Two Cents: Now dealing in hypotheticals

by aorist9 on Oct 11, 2006 1:45 PM CDT in Football Comment 34 comments

No one really liked yesterday's question, so I've decided to go in a different direction. Imagine that instead of a BCS formula there's some kind of selection committee that chooses the two teams to play in Glendale; now imagine that you are that committee. For the sake of objectivity I'll omit Texas from the discussion.

Say Florida finishes with one loss (to Georgia) and an SEC championship, Tennessee runs the table, West Virginia goes undefeated, USC loses only to Cal, whose only loss is to Tennessee, the Pac-10 champions, and Ohio State loses to Michigan, who lost to, lets say, Iowa, who runs the table with the one loss to tOSU. Who do you put in Glendale? And then after that substitute an undefeated Louisville for an undefeated WVA and see if it changes anything.

0 recs | Comment 34 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

That's easy, I'll take...

...[pop!] That was the anuerism in my brain from trying to work through that scenario.

by hornbone on Oct 11, 2006 1:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

wow

did Tennessee run the table until the SEC Championship game, I take it?

Florida and West Virginia.

by Jason Mayer on Oct 11, 2006 2:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Tennessee is the Pac-10 Champion?

Tennessee also can't run the table if Florida wins the SEC.

Florida and tOSU.

Real men DO watch volleyball

by patienthornsfan on Oct 11, 2006 2:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

SEC champs

I thought Florida would need to drop 2 to let Tennessee sneak into the SEC championship game. If Florida loses 1, UF and UT have the same division record and the Gators own the head-to-head tiebreaker. Right?

Michigan and Florida, unless WVA completley dominates Louisville and all the remaining cupcakes.

by Calfan on Oct 11, 2006 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Michigan without Manningham?

I'm back from my aneurism (which I've decided to spell correctly this time). I've always hated the Pac-10, but I would kind of like Cal in this scenario. And I still like OSU, but I would probably stick Florida in front of them. I think the important thing is that, if I was this all-powerful committee, I would watch every single damn game of all those teams and really try to break down every win and every loss and figure out how good the teams are now (so late losses might hurt), as opposed to the current voters' system of watching some of the games and going with whoever has the most hype behind them.

by hornbone on Oct 11, 2006 2:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Is this the LSAT???

ok bad memories coming back after that question...

(2) Ohio St. VS (1)Florida

I can't see osu dropping lower than 2 with the Michagan loss (unless they get owned)and Florida with its schedule (even after late season loss) and SEC championship still should be there.

Street level

by UT2001 on Oct 11, 2006 2:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

If Louisville were to beat WVA...

would this change anyone's pick?

by aorist9 on Oct 11, 2006 3:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

if Brohm was back

and they drubbed them mercilessly...maybe.

by hornbone on Oct 11, 2006 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What if Rutgers beats 'em both?

And undefeated Rutgers team... Now THERE's a BCS buster if ever there was one! I can't see any of the three of these teams getting selected for the MNC game, since the only decent team any of them play this year (besides each other) is Miami, which is having one of its worst seasons in recent memory.

Real men DO watch volleyball

by patienthornsfan on Oct 11, 2006 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Louisville yes WVA no

Just because they scheduled Miami. I know they are not ranked now, but Louisville should get credit for scheduling a normally quality opponent.

by Wells on Oct 11, 2006 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about

a playoff? Sounds like a simple solution.

by kicker on Oct 11, 2006 3:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

It'd be a lot easier to call for one...

if this hypothetical, or one similar, came true.

by aorist9 on Oct 11, 2006 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

settle it on the field???

now there's a thought....

Of course that's what I'm rooting for, and why I'm rooting for as big a mess as this scenario. The messier the better! Which is why I won't even bitch about Tennessee winning the Pac10...

In fact, after the BCS "Championship" game, they still actually take a poll, don't they? If something like this happened, would the voters/coaches/SID admins, etc. have the ability to not vote for the winner of the game? I think it's probably a contractual agreement, but what if they just revolted and voted for their conference? With all the requisite arguing and whining... who knows, if it got bad enough it might hasten the day. I fear nothing will until the television numbers drop though...

by agent orange on Oct 11, 2006 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tennessee is not the Pac-10 champion

note the comma after Tennessee

"Cal, their only loss to Tennessee, the Pac-10 champions"

Now that I write it it seems a little confusing, but I meant that Cal would be Pac-10 champs, Florida SEC champs

by aorist9 on Oct 11, 2006 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i'm a fan of the undefeated season

If the national champion isn't undefeated, I feel cheated. I don't want like 16 teams in a playoff so that a 2-loss team can wint the national championship because they get hot at the end of the season. I like the fact that every single game is almost an elimination game.

If there are only two undefeated teams at the end of the year, I don't want a playoff of 16, 8, or even 4 teams. I want to see those teams play each other, like last year. What would we have thought of a playoff last year when USC and Texas were clearly the two best teams?

There has to be some reward for going undefeated in the regular season beyond a high seed in a playoff bracket.

by billyzane on Oct 11, 2006 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What about most years when 2 teams

dont go undefeated?

The reward is a higher seeding in the bracket.

by Wells on Oct 11, 2006 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's hardly a reward...

So if there's a 4-team playoff last year, then USC plays the #4 team (who had 1 loss) and Texas plays the #3 team (who had 1 loss). Where's the incentive? If we had 1 loss, say to Ohio State, and so we're #3, then the number 3 team last year would thus be the number 2 team in this hypothetical, and we'd be playing the EXACT SAME GAME, probably at a neutral site in order to uphold some semblance of a bowl game system. So basically, we'd get to wear orange jerseys instead of white.

by billyzane on Oct 11, 2006 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No No

You need 8 or 16 teams to make it work.

Each game would mean less, but it would be a huge incentive to schedule harder teams early, meaning more for the fans, and would be a huge windfall in money for the schools.

by Wells on Oct 11, 2006 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree that it will allow tougher scheduling

which is a good thing for college football fans and the sport generally. but are you really okay with a 2-loss team winning the national championship over a team that went undefeated in the regular season? I'm not going to look it up, but I'm nearly positive that a few 2-loss team get in the top 15 every single year. And if they get into the playoff, then who's to say that one of them won't win one of those years? I'm not comfortable with that. Then it gets to the point like the NFL where the regular season doesn't matter that much, especially towards the end.

I think that if there's a playoff, it needs to be small and flexible every year such that if there are only two undefeated teams, they play each other and that's that.

by billyzane on Oct 11, 2006 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

undefeated teams...

So you're a fan of undefeated teams - you'd really rather watch WV vs. Boise St. for all the marbles rather than say, a couple of teams that played killer schedules and dropped a couple of tough games?

Tell you the truth, if that matchup happened, everybody would start scheduling nothing but bad teams. The SOS just isn't that big a factor compared to actual wins, no matter who they come against. So yeah, EVERY GAME COUNTS!!! But most games suck. Give me a system that rewards scheduling risks every time. I'd much rather watch more TX vs. tOSU type of games than TX vs. Eagle Pass Community College.....

by agent orange on Oct 12, 2006 12:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

no more than 4

I swear, if the NCAA ever adopts a format that includes an 8 or 16 team playoff, college football will no longer hold any value for me. I mean it. College football is the only respectable sport left in America where the champion is not only great, but remembered. During the emotional aftermath of the Rose Bowl, one of the things I was most thankful for was the fact that I got to see Texas win the title while it still means something, before the NCAA ruins it, which they inevitably will. The moment we have a playoff, we'll get the same boring regular season and same forgettable fluke champion as every other sport. I only vaguely remember that Florida won the basketball title last spring (and I had to think about it for a minute); how many times has the best team actually won the NCAA tournament? Almost never. The NCAA tournament is not for real college basketball fans (it actually screws them over with its enthusiasm for the upset), instead, it rewards passive fans who are lured in at the last moment by the prospect of watching some team that worked really hard for 4 months crash and burn by losing to Bucknell on national television. Boring. I will not see that happen to my beloved college football.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 12:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

if so...

well, we'll miss you....

personally, I'd be ecstatic. Incentive to schedule better games all year long, great matchups of top teams at year's end in place of a bunch of .500 teams in the Greater Dacron United Fruit Bowl games, a championship actually settled on the field instead of around the coffee machine at a bunch of newsrooms, played by teams that had to win their way there against the best competition available...

yeah, I'd really mourn the loss of this phenomenal BCS system...

by agent orange on Oct 12, 2006 12:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

except that....

none of what you just described would happen. The reality is that nobody would schedule anyone good in that world either, because the playoffs would mean a lot of money, so just making the playoffs would be worth a ton. It wouldn't be worth the risk to schedule quality opponents because it couldn't possibly help you in any way; if you lose that game, and then just one conference game, you risk being left out. At least now, everyone fears getting passed over by the BCS (just how comfortable do you think they are in Morgantown right now about their potential undefeated season?), and teams learn that they will benefit if they beat more quality opponents. Explain to me exactly what will be the incentive to schedule good teams when you know that an undefeated season will surely land you in the top 16, or even top 8 for that matter?

So we'll have a worthless, garbage regular season, and then a forgettable fluke champion. No thanks. The unbelievable tension of agonizing over every single Texas game for 5 months last year was the most enthralling run of my sports life. Ask Florida if they remember their entire basketball season that way.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 12:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's why a 4 team playoff would be better

Utah didn't make top 4 in '04 and WVA shouldn't make top 4 this year.

by aorist9 on Oct 12, 2006 8:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

4-team is better than 8 or 16

And I'd accept it when there aren't two undefeated teams from power conferences at the end of the year. But what about 2005, 2002, and 1999 when there were 2 undefeated teams that were clearly the cream of the crop? Do we really need a playoff when that's the case? Can we have a flexible system where we only have a 4-team playoff (basically 2 BCS games and a "plus 1" national championship game) when it's not neat and clean like those years? And then if there's only one team that's undefeated, like in 1998, 2000, and 2001, they get a bye to the championship game and 2 other teams or so play to reach that game?

by billyzane on Oct 12, 2006 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That system

will drive even more powder puff games.
I would rather see a playoff with 8 or 16.

by Wells on Oct 12, 2006 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The solution...

to weak scheduling does not lie in postseason format as much as it does with voters and computers not putting a high enough value on strength of schedule.

by aorist9 on Oct 12, 2006 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

agree

I could live with a 4 team playoff. But I fear that the financial incentive will compel the NCAA to include more teams, which is why I kind of feel like they just shouldn't go there at all. We bitch about the BCS (and believe me, nobody was more irritated than I was over OU's inclusion in 2003), but even in its worst years, the BCS champion doesn't annoy me nearly as much as the basketball winner does, who usually isn't even a #1 seed anymore. The football champion is always great. Whether or not you think they were specifically #1, you must concede that Texas, USC, LSU, etc. have all been great teams. Every once in a while the basketball and baseball crowns go to very pedestrian, sub-great teams. The BCS is set up so that, at worst, the second or third best team might sneak away with the title (and even that only rarely happens). That's good enough for me when you consider the consequences of the alternative.

by BrooklynHorn on Oct 12, 2006 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

if only...

this is what the BCS will have to face this year...it'll be a big F you to the BCS format.

though i'll go with Florida/Ohio State. That could be fun.

Zach
The Dish
http://www.udubdish.com

by zachls5 on Oct 11, 2006 4:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

First of All.....

Florida isnt losing to UGA in the Cocktail Party. Maybe to Auburn, but not Georgia and certainly not to both. If that happens, it's Florida and WVA/Louis (with their WAC-like schedule), whichever remains undefeated.

The more likely scenario is tOSU or UM goes undefeated, Florida goes undefeated (if they can get by the Tigers this weekend) and then win vs the SEC West Champ (looking more and more like Arkansas, but who knows). This pushes undefeated WVA/Louis out of the picture in a 2004 Auburn deja vu.

by bleed burnt orange on Oct 11, 2006 5:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

But it wouldn't be Auburn deja vu

because Auburn deserved a shot at the title. It'd be more like 2004 Utah deja vu.

by aorist9 on Oct 11, 2006 7:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

touche

True, 'cept it'd be another "BCS" school going undefeated as opposed to a Mid-major.

by bleed burnt orange on Oct 11, 2006 7:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Only in theory

by aorist9 on Oct 11, 2006 8:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Florida v. Tennessee

My analysis:

a once defeated Florida has probably played the most difficult schedule in the country
if Florida has not played the most difficult schedule, then once defeated Tennessee has -- and deserves props for opening the season against Cal and then crushing them
the first game was decided by a point, which suggests the teams are pretty close.

I would be sympathetic to the Big Ten teams that have cannibalized each other, and tOSU for beating UT on the road, but the Big Ten this year does not have the depth of the SEC, and in this hypothetical scenario Tennessee's win over Cal is essentially as impressive as tOSU's win over us.

Unless God proclaims it, there is no justification for an undefeated W.Va. or Louisville getting the shot -- although a respectful nod to patienthornsfan's question regarding a Rutgers team that hands W.Va. and Louisville their only losses.

by Allaha on Oct 11, 2006 10:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs