It is a good point that with a tournament the likelihood of the #1 team winning goes down. It is easier to win one game. I suppose we could be the team that upsets everyone, but I see your point. And your interesting ideas and wit were enough to make me mourn the championship we haven't lost as well. Thank you.

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.

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. 

 

 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...

This diary was not meant to be a logical analysis, just a perspective piece on playoffs. There is merit to data and history, charts and graphs. That's highly represented at mgoblog. But there's also merit to wit and an outside of the box perspective, regardless of data. I don't think this diary was meant to be taken too seriously. It's one to be taken with levity and responded in kind. And it certainly was an interesting perspective on the plight of a top team's journey to the championship, if not logically representative of the most likely scenario for Michigan. I guess I read it as more of a poke at the system than an analysis. Anyway, I found it funny, and it made me relate to the post's pain, if not its reasonability.

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.

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?

The SEC is screwed in the playoff scenario. They may not have a team get in for once, because of an upset. They will secure one our two spots in the game for at least ten years without the playoff. There are two good teams in the SEC, while you and the public believe there are ten. Arkansas sucks, and I lived there and watched them closely. They lose every big bowl game they ever go to. Florida is up and down, and play the bowl games at home. Alabama and LSU are great teams. Michigan will be that 4-8 seed most years until the big ten gets better. Shane is not that great and hasn't done anything yet; see Henson. I think Shane can be the best QB we have seen in awhile. For other DRob fans, no he isn't a qb, so please let it go. He its my favorite player ever, but I have to be honest. We will benefit more than any program from the playoff.

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?

 

 

an alternative 2006 scenario. Let's suppose UM goes undefeated until losing in a close game to OSU, and the two are ranked #1/#2 at the end of the season. In a four-game playoff, UM is paired with #3 U-Florida, and OSU is paired with #4 USC. Judging by the results of the Cap-1 bowl a year later, UM pounds UF and advances to play either OSU or USC. If it's OSU, then maybe the outcome is like the outcome of previous rematches of regular-season games, such as the bowl matchup between UF and FSU after the 1996 season, or Bama and LSU in 2011-12, ie, the team that lost in a nail-biter during the season comes back and annihilates the other team in a rematch on neutral territory. If the opponent is USC, then UM loses by three touchdowns, but the outcome is nullified by an NCAA ruling four years later. Under the BCS system, UM is talked out of its #2 ranking as part of an obvious conflict of interest between the talking heads at ESPN and the conference that the #3 team is in. The whole system revolves around the politics of money and influence with an increasingly SEC-besotted MSM, and the willingness of some coaches to cover themselves with the stench of shameless self-interest in order to advance themselves under a corrupt system poised between corrupt bowls, indifferent broadcast companies primarily concerned with money, and a strange entrenched bureaucracy at the NCAA. UM gets shafted, and loses by three touchdowns to USC in a meaningless beauty-pageant bowl, which result is nullified by the NCAA four years later. Under this scenario, it seems UM's MNC shot is better under a playoff system, although perhaps not by much.