Split National Championship Scenario

[woolybug25]

This is all a completely moot point since no one, I repeat NO ONE, will put any credence into whether the AP or Coaches poll votes someone that didn't win the playoffs as the #1. Literally no one cares once it is settled on the field.

If the scenario happened as the OP outlined, no one would be calling for anyone but FSU to be #1. It's not like in college basketball you see people crying that they beat the champ during the regular season. It's the whole reason you have a playoff.

 

[BGIF]

I honestly have no idea as I'm not much of a basketball fan. I assume they don't? But regardless of how they treat basketball, they've ignored the BCS before.

The AP never ignored the BCS. They were part of the original BCS selection process. When the BCS subsequently mandated that all voters autmotically write in the winner of the BCS CG as their #1 vote selection, the AP balked and walked away.

 

[BGIF]

That's all I'm asking... if you, BGIF, were a voter with your own trophy to give out, would you "honor" the outcome of the playoff? It seems that you would.

I didn't indict any such thing. I simply commented on how things were done in the past.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

FSU wouldn't make the playoffs in this scenario anyway.

 

[Emcee77]

It didn't in the BCS either. If it did Alabama would have 1 national championship. Like I said, it's not perfect, but it beats the sh*t out of every other system.

And the fun thing is that this system will only get better. A situation like this will become much less likely by the time the playoff expands.

I dislike the current 4-team playoff, and wizards's hypo is a great illustration of why. But I tend to agree with the bolded. IMO there is really no good way to determine a champion in college football, but the best way would be to have an 8-team playoff. I think that might get the right mix of teams like FSU in wizards's hypo, perceived powerhouses with a loss or two, and overachieving teams who have come out of nowhere to go undefeated.

For example, in wizards's hypo, undefeated ND is #2 and 2-loss FSU is #4. Let's say #1 is Auburn, who finishes as the undefeated SEC champ. #3 is a one-loss SEC team. (Most people seem to think that two SEC teams will make the playoffs.)

That could potentially leave a lot of good teams without a shot at the title.

What if Ga Tech, currently 5-0, finishes undefeated and wins the ACC, beating Louisville in the ACC title game (which Louisville qualified for by beating FSU)? OUTRAGE would reign at Ga Tech not being included. Same with Louisville, which in this scenario has ONE loss, to Virginia on 9/13, other than the ACC championship game loss (Ga Tech and Louisville do not play this season in the regular season). Why should FSU get a shot at the title but not the champion of its conference or conference runner-up, which beat FSU? Under this current playoff format, I could absolutely see it happening, if the committee decides that FSU was the stronger team despite the one ACC loss and the outlying ND loss.

Arizona is sitting at 5-0 and just beat Oregon. Let's say they go undefeated. Would they get into the playoff over that one-loss SEC team? Over the mighty FSU? What if they didn't? CONSTERNATION would ensue.

Baylor is sitting at 5-0. Let's say they go undefeated. Would they get into the playoff over that one-loss SEC team? Over the mighty FSU? What if they didn't? CONSTERNATION would ensue.

In an 8-team playoff, the teams that realistically deserve a shot at the title are more likely to get it. It will be harder to argue that there are 9 teams that have really played like a national champion than that there are 5.

I still would prefer to see NO playoff so that every game of the college football season has maximum importance, but if we insist on having a playoff, I would prefer an 8-team playoff.

 

[irishfan]

Another plausible scenario could be

1) 13-0 FSU
2) 13-0 Auburn
3) 12-1 Oregon
4) 10-2 Alabama (who lost to Auburn at end of season)

14-0 Auburn loses a tight one to 11-2 Bama in the Championship.

Just to take any sort of ND bias out of the equation.

For 2014, Auburn would surely be #1 seed and FSU would be #2, but this scenario is possible for any year.

In a sense, this championship game would be pointless for Auburn. They would have everything to lose after already proving that they're the #1 team in the country. Or certainly much better than they're national title opponent.

In a completely unrelated matter, I am fascinated to see what would happen in a game between an 11-1 SEC West team and an 11-1 SEC East team. Both would probably be ranked in the Top-4, and the SEC Championship Game could just serve as an elimination game, and would actually be harmful for the SEC to play it.

 

[gkIrish]

Didn't this already kind of happen? LSU beat Alabama in the regular season and then lost in the BCS championship game. This isn't a unique situation related to the playoffs.

 

[EddytoNow]

I know the play-off system is set up to avoid this scenario, but stranger things have happened.

Us old-timers remember a 1993 Kevin McDougal led Irish team that beat Florida State in the head-to-head battle only to lose to Boston College. Florida State and Notre Dame ended up with identical records with Notre Dame winning the head-to-head battle between Florida State and Notre Dame. Under most tie-breaker systems the head-to-head battle would decide the championship, but in that year Florida State was voted National Champions despite having lost to Notre Dame, who finished with an identical won-loss record.

Sometimes winning on the field isn't enough.

 

[Emcee77]

Didn't this already kind of happen? LSU beat Alabama in the regular season and then lost in the BCS championship game. This isn't a unique situation related to the playoffs.

Well, yeah, but wizards's hypo is different because, in the LSU/Bama scenario, both teams finished the season with one loss -- each to the other. wizards presents a scenario where the national champion will have lost to both the national runner-up AND someone else, and the runner-up will have lost ONLY to the champion.

In that scenario, I think the proper result is that the team that wins the playoffs wins the national title, even though it has 2 losses to the runner-up's one ... which is absurd in light of the history and tradition of college football.

 

[gkIrish]

Well, yeah, but wizards's hypo is different because, in the LSU/Bama scenario, both teams finished the season with one loss -- each to the other. wizards presents a scenario where the national champion will have lost to both the national runner-up AND someone else, and the runner-up will have lost ONLY to the champion.

In that scenario, I think the proper result is that the team that wins the playoffs wins the national title, even though it has 2 losses to the runner-up's one ... which is absurd in light of the history and tradition of college football.

Okay but it's possible under the BCS system regardless.

LSU beats Georgia in the regular season and goes 13-0 with a win over Florida in the SEC championship game. Florida beat Georgia in the regular season, lost to Tennessee and FSU. They would get in the SEC champ game due to head-to-head win over Georgia

So Florida goes 9-3, Georgia is 10-2 and LSU is 13-0.

The other conferences beat up on each other so no other team has less than 3 losses.

BCS rankings finish with LSU clearly #1 and Georgia #2. Georgia beats LSU in champ game...

It's literally not unique to the playoffs.

 

[Emcee77]

Okay but it's possible under the BCS system regardless.

LSU beats Georgia in the regular season and goes 13-0 with a win over Florida in the SEC championship game. Florida beat Georgia in the regular season, lost to Tennessee and FSU. They would get in the SEC champ game due to head-to-head win over Georgia

So Florida goes 9-3, Georgia is 10-2 and LSU is 13-0.

The other conferences beat up on each other so no other team has less than 3 losses.

BCS rankings finish with LSU clearly #1 and Georgia #2. Georgia beats LSU in champ game...

It's literally not unique to the playoffs.

Oh true, I think I see your point. I was just saying that wizards's hypo has never happened, nor has anything quite like it, AFAIK. But if your point is just that it could have happened even under the BCS, I don't disagree.

I don't think the playoffs are worse than the BCS, but I don't think they are much better either.

 

[BobbyMac]

This is all a completely moot point since no one, I repeat NO ONE, will put any credence into whether the AP or Coaches poll votes someone that didn't win the playoffs as the #1. Literally no one cares once it is settled on the field.

If the scenario happened as the OP outlined, no one would be calling for anyone but FSU to be #1. It's not like in college basketball you see people crying that they beat the champ during the regular season. It's the whole reason you have a playoff.

Come on... no one has EVER said, "We beat [the current National Champs] back in January so we should be the national champs" when referring to college basketball.

Wizard's suggested premise is too extreme to fathom but he did bring up the fact that the AP voted SC the champs in '03 even though LSU won the BCS National Championship Game so it has happened on that level.

Now that is a 4 team "playoff" there will never be that problem again.

.

 

[BobbyMac]

I dislike the current 4-team playoff, and wizards's hypo is a great illustration of why. But I tend to agree with the bolded. IMO there is really no good way to determine a champion in college football, but the best way would be to have an 8-team playoff. I think that might get the right mix of teams like FSU in wizards's hypo, perceived powerhouses with a loss or two, and overachieving teams who have come out of nowhere to go undefeated....

...In an 8-team playoff, the teams that realistically deserve a shot at the title are more likely to get it. It will be harder to argue that there are 9 teams that have really played like a national champion than that there are 5.

I still would prefer to see NO playoff so that every game of the college football season has maximum importance, but if we insist on having a playoff, I would prefer an 8-team playoff.

Exactly as I said above. And this WILL happen. Change is inevitable. Change where more money is made is really frickin' inevitable.

The current 4 team playoff goes against all forms of playoffs where you have a representative from each conference/division and wild cards. Since there are 5 power conferences, you need to go to the next higher number of teams that form an bracket without byes... and that is obviously 8.

Each conference's champ goes, the highest ranked non power 5 champion and then the two highest ranked "at large / wild card" teams in the country. Bingo.

 

[RyCo1983]

You win the playoff, you win the NC.
It's no longer a Mythical National Championship either. The NCAA will finally award it's first true FBS (DI-A) National Championship, not just recognize an outside group's declared champion.

As NDCrusader put it, we won't EVER have a split champion again.

 

[Emcee77]

Exactly as I said above. And this WILL happen. Change is inevitable. Change where more money is made is really frickin' inevitable.

The current 4 team playoff goes against all forms of playoffs where you have a representative from each conference/division and wild cards. Since there are 5 power conferences, you need to go to the next higher number of teams that form an bracket without byes... and that is obviously 8.

Each conference's champ goes, the highest ranked non power 5 champion and then the two highest ranked "at large / wild card" teams in the country. Bingo.

Yeah, I agree. Nicely put.

 

[ickythump1225]

You win the playoff, you win the NC.
It's no longer a Mythical National Championship either. The NCAA will finally award it's first true FBS (DI-A) National Championship, not just recognize an outside group's declared champion.

As NDCrusader put it, we won't EVER have a split champion again.

I'll always take any college football national title with a grain of salt and it will always be the MNC to me.

 

[woolybug25]

Come on... no one has EVER said, "We beat [the current National Champs] back in January so we should be the national champs" when referring to college basketball.

Wizard's suggested premise is too extreme to fathom but he did bring up the fact that the AP voted SC the champs in '03 even though LSU won the BCS National Championship Game so it has happened on that level.

Now that is a 4 team "playoff" there will never be that problem again.

.

What are you talking about? The original post clearly outlines a scenario where we beat FSU in the regular season, then they beat us in the playoffs. Then questions what if that splits the title.

You literally acted like my comment was crazy, then clearly agree with me in your last comment.

Ok then...

 

[Sherm Sticky]

This scenario reminds me of something similar...circa 1993?

 

[wizards8507]

This is all a completely moot point since no one, I repeat NO ONE, will put any credence into whether the AP or Coaches poll votes someone that didn't win the playoffs as the #1. Literally no one cares once it is settled on the field.

According to the poll on this thread, about 40% of people disagree with you. It's not the majority but it's sure more than "no one, I repeat NO ONE." If team A crushes team B, then they play again and team B squeaks by team A, I don't think you can argue against Team A with the stance that "it was settled on the field." ON THE FIELD, Team A was more impressive, regardless of whether Team B's victory came in an arbitrarily defined postseason.

If the scenario happened as the OP outlined, no one would be calling for anyone but FSU to be #1. It's not like in college basketball you see people crying that they beat the champ during the regular season. It's the whole reason you have a playoff.

How is that any different than USC in 2003? Your statement "it's the whole reason you have a playoff" is NO different than "it's the whole reason you have a CHAMPIONSHIP GAME."

 

[woolybug25]

According to the poll on this thread, about 40% of people disagree with you. It's not the majority but it's sure more than "no one, I repeat NO ONE." If team A crushes team B, then they play again and team B squeaks by team A, I don't think you can argue against Team A with the stance that "it was settled on the field." ON THE FIELD, Team A was more impressive, regardless of whether Team B's victory came in an arbitrarily defined postseason.

Ha.. no... even I voted Notre Dame and I think the argument is irrelevant. Almost a "farq it" reaction where I just wanted to push the ND button. You're not so disillusioned that you convinced yourself that your poll was accurate, were you?

Do the ESPN folks have you thinking their polls represent the truth too?

How is that any different than USC in 2003? Your statement "it's the whole reason you have a playoff" is NO different than "it's the whole reason you have a CHAMPIONSHIP GAME."

Again... no.... two teams were voted to play in 2003. There were 3 teams (LSU, OU and USC) that had legitimate arguments to be in the game. Only two got to "prove it on the field". Completely different scenario than what you presented. Where in your example, the teams enter into a playoff and earn the right to play eachother in a title game. In 2003, there would have been no issue with this year's system. All three teams would have made the playoffs and they would have settled it on the field. What can I clarify further for you?

Again... outside post season polls will slowly die into irrelevance in this new system. Why would anyone care what an outside poll thinks when the teams actually got to play? This isn't 1992.

 

[BobbyMac]

What are you talking about? The original post clearly outlines a scenario where we beat FSU in the regular season, then they beat us in the playoffs. Then questions what if that splits the title.

You literally acted like my comment was crazy, then clearly agree with me in your last comment.

Ok then...

1. The reason for my last response: I questioned you for saying, "It's not like in college basketball you see people crying that they beat the champ during the regular season" which I bolded in my quote and responded to. THAT I disagreed with you about. I've been around the game for 30+ years and I've never heard anyone sober say that. That's what I'm talking about. You're comment was crazy.

2. I said Wizard's scenario was too extreme to fathom. FSU will never get in with 2 losses (IMO of course). I doubt ANY team in the 4 team playoff era ever gets in with 1 HOME loss. (IMO of course) Yes, I understand that it is technically possible but so is winning the Powerball. (In case you are an absolute math geek, I am not saying they are the same odds) That's what I'm talking about.

3. I voted for FSU. You win a playoff, you win the title. Screw the AP and anybody that doesn't understand that. That's what I'm talking about.

4. Dude, you need to focus and quit being so crusty.

5. Apology accepted

.

 

[woolybug25]

1. The reason for my last response: I questioned you for saying, "It's not like in college basketball you see people crying that they beat the champ during the regular season" which I bolded in my quote and responded to. THAT I disagreed with you about. I've been around the game for 30+ years and I've never heard anyone sober say that. That's what I'm talking about. You're comment was crazy.

Reading comprehension, homie. You're saying the same thing as me. I used the college basketball example of how people DON'T question the champion because of their tournament. I wasn't saying that they do.

2. I said Wizard's scenario was too extreme to fathom. FSU will never get in with 2 losses (IMO of course). I doubt ANY team in the 4 team playoff era ever gets in with 1 HOME loss. (IMO of course) Yes, I understand that it is technically possible but so is winning the Powerball. (In case you are an absolute math geek, I am not saying they are the same odds) That's what I'm talking about.

I agree. Not sure what the issue is here.

3. I voted for FSU. You win a playoff, you win the title. Screw the AP and anybody that doesn't understand that. That's what I'm talking about.

I voted for ND as a joke, which I clearly said. The rest... me too! lol

4. Dude, you need to focus and quit being so crusty.

I am focused. Even gave a bunch of distinct, clear examples of my point. Not my fault you misread my posts.

5. Apology accepted

Just so we're clear, and it can't be misread, I do not apologize. There is nothing for me to apologize for. If anything, you should apologize to me for misreading my posts and attacking me for a view you share.

 

[BobbyMac]

Reading comprehension, homie. You're saying the same thing as me. I used the college basketball example of how people DON'T question the champion because of their tournament. I wasn't saying that they do.

Your poorly written sentence threw me off.

Your bad, homie.

.

 

[woolybug25]

Your poorly written sentence threw me off.

Your bad, homie.

.

Blow me.

Is that written well enough?

 

[BobbyMac]

Blow me.

Is that written well enough?

That's what makes the internet such a special place for you Wooly, you get to fllex with no penalty.

Steer clear and have a nice day lil homie.

.

 

[woolybug25]

That's what makes the internet such a special place for you Wooly, you get to fllex with no penalty.

Steer clear and have a nice day lil homie.

.

You do realize that you came after me, right? I'm not even mad, I find it funny how much your misreading of my posts is frustrating you. I literally never disagreed with you, then you got embarrassed because you look like an idiot.

I guess it's my bad that I made a clear post, not even directed at you, which you misread and attacked me for.... haha.

Again... beat it, dude.