CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on January 22, 2024, 07:10:24 PM
-
Here is my ranking:
(https://i.imgur.com/rLNOlco.png)
What is listed above is the 75 teams that have been ranked in the final CFP rankings at least once. These range from Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State which have been ranked in every final CFP ranking down to UTSA which was #25 one year.
As per usual, Ohio State gets the consistency award. Not only did the Buckeyes appear in every final ranking of the 4-team CFP era, but the Buckeyes were in the mix for a spot every year with a lowest ranking of #7. Bama is a very close second with a low of #13 followed by Clemson with a low of #22. UGA, LSU, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame were each ranked in eight of the 10 final CFP rankings.
My order (ranking) is:
- Championships
- Semi-Final wins
- Appearances
- Years ranked
- Average ranking
This thing has been REALLY top-heavy. Four teams (Bama, Clemson, UGA, tOSU) have at least two Semi-Final wins. Between them those four teams account for:
- 80% of Championships
- 75% of Semi-Final wins
- More than three-in-five CFP game participants
- More than half of CFP appearances
I would give the "Doing more with less" award to Utah. They have seven final rankings which is tied with Michigan and Oregon. I would give the "Doing less with more" award to USC although Texas has a pretty good case as well as do their rivals, aTm.
-
Bama played in 2x as many CFP games and won 3x as many Natty's as OSU and played in 3.5x as many CFP games and won 3x as many Natty's as Michigan. DAMN.
Even if you combine Michigan (4) and OSU's (7) CFP games (11) and Natty's (2) - they're still short of Bama.
Nick truly was the GOAT.
-
Looking at the 2014-2023 aligmment the count in the top 25 was
SEC-5 - Bama, Ga, LSU, Flor, Ole Miss
Big Ten - 6, Ohio St, Mich, Mich St, PSU, Iowa, Wisc
ACC+ND - 4, Clem, ND, FSU, NCSU
BIG 12 - 5, TCU, OK, Tex, OkSt, Bay
PAC - 4, Wash, Ore, Utah, USC
G5 - 1, Cincy
Looking at 2024 alignment
SEC-7
Big Ten - 9
ACC+ND. - 4
Big 12 - 5
Pac - 0
G5 - 0
-
Some surprises
Mich St ahead of PSU, - I guess MSU gets a lot out of its one CFP appearance while PSU never went.
Iowa ahead of Wisc - I guess Wisc's big run came right before the CFP. Still, Wisc dominated the Big Ten West, winning 4 times VS 3 times for Iowa. Iowa and Wisc both should get credit for never having a losing season in the CFP era.
TCU ahead of Oklahoma, it just felt like Oklahoma won the Big 12 every year (and then loss in the CFP).
-
Nick truly was the GOAT.
It is really amazing and by looking only at CFP era we are actually shorting him because he had success pre-CFP as well. That said, just looking at the 10-year CFP era, Bama is #1 in EVERYTHING on my list except that their worst season was marginally worse than tOSU's worst season but even there that has more to do with how other teams finished than it does with how Bama/tOSU finished. Bama's and tOSU's regular seasons of the CFP era 1v1, 2v2 . . . 10v10:
- Bama-20 11-0, #1 (I put this one ahead of the 13-0 seasons because there was no fluff. No FCS games, no mid-majors, 11 SEC Games)
- Bama-16 13-0, #1
- Bama-18 13-0, #1
- Bama-21 13-0, #1
- Bama-14 12-1, #1
- Bama-15 12-1, #2
- Bama-23 12-1, #4
- Bama-17 11-1, #4
- Bama-22 10-2, #5
- Bama-19 10-2, #13
Ohio State:
- tOSU-19 13-0, #2
- tOSU-20 6-0, #3
- tOSU-16 11-1, #3
- tOSU-14 12-1, #4
- tOSU-22 11-1, #4
- tOSU-17 11-2, #5
- tOSU-18 12-1, #6
- tOSU-21 10-2, #6
- tOSU-23 11-1, #7
- tOSU-15 11-1, #7
In the 10 year CFP era Bama and tOSU each had two 2-loss regular seasons. Ohio State was ranked #5 and #6 in theirs, Bama was ranked #5 and #13 in theirs.
Note that Bama entered the CFP as #1 five times. That is half. Everybody else in the nation combined only equaled Bama on this metric. Bama was #1 five times, Clemson twice with UGA, LSU, and M getting one each.
The Gap between Bama and #2 is humongous, same with CFP appearances:
- 8 Bama
- 6 Clemson
- 5 Ohio State
- 4 Oklahoma
- 3 UGA
- 3 tie M
- 2 Washington
- 2 tie Notre Dame
- 1 LSU, TCU, Oregon, Texas, Cincy, MSU, FSU
Same with Semi-Final wins:
- 6 Bama
- 4 Clemson
- 3 Georgia
- 2 Ohio State
- 1 Michigan, LSU, Washington, TCU, Oregon
Same with total CFP Game wins:
- 9 Bama
- 6 Clemson
- 5 Georgia
- 3 Ohio State
- 2 Michigan
- 2 tie LSU
- 1 Washington, TCU, Oregon
Note that on each of the above metrics #2 is as close to #4 as they are to #1. Ie, Bama's lead is BIG. On each metric after Bama the teams are close together but Bama stands out.
-
A truly remarkable run, and one I don't think we'll ever see come anywhere close to being repeated. Just a perfect storm of circumstances meeting the right coach in the right place at the right time.
-
He's come a long way since he was limp wristing challenge flags in the NFL.
-
I think I would have OU and ND above Oregon, TCU, Wash. I feel like being ranked 8 times is more indicative of success than having 1 playoff win.
-
I think I would have OU and ND above Oregon, TCU, Wash. I feel like being ranked 8 times is more indicative of success than having 1 playoff win.
Sometimes it's a perception thing. the perception can be shewed by how well a team actually did in the playoffs and how deserving they are to be in the playoffs in the first place .
TCU is a weird one. The year they made it to the NCG, they did not even win their conference, barely beat Mich in the semis, and got annihilated in the NCG by Georgia. So I look at TCU as a top ten team that year that got a little lucky. Lucky to be in the playoffs in the first place. Lucky to beat Mich. On the other hand in 2014, TCU had a similar resume and missed the playoffs. Sometimes it's about timing. I guess it evens out for TCU.
Medina has brought up several examples of Ohio St having similar resumes and half the time they make the CFP and half the time they don't. It evens out for Ohio St, I guess.
Florida St in 2023 was a little unlucky to go undefeated in a P5 and still not make the playoffs. Although I believe FSU would have lost to anybody in the CFP. But in 2014 an undefeated FSU did make the CFP and also looked unworthy. So it evens out for Florida St, I guess
Mich St in 2015.was extremely lucky to make the CFP. Then got shut out in their only CFP game. And there is no other year where MSU got screwed out of the playoffs to counter balance that. So I would put down Mich St as over-rated.
Wash in 2023 is similar to TCU in 2022. Lucky to get to the NCG, although at least Wash was an undefeated P5 champion. Washington's other good year they got into the CFP with a 50/50 resume. So I would put down Wash as a little over-rated overall.
Oklahoma is interesting because they won the Big 12 a lot and made the playoffs a lot. But never won a CFP game. But there was one year they took Georgia to overtime. So Oklahoma may be a little under-rated.
-
Responding to @TyphonInc (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=8) and @LittlePig (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1540) :
How about this for a ranking system:
- 3 points for being ranked
- 4 points for making the CFP (7 total because it is cumulative)
- 5 points for winning a semi-final (12)
- 6 points for winning an NC (18).
-
Responding to @TyphonInc (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=8) and @LittlePig (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1540) :
How about this for a ranking system:
- 3 points for being ranked
- 4 points for making the CFP (7 total because it is cumulative)
- 5 points for winning a semi-final (12)
- 6 points for winning an NC (18).
Not a bad idea. I might break down the rankings even further
Ranked in top 12 - 3 points
Ranked 13 to 20 - 2 points
Ranked 21 to 25 - 1 point
Or something like that.
-
Not a bad idea. I might break down the rankings even further
Ranked in top 12 - 3 points
Ranked 13 to 20 - 2 points
Ranked 21 to 25 - 1 point
Or something like that.
That is a lot more work but I like the idea because I was never altogether comfortable with saying #5 gets the same number of points as #25. Using this model appended to what I had above would result in:
NC, 18 points:
- 3 for being ranked top-12
- 4 for making the CFP
- 5 for winning the semi-final
- 6 for winning the NC Game.
NC appearance, 12 points:
- 3 for being ranked top-12
- 4 for making the CFP
- 5 for winning the semi-final.
CFP appearance, 7 points:
- 3 for being ranked top-12
- 4 for making the CFP.
Final ranking 5-12, 3 points.
Final ranking 13-20, 2 points.
Final ranking 21-25, 1 point.
-
Re-rank using @LittlePig (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1540) 's suggestions:
(https://i.imgur.com/GON91rf.png)
I think the immediate thing that jumps out is that Ohio State is now ahead of Georgia. As an Ohio State fan, I shouldn't be the one defending that but I'll say this: I can see both sides of the debate here.
I think that the VAST majority of fans would take UGA's last 10 years over tOSU's last 10 years in a heartbeat. They would simply be choosing 2 NC's over 1 NC and that is that.
The other side is that Ohio State had a much more consistently successful decade. Georgia's three best seasons were 2 NC's and an NCG appearance. That easily beats tOSU's best three years which consisted of 1 NC, 1 NCG appearance, and 1 CFP appearance. Where Ohio State looks better is that tOSU's "other" seven years were VASTLY superior to UGA's "other" seven years. The "other" seven years:
- 2 CFP appearances for tOSU, ZERO for UGA
- 5 more seasons (total of 7) in the top-12 for tOSU, 4 for UGA
- 1 13-20 ranking for UGA, ZERO for tOSU
- 2 unranked seasons for UGA, ZERO for tOSU.
Thoughts?
-
Yeah, I see your point. Maybe the points should double for each round you advance.
3 points for being ranked in top 12
An additional 3 points for making CFP (6 points total)
An additional 6 points for making NCG (12 points total)
An additional 12 points for winning the national championship (24 points total)
-
Choose the ranking you "know to be true" and then devise some "system" to generate same ....
-
Choose the ranking you "know to be true" and then devise some "system" to generate same ....
I honestly don't know how much I value being consistently good as opposed to being great as a one off and I think I view it differently for "other" teams than for my own.
Hypothetical example:
- In ten years team one won one NC but finished unranked the other nine years.
- In the same ten years team two finished all ten years in the top-12, made the playoffs six times, and went 3-3 in semi-finals but never won an NC.
Which do you consider the "better" program?
Which would you rather YOUR team do?
Are those the same team?
As for me, I consider #2 to be the better program but I'd probably rather my team be #1.
-
It's just personal preference etc. I think to make the CFP Twice is more than twice as good as making it once, which could be just a fluke. To win a first rounder is also a thing, for me. I'd probably weight these things differently from others. Likewise, I think winning more than one NC is a indicator of a strong program.
So much depends on "luck" or "chance" these days.
-
It's just personal preference etc. I think to make the CFP Twice is more than twice as good as making it once, which could be just a fluke. To win a first rounder is also a thing, for me. I'd probably weight these things differently from others. Likewise, I think winning more than one NC is a indicator of a strong program.
So much depends on "luck" or "chance" these days.
This is so true. Winning one semi-final or even one NC could be largely luck. Maybe you got a ridiculously weak opponent? Maybe you just got REALLY lucky with a specific recruit? That is where I do hold Bama, Clemson, UGA, and tOSU as significantly above the rest. Those four have multiple semi-final wins. Even the other NC winners (M, LSU) don't. Winning one NC (LSU, M) or a single semi-final (Washington, Oregon, TCU) as you said "could be just a fluke" but if you've been there and won at least one game repeatedly that isn't a fluke, you have a very strong program.
I would also draw a distinction between a team that won semi-finals in back-to-back years and a team that won semi-finals further apart. To me the team with back-to-back semi-final wins could still be a "flash-in-the-pan" thing where everything came together for them at one time and they had a really strong team then but will they ever get back there? Conversely a team that won semi-finals separated by more than a few years is a strong program, they are more likely to be back.
-
Hypothetical example:
- In ten years team one won one NC but finished unranked the other nine years.
- In the same ten years team two finished all ten years in the top-12, made the playoffs six times, and went 3-3 in semi-finals but never won an NC.
Which do you consider the "better" program?
Which would you rather YOUR team do?
I'd strongly prefer #2 because it indicates a very good chance of continued winning and a shot at an NC. You gotta make continued runs at "it" to get there, often as not.
-
I agree. If a team's one time run is looked at as lucky or a fluke, it does not count as much in people's minds. TCU's NCG is largely looked at as lucky and is written off as a fluke. So maybe points should be subtracted from TCU's score for being perceived as lucky.
But LSU's National championship is largely looked at as legit and maybe LSU should get extra points for going undefeated against a bunch of ranked opponents in a tough conference.
Of course that's all subjective so I don't know how you make that work with a real points system.
-
Choose the ranking you "know to be true" and then devise some "system" to generate same ....
Exactly. It was always why people hated the BCS computer rankings...
...because they didn't agree 100% lock-step with humans, so they must be "wrong".
-
In my view, any "real ranking" means a higher ranked team is more likely to beat a lower ranked team. When comparing #3 and #4, that margin is going to be slim, near 50%, usually.
-
I agree. If a team's one time run is looked at as lucky or a fluke, it does not count as much in people's minds. TCU's NCG is largely looked at as lucky and is written off as a fluke. So maybe points should be subtracted from TCU's score for being perceived as lucky.
But LSU's National championship is largely looked at as legit and maybe LSU should get extra points for going undefeated against a bunch of ranked opponents in a tough conference.
Of course that's all subjective so I don't know how you make that work with a real points system.
While SOS may certainly be fairly factored in, I don't like the idea of dismissing teams as lucky, or rewarding others as more legit. That gets dicey because then you have to apply the same metrics to every team in every game considered....and that's just weighting with subjectivity what is meant as an attempt to be objective. TCU won the games they won, and lost the games they lost, end of story.
I mean, you could say UGA was lucky in the first round of the 2022 playoffs because Ohio State was missing its best receivers, or some fluky plays, or whatever. Not a good practice, imo. For something like this, it's better to just say UGA won, assign them whatever reward the system includes, and stick with it. It's impossible to peg "luck" with any certainty, so I wouldn't try, for something like this, which I assume is a something like a resume list. If we were talking about a "team quality" list, then it may be more appropriate to include subjective thoughts about luck.
-
People shouldn't look at luck as a reason a '22 TCU beats UM.
In spots, luck is a constant.
In baseball, BABIP seems to be a true element of chance/luck. A pitcher can allow the same HRs, stirke out the same number of batters, and walk the same number of guys, but his BABIP allowed in any given season can swing pretty wildly. One year 37% of batted balls turn out to be hits, the next it's only 28%. There's an average of this stat (~.300), but even the all-time greats see ebbs and flows. Same with batters' BABIP on offense.
In football, a much more difficult sport to assign credit, there is certainly a luck element constant.
We may not know what all it is, or how to dole it out, but I'm sure it's there.
-
Better to be lucky than good
-
I think you have to be good for luck to start to matter if we're talking playoff performance.
A team that finishes in the top 5 consistently but doesn't win an NC will eventually make it much more often than a team that finishes barely ranked each year.
The difference between a final ranking of 3 or 4 and 1 can include a lot of random chance.
-
In football, a much more difficult sport to assign credit, there is certainly a luck element constant.
I think it's a lot easier. We have one element that is huge and and clearly revolves around luck, which are turnovers. Lost in all the talk about "forcing turnovers" and the "turnover battle" is that almost nothing is associated with turnovers except luck.
-
I wouldn't say almost nothing
many QBs are living proof
-
TOs in my view are mostly "luck" though it's known some players have a propensity for INTs and FBs.
Thet can end up sitting.
-
It's tricky. If you look closer at turnovers, there's more nuance.
For any volume of passes, you're going to have x% intercepted. But what kind of interceptions?
What do we do where there is a miscommunication and the QB throws it right to the defender, since the WR made a poor read?
What about a pass tipped at the line that wobbles into a defender's hands? We may want to say that's a good defensive play, to get your hands up. But a defensive lineman only does that if his pass-rush was ineffective.
With that one, it makes me think about the idea that there can be no truly great 2nd basemen in baseball, as they're all just failed shortstops.
If your pass-rusher has more batted balls than sacks...he's not doing his job well.
.
Other 'luck' potentials in football are ball-marking by the refs, penalties witnessed and called by refs, injuries (and not just 'injuries,' but who and at what point in the game, etc), quality of teams you play consecutively, weather conditions, and on and on.
I really think a big one that no one mentions is the ref's ball-marking on low-stakes, 2nd down plays in the first half. They're not being shitty with it or unethical, but please don't tell me they're being as careful then as they are on 4th and 1 plays in the 4th quarter, either.
So maybe teams have to punt 0.3 times more, on average, than they actually should have to. That's not nothing. But the game really is a game of inches and those inches add up here and there.
-
UGA had zero punts returned in 2023.
-
Yeah, kickoff and punt returns are going the way of the dodo. Used to be super exciting if you had a great return man....no longer.
-
I love how hours have been spent to unravel what the CFP was trying to resolve. Who’s 2nd best all the way through #25 or whatever.
-
TCU is a weird one. The year they made it to the NCG, they did not even win their conference, barely beat Mich in the semis, and got annihilated in the NCG by Georgia. So I look at TCU as a top ten team that year that got a little lucky. Lucky to be in the playoffs in the first place. Lucky to beat Mich. On the other hand in 2014, TCU had a similar resume and missed the playoffs. Sometimes it's about timing. I guess it evens out for TCU.
Heh, TCUN had so little respect for TCU they didn't send Stallions to steal their signals. TCUN looked like a mortal team when then didn't know where the blitzes where coming from, or if it was a pass or run play ahead of time.
This game to me shows more than any other how much of an advantage TCUN were getting from their illegal sign stealing mafia operation.
-
Uhh, TCU was lucky that when they lost their CCG, NO ONE SEEMED TO NOTICE. Didn't drop 1 spot in the rankings. Might as well never have played the fucking game.
*I will never, ever get over this fact.
-
Unfortunately for Michigan, they played them like their hair was on fire.
-
Unfortunately for Michigan, Connor didn't have time to scout TCU
-
Unfortunately for Michigan, Connor didn't have time to scout TCU
Rumor is TCU knew about it and changed things up. Not sure if true but it would explain some of what happened...
-
well, he sure as hell didn't anticipate TCU being in that game 4 or 5 weeks earlier
-
I really think a big one that no one mentions is the ref's ball-marking on low-stakes, 2nd down plays in the first half. They're not being shitty with it or unethical, but please don't tell me they're being as careful then as they are on 4th and 1 plays in the 4th quarter, either.
I agree with everything you've said here. There is no doubt that refs aren't as careful about spotting the ball on low-stakes 2nd down plays in the first half as they are about 4th and 1 plays in the 4th quarter but I would think that overall it would balance out. Sure, you might have a 2nd and 6 where you gain 3 but only get 2 because you get a bad spot but the next series you might have a 2nd and 7 where you gain 4 but get 5 because you get a good spot.
-
Uhh, TCU was lucky that when they lost their CCG, NO ONE SEEMED TO NOTICE. Didn't drop 1 spot in the rankings. Might as well never have played the fucking game.
*I will never, ever get over this fact.
I do get it. It annoyed me as well. I think it was unfair to Georgia because they earned the #1 seed but then had to play the #3 team (tOSU) when they should have gotten the easier opponent (TCU). It was also unfair to my team because Ohio State was clearly not the worst team in the CFP so they shouldn't have had to play the best team (UGA).
That said, I'll defend the committee a little bit on this. The committee has been consistent about not punishing a team for losing a game that they earned their way into and I can appreciate that.
-
Rumor is TCU knew about it and changed things up. Not sure if true but it would explain some of what happened...
In defending their school's unethical behavior a lot of Michigan fans have made the argument that it didn't matter vis-a-vis Ohio State because Ohio State "knew about it and changed things up."
I've repeatedly pointed out that this is nonsensical for a multitude of reasons:
First, even if your cheating didn't actually gain you an advantage, you STILL cheated. You aren't exonerated simply because you are incompetent.
Second, the idea that Ohio State "changed things up" on a week's prep is ludicrous. Remember that Ohio State at the time was typically running a no-huddle where EVERY player on the field looks to the sideline for the sign. That means that EVERY player on the field has to know the new scheme. This is an important distinction. If you are running a huddle then ONLY one guy on the field needs to know the signs. He can tell everyone else. Thus, you could teach the new signs to your smartest player and ignore the rest. If you are running a no-huddle then literally the dumbest guy on the field has to know the signs. We all know that a lot of the guys playing on all of our teams aren't exactly rocket scientists
Third, even if we assume that Ohio State's starters were all Rhodes Scholar level intellects who could manage to memorize a completely new sign scheme in a week, that would still be an advantage to the cheaters because all the time Ohio State spent learning the new sign scheme is time that they are unable to spend watching film of and prepping for the cheaters.
Fourth, even if we assumed that Ohio State's starters were all that smart and someone at Ohio State invented a time machine so that the guys could learn new signs without cutting into their other practice time there is a decoding advantage. As a history buff I've read a LOT about the US and British decryption efforts during WWII. One thing you will learn if you read about that is that the Germans and Japanese did periodically change their codes and when that happened it took the US and British a while to crack the new codes. However, cracking the replacement codes was VASTLY quicker than cracking the initial code because they already knew the structure.
The same thing applies here. Even if Ohio State did change their signs, the cheaters already knew the structure of Ohio State's sign system so it would then be easier for them to crack the new code in game.
In TCU's case, some things are different:
First, from what we have heard, the cheaters illegally scouted "likely" CFP opponents. That is why they bought tickets to the SECCG and to some Clemson games, etc. However, they didn't consider TCU to be "likely" enough to warrant illegally scouting them so the cheaters ignored TCU and didn't have illegal advanced scouting on them.
Second, it was announced that TCU would face the cheaters in the CFP Semi-Final approximately five weeks before the game occurred. Thus, if TCU needed to change their signs, they had five weeks to accomplish that instead of the five days that in-season opponents had. That makes everything above a bit more achievable.
-
That said, I'll defend the committee a little bit on this. The committee has been consistent about not punishing a team for losing a game that they earned their way into and I can appreciate that.
Okay, fine. Then why bother playing the game? If there are no stakes, there's no point.
-
I agree with everything you've said here. There is no doubt that refs aren't as careful about spotting the ball on low-stakes 2nd down plays in the first half as they are about 4th and 1 plays in the 4th quarter but I would think that overall it would balance out. Sure, you might have a 2nd and 6 where you gain 3 but only get 2 because you get a bad spot but the next series you might have a 2nd and 7 where you gain 4 but get 5 because you get a good spot.
This is wishful thinking, as there are only around 120-140 plays in a football game.
Things may balance out over the course of a season, but not in a game. You're far, FAR more likely to come out ahead or behind in an individual game.
You're falling prey to the 'cosmic justice' idea religious people do. Sorry, I know this is a touchy subject, but it IS the precise example for this. The bullshit suggestion of good/pious believers going to a heaven of some kind and bad/evil non-believers going to a hell is embarrassingly simple, obvious, and childish.
Same with karma. Absurd.
The "things even out in a game" isn't those things, it's just a statistical thing.
-
Okay, fine. Then why bother playing the game? If there are no stakes, there's no point.
I'm not happy about it either and I do think that TCU should have dropped behind Ohio State after the loss on the basis that their SoS and MOV wasn't as good as the Buckeyes. Also the game had stakes for KSU.
This is wishful thinking, as there are only around 120-140 plays in a football game.
Things may balance out over the course of a season, but not in a game. You're far, FAR more likely to come out ahead or behind in an individual game.
You're falling prey to the 'cosmic justice' idea religious people do. Sorry, I know this is a touchy subject, but it IS the precise example for this. The bullshit suggestion of good/pious believers going to a heaven of some kind and bad/evil non-believers going to a hell is embarrassingly simple, obvious, and childish.
Same with karma. Absurd.
The "things even out in a game" isn't those things, it's just a statistical thing.
I wasn't making a philosophical or religious point, just a statistical one. On that front, I agree that it is more likely to balance out over a season than over a game but it also only really matters if the game is close enough that a drive or two can determine the outcome. Realistically, for most NC contenders that only occurs what, two or three times a season?
What I am saying is that if you look at last week's Ohio State vs Purdue game, the Buckeyes won 45-0. If they had gotten a whole bunch of unfovorable spots on low-stakes 2nd down plays in the first half maybe it would have only been 35-10. Conversely, if they had gotten a whole bunch of good spots on low-stakes 2nd down plays in the first half maybe it would have been 62-0. In either case, who cares? A win is a win and MOV is only somewhat relevant. It only really matters if the game is close enough that the statistically unlikely run of good or bad spots flips the outcome.
Frankly, that is an argument in FAVOR of the 12-team playoff. Ie, maybe Ohio State was the best team in the Country in 1998 and lost to Michigan State only due to a bunch of unfavorable spots on low-stakes 2nd down plays in the first half. That single loss (to a vastly inferior team) cost Ohio State a shot. Now that we have a 12 team playoff it would have only dropped the Buckeyes from the #1 seed (as an undefeated) to the #3 seed.
-
Yeah, maybe.
Maybe they should just stop keeping score.
Playoffs are purely for entertainment.
Win the most games in a 162-game season? You get a t-shirt that says so. Win the most short series in a row? You're champions forever.
Go 16-0 in the regular season? Cool, you'll be famous. But not champs. That went to the way worse team you had already beaten. Brilliant.
My philosophy isn't that the sliding scale of competition vs entertainment is tilted too far towards entertainment (as I've said in the past). It's that pure competition is supposed to be 'enough' entertainment. It used to be.
MLB had it right for like 60 years. 2 separate leagues that didn't play each other. Find out who the best team is over many games, so it's valid. And then those champs of separate entities duke it out. At least it makes sense.
Wild-cards and 60-something teams in a playoff tournament and rewarding the very best teams less and less while rewarding mediocrity doesn't make sense.
It makes money. And that's all that matters.
-
Money matters, film at 11.
This is why we have playoff champions, nothing but that.
-
It's interesting, I think, in March Madness, that a 16 had never beaten a 1 seed, I think it happened recently. A 15 bears the 2 fairly often? Every 3 years or so? One could do the probability based on this, I suspect. How long would it take for a 12 seed to win a CFB NC? Longer than it will exist I suspect in current form, but it is possible. The seedings of course cannot be perfect, but they generally are not far off "reality".
Let's drop this down to say a 10 seed, which starts to be reasonably possible in say 20 years perhaps. They have to beat a 7 seed on the road, it'll happen of course, and then beat a 1-4 seed, and then a 1-4 see again, and then a 1-4 seed again, I think.
Their "odds" of winning each are something like 25%, then 20%, then 20%, then say 15%. They aren't a bad team of course, they lost a couple games probably in the year, maybe one was close, one was an upset, whatever, and they had 10 wins. If my math is right, they have a 0.15% chance of winning the NC. And maybe their odds are better because they got back a couple key players.
-
Okay, fine. Then why bother playing the game? If there are no stakes, there's no point.
But the other way, you are rewarding a team for not earning their way into the game when you are discussing two teams from the same conference
-
It's interesting, I think, in March Madness, that a 16 had never beaten a 1 seed, I think it happened recently. A 15 bears the 2 fairly often? Every 3 years or so? One could do the probability based on this, I suspect. How long would it take for a 12 seed to win a CFB NC? Longer than it will exist I suspect in current form, but it is possible. The seedings of course cannot be perfect, but they generally are not far off "reality".
Let's drop this down to say a 10 seed, which starts to be reasonably possible in say 20 years perhaps. They have to beat a 7 seed on the road, it'll happen of course, and then beat a 1-4 seed, and then a 1-4 see again, and then a 1-4 seed again, I think.
Their "odds" of winning each are something like 25%, then 20%, then 20%, then say 15%. They aren't a bad team of course, they lost a couple games probably in the year, maybe one was close, one was an upset, whatever, and they had 10 wins. If my math is right, they have a 0.15% chance of winning the NC. And maybe their odds are better because they got back a couple key players.
One thing that may skew this data is that some teams get much better a the season progresses, such that a team that has 1-2 losses early may be playing at a much higher level late in the season than what it was early. Not CFB, I know, but the NY Giants the year they took out the Perfect Patriots comes to mind. And by the same token, some teams start off playing really well and get worse as the season progresses, especially due to injury or other teams figuring out how to stop them and the rest copying.
-
If you have a weekend where 2, 3, 4, and 5 all lose, and 6, 7, 8, and 9 don't play, it COULD make sense to leave them all where they were depending on how they lose. A team might not drop in ratings IF other teams around them also lose.
And yes, teams can get it together later in the season and be better than their 10-2 record may suggest.
-
A 15 bears the 2 fairly often? Every 3 years or so? One could do the probability based on this, I suspect.
Since the expansion to 64 teams in 1985 there have been 39 NCAA Tournaments (1985-2024 not including 2020). Thus, there have been 156 of each seed because there are four of each and 39*4=156. The #2 seeds are 11-145 in the first round. That is an average of one win roughly every 14 attempts and there are four attempts per year so you are just about right, it has been just shy of one every 3 years. To be precise, 11 in 39 tournaments is one every 3.5 tournaments. Further:
- #16 seeds have upset #1 twice so roughly once every 20 years.
- #15 seeds have upset #2 11 times so roughly once every 3.5 years.
- #14 seeds have upset #3 23 times so roughly once every other year.
- #13 seeds have upset #4 33 times so almost once per year.
- #12 seeds have upset #5 55 times so a little under 1.5 times per year.
- #11 seeds have upset #6 61 times so a little over 1.5 times per year.
- #10 seeds have upset #7 60 times so also a little over1.5 times per year.
- #9 actually has a winning record against #8 at 82-74 so a little better than twice per year.
Note the large gap between #12 and #13. That gap carries through:
- 22 #12 seeds have made it to the second weekend.
- Only 12 #13's and below have made it to the second weekend.
- The #13 and below have only ever won one second weekend game.
- #12's have won two second weekend games.
- #11 and above have each won at least five second weekend games.
-
obviously #13-#16 have so little shot to win the whole thing that they should be excluded
but, then you'd have fewer games and make less $$$
-
obviously #13-#16 have so little shot to win the whole thing that they should be excluded
but, then you'd have fewer games and make less $$$
My interpretation is that down through usually #11 or so you are still including some at-large teams so we are talking about teams that are legitimately in the top-64. Then once you run out of at-large teams you move to "tallest midgets" but the very best of those are still borderline legitimately good enough so down through the #12 seeds you are talking about REALLY tall tallest midgets. Once you get beyond #12's, you get into progressively shorter "tallest midgets" that simply have no business playing in a NC tournament but they are included for money reasons but also for inclusion reasons to technically give every team a shot.
-
- The #13 and below have only ever won one second weekend game.
(https://media.tenor.com/McIkrl9aRFwAAAAM/worriedface.gif)
-
The G5 slot is to avoid litigation.
-
My interpretation is that down through usually #11 or so you are still including some at-large teams so we are talking about teams that are legitimately in the top-64. Then once you run out of at-large teams you move to "tallest midgets" but the very best of those are still borderline legitimately good enough so down through the #12 seeds you are talking about REALLY tall tallest midgets. Once you get beyond #12's, you get into progressively shorter "tallest midgets" that simply have no business playing in a NC tournament but they are included for money reasons but also for inclusion reasons to technically give every team a shot.
The 12 and 13s are also generally the best AQs. So while they might be bad, they might also be good, but just didn't have the resume to prove it. Once you get down to the 15s and 16s it's teams that generally weren't even the best in the conference. So we know they almost certainly are not good. They just picked the right weekend to have a good weekend
-
48 team tourney would be plenty
-
(https://media.tenor.com/McIkrl9aRFwAAAAM/worriedface.gif)
Nah, once your team made an F4 the next year that became ancient history!
-
Nah, once your team made an F4 the next year that became ancient history!
Not that I WANT to correct you, but that was two years later. The next year was this:
- #16 seeds have upset #1 twice so roughly once every 20 years.
-
Not that I WANT to correct you, but that was two years later. The next year was this:
Oops, my mistake, the F4 was one year after the #16 debacle and two years after becoming the first (and as of yet only) team to lose to a #13 or below in the second weekend.
Honestly, from my perspective, losing to a #15 in the S16 is MUCH worse than losing to a #16 in the opening round. I think getting upset in the opening round is at least partially a product of overlooking your opponent. When you get to the second weekend there is no excuse for overlooking a team that already took out two pretty good teams just to get to where they are. In this case, St. Peter's took out bluest-of-blue-bloods #2 seed Kentucky in the opener and a decent #7 seed Murray State in the second round.
On a related note, I've long argued that the big drop in win % from #12's to #13's is more because #13 and below are REALLY bad than because #4 and above are REALLY good. Some evidence for my theory:
If the drop was because the #1-4 seeds are so great, then the few #13's and below that do manage to win their opener should do better in the second round where they are matched against less great opponents. By and large, they don't.
#13's:
- .212 against #4's in the first round, 33-123
- .182 against #5/12 in the second round, 6-27
- .000 against #1/8/9 in the S16, 0-6 (1)
#14's:
- .147 against #3's in the first round, 23-133
- .087 against #6/11 in the second round, 2-21
- .000 against #2/7/10 in the S16, 0-2 (2)
#15's:
- .071 against #2 in the first round, 11-145
- .364 against #7/10 in the second round, 4-7
- .250 against #3/6/11 in the S16, 1-3 (3)
- .000 against #1/4/5/8/9/12 in the E8, 0-1 (4)
#16's:
- .013 against #1 in the first round, 2-154
- .000 against #9* in the second round, 0-2
* Both #16's to advance to the second round drew a #9 and lost to them in the second round.
(1) In theory this game could be against a #16 but no #16 have gotten that far.
(2) In theory this game could be against #15 but the only #15 to win one of these beat PU which was NOT a #14 and since no #14's have won and no other #15's have won we know that no #14's have ever played a #15 in the S16.
(3) In theory this game could be against #14 but since we know that no #15 and no #15 has ever won other than against PU, it hasn't happened.
(4) In theory this game could be against #13 or #16 but no #13 or #16 has ever made it this far.
Only the #15's get better but, IMHO, that may be more of a sample-size issue than anything else. The others do WORSE in the second round despite playing teams not nearly as good as the ones they knocked off in the first round to get there:
- #13's do WORSE against 5/12 than against #4.
- #14's do WORSE against 6/11 than against #3.
- #16's do WORSE against #9 than against #1.
I had always assumed that eventually a #13 or below would win a second weekend game but my theory was that it would happen when two #13's and below happened to luck into each other in the second weekend such that one of them HAD to win. Ie, two #14's and four #15's have made it to the second weekend and I just figured that if you did this enough times eventually you'd have a #15 knock of a #2 and a #7/10 and a #14 knock off a #3 and a #6/11 in the same region and then your S16 matchup that was "supposed to" be between #2 and #3 would instead be between #15 and #14. One of them would have to win and then would get clobbered in the E8.
-
Honestly, from my perspective, losing to a #15 in the S16 is MUCH worse than losing to a #16 in the opening round. I think getting upset in the opening round is at least partially a product of overlooking your opponent. When you get to the second weekend there is no excuse for overlooking a team that already took out two pretty good teams just to get to where they are. In this case, St. Peter's took out bluest-of-blue-bloods #2 seed Kentucky in the opener and a decent #7 seed Murray State in the second round.
I think they're both pretty goddamn bad lol.
The #1 losing to a #16 was always one of those "it'll probably never ever happen". And I think it had to feel pretty horrible when UVA was the first one for it to actually happen. I'm pretty sure Purdue fans felt pretty terrible after it happened. I was in the middle of my boycott so I just shrugged it off that year. I think the fact that we were in Paso Robles about to go out and drink a ton of wine helped too :57:
Where I'll disagree is on the "looking past" a team though. I realize a portion of seeing a #15 take down Kentucky and then Murray State means you should treat them with respect as a dangerous team. However, I think Purdue already knowing that the bracket was busted and they didn't have to face the #1 seed in the E8, knowing they would be facing either the #4 or #8, teams seeded below them, had them looking ahead thinking about the Final Four when they should have been thinking about winning the damn Sweet Sixteen game.
-
Where I'll disagree is on the "looking past" a team though. I realize a portion of seeing a #15 take down Kentucky and then Murray State means you should treat them with respect as a dangerous team. However, I think Purdue already knowing that the bracket was busted and they didn't have to face the #1 seed in the E8, knowing they would be facing either the #4 or #8, teams seeded below them, had them looking ahead thinking about the Final Four when they should have been thinking about winning the damn Sweet Sixteen game.
That is fair. It is possibly to overlook a team even after they've pulled a couple upsets because there *IS* still BB to be played after that game and these *ARE* kids. They are naturally going to be tempted to see that red carpet invite to the F4 and . . .