Who do you think would have made playoff

[Hook'Em0608]

BCS era using SOS and conference champions heavily like they claim they will.

2013

FSU 13-0
Auburn 12-1
Alabama 11-1
Michigan St 12-1

Just missed

Ohio St 12-1
Baylor 11-1

2012

Notre Dame 12-0
Florida 11-1
Alabama 12-1
Kansas St 11-1

Just missed

Oregon 11-1

2011

LSU 13-0
Oklahoma St 11-1
Alabama 11-1
Stanford 11-1

Just missed

None

2010

Auburn 13-0
Oregon 12-0
TCU 12-0
Wisconsin 11-1

Just missed

Stanford 11-1
Ohio St 11-1
Michigan St 11-1

2009

Alabama 13-0
Cincinnati 12-0
Texas 13-0
Florida 12-1

Just missed

TCU 12-0
Boise St 13-0

2008

Oklahoma 12-1
Texas 11-1
Florida 12-1
USC 11-1

Just missed

Texas Tech 11-1
Utah 12-0
Alabama 12-1
Boise St 12-0
Penn St 11-1

2007

Ohio St 11-1
Kansas 11-1
Virginia Tech 11-2
LSU 11-2

Just missed

Missouri 11-2
Oklahoma 11-2
Georgia 10-2
Arizona St 10-2
USC 10-2
West Virginia 10-2
Hawaii 12-0

2006

Ohio St 12-0
Florida 12-1
Michigan 11-1
Louisville 11-1

Just missed

Boise St 12-0
Wisconsin 11-1

2005

Texas 12-0
USC 12-0
Penn St 10-1
West Virginia 10-1

Just missed

Oregon 10-1

God I think this crap is gonna be more controversial than the BCS. We need an 8 team playoff...

 

[Hook'Em0608]

2004

USC 12-0
Oklahoma 12-0
Auburn 12-0
Texas 10-1

Just missed

California 10-1
Utah 11-0
Boise St 11-0

2003

Oklahoma 12-1
LSU 12-1
USC 11-1
Michigan 10-2

Just missed

Ohio St 10-2
Texas 10-2
Florida St 10-2
Tennessee 10-2
Miami 10-2

2002

Miami 12-0
Ohio St 13-0
Georgia 12-1
Iowa 11-1

Just missed

none

2001

Miami 11-0
Nebraska 11-1
Oregon 10-1
Illinois 10-1

Just missed

Maryland 10-1

2000

Oklahoma 12-0
Florida St 11-1
Miami 10-1
Washington 10-1

Just missed

Virginia Tech 10-1
Oregon St 10-1

1999

Florida St 11-0
Virginia Tech 11-0
Nebraska 11-1
Kansas St 10-1

Just missed

Marshall 12-0

1998

Tennessee 12-0
Florida St 11-1
Kansas St 11-1
Ohio St 10-1

Just missed

UCLA 10-1
Arizona 11-1
Wisconsin 10-1
Tulane 11-0

 

[WhiteMamba]

I agree 100% with this.

A model used showing the actual BCS formula to determine the 4 teams from 1998-2013

http://www.sportshoopla.com/forums/...-nostalgia-1998-2013-what-if-cfp-existed.html

 

[WhiteMamba]

Also consider Palm is using the current BCS formula to determine his hypothetical CFP of yesteryear.

Example 2001

Actual

1 Miami 2 Nebraska 3 Colorado 4 Oregon

Hypothetical using the last formul the bcs used.

1 Miami 2 Oregon 3 Colorado 4 Nebraska.
.

 

[4down20]

Hold up. So you recognize the extra arguments adding more teams adds for that final spot, and yet now you want to extend it out to 8 - where it becomes even worse?

 

[Codaxx]

Hold up. So you recognize the extra arguments adding more teams adds for that final spot, and yet now you want to extend it out to 8 - where it becomes even worse?

I do not. Fans can argue over anything, but the weight means less and less with every team that is added.
Old System: #2 team had a 50% chance to win (just assume even odds for illustration). Team #3 has a 0% chance. That is a meaningful difference.
4 team playoffs: its 25% and 0%
8 team playoff: 12.5% vs 0%

 

[charlie42s]

I'd prefer an 8 team playoff. No need to go to 16.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Hold up. So you recognize the extra arguments adding more teams adds for that final spot, and yet now you want to extend it out to 8 - where it becomes even worse?

The difference is I can see many good arguments that a deserving team will get left out of a 4 team playoff. Only a couple times did I notice a deserving team would have been left out of an 8 team playoff. A few years 4 worked just fine but it was rare. Only a couple of times did a deserving team have a real argument being left out with an 8 team playoff. I think a 4 team playoff creates more problems than the BCS did after analyzing it. It was usually more clear cut who the top 2 were than it appears the top 4 will be in the future by using the past as an example. I would like to think any undefeated non power 5 and any 1 loss power 5 team would get a shot. I think in an 8 team playoff you would get that the vast majority of the time. I don't think we are going to come close to getting that in a 4 team playoff. That creates a lot of subjectiveness from the committee which is going to ruffle a lot of feathers. How is that any better than what we had? Because twice as many fan bases can feel they had a great season? Well now twice as many are going to feel wronged too. And it's gonna make conference homerism even worse.

 

[4down20]

The difference is I can see many good arguments that a deserving team will get left out of a 4 team playoff. Only a couple times did I notice a deserving team would have been left out of an 8 team playoff. A few years 4 worked just fine but it was rare. Only a couple of times did a deserving team have a real argument being left out with an 8 team playoff. I think a 4 team playoff creates more problems than the BCS did after analyzing it. It was usually more clear cut who the top 2 were than it appears the top 4 will be in the future by using the past as an example. I would like to think any undefeated non power 5 and any 1 loss power 5 team would get a shot. I think in an 8 team playoff you would get that the vast majority of the time. I don't think we are going to come close to getting that in a 4 team playoff. That creates a lot of subjectiveness from the committee which is going to ruffle a lot of feathers. How is that any better than what we had? Because twice as many fan bases can feel they had a great season? Well now twice as many are going to feel wronged too. And it's gonna make conference homerism even worse.

Ok, lets see some examples of these deserving teams.

 

[Boise4Life]

I'd prefer an 8 team playoff. No need to go to 16.

I agree. Eight would be perfect I think. Sixteen is too many teams and too many games.

I'll take four for now and be more than happy with it.

 

[Codaxx]

I agree. Eight would be perfect I think. Sixteen is too many teams and too many games.

I'll take four for now and be more than happy with it.

Give me a bigger format. I always liked 14 (top 2 get byes). Nothing is more entertaining than win or go home games. I want more of them. I want more chances for crazy upsets. Its about entertainment.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Ok, lets see some examples of these deserving teams.

1998

7 1 loss or fewer AQ and Tulane undefeated

1999

4 1 loss or fewer AQ and Marshall undefeated

2000

6 1 loss or fewer AQ

2001

5 1 loss or fewer AQ

2002

4 is perfect

2003

Really only 3 deserving teams

2004

5 1 loss or fewer AQ and undefeated Boise St and Utah

2005

5 1 loss or fewer AQ

2006

5 1 loss or fewer AQ and undefeated Boise St

2007

Really only 3 deserving teams

2008

7 1 loss or fewer AQ and undefeated Utah and Boise St

2009

4 1 loss or fewer AQ and undefeated Boise St and TCU

2010

6 1 loss or fewer AQ and undefeated TCU

2011

4 works perfect

2012

6 1 loss or fewer AQ

2013

8 1 loss or fewer AQ

Now AQ went away and was replaced by "power 5" but the same argument stands. How do you decide which power 5 1 loss teams get in and which ones don't? By some imaginary SOS which is completely subjective? Why should an undefeated small school never get the chance to play in the playoff because you know they probably won't over a 1 loss power 5 which there is almost always 4 of.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

I don't get some of the posters mindsets that more football is bad. Somehow FCS makes this work. The student athlete well being doesn't hold water. Football players travel less and miss less class than almost any other sport. The extra pounding on the body is also a weak reason. HS football in Texas plays more games currently to win state than college players do to win a title. FCS programs play more games to win a title. The NFL damn near doubles the amount of games played to win a super bowl. I don't understand the issue.

 

[4down20]

1998

7 1 loss or fewer AQ and Tulane undefeated

1999

4 1 loss or fewer AQ and Marshall undefeated

2000

6 1 loss or fewer AQ

2001

5 1 loss or fewer AQ

2002

4 is perfect

2003

Really only 3 deserving teams

2004

5 1 loss or fewer AQ and undefeated Boise St and Utah

2005

5 1 loss or fewer AQ

2006

5 1 loss or fewer AQ and undefeated Boise St

2007

Really only 3 deserving teams

2008

7 1 loss or fewer AQ and undefeated Utah and Boise St

2009

4 1 loss or fewer AQ and undefeated Boise St and TCU

2010

6 1 loss or fewer AQ and undefeated TCU

2011

4 works perfect

2012

6 1 loss or fewer AQ

2013

8 1 loss or fewer AQ

Now AQ went away and was replaced by "power 5" but the same argument stands. How do you decide which power 5 1 loss teams get in and which ones don't? By some imaginary SOS which is completely subjective? Why should an undefeated small school never get the chance to play in the playoff because you know they probably won't over a 1 loss power 5 which there is almost always 4 of.

Ummm, name teams. The only teams you named were teams that played laughable schedules and didn't deserve to be anywhere near the title game.

 

[4down20]

I don't get some of the posters mindsets that more football is bad. Somehow FCS makes this work. The student athlete well being doesn't hold water. Football players travel less and miss less class than almost any other sport. The extra pounding on the body is also a weak reason. HS football in Texas plays more games currently to win state than college players do to win a title. FCS programs play more games to win a title. The NFL damn near doubles the amount of games played to win a super bowl. I don't understand the issue.

The issue is when you throw out SoS and just want to take people because they have "1 loss", you are then actually punishing teams and conferences for their in conference strength. At which point it because more beneficial to be a team like Boise St in a crappy conference where they can go undefeated and be put in the playoffs.

The more teams that get added to the playoffs = the less SoS matters. As highlighted by you claiming that a Boise St team that probably didn't have a SoS in the top100 should be included.

So while you can claim you are adding more games, you will be killing and reducing the number of quality games during the regular season as there is no incentive for teams to play tougher out of conference games, or incentive to be in tougher conferences, outside money deals for TV - which btw will go away once it is no longer beneficial for top teams to prop up lower teams.

And you are doing it all for teams which don't really have claims to be in the game to begin with. Truthfully there has been 2 years in the past like 18 where a 3rd team had legitimate claim to be considered. And now you are trying to extend it to 8 because of claims on the 4th spot.

Which is predictable and exactly what I said would happen for the past few years and even here last year before it came out. If people think the claim for the #1 spot is subjective, wait til people try to claim the #4. Or in your case, the #8. Which you inadvertently highlight in your above post every time you named a year with less than 8 spots needed even with your already extremely relaxed requirements just to get near 8.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Ummm, name teams. The only teams you named were teams that played laughable schedules and didn't deserve to be anywhere near the title game.

What damn difference does the teams name mean?

 

[Hook'Em0608]

The issue is when you throw out SoS and just want to take people because they have "1 loss", you are then actually punishing teams and conferences for their in conference strength. At which point it because more beneficial to be a team like Boise St in a crappy conference where they can go undefeated and be put in the playoffs.

The more teams that get added to the playoffs = the less SoS matters. As highlighted by you claiming that a Boise St team that probably didn't have a SoS in the top100 should be included.

So while you can claim you are adding more games, you will be killing and reducing the number of quality games during the regular season as there is no incentive for teams to play tougher out of conference games, or incentive to be in tougher conferences, outside money deals for TV - which btw will go away once it is no longer beneficial for top teams to prop up lower teams.

And you are doing it all for teams which don't really have claims to be in the game to begin with. Truthfully there has been 2 years in the past like 18 where a 3rd team had legitimate claim to be considered. And now you are trying to extend it to 8 because of claims on the 4th spot.

Which is predictable and exactly what I said would happen for the past few years and even here last year before it came out. If people think the claim for the #1 spot is subjective, wait til people try to claim the #4. Or in your case, the #8. Which you inadvertently highlight in your above post every time you named a year with less than 8 spots needed even with your already extremely relaxed requirements just to get near 8.

A 2 loss team really doesn't have any argument to the playoffs. The years there aren't enough 1 loss or undefeated teams a 2 loss team or two will be gifted in by stronger SOS/conference champion but they sure didn't earn it. By the way, your super tough SEC puts out more undefeated and 1 loss teams than any other conference. If you believe the SEC is as good as it appears you do then your own argument holds no water.

 

[4down20]

A 2 loss team really doesn't have any argument to the playoffs. The years there aren't enough 1 loss or undefeated teams a 2 loss team or two will be gifted in by stronger SOS/conference champion but they sure didn't earn it. By the way, your super tough SEC puts out more undefeated and 1 loss teams than any other conference. If you believe the SEC is as good as it appears you do then your own argument holds no water.

So now when it comes down to the end among 2 loss teams, SoS matters and is a good enough metric to decide which teams should be "gifted"? And that is going to provide less subjectivity how? Hell, most peoples polls have the top few teams pretty close. When you start getting down in the 6-12 area, it's extremely mixed. And the further down you go, the worse it gets. Adding more games doesn't fix any problem, it just creates them.

As for your SEC comment - have you see a top10 list lately? If you are trying to say I'm only in favor of this because of conference homerism, you'd be mistaken. Since if you let 8 teams in the playoff, chances are 4 of them will be SEC. Going to 8 teams in the playoffs would benefit my team/conference as much or more than anyone. We would have been in 2 extra playoffs for certain in just the past 5 years, and in every playoff from 2008 to current, except for 2010. My argument doesn't have a thing to do with how it benefits my own team, and has everything to do with the general direction of the sport and the unintended consequences of doing things.

 

[Boise4Life]

4Down20, are you saying that Boise actually benefitted from an easy schedule and wasn't punished for it? They absolutely were punished for it. Look at all those seasons listed above in which they finished either undefeated or in the top 10 at the end of the regular season and were completely shut out of any BCS bowl game while name brand AQ teams ranked in the teens were chosen instead. They never even had the chance due to their schedule (and other reasons). They only went to two BCS games which resulted in wins over then #7 OU and then #3 TCU. And those particular seasons their SOS was not outside of 100 as you claim. It was in the 50s, 60s, and 70s or in other words on par with some (not all) teams from crappier AQ conferences like the Big East, ACC, and in some cases even some Big 10 teams in terms of final SOS ranking.

 

[4down20]

Give me a bigger format. I always liked 14 (top 2 get byes). Nothing is more entertaining than win or go home games. I want more of them. I want more chances for crazy upsets. Its about entertainment.

Isn't win or go home pretty much what the regular season is? Even as 1 loss teams get in, when they play the game before the loss it is often the same consequences. When Alabama lost to LSU in 2011, I thought we were done - and we were. Then I watched as all the other teams lost, and put themselves out of it. All were "win or go home games".