Goodbye BCS/ I told you so.
August 18th, 2012 at 8:36 PM ^
It makes it a harder path to the championship as a 1 or 2 seed, but there are scenarios where it would help us too. If the playoff rules were to apply to this season, for instance, and we were to lose to Alabama in our opener, and then go undefeated for the rest of the season while USC and Alabama both went undefeated, we would have no chance of cracking the top 2. But in the playoff system, we could enter the playoffs as a 3 or 4 seed, and get another crack at Alabama. Take your own example, 2006. If we had the playoff format, after the loss to Ohio State, Michigan still would have made the playoff, and gotten another crack at the national championship.
August 18th, 2012 at 8:44 PM ^
August 18th, 2012 at 9:41 PM ^
Agree that Michigan had an easier path to a MNC under the BCS. Disagree that that means we should prefer the BCS over a playoff.
August 18th, 2012 at 9:54 PM ^
This argument makes no sense. The playoff system trades a more difficult path to the NC for more oportunities to compete for a national championship. In the scenario presented (an undefeated Michigan coming from a weak B10), Michigan wouldn't get the BCSCG nod over unbeaten teams from stronger conferences, and a once-beaten Michigan from a strong B10 wouldn't get the nod over an unbeaten team from a weaker BCS conference. The BCS was far more likely to rob Michigan of a national championship shot (see: 2006) than a playoff will be.
August 18th, 2012 at 10:01 PM ^
The inclusion of Michigan in the Sugar Bowl this past season suggests to me that you're wrong.
August 18th, 2012 at 10:22 PM ^
I'm confused by why the inclusion in the Sugar Bowl would dispute his point. The bottom line is that Michigan hasn't finished the regular season in the top 2 in 15 years while they have finished in the top 4 of the regular season polls twice in the last decade. That means Michigan will probably get more access under the new system than the old one.
August 18th, 2012 at 10:54 PM ^
The scenario being debated, as I understood it, is an undefeated (in the regular season) Michigan. It is difficult for me to imagine that an undefeated Michigan has a better chance of reaching the National Championship game if they have to play a whole bunch more games than otherwise. I think the probability of an undefeated Michigan being ranked 1 or 2 is higher than Michigan beating additional really good teams.
August 18th, 2012 at 11:05 PM ^
Alright I think we were just arguing past each other then. I'd definitely agree that an undefeated Michigan has a better chance under this system than the new system.
August 19th, 2012 at 12:03 AM ^
Your entire post is "I'm mentally weak." I mean, it really is... You're against a playoff because it means the best team is more likely to win and an unworthy Michigan team may not be able to sneak into the National Championship. And because if that team is worthy, you don't want to deal with the emotions if they lose because it's more difficult when your team is the higher seed.
None the less... what about the inverse? I mean, you're right that losing sucks, there really isn't much debate about that. But winning is pretty awesome too. And while losing as the higher seed also really sucks... winning as the underdog is really awesome as well.
So if a Michigan team gets that 4th seed and ends up winning the NC, what's going to be your argument then?
Also, saying I told you so if one of your scenarios happens doesn't really make much sense...
August 19th, 2012 at 10:29 AM ^
Because you would be correct in that assessment. Maybe not for the reasons you stated, but... ya know.
Let me try clarifying the whole higher seed thing, though. If Michigan was a 3 or a 4 and lost to a 5 or 6, and I would be sad, and disappointed. But the scenario I describe, where Michigan is clearly the better team, but gets upset, that just drives me up a wall. Because if playoffs are supposed to pick the best team, why should Michigan, who has done a LOT to prove that they are the best (1 seed), have to risk their season against a team that is CLEARLY not the best?
And in saying "I told you so" part of me is also asking playoff proponents "Why would you possibly want this risk to your team losing when they are the best?" I am aware that winning whey you are the underdog is sweet, but in my opinion and experience (Red Wings) the disappointment of losing when you are the heavy favorite is not worth the joy of winning as the underdog.
Also, you make a good point about me wanting an unworthy Michigan team to sneak into the Title Game. I agree, it is cheap to support a system because it will help my team win when they may not actually be the best. But hey, who ever says "My school won the national title in 1997, although we may not have actually been the best team." Hm. Now that I think about it, the answer to that question is: Nebraska fans.
But the point is, a national title is a national title, no matter how you win it. I am going to support a system if I think it gives Blue a better chance.
To answer you question, if Michigan wins the national title as a 4 seed, my argument will be "That national championship was SWEET!"
And saying I told you so if one of my scenarios comes true makes a lot of sense to some one as petty (mentally weak) as me.
August 19th, 2012 at 1:29 PM ^
I must say, I do appreciate the honesty. :) I wasn't necessarily trying to call you mentally weak as much as your view of this topic is mentally weak.
The "I told you so" in that scenario still doens't make sense. Unless they said "That won't happen." or "It won't really suck." Otherwise... it just doesn't make any sense. It's used when someone disagrees with you, and then it turns out you were right. Using it against someone who didn't disagree with you on that subject doesn't fit.
Also, the scenario you are describing can happen in any scenario there is... it happens every year whenever we go into a game as a large favorite. What does it matter if we are the #1 seed who is "clearly better" than the #4 seed and lose to them, thus costing us our National Championship hopes in a playoff system. Or being the #1 seed and losing to an unranked Illinois team during the season, costing us our National Championship hopes in a BCS system (But very possibly making the playoff system)?
That risk of extreme disappointment is the nature of the beast of being a sports fan, your dominate team can, and will, lose in situations that will cost them everything. Introducing a playoff doesn't move the needle on that situation what so ever. And lastly... if they lose to a team in a playoff that they were clearly better of, they also probably weren't the best team that year as well.
August 20th, 2012 at 11:05 AM ^
"The "I told you so" in that scenario still doens't make sense. Unless they said "That won't happen." or "It won't really suck." Otherwise... it just doesn't make any sense. It's used when someone disagrees with you, and then it turns out you were right. Using it against someone who didn't disagree with you on that subject doesn't fit. "
I admit, I had to think for about 10 minutes before I could think of a cogent response to this quote (sorry it is not in quote block, I don't know how). In my opinion and experience, I think that the U of M heavy favorite scenario will suck WAY worse than playoff proponents think it will.
"That risk of extreme disappointment is the nature of the beast of being a sports fan"
Amen to that.
August 20th, 2012 at 11:43 AM ^
How to quote-block:
- Copy the text to be blocked.
- Click "Switch to plain text editor"
- Paste.
- Type <.blockquote.> and <./blockquote.> around the text, minus the periods.
- Finish typing response.
- PROFIT!
August 20th, 2012 at 9:54 PM ^
How to quote-block: Copy the text to be blocked. Click "Switch to plain text editor" Paste. Type .blockquote.> and ./blockquote.> around the text, minus the periods. Finish typing response. PROFIT!How did I do?
August 21st, 2012 at 11:32 AM ^
That's fair that it's your view. I have no doubts that it will be far worse than some playoff proponents think.
My thought? I lived through the Horror... I can live through anything. :)
August 18th, 2012 at 11:31 PM ^
August 19th, 2012 at 10:51 AM ^
I have never done a diary before, and I debated whether or not this should be. I put about an hour's work into this and it is something I want to stick around. According the guidelines for what should be a diary, this seemed to fit that criteria. If it said in the requirements for a diary that it has to contain data, then I would not have made this a diary.
You bring up an interesting point though. The reason that I did not provide any data is because I have no idea how to go about calculating how historical powers would fare in a hypothetical playoff. My first instinct would be a computer simulation, but even computer programs have bias. Plus, I don't know how to program.
Also, the problem with calculations is that they usually have some inherrent bias. The only meaningful data in my eyes would be to look at the years when they had the BCS AND a playoff, and to count the number of BCS championships and playoff championships that Michigan won and see which is more. So yeah, it would not be biased, but it is also not feasible.
But , if you have any ideas as how to calculate data on whether Michigan is wins more titles with a playoff or the BCS, I would be delighted to at least TRY to implement that idea.
August 19th, 2012 at 12:21 AM ^
August 19th, 2012 at 8:38 AM ^
thing, wolverine incognito.
August 19th, 2012 at 9:10 AM ^
I think eight teams with automatic berths to the champions of major conferences, and maybe two at-large berths, would work just fine. If the FCS can make it work with a 24-team playoff, meaning that two teams could play five extra games each, the FBS can at least give us eight teams.
As it stands now, it would just take one extra game or round after conference championship week to give us eight teams. Errors can be made with four teams, but nobody outside of the top eight would have a chance of actually winning in a game as physical as football, especially when there isn't a mechanism like the NFL's draft or their salary cap to lessen the increment between a team that could win it all and one that can't.
August 19th, 2012 at 9:44 AM ^
The playoff makes it MUCH easier for UM to win a Nat Championship, especially if it ends up going to 8 teams. Finishing #1 or #2 out of 120+ BCS teams is not easy, especially when the top 5 teams all tend to be either undefeated, or SEC powerhouses. Fact is, unless we go undefeated, win the B1G championship, and catch a couple breaks with other powerhouse teams taking unfortunate losses here and there, odds are we will not make it in the top 2, and even have a shot at a Title. BUT, with a playoff, we have a MUCH better shot of making the the top 4 or 8 teams. That gets us in the door, and puts everything in OUR hands on the field, instead of the hands of voters.
August 19th, 2012 at 10:50 AM ^
Let's look at the options to decide the MNC:
1. Pure "beauty contest" voting - totally subjective by coaches, reporters, members of the academy. Pros: easy to do, allows everyone to maintain their arguments of being jobbed and/or wronge, Cons: totally subjective, sometimes people voting haven't seen the teams play a whole game. We've had this for decades and basically no one was really happy with it.
2. All-play-all: This was the system used by MLB way in the past and still used by many soccer (futbol) leagues like the EPL. Everyone plays everyone else home and away and the team atop the list at the end of the year is the champion. Pros: hard to argue, makes the final weeks really interesting for the contending teams, Cons: by mid-season it is pretty clear which teams are contending and which are just spoilers, timing of the games (or fixtures) is important. Ideally one wants to play the biggest rivals when they are still figuring themselves out or down due to injuries. Opens the door to the argument that the best team at the end of the season isn't the team atop the list. We had this for many years back when the Big10 only had ten teams - you don't hear many arguments that such-and-such team was actually the better team, because they decided on the field. Unfortunately, given the size of Div 1 (~110 teams) no all-play-all scheme could work for any collision/contact sport.
3. Play-Offs: A certain number of the "top" teams either by record or subjective selection play a knock-off system to decide the title. Teams are seeded either by record or subjective selection. Pros: Better than option 1, doable compared to option 2, already used by MLB, NBA, NHL, and NFL in one form or another, allows for teams to improve over the season, recover from early injuries and losses, keeps more teams and their fans interested, Cons: extends the season, allows teams which get "hot" at the end to win the title even if their "total body of work" was just average, seeding and who plays who becomes another subjective minefield (is this 2 or 1 loss team better than this other 2 or 1 loss team?), playoff pathways may not end up with the two best teams facing each other at the end. This is where we are heading. Div 2 and Div 3 are already doing this. The layers of playoffs and the more complex the scheme, the less likely it is for any team, short of a team that is 100% guaranteed of victory, will win the title. Why? Quick back of the envelope calculation. Assume the best team in the field wins 9 out of 10 games played. To win 3 consecutive games in the playoff would crudely mean 0.9 x0.9 x0.9 or 0.73 Since in most years teams would not be fielding a once-in-a-generation squads, a more elaborate play-off scheme is actually favorable; it allows them to advance farther potentially and have a slim but real chance at the MNC. On this basis, a play-off system actually is not detrimental to the chances of the UM. Historically, the teams have usually been above-average and in or around that top 10-15 range with an occasional top 5 team, so a play-off should help, not hurt our chances. The only wild card is if the subjective factor packs the playoff seeding. I don't know how the Div 2 and Div 3 handle this but do the "power conferences" in Div 2 or Div 3 end up with half the seeds?
August 20th, 2012 at 11:49 AM ^
Opens the door to the argument that the best team at the end of the season isn't the team atop the list.
That's a pro, not a con.
August 19th, 2012 at 12:07 PM ^
August 19th, 2012 at 2:13 PM ^
that either you or I are missing some really obvious points. Here are some you might be.
1. Every team will need to play more challenging opponents with a playoff system. Is it therefore less likely that any team win the NC?
2. During the BCS years we finished the regular season ranked 3-4 (twice) more often than 1-2 (never).
3. Your give a scenario of a #1 UM vs a weak #2. When was the last season with a weak #1 or #2 ? Haven't there been more where a down Big Ten might have kept an undefeated UM out of the top 2?
4. Doesn't UM actually have a high SOS pretty much every season, even before the addition of Nebraska?
August 21st, 2012 at 11:31 AM ^
1. Every team will need to play more challenging opponents with a playoff system. Is it therefore less likely that any team win the NC?IMHO: 2 assumptions: 1.There are haves and have nots in college football. 2. Michigan is a have. I think playoffs will increase that chances of have nots to win the title, which will lower the chances of haves (Michigan) to win, even if it is ever so slightly. At this point some people are probably saying to themselves that it is more fair that the have nots receive a better shot at the title. That is debatable. Personally, I don't care about what is fair, just what is best for Michigan. Some might also be clamoring that certain have nots will NEVER get a shot at the title with the current system. Again, debatable.
3. Your give a scenario of a #1 UM vs a weak #2. When was the last season with a weak #1 or #2 ? Haven't there been more where a down Big Ten might have kept an undefeated UM out of the top 2?In 2007, I would say that Ohio was a weak #1. In fact, I think that is a PERFECT example of how a Big Ten team could waltz to the title game via an easy schedule.
August 19th, 2012 at 3:19 PM ^
August 19th, 2012 at 4:55 PM ^
Obviously the BCS system helped us as the sponsors were given a larger pool of teams to choose from than what will be available in the playoff system, and our cache/fanbase made us far more desirable than other options. However there will be an additional two games added and besides, I like our chances of playing for the Championship in the near future regardless.
August 19th, 2012 at 8:08 PM ^
August 20th, 2012 at 1:33 AM ^
This is half true.
Yes, this makes Michigan's path to the National Championship more difficult. Whenever you have to play more games, your path is more difficult. Michigan's path was made more difficult by the B1G expansion that brought a Conference title game. A few years ago, Michigan's path was made (marginally) more difficult by the addition of a 12th game. A long time ago, Michigan's path was made more difficult by the addition of bowl games.
However, that does NOT mean Michigan's chances are reduced . You see, under the current BCS format, Michigan has to get in the top two to play for the National Championship. In a four team playoff, Michigan only has to get in the top four to play for the National Championship. In an eight team playoff, Michigan would only have to be in the top eight! Think back to that very same 2006 season you mentioned - if there was a four team playoff, how would that have changed things? Michigan would have had a shot at the title. In one semifinal they would've played, ironically, Florida - the top that was the benificiary of Michigan being robbed of a rematch. (Ohio State would've played either USC or LSU in the other semifinal.)
Similiarly, a four team playoff would've given Michigan a chance at the National Championship in 2003. They would've played USC, while Oklahoma played LSU...ironically, that's exactly how the bowls matched up, except the winners (USC and LSU) would've played the next week. And since Bo was hired in 1969 there's at least eight other seasons in which they would've been included in a four team playoff, but in only one of those seasons did they finish in the top two and play for the title.
Yes, it's possible that they wouldn't have won the title in any of those ten seasons, and it's possible a playoff would've actually cost them their 97 title(don't look at me like I have three arms! Somebody could've got hurt in the extra game...) But it's also possible Michigan could've won nine National Championships in the last four decades.
You're right, a four or eight team playoff might (and will, eventually) hurt Michigan's chances to win the National Championship in some years, when they're one of the top two teams and lose before the final game. In those years, you're free to say I Told You So. But what will you say in the years where Michigan is ranked 3rd or 4th and wins the National Championship? (And they will, eventually.)
My point is that you can't say one system universally makes it easier to win the National Championship. One gives you an easier path, the other provides more opportunities. Which one is better for Michigan (and any individual school) will vary from year to year.
August 20th, 2012 at 10:51 AM ^
That national championship was SWEET!
(People will probably be telling ME "I told you so", but I will be too busy partying.)
Comments