College Football Playoff Format Sweet Spot for the Big Ten
There are so many conflicting reports wrt big ten commissioner Kevin Warren’s role in playoff expansion. Is Fox Sports pulling the strings? Is he somehow beholden to the major bowl committees (old guys in the yellow jackets that hand out Tostitos on stage) to protect what’s left of the Rose, Orange, Cotton, Sugar and Fiesta? Does Kevin think that by halting any expansion that he’s protecting the big ten conference in some way?
I decided to do a quick analysis of how playoff expansion could have helped the big ten over the last 8 years since the advent of the college football playoff era. This is based strictly on rankings, no auto-bids. N=8 is a decent sample size so I think the results begin to tell a story. I think this chart is fairly self-explanatory. The columns along the top indicate the teams in the playoffs each year.
For example in 2014, OSU was the only big ten team selected in the 4-team playoff, so I placed a 1 in that box. Had there been an 8-team playoff in 2014, MSU would have joined them as the 8th ranked team, so I placed a 2 in that box. Expanding the playoffs that season to 12 or 16 would not have mattered to the big ten as the next ranked conference team was Wisconsin at #18, so the next two boxes remain with a 2 and a 2.
After the conference’s down year in 2014 things start to get interesting for the big ten wrt a theoretical playoff expansion. In 2015, 5 of the 16 teams would have been from the big ten. In 2016, half of the 8 teams would have been from the big ten. At the bottom I totaled up how many big ten teams would have made the playoffs given each format, concluding with the percentage of big ten conference teams in each format. Notice that an 8-team playoff would have been very beneficial to the conference, with 28% of the teams over those 8 years coming from the big ten, a massive jump from the current rate of just 19% in our current 4-team playoff.
My takeaway is that an 8-team playoff seems like the sweet spot for the big ten, and a 12-team or 16-team playoff also seem to be in the conference’s best interest compared to the current 4-team playoff format.
* Bonus - WMU makes the playoff as the #15 seed in 2016.
For comparison sake I also ran the numbers for the SEC and the Big 12. Unsurprisingly the SEC has been feasting on the current 4-team playoff structure.
The Leaders (of the middle) and Best (after the other Best)!!
We don't make the playoffs (the big 10) with reasonably good reason. Only OSU has won, and nobody else has come even close.
SEC teams with championships in the past 20 years, including their incomers: Alabama, Texas, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, Oklahoma, LSU,
I agree that we'll get some more teams in, but I'm not sure there's an uptick in titles. NW, Wisky, Iowa, msu, penn state.. even when ranked top 10-12... cant hold a title to the SEC team of the day. Iowa was arguably the 3rd best B10 team last year.. we beat them by 40. Then we were completely shut down on O, D everything by Georgia.
UM, osu, and i guess USC eventually seem to be the only ones poised for it. I'd include psu too if franklin wasn't there to jack it up
There is a chasm between 90% of the big10 and any realistic playoff chance.
All great points. I guess my angle is that it would just make sense for the big ten to want to expand to claim more of the playoff $$$ pie, not to mention letting more of the conference fanbase see their teams play in the playoff every season.
I'd include psu too if franklin wasn't there to jack it up
PSU fans probably saying the same exact thing about UM/Harbaugh:
Frankin PSU career: 67-34, .663 win percentage, 3-4 in bowl games, 1 losing season, 1 conference championship
Harbaugh UM career: 61-24, .718 win percentage, 1-5 in bowl games, 1 losing season, 1 conference championship
The two programs are a lot closer together than either want to admit under their current head coaches.
Franklin has won more and lost more
Yea this is really on point - Penn St and Wiscy were even with Harbaugh's Michigan. Michigan's 2021 was a better season than anything to come out of those two programs - and 42-27 is definitely a more convincing victory than a kick 6 - but nevertheless, we squeaked by a battered Penn State last season. It was memorable and endearing and I thought it was going to be my favorite moment of the season until...
But anyway, yea, Penn State and Michigan haven't been far off from each other. This was true when we had 3 ten win seasons in 4 years compared to their 3 eleven win seasons in 4 years, and while I think our program is in a better spot right now, I still think they're not far off and are due for a rebound in 2022.
ALSO - outside of UGA and Bama in the playoff era, Michigan is 2-1 against Florida, and Harbaugh's 2nd worst squad lost a close one to middling So Car. Likewise, Penn State beat Auburn. Big Ten's middle class does all right against the SEC's middle class. We need to step up to Bama and Georgia, sure. But this isn't the late BCS.
The two programs are a lot closer together than either want to admit under their current head coaches.
A fairer metric for comparing Franklin and Harbaugh is B1G win %. Since they’re in the same division, their conference records largely consist of common opponents. Their overall records, conversely, are corrupted by things like PSU playing Memphis in its post-2019 bowl game while Michigan drew Alabama.
In B1G play, Franklin is 42-28 (.600), Harbaugh 42-17 (.712). Same number of wins, except Harbaugh got his in 11 fewer games.
In Franklin's defense, he took over a program that in 2014 was still riddled with sanctions
That is a fair point, but - IMO, a lot of the heavy lifting to repair the Sandusky damage was done by O’Bien, not Franklin.
I’m glad Franklin’s in State College - and love his long term deal.
The only school in the conference that has done less than PSU, (despite an NC) with their record of talent acquisition - is located in Columbus.
I'll definitely concede that Penn State's recruiting has outstripped michigan's but their on field results have decidedly not
Vasav, I completely agree. I would choose Harbaugh over Franklin seven days a week.
"The only school in the conference that has done less than PSU, (despite an NC) with their record of talent acquisition - is located in Columbus."
Please take off the maize colored glasses.
OSU has appeared in like 4 or 5 of the playoffs, they have only lost a total of like 4 or 5 B1G games in 10 or 11 years, and have finished every season since 2011 ranked within the top 5 or so.
They are far and away the best team in the B1G, 2021 not withstanding.
2 - over the past seven years - which college teams have had the most talented rosters? (And, my choice of seven years isn’t arbitrary, it’s just the extent of data available on 247.)
The team with the most talented roster over that period has been Alabama - no surprise there. What team is second? It’s your beloved Buckeyes. The “average” ranking over that period is “under 3” - there have been several seasons when the Bucks had the first or second most talented roster in the country. (FYI - the Bucks talent over that period is higher than Georgia’s - and Clemson. In reference to Clemson, the Bucks ranking has been an average of about five spots ahead of Clemson).
Have the Bucks played well? Sure - they have. They’ve won a lot of games. But, with all the talent that’s been recruited to Columbus - candidly - you should expect more - shouldn’t you? If you have the most talented, or second most talented roster in the country - making the playoff would be a given. And, winning at least a game when you got there makes sense too, doesn’t it?
The Bucks even made a CFP without winning the division or the conference.
What you're telling me is that Harbaugh's winning percentage would be higher if you didn't include those glorified exhibition bowl games, where the kids opt out.
Harbaugh also has a CFP appearance under his belt. Franklin's a good coach and even better opportunist, but I'll take our guy.
I definitely would rather take our guy - when Harbaugh was feeling the heat, I thought it strange that it was directed just at him, and not at Franklin, all because of 1 blocked field goal and one phantom yard in 2016. Now Harbaugh is the defending Big Ten champ, and so he's not feeling the heat, and 42-27 was great - but other than the horrid Illinois game, Penn State was an unlucky team last year. They lost 3 games to top 10 teams and a 4th to the Big Ten West champ, they lost 3 games by 1 score, and were competitive in Columbus. I think Harbaugh is better, but the programs were pretty lock step from 2016-2020 - and 2014 and 2015 Penn State was a sanctions riddled program, and 2021 Penn State was unfortunate, barring an Illinois game that looksabout like our Rutgers game.
saying "penn state isn't that far off from us" is not at all the same as "fire harbaugh, we want franklin." Penn State is not that far off from us. Harbaugh uber alles.
So the Big 2 and Little 8 is now the Big 3 and Little 13? It doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
to be fair, it stopped being the Big 2 in the 1990s - Penn State, NW and Wiscy all won titles outright. Then Michigan returned to prominence with a natty and a great run to 2004, OSU returned in 2001 with a natty and has won a share of every division or conference title since 2005 except 2011. That includes last year, but 42-27 was a pretty great. Before that, it had been Big 1, middle 4 (M, Wiscy, Sparty, Nits) and the little 9. I'd rather us win the league outright every year, but a future with 6/16 schools all being fairly competitive for the league title is probably a good and entertaining thing. And that doesn't even include consistently good Iowa, or streaky sneaky Northwestern and Purdue, or the post-Frost Huskers.
SEC teams with championships in the past 20 years, including their incomers: Alabama, Texas, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, Oklahoma, LSU,
To be fair, past 20 years is pretty arbitrary. If you go back just a few more years, Miami was still winning titles. Not sure what that has to do with today.
I think the late BCS era really did see the SEC as far and away better than the Big Ten, and the Big Ten was at best no better than the ACC, Big 12, and Pac10/12 of that era, and frankly may have been behind the Big 12. From 2006-2012, Florida (twice), LSU, Alabama (thrice, i think?) and Auburn all won natties. The SEC was way better than everyone.
In 2013 FSU broke out, in 2014 OSU snuck into the first playoff and then beat Bama and Oregon - the two programs that somehow both defined the previous era and also never met - rather convincingly. In the CFP era, 3 SEC programs have won natties, as well as OSU and Clemson. Bama has won 3 and remains ridiculous. LSU had an incredible squad in 2019 but hasn't been worth a damn outside of that. Georgia has kept pace with Ohio St. And the SEC's middle class has not looked better than Michigan, Wisconsin and Penn State - all of whom have beaten "good" SEC programs in the playoff era
The late BCS SEC was amazing. Alabama is still amazing. Georgia has been as good as Ohio - which is very good. But the rest of the SEC is riding on their coattails or looking at how good the conference once was. SEC - it just means less than it used to.
Saved the best part of the post for last. JK - appreciate the work
Really good post OP. I truly appreciate threads like this one where the OP has a fairly random thought then actually takes the time to research that thought to see it holds water.
On a different note I have to ask you a beer question. Does Two Hearted make you sleepy after drinking it? I'm pretty much an exclusive IPA guy (currently featuring CitrusMax from Market Garden in my kegerator) but man does Two Hearted give me the sleepies. One and I'm lethargic, two and I need to take a nap and it's not like it has some killer high APV.
Curious if it hits you the same way.
Hmmm, I haven't really noticed. But dammit, I guess I'll just have to do some research, for research sake of course.
I'm a big believer in post drinks coffee, especially if it's day drinking. Or weddings.
Hmmm...hops are supposed to have a soothing effect on people. In fact, you can purchase pillows filled with hops to help you sleep at night.
MGrow, beer nerd here. Bells Two Hearted is as very malty IPA. It has s lot of unfermented grains in it. My guess is that it's a bit of a sugar/malt crash after you've had a few of them. I've definitely noticed the same with maltier beers.
The fresher since it was canned + more west coast it is then you'll typically have a cleaner IPA.
The chasm between the top of the SEC and everyone else is just annoyingly large.
and not changing thanks to the NCAA
This is so true and the reason of SEC reluctance to expand. They may say to be open to expansion but if only if there are no automatic bids which further explains their "me first" narcissism.
The NCAA did nothing to support equity in recruiting. The stance several years ago about satellite camps, which could have introduced Michigan and its staff to prospects in different parts of the country - including the SEC footprint - is just one example.
The NCAA quickly caved in to the SEC / ACC requests to keep satellite camps near campus. This resulted in a much more challenging recruiting climate and hindered the chances of B1G teams to sign prospects from “more talent rich” parts of the country.
Good thought process for answering the question!
I do think that if we get to 12 or 16 --- automatic bids by conference, even conferences further down the food chain like the AAC, MWC and Sun Belt --- will become a thing.
It's impossible to predict that, of course, but an argument could be made that anything above 8 would be a sweet spot for the B1G --- your analysis considered 8 at-large bids irrelevant of conference.
yes, that's the one flaw that I now see in my analysis, it does not account for auto-bids. So maybe that shifts the big ten conference sweet spot from 8 to 12?
Yea, probably does. I think I like 12. It gives the top 4 seeds a bye and doesn't make the "last team in" automatically have to play Alabama; the last team in gets to play #5, probably a decent contest.
As you showed, the 4-team format is SEC heavy. Allowing some good PSU & Wisconsin, etc. teams to make a 12-team field would be great, and they would have winnable games in the first round consisting of teams 5-12.
I really LIKED 12 initially. But since the difference between 4 and 5 is marginal and largely subjective I don't like one getting a bye and the other not. Someone mentioned below the SEC and Big Ten conference champs getting the only byes which I actually like a lot. But of course that would be a 14 team playoff.
What if the top 4 teams were reserved for conference champs? Would that make the difference between 4 & 5 less marginal?
We'd see teams seeded 3 & 4 get a bye (includes conf champ from Pac, Big XII or ACC) despite certain SEC/B1G teams seeded 5+ be better teams than them but have to play a first round game because they didn't win their conference. Now the reward for earning a bye demands a conference championship.
It could also be a 10 team playoff - give the top 2 conference champs double-byes to the semifinals. If the idea of double-bys is icky, either make it a 6 team playoff with 2 auto-bids that are byes, or 4 conference champs get byes (like was originally discussed before OU and UT announced their move). 14 feels like way too much to me - there's usually a drop off between the top 1-3 teams and then again somewhere in the back half of the top 10. Honestly, other than 2014 where Ohio snuck in and then won the damn thing while TCU and Baylor were left out, 4 has usually felt like enough teams. At 10-12 teams you have 4 rounds - that's a third of the regular season. That's plenty - you'd already be letting in 2 loss non-champs. If anything that's too much for my old-fashioned senses.
Thanks for the analysis. With conferences going as they are, who knows what will actually happen.
I have always valued conference championships, which put me at odds with the Selection Committees. My B1G example is when OSU was placed into the playoff - despite not winning their Division or the Conference Championship. OSU was placed in the playoff in lieu of Penn State that year.
I’m an advocate of the 8 team structure. IMO, anything larger does a few things. First, it dilutes the value of a Conference Championship even more, and second - a twelve team playoff results in “byes”. My view is - “byes” and seedings are subjective - with my preference of having actual games determine things.
My 8 team model is: 1) Major Conference Champions are automatically invited. 2) ND “qualifies” through the ACC - and, ND should be considered in the ACC CCG, 3) one (or more) Group of Five Conference champions, and 4) At-Large selections to complete the field. Items 3 and 4 are for the selection committee to decide.
In a perfect world - the major bowls are used for the quarterfinals - and, those four bowls would revert to their traditional conference alignment - e,g, the B1G and Pac champs meet in the Rose Bowl. The semifinals and final can “move around” for their locations.
I also am very against any type of format that includes a bye, because as you pointed out these rankings are largely subjective. So to give give the #4 "ranked" team a bye while making the #5 have to play an extra game seems seems unfair.
I'm actually wondering if the super 2 will give their conference champs a bye, and then maybe 2 more autobids for conference champs and then say 6 at large bids. In the CFP the Rose and Sugar have clearly become more important than the Orange (or Fiesta, Cotton, and of course the Peach) so in a weird way...i dunno I could see SEC champ gets a bye to the sugar and Big Ten champ gets a bye to the rose and everyone else plays in a rose bracket and a sugar bracket
now those 2 byes make more sense.
The argument against conference champs is that an 8-4 teams wins a lousy division and then happens to win their conference championship game and gets in the playoff, when they wouldn't even make a 16-team field as an at-large. Unless conference championship games were eliminated and the regular season champ gets the auto bid, in which case they earned it.
Any asterisk that provides an ND clause needs to be jettisoned. If they want to remain independent, they get lumped in with the rest of the independents. AD @ ND is put on the same level as a conference champion, which is ridiculous. We need to stop enabling their independence.
i'd be down with getting rid of conference championship games. But really I expect the trend to divisionless conferences and then a championship game is both most likely and also will alleviate the...we'll call it "Big Twelve North" concern.
Do Conference Championship’s mean anything? Is there any value in winning your conference?
My opinion is “yes”. If conference championships don’t mean anything - and aren’t rewarded in some way, why have conferences at all.
There have been several examples in the BS - oops, I meant BCS - era, and CFP - when it’s nothing more than a beauty contest. The argument is - “even though this team didn’t win their division or conference - or lost “head to head”, they are better than the team that defeated them.” Sorry, I don’t accept this.
I recall Nebraska loading its CCG years ago - and still played for the NC. Bama lost to LSU in Tuscaloosa - because they missed field goal attempts - and LSU had to play Bama again in the the two team BCS. OSU lost to Penn State - PSU won the division and B1G CCG - while the Bucks went to the CFP. My view is - make your field goals, defeat your opponents, win your conference.
If an 8-4 team defeats a 12-0 team in a CCG, then who is the better team? Is it a beauty contest - and subjective - or determined on the field and objective.
I’m a fan of conferences - and my feeling has always been - if you’re a member of a conference - the first team selected from a conference into a playoff MUST be that conference’s champion. After that - a second team can be selected as an “At-Large” participant.
Chuck - as for ND, what I think is - ND has elected to align with the ACC - and that’s fine. ND plays five (5) ACC teams per season. For the ACC CCG, their Athletic Directors vote on who should participate in their CCG. There are three choices - and the AD’s pick two. The three choices are - 1) Coastal Division champ, 2) Atlantic Division champ, and 3) ND.
I agree that “nothing special” should be done for ND, and based on ND’s decisions - they align with the ACC.
And, one final thought - you mention “regular season champ”. With conferences at 14 or more teams - who is that?
Conferences are so large, there are no “regular season champs” in football. You have Division champs - not conference champs.
I don’t know how a conference champ would be determined in a 16 team conference without a CCG.
Couldn't agree more Mazinblu!
good content. playoff expansion helps the big ten. I'm for it. Now pass me a beer.
Good post. I definitely feel like the SEC has been much less deep in the playoff era than the era of late-BCS SEC dominance, but Alabama has been so good it hasn't mattered. Georgia has been as good as the Big Ten's best, and LSU shot the moon that one season. That said, most years, beyond UGA and Bama, I'd actually take the also-rans in the Big Ten East and Wisconsin over most of the also rans in the SEC, and this data seems to think the rankings reflected that as well.
yep, sec has been top heavy and the big ten middle heavy.
That's a hell of a way to spend a summer day! Cheers