The Tournament Still Works
I'm not even going to check before I make this assertion: Get The Picture* has seized on last night's national championship game-type substance as an opportunity to tweak college football playoff advocates. Come on, baby…
How quickly they forget.
Chris Rainey, who’s never lacked for a good quote, has a couple of things to say about the Gators’ new offensive coordinator.
Rainey on Charlie Weis’ excitement working with Florida’s pool of talent: “The first thing he said when he got here was that this is the most athletes he’s ever been around, so we felt good about that.”
Rainey on what to expect from the offense: “Fans are going to be happy again."
Dammit.
Well, if he's not going to do it I will: yeah, last night's game was a fiasco that resulted in a deeply unsatisfying champion. March Madness was too mad this year, leaving us with a 9-9 Big East team and a 13-5 Horizon team playing like DePaul and anyone else in the Horizon not named Cleveland State. I think we can say without qualification that the best team did not win this year. Whoever they were they didn't make the Final Four. At some point haters hating on a college football playoff will bring up whatever that was and say "QED."
That's a cost of a playoff, granted. But the NCAA tournament usually doesn't let it get that far. Over the past decade championship game participants have been almost universally great teams:
- 2009: Butler versus Duke. Butler was a Cinderella of sorts. They were also undefeated in the Horizon and had wins over
GeorgetownXavier and OSU; they were really good. They were 12th on Kenpom; this year's edition finished 41st. If having this year's Butler team make the final is a ding against playoffs, last year's Butler team making it shows a way in which basketball's system is vastly superior. - 2008: UNC-Michigan State. UNC was a juggernaut that finished 34-4. Michigan State was 31-7 (with two of those losses to UNC) and won the Big Ten easily.
- 2007: Kansas-Memphis. Both one seeds from the chalk Final Four.
- 2006: Florida-OSU. OSU was 35-2 against teams not named Florida (like State they lost in the regular season to the eventual champion). Florida was 35-5. This was a very Kenpom final, as the teams were 2nd and 4th.
- 2005: Florida-UCLA. Florida was a three seed but finished the year #1 in Kenpom after their crushing tourney run. They ended up 33-6. UCLA was a two seed; they finished third.
- 2004: UNC-Illinois. Two dominant outfits, one seeds who finished 1-2 in Kenpom.
- 2003: Syracuse-Kansas. Kansas was a two seed that finished the year first in Kenpom. Champ Syracuse was a three that finished 7th. Their seeding was a little weird: they only lost five games before the tourney and had a couple of good nonconference wins to go with a very tough Big East schedule. It seems like they got dropped unfairly because they lost in their conference tourney.
- 2002: Maryland-Indiana. Kenpom ceases. Maryland was 32-4 and 15-1 in the ACC; Indiana was probably the most meh championship game participant in the last decade other than this year's duo, a 25-12 team that played a 12, a 13, Duke, and a 10 to reach the Final Four.
- 2001: Duke-Arizona. One-seed Duke ended up 35-4; Arizona was a two that beat one seeds consecutively to reach the final.
In the last decade three teams who shouldn't have been there reached the championship game, and one lost by 12 to a very deserving champion. The system has worked—found a more satisfying conclusion to the season than just having a poll—90% of the time over the past ten years. The BCS's strike rate… not so much.
Teams like Butler (last year), 2005 Florida, and 2003 Kansas who finished the year at or near the top of performance-based* computer rankings were given the opportunity to prove they were worthy of a title game appearance and did so; in football they'd have been shuffled off to some dork's personal fiefdom of waste and corruption. Fundamentally, the NCAA tournament works. It's not a system that makes sense for college football but it's the farthest thing from a failed playoff system in American sports.
--------------------------
*[I like Get the Picture a lot, FWIW, I just disagree with him wholly on playoffs. I poke because I respect. Disclaimers uber alles.]
**[As opposed to result-based. Margin of victory-ignorant systems like RPI and the BCS computers only consider results, not scores.]
I just don't think there was anyone in the country that was very good. The best team was probably O$U to be honest. They got beaten in a very close game by a hot and cold team. What are you going to do.
Looking at the tourney I'd say we lost to one of the top five teams in the country and probably top 3.
I do think it's fair to address those people who condemn college football and imply that NCAA basketball has it nearly perfect (I'm thinking of Dick Vitale) and point out that the basketball tournament has its flaws too. The best way to decide a champion is probably the NBA/NHL model, whereby you play a seven-game series against each opponent.
I wouldn't change the tournament. What I would change is the perception that a season is a failure if, like Kansas, you went something like 35-3 and lost in the Elite Eight.
seasons ending with tournaments. To change that perception, you have to get rid of the tournament.
I'd like to see an eight-team college football playoff with six teams coming from the BCS conferences and two at-large teams. The teams are seeded 1 thru 8 with the higher rated team playing at their home stadium during the quarter- and semi-final rounds. If a conference champion is not in the Top 15 of the rating system that is utilized, it does not participate in the playoff and another at-large team is added. Teams from the same conference cannot meet in the quarter-finals (first round). The first two rounds are played during the second and third weekends of December. The bowl games follow and are completed before the national championship game at a neutral site during the second weekend of January.
This system ensures that games have meaninig through the end of the season, especially for those conferences with season-ending conference championship games. It also ensure there are enough high end teams available to play in the major bowls in order to keep that system relatively intact.
Using the BCS rankings, here's what the first round games would have looked like from 1998 to the present:
1998
#8 Syracuse (8-3, Big East Champion) at #1 Tennessee (12-0, SEC Champion)
#5 UCLA (10-1, Pac 10 Champion) at #4 Ohio State (11-1, Big Ten Champion)
#7 Texas A&M (11-2 Big XII At Large) at #2 Florida State (11-1, ACC Champion)
#6 Arizona (11-1, Pac 10 At Large) at #3 Kansas State (11-1, Big XII Champion)
Notes: Big East Champion Syracuse is ranked #15 in BCS polls and is permitted to be in playoff. Texas A&M (#6 in BCS) and Arizona (#7 in BCS) swap spots in post-season in order to preclude two Big XII teams (Texas A&M and Kansas State) from playing one another in the first round of the playoffs.
1999
#8 Michigan (9-2, Big Ten At Large) at #1 Florida State (11-0, ACC Champion)
#5 Kansas State (10-1, Big XII At Large) at #4 Alabama (10-2, SEC Champion)
#7 Wisconsin (9-2, Big Ten Champion) at #2 Virginia Tech (11-0, Big East Champion)
#6 Tennessee (9-2, SEC At Large) at #3 Nebraska (11-1, Big XII Champion)
Notes: Since the Pac 10 champion is not in the Top 15 of the BCS standings, no representative from this conference is in the post-season playoff. Undefeated Marshall (12-0, #12) is not in the playoff because three other at-large teams are ranked higher (Kansas State, Tennessee and Michigan)
2000
#8 Florida (10-2, SEC Champion) at #1 Oklahoma (12-0, Big XII Champion)
#5 Virginia Tech (10-1, Big East At Large) at #4 Washington (10-1, Pac 10 Champion)
#7 Nebraska (9-2, Big XII At Large) at #2 Florida State (11-1, ACC Champion)
#6 Oregon State (10-1, Pac 10 At Large) at #3 Miami-FL (10-1, Big East Champion)
Notes: Since the Big Ten conference champion did not finish in the Top 15 in the BCS rankings, there is no representative from the conference in the playoffs. Notre Dame (#11, 9-2) was ranked below the two at-large teams (Oregon and Nebraska).
2001
#8 LSU (9-3, SEC Champion) at #1 Miami (12-0, Big East Champion)
#5 Florida (9-2, SEC At Large) at #4 Oregon (10-1, Pac 10 Champion)
#7 Maryland (10-1, ACC Champion) at #2 Nebraska (11-1, Big XII At Large)
#6 Illinois (10-1, Big Ten Champion) at #3 Colorado (10-2, Big XII Champion)
Notes: This is a peculiar season where the BCS rankings show Nebraska ranked one space higher than Big XII Champion Colorado. CU beat Texas (10-2, #7) in the Big XII Championship Game 39-37. Florida (9-2, #5) also lost to Tennessee (10-2, #6), who subsequently was defeated by LSU (9-3, #13) in the SEC Championship Game. It also clearly illustrates how losing a conference championship game can mean being eliminated from the post-season playoff.
2002
#8 Florida State (9-4, ACC Champion) at #1 Miami-FL (12-0, Big East Champion)
#5 Iowa (11-1, Big Ten At Large) at #4 USC (10-2, Pac 10 Champion)
#7 Oklahoma (11-2, Big XII Champion) at #2 Ohio State (13-0, Big Ten Champion)
#6 Washington State (10-2, Pac 10 At Large) at #3 Georgia (12-1, SEC Champion)
Notes: Florida State was ranked #14 in the BCS standings. Notre Dame (10-2) was rated #9 in the BCS rankings, but the two available at-large bids go to higher-ranked Iowa and Washington State.
2003
#8 Miami-FL (10-2, Big East Champion) at #1 Oklahoma (12-1, Big XII Champion)
#5 Texas (10-2, Big XII At Large) at #4 Michigan (10-2, Big Ten Champion)
#7 Florida State (10-2, ACC Champion) at #2 LSU (12-1, SEC Champion)
#6 Ohio State (10-2, Big Ten At Large) at #3 USC (11-1, Pac 10 Champion)
Notes: Since Michigan and Ohio State were ranked #4 and #5 in the BCS rankings and the rules preclude teams from the same conference playing one another in the quarter finals, OSU was moved to the #6 spot and Texas went to #5.
2004
#8 Iowa (9-2, Big Ten Champion) at #1 USC (12-0, Pac 10 Champion)
#5 California (10-1, Pac 10 At Large) at #4 Texas (10-1, Big XII At Large)
#7 Virginia Tech (10-2, ACC Champion) at #2 Oklahoma (12-0, Big XII Champion)
#6 Utah (11-0 MWC At Large at #3 Auburn (12-0, SEC Champion)
Notes: Since no Big East team was in the Top 15 of the BCS standings, the conference was not represented in the playoffs. This was the season when Miami-FL, Virginia Tech became members of the ACC.
2005
#8 West Virginia (11-1, Big East Champion) at #1 USC (12-0, Pac 10 Champion)
#5 Oregon (10-1, Pac 10 At Large) at #4 Ohio State (9-2, Big Ten At Large)
#7 Miami-FL (9-2, ACC Champion) at #2 Texas (12-0, Big XII Champion)
#6 Georgia (10-2, SEC Champion) at #3 Penn State (10-1, Big Ten Champion)
Notes: Notre Dame (9-2) is rated #6 in the BCS polls, but the two available at-large bids go to the higher rated Ohio State and Oregon.
2006
#8 Wake Forest (11-2, ACC Champion) at #1 Ohio State (12-0, Big Ten Champion)
#5 USC (10-2, Pac 10 Champion) at #4 LSU (10-2, SEC At Large)
#7 Oklahoma (11-2, Big XII Champion) at #2 Florida (12-1, SEC Champion)
#6 Louisville (11-1, Big East Champion) at #3 Michigan (11-1, Big Ten At Large)
Notes: Notre Dame (10-2) is rated #11 in the BCS polls, but the two available at-large bids go to higher rated Michigan and LSU.
2007
#8 West Virginia (10-2, Big East Champion) at #1 Ohio State (11-1, Big Ten Champion)
#5 Georgia (10-2, SEC At Large) at #4 Oklahoma (11-2, Big XII Champion)
#7 USC (10-2, Pac 10 Champion) at #2 LSU (11-2, SEC Champion)
#6 Missouri (11-2, Big XII At Large) at #3 Virginia Tech (11-2, ACC Champion)
2008
#8 Georgia Tech (ACC Champion, 9-3) at #1 Oklahoma (Big XII Champion, 12-1)
#5 USC (11-1, Pac 10 Champion) at #4 Alabama (SEC At Large, 12-1)
#7 Cincinnati (Big East Champion, 11-2) at #2 Florida (SEC Champion, 12-1)
#6 Penn State (Big Ten Champion, 11-1) at #3 Texas (Big XII At Large, 11-1)
Notes: Despite going undefeated, Utah (#6) and Boise State (#9) do not get at large bids because Alabama and Texas are rated in the BCS polls. Texas Tech (11-1, #7) also does not get into playoff.
2009
#8 Georgia Tech (11-2, ACC Champion) at #1 Alabama (13-0, SEC Champion)
#5 Florida (12-1, SEC At Large) at #4 TCU (12-0, MWC At Large)
#7 Ohio State (10-2, Big Ten Champion) at #2 Texas (13-0, Big XII Champion)
#6 Oregon (10-2, Pac Ten Champion) at #3 Cincinnati (12-0, Big East Champion)
Notes: Boise State (13-0, #6) is not included in playoff because Florida and TCU are higher rated at-large teams.
2010
#8 Virginia Tech (11-2, ACC Champion) at #1 Auburn (13-0, SEC Champion)
#5 Wisconsin (11-1, Big Ten Champion) at #4 Stanford (11-1, Pac 10 At Large)
#7 Oklahoma (11-2, Big XII Champion) at #2 Oregon (12-0, Pac 10 Champion)
#6 Ohio State (11-1, Big Ten At Large) at #3 TCU (12-0, MWC At Large)
Notes: Big East Champion Connecticut does not get playoff bid because the team was not rated in Top 15 of BCS rankings.
tl;dr. This kind of post is what the Diaries are for.
Wait...in that picture of Junker, does his tie have doller-signs ($) on it? Wow. Should have seen this coming.
The BCS sucks because no team truly controls its destiny at the beginning of the season. In the 13 years that the BCS has determined the national champion, 8 teams have gone undefeated (including their bowl game) and not been afforded the chance to play in the national championship. That means that 8 potentially deserving teams were eliminated from contention for the BCS championship before the season even began. In the NCAA Tournament, every potential deserving team is given a chance to win it all and if a weaker team makes it all the way to the championship game, it is because they earned it on the court.
Yeah they had a .500 conference record, but name one team in college basketball that had a more impressive list of victims this season than UConn. It's not a very long list. One problem with this uproar is that people who don't watch the regular season think that the quality of the elite college basketball teams is much higher than it really is. By the end of the season UConn was easily one of the top ten overall teams.
Not to mention that UConn went 30-9 overall. Yeah, they were 9-9 in regular-season conference play, but that's the only time they ever lost. It seems in retrospect that they were a good team that just went through a slump in February.
Is those looking at the single championship game in the NCAA being ugly as a justification for the BCS...the only reason it was ugly HAD to be because of the teams that were playing there weren't teh best ones, right?
Wrong.
I seem to recall a certain BCS title game earlier this year where #1 and #2 ranked teams played and it was kind of an ugly game too. (an aside: we can argue all day whether others deserved a shot, and I believe they did, but you cannot argue that Oregon and Auburn DIDN'T deserve to be there) We were expecting a huge shootout with two of the most prolific offenses in the nation, and yet I recall like 3 turnovers and a bunch of 3-and-outs to start the game. The offenses setteld in a LITTLE, but the defenses dictated much of the championship game, to the point where you might call it 'ugly' too. That alone discredits all those tweets from people using last night's game as a reason why the BCS works.
People want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to "give a chance" to lots of teams, but don't actually want to see most of them win the title. Kind of like how the NBA theoretically wants to let the best non-playoff teams get a shot at the lottery, but every time one of them beats the odds, the league rigs the odds further for the next year (thereby making the lottery increasingly pointless).
The #1 and #2 seeds have only themselves to blame. They lost.
Plus if you actually want to go back a decade, in 2000 Michigan State beat Florida...UF was a 5, but MSU was the prohibitive favorite after KMart broke his leg before the tourney.
The problem with the NCAA Basketball tournament, and the reason it can't be compared to a potential football playoff, is that 68 teams is WAY too many. The ideal football playoff would be 8 or 12 teams. That is just enough teams to guarantee that you selected the best team, but not so many teams that you're going to end up with an undeserving team win the championship. Football is a much different game than basketball anyways. Average football teams don't go on runs like UConn, Butler, and VCU did. In football the better team wins way more than they don't.
Comments