8-Team Play-off Format.

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Sep 12, 2013
1,301
819
743
Broken Arrow, OK
#61
Coan will never get the job back from Mertz, most likely. Kid's a stud that Urban Meyer wanted badly.

But yeah, you get where I'm going with the cascading effect of this 21 day policy, even though the guys can practice again after 14 days.
I didn't see anywhere that said they could practice after 14 days. What I saw did they're required to be "out" for 21 days. I assumed that meant practice as well as games.
 
Jul 25, 2018
3,944
1,074
243
49
Boulder, CO
#62
I didn't see anywhere that said they could practice after 14 days. What I saw did they're required to be "out" for 21 days. I assumed that meant practice as well as games.
Heard it discussed multiple places & work with a guy who's a former Badger walk-on. It's 14 days, according to him & everything else I've heard on it.

Edit: found it on the B1G page.

https://bigten.org/news/2020/9/16/t...ball-season-to-resume-october-23-24-2020.aspx

"The earliest a student-athlete can return to game competition is 21 days following a COVID-19 positive diagnosis."

https://www.chicagotribune.com/spor...0201024-2yq2zytdczafdcwtwrqk4o76dq-story.html
 
Last edited:

OSU79

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 22, 2009
12,313
11,101
1,743
Back home in God's (Green) Country
#64
Jul 25, 2018
3,944
1,074
243
49
Boulder, CO
#66
Expect the B1G to modify its policy in the next 5-7 days to match the other conferences "in light of new data." They can't afford Wisky to miss 2 games or any further scheduling disruptions. They're not going to threaten their playoff spot (not that the NCAA has the balls to leave them out anyway).
Read the SI article I posted, it's enlightening.

Barry Alvarez (former Wisky Coach, now AD, former member of the CFP) is speaking out about the 21 day policy now that Wisconsin's been hit & everyone sees the possible ramifications of the policy on any B1G team being playoff eligible.

We all know tOSU's the biggest swinging d in that conference, & has the best shot at the CFP.

Nebraska tries to schedule Chattanooga, who wasn't even playing this fall, btw, & the conference shut them down.

Guess who lobbied the conference for Nebraska to be able to play that game? tOSU & Michigan, the 2 who think they've got the best shot at the CFP.

It's patently clear who the rules would be amended for here, so it'll be interesting to how this shakes out..
 
Sep 12, 2013
1,301
819
743
Broken Arrow, OK
#67
According to the SI article, they will miss 21 days of "play" or "activity". According to the Chicago Tribune article it's no practice for 21 days, but in the last week they can participate in cardiovascular activities.

What I don't see anyone mention is roster minimums like the Big XII has. In the B1G games are cancelled based on positive test rates. So next Wednesday, after the mandatory 7 day pause, when they take tests again we'll know they will play Purdue or not? What about 12 players and staff that tested positive the week before. How are those figured into the equation? If they do play, they have 3 days before the game to get in practices after not having practice for 7 days. Plus they're down to 1 rostered QB.

If they had roster rules like the Big XII, along with their 21 day mandatory no activity rule, they would miss 2 games minimum, possibly 3 (as in this specific case).

What happens when an undefeated Ohio State hits the magic 5% / 7.5% the week going into the Michigan game and they have to miss two games including the B1G CCG against a 5-0 Wisconsin?

I need to find a Wisky message board.
 
Jul 25, 2018
3,944
1,074
243
49
Boulder, CO
#68
Jul 25, 2018
3,944
1,074
243
49
Boulder, CO
#69
According to the SI article, they will miss 21 days of "play" or "activity". According to the Chicago Tribune article it's no practice for 21 days, but in the last week they can participate in cardiovascular activities.

What I don't see anyone mention is roster minimums like the Big XII has. In the B1G games are cancelled based on positive test rates. So next Wednesday, after the mandatory 7 day pause, when they take tests again we'll know they will play Purdue or not? What about 12 players and staff that tested positive the week before. How are those figured into the equation? If they do play, they have 3 days before the game to get in practices after not having practice for 7 days. Plus they're down to 1 rostered QB.

If they had roster rules like the Big XII, along with their 21 day mandatory no activity rule, they would miss 2 games minimum, possibly 3 (as in this specific case).

What happens when an undefeated Ohio State hits the magic 5% / 7.5% the week going into the Michigan game and they have to miss two games including the B1G CCG against a 5-0 Wisconsin?

I need to find a Wisky message board.
I thought it was in that article from SI, maybe not, but the B1G has a rolling average & color coded system for the teams. It's based on percentage of positive tests for each team. Not sure if they have the same position group requirements of other conferences.

In short, though, there's a collective "what the hell have we done?" now happening with the B1G's policy.

I suspect we'll see a similar, but smaller scale thing happen when Oregon's CFP chances get jeopardized once the PAC12 starts.

From the B1G:

The Big Ten Conference will use data provided by each Chief Infection Officer (CInO) to make decisions about the continuation of practice and competition, as determined by Test Positivity Rate and Population Positivity Rate, based on a seven-day rolling average:
  • Test positivity rate (number of positive tests divided by total number of tests administered):
    • Green 0-2%
    • Orange 2-5%
    • Red >5%
  • Population positivity rate (number of positive individuals divided by total population at risk):
    • Green 0-3.5%
    • Orange 3.5-7.5%
    • Red >7.5%
Decisions to alter or halt practice and competition will be based on the following scenarios:
  • Green/Green and Green/Orange: Team continues with normal practice and competition.
  • Orange/Orange and Orange/Red: Team must proceed with caution and enhance COVID-19 prevention (alter practice and meeting schedule, consider viability of continuing with scheduled competition).
  • Red/Red: Team must stop regular practice and competition for a minimum of seven days and reassess metrics until improved.
The daily testing will begin by September 30, 2020.
 
Last edited:
Sep 29, 2011
1,808
408
713
61
Breckenridge, CO
#70
Expect the B1G to modify its policy in the next 5-7 days to match the other conferences "in light of new data." They can't afford Wisky to miss 2 games or any further scheduling disruptions. They're not going to threaten their playoff spot (not that the NCAA has the balls to leave them out anyway).
B10 will not modify their policy. Not because they’ve said so, but because the 21-day policy was the concession to rigorously test for myocarditis and accepted by the schools that insisted on playing this year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jul 25, 2018
3,944
1,074
243
49
Boulder, CO
#71
B10 will not modify their policy. Not because they’ve said so, but because the 21-day policy was the concession to rigorously test for myocarditis and accepted by the schools that insisted on playing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't know if they will or not, but the data on myocarditis has flipped completely from when they instituted that mandate.

https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/28/big-ten-covid-protocol-21-days-heart-screening

In the same week that the 21-day policy ensnared one of the league’s high-profile players, some of the nation’s most acclaimed sports cardiologists published a revealing paper that may undermine the conference’s return-to-play rule less than two months after its adoption.

The nine-page report, heralded by physicians across the country, indicates that doctors are finding so few heart abnormalities in COVID-positive athletes that they are no longer recommending any cardiac screenings for those who experienced mild symptoms or no symptoms.

As recently as September, cardiologists were mostly recommending full-scale heart screenings in the absence of workable data—what some might call an appropriate, cautious approach to a novel virus’s impacts on such a significant organ.

With more data, research and experience, they are reversing course. It speaks to the greater theme of a COVID world: Everything is fluid.

“We’re building the ship as we sail,” says Matthew Martinez, a co-author of the paper and the medical director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health System in New Jersey who is the league cardiologist for Major League Soccer.

“The vast majority of athletes are falling into the asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic group. The yield and events [of heart abnormalities] are small based on limited outcome data—very, very small,” Martinez said in an interview Monday. “We are seeing that in the NCAA and also professional sports.”

According to the data, he estimates that well less than 1% of COVID-positive athletes who experience mild or no symptoms are showing cardiac issues such as myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart found in some post-virus patients.
Out of hundreds of college athletes, doctors are finding heart abnormalities in the single digits, “if we’re finding them at all,” he says.

The report was published Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a peer-reviewed medical publication that’s in its 132nd year and is held in high esteem among medical industry experts. Sports cardiologists contacted this week described Monday’s article as excellent and sound, but cautioned that data is still incomplete. A full study is expected later this fall when more numbers are crunched.

“The article is trying to restore some semblance of order to the universe with a rationale approach,” says Michael Ackerman, a genetic cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota who briefed both the Big 12 and Conference USA in August regarding the myocarditis scare that swept across college sports.

“When we made that original decision to postpone, myocarditis was everywhere in the news,” says Morton Schapiro, Northwestern’s president and the chair of the league’s highest policy-making body of chancellors and presidents. “That is and was very scary. I don’t know that if it hadn’t been for myocarditis whether the medical professionals would have recommended a different course of action.”
 
Last edited:
Sep 12, 2013
1,301
819
743
Broken Arrow, OK
#72
  • Test positivity rate (number of positive tests divided by total number of tests administered):
    • Green 0-2%
    • Orange 2-5%
    • Red >5%
  • Population positivity rate (number of positive individuals divided by total population at risk):
    • Green 0-3.5%
    • Orange 3.5-7.5%
    • Red >7.5%
So Wisky was in the orange/red zone and not required to cancel their game, though probably prudent. They cancelled because they were down to one quarterback. I give it greater that 50% chance the Purdue game is cancelled too.
 

OSU79

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 22, 2009
12,313
11,101
1,743
Back home in God's (Green) Country
#73
Expect the B1G to modify its policy in the next 5-7 days to match the other conferences "in light of new data." They can't afford Wisky to miss 2 games or any further scheduling disruptions. They're not going to threaten their playoff spot (not that the NCAA has the balls to leave them out anyway).
B10 will not modify their policy. Not because they’ve said so, but because the 21-day policy was the concession to rigorously test for myocarditis and accepted by the schools that insisted on playing this year.
I don't know if they will or not, but the data on myocarditis has flipped completely from when they instituted that mandate.

https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/28/big-ten-covid-protocol-21-days-heart-screening

In the same week that the 21-day policy ensnared one of the league’s high-profile players, some of the nation’s most acclaimed sports cardiologists published a revealing paper that may undermine the conference’s return-to-play rule less than two months after its adoption.

The nine-page report, heralded by physicians across the country, indicates that doctors are finding so few heart abnormalities in COVID-positive athletes that they are no longer recommending any cardiac screenings for those who experienced mild symptoms or no symptoms.

As recently as September, cardiologists were mostly recommending full-scale heart screenings in the absence of workable data—what some might call an appropriate, cautious approach to a novel virus’s impacts on such a significant organ.

With more data, research and experience, they are reversing course. It speaks to the greater theme of a COVID world: Everything is fluid.

“We’re building the ship as we sail,” says Matthew Martinez, a co-author of the paper and the medical director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health System in New Jersey who is the league cardiologist for Major League Soccer.

“The vast majority of athletes are falling into the asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic group. The yield and events [of heart abnormalities] are small based on limited outcome data—very, very small,” Martinez said in an interview Monday. “We are seeing that in the NCAA and also professional sports.”

According to the data, he estimates that well less than 1% of COVID-positive athletes who experience mild or no symptoms are showing cardiac issues such as myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart found in some post-virus patients.
Out of hundreds of college athletes, doctors are finding heart abnormalities in the single digits, “if we’re finding them at all,” he says.

The report was published Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a peer-reviewed medical publication that’s in its 132nd year and is held in high esteem among medical industry experts. Sports cardiologists contacted this week described Monday’s article as excellent and sound, but cautioned that data is still incomplete. A full study is expected later this fall when more numbers are crunched.

“The article is trying to restore some semblance of order to the universe with a rationale approach,” says Michael Ackerman, a genetic cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota who briefed both the Big 12 and Conference USA in August regarding the myocarditis scare that swept across college sports.

“When we made that original decision to postpone, myocarditis was everywhere in the news,” says Morton Schapiro, Northwestern’s president and the chair of the league’s highest policy-making body of chancellors and presidents. “That is and was very scary. I don’t know that if it hadn’t been for myocarditis whether the medical professionals would have recommended a different course of action.”
Hmmmm. I'll stick with my prediction.

Looks like they're already pre-selling the "new data."
 

CampusCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 4, 2006
11,652
2,238
1,743
Saint Louis, MO
#74
I think the main attraction for me with an 8 team playoff is it removes all the controversy. 5 power 5 auto bids, 1 from group of 5, and 2 at larges to make sure a really good team that got upset can still make it.

It removes the committees influence to put blue bloods in or teams that pass the eye test. They should be looking at resumes like the b-ball tourney and not be considering the eye test do much. Who has earned it by having the best season, not who you think is the best team.

Don’t like that you don’t make an 8 team playoff, tough you should have won your conference. The beauty of the b-ball tourney is that ever team in the country has a chance, win that conference tourney and you get it. Currently, the 4 team playoff means you can get left out even if you have one of the 4 best resumes.

I don’t think the 5-8 seeds would win very often, but how often does a non-1 or 2 seed win the b-ball tourney? Usually the best team will win anyway, but give everyone a fighting chance. Some 5-8 seed will win it some time, maybe once every 10 years but that is enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CampusCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 4, 2006
11,652
2,238
1,743
Saint Louis, MO
#75
So what you're saying is that you will be content with an undefeated OSU is left out of the CFP because its realistically doesn't have chance of actually making it to the Championship Game.
No, what I saying is this:

* This year, I think Georgia and Notre Dame will probably lose another game. So if we were undefeated, my belief is that would put us into the Semi-Finals under the current system.

* If we expanded to an 8-team system, then OSU would have to beat a really good team in order to earn their way into the Semi-Finals. I don't think any undefeated (or near to it) team should have to do that.

* I'm saying you could argue that the 4-team system has done a pretty could job of picking the best two teams (67%) while giving the 3/4 seed a chance to win (33%).

* I think that's as much "opportunity" as any teams deserve in a typical year.

Obviously the exceptions were the year when both Baylor and TCU got left out with 1 loss, but they did each lose a game. Its unfortunate when a team like UCF goes 2 years undefeated, but didn't get a chance. But they could have also scheduled more credible non-conference games to show themselves more deserving.

My point is most years you can probably only make a case for 4 teams anyway. After that you probably are giving teams a "second chance" which I don't believe makes sense to me. The regular season ought to mean something. I think 4 teams are enough most years to make that count.
You don’t have to water down the regular season by going to 8 teams. That just means conference games mean more and there are more games with playoff implications each week than there are now. Right now if OSU lost to Texas, then the rest of the Big XII schedule is games that have zero impact on a playoff. In an 8 team system, that would create about 6 teams fighting it out down the stretch for a playoff birth. Even if they end up an 8 seed and get blown out by Clemson, imagine how fun and the ride would be down the stretch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CampusCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 4, 2006
11,652
2,238
1,743
Saint Louis, MO
#76
I think you take the top rated G5 team no matter their rating.
I think that top ranked G5 has to be undefeated against multiple P5 opponents (at least 2, maybe 3) to qualify.
I think it’s hard for them to schedule 2-3 power 5 teams. They are committed to their conference schedule and teams like KU don’t want to play them because they know they will lose to a small school team and be embarrassed and teams like OSU don’t want to play them because there is a better chance they get upset then playing against someone like South Alabama.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CampusCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 4, 2006
11,652
2,238
1,743
Saint Louis, MO
#77
An 8 team playoff should look like this:

ACC Champ
Big12 Champ
Big Ten Champ
Pac 12 Champ
SEC Champ
Group of 5 Champ (if Ranked in top 10) If none the Highest Ranked Non Champ.
Highest Ranked - Non Champ
Next Highest Ranked - Non Champ

This is the punch card to get to the playoffs, the seeding is made by committee based on ranking and resume. Bowl selection is made after the first round is played, two weeks after the conference championship week.

Top 4 get first round home game against bottom 4. Losers of 4 games are bowl eligible.

Then back to legacy format

2 BCS games serve as semi qualifiers
+1 NCG.

So lets apply the above proposal to the 2019 season.

The Top-4 were:
LSU/Ohio State/Clemson/Oklahoma.

Teams 5-8 would have been
11-2 Georgia (who lost to LSU in the SEC Title game and unranked S. Carolina in the reg season).
11-2 Oregon (2 loss Pac-12 Champ with losses to unranked Ariz St and Auburn)
11-2 Baylor (who lost to OU in the Big-12 title game and the regular season).
10-3 Wisconsin (who lost to Ohio State in the Big-10 title game and the regular season).

(The highest ranked Group of 5 Champ would have been #17 Memphis at 12-1 with a loss to Temple. Keeping in mind Memphis lost by 2 TD's to Penn St in their Bowl which doesn't lend well to the idea of being competitive against the 8 teams listed above)

Not sure I see any of those next 4 teams having a season/resume's deserving of a shot at the National Title. So I think in 2019, the 4 team playoff worked well.
The NCAA b-ball champ doesn’t always deserve it based on their regular season record. And that is still the most successful and exciting postseason in sports.

When the Giants beat the undefeated Pats to win the SB, their regular season performance wouldn’t indicate they deserved to win the SB.

Teams change and get better / worse with time. Injuries can also change things.

You can’t say that every year there isn’t going to be a 5-8 seed win because it would happen some year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2011
1,808
408
713
61
Breckenridge, CO
#78
B10 will not modify their policy. Not because they’ve said so, but because the 21-day policy was the concession to rigorously test for myocarditis and accepted by the schools that insisted on playing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't know if they will or not, but the data on myocarditis has flipped completely from when they instituted that mandate.

https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/28/big-ten-covid-protocol-21-days-heart-screening

In the same week that the 21-day policy ensnared one of the league’s high-profile players, some of the nation’s most acclaimed sports cardiologists published a revealing paper that may undermine the conference’s return-to-play rule less than two months after its adoption.

The nine-page report, heralded by physicians across the country, indicates that doctors are finding so few heart abnormalities in COVID-positive athletes that they are no longer recommending any cardiac screenings for those who experienced mild symptoms or no symptoms.

As recently as September, cardiologists were mostly recommending full-scale heart screenings in the absence of workable data—what some might call an appropriate, cautious approach to a novel virus’s impacts on such a significant organ.

With more data, research and experience, they are reversing course. It speaks to the greater theme of a COVID world: Everything is fluid.

“We’re building the ship as we sail,” says Matthew Martinez, a co-author of the paper and the medical director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health System in New Jersey who is the league cardiologist for Major League Soccer.

“The vast majority of athletes are falling into the asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic group. The yield and events [of heart abnormalities] are small based on limited outcome data—very, very small,” Martinez said in an interview Monday. “We are seeing that in the NCAA and also professional sports.”

According to the data, he estimates that well less than 1% of COVID-positive athletes who experience mild or no symptoms are showing cardiac issues such as myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart found in some post-virus patients.
Out of hundreds of college athletes, doctors are finding heart abnormalities in the single digits, “if we’re finding them at all,” he says.

The report was published Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a peer-reviewed medical publication that’s in its 132nd year and is held in high esteem among medical industry experts. Sports cardiologists contacted this week described Monday’s article as excellent and sound, but cautioned that data is still incomplete. A full study is expected later this fall when more numbers are crunched.

“The article is trying to restore some semblance of order to the universe with a rationale approach,” says Michael Ackerman, a genetic cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota who briefed both the Big 12 and Conference USA in August regarding the myocarditis scare that swept across college sports.

“When we made that original decision to postpone, myocarditis was everywhere in the news,” says Morton Schapiro, Northwestern’s president and the chair of the league’s highest policy-making body of chancellors and presidents. “That is and was very scary. I don’t know that if it hadn’t been for myocarditis whether the medical professionals would have recommended a different course of action.”
Yeah, but the academics (Chancellors, Presidents) aren’t inclined to back-peddle. Regardless, if they don’t rescind the 21-day policy before the theoretical new time period passes since the first league positive, they can’t change it unless they want to be viewed as unfair to the players and teams impacted by a 21-day mandate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk