Minimum Playoff Size, Part III
- 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
- 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.
January 25th, 2012 at 6:55 PM ^
I want every major conference champion and two other teams: either champions of two other conferences, or the highest-ranked indie if that team is ranked eighth or better.
Limiting it to four still penalizes teams for playing a tough schedule. It has to be determined on the field, not by beauty contest judges.
January 25th, 2012 at 8:15 PM ^
January 25th, 2012 at 8:21 PM ^
I don't think you can do 8. I think there is an NCAA rule regarding playoffs that mandates you have at least half the at larges for every automatic bid. So at minimum you'd need 9(6 champs and 3 at-larges)
January 25th, 2012 at 8:24 PM ^
The NCAA doesn't run the DI-A postseason - the BCS does. BCS can run their playoffs however they'd like, just like the NIT can run theirs however they'd like.
January 25th, 2012 at 8:53 PM ^
I think different coaches would pursue tough vs soft schedules though. In the past both Wisconsin and VT came ever so close to being elite teams but were hampered by really bad losses (Wisconsin lost to a bad Cincy team and VT lost to James Madison). Whereas I found in a lot of cases an 11-1 team that lost to Oregon at the start of the season actually looks pretty good.
I think different coaches will pursue different strageties. It's all about gambling. If you play a soft schedule you gamble you take care of the cupcakes and they prepare you for the big boys. If you schedule hard, you are gambling that if you lose a game it isn't by that much and it comes across as a respctable win. Also human voters can correct for this by voting with a bias to people who scheduled real teams.
Ohio State was scheduling Texas and Miami (YTM), and they made 2 BCS Title Games in a row. Alabama was scheduling soft and made a few. So I don't think resume voting dooms us to a stream of tomato cans. Some coaches are going to want to seize the day, some will want to bomb WMU from a safe distance.
January 25th, 2012 at 8:23 PM ^
Great work, man! I've been following this series from the start, and have thought about doing something like this but am happy you did it for me. I'm 100% with you that winning your conference shouldn't be enough - and that there are plenty of seasons where you only need two teams. Honestly, before this season's bowls I'd have said "LSU has done enough" and been okay with crowning them champs after they beat us in the Sugar Bowl.
A few points of contention - (1) There was nothing that could have solved the mess of 2007. There were no winners that year, and nobody had a season that deserved a Championship. Nobody had legitimate complaint - except maybe Hawai'i until they got smoked by Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. (2) Even though they played a cake schedule, I've got a hard time thinking an undefeated mid-major should ever get passed by a two-loss BCS team.
My takeaways from this are that a plus-1 would work fine - top four conference champions, regardless of conference, in the final BCS rankings. If you're complaining that "well we should've been #4" you sound like an idiot - win your games and it's a moot point. 2009 OSU, 2008 Penn State and USC, or 2007 USC don't have too much to complain about. The kicker is 2009 Cincy. They've got a gripe, but are really the only folks in the BCS era who would've been served poorly by a four team playoff.
One other takeaway is that I think there is definitely some legitimacy to the "playoff creep" argument. Once upon a time, a two team playoff worked okay - the problem was these bastards picked a stupid team for #2 who didn't win their conference or division. Then there were a few years of mass chaos where there were 3-6 teams that deserved a shot. Until this year where there was a clear #1, and to everybody outside the south a clear #2, and these bastards once again screwed the pooch so royally that we're reacting by going to some kind of a plus-one system. I don't think it's a bad thing, but if there's enough pressure from SEC denizens that they need to have a second team in the playoff - I can definitely see this creeping up to six teams in the near future. Time will tell.
Again, great work. And four teams is the truth.
January 25th, 2012 at 8:48 PM ^
I definitely agree that 2007 was a disaster. It's just kind of "ugh, well we have to seed someone for the playoff...". It's going to happen with any system you have, it just comes down to agreeing the BCS is broken and finding something that breaks less often. Really it all comes down "win your games" like you say and personal preference on in which direction you want the system broken.
I consider most pro sports systems to be a bit too permissive (namely NHL and NFL), so I feel collegefootball is interesting in part because it is selective. I just think it is too selective right now.
January 26th, 2012 at 12:03 AM ^
The NFL I'm willing to cut some slack because of the number of games played versus the number of teams played. But the NHL, NBA, and even MLB (which has now relegated the 162 game season as just a way to pass the time) - way too permissive.
And what I love about college football is how selective it is, and that's something I think your proposal does a good job of keeping - ensuring that to be a national champ, you've got to be pretty damn good.
January 26th, 2012 at 12:13 AM ^
good but will never happen. This year's PAC-12 team could have been a 5-7 UCLA team. Georgia 10-2 could have been in there too which would have pushed LSU and Alabama out.
The bowls make way to much money to allow this to happen. A BCS playoff would certainly de-value a bowl and to some extent the regular season. The regular season would be diminished because teams could play in a weak conference and go .500 and then have a strong push for the conference championship game.
That's not the college football that I know and love. Why dont we just turn it over the the NFL and have it a "minor league" football team? Then we could have a very nice and lone playoff system. The bowls would be gone so they wont get in they way. Then the NCAA will drop football altogether.
A college football playoff is like a wet dream; it sounds good while you are dreaming. However, when you wake up, it is nothing but a mess.
January 26th, 2012 at 7:03 AM ^
UCLA would have been 7-6 with a win over Oregon in the Pac 12 'ship - and I think that in that case, the four teams would have been LSU, OK st, Wiscy, and...TCU? If UGA had won, an 11-2 team that wins its conference doesn't sound great, but to me still sounds better than a 12-1 team that lost its conference. We probably would have had Ok St being #1 in that scenario, with UGA, Wiscy and TCU filling out the bracket. Not great, but honestly it still sounds better than the way things shook out. OK St makes it sound slightly better than 2007.
I'm with you that a playoff isn't perfect - nothing is perfect. The only truly fair way to "decide it on the field" is by having every team play 119 games. Heck, there is no system that could make 2007 satisfying - literally everybody would have backed into that playoff scenario no matter how large or small it is.
This season the regular season was diminished. Conference championship games have already diminished the regular season. Divisions have already made some conference games more important statistically than others. Limiting a playoff to conference champions, but forcing those champions to earn a bid rather than get "auto-bids," does nothing to diminish the regular season. It's sensible and equitable. Which means it probably won't happen.
But I really like your analogy at the end.
January 26th, 2012 at 12:46 AM ^
I definitely understand the idea of only allowing conference champions, but I really don't like it. With the four team playoff you're proposing, it's not as bad as with a larger playoff that others have suggested, but one of the key problems is that it's not just conference championship games that are pseudo-playoff games. LSU-Alabama was played mid-season, but would have eliminated Alabama from national championship consideration this year despite the fact they were clearly in the top four teams at the end of the season.
January 26th, 2012 at 2:48 AM ^
In college football, how many times do we say "every game is a playoff?" I think that's why folks like me come up with convoluted ways to have conference championship games that aren't "playoff" games - I personally hate that Sparty and Wiscy played a rematch, and I HATE HATE HATE the way this year's national championship went down for many reasons, the foremost being that it was a rematch. I'd have hated seeing Oregon there too (though not as much). Fans of other sports (namely the NFL) think I'm weird for this - but I really like having a regular season where it feels like every game matters. And I dislike inter-division games being statistically less important, and I dislike a loss being not that big of a deal. It's why 2007 was a horrid year for college football - a two-loss national champion? Pffffft.
Obviously, you're of a different mindset - but I think most college football fans do like the fact that "every game is a playoff." Well, except for this season. Which is why I'm willing to blow up the BCS this season.
And my argument to Bama would have been: "win your damn conference. or your division. if you're not the best in your conference, you're not the best in the nation."
January 26th, 2012 at 6:56 AM ^
I agree somewhat with your point here. My biggest problem is with the Conference Championship Game. Just because a team won its CCG doesnt make them the "best" team in that conference. It certainly makes them the luckiest team.
So we have to define what we want to accomplish. Do we want the BEST teams in the NC game or do we want the luckiest? This is one reason why I do not like the NCAA BB Tourney. How many times do we here Dicky V say team X "is a Cinderella baby"? Is that what we want for FB? a lucky team that gets hot at the end of the season and wins the CCG and rips through a playoff?
I dont think so. I can hear it now. Dicky V, Kirk H and Brent M calling Hoke "Holiday Hoke" because he gets hot around the holidays and wins the CCG and then wins the NC. We hear the term Tournament Tom every March. Are you kidding me? Is that what we want college football to stoop to?
I want every game to mean something as well. I do not like re-matches and yes I did not support us in the 2007 NCG. We had our chance and we did not win so someone else deserved to go.
I know Bo HATED the idea of the BCS game. Can you imagine what he would say to us on this board? College football is like no other. We have a very special game. Why do we want to change to something less than what it is currently?
I hope the Bowl Committees (gulp) dig in their heels and not go along with a playoff. I would donate money to protect the current system with all its flaws. It still matches up 1 vs 2 like it was designed to do. No one can argue that point.
January 26th, 2012 at 7:11 AM ^
There would be no CCGs. I'm with you on that. But with 12 team conferences, it is probably the best system. (I've had some totally bats ideas myself, but they were totally bats).
I get what you're saying about finding the "best" team in the conference - but isn't that for the conferences to decide? I mean, if a conference declares a champion - aren't they declaring that tteam to be the best in that conference? If not, why declare them a champion? Yes, I know there are some predetermined rules thta a team must follow and excel at to "win" a championship - but at the end of the day, a championship means you're the best. If conference's have flawed playoff systems, that's up to them to fix.
As for the BCS, I actually didn't hate it that much until this year. Even in 2007 I was all right with it. But after this year, there has to be a better way. And if there isn't, let's go back to the old way then. Let's just admit we've got flaws, let the bowls sign who they want to, and let the AP pick a champ every year and let things be. But when you put "BCS Champion" onto somebody who didn't win their division - I'm sorry there's something wrong with that.
I'm intrigued by the plus one system. This post: http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/the-halfway-there-compromise-a-bcs-plus-one-proposal-that-the-big-ten-and-rose-bowl-could-live-with/ actually proposed a plus one that's not a true playoff but that I'd love to see happen. At least when compared to the present.
January 26th, 2012 at 12:24 PM ^
Do we want the BEST teams in the NC game or do we want the luckiest? This is one reason why I do not like the NCAA BB Tourney. How many times do we here Dicky V say team X "is a Cinderella baby"? Is that what we want for FB? a lucky team that gets hot at the end of the season and wins the CCG and rips through a playoff?Suppose Georgia had beaten LSU in the SECCG this year, then beat Stanford in the first round of a plus-one scenario, and then finally beat Oklahoma State in the championship game. Are you going to argue that it's still just luck, and that we "know" that Georgia wasn't the best team in the country even though they just won three consecutive games against top competition? Or would you accept that Georgia has now proven enough that they deserve to be considered the best team based on their record? I think any argument about who the "best" team in college football is is specious at best. This year is great proof of that: who's actually better, Bama or LSU? The system we have now can't answer that question, but really, neither can any other, because the premise of the question is itself flawed. That's why I think it's important to focus on who is the most "deserving" team. And I think a nothing-special Georgia team that beats LSU, Stanford, and Oklahoma State in consecutive games to end its season has done enough to be considered most deserving of the championship. The conference-championship-followed-by-plus-one system creates enough games between high caliber teams that the ultimate winner really will be the "most deserving" team; if you want to go to six teams, Brian's system also does this (and is in fact built specifically to do this). But again, no system will tell you who's "best," because the whole notion of "best" is a red herring in the first place.
January 26th, 2012 at 4:42 PM ^
are saying the same thing. We all know from Statistics 101 that is something is possible eventually it will happen (T-test). So in the case of a Conference Champiopnship Game in the PAC-12 this year, UCLA was clearly a very bad team but could have easily won the Championship Game. It will happed, that is guaranteed. Is that what we want?
What about the B1G being force to play more conference games? Other conferences will still schedule cup cakes when we play Penn State. The conferences themselves are not equal so how can a playoff work and be "fair"?
Maybe "fair" is out of the equation. Maybe people will say "Who Cares about fair. Just as long as we have a playoff" Then when a 6-8 UCLA team plays a 6-8 UConn team in the NC game; people will start jumpoing off bridges.
A playoff will not determine the best team will play in the NC game. The current BCS GUARANTEES 1 will play 2. Delany will NEVER go for a playoff when we play more in conference games than others. Maybe that is what it will happen. Let those who want to join a playoff do that. Then the B1G and the PAC-12 can play in the Rose bowl without everyone else.
Issue Solved.
January 27th, 2012 at 2:36 AM ^
In a four team playoff, every conference champion is not gauranteed a spot. Additionally, UCLA would have been 7-6 had they won the Pac 12 - and STILL not been in a four team playoff. They'd have been in the Rose Bowl, which is ridiculous too, but was only possible because the best team in the South Division that caused all those losses was ineligible.
Let me give you a reason why I'm okay with limiting it to conference champions - but not letting it be ALL conference champions. This year, Stanford didn't win their division but was ranked ahead of Oregon heading into the bowls, at #4. Why was Stanford ranked higher - despite losing the head-to-head by three touchdowns? Because Oregon had one more loss. One was by 3 to a USC team that Stanford beat (in 3OT) - but since USC was not allowed to be ranked, it really hurt Oregon's computer ratings. The other one was a loss to LSU, the #1 team in the country, and they scored more points on LSU's defense than anybody else had all year. Stanford's out of conference schedule was San Jose St, @Duke, and Notre Dame.
While conference title games are not the ideal way to pick a champion, or determine who's best, they are FAR better than polls or computer ratings. In the Pac 12, against nearly identical competition, Stanford had the same record as Oregon, but had a 3TD loss @home against the Ducks. The Pac 12's rules dictated the Ducks were better - which is accurate in my opinion. The Ducks played a tough out of conference opponent and were beaten away from home. The media, coaches and computers felt this loss makes them worse than Stanford - incorrectly, in my opinion. And you're telling me that because Stanford took care of business against SJSU, they're more deserving of being in the national title picture than Oregon? Winning your conference has to count for something on the national stage, or else the national title game will be as unimportant to me as it is right now.
January 26th, 2012 at 5:32 AM ^
I would just like to see 4 super conferences do a 4 team playoff. All 4 conference winners play in it seeded by final ranking. It would almost be like an 8 team playoff really.
January 26th, 2012 at 7:06 AM ^
be no guarantee that the 4 super conferences would yield the best teams. Each conference would have to play 11 or 12 games. I like the fact that the Big 10 is forcing teams to play more conference games. This will certainly squash any playoff.
We will be the only major conference that plays 10 conference games while others only play 6 or 7. This will certainly put us at a disadvantage. Delany is a master. He can now vote against a playoff because all the other conferences will play more cupcakes than us.
I cannot see the SEC dropping 3 home games per year. It will kill them financially to add more confernece games and thus less home games like it will for us starting in 2014 when we only play 6 or 7 home games per year. The Big Ten can afford this because of TV, Bowl tie ins and because we are the best conference.
So all this talk about a playoff is just that: talk.
January 26th, 2012 at 9:23 AM ^
Why no Michigan in 2006? I suppose it was because you think 'bama unworthy this year. But I think that 2006 Michigan team would've had a better claim than Louisville, since (at the time of selection) we wouldn't have known what was going to happen against USC... I guess point in time of selection should be factored - hard to say.
January 26th, 2012 at 1:38 PM ^
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.
But it wouldn't be true of the Big Ten. Because it's overall conference record that determines division winner, not just record in your division.
And now that this is done, are we going to get more further adventures of CRex?
January 26th, 2012 at 4:21 PM ^
I am absolutely with you. Can you email all this to Delany?
Comments