Against adding to playoff

[HS_Coach_C]

I just want to get back to a point where we have a legitimate reason to be ticked off if Nebraska is left out, whether it's 2, 4, 6 or 8.

[Big Red 40]

22 minutes ago, HS_Coach_C said:

I just want to get back to a point where we have a legitimate reason to be ticked off if Nebraska is left out, whether it's 2, 4, 6 or 8.

ha ha great point 

[Redux]

5 hours ago, Cdog923 said:

 

Yea, but it's still the offseason, so we have to fill the board quota for disagreements. 

 

"I disagree with your opinion that you want to move to 8 teams". 

 

 

 

Then you're just being obtuse.  Saying Nebraska has a better shot at winning an 8 team playoff vs a 4 team playoff is just completely inaccurate for the sake of being disagreeable.  The same can be said about all Power 5 teams.  Literally, no argument against that is valid.

[Redux]

8 hours ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

That hasn't been very accurate historically.

 

And the 4 years we have had, the Big Ten has gotren a team in except for when we had 3 2 loss teams and the SEC weaseled 2 teams in.  So if we want to say the 4 years are actually a legit sample size, we could say the Big Ten has a 50% shot at getting a team in!  Anyone who believes that percentage is accurate would be wrong.  It's higher FYI

[Cdog923]

22 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Then you're just being obtuse.  Saying Nebraska has a better shot at winning an 8 team playoff vs a 4 team playoff is just completely inaccurate for the sake of being disagreeable.  The same can be said about all Power 5 teams.  Literally, no argument against that is valid.

 

I think you might have missed me being a bit facetious with that last post. However, you cannot win the title without getting into the playoff, and an 8 team playoff is almost twice as easy to get into as a 4 team playoff (if my math is correct). 

[HS_Coach_C]

7 hours ago, Cdog923 said:

 

I think you might have missed me being a bit facetious with that last post. However, you cannot win the title without getting into the playoff, and an 8 team playoff is almost twice as easy to get into as a 4 team playoff (if my math is correct). 

Exactly.  Take the NCAA basketball tournament for example.  Sure it would be a lot easier for 2 teams to win the championship if they just picked those 2 teams to play a final game without having to go through the bracket, but it would then be impossible for the other 66 teams to win it.  It's easier to win if you're in.  What were Nebraska's chances of winning it compared to UMBC last year?

 

Of course a 4-team playoff is easier to win than an 8-team playoff... IF you get in.

If you're one of the top 4 teams, an 8-team playoff is harder than a 4-team playoff.  If you're teams 5-8, an 8-team playoff is easier because you actually get invited.  If you're teams 9-130, well, you're still screwed and better luck next year.

 

[Redux]

7 hours ago, Cdog923 said:

I think you might have missed me being a bit facetious with that last post. However, you cannot win the title without getting into the playoff, and an 8 team playoff is almost twice as easy to get into as a 4 team playoff (if my math is correct). 

 

Yes, having access increases the chances of winning said title.  I don't think that fact was ever in question nor was it even a point that needed to really be made.

 

Simply put, winning 2 games to win a natty is easier than having to win 3.

[Cdog923]

1 hour ago, Redux said:

 

Yes, having access increases the chances of winning said title.  I don't think that fact was ever in question nor was it even a point that needed to really be made.

 

That's the point that was being debated, though....

[Redux]

5 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

That's the point that was being debated, though....

 

By whom

[Cdog923]

5 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

By whom

 

A vast majority of the posters in the thread? I can get you an itemized listing if you'd like. 

[Redux]

Sorry, I've been to busy debating a fairly moot point with you to notice.  You disagreed that 9 times out of 10 Nebraska winning the Big Ten would be enough to get in.  I disagree with that.  A 1 loss champion Nebraska gets in every time.  It would take the rest of the field to be undefeated and even then favouritism will be played.

[Cdog923]

5 minutes ago, Redux said:

Sorry, I've been to busy debating a fairly moot point with you to notice.  You disagreed that 9 times out of 10 Nebraska winning the Big Ten would be enough to get in.  I disagree with that.  A 1 loss champion Nebraska gets in every time.  It would take the rest of the field to be undefeated and even then favouritism will be played.

 

Of course a Big Ten, 0 or 1 loss Nebraska makes the playoff. However, Nebraska has had 25 seasons with 0 or 1 losses, with 14 of them coming before 1962 (including the 1890 Nebraska Old Gold Knights, who went 2-0 under legendary coach Langdon Frothingham). That's 127 seasons, or roughly a 20% probability of Nebraska having 0 or 1 loss, if you want to weigh every season the same. Now, they'll be 130 FBS teams by next year, with 4 making the playoff, which gives us a 3% probability of inclusion, but a 25% probability of winning. Now, if somebody who is smarter in math than I am would check this, I would appreciate it (my brain doesn't start working again until next week), but I think that give a probability of both events occurring somewhere in the vicinity of 0.6%. 

 

Now, let's expand the playoff to 8 teams. This gives us roughly a 6.2% probability of making the playoff, but a 12.5% probability of winning. The overall probability of both that and Nebraska losing only 0-1 games is roughly 1.2%, or about double what it would be under the current format. Again, if someone wants to check my maths, I would appreciate it. 

 

The point of all of this is that, yes, it would be more difficult for Nebraska to win a National Championship under an 8 team format. However, the probability of Nebraska having a 0 or 1 loss team is not that high (the probability is certainly lower due to the difficultly level of today's college football compared to the past, but there's no way in hell I'm working with weighted averages right now), which means it's a far better proposition to minimize your margin of error and maximize your chances of getting into the playoff. That's the point that a majority of posters in this thread that are in favor of an expanded playoff have been making: not only is it more fair, and more college football, it gives Nebraska many more opportunities to be able to win a National Title. 

[Redux]

25 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

Yes, it would be more difficult for Nebraska to win a National Championship under an 8 team format.

 

Okay good, so you agree with my original point? 

 

I use the 0 or 1 loss example because most of the teams who have competed in the playoff fall into that category.  So to get in, it's kind of the bar you have to reach and I'm fone with that.  Also, your math may technically be correct.  But you can't atctually asy there are 130 teams that can make the playoff.  Over half of them have zero shot at it even if they go undefeated.  Nebraska luckily falls into the will make it in category even with our historical woes over the last couple decades.  Solely talking about winning a title, 4 teams is easier to win than 8.  Not talking access in this statement.  Obviously 8 teams means easier access.

 

And did you completely miss my proposition of expanding the playoff?  It was a long winded post, but for the record I am more in favor of expanding than staying at 4 and keeping 3 conference champs and all group of 5 out.  It's nonsense.

[Cdog923]

2 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Okay good, so you agree with my original point? 

 

I use the 0 or 1 loss example because most of the teams who have competed in the playoff fall into that category.  So to get in, it's kind of the bar you have to reach and I'm fone with that.  Also, your math may technically be correct.  But you can't atctually asy there are 130 teams that can make the playoff.  Over half of them have zero shot at it even if they go undefeated.  Nebraska luckily falls into the will make it in category even with our historical woes over the last couple decades.  Solely talking about winning a title, 4 teams is easier to win than 8.  Not talking access in this statement.  Obviously 8 teams means easier access.

 

And did you completely miss my proposition of expanding the playoff?  It was a long winded post, but for the record I am more in favor of expanding than staying at 4 and keeping 3 conference champs and all group of 5 out.  It's nonsense.

 

Which is exactly why I facetiously tried to diffuse the conversation last night  . At least I got to scratch that math itch this morning though. 

[Blackshirts007]

1 hour ago, Redux said:

Sorry, I've been to busy debating a fairly moot point with you to notice.  You disagreed that 9 times out of 10 Nebraska winning the Big Ten would be enough to get in.  I disagree with that.  A 1 loss champion Nebraska gets in every time.  It would take the rest of the field to be undefeated and even then favouritism will be played.

This.  A 1 loss blue blood will never get left out.  Let alone when Nebraska finally does make it they will probably see a revenue stream that they haven't seen before in the playoffs.