2017 Playoffs

Started by Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat, October 31, 2017, 01:17:58 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wm4

Quote from: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: wm4 on December 04, 2017, 02:51:20 PM
Quote from: bluestreak66 on December 04, 2017, 11:41:12 AM

Idea for DI playoff. 8 teams. All 5 P5 champs auto-bid, as well as the highest ranks G5, and 2 at large bids.

But what does that solve?  Clemson vs. UCF?  USC vs. Oklahoma?  That isn't going to answer any question.  After the first round, you'd be left with the 4 teams you have right now.  There is no team outside of the top 4 that would have a reasonable chance of winning three straight games.  The committee got it right.



Really? Because Auburn lost by 8 to Clemson week 2, beat Georgia, lost to Georgia, and beat Alabama. I think they absolutely had a reasonable chance of going on a run to win 3 in a row considering they went 2-2 against 3 of those teams. I do think the committee got it right, and was consistent in how the criteria was applied last year and this year, but there is certainly a team left out that showed the chops to be in that grouping. It's just not a team that stood a chance of being in that last spot. If you had an 8 team playoff, you think any of the top 4 would have relished facing Auburn since they had already beat 2 of them?

At some point, you have to pick the teams for the playoff.  The regular season is this beautiful, imperfect merry go round of who played who, who beat who, by how much and so forth.  You'll never have all the questions answered, but at the end of the day (season), you gotta pick 4.  The committee got it right.  Last year it was Penn State who many thought got left out.  Ohio State promptly went out and got shut out 31-0 against Clemson.  Penn State had beaten OSU by 3 points in the regular season.  Would Penn State have loved a shot at Clemson?  Heck yes!  Would they have fared any better?  Probably not. 


jknezek

Quote from: wm4 on December 04, 2017, 03:18:04 PM
Quote from: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: wm4 on December 04, 2017, 02:51:20 PM
Quote from: bluestreak66 on December 04, 2017, 11:41:12 AM

Idea for DI playoff. 8 teams. All 5 P5 champs auto-bid, as well as the highest ranks G5, and 2 at large bids.

But what does that solve?  Clemson vs. UCF?  USC vs. Oklahoma?  That isn't going to answer any question.  After the first round, you'd be left with the 4 teams you have right now. There is no team outside of the top 4 that would have a reasonable chance of winning three straight games.  The committee got it right.



Really? Because Auburn lost by 8 to Clemson week 2, beat Georgia, lost to Georgia, and beat Alabama. I think they absolutely had a reasonable chance of going on a run to win 3 in a row considering they went 2-2 against 3 of those teams. I do think the committee got it right, and was consistent in how the criteria was applied last year and this year, but there is certainly a team left out that showed the chops to be in that grouping. It's just not a team that stood a chance of being in that last spot. If you had an 8 team playoff, you think any of the top 4 would have relished facing Auburn since they had already beat 2 of them?

At some point, you have to pick the teams for the playoff.  The regular season is this beautiful, imperfect merry go round of who played who, who beat who, by how much and so forth.  You'll never have all the questions answered, but at the end of the day (season), you gotta pick 4.  The committee got it right.  Last year it was Penn State who many thought got left out.  Ohio State promptly went out and got shut out 31-0 against Clemson.  Penn State had beaten OSU by 3 points in the regular season.  Would Penn State have loved a shot at Clemson?  Heck yes!  Would they have fared any better?  Probably not.

The bolded part above is what I took issue with. Auburn absolutely could and showed it. I don't have a problem with them being left out of a 4 team playoff. Lose 3 games and it is what it is. However... I just don't think your original statement was correct.

I do think the precedent the committee is setting is the opposite of what they should be doing. There is no incentive for Ohio State to schedule Oklahoma going forward. Had they scheduled Podunk U they would be in at 11-1 and a conference champ. The kind of thinking they applied this year is unfortunate even if I think it was correct.

wm4

Quote from: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 03:32:42 PM

I do think the precedent the committee is setting is the opposite of what they should be doing. There is no incentive for Ohio State to schedule Oklahoma going forward. Had they scheduled Podunk U they would be in at 11-1 and a conference champ. The kind of thinking they applied this year is unfortunate even if I think it was correct.

Ohio State would be solidly in this thing if they didn't lose by 30 to a 6-6 Iowa team.  The committee recognizes tough competition and rewards that as the season goes along and the rankings come out each week.  The committee spokesman has said this many times.  Conversely, playing nobody does not get rewarded.  It's why Alabama was #2 in the initial CFP rankings, while #1 in most polls.  Georgia was viewed as having played better teams and was undefeated at the time.

"Podunk" U is the Wisconsin model this year.  They played nobody of note and then got beat by Ohio State, their only top 10 competition.  That's too risky a route to take and you'll likely be left out every time. 

jknezek

Quote from: wm4 on December 04, 2017, 03:47:34 PM
Quote from: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 03:32:42 PM

I do think the precedent the committee is setting is the opposite of what they should be doing. There is no incentive for Ohio State to schedule Oklahoma going forward. Had they scheduled Podunk U they would be in at 11-1 and a conference champ. The kind of thinking they applied this year is unfortunate even if I think it was correct.

Ohio State would be solidly in this thing if they didn't lose by 30 to a 6-6 Iowa team.  The committee recognizes tough competition and rewards that as the season goes along and the rankings come out each week.  The committee spokesman has said this many times.  Conversely, playing nobody does not get rewarded.  It's why Alabama was #2 in the initial CFP rankings, while #1 in most polls.  Georgia was viewed as having played better teams and was undefeated at the time.

"Podunk" U is the Wisconsin model this year.  They played nobody of note and then got beat by Ohio State, their only top 10 competition.  That's too risky a route to take and you'll likely be left out every time.

Wisconsin was one drive away from going. Alabama didn't play anyone really either. Lost to Auburn at 7, beat LSU at 17. Ohio St lost to OK at 2, beat Wisconsin at 6, beat Penn State at 9, and beat Michigan State at 16. The theory that the committee rewarded a tough schedule doesn't hold up. They didn't reward the tough schedule, they punished it. There is no way around that when you look at the final data. If Ohio State was 11-1, with the only difference dropping the loss to OK at 2, the results are not much different than Clemson. Some big wins, one ugly loss, one conference title, and you are in. The committee punished losing to OK.

wm4

Quote from: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 03:54:11 PM
The committee punished losing to OK.

No they didn't.  Ohio State is out because they have two losses.  All others worthy of evaluation only have 1 loss.

The committee punished a bad second loss to Iowa, a team they were supposed to beat.  In the playoff era, you can't have two losses (including an ugly loss) and make much of an argument for getting in. 

If Ohio State is 11-1, with the only loss being week 2 to Oklahoma, they're likely the #1 team in this whole thing.  But they're not.  The Iowa loss hangs around Ohio State's neck like a 1,000 lbs anvil. 

Ralph Turner

Quote from: wm4 on December 04, 2017, 04:18:18 PM
Quote from: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 03:54:11 PM
The committee punished losing to OK.

No they didn't.  Ohio State is out because they have two losses.  All others worthy of evaluation only have 1 loss.

The committee punished a bad second loss to Iowa, a team they were supposed to beat.  In the playoff era, you can't have two losses (including an ugly loss) and make much of an argument for getting in. 

If Ohio State is 11-1, with the only loss being week 2 to Oklahoma, they're likely the #1 team in this whole thing.  But they're not.  The Iowa loss hangs around Ohio State's neck like a 1,000 lbs anvil.
... as does Auburn's misearable 4th quarter against an LSU team that finished 3rd in the SEC West (6-2).

jknezek

Quote from: wm4 on December 04, 2017, 04:18:18 PM
Quote from: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 03:54:11 PM
The committee punished losing to OK.

No they didn't.  Ohio State is out because they have two losses.  All others worthy of evaluation only have 1 loss.

The committee punished a bad second loss to Iowa, a team they were supposed to beat.  In the playoff era, you can't have two losses (including an ugly loss) and make much of an argument for getting in. 

If Ohio State is 11-1, with the only loss being week 2 to Oklahoma, they're likely the #1 team in this whole thing.  But they're not.  The Iowa loss hangs around Ohio State's neck like a 1,000 lbs anvil.

Don't have 2 losses? The best way to do that in a P5 conference is to avoid an OOC good loss. Here's the break down:

2014/15 National Title
AL - lost to Ol Miss
Oh St - lost to VT **
Oregon - lost to Arizona
Fl St - undefeated

2015/16 National Title
AL - lost to Ol Miss
Mich St - lost to Nebraska
Clemson - undefeated
Oklahoma - lost to TX

2016/17 National Title
Al - undefeated
Washington - USC
Clemson - Pitt
Ohio St - Penn St

2017/18 National Title
Al - Auburn
Clemson - Syracuse
Georgia - Auburn
Oklahoma - Iowa State

What do we see? Out of 16 teams, only three times did teams reach the playoffs undefeated. For the other 13 teams, 12 took a conference loss, one took an OOC loss. So far, you are 75% likely to take a conference and loss and make the playoffs, and you are 81% likely to take a loss. If you can't take 2 losses, and 75% of you are likely to take a conference loss, then schedule easy OOC. You will still get in, see Washington last year.

Moral of the story? Don't schedule an opponent likely to beat you in the OOC portion, because you are extremely likely to lose at least once in conference. And winning your conference doesn't outweigh the second loss is exactly what we just learned.

K-Mack

I guess technically these are 2017 playoffs you're talking about.
Former author, Around the Nation ('01-'13)
Managing Editor, Kickoff
Voter, Top 25/Play of the Week/Gagliardi Trophy/Liberty Mutual Coach of the Year
Nastradamus, Triple Take
and one of the two voices behind the sonic #d3fb nerdery that is the ATN Podcast.

wm4

#233
Quote from: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 04:44:57 PM
Quote from: wm4 on December 04, 2017, 04:18:18 PM
Quote from: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 03:54:11 PM
The committee punished losing to OK.

No they didn't.  Ohio State is out because they have two losses.  All others worthy of evaluation only have 1 loss.

The committee punished a bad second loss to Iowa, a team they were supposed to beat.  In the playoff era, you can't have two losses (including an ugly loss) and make much of an argument for getting in. 

If Ohio State is 11-1, with the only loss being week 2 to Oklahoma, they're likely the #1 team in this whole thing.  But they're not.  The Iowa loss hangs around Ohio State's neck like a 1,000 lbs anvil.

Don't have 2 losses? The best way to do that in a P5 conference is to avoid an OOC good loss. Here's the break down:

2014/15 National Title
AL - lost to Ol Miss (Ole Miss went 9-3 in regular season)
Oh St - lost to VT **
Oregon - lost to Arizona (Arizona went 10-3 in regular season)
Fl St - undefeated

2015/16 National Title
AL - lost to Ol Miss (Ole Miss went 9-3 in regular season)
Mich St - lost to Nebraska (Lost to Neb by 1 point.  Neb went 5-7 in regular season, would consider this to be an ugly loss, but it was MSU's only loss)
Clemson - undefeated
Oklahoma - lost to TX (Lost to TX by 7 points.  Texas went 5-7 in regular season, would consider this to be an ugly loss, but it was Oklahoma's only loss)

2016/17 National Title
Al - undefeated
Washington - USC (USC went 9-3 in regular season)
Clemson - Pitt (Pitt went 8-4 in regular season)
Ohio St - Penn St (Penn State went 10-2 in regular season)

2017/18 National Title
Al - Auburn
Clemson - Syracuse
Georgia - Auburn
Oklahoma - Iowa State

What do we see? Out of 16 teams, only three times did teams reach the playoffs undefeated. For the other 13 teams, 12 took a conference loss, one took an OOC loss. So far, you are 75% likely to take a conference and loss and make the playoffs, and you are 81% likely to take a loss. If you can't take 2 losses, and 75% of you are likely to take a conference loss, then schedule easy OOC. You will still get in, see Washington last year.

Moral of the story? Don't schedule an opponent likely to beat you in the OOC portion, because you are extremely likely to lose at least once in conference. And winning your conference doesn't outweigh the second loss is exactly what we just learned.

Not all losses are created equal.  See above notes. 

Rolling the dice to try to back into the playoffs via a weak OOC schedule is not a smart way to schedule.  Winning games matters, as it should. 

In 2014, Baylor and TCU both went 11-1, both missed the playoffs.  Both played nobody in OOC.  Co champs, but skunked on selection Sunday.  There's your "winnable OOC" and "one loss in conference" and neither got in.  This is why Big 12 went to a championship game this year. 

Iowa in 2015, went 12-0 in the regular season, lost by 3 to MSU in Big 10 championship and got left out.  Weak OOC schedule, 1 loss, didn't make it in. 

In 2016, Washington made it in with 1 loss and weak OOC (and was justly ranked 4th by the committee and got waxed by Alabama)

In 2017 Alabama made it in with 1 loss and a strange OOC schedule.  FSU was ranked top 5 at the time they played, but tanked to 6-6. 

Out of the above, 1 in 5 made it in via the scheduling path you suggest.  That's too risky and schools know this.

Moral of the story....you can have an OOC loss, or you can have a conference loss, but you can't have both.  And if you lose an OOC game against a quality opponent, you sure as hell better beat a mid pack conference team. 

Also, the SEC must go to a 9 game conference schedule.  Every other conference does this. 

Also, Part II, I like UHMB and UMU to make the finals.  There Keith, fixed it.  ;D




Desertraider

Sorry but it isn't a playoff. You want to end all the crap (well most of the crap) about "my team didn't get in and should have"? Easy - 11 conferences = 11 automatic bids for Conference champions. Add 5 Pool A (or B or Q) bids to round out to 16. Now you have a playoff. Concerned about playing that many games - get rid of the cupcake games on the schedule. Miami Hurricanes (for example) scheduled 13 games. Played 12 (1 cancelled) - get rid of Toledo, BC, and Arkansas State. 10 game schedule, 1 game added for conference championship - start playoffs following week. Done.
RIP MUC57 - Go Everybody!
National Champions: 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2012, 2015, 2017
The Autumn Wind is a Raider!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzEYK_XjyLg
Immaculate Prevention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZLq_acsVN0

bluestreak66

Quote from: wm4 on December 04, 2017, 05:41:52 PM
Quote from: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 04:44:57 PM
Quote from: wm4 on December 04, 2017, 04:18:18 PM
Quote from: jknezek on December 04, 2017, 03:54:11 PM
The committee punished losing to OK.

No they didn't.  Ohio State is out because they have two losses.  All others worthy of evaluation only have 1 loss.

The committee punished a bad second loss to Iowa, a team they were supposed to beat.  In the playoff era, you can't have two losses (including an ugly loss) and make much of an argument for getting in. 

If Ohio State is 11-1, with the only loss being week 2 to Oklahoma, they're likely the #1 team in this whole thing.  But they're not.  The Iowa loss hangs around Ohio State's neck like a 1,000 lbs anvil.

Don't have 2 losses? The best way to do that in a P5 conference is to avoid an OOC good loss. Here's the break down:

2014/15 National Title
AL - lost to Ol Miss (Ole Miss went 9-3 in regular season)
Oh St - lost to VT **
Oregon - lost to Arizona (Arizona went 10-3 in regular season)
Fl St - undefeated

2015/16 National Title
AL - lost to Ol Miss (Ole Miss went 9-3 in regular season)
Mich St - lost to Nebraska (Lost to Neb by 1 point.  Neb went 5-7 in regular season, would consider this to be an ugly loss, but it was MSU's only loss)
Clemson - undefeated
Oklahoma - lost to TX (Lost to TX by 7 points.  Texas went 5-7 in regular season, would consider this to be an ugly loss, but it was Oklahoma's only loss)

2016/17 National Title
Al - undefeated
Washington - USC (USC went 9-3 in regular season)
Clemson - Pitt (Pitt went 8-4 in regular season)
Ohio St - Penn St (Penn State went 10-2 in regular season)

2017/18 National Title
Al - Auburn
Clemson - Syracuse
Georgia - Auburn
Oklahoma - Iowa State

What do we see? Out of 16 teams, only three times did teams reach the playoffs undefeated. For the other 13 teams, 12 took a conference loss, one took an OOC loss. So far, you are 75% likely to take a conference and loss and make the playoffs, and you are 81% likely to take a loss. If you can't take 2 losses, and 75% of you are likely to take a conference loss, then schedule easy OOC. You will still get in, see Washington last year.

Moral of the story? Don't schedule an opponent likely to beat you in the OOC portion, because you are extremely likely to lose at least once in conference. And winning your conference doesn't outweigh the second loss is exactly what we just learned.

Not all losses are created equal.  See above notes. 

Rolling the dice to try to back into the playoffs via a weak OOC schedule is not a smart way to schedule.  Winning games matters, as it should. 

In 2014, Baylor and TCU both went 11-1, both missed the playoffs.  Both played nobody in OOC.  Co champs, but skunked on selection Sunday.  There's your "winnable OOC" and "one loss in conference" and neither got in.  This is why Big 12 went to a championship game this year. 

Iowa in 2015, went 12-0 in the regular season, lost by 3 to MSU in Big 10 championship and got left out.  Weak OOC schedule, 1 loss, didn't make it in. 

In 2016, Washington made it in with 1 loss and weak OOC (and was justly ranked 4th by the committee and got waxed by Alabama)

In 2017 Alabama made it in with 1 loss and a strange OOC schedule.  FSU was ranked top 5 at the time they played, but tanked to 6-6. 

Out of the above, 1 in 5 made it in via the scheduling path you suggest.  That's too risky and schools know this.

Moral of the story....you can have an OOC loss, or you can have a conference loss, but you can't have both.  And if you lose an OOC game against a quality opponent, you sure as hell better beat a mid pack conference team. 

Also, the SEC must go to a 9 game conference schedule.  Every other conference does this. 

Also, Part II, I like UHMB and UMU to make the finals.  There Keith, fixed it.  ;D
I think the problem there was TCU had a decent OOC opponent in Minnesota. I think the problem was that since Baylor's OOC was so bad, and TCU lost the head to head with them, it created a problem. They didn't want to put Baylor in because of their weak OOC schedule, and they couldn't put in TCU due to having the same record as a team that beat them head to head, so OSU represented an easy third choice
A.M.D.G.
Whose House? STREAKS' HOUSE!

RIP MUC57- "Go everybody!"

2018 CCIW PICK EM'S CHAMPION
2018 & 2019 ODAC POSTSEASON PICK EM'S CHAMPION
2019 OAC POSTSEASON PICK EM'S CHAMPION

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Quote from: desertraider on December 04, 2017, 05:59:01 PM
Sorry but it isn't a playoff. You want to end all the crap (well most of the crap) about "my team didn't get in and should have"? Easy - 11 conferences = 11 automatic bids for Conference champions. Add 5 Pool A (or B or Q) bids to round out to 16. Now you have a playoff. Concerned about playing that many games - get rid of the cupcake games on the schedule. Miami Hurricanes (for example) scheduled 13 games. Played 12 (1 cancelled) - get rid of Toledo, BC, and Arkansas State. 10 game schedule, 1 game added for conference championship - start playoffs following week. Done.

What you suggest is something we see run by the NCAA... since this isn't... ::shrug::
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

tf37

Quote from: desertraider on December 04, 2017, 05:59:01 PM
Sorry but it isn't a playoff. You want to end all the crap (well most of the crap) about "my team didn't get in and should have"? Easy - 11 conferences = 11 automatic bids for Conference champions. Add 5 Pool A (or B or Q) bids to round out to 16. Now you have a playoff. Concerned about playing that many games - get rid of the cupcake games on the schedule. Miami Hurricanes (for example) scheduled 13 games. Played 12 (1 cancelled) - get rid of Toledo, BC, and Arkansas State. 10 game schedule, 1 game added for conference championship - start playoffs following week. Done.

This sounds nice on paper, but let's be real.  The Power 5 team are not giving up 1-2 home games per year for a 16 team playoff.  School like Michigan and Texas, just to name a couple,  who are struggling to win conference championships, but can easily schedule 7-8 home games will keep their money and be happy.

smedindy

And also, there will be smaller schools that will schedule a pay game against a power team for the cash money.

Ralph Turner

Quote from: tf37 on December 04, 2017, 11:14:07 PM
Quote from: desertraider on December 04, 2017, 05:59:01 PM
Sorry but it isn't a playoff. You want to end all the crap (well most of the crap) about "my team didn't get in and should have"? Easy - 11 conferences = 11 automatic bids for Conference champions. Add 5 Pool A (or B or Q) bids to round out to 16. Now you have a playoff. Concerned about playing that many games - get rid of the cupcake games on the schedule. Miami Hurricanes (for example) scheduled 13 games. Played 12 (1 cancelled) - get rid of Toledo, BC, and Arkansas State. 10 game schedule, 1 game added for conference championship - start playoffs following week. Done.

This sounds nice on paper, but let's be real.  The Power 5 team are not giving up 1-2 home games per year for a 16 team playoff.  School like Michigan and Texas, just to name a couple,  who are struggling to win conference championships, but can easily schedule 7-8 home games will keep their money and be happy.
The problem with a 32 or 64 team playoff is that 31 or 63 teams finish the season with a loss.

With 35 bowl games, 35 coaches won the last game of the season and 15 of the losers were just glad to make to a bowl for the first time   ...  in 57 years, e.g., New Mexico State (if they can raise the money).