 6-6 but they may be in for a bounce next year if nobody leaves.
  • Utah State: Holy crap did they ever have an under the radar season. But they do drop from #4 to #19 once you factor strength of schedule. Let’s not play these guys, you guys.

Not Surprise Bullets

  • Notre Dame is not the best team but they are good. They look better when the strength of opponent is factored in (#4 vs #8).
  • Ohio State is not an elite team. That's probably partly why Michigan played them so close. Like Notre Dame, the strength of opponents they led against does bump them up quite a bit (from #26 to #13).
  • Texas A&M beating Alabama is somewhat less of a surprise—they’re my #3 team.
  • Florida is overrated, said everyone ever until they beat Florida State. But guess who else is overrated? Florida State (their line happens to be one of the most interesting ones, though).
  • Michigan State is...marginally better than Michigan? Well, no one would be surprised if you had claimed this in August.
  • Stanford beat Oregon, had a tougher schedule, and won the Pac 12. So why do a lot of people just assume that Oregon is the better team? These results might explain why. Oregon was actually a lot more dominant all season, all else being equal. I mean if you don’t count all the stuff that counts.

Takeaways

  • Proving my assumptions about Notre Dame and Ohio State almost offsets the disappointment in not proving my assumptions about Michigan.
  • The championship game should probably be Oregon-Alabama, just like a lot of people assumed for most of the season. Go BCS.
  • In a 4-team playoff, Notre Dame and their undefeated record would deserve a shot. As would Texas A&M, owners of the best win by any team all season.
  • These results would be considerably more controversial if Georgia had defeated Alabama, or Michigan had eked out a 2011-esque win against Notre Dame. But none of this happened and maybe there’s a lesson in that.
  • I do think that completely removing wins and losses from the equation takes a little of the fun out of it. And it leads to teams with 6 wins being rated higher than BCS juggernauts…like Northern Illinois. But on the other hand, I don’t see why this metric couldn’t be used in unison with a few others in determining how dominant of a season a team had.
  • Vegas, which you may know is in the business of predicting games, would no doubt give less than ten points to Bama against Oregon, the current line against Notre Dame. Hey, if Vegas agrees with my relatively simple formula more than the one the big boys use, maybe my poll is better.**

Phew, sorry for the long post. If anyone’s interested, I would consider running this against previous seasons, and hopefully writing a lot less. I would also consider tweaking the formula if the improvements are obvious and consistently better.

 

* I can’t think of a good name for this. “Lead metric”?

** for the record, Vegas does disagree with some of my rankings. For example, in the bowl games Vegas favors Miss State over Northwestern and Stanford over Wisconsin. Could be because the Big Ten sucked and I didn’t weight the data properly. Also, I already warned you about middling teams. Ctrl-F it.

 

Minimum Playoff Size, Part III

By CRex — January 25th, 2012 at 6:44 PM — 22 comments
Filed under:

 

So here we go again, after Part 1 and Part 2.  Before I dive in to this, I just want to remind everyone the point of this exercise.
 
At the end of the regular season, where can we split away the first group of teams and say "Everyone in this group is better than everyone else".  This allows us to figure out the minimum size of a college football playoff that would leave us with no teams who could complain about being excluded.
 
My work from the first two parts (which takes us up through 2005)  suggested that we've yet to exceed 4 teams.    
 
As we move forward I'm curious to see if the elite category always stays under 4, or if it exceeds it.  
 
 
2006/2007 BCS
Championship Game: #2 Florida blows out #1 Ohio State
 
Who Else Had A Claim:
 
Ohio State:  Ohio State finishes off the year undefeated, complete with defeating #2 Texas and then later #2 Michigan.  They also defeat #13 Iowa.   An undefeated season in which you defeat the #2 twice is a great resume.  
 
Florida:  Florida sufers a 10 point loss to #11 Auburn in mid October.  However they defeat #13 Tenn, #9 LSU, #25 Georgia, and #8 Arkansas.  4-1 vs ranked teams is a good record and in hindsight their defeat over tOSU proves they were an elite team.
 
ACC:  Wake Forest wins the ACC this year.  Their resume features them going 2-2 vs ranked teams (lost to #12 Clemson and #19 VT, beats #22 Georgia Tech and #16 BC).  They'd go to lose the Orange Bowl to #6 Louisville.  While Wake Forest offers a decent resume, they don't really stand out.  
 
Big 12:  Oklahoma started out the season struggling to beat UAB (24-7) which dropped them 5 spots in the polls.  They go on to lose to #18 Oregon by one point in Autzen and lose by 14 points to #7 Texas in the Cotton Bowl.  After that they go on to defeat #23 Missouri, #21 Texas A&M, and #18 Nebraska.  So they come out of regular season at 3-2 against ranked teams and no wins over a top 15 program.  Oklahoma reverts to early season form in their bowl and loses to Boise.  
 
Big East:  The Big East is actually decent this year.  Schiano actually looks like a real coach at Rutgers, WVU is humming along, and Lousville under Petrino wins the Big East.  Louisville defeats #15 Miami and #3 WVU but loses to #14 Rugters by three points.  What really hurts Lousville here is that aside from WVU, Rutgers, and Miami, their next best win was over a KSU team that went 7-6.  Losing to Rutgers is hard to recover from due to the weak overall schedule.  
 
Pac:  USC is its normal efficient self in terms of taking care of business, #19 Nebraska #20 Oregon, #17 California, #6 Notre Dame all fall to the Trojans.  However USC appears to forget it has games against Oregon State and UCLA, losing to both squads.  Oregon State does end up ranky #21 (10-4 record) but UCLA remains unranked and finishes up 7-6.  So when the dust settles USC is 4-1 versus ranked teams with an odd loss to UCLA haunting them.
 
Independents:  I'll mention Notre Dame since they were BCS eligible.  They end up 10-2.  Their failure is a weak schedule and the fact they're 1-2 vs ranked teams.  Michigan and USC both crush them.  They do blow out #19 PSU though 41 to 17.  That is the second week of the season though and PSU finishes off 9-4 and ranked #25.  A losing record against ranked teams does not make you elite, no matter how hard you kick Army's ass.
 
MWC:  BYU is undefeated in the MWC and goes 11-2 overall.  Their two losses are to an unranked Arizona outfit and #25 BC.  They do defeat #15 TCU.  Not good enough.
 
WAC:  Boise runs the table to turn in an undefeated season.  Their key problem is they do not play a ranked team.  They do however defeat Oregon State in Week 2 and Oregon State ends the year ranked.  Boise suffers from the fact that aside from Oregon State they only play a bunch of MWC and WAC teams.  Undefeated loses some of its cachet when you consider the quality of the teams on the field.  
 
The Verdict on 2006/2007:
 
This is a year I find hard to really make a call on.  Ohio State went undefeated so they're in.  Florida has a really impressive resume.  On the other hand Boise has the whole "Hey we went undefeated" argument, but was hamstrung by a crap schedule and their only ranked win is Oregon State (who was not a good team early in the year and didn't really start looking like a ranked outfit until after they played Boise).  
 
I'm going to be generous though and say this year you need a five team playoff field of OSU, Florida, Louisville, Boise, and USC to really settle it.  OSU and Florida are clearly the big dogs on the block.  However Lousville and Boise look legit but suffer from a lack of chances to prove themselves due to their weak conferences.  USC also gets a nod due to their wins over ranked teams.  Wake Forest would make a decent #6.
 
All that being said, I don't think anyone has the right to complain about Florida getting the coaches trophy.  Still though this year I'll say 5 as the final verdict.  
 
I still love you Crable, really.  
 
2007/2008 BCS:
 
Championship Game:#2 LSU defeats #1 Ohio State 
 
Who Else Had A Claim:
LSU:  LSU finishes off the season 11-2.  They drop games to #18 Kentucky (how on earth did Kentucky get ranked..?) and unranked Arkansas.  They defeat #9 VT, #14 USC, #7 Florida, #19 Auburn, and #15 Tenn.  That's an impressive set of wins to make you forget the fact they lost two games.
 
Ohio State:  Ohio State almost runs the table.  Only on 10 Nov they lose to an unranked Illinois team by 7 points in Columbus.  Beside that Ohio State defeats #20 Purdue, #25 PSU, #19 Wisconsin, and #23 Michigan.  That's decent, but not great in that tOSU never plays a team in the top 15.
 
ACC:  Virginia Tech loses early to #2 LSU (actually they're blown out and lose by 41 points).  They also lose by 4 points to #2 BC on 25 October.  In the ACC Championship game though they defeat now #12 BC by 14 points.  Along the way they also defeat #22 Clemson and #16 Virginia.  They're kind of like the diet version of Ohio State, they just lose to LSU in Sept instead of January.
 
Big 12: Missouri almost makes a strong case for a bid at the national championship.  They defeat #25 Nebraska, #22 Texas Tech, and #2 Kansas.  They lose to Oklahoma twice though an fail to win the B12.  Oklahoma defeats #16 Texas, #11 Missouri, and #1 Missouri but loses to unranked Colorado and Texas Tech.  All Missouri had to do ws beat Oklahoma in the B12 Title Game (Mizzou was ranked #1), but they didn't.  So the B12 fails to produce a conference champ worthy of consideration.
 
Big East:  WVU finishes up 11-2, but drops games against #18 South Florida and an unranked Pitt.  They defeat #25 Rutgers, #21 Cincinnati, and #20 Connecticut.  WVU appears comparable to VT.  
 
PAC: USC seems to have settle in comfortable with the whole "loses two games every season" thing.  They lose to unranked Stanford and #5 Oregon.  They defeat #14 Nebraska, #24 California, and #6 Arizona State. USC is LSU with fewer wins over ranked teams.  
 
Independents:  Notre Dame is 3-9.  Returning to Glory though.  
 
MWC: BYU goes 11-2 again.  They defeat an unranked Arizona, but drop games to Tulsa and UCLA.  They do not defeat a ranked opponent.  No sale.
 
WAC:  Hawaii finishes off the season undefeated.  However their own win worth talking about is when they beat #19 Boise by 12 points.  They also need overtime to handle Lousiana Tech and San Jose State.  Boise meanwhile isn't that great of a win considering they didn't beat anyone all year.  They lost to Washington and needed four overtimes to beat Nevada.  
 
The Verdict on 2007/2008:
The BCS conferences fail to produce any undefeated teams this year and that's a problem.  Everyone manages to slip up against an unranked team.  Hawaii is undefeated, but really they're only undefeated at punching small children and taking their candy.  
 
When you compare say Ohio State, USC, VT, and WVU they're all fairly similiar teams.  This year you could seed up a nice 6 team playoff with LSU, Ohio State, USC, VT, WVU, and Hawaii.  Although if Missouri had won out, you'd have a possible 7 teams in play (or you could go punt Hawaii back to the sandbox and let them punch toddlers some more).
 
More Crable
 
2008/2009 BCS:
Championship Game: #2 Florida defeats #1 Oklahoma
 
Who Else Had A Claim:
 
Oklahoma exits the regular season with on a single losss, to #5 Texas.  They defeat #23 TCU, #16 Kansas, #2 Texas Texas, #12 Oklahoma State, and #17 Missouri.  That's a nice resume right here.
 
Florida loses by a single point to Ole Miss early in the year.  They go on to defeat #3 LSU, #8 Georgia, #23 South Carolina, #24 Florida State, and #1 Alabama.  Also a very nice resume.
 
ACC:  Virginia Tech loses 4 times in the regular season, three times at the hands of unranked teams.  Yeah that's just not going to cut it.  Next!
 
Big East:  Cincinnati loses to Oklahoma by 26 points early in the year.  They also fall to unranked Connecticut.  They beat #23 South Florida, #20 WVU, and #20 Pitt.  It's a decent season, but it isn't equal to Florida and Oklahoma.
 
Big 10:  So many repressed memories.  Anyway Penn State wins the conference with one loss to unranked Iowa.  They defeat #21 Illinois, #24 Wisconsin, #10 Ohio State, and #15 Michigan State.  They have a resume that is almost comparable to Florida in that they both lost to an unranked team.  Florida though beat a lot better quality of ranked teams that PSU did.
 
PAC: USC slips early against unranked Oregon State.  They defeat #5 Ohio Sate, #23 Oregon, and #21 Cal.  It's a decent resume but not great.
 
Independents:  Notre Dame is 8-5. Nope.
 
MWC:  Utah is undefeated.  They defeat #24 Michigan and this turns out not to be all that hard to do (we do not *loads shotgun* finish the season *places shotgun under his chin* ranked *blam*).  They also defeat #11 TCU and #14 BYU.  In the Sugar Bowl they prove themselves legit when they defeat #4 Alabama.  
 
WAC: Boise finishes up the year with an undefeated season and a win over #12 Oregon.  They go on to lose to TCU in a bowl.  
 
The Verdict on 2008/2009:
 
The issue is the undefeated MWC and WAC teams mess this all up.  Subtract them out and you can say Oklahoma and Florida were definitely the best.  PSU is about half a step back due to the lesser quality of their ranked wins.  USC is right behind PSU.  The issue though is if you do that, you end up leaving two undefeated teams out in the cold.
 
On the other hand if you let the MWC and WAC in, you have to let PSU and USC in.  Yes those last two have loses, but they have more ranked wins than the MWC and WAC champs.  So this year you need 6 again:
Florida, Oklahoma, PSU, USC, Boise, and Utah.  
 
Kittens :(
 
2009/2010 BCS
 
Championship Game: #1 Alabama defeats #2 Texas
 
Who Else Had A Claim:
 
Texas finishes the season undefeated, although they only do play three ranked teams.  Still if you make it out the B12 undefeated, you deserve consideration.
 
Alabama makes it out of the SEC undefeated.  They're in.
 
ACC:  10-3 Georgia Tech fails to win the conference, falling to 9-5 Clemson in the ACC Title Game.  Clemson ends up vacating the game though.  Either way neither Clemson nor GT compares to Texas or Alabama.
 
Big East: Cincinnati gets in on the undefeated action, with wins over three ranked teams along the way (#21, #23, and #25).  Undefeated is nice, but they did have a soft schedule.  Also Florida beats them by 27 points in the the Sugar Bowl (although to be fair, Kelly had left for Notre Dame prior to the bowl).
 
Big Ten:  Ohio State wins the Big Ten but loses to #3 USC and unranked Purdue along the way.  They defeat #11 Penn State and #15 Iowa.  That's good, but it isn't a top shelf resume.
 
Pac 10:  Oregon wins the PAC10.  They beat  #18 Utah, #6 Cal, #4 USC, and #13 Oregon State.  Thety lose to #14 Boise and unranked Stanford.  
 
MWC:  TCU finishes out undefeated, defeating #16 BYU and #16 Utah along the way.  
 
WAC:  Boise finishes out undefeated.  The only ranked team they defeat is Oregon on opening day.  
 
The Verdict on 2009/2010:
 
Well this is easy.  5.  We have 5 undefeated teams and all of them defeated at least one ranked team.  Ohio State and Oregon can go argue over who deserved the #6 seed, although I'd say OSU since Oregon had already managed to lose to Boise.
 
You still lost dumbass.
 
2010/2011 BCS
 
Championship Game: #1 Auburn defeats #2 Oregon
 
Who Else Had a Claim:
 
Auburn is undefeated out of the SEC.  That gets you in.
 
Oregon is undefeated out of the PAC10, that also gets you in.
 
ACC:  VT wins the ACC with two losses.  #5 Boise State and FCS level James Madison.  No, just no.  
 
B12: Oklahoma wins the conference, but loses to #16 Missouri and unranked Texas A&M along the way.  So no dice considering we have undefeated teams in play.
 
Big East:  No team in the Big East finishes the season ranked or with fewer than 4 losses.  So no.
 
Big Ten:  Three way tie with MSU, Wisconsin, and Ohio State.  Ohio State goes 12-1 but of course ends up vacating everything except their loss to #18 Wisconsin.  Wisconsin loses to MSU but beats Ohio State and gets to go to the Rose Bowl.  Sparty loses to Iowa and gets the Capitol One Bowl.   With undefeated teams in play, this isn't good enough.
 
MWC:  TCU finishes out undefeated as well.  Defeats  #24 Oregon State and #6 Utah in the regular season.  They also defeat #4 Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl.
 
WAC:  Nevada finishes 12-1 with a lone loss to Hawaii.  With undefeated teams in play, this isn't enough.  
 
The Verdict on 2010/2011: 
 
Three.  The undefeateds:  Auburn, Oregon, and TCU.  Wisconsin makes a nice 4th in a four team playoff system.
 
That smile says it all.
 
2011/2012 BCS
 
Championship Game: #2 Alabama defeats #1 LSU
 
Who Else Had A Claim:
 
#1 LSU:  Undefeated.  Looks good.
 
#2 Abalama:  Did not win their conference. Did not win their division.  Did with the national championship.  How on earth does that one work...?  So no.  You want to play for the crystal ball, win your conference.
 
ACC:  If Virginia Tech managed to beat Clemson, they'd come out of the ACC undefeated and have a legit shot at preventing the LSU vs 'Bama rematch.  Instead they let a three loss Clemson win the ACC.  Clemson of course gets beat so badly by WVU you'd think General Grant was leading the Mountaineers.
 
Big12: Oklahoma State defeats #8 Texas A&M, #21 Texas, #19 Kansas State, and #11 Oklahoma but trips up against unranked Iowa State.  Still though unlike Bama they won their division and their conference.
 
Big East:  WVU finishes the season with three losses, included getting their ass kicked by LSU.  They beat #23 Cincinnati for their only ranked win.  Not good enough.
 
Big 10:  Wisconsin removed themselves from consideration when an unranked Ohio State team defeats them.  They also go 1-1 vs Sparty.  Sparty loses to Notre Dame and Nebraska in the regular season and earns themselves another trip to a non BCS Bowl.  
 
PAC:  The PAC is a mess.  Stanford and Oregon both finish off the season 8-1 in conference play.  Oregon beats Stanford, but loses to USC.  They also lost to USC.  They defeat UCLA in a gimped championship game (USC cannot attend due to sanctions) and win the Rose Bowl.
 
MWC:  TCU finishes of with two losses.  To Baylor and SMU, so they're out.
 
WAC:  Boise is now in the MWC.  The WAC no longer matters.  
 
The Verdict For 2011/2012:
 
I'd say two for this year.  LSU and Oklahoma State.  If we're doing a 4 team playoff you can toss Wisconsin and Oregon in.  Stanford and Alabama can go play in the "Did not win division or conference Bowl".  The winner can go on to play Sparty for offseason whining rights.
 
 
The Mininum Numbers Upon Review:
  • 1998: 4 
  • 1999: 2 
  • 2000: 4 
  • 2001: 4 
  • 2002: 2 
  • 2003: 3 
  • 2004: 3 
  • 2005: 2 
  • 2006: 5
  • 2007: 6
  • 2008: 6
  • 2009: 5
  • 2010: 3
  • 2011: 2
Some Thoughts:
 
You have to win you conferece...I strongly advocate this rule for a couple of reasons.  First off we're going to have issues pushing through too large of a playoff bracket.  The current cluster of bowls are against a playoff as it threatens their revenue stream.  The bigger a playoff is, the more is weakens the bowls since it means they'll have fewer good teams to pick from.  Let the bowls have teams like 2011 Michigan, 2011 Alabama, and 2011 Stanford as a way of placating them.  
 
Secondly by requiring to win your conference we make the title games the de facto first round of the playoffs.  It becomes a specialized round in which you are required to remove any sibling who might be a threat to you.  It becomes kind of a unique aspect of the playoff in that you always get seeded against your sibling challenger first.  Of course the B12 needs to get back up to 12 teams and stop with their round robin play for the field to be 100% even in this regard.  
 
4 teams playoff...This system works well enough for 10 out of 14 years.  In those 10 years, if you select 4 teams there is not a team left out of the playoffs who can say "I have a resume equal to the #1 seed".  There can be some quibbling over who got the #4 (and maybe #3) bid, but you can definitiely say anyone complaining is lesser than #1 and #2.  For example see 2002 and 2005.
 
6 team playoff...This system is needed for 4 out of 14 years.  It also has value in years like 2002 and 2005 where it would let you bring along more teams and avoid disputes who gets the lower seeds.  
 
4 vs 6...Here I think is where it gets interesting.  Consider the teams who broke the BCS.  TCU, Boise, and Utah (Hawaii also gets an honorable mention.).  It's rare to have all 6 BCS conferences produce elite winners, instead 2 to 4 BCS conferences product elite talent and then the MWC/WAC contributed teams that break a 4 team system.  TCU is now in the B12 (and before that were headed for the Big East).  Boise is headed for the Big East.  Utah is in the PAC.  Hawaii meanwhile lost their coach, appears to have ties to the Hawaiian Mafia and has fallen off.  
 
In the independent ranks, BYU and Notre Dame might one day built themselves in to the next BCS Busters, however the B12 could absorb BYU and there are a few landing spots for Notre Dame.
 
Houston also started to put to together some scary offenses, but found themselves raided for talent (Holgorsen, Sumlin come from there).  Tulsa also started to build itself up a bit, but Graham was lured away.   
 
Meanwhile Lousville and Cincinnati have degraded, so Boise moving in to the Big East is a good thing.  So I think with 4 vs 6 it comes down to the question of if you believe college football is getting better or just has peaks and valleys.
 
If you feel that college football is getting better across the board then you likely prefer a 6 team playoff (or maybe more) since you figure that years like 1999 and 2000 when you'd have to let in weak teams to get to six are now a thing of the past.
 
On the other hand if you figure that it is a normal cycle of life for some teams to get good while others fall (rise of Boise, Utah, and TCU while Cincinnati and Boise fall), then perhaps 4 is more appealing.  Yes you'd have years when you'd have a problem, but that problem is self correcting in that the weaker conferences will be raided and create room for the rising powers to upgrade their lot in life.
 
Personally I come away from this view with the view that:
  • 4 is enough for now (given the MWC and WAC just got raided)
  • B12 needs to get up to 12 teams

At this point we'd have 6 BCS conferences with at least 12 teams and each conference having a title game.  That leaves you at the end of the regular season with 6 conference championships and history suggests that normally at least 2 of the confereces will have be having off years and can be eliminated via polls.  As I mention above this also makes the conference championship games a round of the playoffs. It as also makes the regular matter.  Consider the years when a 4 loss team won the Big East.  I don't really feel they should have a shot at the national championship.  So discarding teams like that ensures that no one will slack off in the regular season.  Also if conference winners autobid in, it creates scenarios where you pull your starters when playing teams that aren't in your division, since all you care about during the regular season is winning your division.  

The 4 team playoff becomes this weird animal where up to 12 teams can have a shot at the playoffs going in to the title game weekend (assuming B12 gets back to 12).  6 will lose and go off to bowls.  2 will be eliminate by polls and go off to bowls.  

History shows that all 6 BCS conferences rarely produce elite teams at the same time.  To get to six elite teams for a playoff you need the MWC and WAC producing talent.  Those conferences have just been raided (either for coaches or for entire programs) and it seems unlikely we'll see elite talent from the non-BCS conferences for a time period.  So if we're seeding 6 every year, we run the risk of having to seed really unworthy teams for #5 and #6.  

Basically 4 means you're killing two teams via poll voting and that can at times present problems.  6 teams means you're letting inferior teams many years, but avoiding having the polls as the headsman.  

One other comment...if you let all conference champs always get into the playoffs... Giving any conference an autobid to the playoffs is bad for the regular season.  Consider the following scenario.  Michigan and Ohio State have both won their divisions and are about to play The Game (as in 2006).  This means they will meet in the conference championship game no matter what happens in The Game.  

If the conference champ of the B1G automatically makes the playoffs, you have a massive incentive to sandbag The Game.  You want to the win the B1G Title Game, The Game is meaningless.  You actually have an incentive to hide your playbook (since you're playing again next week) and pull players to avoid an injury.  #1 OSU vs #2 Michigan is a lot less epic since the coaches care more about winning the following week.  If Michigan loses The Game, but beats OSU in the Title Game and goes on to the playoffs we'd be a lot happier than if the opposite outcome happened.  

If only 4 out of the 6 BCS Conference champs make it to the next level though that changes.  Now you not only have to win your conference but also put together a resume that beats at least of the other conference champs.  So then going 2-0 against Ohio State becomes more important.    

In Closing

Whew, it is finally done...

I walk away from this really feeling like we're in a situation where we can move forward logically.  If you simply average the numbers for each year, you come up with a 4 team playoff working just fine.

However that ignores the fact that in recent years we had some seasons where 5 and 6 team playoffs were needed.  On the other hand, the BCS conferences raiding the MWC and WAC may have put an end to that trend.  

As it stands I would consider the logical action to be pushing for a 4 team system to be ready to go when the BCS expires.  Install that system for a time period and then watch to if programs arise out of the MWC, WAC, and C-USA.  If they do, when the 4 team expires, consider moving to a 6 team system.  

Minimum Playoff Size Need, Part II

By CRex — January 19th, 2012 at 5:39 PM — 11 comments
Filed under:

 

After doing the first four years of this I took a break, but I've finally returned to it.  

To start this one off I want to discuss my purpose and process for a moment.  This is not a pure numbers survey, that's the bailiwick of The Mathlete.  My goal is to approach the championship saying "What are the fewest teams that have a resume that entitles them to have a shot at the national championship?".  So my human bias as an author does creep in.  

One thing I want to stress, if I'm trying to do this from a need based approached.  What is the minimum number of teams we need.  Where can we draw a line and say: Everyone on one side of this line has a resume weaker than the people on the other side.  Not what we as fans want to see.  Basically if at the end of the season we do resume voting for just that season, how many teams took care of business in the regular season and should have a shot at holding the crystal ball.  

To recap the results from last time, I found the people on the stronger side of the line was:

  • 1998: 4 teams
  • 1999: 2 teams
  • 2000: 4 teams
  • 2001: 4 teams

From that review I suggested that a four team playoff looks like the minimum you need.  I did not find a season where you had a 5th team with a resume that made them worthy (although we come close in 1998 with A&M).  I also did not find a season where you'd have trouble finding 4 teams to round the playoff out (although 1999 comes close when you have to settle for two loss Wisconsin or Alabama as the 4th, both teams choked on a cupcake and the #3 team only has one loss). 

From the above as I go I'm using the hypothesis that:  "In any given season you can eliminate two of the six auto qualifying conference champs and have a nice four team field."  As I go forward I'll see if this gets supported or rejected and what the rising strength of the MWC does to this (because then I'm looking at rejecting 3 from 7 instead of 2 from 6).  At least Notre Dame always sucks, so I don't have to worry about them.

2002/2003 BCS:

 

Championship Game: #2 Ohio State defeats #1 Miami

Who Else Had A Claim:

Miami: Finishes the season 12-0.  So they are undefeated and get the immunity idol.  Miami beats two ranked teams in conference play and two ranked teams in OOC play (FSU and Florida).  That's a nice schedule and they come out undefeated.  

Ohio State: Undefeated as well.  They defeat one ranked team in OOC play (Washington State) and three ranked Big Ten teams.  

ACC:  Maryland finishes ranked #13 and 11-3.  The lose to ranked FSU teams and lose to an unranked Notre Dame squad in their season opener.  That Notre Dame squad though finishes 10-3/#17 though.  Florida State actually wins the division despite being 9-4.  FSU goes 7-1 in division play (losing to NC State).  Three of FSU's four losses are to good teams (Miami, ND, and NC State).  NC State also finishes the season 11-3 and ranked, with losses too Georgia Tech, Maryland, and Virginia.  

I can't really see arguing how anything out of this mess of teams has a resume to compete with a pair  of undefeated conference champs.  So I'm discarding the ACC 

Big 12:  Oklahoma finishes off the season 11-2 and wins the B12.  They get five ranked wins over four teams (had to play Colorado twice) and losses to A&M and OSU.  Some years this would be enough, but not in a year with two undefeated teams that each have four ranked wins.

PAC10: A 10-2 WSU and a 10-2 USC end up at the top of the conference.  USC loses to WSU and a ranked KSU early in the year.  WSU loses to Ohio State, Washington and then gets defeated by OU in the Rose Bowl.  The PAC10 is like the ACC, where multiple teams had a chance to seize the day, win out, and finish the season with a good resume.  They did't though.  

SEC: Georgia wins the SEC, but a lose in Nov to #22 Florida robs them of an undefeated season.  They end the season with four wins over ranked teams and defeat FSU in the Sugar Bowl for a fifth ranked win.

Independents/MWC:  TCU and ND have decent years.  The Domers beat four ranked teams but do trip against Boston College and lose to USC.  TCU destroys almost everything in its path, but chokes on San Jose State (and loses its bowl game to Southern Mississippi).  TCU's weak MWC schedule definitely haunts them here, along with the fact that two other teams go undefeated.

The Verdict on 2002:

This could have been an ugly year for selection.  Maryland, FSU, NC State, OU, USC, Georgia, Washington State, Notre Dame, and maybe even TCU all end the season a couple of scores away from having the resume needed to play in the BCS Title Game.

The BCS is saved from too much controversy thanks to Miami and tOSU finishing out with four ranked wins each and no losses.  Had either of those teams lost, then Georgia has a claim.  In a four team system that would leave OU and Washington State with about equal claim to the fourth game.  Notre Dame is right behind them (although through the transitive property WSU > ND).  I'd  also imagine some people making a case for the one loss TCU, but they do lack ranked wins.  

This is a results based system though, so I'd say the final ruling is two teams.

MC

Nice ink Maurice.

 

2003/2004 BCS:

Championship Game: #2 LSU defeats #1 Oklahoma 

Note:  This was the year the AP gave the title to USC and the 21-14 snoozefest of LSU vs OU.

Who Else Had A Claim:

Oklahoma:  Didn't actually have a claim.  They didn't win their conference.  They defeat three ranked teams in conference play, but lose to #12 KSU in the title game (KSU 35, OU 7).  If you don't win your conference, you don't play for the national title.  So OU is gone.

LSU: Defeats 4 ranked teams, but losses by 12 points to an unranked Florida team.  Florida ends 8-5 and ranked at the end of the season, so that doesn't look too bad.  Winning the SEC and only have one loss is fairly good, but lets see if anyone has anything better:

ACC:  Florida State loses to a ranked Miami team (twice, they had to play them in their OOC schedule and in the Orange Bowl, urgh).  FSU also loses to Clemson by 16 points (Clemson ends the year ranked).  The following week they need 2 OTs to beat NC State (who finishes 8-5 and unranked).  FSU's only ranked win is over Florida.  FSU also beats Maryland early in the season before Maryland is ranked (Maryland finishes 10-3).  So FSU finishes with two losses, but they do beat the team that beats LSU.  Lets see what other conferences have to offer in their champion.

B12:  A three loss KSU (complete with a loss to Marshall) beats OU down in the championship and wins the conference.  But two of KSU's three losses are to unranked teams.  Their third is to a ranked Texas outfit.  They also beat ranked Nebraska and OU.  What else do we have.

Big East: Miami finishes the season with losses to Tennessee (10-3, #15) and and Virginia Tech (8-5).  They do beat Florida who in turn had beaten LSU.  

Big Ten:  Michigan finishes off the year with two loses.  A four point loss to Oregon and a three point loss to Iowa.  We defeat five ranked teams and then lose by two scores to USC.  A 10-2 Ohio State finishes off the season ranked ahead of us, but we beat them so we have the tie breaker.  As a side note I still remember chanting: "Capitol One Bowl!" at the tOSU fans as they left.  Anyway Michigan finishes with two losses to ranked teams (although Oregon does not finish the reason ranked) and wins over five ranked teams (although by the end of the year MSU was not ranked).  

PAC10: USC is a soulless killing machine, aside from Cal.  They lose to Cal early in the season (in triple OT).  Their biggest problem is a weak schedule.  Their ranked games are Auburn and Washington State.  Plus of course a two touchdown victory over a Michigan in the Rose Bowl.  

Independents/MWC:  A two loss Utah.  They lost to Texas A&M and New Mexico State.  They defeat a ranked Oregon (Oregon does not finished ranked).  Considering the resumes of the other conference champions, I'm not really high on Utah.

The Verdict on 2003:  

This whole season is a mess.  LSU has the strongest resume, but it really doesn't separate them from the pack.  After them you have a mess of teams like USC with only one loss, but only two ranked victories.  Then there is Michigan at two losses but more ranked victories.  Miami, KSU, and FSU all have slightly weaker resumes in terms of ranked teams defeated, but they aren't terrible.  

This is definitely a season where people with different criteria will select different teams.  Personally I'd say three teams have legit claims: LSU, Michigan, and USC.  

This is why MSU didn't finish the season ranked.

2004/2005 BCS: 

Championship Game: #1 USC defeats #2 Oklahoma (vacated)

Who Else Had A Claim:

USC:  Undefeated, soulless killing machine yet again.  Solid resume.  No issues with their selection.

OU: Undefeated manages to win their division this year.  Solid resume.  They're in.  

Note:  The Big East gets much less impressive starting this year, due to the good teams bailing to the ACC.

ACC:  Virginia Tech finishes off the season 10-2.  They open the season against USC and only loss by a single touchdown.  They also lose by one point to an unranked NC State team (who finishes 5-6).  They defeat ranked WVU, Virginia, and Maryland teams.  They lose to Auburn by 3 in their bowl game.  A solid showing all around, although two loses are not so good when you have multiple undefeated teams in play.  

Big East:  Four conference co-champions.  Including a 6-6 Syracuse (4-2 in conference play) team.  I'm sorry but when a 6-6 is conference co-champ, no.  Just no.  (9-3 Boston College is the best of the lot).

Big Ten:  Michigan finishes off 10-2.  Losses to Notre Dame (who goes 6-6) and to Ohio State (who finishes up ranked but 8-4 overall).  When we play them Purdue and Minnesota are ranked, but they do not finish the season ranked.  We defeat an unranked Iowa who does finish the season ranked.  Michigan losses to Texas by one point.  We're in the same boat as Virginia Tech.  

SEC:  Auburn is undefeated.  They beat four ranked teams in the regular season and a fifth in their bowl.  All ranked teams are in the Top 15.  

Independent/MWC:  Utah is undefeated.  They do not play a ranked team.  

The Verdict on 2004:  

If you had just two undefeated teams, this would be easy and a year you only need two to settle it all up.  As it stands you have a clear Top 3 of USC, OU, and Auburn.  following them up you have Utah (Point: They are undefeated.  Counterpoint:  They played a shit schedule) and the two loss ACC and B10 teams (Point: Stronger schedule than Utah.  Counterpoint: Two losses a piece).

So I'm calling three as the final verdict here in terms of where I can draw the line of "everyone after this line has a weaker resume".    

Any excuse to link to Marlin Jackson

 

2005/2006 BCS

Championship Game: Texas defeats USC

Note: USC's official record for this is now 0-1.  Alabama also gets itself in trouble and now as a record of 0-2.  Ah vacated wins…  

Who Else Had A Claim:

USC:  Soulless killing machine.  Defeats 5 ranked teams.  Undefeated.  Legit claim.

Texas: Undefeated.  Defeats 3 ranked teams.  Legit claim.

ACC:  A four loss FSU team wins the ACC championship game.  Had VT taken care of business a 10-1 VT team would have emerged from the ACC as the victor.  Instead a four loss team does.  No sale on FSU.

Big East:  WVU is in fine form with a special someone at the helm.  They lose to Virginia Tech early in the season (who finishes out 11-2 for the year).  WVU suffers from three issues.  First they start the season unranked.  Secondly they lose a game early on, which means they are not ranked until the first weak of November.  Finally the only ranked team they play is Louisville.  They defeat Georgia in their bowl by three points.  

Big Ten:  Penn State finishes off 11-1.  So close, yet so far.  They defeat three ranked teams but loss to an unranked Michigan team (who finishes up 7-5).  Thank you Super Mario.  

SEC:  Georgia wins the SEC with two losses.  Both were to ranked teams.  Georgia defeats four ranked teams.  As a side note, had LSU won the SEC Title game, LSU would have come out of the SEC with only one loss and wins over four ranked teams.  

Independent/MWC:  TCU opens the season strong with a win over ranked Oklahoma.  They then lose to SMU the following week.  They play no one else who is ranked and finish off the season with a three point win over Iowa State in their bowl.  

The Verdict on 2005:

Once again the BCS benefits from the fact only two teams went undefeated.  You have someone drop a game here or there and suddenly selection gets really ugly really fast.

Final verdict is two.

Super Mario

Super Mario

The Summary So Far:

  • 1998: 4 teams
  • 1999: 2 teams
  • 2000: 4 teams
  • 2001: 4 teams
  • 2002: 2 teams
  • 2003: 3 teams
  • 2004: 3 teams
  • 2005: 2 teams

 

It appears every year you never have more four conference champions who cannot be separated from the others by the virtue of their resume.  It so far you can throw out at least 3 of the 7 (counting the MWC).

What is different in this set of years though is when we have three teams there is now a problem selecting a fourth.  In 2003 there is three times basically tied for fourth.  The same in 2004.  In 2002 and 2005, had one of the undefeated teams lost, a can of worms also would have been opened.

If we have a 4 team playoff:

In 2002 and 2005 there are multiple teams who can point to the teams that got the #3 and #4 seeds and complain they are equal to thos eteams. In 2003 and 2004 there are multiple teams who can point to the team that got the #4 seed and complain. 

If you want complete fairness you go with a 6 team playoff to avoid this.  The other possible response is to say to WVU:  "Why yes you are comparable to PSU/Georgia  However your resume is not comparable to  that of USC or Texas. If you wanted to avoid getting screwed by the polls, go undefeated like Texas/USC did."  It all depends on what you like.  

If you go with a 6 team playoff:  

This era (2002 through 2005) goes a lot smoother.  However…

In 1999/2000 you're letting in two loss teams from the Big Ten and SEC as your 4 and 5 seeds.  Your sixth seed is likely #10 Marshall, the undefeated MAC champion (Stanford wins the PAC with 4 losses).  In 2000/2001 you're letting less three loss teams from the Big Ten and SEC in to your playoff.  Ugh. (Or you're recycling teams who game in second in their conference.)

If you go above 6:

You're likely letting all those teams who choked in their conference championship back in.  There aren't enough quality opponents coming out of the smaller conferences to really flush out a bracket, so some teams are getting a second shot.  At that point we're not allowed to be outraged about Alabama getting a do over, but we can be outraged about not getting a do over against tOSU.  Pick your poison on that one.  

Also the 1999/20001 bracket and 2000/2001 brackets would look terrible.  

Closing Up:

I still have 2006 to the present to go, but so far is is what I'm seeing from the review:

A 4 team system works better for the first four years.  It keeps you from having to seeding pretty bad teams into the playoff or seeding in people who did not win their conference.  

In the next four years, a 4 year system does not leave a conference champ with a really strong resume out in the cold.  It seems you can draw a cut off point at the #2 or #3 seed and say "Everyone who comes after this team has an inferior resume."  You then end up with multiple teams squabbling for that last spots.  A six birth playoff solves this.

Up Next: 2006 and beyond….

 

 

Minimum Playoff Size Need: A 1998 to 2001 BCS Review

By CRex — January 13th, 2012 at 3:26 PM — 18 comments
Filed under:


Over the past few days a lot of people have posted ideas for the playoff system.  They've come up with a variety of systems to ensure balance and fairness and clearly a lot of thought has gone in to this.  I want to attack the problem from a different angle though:

What is the minimum number of games we need to crown a national championship?  

To determine this I'm going to review the BCS's history and determine who else had a valid to claim to play for the Dr. Pepper Crystal Ball (and then have to display it at Wal-Mart).  In part I'll use what we knew at the end of the regular season for that year and in part I'll look at what we found out after all the dust from the bowl games settled.  

The BCS needs to die simply for having this a contractual requirement.

I'm going to break this into three or four diaries, as these things get long.  With that said, lets get going:

1998/99 BCS:

Championship Game: #1 Tenn defeats #2 Florida State

Other Possible Claimants*: Kansas State, Ohio State, UCLA, Texas A&M.

Are their claims legit?

First off Tennessee's claim is untouchable.  They came out of the SEC defeated and beat 4 ranked teams before besting Florida State.  For Florida State though the claim is hazier.  They came out the gate strong, beating Texas A&M (A&M was #14 at the time, the Aggies finished the season ranked  #11).  The next week the Seminoles lost by three scores to North Carolina State.  NC State finished the season 7-5.  FSU though did go on to beat 4 more ranked teams, giving them a total of 5 victories over ranked teams.  

So in 1998 we're looking to see if we can argue that anyone else can claim they should have finished #2 instead of FSU.  First off KSU.  They finished the regular season undefeated and beat three ranked teams.  They ended up going to the B12 Championship game ranked #1 but lost to Texas A&M in triple overtime.  In my view, if you can't win your conference, you can't win the title so KSU is out.  

The Buckeyes lost to the Spartans (well really we all lost when a meteor failed to strike the stadium, but I digress) by 4 points (28-24).  Otherwise the Buckeyes were undefeated and beat 4 ranked teams during their season.  Michigan State finished 6-6.  The Buckeyes went on to defeat Texas A&M in their bowl, making Texas A&M the Kevin Spacey of 1998.  When compared to Florida State, Ohio State is close.  Ohio State lost to an inferior team by a lesser margin (4 points vs 3 scores) but Florida State beat one more ranked team than Ohio State did.  This one of those decisions you can argue about.

UCLA spends most of the season as the bridesmaid but never the bride.  They finish out their conference play undefeated, but on 5 December lose to Miami (YTM) by 4 points.  Miami finishes the season 9-3 and ranked (although Miami was unranked at the time UCLA lost to them).  UCLA's major problem was they only had three wins over ranked teams.

Texas A&M has been covered about by virtue of their losses to FSU and OSU.  Coming out of regular season play, FSU could claim superiority over A&M.  OSU also went on to prove it was a better team in bowl season.  A&M also lost to Texas and finishes the regular season with two losses.  So Texas A&M is out due to my desire to avoid rematches and the fact they have two losses.

1998 Season Summary:

#1 Tenn cannot be disputed.  

For #2 we have three teams that all lost to one team and have between 3 and 5 victories over ranked teams each.  I'd say 1998 leaves us with a pretty clear argument for a +1 system.  Tenn, FSU, OSU, and UCLA as division winners fight it out for the greater glory of their local Walmart (or Super Walmart).  The Big 12 division winner is removed due to a lose to FSU 

*I'm using claimants in the sense they had a claim to play in the title game, not claim a share of the title.  

So Woodson is getting the Heisman and y'all are getting a ring the year after I leave?
That's right Peyton, I'm also getting a Cup named after me.

1999/2000 BCS:

Championship Game: #1 Florida State defeats #2 Virginia Tech

Other Possible Claimants: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Alabama

Are their claims Legit?

First off Florida State has an touchable claim on #1 this year.  They finish undefeated and with 4 wins over ranked teams.  Virginia Tech is also untouchable, finishing out the season undefeated and with wins over 4 ranked teams.  Although I really do want to penalize Virginia Tech for their out of conference scheduling (namely: James Madison and UAB).

I'm going to handle Alabama (and thus the SEC first).  Alabama finishes the season with losses to Tennessee and Louisiana Tech (We choked on a cupcake PAWWWWLLL).  They lose to Michigan by one point in overtime at the Orange Bowl.  The other option from the SEC is Florida (they lose to Alabama twice and once to Florida State).  No rematches, so sorry Florida.

Wisconsin suffers from an early season loss to Cincinnati (the Alvarez Strategy of Scheduling Crap Teams suffers a rare backfire).  Then the next week they lose to Michigan.  Michigan finished off the season with an Orange Bowl Win and as #2 in the B10, so that's a terrible lose.  Each loss was by 5 points.  Wisconsin does beat 4 ranked teams.  

Nebraska finishes off the season 12-1.  Their only loss is a 4 point loss to to a ranked Texas squad.  They beat two ranked teams (A&M and KSU) and then avenge their loss to Texas in the B12 championship game.  So that leaves them with three wins over ranked squads and one loss to a ranked squad.  Nebraska also beats a ranked Tenn squad in the Fiesta Bowl, the good old days of the Fiesta Bowl, back before we as a society had the computing power to make a bag of chips say dumb stuff.

1999 Season Summary:

This is one that the BCS gets right, although considering they had exactly two teams finish undefeated it isn't hard to get right.  If either FSU or VT finishes with one loss then Nebraska has a legit claim on the #2 spot.  At that point we'd have a clear #1 (the undefeated team) and a tie for #2 (the one loss teams).  Had this happened I'd assume we'd once again need a +1 game, with Wisconsin getting pulled in to round it out to four teams.  Wisconsin has the weakest resume of the bunch, but had Wisconsin won out they'd have had 6 wins over ranked teams and only one loss to an unranked team.  So it wouldn't be a travesty.  

It would have better if VT lost to the Georgia or Mississippi State

 

2000/2001 BCS:

Championship Game: #1 Oklahoma defeats #2 Florida State

Other Possible Claimants: Miami, Washington

Are their claims Legit?

First off Oklahoma is undefeated, so they get the immunity idol.  Florida State drops to Miami early in the season.  FSU does defeat two ranked teams in the course of their regular season.

Miami wins the Big East and defeats Florida State, but losses to Washington.  Washington is Miami's only loss.  

Washington meanwhile beats Miami, who beat Florida State, but loses to #20 Oregon.  Beside beating a ranked Miami team, Washington also beats a ranked Oregon State team.  

As a side note, the B10 and SEC both experience down years and fail to produce a team with fewer than 3 losses.  

2000 Season Summary:

Florida State has the claim of beating two ranked teams, as does Washington.  FSU has the claim that their one loss was to a higher ranked team.  Washington though has the claim that they beat the team that beat Florida State.  It's a mess of quality of opponent versus the transitive property of wins.  

Solution:  The plus one system.  Washington gets a chance for a direct win over FSU and Miami gets a chance to avenge a regular season defeat.  All four of these teams are conference winners, so our worst case with a +1 is a potential out of conference rematch (Miami vs FSU).  Since it was out of conference play that loss occurred early in the season and wouldn't be a terrible, plus both teams would have had to beat some other good teams to earn that rematch.  

A rare photo in which Rick Neuheisel has hair and job security.  

 

2001/2002 BCS:

Championship Game: #1 Miami (YTM) defeats #2 Nebraska

Other Possible Claimants:  Colorado, Colorado, Oregon, Tennessee, Illinois, Maryland

Oh boy, this whole season is a mess.  With that said:

Miami is undefeated, so the immunity idol is theirs.

Now Nebraska and why I listed Colorado twice.  Nebraska is the favored team in the polls, with wins over a ranked Notre Dame and Oklahoma (The Sooners are #2 when Oklahoma played them).  The last game of the regular season though they are blown out by Colorado.  Colorado 62, Nebraska 36.  In the title game Miami takes care of business and wins 37-14.  

Colorado meanwhile ends the season with losses to Fresno State (24-22) and Texas (41-7).  Colorado avenges their loss to Texas in the B12 Championship Game though and wins (39-37).  Their reward is to get the Fiesta Bowl, while Nebraska gets a shot at glory despite failing to win their division or their conference.  

Oregon has a strong season with wins over 3 ranked teams in the regular season and then beats Colorado in bowl season.  Oregon's one flaw is losing to Stanford by a touchdown.  This is a Ty Willingham coached Stanford, but somehow one that finishes the season 9-3.  

Tennessee has a fairly strong resume, but suffers from the fatal flaw of losing to LSU in the SEC Title Game.  LSU has three losses at the time.  If you can't win your division, no crystal football for you.  So Tennessee is out.

Illinois finishes out the second with wins over three ranked teams.  They do suffer a 45-20 defeat at the hands of Michigan, but finish the regular season 11-1.  

Maryland gets mentioned here since they also finish the season with one loss.  However they need overtime for their sole victory over a ranked team (Georgia Tech) and they lose to a ranked Florida State squad.  Maryland is out of the picture due to their weak resume.  

2001 Season Summary:

Colorado got screwed.  They finish the season with two losses (one of them avenged).  Oregon also gets screwed here considering they have three ranked wins and only one seven point loss.  

I'd say you have four teams with legit claims when this season ends.  Miami, Colorado, Oregon, and Illinois.  They're all conference winners.  Colorado does have two losses, but they did avenge one of them and they bombed Nebraska, so I'd say let them play.  

The BCS remains the second worst thing to happen to buffaloes.

So The Mininum?

 

What is interesting is in this era you can't really argue about the #1 team.  In these games the #1 team was undefeated and took care of business.  The argument mostly comes down to who deserved the honor of having a shot at the #1 team.  Perhaps this argues for #1 getting a first round bye in a larger format playoff system.  

Anyway in terms of structuring a playoff where no one can complain they were screwed out of the #2 ranking between 1998 and 2001, by my count we're at:

1998: 4 teams, 1999: 2 teams, 2000: 4 teams, 2001: 4 teams

This of course is subjective and I'll freely admit I engaged in some resume voting with the above.   What I did find interesting here was we're at a point with six strong BCS conference (Miami and VT are in the Big East at this point and FSU is enjoying the glory of a pre senility Bobby Bowden).  1998 is the year we come the closest to having five teams in play (if KSU beats A&M).  It seems like most years you end up with two conference winners who can be fairly easily discarded.  In 1998 for example A&M is out due to their two loses (in 1998 the winner of the Big East, Syracuse, had 3 losses and is eliminated).  

When the fifth team threat emerges so far it has come from a team that did not win their conference (KSU in 1998 and Nebraska in 2001).  In those cases you can simply invoke the "Win your conference if you want to win the title rule" and remove them (and in Neb's case: "Win your division").

As a side note, the BCS was good at picking #1s during this period.  

So working solely off these four years of data, I'd argue in the direction of a +1 system.  It seems in most cases you have four strong teams and anyone who comes the champion in a +1 playoff is going to have a resume that makes them the clear champion.  This could change those if more 1998 scenarios happen (where KSU wins their conference and thus you end up with 5 BCS conference winners who have resumes worthy of letting them into a 4 team playoff).  Keep in mind those, in the future we'll not only have 6 BCS conferences, but some possibly legit teams coming out of the MWC.  So will 4 be enough?

 

So The 4 Team Playoffs:

1998: Tenn, FSU, UCLA, Ohio State

1999: FSU, VT, Neb, Wisconsin

2000: OU, FSU, Miami, Washington

2001: Miami, Colorado, Illinois, Oregon

The only two real objections here would be in 1999 if a two loss Wisconsin team runs the table (so a two loss Wisky gets the title over FSU and VT who would both be one loss) and the whole FSU-Miami rematch in 2000.  FSU-Miami is an out of conference game during this time period though (Miami is Big East, FSU is ACC) and I don't want to penalize scheduling like a big boy for your out of conference schedule, so I say let it happen.  In terms of Wisconsin winning it all, that's the downside of a playoff.  The pro of the playoff is that it elimates arguments over if #3 or #4 deserved a shot at #1.  The con is sometimes a weak #4 could get lucky and win out.  We just have to hope the latter doesn't happen often.

I also can't see any fifth team that would have room to complain about getting the door slammed in their face for any of these games (include my standard: If KSU won in 1998 we'd have a problem disclaimer, but they didn't so I do what the results say I should do).  

Quick Note: Please don't get too hung up on the #4.  I'm not trying to set a standard playoff size from just these points.  My goal is at the end of all of this to look back and say:  "The median number needed since 1998 is X, and with X we'd have still had controversy in the following years...".  For example with an X of 4, you likely have some controversy in 1999 when a two loss team got a shot at an undefeated team.   

Up Next: To 2002 and Beyond!

(If I screwed up a fact in all this please call me out.  I was multitabbing like a madman on College Football Warehouse so I may have messed up a score or record here or there.  Hopefully not too frequently).  

OT: “We Want a Playoff Now” campaign launching

By WolverineLake — December 15th, 2011 at 11:18 PM — 38 comments
Filed under:

    Looks like folks in Congress want a playoff instead of the current BCS arrangement.  

 

The “We Want a Playoff Now” campaign was introduced Thursday on Capitol Hill. It includes the lobbying firm The Moffett Group, headed up by former Rep. Toby Moffett, D-Conn., and the communications firm, New Partners. Along with that effort, two congressmen are forming the Congressional Collegiate Sports Caucus. The congressmen, Texas Republican Joe Barton and Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen, are reintroducing Barton’s 2009 bill aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system. The longshot bill would ban — as unfair and deceptive — the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I football game as a national championship unless it’s the outcome of a playoff.

 

Here's the money quote hurr hurr hurr:

...decisions about college sports are best left to those in higher education, not politicians.

I imagine that's getting pretty loose with the truthiness, eh?  I don't think anyone would argue that school administrators (i.e. "those in higher education") are making the decisions.  No, that'd be the dudes in the yellow blazers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/college-football-playoff-supporters-launch-national-campaign-congressmen-reintroduce-bill/2011/12/15/gIQAJ6TSwO_story.html

Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.