Dialogue on Oklahoma

[Cane from the Bend]

So, the result is a Florida team that loses to Michigan and Florida State and has one SEC loss, but wins SEC. A three loss Florida team in the four team playoff?

This has always been my knock on the playoff. Of course, this was when the debate had been that all conference champs should have an auto bid.

Remembering the Big East was still around at the time. In that scenario, you could have had a 7-5 Big East Champion find themselves in the playoffs, over a 12-1 SEC team, who lost their conference championship game.

But, the current model would not see this happen ... and it is still not favorable to what we had.

.
.
.

[collegefbfan-8898]

I agree. Just thinking as a committee member. A 4 team playoff. Two teams from same conference in that playoff. Exactly created how you mentioned. Yeah the national champ has to win their conference. Then a member is presented with an 8-4 Big 12 champ. Man, I wouldn't know what to think as a committee member. Factoring in head to head, SOS, conference strength, etc. So glad I get to sit back and watch.

[billybud]

BYU in 1984 started folks thinking about a different way to crown a champ...

BYU played only one bowl team in season (Air Force). They played a 6-5 team in the bowl and scored the winning TD in the final minute...and were awarded a NC on their wins...

Meanwhile...Washington went 11-1 and beat #2 Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl...Washington had the one loss but was the better team and should have been awarded the NC.

[donovan]

And Washington is still complaining about it

[Cane from the Bend]

BYU in 1984 started folks thinking about a different way to crown a champ...

BYU played only one bowl team in season (Air Force). They played a 6-5 team in the bowl and scored the winning TD in the final minute...and were awarded a NC on their wins...

Meanwhile...Washington went 11-1 and beat #2 Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl...Washington had the one loss but was the better team and should have been awarded the NC.

Part of Washington's argument was: Washington even dominated BYU's bowl opponent, Michigan, in Ann Arbor. The final score was 20-11, but Michigan scored a touchdown and a 2-pointer in the closing seconds to make it look closer than it was. BYU, on the other hand, had to rally for 2 4th quarter touchdowns to beat Michigan on a neutral field, scoring the winner with under 2 minutes left.

That, and the only reason BYU was propelled in the rankings early that year, was when they beat [wrongfully] preseason ranked #3 Pitt in their opening game.

BYU was unranked heading into the season, having lost several key contributors from the previous year's 11-1 team. And they were starting Robbie Bosco, who was starting for the first time as a junior.

BYU started off the season by travelling way out to the East Coast to play the 3rd ranked team in the country.

It was the first college football game televised on ESPN. BYU wasn't supposed to have a chance in this game. Yet they pulled off the road upset 24-17. They shot up the polls and got on everyone's national radar.

The Pittsburgh Panthers certainly did not live up to their hype, however. As there season would expose a flawed ranking system. Pitt went on to finish the season: Record: 3-7-1 (86th of 110)

Not a strong showing for the Cougars, as this was their only significant opponent.

In comparison, we can look back to see how the BCS restructured the National Rankings, by stacking things up against the 1984 Cougars.

Utah beat every opponent by more than a touchdown in 2004, including a 35-7 Fiesta Bowl win over #25 Pittsburgh. Then Utah 2008 beat four ranked opponents, 2 of them in the top 10 (one was 12-2 Alabama, whom they beat 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl). Also beating rated opponents and performing far better than BYU '84 were Texas Christian 2010 and Boise State 2006 & 2009.

Now, one might say, of course that was the case during the BCS era ... Okay then, let's look at a similar circumstance that happened prior to the 1984 BYU championship.

Arizona State, like BYU '84, was a WAC team in 1975, and went 12-0 while beating 2 ranked opponents (one of which was 10-2 Nebraska, a top ten team), and they only had 2 close wins over unrated opponents. But 11-1 Oklahoma was voted #1 despite a 23-3 loss to 7-5 Kansas. ASU also went 11-0 in 1970 with a better performance than BYU '84, and that just got them a 6th place finish in the final AP poll.

---

That all being said; BYU `84 did finish undefeated, in a season that saw 7 different teams ranked #1 during the year, and having a final record of 13-0, while Washington finished 11-1 [albeit, that single loss came at the hands of #10 USC].

---

Essentially, saying BYU did not deserve the National Championship is all subjective. They did everything they were asked to do, outside-of beating their opponents by large margins of victory.

Should Notre Dame have played for the National Title versus Alabama, when we all knew Oregon was the better team than the Irish..?

Should Alabama have been allowed to play for the National Title in a rematch versus LSU, after having lost to the Tigers in the regular season.?.

Should USC have played for a National Title some years back, when Rich had started lobbying for them, when the Trojans had 3 losses, even though those losses were early, and at that point, Southern Cal may have been the most in season improved team, and very well could have been considered to be playing the best football of anyone at the time?..

All subjective ... some more obvious than others.

But, what people tend to forget, is that the BCS was not designated to find the "Two Best Teams" in the country. That became a media talking point, which was a misnomer. It was used to stir up controversy. But it was a deliberate tactic to confuse the common viewer.

From Day 1, the sole purpose of the BCS was to find a clear & concise #1 and #2 team, so that we would have a National Championship game, featuring the top two teams in the Nation. That was it ... fairness need not apply, and check itself @ the door.

.

With this current 4 team tournament, we again have subjectivity as the model. However, this time, the idea is to not have a clear rank 1-4 bracket based on identifiable criteria. Rather, to pair up the 4 best teams based upon assumption, and credible TV interest.

And so, again, I will post this ... we have exactly what they want us to have.

.
.
.

[billybud]

Oh good grief!

Of course it is subjective...what else could it be?

[Cane from the Bend]

Yes, Charlie Brown, subjectivity is all we will ever have.

As long as this is what they want to give us.

.
.
.

[Spence]

They could take subjectivity out. They just don't want too!

[billybud]

You can't take subjectivity out...unless you believe that computer programs aren't themselves, in their algorithms, subjective.

Cane says that BYU was deserving because they didn't lose a game and did what they had to do (although they played a 6-5 team in the bowl and had one regular season win over a bowl team)...Hey...Western Michigan should be #1 in the play off if just the W/L record is the driver.

If you look over the Massey Composite of computer rankings, you will see Washington ranked #4 to #15, .......Clemson from #3 to #8, Ohio State from #1 to #8

Massey simply compiles these scores and gives you an average...the computers do all love Alabama. The Tide really lights up their circuitry and makes their electronic hearts beat faster.

[Cane from the Bend]

Cane says that BYU was deserving because they didn't lose a game and did what they had to do

No I didn't. I gave the rationale of the voters who chose BYU as the #1 team, post Bowl season.

I never gave my personal belief one way or the other. Mainly, because this is something that happened 32 years ago, and my opinion wouldn't change anything now, just like it wouldn't have then, either.

You can't take subjectivity out...unless you believe that computer programs aren't themselves, in their algorithms, subjective.

With the current playoff model, no there would not be a way to take subjectivity out of the equation.

In a Four 20 team conference mock up, where the champions of 10 team divisions were designated to play in their conference title games as the first round of the tournament, then the Conference Winners were to play in the final 4. Yep, that would take all subjectivity out of the process.

Rankings in this format would be moot, except for the purpose of seeding the bracket. Although, that could make for a subjective pairing situation. You could cure even that, by simply facing the East Coast Conference vs the Midwest Conference, while the SEC could play the Pac as an annual first round tier.

So lemme echo Spence's sentiments, by saying, they could do it, if they wanted to ... and reiterate my own approach, by saying, yet again --- we have exactly what they want us to have.

.
.
.

[Spence]

You can't take subjectivity out...unless you believe that computer programs aren't themselves, in their algorithms, subjective.

Cane says that BYU was deserving because they didn't lose a game and did what they had to do (although they played a 6-5 team in the bowl and had one regular season win over a bowl team)...Hey...Western Michigan should be #1 in the play off if just the W/L record is the driver.

If you look over the Massey Composite of computer rankings, you will see Washington ranked #4 to #15, .......Clemson from #3 to #8, Ohio State from #1 to #8

Massey simply compiles these scores and gives you an
average...the computers do all love Alabama. The Tide really lights up their circuitry and makes their electronic hearts beat faster.

You can take it out if you go to 4 20 -24team conferences and let the conference championship be the first round of an eight team playoff.

[Eric]

I could see Oklahoma having a chance against Clemson if Clemson has one of their defensive-funk games, but their defensive line can take control of a game. Washington is another team with a questionable schedule. Utah, Stanford, and Wazzu are their top victories. Non-conference with Portland State, Idaho, and Rutgers. We'd have a better idea of Washington's strength if they played a top opponent in the non-conference. I think they're an extremely good team, but the Pac-12 is also down. I'd still give them the benefit of the doubt over Oklahoma.

I think of some of these teams as having ceilings and floors. A team like Houston has a ceiling of beating a team like Oklahoma, but their floor means they could lose to an SMU. But SMU's ceiling does not put them in a position to beat Oklahoma. So sometimes it's hard to gauge teams with the they-lost-to-such-and-such-who-lost-to-such-and-such logic. Every game is different.