Football Play Off = Big 10 Demise?

[HFCS]

Did you read the article?

I'm not talking about whether a playoff vs the old system is a win or lose for the Big Ten, in that case I agree with the article.

I'm saying that a selection committee is a win for the Big Ten compared to BCS poll/computer rankings. A selection committee is more likely to be similar to the coaches and AP poll results. The BCS was only 66% polls. The other 33% basically implied the Big Ten was overrated most years. That's a win, they got rid of the 33% computer component.

I agree the big picture straight top 4 is not a win for them. It's a win for the SEC, a push for the Big 12 and a loss for the Big Ten, Pac 12, ACC and Big East. For the MWC and CUSA it's actually a win because they now have a 4 team playoff instead of a 2, they were never guaranteed any special status to begin with.

[Bobber]

I'm not talking about whether a playoff vs the old system is a win or lose for the Big Ten, in that case I agree with the article.

I'm saying that a selection committee is a win for the Big Ten compared to BCS poll/computer rankings. A selection committee is more likely to be similar to the coaches and AP poll results. The BCS was only 66% polls. The other 33% basically implied the Big Ten was overrated most years. That's a win, they got rid of the 33% computer component.

I agree the big picture straight top 4 is not a win for them. It's a win for the SEC, a push for the Big 12 and a loss for the Big Ten, Pac 12, ACC and Big East. For the MWC and CUSA it's actually a win because they now have a 4 team playoff instead of a 2, they were never guaranteed any special status to begin with.

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds fair.

[RayShimley]

Looking through the end of season (pre bowl game) rankings I come up with the following:

2011: LSU, Bama, Ok St, Stanford/Oregon

2010: this year was a cluster!#$%. The first three were easy: Auburn, Oregon, TCU. Then you have 3 11-1 teams (Stanford, Wisconsin, Ohio St)

2009: Another tough year to pick final 4: Bama, Texas, Boise St, TCU, and Cincinatti all undefeated. Then you have a one loss Florida team as well.

2008: Undefeated Utah and Boise St. along with 7 1 loss teams (OU, Florida, Texas, Bama, USC, Texas Tech, PSU)

2007: weird year. Undefeat Hawaii (weak schedule though) and 1 loss Ohio State. Then you had a host of two loss teams (LSU, Va Tech, OU, Georgia, USC, Mizzou)

2006: Top 3 fairly straight forward: OSU, Florida, Michigan. Then it's between 10-2 LSU vs 10-2 USC

2005: Easy choice for top 2 here with undefeated Texas and USC. Tehn it's between 10-1 PSU, 9-2 OSU, 10-1 Oregon, 9-2 Notre Dame, 10-2 Georgia.

2004: USC, OU, and Auburn are all undefeated and clear cut choices. Then it comes down to a 10-1 Texas, 10-1 California, and undefeated Utah and boise st teams.

2003: LSU, OU, and USC all have one loss and are locks for the playoff. Then it comes down to two loss Michigan, Ohio St, Texas, FSU, Maimi, and Tennessee teams.

2002: Ohio St and Miami are the two locks with Georgia being a near lock. Then it comes down to an 11-1 Iowa vs a 10-2 USC

2001: Miami and Nebraska are near locks. Then it's 1 loss Oregon along with 2 loss Colorado, Florida, UT, Texas for the final two spots.

2000: Undefeated OU followed by 5 1 loss teams (FSU, Miami, Wash, Va Tech, Ore. St)

1999: FSU, Va Tech, and Nebraska are easy choices. Tough choice for the last spot between 9-2 Bama, 10-1 KSU, 9-2 Wisconsin, 9-2 Tennessee

1998: Undefeated Tennessee is only easy choice. They are followed by 1 loss KSU, FSU, OSU, Wisconsin teams and 2 loss A&M and Florida

There were no years where the top 4 were clearly seperated and very few where there was a definative top 3. People going back and just looking at the top 4 of the BCS standings are being silly.

For instance last year Stanford was the #4 team in the BCS standings but they were smoked by Oregon and Oregon was the conference champion. No way Stanford gets in ahead of them.

Nice work. This basically shows there will continue to be people crying at the end of the year, regardless of a play-off.

I just think not having a CCG is going to be very advantageous for the B12 in this setup in that we are less likely to undermine our own conference's chances of getting a bid by handing the presumed champion an untimely defeat at the end of the season.

[JohnnyFive]

Looking through the end of season (pre bowl game) rankings I come up with the following:

2011: LSU, Bama, Ok St, Stanford/Oregon

2010: this year was a cluster!#$%. The first three were easy: Auburn, Oregon, TCU. Then you have 3 11-1 teams (Stanford, Wisconsin, Ohio St)

2009: Another tough year to pick final 4: Bama, Texas, Boise St, TCU, and Cincinatti all undefeated. Then you have a one loss Florida team as well.

2008: Undefeated Utah and Boise St. along with 7 1 loss teams (OU, Florida, Texas, Bama, USC, Texas Tech, PSU)

2007: weird year. Undefeat Hawaii (weak schedule though) and 1 loss Ohio State. Then you had a host of two loss teams (LSU, Va Tech, OU, Georgia, USC, Mizzou)

2006: Top 3 fairly straight forward: OSU, Florida, Michigan. Then it's between 10-2 LSU vs 10-2 USC

2005: Easy choice for top 2 here with undefeated Texas and USC. Tehn it's between 10-1 PSU, 9-2 OSU, 10-1 Oregon, 9-2 Notre Dame, 10-2 Georgia.

2004: USC, OU, and Auburn are all undefeated and clear cut choices. Then it comes down to a 10-1 Texas, 10-1 California, and undefeated Utah and boise st teams.

2003: LSU, OU, and USC all have one loss and are locks for the playoff. Then it comes down to two loss Michigan, Ohio St, Texas, FSU, Maimi, and Tennessee teams.

2002: Ohio St and Miami are the two locks with Georgia being a near lock. Then it comes down to an 11-1 Iowa vs a 10-2 USC

2001: Miami and Nebraska are near locks. Then it's 1 loss Oregon along with 2 loss Colorado, Florida, UT, Texas for the final two spots.

2000: Undefeated OU followed by 5 1 loss teams (FSU, Miami, Wash, Va Tech, Ore. St)

1999: FSU, Va Tech, and Nebraska are easy choices. Tough choice for the last spot between 9-2 Bama, 10-1 KSU, 9-2 Wisconsin, 9-2 Tennessee

1998: Undefeated Tennessee is only easy choice. They are followed by 1 loss KSU, FSU, OSU, Wisconsin teams and 2 loss A&M and Florida

And who was that loss to again? I forget. I can't remember.

[Hawkeye11en1]

ISU is in such a good conference. They should be very proud.

[Clark]

Nice work. This basically shows there will continue to be people crying at the end of the year, regardless of a play-off.

I just think not having a CCG is going to be very advantageous for the B12 in this setup in that we are less likely to undermine our own conference's chances of getting a bid by handing the presumed champion an untimely defeat at the end of the season.

Before looking at those rankings I would never have guessed that that many seasons would be difficult to even get a consensus for 3 teams.

I agree that no conference championship game helps the Big 12 most years.

My gut feeling is if it's close the committee will select a conference champion over a team that finished second in it's conference.

For example in 2006, I think a 10-2 USC gets in ahead of a 10-2 LSU.

[theshadow]

People going back and just looking at the top 4 of the BCS standings are being silly.

Except that there was actually an SOS component as part of the formula from 1998-2003.

1999: Alabama lost to Tennessee but won the SEC Championship (beating BCS #10 Florida) and had the #1 SOS. Bama has the better case for #4.

2000: Florida State (ACC champ, #2 SOS), Miami (Big East champ, #3 SOS) and Washington (Pac-10 co-champ, #6 SOS) seem like easy choices for spots #2-4 behind Oklahoma.

2001: Colorado beat Nebraska (BCS #2) by 26, then beat Texas (BCS #7) in the Big 12 title game. CU probably should have been #2 instead of Nebraska.

2002: When looking at USC (10-2) and Iowa (11-1) for the #4 spot, you'd see that USC had the #1 SOS (including a win over a top-15 BCS team) and Iowa's was #49.

[Clark]

Except that there was actually an SOS component as part of the formula from 1998-2003.

1999: Alabama lost to Tennessee but won the SEC Championship (beating BCS #10 Florida) and had the #1 SOS. Bama has the better case for #4.

2000: Florida State (ACC champ, #2 SOS), Miami (Big East champ, #3 SOS) and Washington (Pac-10 co-champ, #6 SOS) seem like easy choices for spots #2-4 behind Oklahoma.

2001: Colorado beat Nebraska (BCS #2) by 26, then beat Texas (BCS #7) in the Big 12 title game. CU probably should have been #2 instead of Nebraska.

2002: When looking at USC (10-2) and Iowa (11-1) for the #4 spot, you'd see that USC had the #1 SOS (including a win over a top-15 BCS team) and Iowa's was #49.

You kind of made my point for me with your 2001 analysis. Even when using a SOS component, the BCS rankings still had Nebraska ahead of a team they lost to. Trying to predict what a committee would do in these situations is a fool's errand. All I know is, it's not as simple as picking the top 4 teams in the rankings.

[CLONECONES]

so is playing nonconf games in october going to affect SOS

[ManofCyience]

The Big Ten will be hurt in relation to the Big XII and the SEC. However, they are still the third best conference and will have teams playing in the playoff at least every other year. Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Michigan State consistently have teams that can compete for a top 4.

The real loser is the ACC. They have only had one team since the BCS started that would have qualified and that was 2007 Virginia Tech....who lost to Kansas in the Orange Bowl. The new system will expose how weak the ACC is.

Also, the Big East should be left for dead in a ditch. Without WV, they have absolutely no shot at a top 4 team.

[Cyclone27inQC]

I'm not talking about whether a playoff vs the old system is a win or lose for the Big Ten, in that case I agree with the article.

I'm saying that a selection committee is a win for the Big Ten compared to BCS poll/computer rankings. A selection committee is more likely to be similar to the coaches and AP poll results. The BCS was only 66% polls. The other 33% basically implied the Big Ten was overrated most years. That's a win, they got rid of the 33% computer component.

I agree the big picture straight top 4 is not a win for them. It's a win for the SEC, a push for the Big 12 and a loss for the Big Ten, Pac 12, ACC and Big East. For the MWC and CUSA it's actually a win because they now have a 4 team playoff instead of a 2, they were never guaranteed any special status to begin with.

Good write up and thinking dealing with SOS. Playing in the big 10 with the likes of NW, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minn & Pur. just got ugly for the teams needing a high ranking for being in the playoffs.

[royhobbs09]

Ran across this really interesting article.

Sharp: College football's playoff system will hurt Big Ten ? USATODAY.com

Basically says Big 10 and Notre Dame lose on this deal and Big 12 and SEC win. Funny they don't even mention the Pac 10 or anybody else?

B1G and ND will be fine. They might make less proportionately on the playoff than they did in the old BCS at the expense of the SEC and Big 12, but they will be making more money overall. Plus, they are going to be the biggest winners on the TV money front, since they are the last ones up for renegotiation and will be able to take full advantage of the major run up in contract values. Each B1G team will probably be raking in $30 million when they sign their new TV deal, and I wouldn't be surprised if ND is around that amount as well.

[DistrictCyclone]

The Big Ten is in some serious trouble.

Define "trouble". Despite producing just one undisputed national champion in the past 25 years, the Big Ten still rakes in a **** ton of revenue and its teams regularly pack 80-100k into stadiums each weekend.

As much as we'd like to think contending for championships is the be all, end all of college football, it's not.

[WalkingCY]

Big 10 sucks.

[MeltdownMike]

It's all going downhill. There is nothing the Big10 can do!