2020-2021 B1G Basketball Thread

[betarhoalphadelta]

The issue with football is that assigning the title "champion" was always, and is still, a fairly arbitrary process. A beauty pageant.

OAM wants to ensure that the best team is the champion. But pre-BCS, was that always the case? How many times did an undefeated team from a weak major conference be awarded the MNC while a 1-loss team, though superior and would probably win on a neutral field, was passed over? 

Yes, it means that every game matters in the regular season... But it doesn't mean the best team will be champion. Because pollsters as a group tend to group teams first by number of losses, and then try to determine relative ranking within that group. Then they have other arbitrary conventions... We all know that losing a game in September hurt your chances far less than losing a game in November, as it related to the poll-based MNC or BCS selection. Why does that make sense? 

Now we're at 4 teams, but it's still a beauty pageant. And yes, every game matters--unless you're a helmet team in the SEC, in which case you get one mulligan. 

Does every game matter? Well it depends... On whether the committee decides whether it matters or not. Based on no objective or known criteria, rather based on their whim which seems to change year-to-year.

The only reason we have the BCS or the CFP is because fans want an objective champion--and they're not getting it. It's still a damn beauty pageant. 

[MaximumSam]

The other part is what constitutes a "meaningful" regular season? If you had a playoff of all conference champions, conference games would be pretty danged meaningful, whereas now only conference games from certain conferences are meaningful.

[betarhoalphadelta]

The other part is what constitutes a "meaningful" regular season? If you had a playoff of all conference champions, conference games would be pretty danged meaningful, whereas now only conference games from certain conferences are meaningful.

That's why I say 5+1+2... 5 P5 conference champions, tallest midget, and 2 at-large.

This means that no matter what, winning your conference is important. That means every conference game is important, because losing a tiebreaker to another team in your division means you're not going to your CCG, you can't win your conference. It also gives an incentive to schedule tough OOC, because an OOC loss doesn't end your chances of getting into the playoff, as long as you recover and win your conference. 

But you don't want to exclude conference non-champs , because then you'll have NO incentive whatsoever to schedule tough OOC. Those would just be purely paycheck games, whereas today they're resume games too. So... You have 2 at-large spots for the best P5 non-champs. That way if Alabama needs a mulligan because they lost to Miss St and didn't make the CCG, but they smoked a great team or two in the OOC, they might build the resume to earn that at-large bid. 

Granted, one of these years you'll get a 3-loss national champion. So be it. Is that *really* that bad? 

[bayareabadger]

That's why I say 5+1+2... 5 P5 conference champions, tallest midget, and 2 at-large.

This means that no matter what, winning your conference is important. That means every conference game is important, because losing a tiebreaker to another team in your division means you're not going to your CCG, you can't win your conference. It also gives an incentive to schedule tough OOC, because an OOC loss doesn't end your chances of getting into the playoff, as long as you recover and win your conference.

But you don't want to exclude conference non-champs , because then you'll have NO incentive whatsoever to schedule tough OOC. Those would just be purely paycheck games, whereas today they're resume games too. So... You have 2 at-large spots for the best P5 non-champs. That way if Alabama needs a mulligan because they lost to Miss St and didn't make the CCG, but they smoked a great team or two in the OOC, they might build the resume to earn that at-large bid.

Granted, one of these years you'll get a 3-loss national champion. So be it. Is that *really* that bad?

Meaning is always eye of the beholder. I’ve seen a lot of Wisconsin-Minnesota games that are “meaningless” in the pursuit of a title.

Seems like most games are in that bucket. Yet 90 percent of teams don’t give up like I’m told SEC teams do in bigger bowls after losses. Weird.

[medinabuckeye1]

The other part is what constitutes a "meaningful" regular season? If you had a playoff of all conference champions, conference games would be pretty danged meaningful, whereas now only conference games from certain conferences are meaningful.

In my earlier post I tried to address this question by diverting into a discussion of "meaningful" as relates to individual games or the season as a whole. Here is what I said:

"In basketball we have a system in which the playoff is very large so individual regular season games are nearly meaningless. They matter in the aggregate, of course, but if you look at one game in isolation it is nearly meaningless.

In football pre-BCS we had no playoff so individual regular season games were hugely important. One bad day at the wrong time prevented numerous great teams from winning the big prize."

You just said that if all conference champions got bids, conference games would be "pretty danged meaningful" but I have a multitude of issues with that:

First, all OOC games or about 25-33% of regular season games would become not just less meaningful, but almost completely meaningless because they would only matter for seeding.

Second, not all conference games would be "pretty danged meaningful", only some would. Ohio State's loss in a non-divisional game to Purdue a few years ago cost the Buckeyes a CFP spot. That is iron clad proof that the tOSU/PU game was VERY meaningful. Note, however, that since it was a non-divisonal game, the loss would have been nearly meaningless if conference Champions got auto bids. In spite of that loss, tOSU still controlled their own CG destiny, got to the CG, and won the league.

Similarly, in the B12 it is nearly impossible for any single loss to exclude a team from the CG. Thus, with auto bids each individual B12 game would be effectively meaningless.

Even within divisions, an individual loss only knocks a contender out of the CG if the team that they lose to has 0 or 1 losses. Otherwise it doesn't matter.

Third, giving an auto bid to every tallest midget would be flat out ridiculous. I'm sorry but winning the Sun Belt, MAC, or even AAC is not even remotely comparable to winning the SEC, B1G, or B12.

That's why I say 5+1+2... 5 P5 conference champions, tallest midget, and 2 at-large.

This is where I am. I'm not actually in favor of playoff expansion, I just consider it inevitable and I think this is the best plausible solution.

It doesn't completely eliminate the value of OOC games like @MaximumSam 's proposal but it does massively expand the number of teams "in the race" deep into the season because any team with a mathematical shot at their CG has at least a theoretical shot at an NC.

The only thing I'll add to @betarhoalphadelta 's proposal is that if it were up to me:

• The first round would be hosted by the top four league champions in mid or late December, and
• After the first round the match-ups would be determined by seed irrespective of titles.

[medinabuckeye1]

This means that no matter what, winning your conference is important. That means every conference game is important, because losing a tiebreaker to another team in your division means you're not going to your CCG, you can't win your conference. It also gives an incentive to schedule tough OOC, because an OOC loss doesn't end your chances of getting into the playoff, as long as you recover and win your conference.

I agree with your entire post except the bolded section because:

Second, not all conference games would be "pretty danged meaningful", only some would. Ohio State's loss in a non-divisional game to Purdue a few years ago cost the Buckeyes a CFP spot. That is iron clad proof that the tOSU/PU game was VERY meaningful. Note, however, that since it was a non-divisonal game, the loss would have been nearly meaningless if conference Champions got auto bids. In spite of that loss, tOSU still controlled their own CG destiny, got to the CG, and won the league.

Similarly, in the B12 it is nearly impossible for any single loss to exclude a team from the CG. Thus, with auto bids each individual B12 game would be effectively meaningless.

Even within divisions, an individual loss only knocks a contender out of the CG if the team that they lose to has 0 or 1 losses. Otherwise it doesn't matter.

[medinabuckeye1]

The only thing I'll add to @betarhoalphadelta 's proposal is that if it were up to me:

• The first round would be hosted by the top four league champions in mid or late December, and
• After the first round the match-ups would be determined by seed irrespective of titles.

Illustration of how this would work in a crazy season:

Suppose that Bama and Clemson are the consensus top two all year but Bama loses a fluky game to Auburn (like the kick-6) and misses the SECCG while Clemson goes to the ACCCG but loses a similarly fluky game to a three-loss FSU.

Further suppose that Bama beat FSU in an early OOC game and that Auburn lost an OOC game to Clemson  and a conference game, then they lose the SECCG to a three-loss UF.

Finally suppose that 12-1 tOSU wins the B1G (but had a blowout loss to a bad B1G-W team) 11-2 OU wins the B12, 11-2 Oregon wins the P12, and that a 12-1 Cincinnati team that got blown out by tOSU is the highest ranked G5 Champ.

Thus, the eight playoff teams (and seeds) would be:

• 11-1 Bama,  at-large
• 12-1 Clemson, at-large
• 12-1 tOSU, B1G Champ
• 11-2 Oklahoma, B12 Champ
• 11-2 Oregon, P12 Champ
• 10-3 Florida,  SEC Champ
• 10-3 FSU, ACC Champ
• 12-1 Cincinnati, tallest midget

Bama and Clemson can't host in the first round since they are non-champions so the first round games would be:

• #8 Cincinnati at #3 tOSU (highest seeded champ hosting lowest seeded team)
• #7 FSU at #4 Oklahoma (2nd highest seeded champ hosting 2nd lowest seeded team)
• #2 Clemson at #5 Oregon (3rd highest seeded champ hosting 3rd lowest seeded available opponent)
• #1 Bama at #6 Florida (4th highest seeded champ hosting the only remaining team)

Suppose the even numbered teams all won, second round games would be:

• #2 Clemson vs #8 Cincinnati
• #4 Oklahoma vs #6 Florida

Alternatively , if the odd numbered teams won, second round games would be:

• #1 Bama vs #7 FSU
• #3 tOSU vs #5 Oregon

[bayareabadger]

You're omitting so much here.
Gonzaga was a mid-major about 15 years ago.  Let's correlate them with Boise State in football.  Great records, ranked, but not respected come the postseason.

You're completely ignoring that Gonzaga, through the freedom that is OOC basketball scheduling, annually played top teams and winning enough of the time that they earned respect come postseason.  It'd be as if Boise State actually kept having 12-1 seasons for a decade while scheduling USC, Michigan, and Texas A&M OOC. 
If you're not going to acknowledge that, I'll just stop.

So here's the thing, you're taking your rubric, a hero's journey of meritocracy, and applying it to Gonzaga. But here's the think, it doesn't really fit. 

The first year they broke through, back in 1999, they took on Nos. 8, 15, 22, 24, plus a Memphis team that was a few years removed a coach that went to six tournaments in 11 years in some wasteland conferences (Washington State was in there, but also bad). Few's first team played Nos. 1, 9, 11, plus four other Pac-12 teams and a Big 12 team. 

15 years ago was what? 2006? By then, they'd had three regular seasons that ended in the Top-10 and 1-2 that started there. 

That's not as if they scheduled impossibly. They scheduled reasonably for their station, given the way the sport operates. In the end, it actually got harder to schedule. Fewer wanted to pay a team to kick their ass. Gonzaga couldn't pay most good teams to leave a valuable home game for a potential loss. They did home and homes with Memphis, just to stay afloat. 

Now, Gonzaga always had the advantage that CBB offers, access. Access to a postseason where no one can say the other team isn’t trying. If this was college football, they’d be in the NIT every year and people would say “If you win another one in a row, we might just let you in.” Boise will never have that. They’ll just have a run of either second-tier bowls or first-tier ones where people explain the other team just didn’t care.

And in truth, the main way Gonzaga got over the doubt was they just actually broke through and played for a title. The just went out and did their thing. Folks moved the goal posts, and many probably still are. Now, Boise can do it for 1,000 years, and they’re never getting into a four-team playoff. That’s how it is. They’ll complain the system is against them (it is) and they’ll complain they deserve it at some point (pretty unlikely).

But to bring it back, there was no time Gonzaga took on the equivalent of USC, A&M and Michigan. They took on the equivalent of Florida State and BYU if one of those teams had its stuff together. And Boise took on just those two last full season, granted, neither had its stuff together. This idea Gonzaga sought the respect of the skeptics just ain’t the case. They tried to build toward and inclusive postseason and fielded good teams until things came together in that random tournament.

[bayareabadger]

In football pre-BCS we had no playoff so individual regular season games were hugely important. One bad day at the wrong time prevented numerous great teams from winning the big prize.

Then we went to the two-team playoff that was the BCS. Individual games still mattered a lot, but somewhat less because there was a much better chance of getting a second chance.

....

Personally, I like having a meaningful regular season in CFB and a huge tournament in CBB.

So, this got me thinking, could a system like the old one survive to this day?

Like, we didn't really even have sports websites before the BCS. Our knowledge base about everything was so much more limited. I'm thinking a little biblically, but if we had the perspective we have now, the advanced numbers, the ability to see so much ball, would we really just kind of settle with agreeing a team line 2012 Notre Dame was the best (had it caught a better bowl matchup), or been fine when 2002 Miami is easily awarded a title over undefeated OSU.

I mean, it made every season a grind to finish undefeated. That has plusses and minuses (hi BYU). It also meant poll logic (team lost. must move down, team won, can move up, but needs space to open most often, etc) was king. And I think most of us don't totally like poll logic and if it really mattered anymore, me might be mad. 

(There's also the tradeoff of "meaning." A team like 2002 USC was out five games in. If the rest doesn't count, someone who had title dreams might well treat the rest of the season like Dan Mullen treated the bowl. On the flip side, as much as the end of OSU's regular season in basketball didn't "mean" much, people still seemed to have feelings on it. Strong ones.)

Anyway, this isn't to argue one side or another. I like elements of both. Just think about some of the quirks from any system.

[MrNubbz]

I HATES THEM!

Eff Miami-Nebraska in ‘83. Eff OSU-UF in 2006. Eff ASU-OSU in ‘96. Bama deserved that title in 2014!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Um,no Eff You  😎

[MrNubbz]

You're omitting so much here.
Gonzaga was a mid-major about 15 years ago.  Let's correlate them with Boise State in football. 

You're the one omitting so much,Gonzaga began making the tournament back in the 1990's.I know - they were my go to underdog when I was wagering.So I looked them up and this got spit out - Gonzaga's NCAA Tournament streak began in 1999 with Elite Eight appearance. This year's NCAA Tournament appearance marks 22 straight for the Zags. We can only hope GU will make history by taking home a national championship title.The Bulldogs entered the tournament in 2021 as the 20th undefeated team ever.

.It would have been the 23rd straight but last yrs was obviously canceled.You make the Elite 8,you've gained respect.You make the tournament 22 straight,you've continued to earn it.UNLV,Georgetown,Villanova,Louisville,Marquette all say hello

[bayareabadger]

Um,no Eff You 😎

Listen man, I'm just out her defending the integrity of the regular season. Someone has to. 

[MrNubbz]

That particular season worked out fine  .The Bowls were actually more interesting/entertaining.The season can't get here soon enough or last longer

[OrangeAfroMan]

The issue with football is that assigning the title "champion" was always, and is still, a fairly arbitrary process. A beauty pageant.

OAM wants to ensure that the best team is the champion. But pre-BCS, was that always the case? How many times did an undefeated team from a weak major conference be awarded the MNC while a 1-loss team, though superior and would probably win on a neutral field, was passed over?

Yes, it means that every game matters in the regular season... But it doesn't mean the best team will be champion. Because pollsters as a group tend to group teams first by number of losses, and then try to determine relative ranking within that group. 

Well.....I think that I'm technically advocating for ensuring a team we know isn't the best doesn't win the NC.  Yes, I want the team with the best combination of best-playing/best resume to be crowed champion.  And no, that's not always going to happen - it didn't before and it doesn't now.
.
But what I've repeatedly warned against in this topic is allowing in teams we KNOW aren't that team with the best combination of gameplay and resume.  Advocates for an expanded playoff want a larger group of teams to "have a chance," but their chance was the regular season.  They don't need a 2nd chance, they've been given 12 (in a normal year).  
.
To understand it better, let's say the top teams are guilty of possibly being "the best" team (yes, that abstraction we may never well know).  I simply don't want any "innocent" teams to possibly be found guilty of being "the best" (ie- champion), just as we don't want anyone innocent being executed by the state in real life.  
.
Now I say all of this WHILE insulting the pollsters, who nearly always rank teams by number of losses and helmet recognition.  Some have gotten better in the past decade, but it's still an idiotic herd of sheep for the most part.  A committee is better than 80 head coaches that don't watch other teams play and hand the task off to an intern.  I don't know why it's so hard to get a group of people that can put a loss into context in degrees of good/bad rather than treating it like a bullet wound that kills you.
.
But again, to edit the bold above, I want to play the odds and make the potential NC come from an exclusive, small group that is most very likely the best team.  So no, for me, including the Sun Belt champ isn't a worthwhile exercise.  All of these 5 champs plus 3 at-large is just going to include teams you don't want in there now, like teams that didn't win their division.  No, it's not fair for G5 programs and instead of throwing them the bone of an annual, public beatdown, the NCAA (or whoever) should simply stop the lie and give them their own NC or something.  
Coastal Carolina, 2020 G5 National Champions is a lot better than Coastal Carolina is the 8 seed in a newfangled playoff and gets to face Alabama in the Sugar Bowl!  The line is -43 points.