NCAAF  > General NCAAF  > A Link to a Truth & Rumors Thread
February 28, 2012, 10:00 AM
This Truth & Rumors thread had some good discussions going, but it is now buried and hard to locate, so I thought it worthy of a link.

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/324530#add _comment_div
February 28, 2012  01:38 PM ET
February 28, 2012  02:23 PM ET

"To keep the integrity of the regular season and the conference championship games, Kramer said, all of the teams in the playoff should be conference champions."

I assume this was the statement by Roy Kramer. It's funny. He said exactly the opposite in 1998.

``We're not in competition with the media or the coaches polls,'' Kramer said. ``Our primary concern has been how to delineate between three unbeaten teams or one unbeaten team and five teams with 10-1 records. We feel the rating system will do this in a factual and equitable way and provide us with the best two teams to play in the game for the national championship.''
----Roy Kramer June 13, 1998

February 28, 2012  02:50 PM ET

QUOTE (BuffHole, #44 on the T&R): "Maybe there is a College Football God after all. I was ecstatic to read that there is a push for conference champs only."

Actually a playoff involving CCs only could significantly diminish the importance of the regular season. OOC games become superfluous as you can lose any or all of them and still make the PO.

This is somewhat countered by the fact that a PO might be limited to the four highest ranked CCs but that means there is no incentive to schedule tough OOC opponents. Most people seem to want that though. I think SOS would be too difficult with such a limited number of games and therefore should not play a huge part in determining which teams get in. Besides even if a 2-loss team played a much tougher schedule than a 1-loss team, all the tougher SOS tells us is that the 2-loss team lost to apparently better teams so why put them in the PO (similar argument to "if you cannot win you own conference"). It also does not tell us if they are better than the 1-loss team.

Overall I like the idea of the top four CCs playing for the NC. The bulk of the season is conf play and is thus important, CCGs function as semi-first round of POs (though without the guarantee of advancement), and OOC games affect ranking and who gets in. But this system is not perfect and does nothing to encourage better OOC scheduling.

Plus conf races are innately unfair in this non round robin age. Divisional opponents play each other but teams can get screwed in the cross-divisional games. Last year for instance FSU played Duke and Virginia from the Coastal while Clemson played VT and UNC. Clemson won the division anyway but in most years that imbalance would highly favor FSU ending up with the better conf record. Should division records play a larger part in determining who makes CCGs? Total conf record becomes part of a tiebreaker for three-way ties?

Well that is enough for now. I have created another essay. I was trying to write shorter posts LOL.

February 28, 2012  02:54 PM ET
QUOTE(#2):

I assume this was the statement by Roy Kramer. It's funny. He said exactly the opposite in 1998.

Well back then he was commissioner of the SEC. Now he is not. ;) I kid. That was before the SEC's current reputation and dominance.

February 28, 2012  03:50 PM ET
QUOTE(#3):

Actually a playoff involving CCs only could significantly diminish the importance of the regular season. OOC games become superfluous as you can lose any or all of them and still make the PO.

Completely disagree. First of all, allowing at-large teams wouldn't fix the tendency towards a weaker OOC. Oregon was penalized by the polls this year because of the extra loss to LSU and ended up behind a Stanford team they'd beaten handily. Stanford would have received an at-large invite over CC Oregon. What does Oregon learn? Stick to the San Jose St.'s.

Just as there is a tendency now (with polls determining the NC participants) to schedule a cupcake OOC, that would continue if we allowed at-large teams. I actually think there might be a trend back towards strong OOC opponents, if there was diminished fear of repercussions. In a CC-only playoff, Oregon is not penalized for scheduling LSU.

The only way to bring back the competitive OOC scheduling of yore would be to bring back the original bowl system. In that system, the best way to prove your superiority (and worthiness to the NC) was to beat the best from other conferences. If that system were in place today, the winner of the LSU-Oregon game would ultimately be rewarded with the NC, assuming they win their bowl game.

February 28, 2012  04:14 PM ET
QUOTE(#2):

"We're not in competition with the media or the coaches polls,''

Just for giggles, pretend for a moment the polls didn't exist. All that would matter during the regular season is who wins the conferences. During the season we would each have our own ideas about how the leaders of each conference stack up against each other, and we wouldn't need no stinking panels of preoccupied coaches and scribes to tell us how it should be. Then, after the regular season there could be a BCS-like consortium of panels and computers to rank the conference winners for a playoff.

The way that many rely on the polls to decide the top teams makes me think that for them CFB would dry up and blow away without the polls. Let each conference determine its champion during the regular season, and let them move on while the losers play in meaningless bowls.

February 28, 2012  06:26 PM ET
QUOTE(#6):

Just for giggles, pretend for a moment the polls didn't exist. All that would matter during the regular season is who wins the conferences. During the season we would each have our own ideas about how the leaders of each conference stack up against each other, and we wouldn't need no stinking panels of preoccupied coaches and scribes to tell us how it should be. Then, after the regular season there could be a BCS-like consortium of panels and computers to rank the conference winners for a playoff. The way that many rely on the polls to decide the top teams makes me think that for them CFB would dry up and blow away without the polls. Let each conference determine its champion during the regular season, and let them move on while the losers play in meaningless bowls.

I think we can all agree that polls haven't helped the situation; they have exacerbated it. But, you're never going to get rid of polls.

Does anyone see how far afield we're getting with supposed "solutions"? Do people really think this will make things better? What happened this year was a once in a lifetime situation and people were already not watching the bowls as much. And the REALLY sad part of this season is MOST people agreed Alabama was one of the two best teams if not the best. And the BCS was for the 2 best teams to play. Knee jerk reactions to situations that probably will not ever happen again is a little reactionary.

Do we really think matching up the #1, the #2, the #4 and the #6 teams in a 4 team playoff is going to solve much?

February 28, 2012  06:46 PM ET
QUOTE(#5):

Completely disagree. First of all, allowing at-large teams wouldn't fix the tendency towards a weaker OOC. Oregon was penalized by the polls this year because of the extra loss to LSU and ended up behind a Stanford team they'd beaten handily. Stanford would have received an at-large invite over CC Oregon. What does Oregon learn? Stick to the San Jose St.'s.Just as there is a tendency now (with polls determining the NC participants) to schedule a cupcake OOC, that would continue if we allowed at-large teams. I actually think there might be a trend back towards strong OOC opponents, if there was diminished fear of repercussions. In a CC-only playoff, Oregon is not penalized for scheduling LSU.The only way to bring back the competitive OOC scheduling of yore would be to bring back the original bowl system. In that system, the best way to prove your superiority (and worthiness to the NC) was to beat the best from other conferences. If that system were in place today, the winner of the LSU-Oregon game would ultimately be rewarded with the NC, assuming they win their bowl game.

I did not say anything about at-large teams fixing the weaker OOC. I just denied that a CC PO would fix it. Because Oregon WOULD be penalized for scheduling LSU most of the time. By losing they would drop in the rankings and if only the four highest ranked CCs would make the PO they would often get left out with two losses. Maybe this year they would have been one of the top four CCs but that is not guaranteed. If however they do not schedule LSU and lose only one game they are a virtual lock for the PO.

From 2002-11, CCs #s 4 and 5 (with 5 getting left out) had the same number of losses SEVEN times - 70%. If team #4 lost an extra game (i.e., tough OOC), they would have been out. Had #5 lost one less (i.e., played a weaker OOC team) they would have been in.

The only way a tough OOC will not be penalized is if ALL the CCs make a PO. But if only the top four make it any loss is highly detrimental to one's chances of making the PO. And if all the CCs make a PO then the regular season loses much of its value because you CAN lose multiple OOC games and still make the PO.

Even with a SOS added in, limiting a PO to CCs will probably weaken the regular season as it will allow teams with more losses the chance to play for the title. You even state that there would be a "diminished fear of repercussions" for tougher OOC scheduling. This implicitly states that Oregon could lose to LSU and still make the PO and win the NC. Why? Because they could still win their CC. The regular season losses would not matter.

February 28, 2012  07:17 PM ET
QUOTE(#3):

QUOTE (BuffHole, #44 on the T&R): "Maybe there is a College Football God after all. I was ecstatic to read that there is a push for conference champs only."Actually a playoff involving CCs only could significantly diminish the importance of the regular season. OOC games become superfluous as you can lose any or all of them and still make the PO. This is somewhat countered by the fact that a PO might be limited to the four highest ranked CCs but that means there is no incentive to schedule tough OOC opponents. Most people seem to want that though. I think SOS would be too difficult with such a limited number of games and therefore should not play a huge part in determining which teams get in. Besides even if a 2-loss team played a much tougher schedule than a 1-loss team, all the tougher SOS tells us is that the 2-loss team lost to apparently better teams so why put them in the PO (similar argument to "if you cannot win you own conference"). It also does not tell us if they are better than the 1-loss team. Overall I like the idea of the top four CCs playing for the NC. The bulk of the season is conf play and is thus important, CCGs function as semi-first round of POs (though without the guarantee of advancement), and OOC games affect ranking and who gets in. But this system is not perfect and does nothing to encourage better OOC scheduling. Plus conf races are innately unfair in this non round robin age. Divisional opponents play each other but teams can get screwed in the cross-divisional games. Last year for instance FSU played Duke and Virginia from the Coastal while Clemson played VT and UNC. Clemson won the division anyway but in most years that imbalance would highly favor FSU ending up with the better conf record. Should division records play a larger part in determining who makes CCGs? Total conf record becomes part of a tiebreaker for three-way ties?Well that is enough for now. I have created another essay. I was trying to write shorter posts LOL.

CC only would greatly diminish the OOC games. So make it so that the OOC don't matter and only the conference games...and everyone has 9 Conference Games.

So if, say, USC wants to schedule weak teams to create practice time for their team, it won't be punished...and if, say, Va Tech wants to schedule strong teams to create an atmosphere of beating the best to....whatever....then they don't get rewarded. And making it 9 CG's, then there would only be 3 OOC....

February 28, 2012  08:13 PM ET
QUOTE(#7):

I think we can all agree that polls haven't helped the situation; they have exacerbated it. But, you're never going to get rid of polls.Does anyone see how far afield we're getting with supposed "solutions"? Do people really think this will make things better? What happened this year was a once in a lifetime situation and people were already not watching the bowls as much. And the REALLY sad part of this season is MOST people agreed Alabama was one of the two best teams if not the best. And the BCS was for the 2 best teams to play. Knee jerk reactions to situations that probably will not ever happen again is a little reactionary.Do we really think matching up the #1, the #2, the #4 and the #6 teams in a 4 team playoff is going to solve much?

What happened in 2011 could easily happen again. But that was just one scenario that demonstrated the weakness of the BCS. To me, 2008 was worse with at least 5 teams worthy of the title game. Nor is this a kneejerk reaction to 2011. Discussion like this occurs after every season lately.

And to answer your last question, IMO any solution that takes the polls out of the equation has to be an improvement. Right now we have a system that relies heavily on opinion polls, but the idea that CFB couldn't function without the polls is just depressing.

February 28, 2012  08:24 PM ET
QUOTE(#9):

CC only would greatly diminish the OOC games. So make it so that the OOC don't matter and only the conference games...and everyone has 9 Conference Games.So if, say, USC wants to schedule weak teams to create practice time for their team, it won't be punished...and if, say, Va Tech wants to schedule strong teams to create an atmosphere of beating the best to....whatever....then they don't get rewarded. And making it 9 CG's, then there would only be 3 OOC....

OOC games are 25% of the regular season (for confs with 9 games; for those with 8 they are 33%). To diminish the OOC portion of the schedule significantly diminishes the importance of the regular season. And that is what so many people say they want to maintain.

February 28, 2012  10:57 PM ET

The alternative to not requiring CC is to allow at-large teams. So OOC games count more, but now you can have a NC that couldn't even win their conference. Not only that, but you must sleep with the enemy, the BCS rankings or something similar, to determine the most worthy.

Give me CC's only. If you didn't win your conference, you don't deserve a shot at the title. IMO.

February 29, 2012  01:13 AM ET
QUOTE(#8):

I did not say anything about at-large teams fixing the weaker OOC. I just denied that a CC PO would fix it. Because Oregon WOULD be penalized for scheduling LSU most of the time. By losing they would drop in the rankings and if only the four highest ranked CCs would make the PO they would often get left out with two losses. Maybe this year they would have been one of the top four CCs but that is not guaranteed. If however they do not schedule LSU and lose only one game they are a virtual lock for the PO.

On the other hand, if Oregon had beaten LSU, they might have made it to the 2-team playoff even with the loss to USC. Those tough ooc games cut both ways. They may be death to the loser, but they make the winner a lock.

Texas and tOSU scheduled each other in '05 and '06. The winner of those games made it to the BCSCG. Potential conference winners would be wise to remember that since you point out there is often little to distinguish #4 from #5. Having a prominent ooc win could be the difference.

February 29, 2012  09:18 AM ET
QUOTE(#10):

What happened in 2011 could easily happen again. But that was just one scenario that demonstrated the weakness of the BCS. To me, 2008 was worse with at least 5 teams worthy of the title game. Nor is this a kneejerk reaction to 2011. Discussion like this occurs after every season lately. And to answer your last question, IMO any solution that takes the polls out of the equation has to be an improvement. Right now we have a system that relies heavily on opinion polls, but the idea that CFB couldn't function without the polls is just depressing.

I disagree about 2011 happening again. That was the first time in over a hundred years that it had happened.

And I do think it's a kneejerk reaction to 2011. Sure, they discuss it every year, but this year was the straw that broke the camel's back. All of a sudden you see ADs reversing course and going to a playoff.

As for polls, well, you're not going to get rid of them because people want them, mostly. they want to see some off the wall poll say that their team is preseason #1 and then read an indepth analysis of their team.

February 29, 2012  09:35 AM ET
QUOTE(#12):

The alternative to not requiring CC is to allow at-large teams. So OOC games count more, but now you can have a NC that couldn't even win their conference. Not only that, but you must sleep with the enemy, the BCS rankings or something similar, to determine the most worthy. Give me CC's only. If you didn't win your conference, you don't deserve a shot at the title. IMO.

Winning a conference can be overrated. The best team in the conference is not always crowned as the CC. This is often true but keep in mind that significantly lower ranked teams have won the SEC CG at least twice (10%; would be more but often the lower ranked team is still top 10); the Big XII CG four times (27%); the ACC CG twice (28%).

As with Bama this year a single loss to the wrong team at the wrong time can block you from the CCG - and would have done so even if LSU had lost to Oregon, UF and WV. A 1-loss Bama team would have been clearly better than a 3-loss LSU team despite not winning its conference or even division - and even despite losing the H2H matchup (as proven in the rematch that occurred in the NCG). Luckily it did not go that way this year but similar situations have happened multiple times in virtually every conference.

As I said earlier some teams receive a harder conf schedule as well. It is hard to argue for OOC SOS components without taking into consideration that not all conf schedules are created equal and not trying to equalize those as well. Why use different sized measuring sticks for teams and pretend they are all equal? Or why run a "100-meter" race if one team has to run 90, another 110, etc.?

I would stress that I am not completely against the proposed system. I am just pointing out the weaknesses that WILL be exposed sometime within the first couple years and people will do what they do now - complain about the weaknesses and want to fix them.

February 29, 2012  10:06 AM ET
QUOTE(#13):

On the other hand, if Oregon had beaten LSU, they might have made it to the 2-team playoff even with the loss to USC. Those tough ooc games cut both ways. They may be death to the loser, but they make the winner a lock. Texas and tOSU scheduled each other in '05 and '06. The winner of those games made it to the BCSCG. Potential conference winners would be wise to remember that since you point out there is often little to distinguish #4 from #5. Having a prominent ooc win could be the difference.

Most teams play one tough OOC opponent now. It is just that many are locked in so people forget about them. FSU and UF play every year and in most years that is a very tough OOC for each team. But LSU does not have an annual opponent like that and so will schedule Oregon, WV, etc. Though usually not both in the same year. They were fortunate to win out this year.

Since there is such a slight difference between #s 4 and 5 it does not really make sense for either to schedule an extra tough OOC game. Use the win percentage prediction method for schedule options A, B and C (for hypothetical top 10 teams with Annual, equal level rivals):

Team A's OOC
1.0 Cupcake 1
1.0 Cupcake 2
0.9 Lower BCS
.50 Annual (tough) OOC
Expected OOC wins: 3.40 (either 3-1 or 4-0)

Team B's OOC
1.0 Cupcake
0.9 Lower BCS
0.5 Tough BCS
0.5 Annual (tough) OOC
Expected OOC wins: 2.90 (3-1)

Team C's OOC
0.95 Lower BCS
0.6 Mid+ BCS
0.5 Tough OOC
0.5 Annual (tough) OOC
Expected OOC wins: 2.55 (either 3-1 or 2-2)

Team A will be 4-0 about 50% of the time and would probably then get the nod over the 3-1 team B. The team C would be eliminated 50% of the time with a 2-2 OOC record, and even when 3-1 may not beat out the 3-1 B (and would not beat A when A is 4-0). Etc.

Every tough game would likely have an expected win percentage of about 50%. Scheduling two such teams makes it likely you will lose one game. Scheduling 3+ would be asking to be eliminated (you have to consider the likelihood of losing at least one conf game) from a PO, and the unlikely probability of winning out over such a brutal OOC schedule - though doing so would guarantee you a SHOT at the NC (but not guarantee an NC; still have to beat two more tough teams) - makes it way too risky. Is the chance to get a "sure shot" at the PO worth the likelihood of being eliminated from PO consideration 9/10 years?

How would one weigh a loss to make scheduling tougher OOC opponents worth the risk of a loss? With only 12 regular season games a single loss is very detrimental to a shot at the PO. In the last ten years if the top four CCs had made a 4-team PO, only eleven 2-loss teams would have made it. That is 11 out of 40 slots (and three of those eleven were in 2007). That is not very comforting if I am sitting down to make a schedule for my team. Give me schedule A where 50% of the time I will be 4-0 OOC and 3-1 the other years. I still have a great shot at making the PO every year even if my schedule is looked down at a little.

February 29, 2012  12:41 PM ET
QUOTE(#14):

I disagree about 2011 happening again. That was the first time in over a hundred years that it had happened.

And I do think it's a kneejerk reaction to 2011. Sure, they discuss it every year, but this year was the straw that broke the camel's back. All of a sudden you see ADs reversing course and going to a playoff.

As for polls, well, you're not going to get rid of them because people want them, mostly. they want to see some off the wall poll say that their team is preseason #1 and then read an indepth analysis of their team.

As long as one conference keeps landing 6 of the top 10 recruiting classes, 2011 could become a recurring theme.

"kneejerk reaction" and "straw that broke the camel's back" are opposite concepts. I'll agree with the latter.

Sad but true.

February 29, 2012  12:41 PM ET
QUOTE(#16):

Give me schedule A where 50% of the time I will be 4-0 OOC and 3-1 the other years. I still have a great shot at making the PO every year even if my schedule is looked down at a little.

This ^^ is essentially where the majority are at right now, but not everyone thinks that way. Down by one late in the game, some kick the PAT and some go for 2.

February 29, 2012  01:10 PM ET
QUOTE(#3):

Actually a playoff involving CCs only could significantly diminish the importance of the regular season. OOC games become superfluous as you can lose any or all of them and still make the PO.

I disagree. Winning your conference is not a guarantee, it only puts you in the mix. It still boils down to the 4 best CC's out of however many conferences there are. So in order to get that bid one of the factors will be SOS both in and out of conference.

Chances are if you lose your non con games you won't be rated high enough to get in, or if some CC with a similar conference record and stength is also in the running, the team with the more impressive OOC SHOULD get the bid (that's one thing that won't change, should isn't will).

IMO it does not diminish, it supports the regular season, making long time goals (winning conference) important again and re-emphasising the need for quality OOC competition.

JMO

 
February 29, 2012  01:21 PM ET
QUOTE(#6):

Just for giggles, pretend for a moment the polls didn't exist. All that would matter during the regular season is who wins the conferences. During the season we would each have our own ideas about how the leaders of each conference stack up against each other, and we wouldn't need no stinking panels of preoccupied coaches and scribes to tell us how it should be. Then, after the regular season there could be a BCS-like consortium of panels and computers to rank the conference winners for a playoff. The way that many rely on the polls to decide the top teams makes me think that for them CFB would dry up and blow away without the polls. Let each conference determine its champion during the regular season, and let them move on while the losers play in meaningless bowls.

Imagine there's no polls
It's easy if you try
No meaningless bowls below us
Above us only playoffs
Imagine all the fans living for today

Imagine there's no conferences
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to troll or rant for
And no UPI too
Imagine all the bloggers living life in peace

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the FBS will be as one

Imagine no possessions for Tats
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or pay for play
A brotherhood of CFB
Imagine all the people sharing all the Stadiums

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And FBS will live as one

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    'Melo wants to be wooed (like, Howard wooed)
    Views
    1611
    Comments
    1347
  2. 2
    Farrell defends Fenway's 'sleep room'
    Views
    1568
    Comments
    480
  3. 3
    Youthful Red Wings are rattled
    Views
    1603
    Comments
    288
  4. 4
    Bishop's severe injury
    Views
    2108
    Comments
    65
  5. 5
    Texans may take Clowney ... for someone else
    Views
    20281
    Comments
    63

SI.com

SI Photos