Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[aeroclone]

People that were dumb didn't like the BCS based on something that the BCS system couldn't control - there were only two teams. All the BCS hate really got cranked up when Auburn, USC and Oklahoma were all undefeated, and somebody got left out. Basically a bunch of dimwits in sports media were complaining about Auburn getting left out and saying that they didn't need some compooder tellin them who was the best. So basically they thought a committee was going to magically figure out a way for three teams to play in one game.

The best example of how superior a BCS type system is to committees was the the 2007 national championship game. The consensus based on the "eyeball test" was that after Michigan and Ohio State played that they were clearly the two best teams, and by a tiny margin Florida beat out Michigan. Then they went on to completely overwhelm Ohio State. In fact, the only saving grace was some people voting in the polls still believing OSU and Michigan were the best two teams, but that their game they had just played was a defacto playoff/NC game, so a rematch would not be fair to OSU. Ohio State was completely overmatched by Florida.

A BCS system with at least a 4 team playoff would be far and away the best ever system in CFB.

Pick a system to use. Show how the formula works. Then shut the hell up and let the ranking system do its thing.

Agreed. The issue was never the BCS formula, it was the two team format.

I say we go to something like auto bids for P5 winners, then highest rated by BCS formula to fill out the at large. Then you could use the BCS rankings for full seeding. Get rid of the committees and the eye test and the 13th data point nonsense that comes with all the people and politics.

 

[cyfan92]

Is the SEC not concerned about the late night TV inventory? That seems to be a MASSIVE talking point for the B1G and is completely missing from SEC dialogs on expansion.

Also, if I'm the B1G. I only want Stanford and Cal out West. Oregon is a small state with minimal BTN subscriber upside. Maybe Washington but what's the point in adding UW as LA to Seattle is a 3 hour flight. 4 hours from LA to Michigan. Landing Cal and Stanford allows you to dominate the state of California and the SF/Ba area TV markets. You can have late night inventory with Cal, Stanford and UCLA every week plus travel partnerships with USC and UCLA.

 

[timinatoria]

Despite the money, media bias, et al, winning changes perceptions. Exhibit A is Clemson.

Who’s perception changed on Clemson? They have always been a great program. They won the National Title in 1981 and since then have only had 4 losing seasons, plus two more titles! They have won the ACC 20 times and have 6 other conference titles pre-ACC.

Winsipedia - Clemson Tigers football all-time record, wins, and statistics - ACC Conference

Winsipedia - Database and infographics of Clemson Tigers (ACC) football all-time record, national championships, conference championships, bowl games, wins, bowl record, All-Americans, Heisman winners, and NFL Draft picks

www.winsipedia.com

 

[Clonedogg]

There is a twitter follow that still puts out what the BCS model would of put out does anyone know it? I'd like to follow it.

 

[Clonedogg]

There is a twitter follow that still puts out what the BCS model would of put out does anyone know it? I'd like to follow it.

I found #BCSKnowHow that might be the one?

 

[theshadow]

A BCS system with at least a 4 team playoff would be far and away the best ever system in CFB.

There are some games in here that would have been fun -- especially the ones where the gap between 2 and 3 was a small margin.

1998 - #1 Tennessee (12-0) vs. #4 Ohio State (10-1), #2 Florida State (11-1) vs. #3 Kansas State (11-1)

1999 - #1 Florida State (11-0) vs. #4 Alabama (10-2), #2 Virginia Tech (11-0) vs. #3 Nebraska (11-1)

2000 - #1 Oklahoma (12-0) vs. #4 Washington (10-1), #2 Florida State (11-1) vs. #3 Miami (10-1)

2001 - #1 Miami (11-0) vs. #4 Oregon (10-1), #2 Nebraska (11-1) vs. #3 Colorado (10-2)

2002 - #1 Miami (12-0) vs. #4 USC (10-2), #2 Ohio State (13-0) vs. #3 Georgia (12-1)

2003 - #1 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. #4 Michigan (10-2), #2 LSU (12-1) vs. #3 USC (11-1)

2004 - #1 USC (12-0) vs. #4 Texas (10-1), #2 Oklahoma (12-0) vs. #3 Auburn (12-0)

2005 - #1 USC (12-0) vs. #4 Ohio State (9-2), #2 Texas (12-0) vs. #3 Penn State (10-1)

2006 - #1 Ohio State (12-0) vs. #4 LSU (10-2), #2 Florida (12-1) vs. #3 Michigan (11-1)

2007 - #1 Ohio State (11-1) vs. #4 Oklahoma (11-2), #2 LSU (11-2) vs. #3 Virginia Tech (11-2)

2008 - #1 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. #4 Alabama (12-1), #2 Florida (12-1) vs. #3 Texas (11-1)

2009 - #1 Alabama (13-0) vs. #4 TCU (12-0), #2 Texas (13-0) vs. #3 Cincinnati (12-0)

2010 - #1 Auburn (13-0) vs. #4 Stanford (11-1), #2 Oregon (12-0) vs. #3 TCU (12-0)

2011 - #1 LSU (13-0) vs. #4 Stanford (11-1), #2 Alabama (11-1) vs. #3 Oklahoma State (11-1)

2012 - #1 Notre Dame (12-0) vs. #4 Oregon (11-1), #2 Alabama (12-1) vs. #3 Florida (11-1)

2013 - #1 Florida State (13-0) vs. #4 Michigan State (12-1), #2 Auburn (12-1) vs. #3 Alabama (11-1)

 

[cyclones500]

There are some games in here that would have been fun -- especially the ones where the gap between 2 and 3 was a small margin.

1998 - #1 Tennessee (12-0) vs. #4 Ohio State (10-1), #2 Florida State (11-1) vs. #3 Kansas State (11-1)

1999 - #1 Florida State (11-0) vs. #4 Alabama (10-2), #2 Virginia Tech (11-0) vs. #3 Nebraska (11-1)

2000 - #1 Oklahoma (12-0) vs. #4 Washington (10-1), #2 Florida State (11-1) vs. #3 Miami (10-1)

2001 - #1 Miami (11-0) vs. #4 Oregon (10-1), #2 Nebraska (11-1) vs. #3 Colorado (10-2)

2002 - #1 Miami (12-0) vs. #4 USC (10-2), #2 Ohio State (13-0) vs. #3 Georgia (12-1)

2003 - #1 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. #4 Michigan (10-2), #2 LSU (12-1) vs. #3 USC (11-1)

2004 - #1 USC (12-0) vs. #4 Texas (10-1), #2 Oklahoma (12-0) vs. #3 Auburn (12-0)

2005 - #1 USC (12-0) vs. #4 Ohio State (9-2), #2 Texas (12-0) vs. #3 Penn State (10-1)

2006 - #1 Ohio State (12-0) vs. #4 LSU (10-2), #2 Florida (12-1) vs. #3 Michigan (11-1)

2007 - #1 Ohio State (11-1) vs. #4 Oklahoma (11-2), #2 LSU (11-2) vs. #3 Virginia Tech (11-2)

2008 - #1 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. #4 Alabama (12-1), #2 Florida (12-1) vs. #3 Texas (11-1)

2009 - #1 Alabama (13-0) vs. #4 TCU (12-0), #2 Texas (13-0) vs. #3 Cincinnati (12-0)

2010 - #1 Auburn (13-0) vs. #4 Stanford (11-1), #2 Oregon (12-0) vs. #3 TCU (12-0)

2011 - #1 LSU (13-0) vs. #4 Stanford (11-1), #2 Alabama (11-1) vs. #3 Oklahoma State (11-1)

2012 - #1 Notre Dame (12-0) vs. #4 Oregon (11-1), #2 Alabama (12-1) vs. #3 Florida (11-1)

2013 - #1 Florida State (13-0) vs. #4 Michigan State (12-1), #2 Auburn (12-1) vs. #3 Alabama (11-1)

Interesting.

Notable note: 2001 was controversial in "real" BCS, and even with 4 teams, would've been debatable, as far as seeding. NU & CU would rematch at 2 & 3 after CU's blowout in regular season.

Probably should be seeded:

(1) Miami vs. (4) Nebraska
(2) Colorado vs. (3) Oregon

Colorado and Oregon actually won conference titles (which ought to count for something -- another thing that hasn't been solved).

 

[AuH2O]

Who’s perception changed on Clemson? They have always been a great program. They won the National Title in 1981 and since then have only had 4 losing seasons, plus two more titles! They have won the ACC 20 times and have 6 other conference titles pre-ACC.

Winsipedia - Clemson Tigers football all-time record, wins, and statistics - ACC Conference

Winsipedia - Database and infographics of Clemson Tigers (ACC) football all-time record, national championships, conference championships, bowl games, wins, bowl record, All-Americans, Heisman winners, and NFL Draft picks

www.winsipedia.com

Big difference between what they were the 20 years or so prior to Dabo and what they are now. 20 years without a double digit win season. Being a 6 to 9 win team is good. What they’ve done since is had ONLY double digit win seasons.

 

[HouClone]

I prefer the committee approach more than the BCS approach even with their flaws. But I am sure the committee watches tv talking heads too, notably ESPN. We all know that ESPN is SEC biased.

Also, group think has something to do with it. You see that on the HBO boxing telecasts through the years. Jim Lampley, Max Kellerman, the 3rd, and their unofficial HBO judge, Harold Lederman, would pretty much agree on the scoring within a point or two at the end. But their scorecards were sometimes much different than the actual judges and newspaper boxing guys. I see this group think with ESPN. All those guys agree about the same, and if the committee is watching their commentary, they come around to it too at the end.

Fox is likely going to get a piece of the playoffs. That will help diversify opinions. Except we got Fox, CBS, and NBC probably being Big 10 and ESPN/ABC SEC. Ugh. Maybe PBS will get into the CFP discussions, and the committee can watch them.

 

[HFCS]

Agreed. The issue was never the BCS formula, it was the two team format.

I say we go to something like auto bids for P5 winners, then highest rated by BCS formula to fill out the at large. Then you could use the BCS rankings for full seeding. Get rid of the committees and the eye test and the 13th data point nonsense that comes with all the people and politics.

BCS formula was one of the best things CFB ever had. Light years better than a small Big Ten dominated committee that changes rules 180 degrees from week to week and year to year.

If we had a 4, 8 or 12 team playoff with that formula instead of small obviously biased committee it'd be ideal. 16 teams gets to be where the dominant programs can mail it in and still make it, ruins the "every game matters" that makes CFB fun.

The playoff committee is this:
1. Everybody needs to play 13 games
2. Playing 12 games means you're eliminated and not worthy
3. At the same time, Ohio State only needs 6 games when everybody else has 10 or 11, nearly 50% more games and chances to have lost
4. Notre Dame probably doesn't need 13 either

I mean it's beyond dumb and obviously biased.

 

[Clark]

I'd love to bring back the BCS formula, not a fan of automatic qualifiers. I think bringing back the formula makes the need for auto qualifiers moot.

 

[CoKane]

BCS formula was one of the best things CFB ever had. Light years better than a small Big Ten dominated committee that changes rules 180 degrees from week to week and year to year.

If we had a 4, 8 or 12 team playoff with that formula instead of small obviously biased committee it'd be ideal. 16 teams gets to be where the dominant programs can mail it in and still make it, ruins the "every game matters" that makes CFB fun.

I think 16 would still be an every game matters situation. With there being so many teams and still only 12 or 13 games 1 loss can tank someones seeding no matter who it is. Sure, it would be harder for them to miss but Bama, Clemson, and OSU fans already expect them to be in every single year anyhow. Things for those programs wouldn't change at all

 

[HFCS]

I'd love to bring back the BCS formula, not a fan of automatic qualifiers. I think bringing back the formula makes the need for auto qualifiers moot.

Most importantly it eliminates 11 biased dudes sitting in a room making up totally new rules every week.

 

[CoKane]

Most importantly it eliminates 11 biased dudes sitting in a room making up totally new rules every week.

Assuming the coaches poll gets removed for it then 100% agree

 

[Clark]

Assuming the coaches poll gets removed for it then 100% agree

the coaches poll sucks but what do you replace it with?

 

[BCClone]

Most importantly it eliminates 11 biased dudes sitting in a room making up totally new rules every week.

You mean like not playing a championship one year hurts and a few years later it helps?

 

[HFCS]

Assuming the coaches poll gets removed for it then 100% agree

Even coaches poll is a lot more broad and unbiased than a small committee that has 3 Big Ten hall of famers and some awkward athletic director from another conference...or no representation at all of several conferences.

The basketball committee is light years better in its makeup and process than this joke fb committee has been, the committee basically exists to make sure they can change rules to screw a team like TCU or boost a team like Ohio State. The fact that Ohio State was even considered the year they only played 6 games is mind blowing after the same committee said we know very little about a team that only plays 12 games.

 

[HFCS]

You mean like not playing a championship one year hurts and a few years later it helps?

I mean like 12 games is the worst and a total mystery but 6 games is fine and we know everything from 6 games.

When they made 12 vs 13 into some gigantic issue...sorry but the year where some teams only had 6/7 and others had 10/11 should have been very easy to not consider the teams that only played half a season.

Ohio State gets helped in all scenarios, rules change week to week and year to year but their bias is consistent.

 

[VeloClone]

You mean like not playing a championship one year hurts and a few years later it helps?

More like playing 12 games isn't enough but playing 6 is.

 

[CascadeClone]

Who’s perception changed on Clemson? They have always been a great program. They won the National Title in 1981 and since then have only had 4 losing seasons, plus two more titles! They have won the ACC 20 times and have 6 other conference titles pre-ACC.

Winsipedia - Clemson Tigers football all-time record, wins, and statistics - ACC Conference

Winsipedia - Database and infographics of Clemson Tigers (ACC) football all-time record, national championships, conference championships, bowl games, wins, bowl record, All-Americans, Heisman winners, and NFL Draft picks

www.winsipedia.com

Great question, I am glad you asked that question.

1950s to 1980 they averaged 5.5 wins per season (vs 4.6 losses, ie barely over .500)
1980s avg record 9.1 - 2.1 (incl five 10 win seasons and a 12-0 season)
1990-2000s avg record 7 - 5 (good but not great, Bob)
2011-2020 avg record 12 - 2 (totally elite)

So they were very average for a long time, real good in the 1980s, average again for 20 years, but freaking awesome the last decade.

Things CAN change, with the right coach and support. This also says a lot about recency bias.

If Clemson can do it, so can someone else in the B12.