12 Team Playoff

[hookemhorb]

Thought I'd create a thread for this year's playoffs. Being the first year, I'm sure there is a lot of uncertainty.

We had a lot of upsets in week 6. I'm wondering how many 2 loss teams make it to the playoffs if they didn't play in their conference championship. I can see if Texas beats UGA and UGA wins out, they have 2 losses to the #1 team so they may make it, but what about teams that have 2 losses and 1 loss is to an unranked team? In theory there could be a lot of 1 loss teams that don't play in a conference championship game.

This could get interesting for teams like ND, Clemson, Indiana and even SMU. Indiana will probably lose to OSU but the rest of their schedule is winnable. Do they get left out for a 2 loss team?

 

[Sirhornsalot]

Thought I'd create a thread for this year's playoffs. Being the first year, I'm sure there is a lot of uncertainty.

We had a lot of upsets in week 6. I'm wondering how many 2 loss teams make it to the playoffs if they didn't play in their conference championship. I can see if Texas beats UGA and UGA wins out, they have 2 losses to the #1 team so they may make it, but what about teams that have 2 losses and 1 loss is to an unranked team? In theory there could be a lot of 1 loss teams that don't play in a conference championship game.

This could get interesting for teams like ND, Clemson, Indiana and even SMU. Indiana will probably lose to OSU but the rest of their schedule is winnable. Do they get left out for a 2 loss team?

IDK. Its a good question. I know that you'll see the pollsters try to maintain a certain number of SEC and Big10 schools in there. Georgia with 2 losses . . . they'd be in if the undefeateds and 1-loss upper tier teams aren't so many. They'd be the first 2-loss team in.

 

[BWilk55]

IDK. Its a good question. I know that you'll see the pollsters try to maintain a certain number of SEC and Big10 schools in there. Georgia with 2 losses . . . they'd be in if the undefeateds and 1-loss upper tier teams aren't so many. They'd be the first 2-loss team in.

KFord Ratings

kfordratings.com

Here is an interesting chart that can help inform this discussion going forward. Right now, he has 47 teams that could be in the discussion with 2 or more losses. That number will obviously shrink over time.

 

[BWilk55]

KFord Ratings

kfordratings.com

Here is an interesting chart that can help inform this discussion going forward. Right now, he has 47 teams that could be in the discussion with 2 or more losses. That number will obviously shrink over time.

 

[hookemhorb]

Has the committee ever used power ratings or some such stat? Or do they use the "eyeball" test?

With these huge conferences, teams don't play everyone in their conference so do you punish teams because of their conference schedule? You can't punish teams for their OOC games because some of these SEC teams play nobodies.

I see some favorable schedules that we could see a team like Indiana only lose to their conference champion (Ohio State) and not play in the conference championship. Do they get passed over to a 2 loss team that lost to an unranked team? If ND wins out, do they deserve a spot above IU?

The playoffs are better than they were but I don't think they really addressed the issue. It's just putting more money in the pockets of the big schools.

 

[Billybass]

Never going to get away from the politics. Too much money involved.
Besides NCAA loves them some controversy.

 

[Soldierhorn]

Has the committee ever used power ratings or some such stat? Or do they use the "eyeball" test?

With these huge conferences, teams don't play everyone in their conference so do you punish teams because of their conference schedule? You can't punish teams for their OOC games because some of these SEC teams play nobodies.

I see some favorable schedules that we could see a team like Indiana only lose to their conference champion (Ohio State) and not play in the conference championship. Do they get passed over to a 2 loss team that lost to an unranked team? If ND wins out, do they deserve a spot above IU?

The playoffs are better than they were but I don't think they really addressed the issue. It's just putting more money in the pockets of the big schools.

The committee can do what they want including changing the rules the last week for selection... and that's a problem. Like the BCS, the rules (and formula) need to be agreed on during the summer and they should adhere to the agreed up on rules. IMO, what they need is a BCS type objective measure (formula) to use as a baseline. The committee should only be used to certify and possibly tweak the final rankings if necessary.

Using Indiana as an example, they will have only played one ranked team (OSU) in the regular season. If they make it to the playoff, it should be by earning it and that means winning the B10, which I dont see happening. The system should put the squeeze on ND; they need to be independent or not. In the ACC, ND has been allowed to participate in the ACC bowl affiliation selection because they ARE in the ACC. If they insist on being "independent" whatever that means now, they then follow the rules of all the other independents and should NOT play in the ACC CCG, which they have played.

In my opinion, I dont think the current system is better. For all the complaining people did, the BCS format did the best job matching up teams for great bowl games while keeping tradition in tact. There wasnt a single championship game where I disagreed with the selection. It wasnt until they started screwing around with the formula allowing two teams from the same conference to be in the championship game that destroyed the BCS.

The current playoffs, NIL, portal, etc. is simply turning the college D1 game into a semi-pro NFL type format, which I despise.

 

[BruiseLee]

There wasnt a single championship game where I disagreed with the selection.

I'm going to have to disagree with this statement. In 2008, didn't we lose the tie breaker to 0u due to them having a higher BCS rating DESPITE us beating them head to head?

That fact alone makes me believe the BCS process was broken

 

[BWilk55]

The system should put the squeeze on ND; they need to be independent or not. In the ACC, ND has been allowed to participate in the ACC bowl affiliation selection because they ARE in the ACC. If they insist on being "independent" whatever that means now, they then follow the rules of all the

Notre Dame is not eligible for the ACC championship. Therefore they have no path for a 1st round bye in the playoffs.

 

[dssl]

The bye thing is interesting. If you win the conference championship game you get a bye, but if you lose the CCG , then you have played an extra game and no bye.

If you finish 3rd in the SEC you likely get into the playoffs, and have the CCG week to recover, so unlike the previous system, 3rd isn't so bad.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

I'm going to have to disagree with this statement. In 2008, didn't we lose the tie breaker to 0u due to them having a higher BCS rating DESPITE us beating them head to head?

That fact alone makes me believe the BCS process was broken

We beat both teams who played in the CCG that year (ou and Mizzou)

 

[Soldierhorn]

Notre Dame is not eligible for the ACC championship. Therefore they have no path for a 1st round bye in the playoffs.

Agree, and yet, they played in an ACC CCG.

Sure, it was the shortened COVID season... but it shouldnt matter; they are either independent or not. If they are independent, then they should not have been allowed to play in the CCG regardless of the situation.

However, I agree with you that now ND will not get away with it. Not that bowl affiliation matters much anymore, but, they should also not be a part of ACC bowl affiliation if they are independent

 

[Soldierhorn]

The bye thing is interesting. If you win the conference championship game you get a bye, but if you lose the CCG , then you have played an extra game and no bye.

If you finish 3rd in the SEC you likely get into the playoffs, and have the CCG week to recover, so unlike the previous system, 3rd isn't so bad.

I think people will find out it's all about the same.
If you win a CCG then you get a bye but you played an extra game
If you get in without playing the CCG, then you have to play an extra game anyway.

The one that looks to get the worse hand in this format may be the loser of the CCG because they played that extra game and still have to play a buy-in game

 

[Soldierhorn]

The bye thing is interesting. If you win the conference championship game you get a bye, but if you lose the CCG , then you have played an extra game and no bye.

If you finish 3rd in the SEC you likely get into the playoffs, and have the CCG week to recover, so unlike the previous system, 3rd isn't so bad.

Being third in conference and missing the CCG worked for Bama in 2011 when they won the NC over LSU

 

[dssl]

Being third in conference and missing the CCG worked for Bama in 2011 when they won the NC over LSU

Good point, but with the 12 team playoff it's mostly a given that SEC #3 makes the playoff, which wasn't nearly as likely with a 4 team playoff.

 

[Soldierhorn]

I'm going to have to disagree with this statement. In 2008, didn't we lose the tie breaker to 0u due to them having a higher BCS rating DESPITE us beating them head to head?

That fact alone makes me believe the BCS process was broken

not that it matters now but. IIRC, ALL the BCS pollsters had Texas 3rd and most had okie at 2 and Florida at 1. The opinion polls were exerting too much influence into the formula. IMO, Texas should not have lost to Tech and by losing, they put the rankings in other people's hands. I disagree with 2011 and I'm ambivalent about 2008.

what they need is a more objective formula. IIRC, around 66% or more of the formula results were opinion polls, and that is way too much. I think the Harris and USA Today each had a third impact on the formula. In 2011 the computers did not give the nod to Alabama but selected to Okie St who also was 11-1. It was the influence of the polls injected into the formula that gave the nod to Bama

 

[Baron]

not that it matters now but. IIRC, ALL the BCS pollsters had Texas 3rd and most had okie at 2 and Florida at 1. The opinion polls were exerting too much influence into the formula. IMO, Texas should not have lost to Tech and by losing, they put the rankings in other people's hands. I disagree with 2011 and I'm ambivalent about 2008.

what they need is a more objective formula. IIRC, around 66% or more of the formula results were opinion polls, and that is way too much. I think the Harris and USA Today each had a third impact on the formula. In 2011 the computers did not give the nod to Alabama but selected to Okie St who also was 11-1. It was the influence of the polls injected into the formula that gave the nod to Bama

I thought the Big 12 conference was to blame for this with their tiebreaker system. Had Texas played in the CCG they would more than likely qualified.

 

[Billybass]

In 2008 we were in a 3 way tie, and lost to the 5th tiebreaker which was BCS standings. Part of that input was the coaches poll.
The coaches were biased as hell, and we got shafted.
Luckily zero u got their clock cleaned in the championship game.
But BCS was not an accurate way to declare a winner.
We beat them and were tied. Head to head should have been first tiebreaker, as it is in most worlds.

 

[Baron]

One thing that is obvious to me. The #5 seed has the best road to the championship. They could be the actual second seed and get a home game gate.

 

[BWilk55]

One thing that is obvious to me. The #5 seed has the best road to the championship. They could be the actual second seed and get a home game gate.

Yep, home game against the #12 seed which is likely the G5 team.

Then your quarterfinal game is against the 4 seed which is the worst P4 champion, likely the Big12 champion.

After that you are up against the 1 seed likely (would be amazing to get the 8 seed if they upset #1) but that is bound to happen at some point anyways.