(01-06-2015 10:57 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  And no one has answered the questions I've posed here

(01-05-2015 08:20 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Conference championship is determined by best conference record. The intent of having a championship tournament is to crown a national champion which is based on all games.

Chew on this scenario

Team A has an 8-4 record but 7-1 in conference. For arguments sake , we'll say their conference loss was by 14 but it was on the road to another 8-4 team (who had 2 conference losses)

Team B is 11-1, with a win over a top 10 team and a win over a Top 15 team OOC.

Team B lost to Team A on the road by 3, when their QB took a hard hit in the second quarter and was held out of the game for concussion precautions the rest of the way, but returned to play the rest of the season.

No conference championship game.

Team A is the conference champion, but is going to a less prestigious bowl.

Team B is rated highly enough to be in the Top 4.

Given only 1 undefeated team, do you rule Team B out of consideration for the 4-team playoff?

If yes, what makes their loss worse than the losses of other 1-loss teams?

If no, the difference between that scenario and the TCU-Baylor scenario is a matter of degree.

Any playoff system will have inequities. The larger the initial field, the less the inequities. But even in the March Madness field, the debate rages over the last four in/the first four out.

FTR, the 11-1 team belongs in the playoffs, the 8-4 does not, both based on their overall body of work. JMHO.

(01-06-2015 11:01 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  If conference championships don't matter, why have conferences? Serious question. Why not just use some sort of stratified randomization to generate schedules so that everyone has a roughly equal schedule? (Actually, that's not a bad idea, if highly improbable.)

But, they do matter... at least when it's decided by a championship game that brings in north of $10mm.

(01-06-2015 10:39 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 05:15 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 12:49 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:13 PM)gsloth Wrote:  JAAO - you can keep arguing it all you want, but the fact of the matter is that injuries is one of the explicit parameters the committee is supposed to consider when trying to differentiate between close/essentially equal teams. It's in the charter for the group. Throw out other strawmen about coaches if you like, but it's right there in black and white. Clearly, they didn't think it mattered that much, or that the divide between OSU and the other 1 loss teams was wide enough to overcome it.

Didn't realize it was in the parameters. But that just makes the whole situation even more idiotic to me. If a team wins its conference basketball tournament and one of their players is injured in the game, should we take away their autobid? What if he's only their second best player? What if he's 50% likely to be back for the tournament? Granted, with the CFP we're already in the gray area because there are no auto-bids, but it just seems crazy to me to judge not by what actually happened in past games, but what we think might happen in future games.

Or again, why play the games at all?

Not take away the bid, but something like it was happened in basketball. Not sure if you were aware of the 2000 NCAA Tournament, when a near certain #1 seed (Cincinnati) was dropped to a #2 seed after the player of the year (Kenyon Martin) broke his leg in the first game of the conference tournament (they lost that game). They were the #1 team for 6 weeks leading up to a couple weeks before the conference tourney (lost 1 in the regular season, too), but was still AP #2 after the conference tourney loss. It was a shock at the time when they were given a #2 seed, as they had otherwise been dominant all season.

Difference here is that they lost the first game of the conference tournament. If they won the tournament without Martin, and got dropped to #2, that would be more analogous. It's a limited analogy anyway, because seeding in a 64 team tournament is different that picking only 4 who even get to participate.

How so? Basketball tournament still has 4 #1 seeds, so it's perfectly analogous. You're the top 4 teams or you are not. And the criteria and style of decisioning isn't that much different than what's done for college football.

For reference that year (and why I point it out), the team that likely got the seed over Cincy was a 6 loss outfit (Arizona) that had lost to both Oregon (3rd in conference) and Oregon State (a really bad team) before winning 2 to close the season (no conference tournament yet). Arizona was actually #9 in the AP poll before that final week of the season, so wasn't exactly viewed as elite by losing those 2 games. It was a shock at the time, though one that most fans recognized was probably legit due to the loss from the roster.

Why Arizona over some other team? Who knows exactly, but they did split the PAC-10 championship with Stanford (another #1 seed). Arizona may have actually got the better seeding, being #1 in the West versus Stanford having to be a South region #1. But in looking at their schedules, Cincy more than held their own from a non-conference standpoint. The main reason they dropped was the injury, not a lost tournament game.

The selection committee pretty surely viewed the injury as impactful to what kind of team would show up, because even with a tourney loss (they probably don't lose that game, as Martin was hurt 3 minutes into a game they eventually lost by 10 (to a team who actually made the tournament as a 9-seed, having won the CUSA tournament), they had also beaten a 2 seed and 3 seed from that tournament earlier in the year (they had also lost to another 2 seed). But it's a team that had 2 or 3 other players that played in the NBA, so there was talent there.

I remember this one pretty well - there wasn't a lot of talk going into selection Sunday about Cincy not getting a #1 seed, despite the injury. In retrospect, it makes sense, and perhaps they should have been seeded even lower, but that also disrespects the body of work for the reason of the season.

The point I'm making is that injuries can (and have) been used to adjust seeding in a college tournament before. You're trying to argue that injuries can't and shouldn't, but it's has been used before, and would again. In the current OSU football situation, clearly the selection committee, when they finally had a chance to say these are the 4 best teams, they felt the injury impact (and they had 1 data point from the conference title game) wasn't that much when compared to other 1-loss teams that were ultimately ranked lower.

(01-06-2015 11:08 AM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  I'll take a stab at it. This assumes that A & B are conference co-champions, not that B was A's lone OOC win. If Team B is rated in the top 4, send them to the playoffs- they are, after all, champions. Team A is also champions; however, they also have the tiebreaker that all leagues have without a CCG- in a two way tie, the guarantee of the #1 tie-in to the h2h winner. If it's a P5 team, put them in the NY6- they earned it by the book; if not, put them in whatever bowl is tie in #1 for their league that year.

How about just changing the rule so that the playoffs include the top rated teams in the country with the caveat that no conference can have more than one representative? Conceivably, that could mean that a team makes it in without even playing for their conference championship (Team B [at 9-3 (8-1)] beats Team A [at 11-1 (8-1) and #2] to win their division to play against Team C [8-4 (7-2)] for the conference championship).

(01-06-2015 12:40 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 11:08 AM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  I'll take a stab at it. This assumes that A & B are conference co-champions, not that B was A's lone OOC win. If Team B is rated in the top 4, send them to the playoffs- they are, after all, champions. Team A is also champions; however, they also have the tiebreaker that all leagues have without a CCG- in a two way tie, the guarantee of the #1 tie-in to the h2h winner. If it's a P5 team, put them in the NY6- they earned it by the book; if not, put them in whatever bowl is tie in #1 for their league that year.

How about just changing the rule so that the playoffs include the top rated teams in the country with the caveat that no conference can have more than one representative? Conceivably, that could mean that a team makes it in without even playing for their conference championship (Team B [at 9-3 (8-1)] beats Team A [at 11-1 (8-1) and #2] to win their division to play against Team C [8-4 (7-2)] for the conference championship).

Exactly

And addressing JAAO's point, it is not that the conference championship is meaningless. But it is an accomplishment in itself.

The issue of determining the national champion is separate. In theory, if not outcome, the goal is to determine the best college team in the country. The conference champion is the winner of a competition limited to a group of affiliated schools.

That said, I favor an 8 or 16-game playoff with some guaranteed berths.

This discussion is possible because the current 4-team playoff is inadequate

I do wonder if, at some point, the mega-conferences go away. The odds aren't great, but if looking at going to a 16-team playoff (4 rounds - and yes, I have a feeling it winds up here, as the FCS has shown as it continues to expand to 24 now) on top of a 12 game season and potentially a conference championship is going to be too much. I think the conference championships, while big money makers, are a huge impediment to expanding the playoffs. (FCS gets by with 11 games and no conference title games if you want to participate in the playoffs.)

Going to an 11 game season (another way to cut a game) probably isn't going to fly, either for the haves or the have nots, and the mid-packers in the P5 will have some say in this. So I wonder if the conference title game is what loses out, particularly if going to a 16-team playoff, where many of those alternate teams in the P5 could find themselves playing as an at-large.

But here's where I wonder if the mega-conference is doomed. If the tourney game goes away, why keep so many members? It's not for basketball, per se. It's really football that's driven it all along. And if you have to determine a conference champion without a final game, it may mean cutting things back some.

I think the odds of this are rather small. But in almost all realignment talk to date, it's about leagues getting larger. I wonder if getting smaller (like the Big 12) isn't where the action is going to be at, if the playoff field is to expand - 8 to 10 team conferences, where everyone plays one another for a champion (or co-champions). It doesn't feel exactly right, not settling it on the field. But at the same time, the money could be even bigger for everyone without the conference title games and with an expanded playoff field.

In the end, what's going to make the most money for each school/conference?

I'm probably way off on this, but part of me wonders.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the dysfunction of the 1984 season.
As you know, BYU was voted #1 as they finished as the only unbeaten team. The conundrum was the mess underneath them and the result of not voting them #1.
Due to a scheduling disparity in the Pac 10, USC won the conference with a 7-1 league record and 9-3 overall record. They went to the Rose Bowl and beat #6 Ohio State and finish #10 in the final poll. UCLA beat USC but finished 5-2 in league (they played 7 games in league to USC's 8) and finished with an identical 9-3 record and beat Miami in the Fiesta Bowl. UCLA finished #9 ahead of USC.
It gets even better. Washington finished the season 11-1 and lost only to USC. They were 6-1 in league having played one less league game than USC and beat UCLA. They went to the Orange Bowl and beat #2 Oklahoma. They were #4 before the bowl games and were #1 before the USC loss. Since they beat #2 they took over that spot moving up from #4 (I think #3 lost their bowl but can't remember). On a side note, Washington destroyed UH, SWC co-champion (and Cotton Bowl representative) with #8 SMU, earlier in the year.
So, do you vote Washington #1 over undefeated BYU even though they didn't win their conference title and were likely the best team that year? It lead directly to naming BYU the champion. Most just couldn't give the national championship to a team that didn't win their conference. There was speculation it would be a split title but that didn't pan out. If you would have had a four team tournament like this year, Washington wouldn't have even made it despite being arguably the best team and finishing the season 11-1 and beating the SWC and Big 8 co-champions during the year.

Those who argued against BYU pointed out that they beat a 6-6 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl by just 24-17. Most don't remember that Washington also played Michigan that season, and won by just 20-11.

Also, that Houston team that won the SWC was the worst of their Cotton Bowl teams of that era, finishing just 7-5.

Footnote: in the 3rd game of the 1985 season, BYU beat Washington 31-3.

Wow, I was looking up that 1984 season, and it's a crazy start to the rankings.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/scho...edule.html

1. The pre-season #1 (Auburn) loses to then #10 Miami in the Kickoff Classic in late August. This was back when there was only 1 or 2 games, and everyone else held off playing.
2. The AP poll doesn't have another ranking until the first full weekend is done. With Miami's win over Florida that weekend, Miami is now the new #1.
3. Miami goes to then #14 Michigan (who hasn't even played a game yet) and loses to Michigan. Michigan rises to #3.
4. The following weekend, Michigan loses at home to then #16 Washington.

Washington eventually rises to #1, but the USC loss drops them and they can only get to #2 after the bowls. The #3 you were trying to remember was Florida, who was also #3 at the end of the season, but didn't play in a bowl that year due to multiple NCAA violations that saw Charlie Pell fired after 3 games (and a 1-1-1 record) and Galen Hall took over as interim coach and went 9-0.

Truly a mess.

(01-06-2015 07:59 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Those who argued against BYU pointed out that they beat a 6-6 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl by just 24-17. Most don't remember that Washington also played Michigan that season, and won by just 20-11.

Also, that Houston team that won the SWC was the worst of their Cotton Bowl teams of that era, finishing just 7-5.

Footnote: in the 3rd game of the 1985 season, BYU beat Washington 31-3.

1984 was my freshman year, and I listened to the UH Rice game on the radio, expecting a blowout. I think it was close at the half, and we rushed down main street and walked into the Astrodome without having to pay a dime to watch the second half. The final was 26-38, according to sports-reference.com.

(01-07-2015 12:00 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 07:59 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Those who argued against BYU pointed out that they beat a 6-6 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl by just 24-17. Most don't remember that Washington also played Michigan that season, and won by just 20-11.

Also, that Houston team that won the SWC was the worst of their Cotton Bowl teams of that era, finishing just 7-5.

Footnote: in the 3rd game of the 1985 season, BYU beat Washington 31-3.

1984 was my freshman year, and I listened to the UH Rice game on the radio, expecting a blowout. I think it was close at the half, and we rushed down main street and walked into the Astrodome without having to pay a dime to watch the second half. The final was 26-38, according to sports-reference.com.

Then you missed the best Rice offensive play that night. A 55 yard bomb to Rice's speedy and physically intimidating split end.

(01-07-2015 02:36 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 12:00 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 07:59 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Those who argued against BYU pointed out that they beat a 6-6 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl by just 24-17. Most don't remember that Washington also played Michigan that season, and won by just 20-11.

Also, that Houston team that won the SWC was the worst of their Cotton Bowl teams of that era, finishing just 7-5.

Footnote: in the 3rd game of the 1985 season, BYU beat Washington 31-3.

1984 was my freshman year, and I listened to the UH Rice game on the radio, expecting a blowout. I think it was close at the half, and we rushed down main street and walked into the Astrodome without having to pay a dime to watch the second half. The final was 26-38, according to sports-reference.com.

Then you missed the best Rice offensive play that night. A 55 yard bomb to Rice's speedy and physically intimidating split end.

Maybe that's what sent us to the car...