BCS or Plus-One - Which is Actually More Controversial?
by Darth Saban on Feb 14, 2012 10:47 PM CST
Email
Print
RBR:
We've all read a hundred posts and comments about playoffs vs. the current system, and will likely read a hundred more. This post is a specific point regarding one particular article on the subject.
Over in one of the Jumbo Packages, this citation was included from a Stewart Mandell article:
<blockquote>While there have been just three seasons (1999, 2002, 2005) in which the BCS title-game matchup was deemed universally satisfying, there were only four in which the four-team field was controversy free.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/02/08/bcs-vs-four-team-playoff/index.html#ixzz1mKS7NfDf</blockquote>
According to this article, those four seasons "in which the four-team field was controversy free" were 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2006. My question is: how are these controversy-free?
2000:
Playoff: No. 4 Washington (10-1) at No. 1 Oklahoma (12-0); No. 3 Miami (11-1) at No. 2 Florida State (11-1).
As Mr. Mandell pointed out, Miami had already beaten FSU, and Washington had already beaten Miami. 1 of 2 semifinal games WOULD HAVE been a rematch (Miami at Florida State). 1 of 4 possible BCSCGs would have been a rematch (Washington vs. Miami). This would also in the possibility of 2 of 3 playoff games being rematches, which would probably be rather controversial.
2001:
Playoff: No. 4 Oregon (10-1) at No. 1 Miami (11-0); No. 3 Colorado (10-2) at No. 2 Nebraska (11-1).
1 of 2 semifinal games WOULD HAVE BEEN a rematch of division opponents (Colorado at Nebraska). Nebraska would have had to play Colorado twice consecutively. Even as it really played out, there actually WAS a controversy, because Nebraska played for the National Championship without winning their division. If they can't even win their own division, much less their conference, how could they have claimed to be National Champions? This was ten years before Alabama played for the National Championship without winning their division.
2003:
Playoff: No. 4 Michigan (10-2) at No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1); No. 3 USC (11-1) at No. 2 LSU (12-1).
No rematches, but Oklahoma still didn't win their conference. As it actually played out, Oklahoma played for the National Championship without winning their conference. If they can't even win their own conference, how could they have claimed to be National Champions? This was two years after Nebraska played for the National Championship without winning their division, and eight years before Alabama played for the National Championship without winning their division.
2006:
Playoff: No. 4 LSU (10-2) at No. 1 Ohio State (12-0); No. 3 Michigan (11-1) at No. 2 Florida (12-1).
Also known as the SEC / Big Ten Classic, 2 of 4 possible matchups in the BCSCG would be a rematch of conference opponents (LSU vs. Florida; Ohio State vs. Michigan). On the other hand, 1 of the remaining 2 possible matchups would have featured a team that didn't win its division playing against a team that didn't win its conference (LSU vs. Michigan).
Let's look at a few of the other hypothetical plus-one playoff scenarios, just to see what might have happened:
1998:
Playoff: No. 4 Ohio State (10-1) at No. 1 Tennessee (12-0); No. 3 Kansas State (11-1) at No. 2 Florida State (11-1).
2 of 4 possible BCSCGs would have included a team that didn't win it's conference (Ohio State vs. K. State; Tennessee vs. K. State).
2004:
Playoff: No. 4 Texas (10-1) at No. 1 USC (12-0); No. 3 Auburn (12-0) at No. 2 Oklahoma (12-0).
Texas did not win their division, and 1 of 4 possible BCSCGs would have been a rematch between two teams from the same division (Texas vs. Oklahoma).
2005:
Playoff: No. 4 Ohio State (9-2) at No. 1 USC (12-0); No. 3 Penn State (11-1) at No. 2 Texas (12-0).
2 of 4 possible BCSCGs would have been rematches (Ohio State vs. Penn State; Ohio State vs. Texas). (Ohio State and Penn State were co-champions.)
2008:
Playoff: No. 4 Alabama (12-1) at No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1); No. 3 Texas (11-1) at No. 2 Florida (12-1).
1 of 4 possible BCSCGs would be a team that didn't win its conference playing a team that didn't win its division (Alabama vs. Texas), and 2 of the remaining 3 possibilities would be rematches between conference opponents (Alabama vs. Florida, Oklahoma vs. Texas), one of which would have been both teams' most recent game (Alabama vs. Florida), and one of which would have featured teams from the same division (Oklahoma vs. Texas).
2010:
Playoff: No. 4 Stanford (11-1) at No. 1 Auburn (13-0); No. 3 TCU (12-0) at No. 2 Oregon (12-0).
1 of 4 possible BCSCGs is a rematch between conference opponents (Stanford vs. Oregon), one of whom did not win their conference (I know this sounds silly, but remember that before conference championship games, co-champions were very common).
2011:
Playoff: No. 4 Stanford (11-1) at No. 1 LSU (13-0); No. 3 Oklahoma State (11-1) at No. 2 Alabama (11-1).
1 of 4 possible BCSCGs would be a matchup between two teams that didn't win their division (Stanford vs. Alabama). 1 of the remaining 3 possibilities would be a rematch between conference opponents, one of whom didn't win their division (LSU vs. Alabama).
Conclusion:
Had we had a plus-one playoff all fourteen years of the BCS, there would have been twenty-eight semifinal games, with fifty-six different possible BCSCGs. Two of those twenty-eight semifinal games would have certainly been rematches, one of those between teams from the same division of the same conference.
Of the fifty-six possible BCSCGs, ten of those possibilities could have been rematches. Of those ten, six could have been rematches between conference opponents. Of those six hypothetical BCSCG rematches between conference opponents, three could have been rematches between division opponents.
Of the fifty-six possible BCSCGs, nineteen of those possibilities could have included at least one team that didn't win its conference. Of those nineteen hypothetical BCSCGs in which at least team didn't win its conference, ten could have included at least one team that didn't win its division. Two could have been matchups wherein neither team won their conference. One of those could have been a matchup of two teams, neither of which won their division.
NOTE: I'm doing a lot of this from memory, and am not really taking any time to fact-check my memory, or to double-check my math. Please comment on any of my mistakes that you inevitably find, so that I can correct them.
NOTE 2: Please explain your votes in the comments.
FanPosts are just that; posts created by the fans. They are in no way indicative of the opinions of SBN and the authors of Roll Bama Roll.
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
2009 wasn't "universally satisfying?"
Why, TCU?
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
2009
BCS: No. 1 Alabama (13-0) vs. No. 2 Texas (13-0).
Controversy: It’s relatively mild, though three other teams (No. 3 Cincinnati, No. 4 TCU and No. 6 Boise State) finish undefeated.
Playoff: No. 4 TCU (12-0) at No. 1 Alabama (13-0); No. 3 Cincinnati (12-0) at No. 2 Texas (13-0).
Controversy: Why TCU but not 13-0 Boise (which wound up beating the Frogs in the Fiesta Bowl)? And what of Tim Tebow and No. 5 Florida (12-1), which wound up clobbering the overmatched Bearcats in the Sugar Bowl?
Better off with: The BCS. Alabama and Texas were clearly the two best teams. Nos. 3-6 were more muddled.
"We knew we had to turn it up or we would get beat. We ripped the knob off. We turned it up so much we broke the knob." - Roy Upchurch after beating Florida in the 2009 SEC Championship Game
by bearbryantwonit on Feb 15, 2012 8:35 AM CST up reply actions
Well, it was damn satisfying for me.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
If they can’t even win their own division, much less their conference, how could they have claimed to be National Champions? This was ten years before Alabama played for the National Championship without winning their division.
What does it being 10 years earlier have to do with it??
God bless our Dark Lord.
Was pointing out that this was not a new development.
My point was that if people had such a big outcry over someone winning the National Championship without winning their division or conference, that possibility had occurred twice before, in 2001 and 2003, and although it was controversial, it was not considered outrageous enough at that time to bother changing it over the next ten or eight years, respectively.
Fourteen.
OK. It certainly sounded like you were trying to discredit them, not validate us.
God bless our Dark Lord.
I'd say a plus one will lead to more controversy
because ultimately it will lead to an 8 and then a 16 team playoff. Talk about controversy- that is 8 times the controversy.
But controversy is a good thing. It gets people talking down at ESPN and ultimately it sells tickets and merchandise.
The most fair thing would be a “Provisional Plus One” system which would guarantee any team that finished undefeated would get a shot, but if you there were not 3 or more undefeated teams then you just had the regular BCS game. In 2011 there was only 1 undefeated team so no plus 1.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
And again,
Do. Not. Want.
Too much emphasis on just being undefeated. Eliminates any incentive for scheduling decent non-conference games or for even joining a decent conference. Also, it will not happen because the commissioners and networks want a known commodity to sell, not a provisional system.
God bless our Dark Lord.
True on the known commodity.
But…I think it does not eliminate incentive to schedule because you have to figure there will be 1 or 0 undefeated teams at the end because that is the way it has been most years and you will schedule difficult to be that 1 loss team that gets in.
And most teams get in a conference for the money not to win a NC. They will still want to be in the SEC because that is where the money is.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
It also does not really solve the problem.
If you have one undefeated team, and then, hypothetically, three 1-loss teams with decent schedules and such, then you’ll have just as much controversy as there was this year, because, well, it’s what happened this year.
I think this provisional idea is a non-starter, because the premise of the provision isn’t sound. What if you end the year with three+ one-loss teams, all with similar resumes? What if a team from a minor conference with no big nonconference wins goes undefeated, and Ohio State and Texas, or USC and Alabama, or two+ other big-name teams have one “good” loss?
Fourteen.
First the undefeated provision only applies to teams
in one of the big 6 conferences…not automatic BCS buster teams.
Second, what if you have a lot of 1 loss teams? Then it is just BCS as usual.
The provisional plus 1 just guarantees that if you are in one of the Big 6 conferences and go undefeated you get your shot…such as AU in 2004. If you don’t go undefeated you have no one to blame, nothing to complain about.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
I'm actually more in favor of this
than the plus-one model. Because, as I’ve stated before, once the playoff is instituted, it’s all downhill from there. CFB will never be the same.
Fitty’s model at least keeps the possiblity of NOT having a playoff when one is not “needed”. What if there is 2 undefeated teams, but only 1 1-loss team? Then you get the ‘controversy’ of which 2-loss team deserves the national championship?
There is way more down side to a playoff than upside.
Attempting to remove humor from posts since August 30, 2011
Exactly. We are about to open up a box we can not close
and CFB as we know it may well be changed for ever in ultimately a bad way all because Okie St. lost to Iowa St. and didn’t think it was fair they got left out.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
I told you guys this would happen!!
They never shoulda legalized the forward pass or started allowing more than one game on TV each Saturday!!!
/geezer’d
/no personal offense meant to 50
God bless our Dark Lord.
I think they need to bring back the drop kick.
Think about it when the holder catches the ball his knee is on the ground. No way that guy is not down the moment he touches the ball. What are we the NFL?
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
And so this would have done nothing to minimize the controversy this year.
Also, personally I don’t think that conference affiliations should be brought into it (not directly). The “Big 6” conferences don’t exist anymore, and the idea that the Big East champion is inherently more deserving of anything more than the MWC champion is absurd.
God bless our Dark Lord.
There is a damn good reason the Big Ten and Big 12 turned this down a few years ago
Its because they need to maintain the illusion that they have a chance. The simple truth, the SEC will consistently get two of the four teams in the +1 format. This will only increase the probability of the SEC dominanting the title game for the forseeable future. Those two conferences recognize this problem, and thats why they turned it down. However, their idiot fan bases that can’t see three feet in front of themselves and are screaming to get a +1. The other conferences will try to ensure that two teams from the same confernce must play each other in the first round. I highly doubt we will give in on this. In the end, I promise you there were will be many non SEC fans with a pretty serious case of buyer’s remorse, and to make matters worse, once the revenue stream exists, there will be no going back.
Let's check:
Since the BCS was implemented in 1998, there have been 14 BCS seasons. Had a plus-one been implemented at that time, there have been 9 instances in 7 seasons in which more than one team (not yet more than two) from the same conference would have been included in the plus-one. Broken down by conference:
Big 12: 3 (2001, 2004, 2008)
SEC: 3 (2006, 2008, 2011)
Big Ten: 2 (2005, 2006)
PAC-10/12: 1 (2010)
Fourteen.
I'm for a plus 1
Yes I will take the hits for that stance, but to me it’s less controversial as you have doubled your odds to get the two best teams. Is it perfect, no.
I know we’re worried about 8 teams, then 16, etc. but logistically I don’t think you can pull off that many additional games. Also if you go too deep in the selection process, you water down the regular season games.
Depsite the BCS controversy, more people are watching regular season games because for the most part – THEY MATTER.
They have to preserve TV revenue and losing viewers during regular season (due to lesser significance in the outcome) is not a viable option.
We just need to be on the same page. They are going ot the plus1 not because it’s fair but because they are losing revenue in tickets and viewers for the BCS matchups (which have been pretty lame). Money is driving this and money will always dirve this.
By going to the plus one they get heavy viewers for 3 games vs 1. End of story.
Talent can only get you so far. Give me a player who has less talent, but the heart of a champion and the will to succeed.
^^ this
I actually like the Big 10’s model of semi-finals on campus, though I’d prefer to see the NCG stay with the traditional bowls.
God bless our Dark Lord.
Yep what we need is playoff football in Michigan Stadium in December
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
I just spit up in mouth a little....
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Feb 16, 2012 11:53 AM CST up reply actions
If Michigan was ever able to be ranked #1 or 2 at the end of the regular season,
then they would deserve it. Just pray that it’s a noon kickoff on a sunny day! :)
God bless our Dark Lord.
Agree.
Where this all gets very interesting is that final week when they determine seeds 1-4.
Some things they will have to look at:
1) Who are the human voters and how do you manage voter bias (if you can)
2) Do teams get voted down even if they don;t lose (traditionally this has never occurred)
3) Will the computers make their algorithms public with the intent to revise/improve as the years progress?
I think there will be A LOT more scrutiny on the 1-4 BCS rankings as you have seen some teams in the past hover in that area just to be politically correct. Everyone knew they weren;t going to get in so what did it matter. Now, I believe there will be political stummping occurring earlier in the process because the seeding could drastically impact the odds of progressing based on things like 50’s comment re: playing in Michigan during December.
Talent can only get you so far. Give me a player who has less talent, but the heart of a champion and the will to succeed.
One moment.
Do teams get voted down even if they don;t lose (traditionally this has never occurred)
Happened to Michigan in 2006, and to Georgia in 2005, just to name two off the top of my head.
Fourteen.
ok - RARELY happens.
Talent can only get you so far. Give me a player who has less talent, but the heart of a champion and the will to succeed.
But...when we expand to an 8 team playoff
and we will, then you only have to be in the top 4 and Mich, Ohio St.and Neb, will hold some playoff games in Dec.
If Auburn was in New Mexico and we never played them I would still hate them and their dumb coach and their cheating players.
Then we'll find something new to gripe about.
I do like the home field advantage – as long as it’s ours ;-)
Talent can only get you so far. Give me a player who has less talent, but the heart of a champion and the will to succeed.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
