Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="SWC75, post: 308032, member: 289"] A couple of years back I did a study of how many times the top two teams in the AP poll, (from 1936 until 1997) and the BCS standings, (1998 onward) had a better record than any other team on the top 8. I came up with 24.6% as the percentage of times the BCS would “work” by that definition. The rest of the time there would be a team with a schedule good enough to be ranked in the top 8 and a record, (in terms of losses and ties, since teams don’t always play the same number of games), with as good a record as at least one of the two teams in the title game but having to watch it on TV. Now that we’ve expanded to a 4 team tournament, I decided to take another look at it. Instead of looking at how many times there would be a team ranked #5-8 with as a good a record as a team ranked 1-4, (that would probably be virtually all the time), I used a different procedure this time. In the history of NCAA football since the first writer’s poll in 1936, there have been 88 “national champions” as decided through the writer’s and coach’s poll or the BCS. There were splits in 1947, (when an “unofficial” poll was done after the bowls), 1954, 1957, 1965, (the writers did a poll after the bowls, the coaches did not), 1970 (ditto), 1973 (ditto), 1974, (the coaches refused to recognize Oklahoma as they were on probation), 1978, 1990, 1991, 1997 and 2003, so there are 88 champions, rather than 76. Of these 88 teams, 58 had won all their games at the time of the final poll, (which until 1968 for the writers and 1974 for the coaches was before the poll). 4 champions were undefeated with a tie. 21 had a single loss with no ties, 3 with a loss and a tie and one, (LSU 2007) with two losses. Based on this I would say that, normally, a national championship contender is a team with a record, (defined by losses and ties as teams sometimes play unequal numbers of games) of winning all their games or winning all but one. We’ve gone from a 2 team playoff to 4. There have been proposals for 8 and 16 team playoffs, (or 12 if you like byes, which I don‘t). I decided to see how many teams who won all their games or all but one were ranked at each level from 1-16 in the final writer’s coaches or BCS rankings. I only counted each team once and at the highest ranking in those polls that they achieved. #1 ranked teams: 66 teams won all their games, 3 had a tie, 13 had one loss #2 ranked teams: 34 teams won all their games, 10 had a tie, 27 had one loss #3 ranked teams: 19 teams won all their games, 10 had a tie, 43 had one loss #4 ranked teams: 13 teams won all their games, 5 had a tie, 38 had one loss #5 ranked teams: 8 teams won all their games, 4 had a tie, 36 had one loss #6 ranked teams: 5 teams won all their games, 4 had a tie, 30 had one loss #7 ranked teams: 1 teams won all their games, 1 had a tie, 31 had one loss #8 ranked teams: 3 teams won all their games, 1 had a tie, 15 had one loss #9 ranked teams: 3 teams won all their games, 2 had a tie, 12 had one loss #10 ranked teams: 3 teams won all their games, 4 had a tie, 11 had one loss #11 ranked teams: 3 teams won all their games, 0 had a tie, 6 had one loss #12 ranked teams: 3 teams won all their games, 1 had a tie, 6 had one loss #13 ranked teams: 1 teams won all their games, 1 had a tie, 8 had one loss #14 ranked teams: 4 teams won all their games, 0 had a tie, 9 had one loss #15 ranked teams: 5 teams won all their games, 3 had a tie, 6 had one loss #16 ranked teams: 0 teams won all their games, 1 had a tie, 9 had one loss That’s 82 such teams that were ranked #1 71 ranked #2 72 ranked #3 56 ranked #4 48 ranked #5 39 ranked #6 33 ranked #7 19 ranked #8 17 ranked #9 18 ranked #10 9 ranked #11 10 ranked #12 10 ranked #13 13 ranked #14 14 ranked #15 10 ranked #16 From this I see that the drop-off occurs after #7. It’s accentuated by the fact that the teams who won all their games but still couldn’t be ranked as high as 7th obviously didn’t play the schedule of a national championship contender and a team with one loss probably needs to be ranked near the top to still be considered a national title contender. Two teams playing for the title didn’t work because there was usually at least one team excluded for the title game that had a significant number of supporters who thought they deserved a shot. With four teams, that’s less likely to be the case but you can still have a team ranked 5th or 6th or maybe 7th that was considered a contender all year until a loss. You are also more likely to get teams with a loss in a four team playoff, so this will matter. If you expand to an 8 team playoff, you are going to cover all the teams anybody might think could be the best in the country. Anybody below that either doesn’t have the record or doesn’t have the schedule to merit such consideration. A controversy between a #8 team and an a #9 team isn’t likely to be between legitimate national title contenders, (even if the #8 might win a tournament), but a 4 vs. 5 controversy is much more likely to. A 4 team tournament is certainly an improvement over a 2 team tournament and it would have resolved most of the controversies of the past but it will not eliminate them. An 8 team tournament would be ideal but with fewer controversies, it may be even harder to get the powers that be to move to that. If they did, there might be demand by the top conferences for automatic bids. That might necessitate a 16 team tournament to get all the true contenders in, but I don’t expect to see that for decades the way things get done in college football. (Meanwhile Division III runs a 32 team tournament every year.) [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?