Simple Solution to Playoff Enigma

[volfan102455]

Use the BCS to pick all at large bids. Take human bias out of the equation.

The BCS was humans selecting the top - it was full of bias.

 

[whobethis16]

Im not at all familiar with how power ratings determine strength of schedule.

The major problem with the BCS SOS was that it only accounted for wins and losses of said school, aa well as their opponents’ wins and losses. The computers did not factor in quality of opponents.

Did Citadel’s record not count? Because two of the biggest upsets of FBS schools by FCS schools were members of the PAC 10.

For example:
Appalachian State defeated No. 5 Michigan (2007)
James Madison def. No. 13 Va. Tech (2010)
Eastern Wash. def. No. 25 Oregon State (2013)
ND State def No. 13 Iowa (2016)
Montana def. No. 20 Washington (2021)

For starters, 2016 and 2021 mean nothing in regards to BCS because that was playoffs.

Michigan dropped like a rock after losing to App State (#5 to unranked until after game 7).
Virginia Tech dropped just as badly (#13 to unranked until after game 7).
Oregon State dropped from #25 to unranked until after game 7.

Losses to any 1-A/FBS teams would not have hurt those teams that badly for that long. So yes, quality of opponent played a very large part in it. Winning over 1-AA/FCS Citadel hurt Auburn because of the quality of the opponent.

 

[adam.vol]

For starters, 2016 and 2021 mean nothing in regards to BCS because that was playoffs.

Michigan dropped like a rock after losing to App State (#5 to unranked until after game 7).
Virginia Tech dropped just as badly (#13 to unranked until after game 7).
Oregon State dropped from #25 to unranked until after game 7.

Losses to any 1-A/FBS teams would not have hurt those teams that badly for that long. So yes, quality of opponent played a very large part in it. Winning over 1-AA/FCS Citadel hurt Auburn because of the quality of the opponent.

Going undefeated and not winning a championship was the subject, I believe.

But no, quality of opponents played zero part in it because the BCS screwed up their assessment of quality from the very beginning. The dorks who came up with computers models obviously never gave a thought about any talent metrics such as “blue chip ratios”. I would expect a better game between UCLA and Citadel than I would between Alabama and UCLA. We have no room for agreement if you can’t recognize that the teams’ overall athleticism is a more even match between the former two than the latter.

Would it have helped Auburn to have played someone besides Citadel? - probably. Should it have mattered? - Absolutely not.

 

[whobethis16]

Going undefeated and not winning a championship was the subject, I believe.

But no, quality of opponents played zero part in it because the BCS screwed up their assessment of quality from the very beginning. The dorks who came up with computers models obviously never gave a thought about any talent metrics such as “blue chip ratios”. I would expect a better game between UCLA and Citadel than I would between Alabama and UCLA. We have no room for agreement if you can’t recognize that the teams’ overall athleticism is a more even match between the former two than the latter.

Would it have helped Auburn to have played someone besides Citadel? - probably. Should it have mattered? - Absolutely not.

An FCS team will always be worse for the SOS than an FBS team. Plain and simple. That's the point. Was Auburn the most talented team in 2004? Absolutely. Would they have beaten USC or steamrolled Oklahoma like USC did? 100%. Still doesn't change the fact both those teams played 12 FBS teams and went undefeated while Auburn played an FCS, which hurt them in the SOS. I've always said the only year the BCS got it wrong in was in 2004, but stipulated that by saying Auburn screwed themselves with their scheduling. BCS, like RPI, is a numbers game, and Auburn messed up.

 

[adam.vol]

As

An FCS team will always be worse for the SOS than an FBS team. Plain and simple. That's the point. Was Auburn the most talented team in 2004? Absolutely. Would they have beaten USC or steamrolled Oklahoma like USC did? 100%. Still doesn't change the fact both those teams played 12 FBS teams and went undefeated while Auburn played an FCS, which hurt them in the SOS. I've always said the only year the BCS got it wrong in was in 2004, but stipulated that by saying Auburn screwed themselves with their scheduling. BCS, like RPI, is a numbers game, and Auburn messed up.

OK, I agree with all of that.

I like the indiscriminate nature of a computer model, but I don’t trust the code writers to get it right for everyone and they probably won’t be allowed to tinker with it once it takes effect. We probably should have stuck with the BCS model and accepted that the best way to make it work for everyone is to keep the model as simple as possible. All the BCS was really missing was a playoff and then it would have been as good as it gets (yet still imperfect).

 

[Volfan76]

In theory it sounded like a good idea. Reward the conference champs. But granting a bye is not going to be smooth practically speaking. I don’t believe this format will last past this year.

I’m all for granting auto bids for conference champs. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it shouldn’t put them in the top four automatically.

The change is simple. Give the top four teams the bye. This ensures a first round winner has to play one of the top four teams in the second round. This is so silly that everyone’s response should be thanks Captain Obvious.

View attachment 694155


Anyway, the point of this aside from pointing out the obvious is there’s no reason to wait until a new contract happens. They need to institute this beginning next year and fix it sooner than later. To not only address this soft side of the bracket (i.e. the 5/12–>4 quadrant) but also bring balance to the entire bracket. Cheers.

The problem with the playoffs is the same problem that college football has always had that led to the playoff discussion in the first place...strength of schedule does not weigh enough in the formula or mindset of rankings. Teams are playing these weak conference AND out of conference opponents and they have not been tested. No amount of playoff teams with solve that. Indiana for instance has not beat a ranked team this year. No way they deserve to be in the top 10. Not only is it unfair from the standpoint of having an easier path, they get to come into playoff games fresh with much of their playbook unopened. Until these ranking committees stop placing these untested teams high in the rankings, the problem will still exist.

 

[Volfan76]

Not that us hoping has any effect on game outcomes, but if LSU beats bama then we have to compete with them for a playoff spot. If UT and Bama has the same record, a head to head win will absolutely come into play. Who know against LSU...they could look at our game against arkansas. It's better for us if Bama wins.

 

[Vol865]

The BCS was humans selecting the top - it was full of bias.

I see it was a combination of polls now. I was thinking it calculated in SOS and some other things. I still like using a combination of polls over one small group deciding everything.