SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 32,473
- Like
- 62,635
There have been a lot of complaints about the one-sided nature of the college football playoff games and how the sport has come to be dominated by a very small number of schools, mostly in the SEC and how in some seasons it seems obvious that one or two teams are really at the top with nobody really belonging on the same field with them.
Before the BCS, the complaint was that there was often at least one team that deserved a shot at the #1 team and didn’t get it, or a split championship. In 29 seasons from 1936, when the AP started, through 1997, the year before the BCS, the top two teams had the same record, (by losses and ties: they may have played an unequal number of games). The coach’s poll began in 1950 and produced 8 split championships through 1997. Polls after bowls came in 1947, 1965 and then regularly, in 1968 for the writer’s poll and 1974 for the coach’s poll. There were 9 years when a team retained a national title or a share of it based on being #1 in the last regular season poll, despite a loss in a bowl game.
In some years, there might be more than two teams with a legitimate claim to a national title. In 1954, Ohio State, (#1 in the writer’s poll), UCLA, (#1 in the coach’s poll) and Oklahoma (#3 in each but 19 games into their 47 game winning streak) all had perfect records. In 1973 six power conference teams were undefeated after the regular season. Oklahoma was on probation, so that eliminated one of them. Alabama, Notre Dame and Penn State all had perfect records. Ohio State and Michigan beat everyone except each other, tying 10-10 in that pre-overtime era. Notre Dame beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Penn State beat LSU in the Orange Bowl. Ohio State was chosen to play USC in the Rose Bowl and beat them. That still left four unbeaten power conference teams. In 1977 Notre Dame, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas and Penn State all finished 11-1. The next year USC, Oklahoma, Alabama and Penn State were all 11-1.
Even after the BCS there were problems. In 2004, Auburn ran the table and won the SEC, the acknowledged most powerful conference, and watched USC blow out Oklahoma for the national title. The previous year, USC, LSU and Oklahoma all had one loss. USC was #1 in both polls but the Tigers and Sooners were #1-2 in the BCS rankings and they played for the title.
All of this created a lot of discontent and produced first the BCS, then the playoff. Now there’s talk of expanding the playoff, which makes sense if you want everyone in the division to have at least a theoretical shot at the title but which makes little sense to those who see just 1 or 2 or maybe 3 teams at the top that nobody else can compete with. For a while, in the years before the BCS, an idea was floated about having an extra game if there was a public demand for it. Maybe this could be adapted to have a flexible playoff, with just the games we need to satisfy everyone that the recognized national champion is universally recognized. “Just the games you need”. LiMu the Emu would like that.
Why Liberty Mutual chose funny mascots in new campaign
I decided to go back to 1936, when the writer’s, (Associated Press) bowl began and the Orange, Sugar and Cotton Bowls were first rising to challenge the Rose Bowl and look at each season to see what years we really needed any games after the bowls to satisfy any arguments about #1. My scenario is that the AP writers are polled after the bowls, not only for a top 25 but also what teams, if any, they’d like to see in a post bowl game or games to resolve any controversy. If no team other than the #1 ranked team is selected by at least 50% of them, it means that they feel that the national champion has been effectively established and there is no reason they should have to put their achievement on the line in a game the public wasn’t demanding to see. If two teams are selected by at least 50% of them, there will be one post bowl game, with the bowl committees bidding to see who will hold it. If three teams meet the 50%, the two teams that aren’t ranked #1 will play in one game and the winner will meet the #1 team in a second game. If four teams make it to 50%, we’ll have a four- team playoff, seeded by the rankings. If it’s more than that, there could be other preliminary games. But we won’t have any games nobody wants to see.
I’m going to imagine myself as one such writer who is not a curmudgeon who doesn’t want any such game but is willing to do his due diligence to see what games need to be played and what games the public would like to see. I’m going to consider records plus strength of schedule but I’m not going to parse the latter to the Nth degree to exclude anybody: if a team proved themselves against top-level competition and have a record as good as anybody’s, they should have a shot. My source of information will be Richard Vautravers excellent site:
Tip Top 25
where he describes each season and all the top teams in detail. I’ll also look Wikipedia’s summary of the weekly rankings through the course of the season:
I’m going to cover a year a day in the same thread, with links to Vautravers’ pages on each year, (he chooses a national champion(s) and also estimates what the AP top 25 would look like after the bowls. I invite you to read the article and see if you agree with my selections, or non-selections. I’m not going to try to estimate who would have won proposed games at this time. I just want to see what LiMu’s system, as I’ll call it, might look like.
Before the BCS, the complaint was that there was often at least one team that deserved a shot at the #1 team and didn’t get it, or a split championship. In 29 seasons from 1936, when the AP started, through 1997, the year before the BCS, the top two teams had the same record, (by losses and ties: they may have played an unequal number of games). The coach’s poll began in 1950 and produced 8 split championships through 1997. Polls after bowls came in 1947, 1965 and then regularly, in 1968 for the writer’s poll and 1974 for the coach’s poll. There were 9 years when a team retained a national title or a share of it based on being #1 in the last regular season poll, despite a loss in a bowl game.
In some years, there might be more than two teams with a legitimate claim to a national title. In 1954, Ohio State, (#1 in the writer’s poll), UCLA, (#1 in the coach’s poll) and Oklahoma (#3 in each but 19 games into their 47 game winning streak) all had perfect records. In 1973 six power conference teams were undefeated after the regular season. Oklahoma was on probation, so that eliminated one of them. Alabama, Notre Dame and Penn State all had perfect records. Ohio State and Michigan beat everyone except each other, tying 10-10 in that pre-overtime era. Notre Dame beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Penn State beat LSU in the Orange Bowl. Ohio State was chosen to play USC in the Rose Bowl and beat them. That still left four unbeaten power conference teams. In 1977 Notre Dame, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas and Penn State all finished 11-1. The next year USC, Oklahoma, Alabama and Penn State were all 11-1.
Even after the BCS there were problems. In 2004, Auburn ran the table and won the SEC, the acknowledged most powerful conference, and watched USC blow out Oklahoma for the national title. The previous year, USC, LSU and Oklahoma all had one loss. USC was #1 in both polls but the Tigers and Sooners were #1-2 in the BCS rankings and they played for the title.
All of this created a lot of discontent and produced first the BCS, then the playoff. Now there’s talk of expanding the playoff, which makes sense if you want everyone in the division to have at least a theoretical shot at the title but which makes little sense to those who see just 1 or 2 or maybe 3 teams at the top that nobody else can compete with. For a while, in the years before the BCS, an idea was floated about having an extra game if there was a public demand for it. Maybe this could be adapted to have a flexible playoff, with just the games we need to satisfy everyone that the recognized national champion is universally recognized. “Just the games you need”. LiMu the Emu would like that.
Why Liberty Mutual chose funny mascots in new campaign
I decided to go back to 1936, when the writer’s, (Associated Press) bowl began and the Orange, Sugar and Cotton Bowls were first rising to challenge the Rose Bowl and look at each season to see what years we really needed any games after the bowls to satisfy any arguments about #1. My scenario is that the AP writers are polled after the bowls, not only for a top 25 but also what teams, if any, they’d like to see in a post bowl game or games to resolve any controversy. If no team other than the #1 ranked team is selected by at least 50% of them, it means that they feel that the national champion has been effectively established and there is no reason they should have to put their achievement on the line in a game the public wasn’t demanding to see. If two teams are selected by at least 50% of them, there will be one post bowl game, with the bowl committees bidding to see who will hold it. If three teams meet the 50%, the two teams that aren’t ranked #1 will play in one game and the winner will meet the #1 team in a second game. If four teams make it to 50%, we’ll have a four- team playoff, seeded by the rankings. If it’s more than that, there could be other preliminary games. But we won’t have any games nobody wants to see.
I’m going to imagine myself as one such writer who is not a curmudgeon who doesn’t want any such game but is willing to do his due diligence to see what games need to be played and what games the public would like to see. I’m going to consider records plus strength of schedule but I’m not going to parse the latter to the Nth degree to exclude anybody: if a team proved themselves against top-level competition and have a record as good as anybody’s, they should have a shot. My source of information will be Richard Vautravers excellent site:
Tip Top 25
where he describes each season and all the top teams in detail. I’ll also look Wikipedia’s summary of the weekly rankings through the course of the season:
I’m going to cover a year a day in the same thread, with links to Vautravers’ pages on each year, (he chooses a national champion(s) and also estimates what the AP top 25 would look like after the bowls. I invite you to read the article and see if you agree with my selections, or non-selections. I’m not going to try to estimate who would have won proposed games at this time. I just want to see what LiMu’s system, as I’ll call it, might look like.