Bowlsby: Playoff Expansion Talk is Happening, Is Legit

  • 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.
Jul 25, 2018
784
255
63
47
Boulder, CO
#41
kidding, no. Mocking, yes.

"the rankings" are part and parcel to the whole problem. UCF should have been rated #2, except for the arbitrary ratings. That is really the whole argument. I really have no interest in defending a severely flawed entirely subjective system.

I posted solid examples of why Michigan should have been "rated" higher than UGA. You may disagree.

And there we have it. No better than letting the media pick two teams from the field and calling it a National championship.
But you don't care about the playoffs, you'd rather watch lower tier bowls, remember?

Leave it to the rest of us to improve the current format!
 
Sep 23, 2018
972
271
63
37
Memphis
#42
The important thing is that they win. I'm smart enough to understand that you don't have to be a fan of fantasy football to know that there is more than one way to be successful. I appreciate defense and running the football, and playing field position as much or more than I do the basketball on grass, no defense that's played in the B12.
Winner winner chicken dinner

Defense may be boring to other people, but it STOPS THE OTHER TEAM FROM MOVING/SCORING. It's necessary for being upper-tier.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,487
18,168
1,743
#44
Great, so now we'll have playoffs + BCS
Do you have a solution for an objective measure of selection of 8 teams when you have 10 conferences and a host of independents?

I would much prefer that it was completely objective. You could expand to 10 teams (every conference champion) but then you would still have to use some subjectivity to whittle it down to 8 with a couple first round games of the lower seeds. How do you determine those four teams and seedings objectively?

Even the NCAA Basketball tournament has a pool of teams which were selected subjectively.
 

osupsycho

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Apr 20, 2005
3,519
2,244
1,743
Valhalla
#45
Do you have a solution for an objective measure of selection of 8 teams when you have 10 conferences and a host of independents?

I would much prefer that it was completely objective. You could expand to 10 teams (every conference champion) but then you would still have to use some subjectivity to whittle it down to 8 with a couple first round games of the lower seeds. How do you determine those four teams and seedings objectively?

Even the NCAA Basketball tournament has a pool of teams which were selected subjectively.
There is no way that the power brokers of college football will allow a process without subjectivity as that is how they wield their power. Best we can hope for is more spots to dilute that power some. But it will also take some Cinderella teams getting in and winning at some point.
 
Apr 14, 2008
963
587
1,643
Texas
#46
Do you have a solution for an objective measure of selection of 8 teams when you have 10 conferences and a host of independents?

I would much prefer that it was completely objective. You could expand to 10 teams (every conference champion) but then you would still have to use some subjectivity to whittle it down to 8 with a couple first round games of the lower seeds. How do you determine those four teams and seedings objectively?

Even the NCAA Basketball tournament has a pool of teams which were selected subjectively.
Not saying I have a better solution, just making a general observation that the playoffs aren't the end all be all solution to what was the BCS. Someone will always have an argument for being left out.

For football, I think 8 is the right number. I can't see a #9 team running through a FB bracket to win a champ.
 
Jul 25, 2018
784
255
63
47
Boulder, CO
#47
Not saying I have a better solution, just making a general observation that the playoffs aren't the end all be all solution to what was the BCS. Someone will always have an argument for being left out.

For football, I think 8 is the right number. I can't see a #9 team running through a FB bracket to win a champ.
It's infinitely better than the BCS, imo.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,487
18,168
1,743
#48
Not saying I have a better solution, just making a general observation that the playoffs aren't the end all be all solution to what was the BCS. Someone will always have an argument for being left out.

For football, I think 8 is the right number. I can't see a #9 team running through a FB bracket to win a champ.
That would be a #3 seed in the NCAA basketball tournament. #3 seeds or lower have won 6 national championships in the last 30 years (20%).

Of the 9 most likely candidates this season for an 8 team playoff there were a combined 9 losses. Three of those losses came against teams currently ranked in the top 10. Six (67%) of those losses came against teams ranked outside the top 10. In fact 40% of those nine losses came against teams currrently unranked.

I said early on they'll screw this up just as they did with the current 4 team playoff. They left just as much subjectivity to it as they did with the two team playoff. Until they remove the subjectivity the best they can there will continue to be the same issues we see today.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,487
18,168
1,743
#49
There is no way that the power brokers of college football will allow a process without subjectivity as that is how they wield their power. Best we can hope for is more spots to dilute that power some. But it will also take some Cinderella teams getting in and winning at some point.
They will win some games.

Recall Boise State knocking off OU. That year OU was complaining about not being in the national championship game.

Or last year UCF knocking off the #3 team in the SEC.

Or Kansas knocking off #3 VA TECH in 2007.

And there are others.

But you are right, they want to protect the Alabama's, Ohio States, OUs, etc as much as possible. Keep the wins and championships in the big markets.
 
Oct 27, 2011
234
183
593
#50
I’d prefer no autobids for teams with more than two losses.

If you lose 5 times you don’t belong. A team who lost once or twice earned it more.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,487
18,168
1,743
#51
I’d prefer no autobids for teams with more than two losses.

If you lose 5 times you don’t belong. A team who lost once or twice earned it more.
In what year did a team with five losses win a Power 5 conference championship? What about 4 losses?

My feelings are that if you want to win a national championship then you need to win the games that put you there. If you win a conference championship with five losses and make an 8 team playoff. And then win three consecutive games against the best teams in the country. Then you deserve the trophy.

You didn't get there or not get there because some guy sitting in a recliner drinking a six pack of beer and eating popcorn thinks you deserve or don't deserve to be there. You got there because you won the games on the field you had to win to get there.
 

Birry

Federal Marshal
Feb 6, 2007
11,497
6,658
1,743
Landlocked
#52
The most upsetting info in this list is that the B12 has had 3 teams in the history of the playoff and all three times it was ou. The B12 has a talent problem. Basically, with the exception of ou the B12 sucks.
From a talent perspective, you have uo and Texas, then everyone else. I use the NFL as a talent measure for conferences. According to the NCAA, here are the numbers for the Big 12 that made 53-man rosters in the NFL for the 2018 season.

Texas - 27 (17)
uo - 23 (20)

WVU - 14
TCU - 13
TT - 13
OSU - 11
KSU - 10
Baylor - 9

KU - 4
ISU - 2


Comparing conferences looks like this:
SEC - 335
Big10 - 239
ACC - 228
Pac-12 - 210
Big12 - 123
American - 100
MWC - 63
C-USA - 63
Ind - 40 (26 from ND)
MAC - 39
Sunbelt - 20

the number don't match exactly, but it still gives the general idea. The Big12 is actually more comparable to the American conference than it is to the ACC or Big10 in terms of NFL talent. Our top two schools are ranked #17 and #20 respectively in terms of numbers in the NFL.
 

osupsycho

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Apr 20, 2005
3,519
2,244
1,743
Valhalla
#53
From a talent perspective, you have uo and Texas, then everyone else. I use the NFL as a talent measure for conferences. According to the NCAA, here are the numbers for the Big 12 that made 53-man rosters in the NFL for the 2018 season.

Texas - 27 (17)
uo - 23 (20)

WVU - 14
TCU - 13
TT - 13
OSU - 11
KSU - 10
Baylor - 9

KU - 4
ISU - 2


Comparing conferences looks like this:
SEC - 335
Big10 - 239
ACC - 228
Pac-12 - 210
Big12 - 123
American - 100
MWC - 63
C-USA - 63
Ind - 40 (26 from ND)
MAC - 39
Sunbelt - 20

the number don't match exactly, but it still gives the general idea. The Big12 is actually more comparable to the American conference than it is to the ACC or Big10 in terms of NFL talent. Our top two schools are ranked #17 and #20 respectively in terms of numbers in the NFL.
For the conferences totals you would need to account for the number of teams in the conference since the big 12 has fewer teams
 
Apr 14, 2008
963
587
1,643
Texas
#54
That would be a #3 seed in the NCAA basketball tournament. #3 seeds or lower have won 6 national championships in the last 30 years (20%).

Of the 9 most likely candidates this season for an 8 team playoff there were a combined 9 losses. Three of those losses came against teams currently ranked in the top 10. Six (67%) of those losses came against teams ranked outside the top 10. In fact 40% of those nine losses came against teams currrently unranked.

I said early on they'll screw this up just as they did with the current 4 team playoff. They left just as much subjectivity to it as they did with the two team playoff. Until they remove the subjectivity the best they can there will continue to be the same issues we see today.
I don't think you can compare the past percentages from NCAA BB tourneys to project to the gridiron. IMO...I don't see a #9 winning 3 games to win a FB champ. Could it ever happen sure, but I suspect the chance is slim enough to not warrant over expanding to a 12 or 16 team bracket. Those teams might win a game, perhaps two, but not run the table. There is much more parity in BB.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,008
2,331
1,743
So Cal
#55
The expansion to 8, with auto bids for the P5 champs would also stabilize the Big 12 longer term, fwiw. With OU & Texas having a clear, guaranteed path to the playoffs, they're not going anywhere.
That 2nd part about "stabilizing the B12 doesn't make any sense. They have a "more clear" path to the playoff staying in the Big12 with a 4 team bracket, than they would by joining some other conference ... just ask Georgia or Michigan.

Not expanding to 8 teams has zero impact on OU or UT "going anywhere"
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,008
2,331
1,743
So Cal
#56
Wait, UCF at #2? But why though? I agree that UCF (or whoever the top G5 team is in a given year) should get a chance in a proposed expanded playoff but how you would have UCF as #2 this year in mind boggling.

Why on earth should UCF have been #2?
I did it the same way you did it.... made up some bogus logic that seemed to make sense if you believe any of the bogus rankings that those arguments are based upon.

That's the whole point - I did it the same way that you did it - THIN AIR.
 
Jul 25, 2018
784
255
63
47
Boulder, CO
#57
That 2nd part about "stabilizing the B12 doesn't make any sense. They have a "more clear" path to the playoff staying in the Big12 with a 4 team bracket, than they would by joining some other conference ... just ask Georgia or Michigan.

Not expanding to 8 teams has zero impact on OU or UT "going anywhere"
Do they have an automatic bid for the Big 12 currently? No.

You're nuttier than squirrel turds if you don't think a guaranteed bid for the conference would stabilize it.

For the 2 richest schools in the Big 12, why would they want to slog their way through the SEC West, or B1G for that matter, to make the playoff? They stand a much better chance of getting there, year in & year out, in the Big 12.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,487
18,168
1,743
#58
I don't think you can compare the past percentages from NCAA BB tourneys to project to the gridiron. IMO...I don't see a #9 winning 3 games to win a FB champ. Could it ever happen sure, but I suspect the chance is slim enough to not warrant over expanding to a 12 or 16 team bracket. Those teams might win a game, perhaps two, but not run the table. There is much more parity in BB.
Not so much as you think.

I took the 2017 seasons for both basketball and football and the top 10 teams in the final rankings for each.

The top 10 football teams had a winning percentage of 86% while the top 10 basketball teams had a winning percentage of 83%.

Now figure in that in most basketball conferences each team will play each other twice, not true in football. In football we know (because it's been verified) that when teams play each other twice in the same season 50% of the time the team that won the first game will lose the second game.

I'd suggest parity is the same for football and basketball.
 
Apr 14, 2008
963
587
1,643
Texas
#59
Not so much as you think.

I took the 2017 seasons for both basketball and football and the top 10 teams in the final rankings for each.

The top 10 football teams had a winning percentage of 86% while the top 10 basketball teams had a winning percentage of 83%.

Now figure in that in most basketball conferences each team will play each other twice, not true in football. In football we know (because it's been verified) that when teams play each other twice in the same season 50% of the time the team that won the first game will lose the second game.

I'd suggest parity is the same for football and basketball.
Then we can agree to disagree. I think its apples to oranges