The Non Existent Playoff Parity

[GreveHaller]

So I guess we should go back to 2004 where undefeated Auburn was left out of the title game in favor of Oklahoma and USC? That was a stellar BCS title game. I think it was like 55-19.

Somebody will always be left out. Using your 04 example, say there was a 4 team playoff. Who is #4? It’s easy to pen in aub at 3 but there were at minimum 7 teams that can make the claim for the spot. That’s worse than whining about auburn
And they didn’t get screwed. Do your research. USC and Okl started 1 & 2 and never changed all season. Auburn didn’t even start the season ranked. USC and okl never lost. No reason for auburn to even jump them. And before you say “they play in the sec”, you need to look at the schedules. USC and okl played all quality opponents (fbs schools). Auburn didn’t. They played 1 non quality school - Citadel. So the BCS got it right. The best teams played.

 

[peaygolf]

As it stands now, 10-12 maybe

I'd say 20 at most.......and it's dwindling.
Kinda puts the "who's deserving" question out the window.

Have a 16 team playoff and call it a day......Screw the regular season.



EDIT.....Not calling you out. Just saying in general.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

That's still more than the playoffs.

31% of BCS Championship games.
29% of all playoff games.

Wow, a whole 2%.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

So I guess we should go back to 2004 where undefeated Auburn was left out of the title game in favor of Oklahoma and USC? That was a stellar BCS title game. I think it was like 55-19.

This.

Honestly.....I think you can sum it up that fans are going to b**** no matter what. It's never going to be perfect, deal with it. And you will never, ever convince me that an expanded playoffs is inferior to anything else up to this point. If you don't like it, then don't watch. Which is the same thing I say to people who complain every year about "too many bowl games".

 

[LouderVol]

It has allowed for teams like TCU cincy and mich st to actually make the playoffs and they never would have in the bcs era. Also, the data points are a little misleading, football is much different from 2014- present that it was especially early in the BCS. Saban learned how to hoard talent. As did urban Meyer. They taught Kirby and Day. Early BCS talent was more spread out. The current version of college football isn’t comparable. Just the way football is now, what the playoff has done is really just identify the best team. Because adding that extra game further separates the best team or two. Also, last years title was really a 1 score game, a pick six with like 5 seconds left doesn’t change that the game itself was a slugfest. It will remain the same. NIL will introduce maybe 4 more teams (Tenn, Mia, Texas and A&M) to the playoff rotation. But it’s the NFL factory schools and coaches that will still win most the titles. The kids that want to be developed and get a big payday on draft day in my opinion will most always beat kids that want a college pay day and may think they can get drafted anywhere. Just a mindset I’ll be tracking internally. Saw a little of it at A&M this year. It will take a special coach to keep these locker rooms hungry and happy.

Those schools only made it because the other big dogs are down that went back during the BCS. A decent texas beats TCU, USC out of the west would take away a second seat from the Big 10. But they arent done because of the NCS/playoff dynamic. That's a false narrative.

The game always changes. Change doesnt validate how we choose our champions.

Under the BCS there was more concentration of talent than there was before too. Urban meyer at Florida and Saban were both before the playoffs, so they arent results from the playoffs.

 

[LouderVol]

How are you defining Parity not sure by the posts here. Is it the point spread of championship game, the number of different teams in the CFP-4 or is it the number of different champions?

The largest problem is parity in the seeding due to bias of those determining who gets into the CFP. That is why we now have CFP-4 to fix some of the bias in the BCS. But the biases continued hence we had the TCU terrible championship game and the awful AP poll. The committee created the terrible game last night by 1) putting TCU in the CFP-4 and 2) by not making the UGA vs TCU game the semifinal instead of the NC. They didn’t want the two Big 10 teams meeting again in the Semifinal so they rigged the brackets because they thought Michigan would beat TCU and UGA would have had to beat both Big 10 teams to win NC. “When you start being dishonest it catches up to you", please note that CFP committee. It was evident they didn’t follow their own rules in this year’s CFP discussions (Head to Head for example).

If you are talking about parity based on point spread, see biases in seeding and teams getting in for why we have that discrepancy.

If you are saying parity in the number of unique teams getting into CFP-4 that will not happen anytime soon as there is just so many teams that legitimately have the programs to continue to win. But it does go in cycles and will change as Satan retires.

If you are talking about teams winning NC, we have had 5 unique winners out of the 9 years of the CFP-4. That is 55.5% unique winners since CFP. Since most of the same handful of teams have been making the CFP-4, that is too be expected but maybe NIL will help some of that. Note in the last few years of BCS, Alabama won 3 in a 4 year stretch.

The CFP-12 it will absolutely fix something.

It will correct some of the media & CFP conference president bias fix being in to keep teams out by ignoring Strength of Record/Schedule and using record/conference champion excuse.

12 teams might have ended up with a semifinal including UGA, Alabama, UT and tOSU. There would have been no way for the media and conference CFP members to stop the cream rising other than manipulating the brackets(as they do in basketball to help ratings) to cause earlier matchups. BUT TCU would not have made it to semi.

The CFP12 should make for a more competitive championship game even if there is still bias on who gets in and the matchups.

The Biggest jokes in the format will be who gets the bye(s), the brackets and the referees.

Parity is any of it, all of it. A better sport in general. Playoffs havent provided any of it. Outside factors have done more for parity rather than whatever system of championships we have.

The playoff games havent been any more competitive than the BCS game. Doubling the sample size moved the needle in the opposite direction. So the solution when doubling down doesnt work? Triple down on top of the double down?

I mean yeah we will see more unique teams MAKE it to the playoffs. And then we will see the buzzsaw hit. We will have more games like this. Any playoff system pairs low vs high. The only argument is that after we have gone through at least two additional games, we should then have better games. That's crap, and the math backs me up.

Expanded the regular season and get more data points. Sports are never going to be perfect where every team gets what it deserves every year. Schedules, injuries, weather, home or away. The playoff just cheapens the championship.

 

[LouderVol]

But you can’t take X team and make them play an SEC schedule… or you can… because we are doing it with Texas and OU… but that makes them an SEC team. Giving Ohio st. Or Michigan more games against the crappy big 10 west doesn’t prove anything. There are bad P5 teams. Beating them proves nothing. The playoff separates teams. I can’t think of a team that won it that didn’t deserve it. And isn’t that the point? To get a true champion?

You make them play more games. Vandy can only play 12/13 games a year. Plenty more would be needing them on the schedule than can go around. It's the same luck of the draw as the playoffs but without the bias throwing the matchups for a loop like they did this year.

I dont see it as any more a true champion than before. If you want a true champion have all 128 teams play each other in a round Robin playoff. Or 64 or however many. Otherwise you are applying some form bias in making your selection. The round robin format is what the regular season is, and we decided that wasnt enough. I dont see the playoffs as any more validating with the results we are getting.

 

[LouderVol]

The 4 team playoff concentrated the talent to 4-6 schools who routinely are viewed as having the best shot which, in turn, reduced the parity some. A 12 team at least loosens that up a bit.

Even in the BCS era, I don’t think there was a team outside of the top 12 that deserved to win the championship. But I didn’t look.

Was there ever a school in the top 5-12 that deserved to be in?

You fix the issue by expanding the regular season. We are guessing on the top 4-12 because we dont have enough data points.

Until/unless you expand all the way there is no way for a 4 game playoff with byes to be any more accurate than a 12 game season.

I may need to dig it up because I think it still exists, but I would be interested to see how the BCS formula would compare to the playoffs. Issue is we have seen the playoff committee play with the rankings so it's hard to say its apples to apples.

 

[Firebirdparts]

So I guess we should go back to 2004 where undefeated Auburn was left out of the title game in favor of Oklahoma and USC? That was a stellar BCS title game. I think it was like 55-19.

Yes, actually, we should, but we're going the other way. No sense talking about it. It's a done deal..

Was there ever a school in the top 5-12 that deserved to be in?

Oh, heavens no. That's ridiculous.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

Somebody will always be left out. Using your 04 example, say there was a 4 team playoff. Who is #4? It’s easy to pen in aub at 3 but there were at minimum 7 teams that can make the claim for the spot. That’s worse than whining about auburn
And they didn’t get screwed. Do your research. USC and Okl started 1 & 2 and never changed all season. Auburn didn’t even start the season ranked. USC and okl never lost. No reason for auburn to even jump them. And before you say “they play in the sec”, you need to look at the schedules. USC and okl played all quality opponents (fbs schools). Auburn didn’t. They played 1 non quality school - Citadel. So the BCS got it right. The best teams played.

I’m at work and have been doing this off the top of my head. Don’t really have time to research the preseason AP poll from 19 years ago.
You’re saying the best teams played because of a preseason ranking system had them at 1 and 2, and the computer sent them to the title because they didn’t lose? That’s a good system to you? Or could it be that Auburn got drubbed by USC in 2003 and that might’ve influenced the “computer” some?

 

[RDU VOL#14]

Yes, actually, we should, but we're going the other way.

.

Why?

 

[LouderVol]

I think we can agree that it’s pretty much the same. That Bama vs UGA game last year was a classic where the score didn’t really show that Bama had the ball w/ a chance to tie in the final minute.



I’m with you. I think we all want a great postseason product that concludes the best regular season in sports. The Bowl alliance wasn’t the answer, the BCS was good for a little while, but Bama and LSU replaying made sure that the CFP was expedited. The initial marketing emphasis that ESPN put on the CFP with the “Who’s In”? really had the unintended consequence of devaluing the Bowl system and the final 4 weeks of the regular season. That’s evident with the opt outs we’ve seen over the years.
I’m not the inclusion guy when it comes to CFP expansion. IDGAS about Tulane or Boise or whoever. Just like you, I want the best teams. I think it would’ve been absurd for Clemson to get a bye for this years CFP, which is what would’ve happened in the future setup. I posted above that Im all for a major overhaul of the regular season. I want uniformity among the power 5. Scheduling, officiating, conference titles, recruiting (yeah right) . I think everyone should be under the same rules. I think with the expanded CFP and on campus games being part of the CFP it helps keep the regular season relevant. I think if we lose to USCjr the way we did and our resume is still worthy of top 12, we made our bed and we should have to go to Eugene or Ann Arbor or Madison in December . I think it also moves the games up and gives teams less prep time, less recovery time and I do think those situations will have a very large impact on games. Much more so than playing 4 weeks later in Tampa or Dallas. I don’t think it will be an overnight fix with an expanded CFP, but I do think long term it will be better for the sport . I do think teams are starting to schedule that way as well.

And with teams scheduling you will see the same results.

And that would allow a team like UGA to phone it in. Or in the case of Michigan OSU it doesnt matter if your one loss is at the end of the season. So go ahead and rest your starters if you know you have a spot. Especially if it starts earlier.

 

[hog88]

I'd say 20 at most.......and it's dwindling.
Kinda puts the "who's deserving" question out the window.

Have a 16 team playoff and call it a day......Screw the regular season.



EDIT.....Not calling you out. Just saying in general.

There are not 16 teams capable of winning the NC. 6 in a good year have the means to do so and that's not going to change with expanding the playoffs alone.

 

[MAD]

Props to the OP, nailed it.


I posted this in another thread, it applies here.

This is why the playoff system is flawed.
TCU had the biggest beat down and will be remembered as the #2 team.
Tennessee with a huge decisive win in the Orange Bowl should have moved up a minimum to #3.

Go back to 1985
Miami had a chance to move up to #1 and Tennessee destroyed them and were rewarded going #8 to #4
It meant something and gave us a sense of pride.
Miami went from #2 to #9 and that team would have run circles around TCU.

 

[hog88]

Was there ever a school in the top 5-12 that deserved to be in?

You fix the issue by expanding the regular season. We are guessing on the top 4-12 because we dont have enough data points.

Until/unless you expand all the way there is no way for a 4 game playoff with byes to be any more accurate than a 12 game season.

I may need to dig it up because I think it still exists, but I would be interested to see how the BCS formula would compare to the playoffs. Issue is we have seen the playoff committee play with the rankings so it's hard to say its apples to apples.

Expanding the regular season does nothing unless you dictate the quality of competition each team plays during the regular season. What good does a 13-16 game regular season do if the power programs are loading up on weak OOC games?

 

[Dadof2Vols]

Was there ever a school in the top 5-12 that deserved to be in?

For me 2022-2023. I think UT and Alabama were both better teams than TCU. The CFP-4 & CFP-12 have been created because there were years that the poll/committee biases put the wrong teams in just like this years political process.

A lot of people did not agree with this years CFP-4 or AP final rankings. H$LL, the committee didn't even follow it's only guidelines to pick the Top 12 this year (Head to Head).

Until we see honest and integrity in the process people want it settled on the field instead of a smoke filled room with people who are political.

 

[peaygolf]

There are not 16 teams capable of winning the NC. 6 in a good year have the means to do so and that's not going to change with expanding the playoffs alone.

Agree. I'm just saying that there might be only 20 programs that will ever have a chance to win a NC.

UK, Indiana, Duke, Syracuse, Pitt, etc...............ZERO chance. Ever.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

And with teams scheduling you will see the same results.

And that would allow a team like UGA to phone it in. Or in the case of Michigan OSU it doesnt matter if your one loss is at the end of the season. So go ahead and rest your starters if you know you have a spot. Especially if it starts earlier.

Point being, there is incentive to play and get home field and a bye. Nobody wants to be the road team in a CFP environment . I wouldn’t want go to play at Penn State in December, or travel across the country to Utah or USC.

 

[AthensVol2007]

Somebody will always be left out. Using your 04 example, say there was a 4 team playoff. Who is #4? It’s easy to pen in aub at 3 but there were at minimum 7 teams that can make the claim for the spot. That’s worse than whining about auburn
And they didn’t get screwed. Do your research. USC and Okl started 1 & 2 and never changed all season. Auburn didn’t even start the season ranked. USC and okl never lost. No reason for auburn to even jump them. And before you say “they play in the sec”, you need to look at the schedules. USC and okl played all quality opponents (fbs schools). Auburn didn’t. They played 1 non quality school - Citadel. So the BCS got it right. The best teams played.

Oklahoma played 11-1 Texas and then 8-4 TTU was their next best win. Oregon was 5-6, AM 7-5, Ok St 7-5, KSU 4-7. Colorado was their opponent in the Big 12 title game and they went 8-5. OU beat AM by 7, we beat AM by 31 and lost to Auburn 2x. Auburn beat 10 win TN 2x, 10 win UGA and 9 win LSU. OU did not play a better overall schedule than AU that year.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Props to the OP, nailed it.


I posted this in another thread, it applies here.

This is why the playoff system is flawed.
TCU had the biggest beat down and will be remembered as the #2 team.
Tennessee with a huge decisive win in the Orange Bowl should have moved up a minimum to #3.

Go back to 1985
Miami had a chance to move up to #1 and Tennessee destroyed them and were rewarded going #8 to #4
It meant something and gave us a sense of pride.
Miami went from #2 to #9 and that team would have run circles around TCU.

View attachment 530382

Or hear me out....it meant something because you were told it meant something. Why did ending up #4 bring anymore "pride" than winning the SEC and the Sugar Bowl as heavy underdogs?

The playoff is flawed, but not because of cherry picked nostalgia of a past "system" that was overall pretty non-sensical. This is the same system that made BYU the freakin national champion in 1984 and I'm sure everyone agrees that was the right call.

 

[VolGee4]

Having a committee pairing it down to 4 teams brings politics into play. We know it's probably not always the "4 best teams."

Expanding the playoffs will leave no doubt and will cause the committee to have very little room for error. I am happy that there will be more football and that we won't have to rely on a group of individuals to break it down to just 4 teams. I actually think the first week in a 12 team playoff could be really competitive. Then, the two teams deserve the title game if they made it through.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Having a committee pairing it down to 4 teams brings politics into play. We know it's probably not always the "4 best teams."

Expanding the playoffs will leave no doubt and will cause the committee to have very little room for error. I am happy that there will be more football and that we won't have to rely on a group of individuals to break it down to just 4 teams. I actually think the first week in a 12 team playoff could be really competitive. Then, the two teams deserve the title game if they made it through.

I don't agree it will leave no doubt but it will still be better. I honestly don't understand this whole "the playoff is worse, let's go back to the old system" thinking. That just is beyond silly to me.

 

[LouderVol]

Wow, a whole 2%.

For a system that is supposed to be an improvement over the old failed system to be worse, even a little, is very telling imo. Like a FG off of an interception thrown in the end zone. Yeah its "only" -3, but it should have been +7.

I think we need another seismic shift, adding more teams to the playoffs isnt that.

 

[VolGee4]

I don't agree it will leave no doubt but it will still be better. I honestly don't understand this whole "the playoff is worse, let's go back to the old system" thinking. That just is beyond silly to me.

Well, there will always be people complaining about their team had a better resume to get the 12th spot. There are for the NCAAT in basketball. But football and basketball are different. If you are arguing about 11-15 ranked teams, you probably aren't title worthy. Those teams have flaws.

 

[LouderVol]

Oh, heavens no. That's ridiculous.

This is what it comes back to for me. At some point the results of the regular season have to matter more than who might have more NFL talent than those other teams.