A plus-one playoff alternative

[Delmonico]

This guy always comes up with some thought-provoking takes on things, whether you agree with him or not.



http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/the-bcs-final-four-a-new-plus-one-system/

 

[FrogJAM]

the main problem I still will have is that the BCS rankings are still a joke.

in the paraphrased words of Bill James, they are a half-assed attempt at statistical analysis.

I like his idea of the Final Four, and his analysis (though it erks me) is truthful in the sense of HOW to get things done. I still don't like WHY we're having to do it that way.

But fix the Rankings. Because you're still getting a lot of issues with how a 2nd place Pac-10 team that is probably overrated (opinion alert, I know) is in over a Big 10 champion.



You're also going to have to do something with conference championship games. That's an extra game and an extra chance to move up in the polls. Everyone needs to have one. Or they don't.

Though it seems everyone is moving that way (except for the Big Whorns conference).


I think, at the very least, this system would sufice.

 

[HoustonHornedFrog]

I think, at the very least, this system would sufice.

I couldn't disagree more. I can see how some Frog fans might look at this as acceptable because if you went back and implemented it last year and this, TCU would have been in the 4 team playoff. Of course there is no guarantee that if the system had been in place we wouldn't have been passed by not only Cincinnati but also Florida in the final BCS rankings and end up 5 instead of 4. There is also no guarantee that we would have ended up no. 3 or 4 this year, since the BCS controls how the BCS rankings are determined and they have tweaked the formula several times to try and maintain their advantage. But even assuming that we would have reached the Final Four this year, all you have to do is look at the key points he makes to see that this system is at best only very marginally better than what the BCS is now, and in many ways it is worse.

Just look at these major requirements:

"Thus, more money in and of itself isn’t as important to the AQ conferences as ensuring that they just have a whole lot more of it compared to the non-AQ conferences. ...
However, from the AQ conference perspective, real incentives are actual or virtually guaranteed spots and revenue advantages that aren’t subject to on-the-field fluctuations from year-to-year.

The system proposed is not acceptable to me because it isn't, and won't ever be, about finding who is the best team on the field. IMO it is worse than the old bowl system, because at least that system didn't pretend to be about crowning a national championship. The proposed system also has the disadvantage of making fans of the Final Four teams travel twice to see the semis and the finals.

 

[TCUkanoot]

Intresting read. Thanks for sharing.

The thing I dislike about the idea is the major bowls double-hosting (I don't have a better idea though). It makes sense, sure, but it kinda sucks for the fans. Personally, I wouldn't be able to take a trip to Miami then turn around and go to Pasadena 2 weeks later. So which one do I pick? Do I go to the guaranteed game, or save up for the potential championship?
I just need to win the lottery.

 

[ReedFrawg]

I couldn't disagree more. I can see how some Frog fans might look at this as acceptable because if you went back and implemented it last year and this, TCU would have been in the 4 team playoff. Of course there is no guarantee that if the system had been in place we wouldn't have been passed by not only Cincinnati but also Florida in the final BCS rankings and end up 5 instead of 4. There is also no guarantee that we would have ended up no. 3 or 4 this year, since the BCS controls how the BCS rankings are determined and they have tweaked the formula several times to try and maintain their advantage. But even assuming that we would have reached the Final Four this year, all you have to do is look at the key points he makes to see that this system is at best only very marginally better than what the BCS is now, and in many ways it is worse.

Just look at these major requirements:

"Thus, more money in and of itself isn't as important to the AQ conferences as ensuring that they just have a whole lot more of it compared to the non-AQ conferences. ...
However, from the AQ conference perspective, real incentives are actual or virtually guaranteed spots and revenue advantages that aren't subject to on-the-field fluctuations from year-to-year.

The system proposed is not acceptable to me because it isn't, and won't ever be, about finding who is the best team on the field. IMO it is worse than the old bowl system, because at least that system didn't pretend to be about crowning a national championship. The proposed system also has the disadvantage of making fans of the Final Four teams travel twice to see the semis and the finals.

Well said...this is a bad idea.

 

[FrogJAM]

I couldn't disagree more. I can see how some Frog fans might look at this as acceptable because if you went back and implemented it last year and this, TCU would have been in the 4 team playoff. Of course there is no guarantee that if the system had been in place we wouldn't have been passed by not only Cincinnati but also Florida in the final BCS rankings and end up 5 instead of 4. There is also no guarantee that we would have ended up no. 3 or 4 this year, since the BCS controls how the BCS rankings are determined and they have tweaked the formula several times to try and maintain their advantage. But even assuming that we would have reached the Final Four this year, all you have to do is look at the key points he makes to see that this system is at best only very marginally better than what the BCS is now, and in many ways it is worse.

Just look at these major requirements:

"Thus, more money in and of itself isn't as important to the AQ conferences as ensuring that they just have a whole lot more of it compared to the non-AQ conferences. ...
However, from the AQ conference perspective, real incentives are actual or virtually guaranteed spots and revenue advantages that aren't subject to on-the-field fluctuations from year-to-year.

The system proposed is not acceptable to me because it isn't, and won't ever be, about finding who is the best team on the field. IMO it is worse than the old bowl system, because at least that system didn't pretend to be about crowning a national championship. The proposed system also has the disadvantage of making fans of the Final Four teams travel twice to see the semis and the finals.

1) I addressed the whole BCS ranking thing to start with. Please, if you're going to try and tear my argument apart, use all the information provided as opposed to one sentence. Gracias.

though I'll give you this ... I should have said AT BEST. not at the least. My apologies there.


2) You're looking at this in the exact manner in which the author begs you not to. You are correct this system isn't about fairness. But like the author stated, it's about getting the ball rolling. You're not going to get a 16-team playoff over night. You're going to have to back your way into it.

In this instance, suffice doesn't mean this the best course of action that makes perfect sense.

It means that it could be sufficient in at least getting the heads of the BCS beast to budge. It's obtaining an outcome that CAN be obtained. We're basically trying to trick them into a playoff system.
Unfortunately, most options people provide aren't even obtainable. This one can at least be done, and would suffice for the time being as a playoff. Until a better option is eventually developed.

3) And as far as the travel goes, that's a terrible argument. It would happen that way in practically every playoff circumstance.

So, unless your argument is against playoffs in general (for which this would be a good little argument to include), then this kinda falls flat.

 

[HoustonHornedFrog]

I couldn't disagree more. I can see how some Frog fans might look at this as acceptable because if you went back and implemented it last year and this, TCU would have been in the 4 team playoff. Of course there is no guarantee that if the system had been in place we wouldn't have been passed by not only Cincinnati but also Florida in the final BCS rankings and end up 5 instead of 4. There is also no guarantee that we would have ended up no. 3 or 4 this year, since the BCS controls how the BCS rankings are determined and they have tweaked the formula several times to try and maintain their advantage. But even assuming that we would have reached the Final Four this year, all you have to do is look at the key points he makes to see that this system is at best only very marginally better than what the BCS is now, and in many ways it is worse.

Just look at these major requirements:

"Thus, more money in and of itself isn't as important to the AQ conferences as ensuring that they just have a whole lot more of it compared to the non-AQ conferences. ...
However, from the AQ conference perspective, real incentives are actual or virtually guaranteed spots and revenue advantages that aren't subject to on-the-field fluctuations from year-to-year.

The system proposed is not acceptable to me because it isn't, and won't ever be, about finding who is the best team on the field. IMO it is worse than the old bowl system, because at least that system didn't pretend to be about crowning a national championship. The proposed system also has the disadvantage of making fans of the Final Four teams travel twice to see the semis and the finals.

1) I addressed the whole BCS ranking thing to start with. Please, if you're going to try and tear my argument apart, use all the information provided as opposed to one sentence. Gracias.

though I'll give you this ... I should have said AT BEST. not at the least. My apologies there.


2) You're looking at this in the exact manner in which the author begs you not to. You are correct this system isn't about fairness. But like the author stated, it's about getting the ball rolling. You're not going to get a 16-team playoff over night. You're going to have to back your way into it.

In this instance, suffice doesn't mean this the best course of action that makes perfect sense.

It means that it could be sufficient in at least getting the heads of the BCS beast to budge. It's obtaining an outcome that CAN be obtained. We're basically trying to trick them into a playoff system.
Unfortunately, most options people provide aren't even obtainable. This one can at least be done, and would suffice for the time being as a playoff. Until a better option is eventually developed.

3) And as far as the travel goes, that's a terrible argument. It would happen that way in practically every playoff circumstance.

So, unless your argument is against playoffs in general (for which this would be a good little argument to include), then this kinda falls flat.

1) I was not trying to tear your argument apart, I was expressing my opinion that this was not an acceptable system to me. Yes you did address the fact that the BCS rankings are a bad way to decide who fits into the top 4 spots, but the author's system isn't going to change that part of the system. In fact, it is clear from the whole article that the power to control how access is gained would have to stay with the current AQ conferences for any change to occur. When you closed your post with "I think, at the very least, this system would sufice." I took it to mean that dispite the issues with the BCS rankings, the author's proposed system would be acceptable. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your statement, but in any case I wasn't trying to tear apart your argument. However, now that you have tried to poke holes in mine, I will respond.

2) I get the author's point that this might be easier to sell to the BCS cartel, but I don't agree that this is a way to back into a real playoff that gives anything like fair access. In fact, I think it, like many of the other changes that have been made in order to try and keep the opponents in Congress away, the plus 1 would only serve to delay the real change that needs to happen to get where we need to be which is a 16 team playoff. The way to make it happen is to put something in place that is so much more profitable that the fact that the AQ conferences lose some control is overcome.

3) The travel issue is huge but it is doesn't happen the same way in the playoff scenarios which I think are supportable. There have been several discussions here about playoffs which involve 16 teams, where the first three rounds are played at the home field of the team with the higher ranking. In this scenario, the fans for the visiting team would have to travel, just like any other game of the year, but that would be a very limited number because you would only get a small visitors' allotment. The home teams fans, which would make up the vast majority of the crowd would not be traveling. Only the NC game would be in a neutral site which means there is only one time that you are asking the schools' fans to travel by the tens of thousands in order to fill the stadium for the game like you do for bowl games. In the one plus scenario you are having the two fan bases of the teams that go to the championship to fill their quota of tickets twice if you use the current bowl system. Right now there are thousands of tickets to BCS bowls that the schools are having to eat the costs for because they are forced to take a certain number. While there would be a larger number of fans who are likely to shell out the big bucks to travel to a playoff game, it is going to be tough to sell 20k tickets for the semis in Pasedena and another 20K for the championship in Miami.