“Best two should play for the title” is stupid

Donate To GopherHole
S

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
24,326
Reaction score
13,220
Points
113
Look at the big 12
Assume TCU wins out.
TCU is going to play a 3 or 4 loss team they already beat.

Let’s say it’s 12-0 TCU vs 9-3 k state
TCU already beat K state
If TCU wins k state picks up a 4th loss. They’re 19th right now, they hurt themselves by falling out of the top 12 in a year that they are a 2 loss team (this year that doesn’t matter).

9-3 k state beats TCU.
TCU falls out of the playoff but k state doesn’t jump enough to get into NY6 let alone playoff

Divisional opponents play championship game so that if there can’t be two unbeatens in the same conference (like 2003 Iowa vs 2003 Ohio state)


all the “top 2” thing doesn’t is guarantee one of your top 2 an extra loss.
For instance, if SEC did top 2, it would get TN another loss and knock them out of playoff.
If big ten did it would make Ohio state Michigan loser pick up another loss.

There is no upside to the top 2 in the conference playing a second time
 

Some guy said:
Look at the big 12
Assume TCU wins out.
TCU is going to play a 3 or 4 loss team they already beat.

Let’s say it’s 12-0 TCU vs 9-3 k state
TCU already beat K state
If TCU wins k state picks up a 4th loss. They’re 19th right now, they hurt themselves by falling out of the top 12 in a year that they are a 2 loss team (this year that doesn’t matter).

9-3 k state beats TCU.
TCU falls out of the playoff but k state doesn’t jump enough to get into NY6 let alone playoff

Divisional opponents play championship game so that if there can’t be two unbeatens in the same conference (like 2003 Iowa vs 2003 Ohio state)


all the “top 2” thing doesn’t is guarantee one of your top 2 an extra loss.
For instance, if SEC did top 2, it would get TN another loss and knock them out of playoff.
If big ten did it would make Ohio state Michigan loser pick up another loss.

There is no upside to the top 2 in the conference playing a second time
Click to expand...
You're thinking about this way too schematically.


It's to get a better game for TV numbers and $$$. That's the reason. TV asked for it.
 


Some guy said:
I didn’t say it was a bad financial decision. I said it was straight up stupid
Click to expand...
I wasn't saying that it isn't stupid.

I'm saying that they (TV) don't care about that. Is all I'm saying. Schematically, like you've laid out, it is indeed not the best strategy.
 

Gophers_4life said:
I wasn't saying that it isn't stupid.

I'm saying that they (TV) don't care about that. Is all I'm saying. Schematically, like you've laid out, it is indeed not the best strategy.
Click to expand...
Which is why I think perhaps there will be a return to legends and leaders scheduling.
USC in leaders
UCLA in legends (locked game)

Maryland in legends
Rutgers in leaders (locked game)

Everyone has a cross group lock
Schedule group A - group B
Minnesota - Wisconsin
Michigan - Ohio state
iowa - Nebraska
UCLA - USC
Purdue - Indiana
Michigan state - penn state
Maryland - Rutgers
Northwestern - Illinois


Schedule it like those two divisions plus a locked game for each.
Top 2 go. Basically would funnel like divisions but allow the loser of the OSU/MI game to jump the west champ this year.

But here is the thing.
If the winner of the west beat the winner of OSU/MI it would make the conference more money.

Penn state will be around 10th
Ohio state Michigan winner and loser both going NY6
If the west winner wins big ten title game, they go automatic rose bowl.

They get an extra big money payout of the west wins.
And the big ten probably gets a team in the playoff regardless
 


It won't be stupid once the BCS playoff expands to 12. Top 2, winner will probably be playing for a Bye. If after the title, loser only has 2 losses, they still will likely get a bid. With 3 losses, still would at least be in contention.
 

Some guy said:
Which is why I think perhaps there will be a return to legends and leaders scheduling.
USC in leaders
UCLA in legends (locked game)

Maryland in legends
Rutgers in leaders (locked game)

Everyone has a cross group lock
Schedule group A - group B
Minnesota - Wisconsin
Michigan - Ohio state
iowa - Nebraska
UCLA - USC
Purdue - Indiana
Michigan state - penn state
Maryland - Rutgers
Northwestern - Illinois


Schedule it like those two divisions plus a locked game for each.
Top 2 go. Basically would funnel like divisions but allow the loser of the OSU/MI game to jump the west champ this year.

But here is the thing.
If the winner of the west beat the winner of OSU/MI it would make the conference more money.

Penn state will be around 10th
Ohio state Michigan winner and loser both going NY6
If the west winner wins big ten title game, they go automatic rose bowl.

They get an extra big money payout of the west wins.
And the big ten probably gets a team in the playoff regardless
Click to expand...
For scheduling purposes only, perhaps.

I disagree that the "winner" of any groups will get a berth to Indy.

EDIT: I see now where you said top 2 go, I read it poorly
 
Last edited:

Also, no matter what, sorry but they're not going to make either California school play Rutgers or Maryland every year.

There is already too much agonizing over "student wellbeing" with all the travel this is forcing upon them.
 

Some guy said:
Penn state will be around 10th
Ohio state Michigan winner and loser both going NY6
If the west winner wins big ten title game, they go automatic rose bowl.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the Rose Bowl (in non-semi final years) is allowed to take a team outside the top 12? Just because they are Conf Champions?

I could easily be wrong on that and should actually look if that has happened since 2014. Guessing not, and similar for Sugar Bowl with SEC.

Orange Bowl on the other hand with ACC, maybe.
 



Some guy said:
Look at the big 12
Assume TCU wins out.
TCU is going to play a 3 or 4 loss team they already beat.

Let’s say it’s 12-0 TCU vs 9-3 k state
TCU already beat K state
If TCU wins k state picks up a 4th loss. They’re 19th right now, they hurt themselves by falling out of the top 12 in a year that they are a 2 loss team (this year that doesn’t matter).

9-3 k state beats TCU.
TCU falls out of the playoff but k state doesn’t jump enough to get into NY6 let alone playoff

Divisional opponents play championship game so that if there can’t be two unbeatens in the same conference (like 2003 Iowa vs 2003 Ohio state)


all the “top 2” thing doesn’t is guarantee one of your top 2 an extra loss.
For instance, if SEC did top 2, it would get TN another loss and knock them out of playoff.
If big ten did it would make Ohio state Michigan loser pick up another loss.

There is no upside to the top 2 in the conference playing a second time
Click to expand...
i dunno if you can use the B12 as an example given they already play a round robin format. The "best 2" argument is more generally used in places with divisions with unbalanced scheduling. Once it expands to 12, the conferences will want that more and more to protect their top team as best as they can and try to sneak a second team in
 


upnorthkid said:
i dunno if you can use the B12 as an example given they already play a round robin format. The "best 2" argument is more generally used in places with divisions with unbalanced scheduling. Once it expands to 12, the conferences will want that more and more to protect their top team as best as they can and try to sneak a second team in
Click to expand...
I just did use the big 12 as an example

The unbalanced schedule presents an even bigger issue as you could have 3-4 teams tie for second place with no natural tiebreakers
So then you just let the committee choose the highest ranked team

Dumb
 

Some guy said:
Look at the big 12
Assume TCU wins out.
TCU is going to play a 3 or 4 loss team they already beat.

Let’s say it’s 12-0 TCU vs 9-3 k state
TCU already beat K state
If TCU wins k state picks up a 4th loss. They’re 19th right now, they hurt themselves by falling out of the top 12 in a year that they are a 2 loss team (this year that doesn’t matter).

9-3 k state beats TCU.
TCU falls out of the playoff but k state doesn’t jump enough to get into NY6 let alone playoff

Divisional opponents play championship game so that if there can’t be two unbeatens in the same conference (like 2003 Iowa vs 2003 Ohio state)


all the “top 2” thing doesn’t is guarantee one of your top 2 an extra loss.
For instance, if SEC did top 2, it would get TN another loss and knock them out of playoff.
If big ten did it would make Ohio state Michigan loser pick up another loss.

There is no upside to the top 2 in the conference playing a second time.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I never understood the benefit to the conference of this model...besides the obvious...$$.
 



AZGopher8 said:
Agreed. I never understood the benefit to the conference of this model...besides the obvious...$$.
Click to expand...
It not only doesn’t provide a benefit, it provides a negative return

If Ohio state and Michigan played back to back weeks:
The same team winning twice likely eliminated the possibility of two in the playoff
Splitting creates an opportunity where they both miss in some years
 

Gophers_4life said:
I don't believe the Rose Bowl (in non-semi final years) is allowed to take a team outside the top 12? Just because they are Conf Champions?

I could easily be wrong on that and should actually look if that has happened since 2014. Guessing not, and similar for Sugar Bowl with SEC.

Orange Bowl on the other hand with ACC, maybe.
Click to expand...
Big 10 Champion is guaranteed a NY6 Bowl bid, the Rose Bowl when not the playoff, regardless of where the rank.
 

Some guy said:
It not only doesn’t provide a benefit, it provides a negative return

If Ohio state and Michigan played back to back weeks:
The same team winning twice likely eliminated the possibility of two in the playoff
Splitting creates an opportunity where they both miss in some years
Click to expand...
Not with a 12 team playoff. Whoever wins the Championship will get in. Loser it would depend. 2 or fewer losses overall, probably still in. 3 losses, only maybe.
 

Ope3 said:
Not with a 12 team playoff. Whoever wins the Championship will get in. Loser it would depend. 2 or fewer losses overall, probably still in. 3 losses, only maybe.
Click to expand...
With a 12 team playoff even more ridiculous because even more likely to hurt you. You don’t have two teams in the top 4 very often.
Very often you have two in the top 12
 

Some guy said:
With a 12 team playoff even more ridiculous because even more likely to hurt you. You don’t have two teams in the top 4 very often.
Very often you have two in the top 12
Click to expand...
If the Top 4 are all Conference Champions as proposed, I disagree. Big 10 Champion highly likely to be one of those that get a bye.

Keep in mind all the others defeated in their Conference Title games also get tagged with an L.

Only 5 Power Conferences, plus a Group of 5, really hard to see a Big 10 team not get a Bye/Top 4 seeding. As it stands all the other Conferences will be playing under the Top 2 rule, except perhaps the SEC.
 

Ope3 said:
If the Top 4 are all Conference Champions as proposed, I disagree. Big 10 Champion highly likely to be one of those that get a bye.

Keep in mind all the others defeated in their Conference Title games also get tagged with an L.

Only 5 Power Conferences, plus a Group of 5, really hard to see a Big 10 team not get a Bye/Top 4 seeding. As it stands all the other Conferences will be playing under the Top 2 rule, except perhaps the SEC.
Click to expand...
Just because everyone else is putting themselves at a disadvantage doesn’t mean the big ten should too.
Everyone is so smart that they’re going to do it smarter than the SEC

Lol
 

Some guy said:
Just because everyone else is putting themselves at a disadvantage doesn’t mean the big ten should too.
Everyone is so smart that they’re going to do it smarter than the SEC

Lol
Click to expand...
Glad you are amused, but I didn't say they should do it just to be like all the others. I pointed out because it would be highly unlikely to not get a Top 4 seed/Conference Champions only under the Top 2 format as you were stating.

If the BCS used that this year, and somehow the West Champion won in Indy, conversely they most likely would not be a Top 4 seed.

We've covered this several times before. Without knowing what the exact BCS Playoff format is, it's foolish to make a declarative statement on what is better Top 2 or Division winners. Most BCS proposals though, Top 2 makes the most sense to me.
 

Ope3 said:
Glad you are amused, but I didn't say they should do it just to be like all the others. I pointed out because it would be highly unlikely to not get a Top 4 seed/Conference Champions only under the Top 2 format as you were stating.

If the BCS used that this year, and somehow the West Champion won in Indy, conversely they most likely would not be a Top 4 seed.

We've covered this several times before. Without knowing what the exact BCS Playoff format is, it's foolish to make a declarative statement on what is better Top 2 or Division winners. Most BCS proposals though, Top 2 makes the most sense to me.
Click to expand...
It’s never foolish to call something stupid stupid

I guess I just disagree with you
 

Some guy said:
I just did use the big 12 as an example

The unbalanced schedule presents an even bigger issue as you could have 3-4 teams tie for second place with no natural tiebreakers
So then you just let the committee choose the highest ranked team

Dumb
Click to expand...
yes, this is exactly why they want it in place. To try game the system. To them it isn't about equality amongst the teams, it's about making money. And you hope at the end of the day as the fan that that means the games are great. To people outside the conference, they'd much rather see an OSU-Mich rematch in the B10 title (and so would the B10 powers at be as it's going to give a chance for OSU/Mich to split and both make it in, whereas the loser now is probably going to get bounced for take your pick of USC, TCU, Tenn, LSU, Bama, Clemson. If you just want one team in from your conference, then yes I agree try make it as easy as possible, but that isn't the game the conferences are going for, who feel they're automatically going to get one in once the playoff expands and now are going to jockey to try get as many bids as possible and being able to manipulate your title game to your advantage is going to be beneficial there.

Do I think that's bad for the sport? Yes.
Is it stupid if the goal is making money? No.
 


Ope3 said:
Big 10 Champion is guaranteed a NY6 Bowl bid, the Rose Bowl when not the playoff, regardless of where the rank.
Click to expand...
You are probably right, and the same would go for the PAC where I think it would be more possible.

Looking at the history since implementation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Six#History_and_schedule

Last year was the lowest CFP ranked team to ever play in the Rose Bowl (Game) for a non-semi final, which was Utah at #11 with 3 losses.


So, I think it would take an incredible upset from something like a 4-5 loss team being the Big Ten champion and then not getting ranked in the top 12 of the CFP rankings, but for them to then still pull that team into the Rose Bowl anyway.


Looking at the Orange Bowl, they had #24 ranked Virginia in 2020 and #13 ranked North Carolina in 2021, so it would probably be the same for the Rose, just very improbable for it to happen.
 

Gophers_4life said:
You are probably right, and the same would go for the PAC where I think it would be more possible.

Looking at the history since implementation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Six#History_and_schedule

Last year was the lowest CFP ranked team to ever play in the Rose Bowl (Game) for a non-semi final, which was Utah at #11 with 3 losses.


So, I think it would take an incredible upset from something like a 4-5 loss team being the Big Ten champion and then not getting ranked in the top 12 of the CFP rankings, but for them to then still pull that team into the Rose Bowl anyway.


Looking at the Orange Bowl, they had #24 ranked Virginia in 2020 and #13 ranked North Carolina in 2021, so it would probably be the same for the Rose, just very improbable for it to happen.
Click to expand...

It would be the situation though if whomever win the West springs the improbable upset in Indy. The West winner will have no fewer than 3 overall losses. Iowa and Purdue already have 4.

Emphasis on "improbable upset in Indy."
 

Some guy said:
It’s never foolish to call something stupid stupid

I guess I just disagree with you
Click to expand...
What I find stupid, is making the judgement before all the variables are determined

- What's the regular season scheduling format? Will 9 games even remain status quo?
- What's the BCS Playoff format?
- Not just the format but how do teams qualify, auto bids and selection criteria for at largest?

Maybe the selection committee formula would reward a team more for just for making a Title game, rather than penalizing a loss.

Tell me those major details, then it can be decided if Top 2 in the Title Game is stupid, smart or neither. At that point, I may even agree with you.

Also, correction on my part. I previously said SEC is probably the only one to stick with Divisions. So far I think the ACC is sticking with it too. I wouldn't be surprised if either/both follow the lead of the Big 12, Pac 12 and presumably the Big 10 beyond 2023. Or not.
 

Ope3 said:
What I find stupid, is making the judgement before all the variables are determined

- What's the regular season scheduling format? Will 9 games even remain status quo?
- What's the BCS Playoff format?
- Not just the format but how do teams qualify, auto bids and selection criteria for at largest?

Maybe the selection committee formula would reward a team more for just for making a Title game, rather than penalizing a loss.

Tell me those major details, then it can be decided if Top 2 in the Title Game is stupid, smart or neither. At that point, I may even agree with you.

Also, correction on my part. I previously said SEC is probably the only one to stick with Divisions. So far I think the ACC is sticking with it too. I wouldn't be surprised if either/both follow the lead of the Big 12, Pac 12 and presumably the Big 10 beyond 2023. Or not.
Click to expand...
You are correct
Especially since they are likely to build a schedule so dumb that there will be 4-5 teams tied with no natural tiebreakers

So they may as well just take the two biggest helmet schools and match them up the maximize dollars
 

Ope3 said:
It would be the situation though if whomever win the West springs the improbable upset in Indy. The West winner will have no fewer than 3 overall losses. Iowa and Purdue already have 4.

Emphasis on "improbable upset in Indy."
Click to expand...
Right, and that would have to be what it was. And so far since 2014 we've never had a lower West team upset a team like Ohio St in the championship.

Ohio St already throttled Iowa this year. The conference definitely doesn't want to see that rematch.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Right, and that would have to be what it was. And so far since 2014 we've never had a lower West team upset a team like Ohio St in the championship.

Ohio St already throttled Iowa this year. The conference definitely doesn't want to see that rematch.
Click to expand...
Michigan would do the same. I'm not ready to crown the Buckeyes.
 

TCU is not better than Georgia, Bama, LSU, Tennessee, OSU, or Michigan
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom