CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on June 30, 2020, 06:07:19 PM
-
I'm voting for #6. I'm not a fan of rematches and I think that part of the draw of a playoff is to see teams that do not ordinarily play so it doesn't make sense to slot two B1G teams against each other even if they didn't happen to play that year.
-
I'll go with #1 but I could be swayed by your argument for #6. More variety is more entertaining, so...
-
I'd allow all rematches
let the 6 SEC teams play each other
the stoopid committee always screws around a way to limit rematches anyway
I'm sure they would protect the SEC
besides, I'm certainly NOT a fan of an 8-team playoff, so...... let it suck
-
I went with #3. I could be swayed to #1.
I think that if you are forced into creating a bracket where you have to put teams on opposite sides of the bracket, though, it creates too much potential upheaval to your bracket.
This isn't like basketball where you have 64 seeds and have 4 teams at each seed line and it's roughly immaterial to move team from the 2nd-toughest 6 seed draw to the 4th-toughest 6 seed draw. It's just too small.
If you put too many rules on it, then the purpose of seeding gets destroyed because you're forced to put teams in certain places not based on their strength, but based on who they can and cannot face.
-
Prohibit rematches. If the bracket ends up in a rematch, eliminate the team that won the regular season game and put in the team they beat in the previous round. If that also ends up in a rematch, bring in the G5 team with the highest rank that didn't make a playoff. If no G5 was in the ranking bring in the champion of the Sun Belt, unless they are already in the playoff, then bring in the Sun Belt runner up. If they also are in the playoff, bring in the CUSA champ.
-
I picked #1 and I'd put in a provision that no team movement can exceed 1 seed difference (4 to 5, but not 4 to 6). If it cannot be done, then you don't move them.
-
I picked #1 and I'd put in a provision that no team movement can exceed 1 seed difference (4 to 5, but not 4 to 6). If it cannot be done, then you don't move them.
I think this is a really good idea and brings me to something that I thought of last night, see below:
I went with #3. I could be swayed to #1.
I think that if you are forced into creating a bracket where you have to put teams on opposite sides of the bracket, though, it creates too much potential upheaval to your bracket.
This isn't like basketball where you have 64 seeds and have 4 teams at each seed line and it's roughly immaterial to move team from the 2nd-toughest 6 seed draw to the 4th-toughest 6 seed draw. It's just too small.
If you put too many rules on it, then the purpose of seeding gets destroyed because you're forced to put teams in certain places not based on their strength, but based on who they can and cannot face.
I'm generally not a fan of rematches, hence my vote for the most limiting option, #6, which prevents both rematches and games between teams from the same conference in the first two rounds.
My initial view was that, as a fan, I'd much rather see CFP match-ups between teams that rarely play. However, prohibiting rematches could be a major detriment to a team that earned an easy first round matchup. Example:
In 2019 Ohio State played and beat Cincinnati early in the season. Ohio State ended up #2 and Cincinnati ended up not winning the AAC. Consider this hypothetical:
- Cincinnati beats Memphis, wins the AAC, and is the highest ranked G5 Champion.
- LSU and Clemson each lose one game such that Ohio State, as the only 13-0 P5 Champion is a clear and obvious #1.
In that case Ohio State earned an easy first-round match-up against the ~#20 ranked AAC Champions, Cincinnati. However, with rematches prohibited the Buckeyes can't play #8 seed Cincinnati so instead they have to play #7 seed Baylor. In either case it is a home game that the Buckeyes will be favored to win but it is still a humongous difference. The Buckeyes would be favored over Cincinnati by 20+ and would be expected to be able to rest their starters for most or all of the second half. Against Baylor the Buckeyes would be something like a 10 point favorite.
On top of that, the #2 seed (in this case probably LSU) gets an unearned advantage. They didn't earn the #1 seed and the easy first-round match-up but they'd get it simply by the luck of tOSU and UC playing in September (something that LSU had absolutely nothing to do with).
-
It would be interesting to know how often this would have been a problem in the past. If it only happens say once in a decade, I'd say it's not really a problem to worry about.
-
It would be interesting to know how often this would have been a problem in the past. If it only happens say once in a decade, I'd say it's not really a problem to worry about.
In six years of the CFP there would have been one first-round rematch:
In 2016 PSU finished ranked #5 but they were the fourth highest ranked Champion behind #1 Bama, #2 Clemson, and #3 Washington. Ohio State finished as the highest ranked non-Champion at #3 but if HFA was reserved to the top-4 Champions then PSU would have been the #4 seed and hosted #5 seed tOSU in the first round.
That rematch seems like a really bum deal for the Nittany Lions. If they win, blah, they already beat Ohio State so nobody cares. Meanwhile, if they lose it negates their earlier win.
2016 with rematches:
- #15 Western Michigan at #1 Bama
- #3 tOSU at #5 PSU
- #7 Oklahoma at #2 Clemson
- #6 Michigan at #4 Washington
2016 without rematches:
- #15 Western Michigan at #1 Bama
- #7 Oklahoma at #5 Penn State
- #6 Michigan at #2 Clemson
- #3 tOSU at #4 Washington
No difference for Bama and Western Michigan. Differences for everybody else:
- #2 Clemson gets a slightly tougher game against #6 Michigan instead of #7 Oklahoma.
- #3 Ohio State gets a slightly tougher game at #4 Washington instead of at #5 Penn State.
- #4 Washington gets a tougher game vs #3 tOSU instead of #6 Michigan.
- #5 Penn State gets an easier game vs #7 Oklahoma instead of #3 Ohio State.
- #6 Michigan gets a tougher game at #2 Clemson instead of at #4 Washington.
- #7 Oklahoma gets an easier game at #5 Penn State instead of at #2 Clemson.
-
medina, your post made me think of something else - the teams are seeded, but the seed means what choice they have of who they play.
#1 picks who they want to play at home in the 1st round, out of the other 7 teams. Strategy would really be at play here. Maybe an OSU wants the rematch with Cinci because it's the easiest opponent. Maybe, since it's the only home game round of the playoff, they want to play a much tougher team.
It'd make it interesting, with perceived slights at being chosen before the chalk matchup suggests.
-
I voted but thinking about this further... I'd only eliminate rematches in round 1.
-
medina, your post made me think of something else - the teams are seeded, but the seed means what choice they have of who they play.
That would make for some fascinating TV. Great idea.
"In the first pick of the draft, Clemson selects ..................... THE UNIVERSITY OF OHIO STATE!"
-
Nah.
If you get a rematch, tough turkey. I’d be OK with the seeding to try to avoid them within reason, but when you lock in, it gets dumb.
-
medina, your post made me think of something else - the teams are seeded, but the seed means what choice they have of who they play.
#1 picks who they want to play at home in the 1st round, out of the other 7 teams. Strategy would really be at play here. Maybe an OSU wants the rematch with Cinci because it's the easiest opponent. Maybe, since it's the only home game round of the playoff, they want to play a much tougher team.
It'd make it interesting, with perceived slights at being chosen before the chalk matchup suggests.
I wasn't thinking that the first seed would get the first pick, just that it would be seeded like most tournaments where:
- #1 plays #8,
- #2 plays #7,
- #3 plays #6, and
- #4 plays #5
Then in the second round:
- 1/8 plays 4/5, and
- 2/7 plays 3/6
I think selections would be problematic.
-
I think selections would be problematic.
That's why I don't think you can have a hard rule to prohibit rematches in round 1--perhaps just a strong preference. And once you hit round 2, all bets are off.
I like what OAM mentioned of "if avoiding a rematch can be done with a 1 seed difference, you do it, but if it requires moving down two or more seed lines, then it's too much" is a good idea.
You don't want to destroy the entire concept of seeding to avoid conference matchups or rematches.
-
medina, your post made me think of something else - the teams are seeded, but the seed means what choice they have of who they play.
#1 picks who they want to play at home in the 1st round, out of the other 7 teams. Strategy would really be at play here. Maybe an OSU wants the rematch with Cinci because it's the easiest opponent. Maybe, since it's the only home game round of the playoff, they want to play a much tougher team.
It'd make it interesting, with perceived slights at being chosen before the chalk matchup suggests.
Cool idea, but coaches' do not like giving their opponents any incentive, so will never say who they want to play. You pick a team and the opponents then say "see, they don't think we can beat them."
-
That's why I don't think you can have a hard rule to prohibit rematches in round 1--perhaps just a strong preference. And once you hit round 2, all bets are off.
I like what OAM mentioned of "if avoiding a rematch can be done with a 1 seed difference, you do it, but if it requires moving down two or more seed lines, then it's too much" is a good idea.
You don't want to destroy the entire concept of seeding to avoid conference matchups or rematches.
I like what you and @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) are trying to accomplish but I think it should be based on rankings rather than seeds. Ie, we avoid rematches so long as it doesn't change any team's opponent by more than (for example) three spots in the rankings.
My reason for this is that OAM's one seed difference could be a HUMONGOUS difference in quality of opponent. Using last year's standings as an example:
- #1 LSU (SEC Champ)
- #2 tOSU (B1G Champ)
- #3 Clemson (ACC Champ)
- #4 Oklahoma (B12 Champ)
- #5 UGA (at-large)
- #6 Oregon (Pac Champ)
- #7 Baylor (at-large)
- #17 Memphis (AAC Champ)
So the first round match-ups should be:
- #17 Memphis at #1 LSU
- #5 UGA at #4 Oklahoma
- #7 Baylor at #2 tOSU
- #6 Oregon at #3 Clemson
If Ohio State had played Baylor earlier in the season it is no big deal. #2 seed Ohio State and #3 seed Clemson could simply swap opponents and there isn't much impact:
- Ohio State gets a slightly tougher game against #6 Oregon instead of #7 Baylor
- Clemson gets a slightly easier game against #7 Baylor instead of #6 Oregon
- Oregon gets a slightly tougher game at #2 Ohio State instead of at #3 Clemson
- Baylor gets a slightly easier game at #3 Clemson instead of at #2 Ohio State
Now suppose instead that LSU had already played Memphis. If #1 seed LSU and #2 seed Ohio State swap opponents there is a HUMONGOUS difference:
- LSU gets a vastly tougher game against #7 Baylor instead of #17 Memphis
- Ohio State gets a vastly easier game against #17 Memphis instead of #7 Baylor
- Baylor gets a slightly tougher game at #1 LSU instead of #2 tOSU
- Memphis gets a slightly easier game at #2 tOSU instead of at #1 LSU
-
This is where I'd go with higher seed gets to choose to rematch or not. For this scenario.
-
I'm with you. I don't know that we put hard and fast rules on it, since we're leaving seeding to the committee anyway...
But have a stated guideline that rematches or conference matchups should be avoided unless it makes a meaningful difference in team quality giving one team or another an large unearned advantage by moving seeds.
-
that would make for interesting politics at the decision table
so many problems with an 8-team playoff, let's just leave it at 4
-
I don't think going to 8 solves anything that needs solving personally. The next step might well be 6.
In 50 years will it be 16 or 32? Maybe, probably not. Might not even play in 50 years.
-
Come up with all the interesting theories/alignments possible but if the season is stretched, Sunday bound kids will sit.What will a 6 or 8 team tournament garner CFB then?Over exposure,apathy and dilution I'm guessing
-
I don't think going to 8 solves anything that needs solving personally. The next step might well be 6.
In 50 years will it be 16 or 32? Maybe, probably not. Might not even play in 50 years.
Just to clarify, I'm not really an advocate of going to eight. I've said from the beginning that every time you increase the size of the Playoff (to two with the BCS, to four with the CFP, next to eight) you necessarily decrease the magnitude of each regular season game.
My example is the Texas, Ohio State game in 2005. I attended it in Columbus. Texas was ranked #2 and Ohio State was ranked #4. Additionally, #3 Michigan was obviously on Ohio State's schedule so both teams effectively controlled their own destiny to the BCSNCG.
The game was HUGE. Losing REALLY sucked in large part because it effectively ended Ohio State's NC hopes. Also, it was a heartbreaking loss in which the Buckeyes led from mid-second-quarter until DEEP in the fourth quarter and had a chance with just about five minutes to go to take what would have been an insurmountable two-score lead.
Regular season games just aren't that big anymore. If that same situation had repeated itself early in 2019 Ohio State still would have been very much alive in the NC race because one close loss to a quality opponent probably wouldn't keep them out of the CFP.
That said, I assume that we ARE going to an 8-team playoff so my interest is in what it will be.
Come up with all the interesting theories/alignments possible but if the season is stretched, Sunday bound kids will sit.What will a 6 or 8 team tournament garner CFB then?Over exposure,apathy and dilution I'm guessing
I don't know about this. I can't recall a "Sunday bound" kid sitting out the BCSNCG or any CFP games. We have seen LOTS of "Sunday bound" kids sitting out "other" bowls but I don't think we'll ever see a lot of them sit out games that could win them a NC ring.
-
that would make for interesting politics at the decision table
so many problems with an 8-team playoff, let's just leave it at 4
Better still, let's go back to two.
-
done
-
Better still, let's go back to two.
that's 2 more games than will be played this season
-
Yeah. Probably so.
-
I'm looking at the results. There aren't that many voters (only 11) but I realized that I didn't leave a "don't prohibit any matches" option:
- 9 of the 11 would prohibit rematches in the first round.
- 4 would prohibit games between teams from the same conference in the first round.
- 2 would prohibit games between teams from the same conference in the first two rounds.
- 1 would prohibit games between teams from the same conference in the first two rounds.
Since only two of 11 voters (18%) would do anything about rematches/same conference in the second round we can eliminate that from the discussion.
That just leaves the question of whether or not to prohibit rematches and/or games between teams from the same conference in the first round.
I added the don't prohibit any matches option but voting closes tomorrow.
-
I'm mildly surprised that prohibiting rematches got more votes than prohibiting games between teams from the same conference.
From my perspective, I'd rather prohibit games between teams from the same conference because those are games we see reasonably frequently even if not that year. For example, if Ohio State and Oklahoma played then re-matched in the CFP the same year I don't mind that. We don't get to see tOSU/OU very often so I don't mind seeing it twice in a year. On the other hand, if Ohio State missed Wisconsin in a given year I'd rather not see them play Wisconsin in the CFP because tOSU/UW is a reasonably frequent occurrence and I'd rather see games we don't normally see.
Example:
Suppose that Bama and tOSU lost only close games to LSU and PSU respectively and both missed their CG thus ending up as the two highest ranked non-Champions and getting the #5 and #6 seeds. Then suppose that LSU and PSU lost the SECCG and B1GCG to Florida and Wisconsin. Further, suppose that both the SECCG and B1GCG results were major upsets as UF had four and UW three losses.
So the teams relevant to this example end up being:
- #3 seed Wisconsin at 10-3
- #4 seed Florida at 9-4
- #5 seed Bama at 11-1
- #6 seed tOSU at 11-1
If we just played according to seed the match-ups among those four would be:
- #6 11-1 tOSU at #3 10-3 Wisconsin
- #5 11-1 Bama at #4 9-4 Florida
My thinking here is that tOSU/UW and Bama/UF are games that we see reasonably frequently. I'd rather see games that we don't see very often:
- #6 11-1 tOSU at #4 9-4 Florida
- #5 11-1 Bama at #3 10-3 Wisconsin
Ie, would you rather see tOSU in the Swamp and Bama in Camp Randall or tOSU in Camp Randall and Bama in the Swamp?
Per Stassen:
- tOSU has played UW 61 times, 27 in Madison
- Bama has played UF 41 times, 10 in Gainesville
- Bama has played UW twice, once in Madison
- tOSU has played UF twice, never in Gainesville
I'd rather the CFP provide us with once-in-a-generation games such as Buckeyes in the Swamp and Tide in the Camp than frequent match-ups such as Bama@UF and tOSU@UW.
-
I'm mildly surprised that prohibiting rematches got more votes than prohibiting games between teams from the same conference.
From my perspective, I'd rather prohibit games between teams from the same conference because those are games we see reasonably frequently even if not that year. For example, if Ohio State and Oklahoma played then re-matched in the CFP the same year I don't mind that. We don't get to see tOSU/OU very often so I don't mind seeing it twice in a year. On the other hand, if Ohio State missed Wisconsin in a given year I'd rather not see them play Wisconsin in the CFP because tOSU/UW is a reasonably frequent occurrence and I'd rather see games we don't normally see.
I prefer in the first round, if it is feasible, to avoid both rematches and games with teams from the same conference.
A few points:
- Rematches are not preferred if they can be avoided because the idea of a playoff is "settle it on the field", and these are two teams that settled it on the field already. Yes, if they are both good enough to qualify for the playoff there's always a chance a rematch is possible (either in the semifinal or the championship game), but given that teams have 12-13 games a season and there are 130 FBS teams, it's better to avoid rematches unless both teams have passed a few hurdles to get there. This is especially true if its OOC, as if tOSU/OU have played each other (a rare game) once in the season already, you want to see both teams matched up against ANYONE else in the first round.
- One aspect for prohibiting teams from the same conference is similar to the above, that with 12-13 games a season and only 3-4 non-con games, you don't want to unfairly winnow down teams from the same conference by making them play each other in the first round. If one conference is much superior to another it's entirely possible that the 2nd best team from that conference is better than any team from another conference. Conferences still matter, at least to us fans, so pitting conference foes against each other in the first round means a few things. First, the conference is punished in that they're mathematically unable to get more than one team into the semifinals. Second, the conference is rewarded in that they're guaranteed to get at least one team into the semifinals. Avoiding conference games in the first round means that a conference can get 0, 1, or 2 teams [or 3 in some rare years] into the semis, and that it'll be on their own merits rather than eliminating each other.
- Some may have voted as they did on the basis that avoiding conference non-rematches will be a rare scenario anyway, because teams play their own conference mates most often. Many times that you've got two teams from the same conference into the CFP you'd find them already eliminated from playing each other due to the rematch rule. So it might not come up often enough to require a rule.
My 2 cents anyway...
-
@medinabuckeye1 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1547)
Bama did not play in Madison. They wanted it to be neutral, so it was.
-
@medinabuckeye1 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1547)
Bama did not play in Madison. They wanted it to be neutral, so it was.
According to Stassen (http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/opp-opp.pl?start=1869&end=2019&team1=Alabama&team2=Wisconsin) Bama and Wisconsin have played twice:
- A 35-17 Bama win in Arlington, TX on September 5, 2015 and
- A 15-0 Wisconsin win on November 3, 1928.
That second one is listed as "@ Wisconsin". I assume it was in Madison, no?
EDIT: When I said "second", I meant the second one I listed which was the first one played, the 1928 game.
-
I prefer in the first round, if it is feasible, to avoid both rematches and games with teams from the same conference.
A few points:
- Rematches are not preferred if they can be avoided because the idea of a playoff is "settle it on the field", and these are two teams that settled it on the field already. Yes, if they are both good enough to qualify for the playoff there's always a chance a rematch is possible (either in the semifinal or the championship game), but given that teams have 12-13 games a season and there are 130 FBS teams, it's better to avoid rematches unless both teams have passed a few hurdles to get there. This is especially true if its OOC, as if tOSU/OU have played each other (a rare game) once in the season already, you want to see both teams matched up against ANYONE else in the first round.
- One aspect for prohibiting teams from the same conference is similar to the above, that with 12-13 games a season and only 3-4 non-con games, you don't want to unfairly winnow down teams from the same conference by making them play each other in the first round. If one conference is much superior to another it's entirely possible that the 2nd best team from that conference is better than any team from another conference. Conferences still matter, at least to us fans, so pitting conference foes against each other in the first round means a few things. First, the conference is punished in that they're mathematically unable to get more than one team into the semifinals. Second, the conference is rewarded in that they're guaranteed to get at least one team into the semifinals. Avoiding conference games in the first round means that a conference can get 0, 1, or 2 teams [or 3 in some rare years] into the semis, and that it'll be on their own merits rather than eliminating each other.
- Some may have voted as they did on the basis that avoiding conference non-rematches will be a rare scenario anyway, because teams play their own conference mates most often. Many times that you've got two teams from the same conference into the CFP you'd find them already eliminated from playing each other due to the rematch rule. So it might not come up often enough to require a rule.
My 2 cents anyway...
I agree with everything you said and I started out advocating avoiding both rematches and games between teams from the same conference for those reasons.
What altered my perspective somewhat was the point made in this thread that avoiding rematches/conference games could substantially alter the quality of a team's opposition.
The best example I have readily available is to suppose that tOSU had been the #1 seed in 2019 (assume LSU lost a game) and Cincy had been the G5 eight seed (assume they beat Memphis). In that case, Ohio State would have earned that #1 seed and the attendant easier first round game. It would be unfair to say "well they already played Cincy so instead they have to take on a viable, P5 opponent." The #1 seed (whoever it is, not just my school) earned an easy first round game against a G5 pretender, I wouldn't want to take that away from them.
I guess my position now is that rematches and games between teams from the same conference should be avoided in the first round provided that avoiding them doesn't create too much difference in quality of opponent with the definition of "too much" still in discussion.
-
I guess my position now is that rematches and games between teams from the same conference should be avoided in the first round provided that avoiding them doesn't create too much difference in quality of opponent with the definition of "too much" still in discussion.
Yeah, my original vote was to "prohibit" rematches, but that wording is stronger than I currently support for the very reason mentioned.
If it screws up the inherent idea of seeding in the first place by giving opponents significantly weaker or stronger opponents than they should play due to normal seeding, then you go with straight seeding. If you can minimally flip teams to avoid significant difference, then rematches/conference games should be avoided.
-
According to Stassen (http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/opp-opp.pl?start=1869&end=2019&team1=Alabama&team2=Wisconsin) Bama and Wisconsin have played twice:
- A 35-17 Bama win in Arlington, TX on September 5, 2015 and
- A 15-0 Wisconsin win on November 3, 1928.
That second one is listed as "@ Wisconsin". I assume it was in Madison, no?
EDIT: When I said "second", I meant the second one I listed which was the first one played, the 1928 game.
Got it.