Ten-Team FBS Playoff: 2003 Hypothetical

by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 9, 2010 2:22 AM CDT in Football

As promised, I'm coming back to my earlier proposal for a 10-team FBS playoff, to see how it might have played out in earlier years. For a detailed explanation of how the system works, please refer back to my original article, in which I outlined the plan. The first season I'll look at after the jump is 2003 or, as I like to call it, "The Year of Big Game Bob Losing His Mojo."

Background

The 2003 college football season was most notable for producing a split championship -- which the BCS had seemed to promise would never happen again. USC (AP) and LSU (Coaches' Poll--BCS) shared the national championship after the bowl season had concluded. Oklahoma had held the top spot in both the AP and the Coaches' Poll for the entire year. Even after being throttled by K-State in the Big 12 Championship Game, the Sooners remained #1 in the BCS rankings, based solely upon their strength in the computer portion of the rankings, as both "human" polls dropped them to #3. In the final BCS rankings, LSU passed USC for the #2 spot in the BCS rankings by the slimmest of margins, despite USC being #1 in both human polls.

This set the stage for the controversial split national championship. LSU defeated Oklahoma 21-14 for the BCS National Title (which the Coaches' Poll was contractually obligated to award to the winner of the BCS title game), and USC defeated 4th-ranked Michigan 28-14 for the AP National Title (as the writers were under no such contractual obligation). Calls for a playoff grew louder after this result, but have -- as of yet, anyway -- gone unheeded by the NCAA.

2003, With the Hypothetical Bailey Playoff System

For those who couldn't be bothered to click the link to my previous article above, the system is relatively simple. It involves 10 teams, with 6 automatic qualifiers from the "BCS Conferences", and 1 automatic qualifier from the Non-BCS/Independent teams. In other words, every year there would be at least one non-BCS team involved in the playoffs, even if they had one loss (as was the case in 2003). In addition to the seven automatic bids, three "Wild Card" bids would be given as well. These would go to the highest-ranked (according to the BCS formula) teams left in the pool of potential qualifiers. Now, let's take a look at how 2003 would have shaped up. Teams who played in a BCS conference championship game (which, because of how Week 1 would be scheduled, would not allow them to play in either Week 1 game) are noted with a plus sign.

Automatic Qualifiers

ACC: Florida State, 10-2
Big East: Miami (FL), 10-2
Big Ten: Michigan, 10-2
Big 12: Kansas State+, 10-3*
Pac-10: USC, 11-1
SEC: LSU+, 12-1
Non-BCS: Miami (OH), 12-1 (Boise State (12-1) and TCU (11-1) both had one loss after the regular-season this year, but both finished just behind the Redhawks in the final BCS rankings.)

Wild Cards

Oklahoma+, 12-1
Texas, 10-2
Ohio State, 10-2

* = one win was taken off of KSU's record, because according to the scheduling rules that would be in place, they would not have been allowed to play the extra 13th game before the Big 12 Championship Game, if this plan had been in place.

Seeding

When seeding these teams 1 through 10, I kept a couple of factors in mind. First, no team could play another team from their own conference in their opening game. That meant that Texas joined OU and Kansas State as automatic Week 2 teams, since any iteration placing Texas into a Week 1 game would have forced OU to drop from their #1 seed down to a #3 seed to avoid playing Texas in their first game.

1 = Oklahoma (12-1) -- Strangely, the BCS rankings still placed them #1, so that's where I seeded them.
2 = LSU (12-1) -- Again, seeded exactly where the BCS rankings placed them.
3 = USC (11-1) -- Ditto the above.
4 = Ohio State (10-2)
5 = Kansas State (10-3) -- I give KSU the nod over Texas here because UT lost 65-13 to OU in the regular season.
6 = Texas (10-2)
7 = Michigan (10-2)
8 = Miami (FL) (10-2)
9 = Florida State (10-2)
10 = Miami (OH) (12-1)

Match-ups/Results

I put these match-ups through the highly-accurate Bailey Simulation Model, and these were the results. (In other words, I made crap up for each match-up.)

Week 1 (prior to the two BCS League Championship Games)
10 Miami (OH) (13-1) upsets 7 Michigan (10-3) 47-44 on the road, in overtime.

8 Miami (FL) (11-2) defeats 9 Florida State (10-3) in a 16-14 defensive slugfest at Coral Gables. This was their actual Orange Bowl result in 2003.

Week 2 (December 13)
1 Oklahoma (13-1) defeats 10 Miami (OH) (13-2) 35-17, in Norman, in a game that's a bit closer than it looks.

5 KSU (11-3) stuns 4 Ohio State (10-3) in The Horsehoe -- a come-from-behind, 38-35 thriller, that leaves everyone breathless, and wondering why we didn't do this whole playoff thing earlier.

2 LSU (12-1) defeats 8 Miami (FL) (11-3) 28-20 in another down-to-the-wire game.

3 USC (12-1) downs 6 Texas (10-3) 34-27 after Vince Young leads a stirring second-half comeback to tie the game at 27.

Week 3 (Thursday, January 1, 2004)
5 Kansas State (12-3) handles 1 Oklahoma (13-2) 38-27, after all the pundits thought that OU would gain revenge. (Note: I think KSU just had OU's number this year, for whatever reason.)

3 USC (13-1) defeats 2 LSU (12-2) 27-20 in what is widely-viewed as the de facto championship game, after OU is knocked off again by KSU.

Week 4 (Friday, January 9, 2004)
5 KSU (13-3) shocks 3 USC (13-2) 32-31 in a back-and-forth affair that sees KSU lead 17-14 at the half, before falling behind 31-24 as the fourth quarter is winding down. Roberson leads the Cats on one last drive, and sneaks over from the 1-yard line with only ten seconds to play in the game. Coach Snyder decides to roll the bones, and goes for two and the win. Roberson pitches to Sproles on the sprint option, and the little man dives in past the corner pylon, giving KSU a 32-31 victory.

Brief Analysis

All of my homeristic (Why is that not a word? I hate these red squigglies!) tendencies aside, how exciting would this type of playoff format have been? Even if chalk had held, and OU had played USC in the national championship game, with USC winning (they were the best team in the land that year) getting to that point would have been an incredible amount of fun! Also, the teams that lost in weeks 1 and 2 could have accepted bids to a traditional bowl game, keeping the bowl fat cats as happy as possible. I haven't had time to take such an in-depth look at other controversial years, but I can't imagine that they would have played out all that much differently, as far as the excitement of great playoff match-ups goes. My next goal for this project will most likely be the infamous 1998 season. Hopefully, my very homeristic take on that year will be cathartic, at least to me.

Let me know what you think of this first prior season analysis in the comments below.

Poll

Do you think that KSU would have had a realistic shot at the national title had there been a playoff system like the one decribed here in 2003?

Tweet Comment 34 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Good stuff...

Don’t know if you’re aware, but Bracket did about a quarter-million of similar posts a while back. Nonetheless, good stuff.

by Bauer Power on Oct 9, 2010 7:55 AM CDT via mobile reply actions

I had no idea

I’ll try to find them, so I don’t just rehash his points.

by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 9, 2010 7:56 AM CDT up reply actions

I voted "no" for two reasons

1. I don’t think that this team would have beaten USC or LSU. Both were loaded and then some.

2. THE 2003 K-STATE DID NOT DESERVE TO PLAY FOR A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. Folks, this was a really good team. But they lost FOUR games that year. Four.

One of the real joys of college football is that every game matters if you want to reach the top. For me, it would greatly cheapen things if a team could sort of sleepwalk through a few games (Okie State and Marshall) and then turn it on for a few games at the end and emerge national champions.

The Cats had a very good team; they played the game of their program and deserved the Big 12 Championship. But what separates college football from all other college sports—none of which I really both to watch much in the regular season—is that season-long consistency matters. Otherwise, it’s just another “who gets hot at at the right time” sort of scenario.

(Now, a four team playoff or a +1 format would be another story. The "98 Cats—who played 47 terrific quarters—would have been deserving of that chance.)

My blogs: pakagankarachi.livejournal.com (dormant)
burmahunkalove.livejournal.com (occasional signs of life)

by MrHappyMushroom on Oct 9, 2010 8:03 AM CDT reply actions

No

The 2003 Cats lost 3 games by a TOTAL of 15 points. The fourth game they lost (to OH State 35-28) had as much to do with the mess beforehand as anything else. They won their conference championship. Any realistic playoff scenario gives an auto-bid to the conference champions of the Big 6. Therefore, by necessity, the Cats (who were very hot at the end of the regular season) would have gotten the chance to play another game one week after they throttle OU, instead of having to wait a month to play a team they would have beat in OSU. Now, would they have won a semifinal game against OU/USC/LSU? It depends who they were matched up with. If it was OU, I think they would have. But, no, I don’t think it’s likely that they would have beaten USC. But to say that just because a team has lost 3 games means they should be excluded from having a chance to win it all in a playoff (if they manage to win their conference) seems a bit odd to me.

by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 9, 2010 8:13 AM CDT up reply actions

Remember, this team had non-talent related problems

Roberson was injured for the Marshall loss, and he was just coming back against Okie State (he may have even rushed his return).

The Texas game was heartbreaking, but after that we were a solid team. We played Ohio State very well in the second half, and if we had played that way the whole game we would have won the game hands down.

2003 was a good team, just like 2002. We should also have had a chance to play for it all in 2002, considering we only lost TWO games that year, but unfortunately one was to Colorado who won the North, so we didn’t get a chance to win the Big XII championship.

by ChrisP Wildcat on Oct 9, 2010 9:42 AM CDT up reply actions

To clarify

The reason I believe we played poorly the first half of the Fiesta Bowl is because of Roberson’s off-field shenanigans that distracted our whole team.

by ChrisP Wildcat on Oct 9, 2010 9:43 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Very much so

That was the point I was making above as well.

by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 9, 2010 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions

I Don't Disagree with You Guys at All.

Which is exactly the point I was making in the first place.

My point is not that on any given Saturday, the 2003 Cats couldn’t have potentially beaten anyone. Sure, they were really good. They were one of the dozen or so upper level teams that year and when they were clicking, they were terrific. I have my personal doubts that they could have withstood three, four, five OU-caliber games in a row—OSU’s defense, for example, completely shut down Sproles and Roberson was certainly capable of falling into a spiral, as he did against both OSUs. But that’s pure conjecture on all of our parts.

But I don’t accept the “non-talented related problems” explanation as irrelevant to how good these team was. Sure, Roberson got hurt before Marshall. But can we really claim that the “best team in the country” shouldn’t easily be able to overcome that against Marshall at home? And if Jeff Schwinn was the second best option, that suggests a serious lack of depth. (Had Carson Palmer gone down that year—was he the USC QB that year?—Matt Leinhart or someone of similar quality would have stepped in.) The UT loss was tough and understandable (I was there for that one) and shouldn’t disqualify a team as the National Champion. But Marshall and OSU games happen to really good teams, but not ones with the depth and consistency to be deserving of the crown.

And, of course, Ell Roberson being an idiot and playing with his head up his ass for three quarters cost the Cats a chance at the Fiesta Bowl. But that’s also a part of the team’s make up. Ell—for all of his stunning talent—was a bonehead in so many ways, and not a guy I ever felt like the Cats could count on for his best effort. One of these days I look up the details, but I’m willing to bet that the Roberson-led Cat teams had something like a 3-7 record in games decided by ten points or less. (The two USC games are the exceptions that come to mind.) Ell’s MO often seemed to be to be in a funk for much of the game, fall behind by 21 and then lead a dramatic 17 point comeback. And I swear I recall him throwing a big interception against Okie State and being so annoyed that he sort of trotted past the returning DB rather than sold out to make a tackle.

So, if Ell Roberson hadn’t put himself above the team, we might have beaten Ohio State? Sure. But that was part of Roberson’s issue, IMO. And it’s what separated him from MB in my book. Yeah, Michael fumbled. But he never, ever seemed to give it anything less than his most. (Recall his goal line tackle of Monte Reagnor (sp?) of Tech in 1997.

Finally, yeah, I do think an expanded playoff would mean that the regular season is less important. Almost by definition, all non-com games would become exhibition games, at least in terms of the NC. And a really bad loss, or two, (or even three) in conference during the course of a season could end up being meaningless, as long as the team gets some breaks and puts it together at the right time. But this might not bother some, and that’s fine. It just would bother me.

My blogs: pakagankarachi.livejournal.com (dormant)
burmahunkalove.livejournal.com (occasional signs of life)

by MrHappyMushroom on Oct 10, 2010 2:50 AM CDT up reply actions

I don’t understand how you think that the non-conference would become exhibition-like. In fact, the BCS schools would be MORE likely to play the non-BCS, and vice-versa, since the non-BCS schools would NEED these games (win or lose) to impress enough to finish atop the non-BCS standings, or to slide in as a Wild Card. And the BCS schools would play them because a loss wouldn’t AUTOMATICALLY eliminate them from BCS contention like it almost always does now. You’d see a lot more TCU/Oklahoma, Boise State/Nebraska type games, just because the OUs and Nebraskas of the world wouldn’t get killed if they lost one of those games. No, it not only wouldn’t make the regular season LESS important, it would actually ENHANCE the regular season’s importance. Now, if you expanded to 16 or 24 teams? Sure, you’d have 3 loss teams getting in regularly, and the regular season’s importance would be lessened. But with 10, I haven’t found a year yet when a team gets in with 3 losses as a Wild Card.

by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 10, 2010 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions

I Get Your Point About Encouraging More Good Games

That may be true.

But the results wouldn’t much matter at all for the Guys from the Big Conferences.

Case in point? Kansas State, 2003. With this sort of playoff, the loss to Marshall and the two conferences losses were totally meaningless as long as, a) they were in a weak division that let them get to the championship game, and b) they played lights out against OU on a given December night. Actually, these Wildcats could have, in theory, lost a couple of other non-com games and gone into the playoff series with a 9-5 record and still gone on to win it all.

Mind you, 9-5 is good. 11-3 is really good and both can be worthy of a conference championship. But personally—and this is all a matter of personal preference and not some hard and fast “right way versus wrong way”—I wouldn’t like the idea of a team that’s done pretty well being able to put it all together for three games (getting some lucky bounces along the way) and walk away with the NC.

Basketball is a different animal, because teams play 30-40 times a year. No one will be undefeated and tournaments can see teams playing two or three times a week. I love that bottom line in college football that if you take care of business 12 or 13 times, you’re where you want to be.

(I know that this doesn’t work for non-BCS teams, nor did it help Auburn out too much a few years ago. But, for the record, I also dislike the BCS system as it is. It’s too arbitrary that OU finishes a few computer points behind OU, so OU gets in the game. For me a +1 or a four team playoff—you finished number five? Well, had you won that one other game, you’d not be on the outside—would be good. Or better yet—I miss the old days where teams played to get into bowls and let the polls handle themselves. Hey, who was better in "95, Penn St or Nebraska? Still makes a good argument. Of course, I also like ties and despise the overtime system. For a hardcore lefty, I guess I’m pretty traditional…;-)

My blogs: pakagankarachi.livejournal.com (dormant)
burmahunkalove.livejournal.com (occasional signs of life)

by MrHappyMushroom on Oct 11, 2010 7:29 AM CDT up reply actions

But tell me this

If a 9-5 team gets into the playoff and beats 3 or 4 one loss (or less) teams, doesn’t that make them worthy of being the National Champions? I mean if the other teams are the ones who deserve it, shouldn’t at least one of them be able to beat this unworthy 9-5 team?

by purple_on_white on Oct 11, 2010 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions

Exactly

You’ve hit the nail on the head, p_o_w. And, the fact of the matter is, if KSU was bad enough to go 1-3 or 0-4 in conference, there’s no way they would have won the division. It’s not like we were playing Little Mary’s Sisters of the Poor in the North that year. And even a 4-team playoff (though better than the current idiocy) has potential for being completely unjust. There have been years when everyone had at least 1 loss, and 7, 8, or even more teams finished the year with one loss.In fact, 2003 was a year like that, with OU, USC, LSU, Miami (OH), TCU, and Boise State (just off the top of my head) finishing with only one loss. A whole plethora of other really good teams finished with 2 losses, and would have been invited to an arbitrary 4-team tournament instead of one of the three non-BCS one-loss teams. At some point, a playoff system is coming, I think it really IS as simple as that.

"Everybody gets one chance to do something great. Most people never take the chance, either 'cause they're too scared, or because they don't recognize it when it spits on their shoes. This is your big chance, and you shouldn't let it go by..."

by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 11, 2010 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions

Sure.

This is true if you think that it’s really only how good you are in the last third of the season that matters. A team could start 5-5, win the last couple to take a weak division with three losses, upset the other division’s champ, and get on a roll. That happens in the NCAA b-ball tourney every few years.

Ultimately, we’re just expressing preferences. I prefer each weak really mattering and rewarding consistency over the course of the season above how well the team has coalesced by December.

Of course, my original point is that I don’t see that the 2003 team had the stamina or fortitude to play four great games in a row against top flight competition. It was a team that could beat anyone, but also one that always waiting for Ell’s latest mental funk or stupid stunt.

My blogs: pakagankarachi.livejournal.com (dormant)
burmahunkalove.livejournal.com (occasional signs of life)

by MrHappyMushroom on Oct 12, 2010 6:53 AM CDT up reply actions

Come on, now,

You’re not truly comparing the 2003 team to some random 7-5 (5-3) team, are you? Sure, a team might get lucky to be in a championship game (like KSU almost did LAST year), and then pull an upset. But that kind of stuff catches up with some random team that won the last two games of their season to get lucky. They would get SMOKED in a playoff, because they’d be playing the best (or one of the two best) teams because of their low ranking.

KSU 2003 was WAY different than that. After falling to a flukily weird 4-3, they RIPPED through the rest of the schedule to win the North. I even made a prediction to a guy I was coaching with back then that the Cats would beat the Sooners by 10 points or so. He laughed at me, and dared me to take them straight up against the Sooners (he had, at first, been willing to give me 14 points in the bet). I took it in a heartbeat. From watching their games that year, I knew they were playing their best, and I honestly felt that their “best” was better than OU was. We were supervising a B-ball tourney at the time, and had dragged a TV out on the balcony after our team’s game was over (but other games were still going on). He was pretty cocky after the first quarter, but Ell ended him pretty quickly after that. Most fun night I’ve had watching football in a long LONG time!

Hate on them all you like, but with the format I’ve set up here (quarterfinals, three weeks off, semifnals, at least 8 days off, finals), the Cats may have had a real shot. And hate on Ell all you want, that guy had serious skills, and he was always a big play waiting to happen.

by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 12, 2010 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions

No one is saying that

Ell was better than Bishop. Quite clearly he was not. But he was still pretty good, and we had Sproles to lean on if Roberson was having a bad day.

We played solid football after that Texas game up until the Fiesta Bowl, I think we could have withstood a play-off gauntlet.

by ChrisP Wildcat on Oct 12, 2010 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions

thumbs down on any playoff system

It’s 10:50 a.m. (CDT). I’ve just finished the bacon & eggs, gettin ready to settle in for Baylor/Tech, then Wolverine/Sparty; Razorback/Aggies; Cyclones/Utes – and I haven’t even finished figuring out who else I will channel surf on. AND WE WANT TO RUIN THIS with a frickin playoff system? Who cares who the "REAL" #1 IS!
And besides, (and I haven’t had a drink since Wednesday afternoon at Last Chance) Scott, your system is too frickin complicated! I can’t wrap my mind around it! If you think the "debates" are bad now, they’ll be even worse with any playoff system that’s adopted.
I know I’m in the minority, but I say leave the system alone. Win your conference. Go to a nice bowl game and hopefully win. We don’t have to buy into that Husker mentality of lusting after the National Title. A playoff system will weaken, not strengthen, the schools like KSU who are not in the traditional mix of who is considered "worthy" of national title consideration.

oh hail the Purple and White

by Furnace76 on Oct 9, 2010 11:00 AM CDT reply actions

I will never understand

how people who think that having an actual playoff system would ruin the regular season think. I just don’t get it. There would be far MORE meaningful games, with potential spots as the last Wild Card team, or the winner of your division up for grabs, not LESS of them. And the games would actually MEAN something, and not just be for which corporate sponsored bowl you were going to play in. And it’s not like the bowl system would cease to exist. The way I envision it, the bowls would stay pretty much as they are.

Now, go have a drink, F76! :)

by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 9, 2010 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions

Point of Order.

Miami would not have been available to play on the first week of your playoff. The MAC plays a championship game. You’d either have to give them the six seed, or give the nod to Boise or TCU.

I am now channeling Will McDonald's optimism.

by jonfmorse on Oct 9, 2010 4:42 PM CDT reply actions

Actually

Thanks for the note, but part of my original plan said that any non-BCS league that wanted to have a championship game had to hold it by the week before the BCS leagues held theirs, for that very reason.

by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 9, 2010 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions

Eh.

I think that’s sort of a ridiculous demand to make of them. “Set up your entire schedule so that you have no off-weeks because you have to keep the NEXT-to-last weekend of the regular season free for a championship game because maybe one season of out ten you’ll have a team that’s actually in contention for a playoff bid. And the only reason you have to do this is because even though in the eyes of the NCAA there is no difference whatsoever between the MAC and the SEC, we’re still going to treat you as something less than a citizen here because we don’t have the balls to just leave the NCAA altogether and form our own little 64-team semi-pro football clique.”

I am now channeling Will McDonald's optimism.

by jonfmorse on Oct 9, 2010 8:21 PM CDT up reply actions

+1

I say let the 64 big boys leave; the rest of us refuse to play them; I hope KSU never allows itself to go back to being cannon fodder for the big boys like we were in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
We can play the Wyomings and IaStates and Utah States and have a darn good time. Coachs salaries won’t be $2 mill a year; it will all work out.

oh hail the Purple and White

by Furnace76 on Oct 9, 2010 10:38 PM CDT up reply actions

All you have to do is start the season in the last week of August (which some teams already do), and there will still be a bye week. And I highly doubt if the non-BCS schools would bitch too much about moving their championship games up a week, if it meant that one of their teams might play for the national championship.

by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 10, 2010 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions

I guess I just have a problem with that whole

separate but equal deal.

I am now channeling Will McDonald's optimism.

by jonfmorse on Oct 10, 2010 7:28 PM CDT up reply actions

This isn't civil rights, Jon.

And we’re not talking about Wallace saying, “Segregation forever!” or anything like that. It’s actual fact that football isn’t played on as consistently high levels in those conferences as it is in (most) of the BCS conferences.

by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 10, 2010 7:35 PM CDT up reply actions

I will repeat.

Legislatively, in the eyes of the NCAA, there is no difference between the SEC and the Sun Belt. There is no difference between Alabama and North Texas. (The same is not true in FCS; there IS a fundamental operational difference between the Colonial and the Pioneer League, which allows the NCAA to refuse to grant automatic bids to the champions of the limited- or non-scholarship conferences. There is no fundamental operational difference between the BCS schools and the non-AQs.)

The NCAA cannot sponsor a playoff which does not include the champions of each conference without breaking its own rules. Which leaves a non-NCAA-sponsored tournament (and thus a continuation of the “non-official” championship) as the only alternative.

And I guarantee you that if that happens, some crafty legislator on Capitol Hill is suddenly going to realize that these are (mostly) public institutions, and all of them (even the ones that aren’t public) are being supported by tax dollars. Even though it could be argued it’s none of the federal government’s business, they can put the screws to Division I the same way they forced states to raise the drinking age and lower speed limits: by threatening to withhold cash. See how quick the Big Ten falls into line if Congress tells them they’re going to lose their grant money.

I am now channeling Will McDonald's optimism.

by jonfmorse on Oct 10, 2010 8:29 PM CDT up reply actions

Ok, then,

I guess if we are going to do it legally — which I don’t see as an issue, since there is a fundamental difference between the football played in these conferences — you’d have to go to a 14-team tournament, in which 11 auto-bids were granted to each conference champion, and 3 wild cards were handed out. In this format, the top 2 teams would get byes, and then the 3-seed would play the 14-seed, the 4-seed would play the 13-seed, and so on. It’s doable, but would cause 12 teams instead of 4 to play the extra game.

by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 10, 2010 8:40 PM CDT up reply actions

follow the money!

Scott – what Jon is trying to get is --drumroll -- the MONEY. The NCAA does not control the bowl system, due to a lot of historically arcane things that need not be gone into for the purpose of this discussion. The Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl etc., are set up as non-profit corporations, meaning they don’t pay income taxes on their frickin revenue.(yea right, they are non-profits, just helping out the poor and helpless). Yet, some old fat businessman is probably taking a salary of $500k (yea, I know, he pays his tax on that, after all the deducions for the travel, the $1000 meals, and nights at the best hotels in the country ) to run this "non-profit." There are so many pigs at the troff in this system – and the politicians are starting to get pissed off.
*
Now, I don’t want the politicians to get involved – they WILL screw it up. But I wish educated fans (and I consider you to be very educated) would just get off this "we need a real play-off" binge. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And I think that college football – even with all its flaws – ain’t broke.

oh hail the Purple and White

by Furnace76 on Oct 10, 2010 9:08 PM CDT up reply actions

That's the problem, F76:

It IS broken — at least from the perspective of sport. Consider if the following scenario played out:

Team A (12-1)
Team B (12-1)
Team C (12-0)
Team D (12-0)

Which teams should play for the national championship, under the current format? Teams C and D, right? Wrong. If Team A is Florida/Alabama and Team B is Oklahoma/Nebraska, it is entirely possible (even plausible) that they play for the national championship if Team C is TCU and Team D is Boise State. Instead, why not create a system that is actually fair, that allows the championship to be decided in a sporting manner? Instead, we have championship games that are held for ransom by the old money of the bowl system, with championship game participants decided by the whims of voters, and the vagaries of computer programs. It’s very odd to me that you think that the current bowl system isn’t broken, at least as far as picking a legitimate national champion. NCAA Division I-A is the ONLY major sports league to decide their champion in such a strange and nonsensical way.

by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 10, 2010 10:13 PM CDT up reply actions

What I said was:

" If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And I think that college football – even with all its flaws – ain’t broke." The bowl system is flawed – but college football is not broken. Look, I’m not trying to “win” this argument. I just don’t care – in the big scheme of things – who the “real” #1 is. The fact that Div. 1-A is the only sport that determines a champion like this is a non-starter with me. I DON’T CARE WHO THE REAL CHAMPION IN 1- A IS. You start monkeying with this system – what happens to the second and third tier bowls (let alone the 4th tier). It’s not that your system for getting a champion isn’t “good.” But there will be unintended consequences, and in my opinion, these unintended consequences won’t be good for college football. I could be wrong; I know I’m in the minority; and big money will probably bring about a playoff.

oh hail the Purple and White

by Furnace76 on Oct 10, 2010 11:05 PM CDT up reply actions

The way I structured it

nothing bad will happen to ANY of the bowls ~~- second~~ or third-tier or not. the first two rounds of the playoffs (narrowing the field to 4) are played before around December 13 or so. Because of this, all the bowls would still have their pick of big-name teams to fill their open slots. In fact, the 6 teams that would be eliminated before the semifinal round would probably be ecstatic to get a chance to play one more game, a couple or three weeks later, just for the chance to get the “bad taste” of the loss out of their mouths, and end the season on a high note. How would this cause any “unintended consequences” as you say? It’s more money for everyone (the 9 playoff games would be BIG money generators), and we would actually get to crown a REAL national champion, that earned it on the field, every year.

by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 11, 2010 1:12 AM CDT up reply actions

Actually, in this respect Scott is right.

We do need a playoff.

Of course, his reasoning for why we need a playoff is… well, not wrong, because it’s true, but it’s not the actual reason we need a playoff.

Every school which fields a football team and provides 85 scholarships for same deserves a transparently fair opportunity to share in the rewards of the post-season. Yes, Central Michigan is going to get their heads handed to them in the first round by Stanford. I have no problem with that, because at least then the MAC gets a share of the tournament revenues. And more importantly, they have a chance to double down by pulling off the upset, or maybe even really cashing in by making a run.

If you don’t let them play at all… you’re widening the gap. You’re making it even more likely that they can’t complete in the future.

I am now channeling Will McDonald's optimism.

by jonfmorse on Oct 11, 2010 4:59 AM CDT up reply actions

Yes, there is a fundamental difference.

The Big 12, SEC, and Big 10 are better than the MWC and WAC. The Pac-10 usually is, but sometimes slips a notch.

The Big East and ACC aren’t.

I am now channeling Will McDonald's optimism.

by jonfmorse on Oct 11, 2010 4:51 AM CDT up reply actions

Interesting

I haven’t run the numbers, but I think you might be underselling the Big East and ACC just a BIT. I’d say that, in all likelihood, it would break out as follows: (percentages are the possibility that the given league will be tougher, top-to-bottom than the toughest non-AQ league)

SEC (100%)
Big 12 (100%)
Big 10 (100%)
Pac 10 (90%)
ACC (80%)
Big East (60%)

Basically, the point I’m trying to make is that I’m guessing that over the last 10 years, the Big 3 leagues have been better than the toughest non-AQ league 10 times, while the Pac 10 maybe has 1 year they slipped behind the toughest non-AQ, while the ACC might have 1 year out of every 5, and the Big East 2 years out of every 5 when they are below or equal to the toughest non-AQ.

by K. Scott Bailey on Oct 11, 2010 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions