Conference Performance in Historical 12 Team Playoff

[RonBurgundy]

The Athletic had an interesting article in which they went back all 24 years for the BCS and CFP era and predicted the 12 teams that would have made the playoffs based on the new rules and the final BCS/CFP rankings.

Not going to paste a link since I know it is a pay site and many others hate it, but wanted to share some tidbits from the article.

They totaled up the conference selections (conference affiliation at the time of selection). Not surprisingly, the SEC was the wide leader. The interesting aspect was the B1G and Big 12 were very close in total selections, and far outpaced the Pac12 and ACC. Of course, losing OU and UT will hurt us, but not more than Pac12 losing USC and UCLA.

SEC - 68 selections
B1G - 52 selections
B12 - 50 selections
P12 - 39 selections
ACC - 29 selections

Final tidbits: ISU was in one time, Iowa 4 times. SEC had one year that 5 of 12 would have been SEC schools. 2 years with 4 selections. B1G had two years of 4 selections, Big 12 one.

Only eleven P5 schools would not have ever been selected in the last 24 years and the Big 12 had none of them. The B1G had four of the eleven (Minny, NW, Purdue, and Rutgers). Further evidence the B1G West is a lame division with 3 teams.

 

[SCNCY]

If that's the case, having that kind of variety in the CFP would make it more interesting. I am sure if the games were actually played, it would end up being your usual suspects, but the first round would be fun and exciting to watch.

 

[BCClone]

The Athletic had an interesting article in which they went back all 24 years for the BCS and CFP era and predicted the 12 teams that would have made the playoffs based on the new rules and the final BCS/CFP rankings.

Not going to paste a link since I know it is a pay site and many others hate it, but wanted to share some tidbits from the article.

They totaled up the conference selections (conference affiliation at the time of selection). Not surprisingly, the SEC was the wide leader. The interesting aspect was the B1G and Big 12 were very close in total selections, and far outpaced the Pac12 and ACC. Of course, losing OU and UT will hurt us, but not more than Pac12 losing USC and UCLA.

SEC - 68 selections
B1G - 52 selections
B12 - 50 selections
P12 - 39 selections
ACC - 29 selections

Final tidbits: ISU was in one time, Iowa 4 times. SEC had one year that 5 of 12 would have been SEC schools. 2 years with 4 selections. B1G had two years of 4 selections, Big 12 one.

Only eleven P5 schools would not have ever been selected in the last 24 years and the Big 12 had none of them. The B1G had four of the eleven (Minny, NW, Purdue, and Rutgers). Further evidence the B1G West is a lame division with 3 teams.

Big ten going to 1 division will cut the amount of times that Iowa probably makes it I would guess.

 

[3GenClone]

Big ten going to 1 division will cut the amount of times that Iowa probably makes it I would guess.

Big 10, and all conferences, will likely eliminate the Conference Championship Game. A 12-team playoff would almost guarantee that the Big 10 and SEC get 3 teams in (Division Leaders and 1 at large), and the PAC, Big12, ACC each have one auto-bid. That leaves 3 "at-large" bids for the PAC/Big 12/ACC from the "lesser" division, the best G5, or the next deserving Big 10/SEC team.

Keeping the division format helps the Big 10 West or whatever the new division is called.

 

[SCNCY]

Big 10, and all conferences, will likely eliminate the Conference Championship Game. A 12-team playoff would almost guarantee that the Big 10 and SEC get 3 teams in (Division Leaders and 1 at large), and the PAC, Big12, ACC each have one auto-bid. That leaves 3 "at-large" bids for the PAC/Big 12/ACC from the "lesser" division, the best G5, or the next deserving Big 10/SEC team.

Keeping the division format helps the Big 10 West or whatever the new division is called.

That game is a big money maker for all the conferences. It usually breaks down to a couple million per a school each year just for one game.

 

[BCClone]

Big 10, and all conferences, will likely eliminate the Conference Championship Game. A 12-team playoff would almost guarantee that the Big 10 and SEC get 3 teams in (Division Leaders and 1 at large), and the PAC, Big12, ACC each have one auto-bid. That leaves 3 "at-large" bids for the PAC/Big 12/ACC from the "lesser" division, the best G5, or the next deserving Big 10/SEC team.

Keeping the division format helps the Big 10 West or whatever the new division is called.

The conferences have said they are looking to do away with them. The east isn't happy that the west has an easy route to the ccg. It would also put the Cali schools in the west and that would not make OSU, and Michigan happy. They do away with them and the conferences can stack it so their blue bloods get the best scheduling to get them there. Right now OSU/PSU/Mich having to round robin each other hurts that. Through in MSU and four of the 5 top teams are in the east, Wisky has the easier route. Big ten will want their top three to be the top three on a regular basis.

On your three at large bids, you forgot ND. They will be in that area, so you are saying essentially there will only be 2 at larges. If you study the past data, your theory is far from holding water.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Kind of bad that Kansas would have made a playoff but never MN/NW/Purdue/Buttgers.

 

[RonBurgundy]

Kind of bad that Kansas would have made a playoff but never MN/NW/Purdue/Buttgers.

The Fightin' Mangino's were a pretty salty squad.

To follow up on the other comment about diversity being a good result of the expansion, 66 teams would have made the CFP at least once in the last 24 years. So yes, probably the same squads routinely make the last four, but it would be nice to see some variety, and occasional upsets.

 

[Macloney]

The Fightin' Mangino's were a pretty salty squad.

To follow up on the other comment about diversity being a good result of the expansion, 66 teams would have made the CFP at least once in the last 24 years. So yes, probably the same squads routinely make the last four, but it would be nice to see some variety, and occasional upsets.

Rod, you are so insightful and really come across as an expert football fan. Thanks for posting!

 

[VeloClone]

The Fightin' Mangino's were a pretty salty squad.

To follow up on the other comment about diversity being a good result of the expansion, 66 teams would have made the CFP at least once in the last 24 years. So yes, probably the same squads routinely make the last four, but it would be nice to see some variety, and occasional upsets.

Yeah, a Orange Bowl berth is nothing to squawk at. They were a last game of the season loss (to #3 Misery) from playing in the conference championship game.

 

[Sigmapolis]

The Fightin' Mangino's were a pretty salty squad.

To follow up on the other comment about diversity being a good result of the expansion, 66 teams would have made the CFP at least once in the last 24 years. So yes, probably the same squads routinely make the last four, but it would be nice to see some variety, and occasional upsets.

It would ebb and flow even at the heights of the sport. The announcers last night during the Clemson and Georgia Tech game made the (true) point that Clemson was historically a good program and won a national title in the early 1980s but outside of that was pretty average. Then Tommy Bowden resigned, they gave the interim job to a WR coach named Dabo, and now they're ranked as one of the blue bloods of the sport, they're easily the best program in the ACC, and they've won two national championships as an elite program.

I know Mangino burnt the house down around him in Ames, but his coaching for the 2007 Kansas team that went 12-1 and won the Orange Bowl was pretty impressive. That team had two elite defensive backs in Aqib Talib and Darrell Stuckey who had long careers in the NFL but, outside of that, not much.

Just for my own amusement the 2007 playoff with the proposed format would have been...

BYES
#1 Ohio State (Big Ten champion)
#2 LSU (SEC champion)
#3 Virginia Tech (ACC champion)
#4 Oklahoma (Big 12 champion)

FIRST ROUND GAMES

#9 West Virginia (Big East champion)
@ Lawrence, KS
#8 Kansas (Big 12 at-large)

#11 Arizona State (Pac-10 at-large)
@ Athens, GA
#5 Georgia (SEC at-large)

#12 Florida (SEC at-large)
@ Columbia, MO
#6 Missouri (Big 12 at-large)

#10 Hawaii (WAC at-large)
@ Los Angeles, CA
#7 Southern California (Pac-10 champion)

Crazy that Memorial Stadium, complete with the track, would have hosted a playoff game. I would assume at least one of those games (Florida and Georgia) would have been "flexed" somehow in the bracket to avoid a repeat or conference matchup the same way they do in the NCAA tournament.

 

[cymonw1980]

Big 10, and all conferences, will likely eliminate the Conference Championship Game. A 12-team playoff would almost guarantee that the Big 10 and SEC get 3 teams in (Division Leaders and 1 at large), and the PAC, Big12, ACC each have one auto-bid. That leaves 3 "at-large" bids for the PAC/Big 12/ACC from the "lesser" division, the best G5, or the next deserving Big 10/SEC team.

Keeping the division format helps the Big 10 West or whatever the new division is called.

I don't think they would get rid of the championship game... they need to crown a champ to get one of the 6 conf champ bids. Also, there are no "auto bids" for the P5. It is simply the highest ranked Conference Champions. Now, I don't think b10/sec with their new configuration will ever be outside the top 6. But notably, in 2020, the PAC would not have made a 12 team playoff in the proposed format. In 2020, there were 3 G5 champs ranked ahead of Oregon, the pac champ, and two of them still would not be in a "P5" conference after all of the current adjustments to conf membership is completed - San Jose St (MWC), Coastal Carolina (Sun Belt).

So, top 6 conference champs get in. That only allows for 6 at large bids. Even if both CCG participants from sec, b10 get in and one more at large, that still leaves 2 other at large bids.

It's worth noting that the new B12 has fared well in the last 2 years... We would have had 3 participants last year and 2 in 2020.

 

[HFCS]

That game is a big money maker for all the conferences. It usually breaks down to a couple million per a school each year just for one game.

If losing a CCG knocks a team out of first six at large they were never national championship worthy to begin with.

The truly dominant teams could trip up there and still be a top 6 non champ easily.

 

[HFCS]

I don't think they would get rid of the championship game... they need to crown a champ to get one of the 6 conf champ bids. Also, there are no "auto bids" for the P5. It is simply the highest ranked Conference Champions. Now, I don't think b10/sec with their new configuration will ever be outside the top 6. But notably, in 2020, the PAC would not have made a 12 team playoff in the proposed format. In 2020, there were 3 G5 champs ranked ahead of Oregon, the pac champ, and two of them still would not be in a "P5" conference after all of the current adjustments to conf membership is completed - San Jose St (MWC), Coastal Carolina (Sun Belt).

So, top 6 conference champs get in. That only allows for 6 at large bids. Even if both CCG participants from sec, b10 get in and one more at large, that still leaves 2 other at large bids.

It's worth noting that the new B12 has fared well in the last 2 years... We would have had 3 participants last year and 2 in 2020.

We have no way of knowing how the small biased committee will rank teams.

What we know so far:
6>13>12

The rules are whatever the **** the big ten wants for those 6 spots.

The guaranteed auto bid is the only thing a non big ten team should consider as access. The SEC actually deserves a lot of those bids and don’t need to change rules weekly or annually to get them.

 

[VeloClone]

We have no way of knowing how the small biased committee will rank teams.

What we know so far:
6>13>12

The rules are whatever the **** the big ten wants for those 6 spots.

The guaranteed auto bid is the only thing a non big ten team should consider as access. The SEC actually deserves a lot of those bids and don’t need to change rules weekly or annually to get them.

Until they man up and stop playing an extra cupcake every season then some of their at large bids will still be in question. Think about Oklahoma State if they had gotten to play a non-con cupcake in their second to last game in 2011 like the SEC teams do...

 

[cymonw1980]

The BCS polling process was different from the current Playoff Committee Rankings. So, it's an imperfect compare (but best we have).

I ran the numbers for 2014-2021 (first 8 years of the playoff era). This would give us a ranking process aligned with the expected rankings going forward.

There are two ways to look at this.

First, if we use the new rules (6 highest rated conf champs + 6 highest rated non-champs) and the conference configurations as they were - for example, in 2016, OU would have gone from the B12 as a conf champ and Alabama would also go as a Conf Champ and FSU would have been the final at large bid.

The second way to look at this is to try to adjust the bids based on new conf. Of course, we have no idea how OU would have fared in the SEC in 2016, so this is imperfect. But we also know that OU and Bama cannot both go to the playoff as "conf champs". So, if OU goes as an at large bid, it means a 6th Conf Champ needs to be selected. The key here, is that the B12 runner up in each year is at least the 5th highest ranked among conf champs. So, it is unlikely that the B12 would have been left out in 2016... instead OSU (the runner up) who finished #12 in the CFP rankings, would have gone as the 5th highest ranked champ and FSU (#11 in the CFP) would not have received an at large bid.

Using 2016 as an example

6 Conference Champs would have been:
1 Seed: Alabama (#1)
2 Seed: Clemson (#2)
3 Seed: Washington (#4)
4 Seed: Penn State (#5)
11 Seed: Oklahoma State (#12) < Replaces OU as B12 Champ
12 Seed: Western Michigan (#15)

6 at large bids would have been:
5 Seed: Ohio State (#3)
6 Seed: Michigan (#6)
7 Seed: Oklahoma (#7) < Now an "At Large" vs. B12 Champ
8 Seed: Wisconsin (#8)
9 Seed: USC (#9)
10 Seed: Colorado (#10)

Florida State would have been the 11 Seed if OU goes as the B12 Conf Champ and OSU would not have been in the playoff.

The key here, is that in 2016, it is unlikely that the "New B12" would have been left out... our champ (OSU) would have been ranked ahead of the G5. But if we ignore this, it looks like we would have no representative in 2016.


Running the numbers using both methods for past 8 years:

First, without adjusting for conference champs (meaning OU is considered a Conf Champ and FSU goes as an at large; but counting OU as an "SEC" bid in 2016):



Next, I adjusted each year's participants similar to the 2016 example. Meaning OU was considered an At Large Bid in 2016 (not a conf champ) and I added OSU as the B12 Champ and dropped FSU as an at large bid:



B12 remains unchanged but catches up with B10, passes PAC, and increases gap with ACC.

Adjustments made each year:

2015: +1 AAC, -1 B12
Houston is considered a "B12" member and would not go as the 6th highest ranked "champ" so the New B12 loses this bid in 2015 and it goes to Temple (AAC runner up) instead.

2016: +1 B12, -1 ACC
As noted above, OSU would go as the 5th highest ranked Conf Champ representing the B12, FSU would be eliminated as the lowest ranked At Large, OU would be considered an At Large from the SEC.

2017: +1 AAC, -1 ACC
UCF was the highest ranked New B12 member and is considered the B12 Champ for this year (replaces OU). This means we need a new Conf Champ participant. Highest ranked G5 is American runner up Memphis, so they are added and replace Miami the lowest ranked at large. Also, USC is no longer the PAC Champ and so Stanford (PAC runner up) replaces Washington (PAC at large).

2018: +1 MWC, -1 B10
UCF is the highest ranked New B12 member and considered the B12 Champ (replaces OU). But this means we only have 5 Conf Champs. Fresno State was the next highest ranked champ. They replace Penn State (lowest ranked at large bid).

2020: +1 MWC, -1 B10
San Jose State would be the 6th highest ranked conf Champ and Cincinnati would be the B12 Champ (replacing OU). The lowest at large would be eliminated removing Indiana.

2021: +1 Sun Belt, -1 B10
Again, given the G5 champ Cincinnati is now in the "B12" the G5 would have needed a representative. Highest G5 Champ would have been Louisiana. Lowest at large was Michigan State, so they would be removed from the playoff.

 

[cymonw1980]

We have no way of knowing how the small biased committee will rank teams.

What we know so far:
6>13>12

The rules are whatever the **** the big ten wants for those 6 spots.

The guaranteed auto bid is the only thing a non big ten team should consider as access. The SEC actually deserves a lot of those bids and don’t need to change rules weekly or annually to get them.

sure... I think the key unknown is how our new conf (-OU/Tx, +BYU/Cin/Hou/UCF) will be perceived. For example, if we don't play OU, how will our perceived strength of schedule change?

I think it is worth noting that the adds have been pretty good relative to the subtractions in terms of CFB Playoff Rankings. So, I don't think it will drop off dramatically. But worth monitoring.

Looking at the CFB rankings, the B12 (new membership) would have received 1.6 Bids per year and never had a year without at least 1 bid. The b10 had 2.8 / year, SEC 3.5. But the B12 was 3rd.

Also, when you adjust for relative size (12 teams vs. 16 teams in the b10, SEC), we avg 0.14 Bids Per Conf Team the last 8 yrs. The b10 was only slightly better at 0.17.

Note these numbers account for OU/Tx move out and USC/UCLA adds to the b10. Yes, I would expect over half the bids to go to the b10, sec. But there will be at large opportunities. The SEC/b10 have 32 of the 69 "P5 + ND" teams...

 

[HFCS]

sure... I think the key unknown is how our new conf (-OU/Tx, +BYU/Cin/Hou/UCF) will be perceived. For example, if we don't play OU, how will our perceived strength of schedule change?

I think it is worth noting that the adds have been pretty good relative to the subtractions in terms of CFB Playoff Rankings. So, I don't think it will drop off dramatically. But worth monitoring.

Looking at the CFB rankings, the B12 (new membership) would have received 1.6 Bids per year and never had a year without at least 1 bid. The b10 had 2.8 / year, SEC 3.5. But the B12 was 3rd.

Also, when you adjust for relative size (12 teams vs. 16 teams in the b10, SEC), we avg 0.14 Bids Per Conf Team the last 8 yrs. The b10 was only slightly better at 0.17.

Note these numbers account for OU/Tx move out and USC/UCLA adds to the b10. Yes, I would expect over half the bids to go to the b10, sec. But there will be at large opportunities. The SEC/b10 have 32 of the 69 "P5 + ND" teams...

Agree the #s matter...and for years everybody has ignored the Big 12 does as much or more than other leagues with just 10 teams. Especially in basketball where recently the Big 12 achieves more with just 10 than the second best conference does with 15.

I'm sure a non B10/SEC team will get an at large here or there...but the TCU snub should have been enough for everyone to know why we have a small committee of B10 homers instead of something like the old BCS formula.

 

[HFCS]

Until they man up and stop playing an extra cupcake every season then some of their at large bids will still be in question. Think about Oklahoma State if they had gotten to play a non-con cupcake in their second to last game in 2011 like the SEC teams do...

I think it's legitimately the best conference nearly every year for a few decades with a few exceptions where the Big 12 was.

That gets confused with "toughest schedules" though. Schedule 4 cupcakes and get a favorable SEC schedule and suddenly not that hard to get to 7 wins even in such an elite conference.

The way they move a virtual bye week to the end of the season is brilliant deception and strategy. Alabama played Georgia Southern the same night ISU knocked OK State out of the NC game.

 

[20eyes]

sure... I think the key unknown is how our new conf (-OU/Tx, +BYU/Cin/Hou/UCF) will be perceived. For example, if we don't play OU, how will our perceived strength of schedule change?

It'll be perceived as "less than". It doesn't matter that UC, BYU, and UH are all ranked. In this system ND & UT are preseason over-ranked every f*cking always.