College Football Playoff Committee Gets Caught in Headlights, Ohio State Wins

Did the oversaturation of dumb sports network talking heads lead to the Big 12's exclusion from the 2014 college playoffs to Ohio State's benefit? Probably. There's a thesis statement in there, but I'm too lazy to rewrite it.

INEXPLICABLE SUBJECT CHANGE

We're still on the subject of the playoff, but I'm jumping to Florida State for a moment. Florida State went undefeated this year and will (rightfully, IMO) be featured in the four-team playoff. The issue isn't their inclusion, but their seeding that interests me. Florida State is the number three seed and will face Oregon in the first round. That's fine and dandy, and everyone is happy.

Consider this scenario: there is no playoff, and America only gets a championship game. The Committee only gets to choose the top two teams in the nation to play each other. In this scenario, Oregon would not be ranked ahead of Florida State. Crazy? Absolutely. Factual? Darn tootin'. 

Alabama is a powerhouse, only lost one game, and beat up on Mizzou to win the SEC. So we collectively acknowledge the Tide's rightful place in the championship game. But who should Alabama play? The Committee collectively believes that Oregon is the better team. It won a better conference, had the better nonconference showing (most notably a win over Michigan State), and is just easier to love than the boys from Tallahassee. But you can't leave out an undefeated team[1]! And the Committee wouldn't leave them out. If it was tasked with simply picking two teams, the fear of backlash would force an Alabama-Florida State game. BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LEAVE AN UNDEFEATED TEAM OUT OF THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. Yet once again, the nation largely agrees that it was appropriate to seed Oregon over Florida State, and Vegas is backing this decision by declaring Oregon a decent favorite. So the perceived best team is influence by the format of the playoff system.

BACK TO OUR THESIS (Blame the Media?)

The above logic, while lacking unassailability, should still leave you nodding your head. And if you believe that Florida State's ranking could be influenced by the playoff format, then we accept that the committee is subject to outside influence (everything is subject to outside influence). And this influence was TCU's downfall.

TCU fielded an excellent team this year, and finished the season 11-1. Its only loss was to another 11-1 team - Baylor. However, due to the circumstances of that game, a superior nonconference schedule, and other factors, the Playoff Committee unapologetically ranked TCU ahead of Baylor for the last month of the season. Which is fine. A worse team can beat a better team. It happens every week. It probably happened in this instance. Subscribing to a head-to-head preference system simply takes you down a transitive property rabbit hole. The Committee's obligation remains to rank the teams in order of best to worst, and it refused to subscribe to the head-to-head fallacy.

The Committee was steadfast until the final rankings, at which time inexplicably dropped TCU from #3 to #5 (even after crushing Iowa State 51-3 despite playing its reserves with extremely conservative playcalling). Florida State, winning a 37-35 nailbiter over Georgia Tech, moved up from #4 to #3. To round out the four-team field, Ohio State's dominance over Wisconsin won it the #4 spot, placing a team from the oft-mocked Big 10(+4) in the inaugural college football playoff. So after being on the outside looking in for so long, Ohio State played itself into the final spot.

Or did it? The week before the final standings were announced, I couldn't listen to sports radio without a talking head relentlessly espouse the head-to-head fallacy. The tide of public opinion was turning, and Baylor's hiring of a lobbyist/PR firm fanned the flames. The Committee was in a no-win situation: placing TCU ahead of Baylor places the nation in an uproar as the head-to-head fallacy has successfully entered the mainstream groupthink. Voting for TCU is now akin to voting for the Affordable Care Act in a district convinced the legislation contains panels of death (this is actually a solid analogy, for while several more factors are at work that should legitimately influence your opinion on the matter, the only thing people latched on to was a lie). 

Yet if the Committee placed Baylor ahead of TCU, where's the rationale? Nothing happened that weekend to justify the move - while TCU rolled, Baylor struggled greatly with a home game against K-State. Solution: leave them both out. No one is focused on the fact that Baylor jumped TCU in the final standing - they're focused on the two Big 12 teams being left out. Except that these are two small schools that play in the Big 12. While the Big 12 remains a better conference than the Pac-12, Big 10, or ACC, it lacks any coastal media presence. Plus, these are small schools! They're not Ohio State! No one actually cares about Baylor!

I'm not alleging any grand conspiracy - these things are often done without conscious devilishness. Yet the outcome remains the same. In the last week of the season, it suddenly became unfashionable to consider TCU better than Baylor. But you couldn't put Baylor in the playoff and leave out TCU. What's a Committee to do? Alabama and Oregon are considered the best two teams, and take seeds #1 and #2. They can't leave Florida State out (undefeated fallacy?). This leaves one spot for two deserving teams, and they offer a damned if you do and damned if you don't option. Unless you give that spot to Ohio State instead. Problem solved. So when Ohio State gets stomped by 20 points, just remember that it should have been TCU and Baylor playing that game. But they can't both play. So it's easier to just put the Buckeyes there.

I started off blaming the media. Maybe I should blame the spinelessness of the committee.

---

[1]  unless it's Baylor or a non-BCS program

The Ratings Say Otherwise

I've been pissy over K-State being passed over for a BCS bowl for awhile now, and I'm about to be vindicated. On New Year's I had the fortune to debate the Sugar Bowl selections ad naseum with the University of Detroit Associate Athletics Director (and, more importantly, a U of M alum). While the idea that K-State fans wouldn't come down to New Orleans has been thoroughly debunked, I had no comeback for the television argument (V. Tech and/or Michigan has more national appeal than a better, higher ranked Wildcat team). The discussion then went to non-BCS conference teams, and how the lack of national interest will always preclude them from consideration of BCS participation as well. Yet let's compare this year's games with last year's:

2012 Orange Bowl (West Virginia over Clemson, 70-33): 5.3 rating
In 2011, the Orange Bowl (Stanford over Virginia Tech 40-12) drew a 7.1

-This game was awful. I'm sure it would've had a better rating if Clemson showed up for more than a quarter of play.

2012 Sugar Bowl (Michigan over Virginia Tech, 23-20 in OT): 7.0 rating.
In 2011, the Sugar Bowl (Ohio State over Arkansas 31-26) drew a 9.5.

- Last year's teams had better resumes and featured Big 10(+2) v. SEC rather than Big 10(+2) v. ACC . Notice: Stanford's blow out of V. Tech last year in the Orange Bowl garnered better ratings than Michigan's OT squeaker over the Hokies this year. A BCS bowl game that goes into OT only getting a 7.0 rating? America obviously didn't care about this game.

2012 Fiesta Bowl (Oklahoma State over Stanford, 41-38 in OT): 9.7 rating.
In 2011, the Fiesta Bowl (Oklahoma over Connecticut 48-20) drew a 7.1 rating.

-The 2012 version was a great game. The 2011 version was an awful game. Once again, notice how an awful game last year generated more viewers than an OT game played this year (UM v. V-Tech). Pattern?

2012 Rose Bowl (Oregon over Wisconsin 45-38): 11.8 rating.
In 2011, the Rose Bowl (TCU over Wisconsin 21-19) drew a 13.1 rating.

-The meat of the issue. I will defend to the death the fascination we have in David v. Goliath. TCU won't get a lot of people excited next year when they join the Big 12(-2 or 3). But as a member of the Mountain West, people tuned in to watch them play Wisconsin. A Wisconsin team that was more exciting in 2011 than 2010 with Russell Wilson at QB. A Wisconsin team that played a much more offensively dynamic team in Oregon this year. A Wisconsin team that once again only lost by a possession.

So there you have it. Americans prefer match-ups with good teams in good games. They also have a fetish for good teams that get consistently snubbed by the powers that be due to conference affiliation. You can argue all you want about national branding and alumni support, but that pudding's baked with proof: nobody cared about a very close Sugar Bowl game this year. K-State (and Boise) deserved to be in that game. Unlike V. Tech and Michigan, those two were actually ranked in the top ten.

-Please don't "better resume" me on this. V. Tech beat every ranked opponent they played in the regular season. That would be one team: Clemson. Who they later lost to 38-10 in the ACC Championship game. Clemson then went on to lose to West Virginia (the Big Least’s best team, for what it’s worth) 70-33. Quality win, what?

Michigan, on the other hand, beat half the ranked teams they played this year. That would also add up to one win against a ranked team: #20 Nebraska. Who finished the season with four losses and likely drops from the rankings following their loss in the Capital One Bowl.

K-State's resume doesn't need defending. They played four ranked teams. They beat two, lost to Okie State by one score, and had a bad loss to Oklahoma. Boise State also beat 1/2 ranked teams it played, putting the hurt on Georgia and dropping one to TCU. Oh, and they beat Tech last year.

In conclusion: two teams with crappy rankings were brought in to play in the Sugar Bowl due to their "intangible catchet." One team couldn't even get its fans to buy tickets for the game (which isn't a surprise, given Virginia Tech fans have failed to support their team the last three BCS games they attended. Probably because they hate watching their team lose, which is almost guaranteed, as the ACC has gone 2-13 in BCS games. Did I mention the Sugar Bowl Committee justified its selection by citing Tech's stellar success in past BCS appearances?).

As such I make this (bold?) prediction: tonight's Cotton Bowl (which sold out w/in a week of being announced, b-dubs) will have a better rating than the Sugar Bowl. If not, I'll eat crow, but I highly doubt this will be the case.

Just Sayin' (as of 1-3-12)...

Conference	Schools	Bowl Record	Win %
Big 12 (8)	Bay, ISU, KState, Mizzou, OU, OklSt, TA&M, Texas	6-1	0.857
C-USA (5)	Houston, Marshall, SMU, SoMiss, Tulsa	3-1	0.75
MAC (5)	NIU, Ohio, Temple, Toledo, WMich	3-1	0.75
SEC (9)	Ala,Ark,Aub,Fla,Geor,LSU,MissSt,SCar,Vandy	4-2	0.667
Big East (5)	Cincy, Lou, Pitt, Rutgers, WVU	2-1	0.667
Sun Belt (3)	ArkSt, FIU, La.-Laf.	1-1	0.5
Ind. (2)	BYU, ND	1-1	0.5
MWC (5)	AF, Boise, SDSU, TCU, Wym	2-3	0.4
Big Ten(10)	Ill,Iowa,Mich,MSU,Neb,N'Wstrn,OSU,PSU,Pur,Wis	3-6	0.333
ACC (8)	Clem, FSU, GT, NC, NCS, Vir, VT, WF	2-4	0.333
Pac-12 (7)	ASU, Cal, Ore, Stan, UCLA, Utah, Wash	2-5	0.286
WAC (3)	LaTech, Nev, UtahSt	0-3	0

Defensive Blocking

That's how Oregon can win tonight. This was the game plan laid out by ESPN's College Football Podcast with Ivan Maisel. The idea is as follows:
-Cam Newton: excellent runner
-Cam Newton: subpar passer
-What the Ducks should do: promote Newton passing, not Newton running

Essentially, the idea is to play a lot of single coverage and cheat up a safety. Additionally, the defensive line is also responsible for playing contain. Ends are told since middle school to ensure no one gets outside, but this is particularly true against Auburn. If a tackle tries to push you inside, sacrifice 'easy access' to the quarterback for the sake of keeping containment. Let your linebackers cover the rest - the D-line's sole responsible is to keep containment. They actually called for the linemen to act as 'blockers,' more responsible for occupying linemen than actually rushing the QB. You couldn't pull this off if Vince Young was slinging arrows, but Newton's accuracy may allow for it.

Personally, I think this idea is simply genius. It sounds downright luny initially - why would you ever tell your defensive linemen not to charge full bore ahead? Attack, attack! However, putting linebackers on Newton and relying on your secondary to knock down his average passes demonstrates one method for addressing nonconventional offensive packages with nonconventional tactics. If only someone had been brilliant enough to proffer such a unique approach before.

Another idea I liked that the podcast did last month was outlining their dream BCS match-ups. For the record, here's what I would have liked to see play out:

Rose Bowl: Wisconsin v. Alabama (UW the best team in the Big 10(+2) this year. Arkansas probably deserved to make it in over Alabama based on record, but this is the match-up I'd prefer to see. Note: SEC team in the Rose Bowl to accomodate important pairings involving the Pac 10(+1.5) and some non-BCS schools.)
Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma v. Boise State (UConn didn't deserve a bowl game, and who wouldn't watch this classic rematch?)
Orange Bowl: Stanford v. Virginia Tech (Stanford absolutely annihilated Virginia Tech, and I admit I was worried about this beforehand. I still think this was a good pairing. Virginia Tech by all accounts ran roughshod over the ACC and demonstrated it deserved to be in a BCS game. I'd still watch this game if it were to be played again in February.)
Sugar Bowl: TCU v. Ohio State (I'm dubbing this the "Little Sisters of the Poor v. Annually Overhyped, Can't Beat the SEC" Bowl)
National Championship: Oregon v. Auburn. Easy.

Making the Sisters of the Poor Poorer.

Ohio State President Gordon Gee: classic conservative jackass. While most recognize him as the originator of some idiotic statements regarding non-BCS schools' legitimacy, he's displeased the masses before. He lasted for 2 years at Brown before being run out, accused of treating the school more like a Wall Street corporation than an Ivy League university. He then went to Vanderbilt, where he came under criticism for lavish personal spending and running up a huge tab renovating his university-provided home. There are other reasons to contend he's not a good person. Serving on the board of coal company Massey Energy, he stepped down in 2009 after the company caused toxic coal sludge spills and oversaw multiple mining accidents resulting in the deaths of their workers.

To be honest, most of the above doesn't really tug at my heart strings. The Boise State/TCU jabs, however, make him sound like a trust fund kid opposed to the inheritance tax. His contention, that Ohio State should be able to bowl for national championships but not outside schools, is like saying it's not fair the government is gonna take your money. Well, no, they're not. If your parent's estate is worth $50 million, that's their money. You never worked for it. You never did anything to earn it. You, yourself, have failed to make a contribution to society entitling you to 100% of what someone else earned.

Same for OSU. You think OSU is entitled to something others aren't because of the conference they play in? Well, let's examine three schedules according to the Sagarin rankings: OSU: 68th most difficult; TCU: 82; Boise: 70th. Gee's specific comment was that unlike TCU, Ohio State isn't playing the little sisters of the poor. So what about god-awful teams Marshall, Ohio, Eastern Michigan, Indiana, Minnesota (or even 7-5 Miami)? Are we expected to simply overlook the fact Ohio State's schedule had exactly one ranked team (Wisconsin, who steamrolled OSU 31-18). A rule that dictated any team playing for the national championship to exhibit a strength of schedule ranked at least in the top 50% of the nation would leave Ohio State on the outside looking in. Ohio State isn't playing the little sisters of the poor, just their inbred cousins.

Back to the tax thing, this reeks of the unearned sense of entitlement so prevalent in today's society. Ohio State has done nothing to justify why being in a BCS conference means they should be allowed to play in the national title game. The Big East and ACC have been horrible - Virginia Tech is the only redeemable school out of either conference. They simply fail to bring anything to the table that the WAC (with three ranked teams) can't. Except for legacy. And now we've gone full circle about twice. I have something and you don't. Regardless of our respective actions, this system shall remain. My school is historically powerful, ergo, it should be granted privileges yours isn't - even if you've worked harder and accomplished more. My family is historically powerful, ergo, I should be granted more privileges than you - even if you've worked harder and have accomplished more. I received an artificial head start, and will be damned if the government takes a dime of money I didn't earn.

Tonight's Game of the Week

The Wishbone, the Wildcat, and other offensive innovations all have their moment in the sun before defensive coordinators adapt and a new system must be melded (or simply reintroduced). My hero Gregg Easterbrook has written a bit on how today's prolific spread offenses will meet the same fate, and Oregon's attack will look mortal five years from now. With about four minutes left in the OU/MU game, I got a glimpse of what could help unravel its effectiveness.

On an obvious pass play, Blaine Gabbert drops back and Oklahoma fails to generate much penetration into the backfield. Their D-Line was tired, defeated, and stuck in 2nd gear. But when Gabbert brought his arm forward to throw, the defensive end jumped up and knocked down the football. In a system designed to wear down defenses while relying on dink and dunk passes, there may be a lesson to be taken from this play - particularly as offenses are employing smaller, quicker quarterbacks.

With OU down by nine points and approximately 2:30 to go in the game, Bob Stoops punted on 4th and 10. Oklahoma had no timeouts, and was obviously conceding defeat. WTF? Then I realized - Oklahoma was so backed up, a turnover on downs would've given Missouri the ball in the red zone. Rather than give his team a chance to win, Big Game Stoops's only concern was minimizing the damage in the eyes of the polls - in a bowl game, he would've gone for it. I encourage all voters to drop the Sooners an additional three spots from where you believe they should be ranked as karma for having no spine.

It bears mentioning that yesterday I described Mizzou as a 'legit top ten team' when they were in fact not ranked in the top ten. In order for that to be the case, they would have had to win their game against Oklahoma today. Which they did. Which means I'm simply that good.

Today's loss to Baylor killed a small piece of me. Ditto for this sore throat I've had for five straight days now.

Finally, a Worthwhile Statistical Regression

A lot has been written on election theory and the influence of polls on voters. They’re self-reinforcing in two big ways: they discourage voters who support a trailing candidate (‘what’s the point in voting, the Reuters Poll says we’re going to lose by six points’), and sway undecided voters by identifying a frontrunner (appeal to popularity fallacy). I’d bet that the BCS polls have a similarly negative effect on the USA Today football rankings.

The first BCS standings came out Sunday. Boise State was supposed to reign over all, with TCU notching a lofty ranking as well. Yet the entire nation gasped in collective horror as Oklahoma was designated the greatest team in all the land, followed by the Ducks of Oregon. Now I know there are better teams than OU, and the fleshy polls do too. That’s why they’ve been ranked #5 or so all year. However, every ESPN article written over the past week regarding the Sooners identifies them as ‘#1 Oklahoma.’ This is wrong.

Assuming OU wins this weekend, they’re going to climb in the human polls. This will be defensible, as it will entail a victory over a legit top ten team in Missouri. Yet what if OU beats Colorado by nine points, and no other top ten teams lose? Or if OU has a bye? Would they still rise in the rankings – an effect of the #1 status bestowed via data processor?

It would be interesting to hold weekend performance constant and use BCS rankings as the dependent variable. Maybe somebody already has. With 12 years of usage, we don’t yet have a large pool to use. However, I have an inkling your beta level will indicate voters’ preference (or at least tendency) for making the team leading the BCS the recipient of more #1 votes.

Voters take their cues from other voters, who take cues from preseason rankings, which take their cues from the previous year’s success. Historical reputation creates an undue bias throughout. Polls are highly fallible due to voter reliance on cues and an inability to function in a vacuum. What’s worrisome is that the BCS rankings unduly enhance this foible.

Get On the Bus!