Sorta quasi OT - the BCS Computer pollsters

RedWave said:

I always play devil's advocate to statements like "The committee has gotten it right every time" and such, but you really do have a tin foil hat on, don't you?

Click to expand...

I think that he does this on purpose. I'm not sure that he really believes his own shtick.

NoNC4Tubs said:

Awesome post, Tom!

I have always that expanding the BCS formula to include four teams would come the closest to a perfect solution. But that would have made too much sense...

Click to expand...

And we'd have that except......Boise State and TCU......2010.........

TomFromBama said:

Uh... You say it like there's something WRONG with the best teams playing for the Title???

Obviously, ESPiN and the P-5 commissioners AGREE WITH YOU. That's why we abandoned a relatively objective, relatively Transparent system for a SECRET system that's utterly Subjecting and completely Non-Transparent.

Click to expand...

The one that involved subjective human beings voting as 2/3 of the formula?????????

B1GTide said:

I agree - for me, 6 would be perfect. IMO, it would be even better than 4 for a few reasons:

* Every game would mean even more because getting the #1 or #2 seed gets you a bye in the tournament. It gets back to the BCS era with respect the importance of the games
* It would allow for every P5 conference champion to make it if they all deserved it.
* It allows more room for a second team from the same P5 conference when deserved.

Click to expand...

I disagree...mostly because THEN there will be this whole thing about "but team 5 was actually better than team 2, but they had to play an extra game something something whine whine blah blah it's (name of person you hate)'s faut...."

selmaborntidefan said:

I disagree...mostly because THEN there will be this whole thing about "but team 5 was actually better than team 2, but they had to play an extra game something something whine whine blah blah it's (name of person you hate)'s faut...."

Click to expand...

It’s no different than the last three years when teams got in without playing a conference championship game.

81usaf92 said:

It’s no different than the last three years when teams got in without playing a conference championship game.

Click to expand...

It's not any different, no, but then there will be TWO whines:

1) who didn't make it AND
2) seeding

The "anti-playoff" folks were dead on right about one thing: it will EVENTUALLY expand in an effort to try and appease somebody.

Baseball expanded their playoff in 1969. What was good was we went from 2 pennant races to 4.

They expanded it in 1994 - and we went from four to ZERO.

And then in 2012, they added the "Let's make sure the Yankees-Red Sox-Dodgers make the playoff" game.

selmaborntidefan said:

It's not any different, no, but then there will be TWO whines:

1) who didn't make it AND
2) seeding

The "anti-playoff" folks were dead on right about one thing: it will EVENTUALLY expand in an effort to try and appease somebody.

Baseball expanded their playoff in 1969. What was good was we went from 2 pennant races to 4.

They expanded it in 1994 - and we went from four to ZERO.

And then in 2012, they added the "Let's make sure the Yankees-Red Sox-Dodgers make the playoff" game.

Click to expand...

But we all know it’s going to expand. 8 teams is way too many. The biggest issue I have with the current format is that being # 1 or #2 doesn’t matter with the exception of miles from campus to bowl games.

In 14 we got “rewarded” for #1 by getting the hottest team in the nation. #1 has still not won a championship in the 4 years it’s been a playoff and has only reached 2 times. #4 has WON 2 times.

What really needs to happen is for SC to emerge and do away with the Big XII. That way you have 4 clear conference winners and I think it’s easy to find 2 WC teams with the BCS formula. I think most people would be happy with that and I think if we have another 2017 season we are going to end up there or some crazy tournament. I would rather #1 and #2 to mean something.

But the point of a playoff is not to find the best team as it is to find the hottest team.

I'm not sure if this is a lame attempt to be the inverse of Stephen Colbert's character or if you really don't have access to other sites...

TomFromBama said:

Yea, BUT..... Yea, every game mattered, esp. for O$U.

BUT - Here's the THING - in the P_ayoff era, EVERY major program gets (at least) ONE MULLIGAN.

We got a Mulligan with aubarn (but ONLY because aub already had two losses THEN lost to UGa). In Almost any year of ANY prior era, that late loss puts us OUT of the NC equation - (barring a string of similar late losses by all the other top ranked teams - see 2007).

Click to expand...

Now, how many examples do I have to get to prove this is just flat out wrong?

Remember - you said ANY era:

Associated Press Pre-Bowl Champions
1950 Oklahoma lost the last game to Bryant's Kentucky team - still won it all
1951 Tennessee did the same
1964 Alabama did the same

AP Post-Bowl Champions
1993 - Florida State lost to Notre Dame head-to-head (while you did put in the caveat of the other teams having similar losses, the fact remains that BC beating Notre Dame didn't somehow turn the FSU loss into a win.....but it did in the polls)

UPI Pre-Bowl Champions
1973 - no words even necessary, lost the last game

BCS
2003 - Oklahoma loses the Big 12 title game in a 35-7 rout to Kansas St...and then plays for the national championship vs LSU

P

TomFromBama said:

AND - O$U Totally got a Mulligan for losing early to OU - get past Iowa and Alabama fans are TOTALLY watching the P_ayoffs on TV. I think we would ALL agree with this.

Click to expand...

In light of their SoS being higher than ours (esp once you add the Wisky game), the fact they would have won their conference, and the fact they would have a 12-1 record vs our 11-1 record, OF COURSE they would have gone, and there's not a Tide fan alive who could have reasonably claimed otherwise - and it has nothing to do with money.

TomFromBama said:

But here's the thing - and in our HEARTS we ALL KNOW THIS. Had O$U beaten OU, EVEN WITH THE UGLY LOSS to Iowa, they STILL get One Mulligan - and STILL make the Bracket and leave Alabama at home.

Click to expand...

You just forgot a key detail, however.......if Ohio State had beaten Oklahoma then the Sooners would have had TWO LOSSES...so even under your scenario, it is likely that Alabama gets in the playoff at the expense of OU rather than Ohio State.

You keep wanting to say team X got a "mulligan" but that only applies if other teams ALSO lose. If you have four unbeatens among the four major conferences then guess what? If UGA had beaten Auburn the first time, OU beat Iowa State, Wisky beat Ohio State......and Clemson beat Syracuse.....we wouldn't have gotten any sort of mulligan, and we wouldn't have gone in that scenario, even though everyone in the Cheeze state knows we would have pole axed the Badgers.

A mulligan isn't an accurate parallel because here it's dependent on other factors.

TomFromBama said:

Laugh all you want, but you KNOW It's true.

Click to expand...

Your scenario won't work because if Ohio State beats OU then the SOONERS have two losses.

TomFromBama said:

So if every "Major" team gets at least one Mulligan, DOES the regular season Really mean as much as it did before 2014??

Click to expand...

Well, let's see how often teams got - to use your word - mulligans......

1998 - Florida State (for some reason their one loss didn't count but Ohio State's did)
2000 - Florida St (for some reason their one loss didn't count but the ones by Miami, Washington, Va Tech, and Oregon St did)
2001 - Nebraska (for some reason their one loss by 26 points didn't count but Oregon's by 7 to Stanford did)
2003 - Oklahoma (for some reason their egregious loss didn't count.....)
2006 - Florida (for some reason their loss didn't count but those of Louisville and Michigan did)
2007 - LSU (they got two mulligans but Kansas only had one loss and Hawaii none)
2008 - Oklahoma (their loss to Texas didn't count but Texas's to Tech did)
2011 - Alabama (their loss to LSU didn't count but Boise St, Okie St and Stanford did)
2012 - Alabama (their loss didn't count but Oregon and K State's did)
2013 - Auburn (their loss to LSU didn't count but the ones by Alabama, Mich St, Baylor, and Ohio State did)

TomFromBama said:

I say no.

Click to expand...

What happens now is there IS no actual mulligan because we're not trying to fit three one-loss teams into ONE slot.

So I disagree with your conclusion.

81usaf92 said:

But we all know it’s going to expand. 8 teams is way too many. The biggest issue I have with the current format is that being # 1 or #2 doesn’t matter with the exception of miles from campus to bowl games.

Click to expand...

Eight is too many. As for the other, I guess it depends on who you draw.

81usaf92 said:

In 14 we got “rewarded” for #1 by getting the hottest team in the nation. #1 has still not won a championship in the 4 years it’s been a playoff and has only reached 2 times. #4 has WON 2 times.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but the thing that's so bad about 2014 is their THIRD-string QB beat us.

81usaf92 said:

What really needs to happen is for SC to emerge and do away with the Big XII. That way you have 4 clear conference winners and I think it’s easy to find 2 WC teams with the BCS formula. I think most people would be happy with that and I think if we have another 2017 season we are going to end up there or some crazy tournament. I would rather #1 and #2 to mean something.

But the point of a playoff is not to find the best team as it is to find the hottest team.

Click to expand...

Re: your last point.....uh, Alabama was hardly hot in November last year. They dozed through the LSU game, needed a comeback to beat MSU, and lost to Auburn in Shaq throws a brick fashion. We were stumbling down the stretch last year while Ohio State blasted a 10-win Mich St team by 45, routed an awful Illinois by 38, thumped rival Michigan by 11 on the road, and won the Big Ten by taking down the league's only unbeaten.

Ohio State was MUCH hotter coming down the stretch. UGA stumbled and rebounded, Auburn looked good until the rematch (the LSU loss was a colossal fluke), and OU looked good as well. We bumbled in there like Beetle Bailey and suddenly transformed into R Lee Ermey.

My ideal - to be honest with you - would be to punch all the numbers into Sagarin's formula and whatever four teams it spit out would be in the playoff.

Sagarin loved us a LOT in 2015.

selmaborntidefan said:

I'm not sure if this is a lame attempt to be the inverse of Stephen Colbert's character or if you really don't have access to other sites...




Now, how many examples do I have to get to prove this is just flat out wrong?

Remember - you said ANY era:

Associated Press Pre-Bowl Champions
1950 Oklahoma lost the last game to Bryant's Kentucky team - still won it all
1951 Tennessee did the same
1964 Alabama did the same

AP Post-Bowl Champions
1993 - Florida State lost to Notre Dame head-to-head (while you did put in the caveat of the other teams having similar losses, the fact remains that BC beating Notre Dame didn't somehow turn the FSU loss into a win.....but it did in the polls)

UPI Pre-Bowl Champions
1973 - no words even necessary, lost the last game

BCS
2003 - Oklahoma loses the Big 12 title game in a 35-7 rout to Kansas St...and then plays for the national championship vs LSU

P




In light of their SoS being higher than ours (esp once you add the Wisky game), the fact they would have won their conference, and the fact they would have a 12-1 record vs our 11-1 record, OF COURSE they would have gone, and there's not a Tide fan alive who could have reasonably claimed otherwise - and it has nothing to do with money.



You just forgot a key detail, however.......if Ohio State had beaten Oklahoma then the Sooners would have had TWO LOSSES...so even under your scenario, it is likely that Alabama gets in the playoff at the expense of OU rather than Ohio State.

You keep wanting to say team X got a "mulligan" but that only applies if other teams ALSO lose. If you have four unbeatens among the four major conferences then guess what? If UGA had beaten Auburn the first time, OU beat Iowa State, Wisky beat Ohio State......and Clemson beat Syracuse.....we wouldn't have gotten any sort of mulligan, and we wouldn't have gone in that scenario, even though everyone in the Cheeze state knows we would have pole axed the Badgers.

A mulligan isn't an accurate parallel because here it's dependent on other factors.



Your scenario won't work because if Ohio State beats OU then the SOONERS have two losses.




Well, let's see how often teams got - to use your word - mulligans......

1998 - Florida State (for some reason their one loss didn't count but Ohio State's did)
2000 - Florida St (for some reason their one loss didn't count but the ones by Miami, Washington, Va Tech, and Oregon St did)
2001 - Nebraska (for some reason their one loss by 26 points didn't count but Oregon's by 7 to Stanford did)
2003 - Oklahoma (for some reason their egregious loss didn't count.....)
2006 - Florida (for some reason their loss didn't count but those of Louisville and Michigan did)
2007 - LSU (they got two mulligans but Kansas only had one loss and Hawaii none)
2008 - Oklahoma (their loss to Texas didn't count but Texas's to Tech did)
2011 - Alabama (their loss to LSU didn't count but Boise St, Okie St and Stanford did)
2012 - Alabama (their loss didn't count but Oregon and K State's did)
2013 - Auburn (their loss to LSU didn't count but the ones by Alabama, Mich St, Baylor, and Ohio State did)




What happens now is there IS no actual mulligan because we're not trying to fit three one-loss teams into ONE slot.

So I disagree with your conclusion.

Click to expand...

Florida lost to FSU in 96 and got a rematch. I think the mulligan argument comes from angry LSU fans complaining about 2011.

KrAzY3 said:

Ok, so tell me this. If Auburn doesn't lose to Georgia, at what point exactly would they have corrected their mistake?

Also, since you are using the as long as they got it right in the end argument... why do we need a playoff again? I can't think of a single year the BCS got the champion wrong.

Click to expand...

The SEC Champ was getting in no matter what...

GrayTide said:

Since the select committee doesn't start its rankings until so late in the season, why not have them meet and do its rankings after the season and after the conference championship games. One meeting after the entire season is completed where they every team's body of work for the season in front of them. Saves time and money and should be more efficient. Way too easy

Click to expand...

$$$$

IMO expanding the playoff is only going to benefit teams who most likely don't deserve to be there in the first place.

I'm not sure how the expand to six teams crowd can say that rankings are too subjective and don't mean anything but then want to reward the number one and two ranked teams with byes. That just makes absolutely no sense to me. College teams play schedules that are too different to reward teams that are subjectively ranked numbers one or two. I think four teams is enough, but if they expand, it should go to eight. Unless teams suddenly have to play more similar schedules, rewarding teams for an arbitrary ranking seems crazy.

teamplayer said:

I'm not sure how the expand to six teams crowd can say that rankings are too subjective and don't mean anything but then want to reward the number one and two ranked teams with byes. That just makes absolutely no sense to me. College teams play schedules that are too different to reward teams that are subjectively ranked numbers one or two.

Click to expand...

You are combining all arguments into 1, and not accurately illustrating the 3 people who said 6’s opinion.

I think all 3 said pretty clearly that they would only be in favor of 6 if Super conferences happen and not do it now.

Valley View said:

IMO expanding the playoff is only going to benefit teams who most likely don't deserve to be there in the first place.

Click to expand...

IMO, this is the only real argument against an expansion - teams that do not belong in the championship game will eventually make it to the championship game if we are more "inclusive".

B1GTide said:

IMO, this is the only real argument against an expansion - teams that do not belong in the championship game will eventually make it to the championship game if we are more "inclusive".

Click to expand...

Maybe. But you're going to have to beat a bunch of good teams to do so. And at that point maybe you do deserve it

81usaf92 said:

Florida lost to FSU in 96 and got a rematch. I think the mulligan argument comes from angry LSU fans complaining about 2011.

Click to expand...

I was responding to Tom's use of the term, although you make a good point.

The 1996 race was really bizarre (which reminds me I need to finish the write-up for it btw). It would have been even more bizarre had Arizona State beaten the Buckeyes and then won the national title without playing at least two teams - FSU and Florida - that were better than they. (And I say this as someone who was rooting hard core for ASU).

NoNC4Tubs said:

The SEC Champ was getting in no matter what...

Click to expand...

That's kind of what I take from it as well. I realize Auburn had lost two games last year, but neither of their losses was as egregious as the singular losses of Clemson, Georgia, or OU. Plus, the Auburn-UGA rematch enabled the committee to either validate Georgia or Auburn to validate themselves.