With the college football season nearing the end of October, talk of a playoff system is heating up again. Having 7 teams undefeated and a handful of very strong one-loss teams makes the noise a bit louder than in typical years. As well, it's almost a certainty that Boise State and either TCU or Utah, who play each other, will wind up undefeated. And so there's a chance we'll have three or four undefeated teams prior to bowls. And thus a "deserving" team would be left out of the Championship if that happens.
The problem with a playoff system, and why I don't like any of the ideas I've heard, is what we're seeing in baseball this year. The playoffs have been competitive and entertaining for sure. And having the Rangers and the Giants in the World Series is a compelling story and a nice change from Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies. However each league is represented by the weakest of its four playoff teams. We played 162 games to determine that the Yankees, Rays, Phillies, and Braves were the best team and then played 10-12 games to decide to send someone else to the World Series.
I'm not suggesting we go back to two divisions and only four team in the playoffs. However I think college football "fans" are oblivious to what would happen in a playoff system. I think there will be a lot of noise about TCU/Utah being left out of the National Championship, but would having Alabama play Missouri or Michigan State for the Championship make anyone feel better about the title?
Showing posts with label college sports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label college sports. Show all posts
Sunday, October 24
Saturday, January 16
Why College Basketball is Close
Anyone who's watched college basketball over the past few years has noticed that games are generally close. There are lots of upset every year, even with top 5 teams against unranked opponents. Cornell, an Ivy league school, played then #1 Kansas close and lost by only five points.
Vanderbilt just beat South Carolina by 10 points on the road. Any road win in the SEC is an accomplishment, and a double digit road win is doubly impressive. However I wondered whether South Carolina was just really bad, Vanderbilt was good, or Vanderbilt just played well. And this is interesting.
I checked the "Vegas lines" and Vanderbilt was a 1 point favorite, so winning easily is a great. Then I checked Sagrain ratings to get a computerized view of what they've done so far. Vanderbilt is #21 and South Carolina is #73 so at first it looks like Vanderbilt should win easily and the line is "off". However a close look shows Vanderbilt's rating is only 4.5 point more than South Carolina's. Give South Carolina 4 points for being home, and the "Sagarin line" is Vanderbilt by 1/2 point! That's right a top 25 team plays a team not in the top 70 -- a team hoping for a NIT berth -- and the game is a toss up.
There are some good teams at the top, but the difference between #10 and #100 is just 12 points. The difference between #10, what some might call an elite team and #50, a team on the NCAA tournament bubble is 6 points. And if the #50 team is at home, the difference is 2 points, essentially a toss up.
In the ACC, the difference between the second best team and the worst (12th) team is 8 points. 2nd to 7th are separated by 3 points. That's going to be a wild conference and a wilder tournament. In the Big East, the top 12 teams are separated by 10 points. It's not quite a crapshoot, but most conference games are 60-40 propositions even if there's a big spread in rankings.
It's a good year to bet on middle seeds making a run in the NCAA tournament.
Vanderbilt just beat South Carolina by 10 points on the road. Any road win in the SEC is an accomplishment, and a double digit road win is doubly impressive. However I wondered whether South Carolina was just really bad, Vanderbilt was good, or Vanderbilt just played well. And this is interesting.
I checked the "Vegas lines" and Vanderbilt was a 1 point favorite, so winning easily is a great. Then I checked Sagrain ratings to get a computerized view of what they've done so far. Vanderbilt is #21 and South Carolina is #73 so at first it looks like Vanderbilt should win easily and the line is "off". However a close look shows Vanderbilt's rating is only 4.5 point more than South Carolina's. Give South Carolina 4 points for being home, and the "Sagarin line" is Vanderbilt by 1/2 point! That's right a top 25 team plays a team not in the top 70 -- a team hoping for a NIT berth -- and the game is a toss up.
There are some good teams at the top, but the difference between #10 and #100 is just 12 points. The difference between #10, what some might call an elite team and #50, a team on the NCAA tournament bubble is 6 points. And if the #50 team is at home, the difference is 2 points, essentially a toss up.
In the ACC, the difference between the second best team and the worst (12th) team is 8 points. 2nd to 7th are separated by 3 points. That's going to be a wild conference and a wilder tournament. In the Big East, the top 12 teams are separated by 10 points. It's not quite a crapshoot, but most conference games are 60-40 propositions even if there's a big spread in rankings.
It's a good year to bet on middle seeds making a run in the NCAA tournament.
Saturday, October 10
College Football, SEC Dominates
Because of the baseball playoffs, my car radio is usually on ESPN Radio in the evenings, so in the mornings I've been listening to much more sports talk than normal.
There's a lot of talk about SEC dominance in football. Florida and Alabama are #1 and #2. And they've mentioned that the SEC has won the last three national championships. I was looking at it and was surprised the SEC run is actually deeper than that. LSU won after the 2003 season, Florida after 2006 and last year and LSU again in 2007. That's 4 of 6 and in 2004, Auburn finished 12-0 but was shut out of the title game by two other 12-0 teams. And Georgia and LSU have had top 3 finishes in years the SEC won the title.
So the interesting question is could you have two SEC team play for the National Championship. The consensus was "no" and I agree the pollsters wouldn't let it happen. But it's pretty stupid -- if Alabama and Florida are the clear best teams in the country, go undefeated and settle the SEC Championship in double overtime, and LSU is the third best team (losing only to Florida and Alabama) do you really want Cincinnati, Boise State, or USC in the the title game?
There's a lot of talk about SEC dominance in football. Florida and Alabama are #1 and #2. And they've mentioned that the SEC has won the last three national championships. I was looking at it and was surprised the SEC run is actually deeper than that. LSU won after the 2003 season, Florida after 2006 and last year and LSU again in 2007. That's 4 of 6 and in 2004, Auburn finished 12-0 but was shut out of the title game by two other 12-0 teams. And Georgia and LSU have had top 3 finishes in years the SEC won the title.
So the interesting question is could you have two SEC team play for the National Championship. The consensus was "no" and I agree the pollsters wouldn't let it happen. But it's pretty stupid -- if Alabama and Florida are the clear best teams in the country, go undefeated and settle the SEC Championship in double overtime, and LSU is the third best team (losing only to Florida and Alabama) do you really want Cincinnati, Boise State, or USC in the the title game?
Thursday, January 1
College Bowl Games
Today is January 1st. For the first time in what might be my lifetime, I didn't watch a single minute of college football. I actually watched hockey (the Winter Classic) and baseball (part of Don Larsen's perfect game on the new MLB Network) instead of New Year's Day Bowls.
Which gets to a post I've been kicking around for a few weeks but never typed out about college bowls.
Point 1: I've been really undecided what to think about Vanderbilt being in a bowl. On one hand it's nice that Vanderbilt no longer appears near the top of "longest bowl drought" lists. And a six-win season is the best Vanderbilt has had in a long time so this qualifies as a great year by Vanderbilt standards. On the other hand, it's not like Vanderbilt is actually any good. After starting 5-1, they finished the regular season 6-6 which isn't exactly something to be proud of. Their offense is horrible, their defense is OK. They basically win by not making mistakes and getting some breaks. They may not even be in the top 50 this year heading into bowl season. I'd like being excited that a C and D student got one B on her report card.
Having played the game, it was a lot of fun to watch them on National TV and pull off a big upset. While the line was only 3-4 points, Boston College was a top 25 team and I think 90% of ESPN viewers picked them to win. A guy I know was in a contest where he ranked the bowl games by likelihood of winners and made BC his #1 pick.
Point 2: On the BCS, I had a long talk with Glenn about the selection process and options and we came to a couple of interesting conclusions. There's no good way to decide a three-way tie for a conference or division title when each team has lost to one of the others. And it's a bit disconcerting that who plays for a national championship comes down to the arbitrary selection of which tie breaker rules the conference happens to have in place. I can't argue against the approach utilized by other conferences to "eliminate" the #3 team then look at head-to-head and that approach would likely have put Texas in the championship game. Not sure how the conference strength of victory would have determined a winner. What's really tough is a lot of the computer polls have Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech 1-2-3 so it's very close. I suspect some weird things can happen in the Pac Ten with USC being the dominant team but coming very close to NOT winning the conference title.
What Glenn and I found very interesting is that even though this is a year where there's a good argument that the best team in the nation isn't playing for the National Championship (Texas), the BCS does a better job of ensuring that the best team IS in the championship than a playoff. Let's declare best team to mean if the top 21 teams each played each other 50 times, the team with the best record is the best team. This year is pretty extreme, but even so there's only a 35% chance the best team isn't in the game. It's hard to argue Texas being so much better than Oklahoma and Florida that it wins more than 1/3 of the time. In general, I'd say the best team is left out of the BCS Championship 20% of the time. But if you switch to a 16-team playoff or even an 8-team playoff, the best team missed out of the championship game much, much more often.
Let's be optimistic and say the #1 team has a 100% chance of beating the #16 team, and then a 90% chance of beating the #8/9 team and a 70% chance of winning in the national semifinal against the #4 or 5 team. That would give the team a 37% chance of NOT making the championship. And really it's greater than that since those win % are inflated. Rank your top 8 teams and see if you think the top team would really beat #8 9 times in 10 or #4 70% of the time.
This is the dark side of the beauty of March Madness. While it's good entertainment to see upsets and close games and 64 teams in, it's also almost a crapshoot once you get to the final 16. I believe last year was the first time ever that all 4 #1 seed made it to the Final Four. Quite simply, the more teams you involve, the LESS likely it is that you crown the best team as champion assuming the selection process isn't arbitrary.
Net net, so while I firmly believe Texas got screwed even though I think Oklahoma is better, I much prefer the current system to a 16-team playoff. I would like a 6-team playoff, though it will never happen.
Which gets to a post I've been kicking around for a few weeks but never typed out about college bowls.
Point 1: I've been really undecided what to think about Vanderbilt being in a bowl. On one hand it's nice that Vanderbilt no longer appears near the top of "longest bowl drought" lists. And a six-win season is the best Vanderbilt has had in a long time so this qualifies as a great year by Vanderbilt standards. On the other hand, it's not like Vanderbilt is actually any good. After starting 5-1, they finished the regular season 6-6 which isn't exactly something to be proud of. Their offense is horrible, their defense is OK. They basically win by not making mistakes and getting some breaks. They may not even be in the top 50 this year heading into bowl season. I'd like being excited that a C and D student got one B on her report card.
Having played the game, it was a lot of fun to watch them on National TV and pull off a big upset. While the line was only 3-4 points, Boston College was a top 25 team and I think 90% of ESPN viewers picked them to win. A guy I know was in a contest where he ranked the bowl games by likelihood of winners and made BC his #1 pick.
Point 2: On the BCS, I had a long talk with Glenn about the selection process and options and we came to a couple of interesting conclusions. There's no good way to decide a three-way tie for a conference or division title when each team has lost to one of the others. And it's a bit disconcerting that who plays for a national championship comes down to the arbitrary selection of which tie breaker rules the conference happens to have in place. I can't argue against the approach utilized by other conferences to "eliminate" the #3 team then look at head-to-head and that approach would likely have put Texas in the championship game. Not sure how the conference strength of victory would have determined a winner. What's really tough is a lot of the computer polls have Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech 1-2-3 so it's very close. I suspect some weird things can happen in the Pac Ten with USC being the dominant team but coming very close to NOT winning the conference title.
What Glenn and I found very interesting is that even though this is a year where there's a good argument that the best team in the nation isn't playing for the National Championship (Texas), the BCS does a better job of ensuring that the best team IS in the championship than a playoff. Let's declare best team to mean if the top 21 teams each played each other 50 times, the team with the best record is the best team. This year is pretty extreme, but even so there's only a 35% chance the best team isn't in the game. It's hard to argue Texas being so much better than Oklahoma and Florida that it wins more than 1/3 of the time. In general, I'd say the best team is left out of the BCS Championship 20% of the time. But if you switch to a 16-team playoff or even an 8-team playoff, the best team missed out of the championship game much, much more often.
Let's be optimistic and say the #1 team has a 100% chance of beating the #16 team, and then a 90% chance of beating the #8/9 team and a 70% chance of winning in the national semifinal against the #4 or 5 team. That would give the team a 37% chance of NOT making the championship. And really it's greater than that since those win % are inflated. Rank your top 8 teams and see if you think the top team would really beat #8 9 times in 10 or #4 70% of the time.
This is the dark side of the beauty of March Madness. While it's good entertainment to see upsets and close games and 64 teams in, it's also almost a crapshoot once you get to the final 16. I believe last year was the first time ever that all 4 #1 seed made it to the Final Four. Quite simply, the more teams you involve, the LESS likely it is that you crown the best team as champion assuming the selection process isn't arbitrary.
Net net, so while I firmly believe Texas got screwed even though I think Oklahoma is better, I much prefer the current system to a 16-team playoff. I would like a 6-team playoff, though it will never happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
