2007 BCS Playoffs
Every new year cries for a BCS playoff arise across the land.
This being a sports column and all, I feel we should talk it out. The thing is, I’m new to college football. I never watched as a kid, and really only started to follow it last year.
Upon my choosing of a team (thanks for the help Gibbsy), I began to dissect the world of college football. I was awed by the size of the crowds, the fanatical nature of debate and coverage, and the magnitude of the games. There was but one blemish; it was unfathomable to me that a national champion was determined without a playoff. I just couldn’t get my head around it.
I asked people how the BCS system worked and got some mumbo-jumbo about style points and schedules, computers and old guys. None of it made sense. At least not in the way a playoff makes sense (which is the rational way).
Think about it; playoffs define every champion we know. From all the major North American sports to Champions League (I’m not sure how Champions League seeding works; feel free to let me know), the top teams qualify and then battle it out for supremacy.
Back to the issue at hand. With the past season being as topsy-turvy (that’s the scientific term) as it was, fans and journalists alike are screaming for a playoff system. And I’m right there with them. Thanks to a handy Sports Illustrated article I learned that there is consideration for a four team playoff, which would be called a ‘plus-one.’ I also learned that Division 1-AA (home of Appalachian State Wolverine dream killers) uses a 16-game playoff to determine their national champ.
So I took to research. Upon perusing ESPN, the self-acknowledged worldwide leader in sports, I discovered a little computer simulation that I found particularly engaging. ESPN allowed me to pick the top 16 teams, however I wanted to rank them, and put them in a playoff simulator and see who would emerge victorious using their AccuScore simulation.
I ranked the teams as I saw fit, just for kicks, and then realized how amazing this little machine really is. So, I took the BCS Top 16 teams, and did a simulation that produced the following results:
FIRST ROUND
#1 Ohio State vs #16 Tennessee - The Buckeyes win on the strength of being a 75% favourite. I’m not given a score, nor do I need one— the statistical evidence is clearly overwhelming.
#8 Kansas vs #9 West Virginia- Though the Jayhawks register as 52% favorites we are climbing through the playoffs with West Virginia in the day’s first upset.
#5 Georgia vs #12 Florida- This game would have overwhelmed the hype machine. After Georgia stormed the field following a TD against the Gators, a re-match would have added fuel to an already great SEC rivalry. The Bulldogs win a close one, pulling out a minor upset at 49%. It was probably in triple-overtime.
#13 Illinois vs #4 Oklahoma- 78% Sooners. No surprise, no comment.
#3 Virginia Tech vs #14 Boston College- Another great rivalry here. You’re telling me these games wouldn’t be more exciting then bowl games? Ridiculous. Eagles win in another minor upset (45%).
#11 Arizona State vs #6 Missouri- We have the first major upset of the day! In what surely was a wild football game the Sun Devils win, despite being a 27% underdog! Can you feel the heart-pounding excitement! I knew the Tigers weren’t for real! (I didn’t actually know that).
#7 USC vs #10 Hawaii- Ah, the battle of the newly humbled giant against the cupcake schedule. The Booty vs the any-system quarterback. Trojans in a landslide at 80%
#15 Clemson vs #2 LSU- In a match-up of Tigers (if Auburn cracked the top-16 there would have been four Tigers), the crew from Death Valley emerge victorious.
QUARTERFINALS
Before I begin, I’d like to point out (the obvious) how great this playoff system would be. The magnitude of these games would be enormous, and if people are concerned about the extra two or three games taking a toll on the players, then cut two or three gimmes out of the regular season. Fans love meaningful games, and adding more of them will never hurt.
Others say this would diminish regular season games, but I don’t see how that’s relevant. Teams admittedly schedule some easier games, so losing two of those games wouldn’t affect anything. Besides, now teams are playing for seeding, just like they’d be playing for seeding if they need to get in the top-16.
The one flaw would be that a few teams would be snubbed that may deserve to be there. This is true, but is already happening with the BCS formula. Onto the second round!
#1 Ohio State vs #9 West Virginia- I was praying (not literally) for an upset here but the Buckeyes get it done again, despite being only a 56% favorite.
#5 Georgia vs #4 Oklahoma- I really feel this Georgia team has some heart. They could go all the…nevermind, they lost to Oklahoma in the 15th overtime (I made that up) as the Sooners move on at 49%.
#14 Boston College vs #11 Arizona State- This would have been a wild one, a shoot-out as they say, and the upset special Sun Devils do it again at 41%. All I have to say is MAKE ROOM FOR ME ON THE BANDWAGON PLEASE.
#7 USC vs #2 LSU- In a clash of perennial powerhouses the Trojans do the unthinkable (and I feel, unrealistic) and defeat the Tigers at 51%. The game likely was decided in the most unthinkable ways, given Les Miles’ recent flair for the dramatic.
SEMI-FINALS
No one can complain about whatever teams make it to the third round, because they would have to beat some great teams to get there. I’m sure people would complain about the seeding, but right now seeding alone determines who plays for the national championship, so it can’t be much worse. Plus good or bad seeding and unfavorable match-ups are a part of sports. Ask Dirk Nowitzki.
#1 Ohio State vs #4 Oklahoma- I’ve been secretly rooting against the Buckeyes all year, and they’re really sticking it to me right now. I would have certainly put money on Oklahoma going into this game, and I certainly would’ve been taken to the cleaners. Buckeyes upset the Sooners despite being a 39% underdog.
*the thing I still don’t get is how the #1 team is not favored. I would look into it. But really, I don’t feel like it.
#7 USC vs #11 Arizona State- In what is certainly a surprise considering how this season has unfolded, the Trojans advance to the National Championship on the strength of being a 75% favorite.
NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP
#1 Ohio State vs #7 USC- Freaking Buckeyes. With the national title and pride on the line, the Buckeyes use the bulletin board material provided by being a 39% underdog to propel them to victory.
Dissatisfied with the results (isn’t that ironic - not really I suppose, I’m always dissatisfied with the results in sports. I’m a Maple Leafs fan. We haven’t won the Stanley Cup in 40 years) I ran the simulation again, with the same seedings, and the Georgia Bulldogs won it all. Ohio State didn’t survive the second round.
But doesn’t that fall perfectly in line with College Football this season? Anyone can beat anyone else on any given night. Unless you play in Hawaii, where you’re guaranteed victory. You know, because they played against little girls all season.
Even if it was a year that did have two clear favorites that everybody acknowledges should play for the national title (my buddy Dave thinks the BCS gets it right 80% of the time), any championship team should still have to play their way in to the final.
A playoff is best is because unpredictability is one of the best elements of sport. What a match-up looks like on paper (or in simulations, or in BCS statistics) means nothing; what matters is what happens out on the field, where anything can happen.
Apparently because of TV contract deals this concept, or anything like it, is impossible before 2010. What a shame, because if people think bowl games are big, imagine how much revenue and hype could be generated for a 16-game playoff.
Posted on December 31, 2007 12:00 AM
Comments
I don't know that this article says anything that hasn't been said ad nauseum. What is the angle? Why was it written?
Posted by: Aaron | December 31, 2007 9:17 AM
Happy New Year Aaron.
Posted by: Jon | December 31, 2007 6:06 PM
The angle? The reason? The purpose?
If enough people get really up in arms about the crap-fest that is the BCS and refuse to give credence to the worthlessness of the bowl system (Do I really want to watch two crappy 6-6 teams like Alabama & Colorado play in a bowl game?), then somehow, someway, things just might change.
I know that money talks & these bowl sponsors give lots of money to these schools, but after awhile, fans will repudiate this watered-down system for a system with some merit, a system with some teeth, a system that's worth a damn. I will continue to support "ad nauseum" articles such as this one because they say what MANY college football fans already think themselves. There must be a change.
Posted by: APN | January 1, 2008 1:19 PM
To clarify, I'm fully in favor of a playoff system. It exists at every level of every somewhat serious major sport and I had the good fortune of participating in the NCAA football playoff at the Div. III level.
My question is who follows college football to any degree and doesn't know this? We are deluged by this drama for months every year. Three-quarters of the piece is about a virtual playoff the author put together. Was this supposed to be entertainment and I am missing the point? Entirely possible. If it's an argument, then it doesn't add anything. If it's entertainment, great. I didn't think that is the case, but maybe I'm wrong.
I'm not a writer by any means. I wish I was. I wish I had those skills. I'm pretty impressed by the BWC and its mission. I come here to read, learn, be entertained and assume that's why most people read the BWC or anything else. I'm just offering some feedback. Snarky replies or not.
Getting back to my original comment, what does this piece say that hasn't been said...or enhances the argument in some marginal form? We need a playoff, yes. Is this supposed to have a different feel because you haven't followed college football very long and are weighing in? It's difficult to discern.
I honestly think any vaguely knowledgeable fan who read this piece would then say, yes, I know...what else? Maybe I'm wrong.
Finally, if this sounds too harsh, sorry. With 1/3 of each edition devoted to this area I'm assuming BWC would want it to be excellent. If you don't want feedback, it's ok. It's not my site. In the end the writing will drive the traffic.
@ APN -
I agree. People have wanted a playoff since long before the BCS. The bowl system is a completely useless, meaningless system. Every team gets six weeks off and then play one game for a national title or to win some "special" bowl. I'm sure we'll get a playoff in my lifetime, but the fact that the BCS conference presidents are so willing to take the easy money and obviously do not care what the fans think makes me a little more than pessimistic. I don't think my one voice makes a ton of difference and I'm not going to get too stressed out about it. When they decide to do the right thing, no wait, when they figure out a way they are sure a playoff will make more money than the bowls, I'm sure it will change. In the meantime I feel like screaming bloody murder is a waste of energy. Or as John McCain quoted the other day, "When you get in the mud with a pig, you get dirty and the pig is happy." The BCS does not care that people are incensed because it makes more discussion and money for everybody. If people didn't care, they'd probably be even more apt to change.
Posted by: Aaron | January 1, 2008 5:41 PM
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! :)
Posted by: Bob | January 2, 2008 12:24 PM
Aaron has some valid points, but I'd say the uniqueness of Jon argument is that he's Canadian, and has never really followed college football.
while a playoff would certainly be awesome, I also see the flip side, which is that the whole season is a playoff. There's no more exciting regular season in all of sports.
Posted by: Jordan | January 2, 2008 12:42 PM
To Aaron: You're right man, you're entitled to your opinion. And I'm happy to read your feedback. Please comment anytime.
The truth is, I need the help. I'm still learning about what to write, and what my American audience wants to read. It's not easy, so really, your feedback is invaluable.
As to the article, I didn't make the simulation up, it was a link on ESPN's website. I was having fun going through the match-ups that 'would have been,' not so much to make any sort of grand statement, more so because it was fun to think of what a playoff would have looked like after a weird season.
So it was supposed to be entertaining. If the column fails in that regard, that is fully my responsibility and I apologize for wasting your time. I'm not sure there are any grand or unique statements to be made about the college football system at this point; and if there are, they're over my head.
Posted by: Jon | January 2, 2008 2:43 PM
+1 to Aaron for his well-written, measured, yet passionate response.
I do understand, appreciate, and relish the college football season as one LONG playoff. I get that. I love it. But there must be some definitive means by which the #1 Team in the Country is decided. Do we make sure that all the teams in a conference play each other each year? Do we concoct some disincentive plan for teams that play cupcake schedules? The BCS solves none of the big questions; in fact, it only creates more of them and brings the others into sharper relief.
What would a playoff system look like as devised by the BWC? Jon? Jordan? Bob? Aaron? Thoughts?
Posted by: APN | January 2, 2008 3:35 PM
Jon,
I can't emphasize enough that I don't want you to take this as an attack. You're a young guy, I think, and you're going to be great at this. Keep on...keep trucking...as Frank Ricard would say.
All -
I sent a version of this to Jordan today. It is quick and dirty and I would guess most, if not all of the ideas have been said by someone somewhere. It needs some work, but I think leads in an optimal direction for all involved. It's a set of ideas. Please bear with me on the outline-formatting issues by copying/pasting into comment form.
1. No preseason polls
a. Polls after four weeks
b. Polls currently exist only to aid in determining antiquated bowl system
c. Essentially meaningless and make not so big upsets seem like a big deal, teams play for their initial rankings
2. Less non-conference games
a. Currently have approximately four �tune-up� games because it is thought every conference game must be won to compete for the national championship
b. One non-BCS tuneup, one vs. another BCS school (allows comparison of conferences throughout the season and helps determine at-large playoff bid at end of season). More non-conference if yours has fewer teams (e.g. Big East has eight teams or seven conference games)
c. No more than 11 regular season games
3. Each conference has a championship game (even non-BCS)
a. Create automatic qualifier dimension that is given for basketball
4. Spice up the playoff system to give regular season the weight it currently carries
a. Twelve team playoff, top four seeds nationally (using the current BCS rankings system, under a different name) get a bye, akin to the NFL�s first round. Seeds 5-12 play each other on the opening weekend
b. Allows only one at-large big with 11 automatic qualifiers
i. Four first-round byes and one at-large would be enormous stories all season
1. Keeps polls involved/creates continuity between systems
ii. Mass inclusion, no screams about system �fairness,� everyone has opportunity to qualify
iii. Gives the underdog/cinderella capability akin to b-ball tourney
c. Higher seed is home team until neutral-site national championship
d. Second round would have eight remaining teams
e. Sixteen-team �NIT� for non-qualifiers (gets more teams involved, more teams = more revenue)
f. Two tournaments would have a total of 26 games, nearly as many games as the current bowl system
g. NIT would surely draw major attention because many big names would not qualify for championship bracket
h. would generate enormous interest in comparison to b-ball NIT
by including a ton of BCS schools, if not all (read: large fan bases)
Notes:
Div. III champions play 15(!) games total. The winners of the Div. I tournaments could reach 16. The rub is the length of the regular season vs. postseason. An optimal equilibrium would have to be reached, which could take time. The Div. III tournament began at 16, expanded to 28 (#1 seed in each region received a bye), and now sets at 32.
My personal feeling is that the hype for a first-round bye would be enormous. Same for the lone at-large bid. That solves the �every game counts� idea under the current system. These �hype� ideas are totally arbitrary, but seem exactly what the media and conference presidents would have in mind to make the games important (read: drive ad revenue). Imagine the thrill/anxiety of getting a bye or the controversy over the at-large bid.
Posted by: Aaron | January 2, 2008 6:11 PM
Jon,
BTW, I'd like to read an article on the mentality of "Maple Leaf Fan." I lived in Detroit for four years and listened to a lot of sports radio during that time. One of the hosts at a particular station was a hockey expert (I'm only a casual fan, really, but have my Swedish Zetterberg jersey) and would poke fun at Maple Leaf fan because supposedly they think they are going to win the Cup every year. I found it funny, but didn't know why that was the case...or if it was even true. Is Maple Leaf Fan a variation of Yankee Fan and Red Sox Fan or is he his own distinct breed? Seems like there's a funny yet informative story there.
Posted by: Aaron | January 2, 2008 6:17 PM
this has lasted two days. its about time you exchange phone numbers and go discuss it over a pint.
im a notre dame fan, and had there been a playoff...we would have lost that too.
Posted by: robert | January 2, 2008 11:27 PM
aaron - are you or are you not already a writer for burnside? if not, then feel free to submit an article - seems like you know your stuff.
but i will say this:
i've known jon, as a good friend, for over 6 years now and i don't think ANYONE I'VE MET has as much knowledge with ALL pro and semi-pro sports as he does. and that's the by-God gospel truth pepsi challenge.
im not trying to start a war here (*denotes waving of white flag) but it does seem like you (aaron) are not really saying jon is bad writer but that you think you could have written this article better. im sorry to say but there's not a lot of class in that.
and as per your maple leaf question, the essence of any Leafs fan (like my friend Jon) can be described as follows: 24/7 drunkenness.
mdog
Posted by: matty mckechnie | January 8, 2008 8:15 AM