Ohio State and Playoffs

by Year2 on Apr 4, 2008 4:50 PM EDT

Here's a thought: Buckeye fans should be some of the most vocal playoff proponents.

Ohio State has gotten a bad rap lately, as SMQ has pointed out so eloquently on the main page. It has been to 3 of the past 6 BCS title games, and has one of the highest winning percentages of the decade.

However, thanks to two bad losses in the last two BCS title games, they're equated with the early '90s Buffalo Bills. You know who else has two bad losses at that level in the past two years? UCLA men's basketball. The Bruins lost badly to Florida in the past two Final Fours, but instead of being a national joke they're held up as an example of a great program. Sure, there's pressure on them to win it all this year, but no one is calling them the Bills.

The difference is that UCLA made its way to those bad losses via a playoff. Ohio State got voted in to the title games, and there were definite questions last year surrounding the team given the national negative perception of its conference. Plus, they basically backed into the contest because following a bad loss to Illinois they won a nondescript game over Michigan and watched the national carnage propel them back up.

If we had a playoff the last two years, it's entirely possible the Buckeyes could have lost without even making the title game. However, if they did make it there both years the public perception would be that they earned their way there, and they just happened to get caught in a bad matchup both times. It's also entirely possible that a playoff-forged matchup between the Buckeyes and Gators in 2006 would have made OSU take UF more seriously and everyone would be talking about 2 titles in 5 years instead of invoking Scott Norwood's team when talking about them.

Ohio State's fans should be in favor of a playoff for this very reason. Vocally so. After all, an 11-1 Ohio State team with only a road loss to USC would have a powerful case for going to the national title game in any year this decade, but if there's 2 other 11-1 teams I can't help but feel that people will vote OSU #3 based on perceptions made from the last two years. But, when opinion polls and beauty contests rule the postseason system, these are the things that could happen.

Stand up Buckeyes. It's time you made a real playoff push.

Disclosure: I am a Florida Gator, and even run Florida-centered blog.

All comments on 'Sunday Morning Quarterback' are the views of the individual commenter and do not necessarily reflect the genius of SMQ, Sports Blog Nation, etc.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Interesting...

I agree with that in a way, but I'd like to point out that the regular season in CFB is the playoff. And Ohio State's teams have faced teams of equivalent difficulty to UCLA's opponents in the tournament.

2008 UCLA TOURNAMENT OPPONENTS:

Miss. Valley State- 16 seed
Texas A&M- 9 seed
W. Kentucky- 12 seed
Xavier- 3 seed

I don't really see that much differently than Ohio State's opponents in 2007.

I mean, what exactly has UCLA faced in the tournament that qualifies as a tough opponent?

Xavier? One tough opponent that could match up with UCLA and beat them a few teams in a 5 or 6 game set.

Even then, does anyone really think Xavier would win more than two games?

by gahnki on Apr 4, 2008 8:56 PM EDT 0 recs

Re: Interesting...

I'm talking entirely about perception here not about this year's tournament. When Ohio State lost to LSU, no one equated it to UCLA men's basketball despite the Bruins' two failures with everything on the line.

Few people care if you have an easy road and win, it's when they see you as having an easy road and losing. Florida in 2006 play three double-digit seeds in its six games, and after the title game Billy Donovan himself said that he didn't know if Florida was the best team that year. No one remembers that though; everyone talks about what a story it was for a young team to go from unranked to champions.

Losing in the playoffs is certainly detrimental to a team's reputation, but as we've seen in these recent years it's nothing compared to losing in BCS title games. Put it this way: Jim Tressel won the national title for the 2002 season (on top of several I-AA titles), but 5 years later he "can't win the big one." Bill Parcells last won the Super Bowl in 1990, but it took until he quit the Cowboys job after the 2006 season for people to wonder if he could ever win the big one again despite losing a Super Bowl in New England and an AFC title game with the Jets.

For what it's worth, I've also argue that the most fervent playoff supporters, SEC fans, actually should be against a playoff right now: http://year2.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/playoff-irony/

by Year2 on Apr 5, 2008 4:11 PM EDT up 0 recs

Should we care about perception, though?

The perception of UCLA should be terrible now that they've lost in another Final Four after walking through cake walk teams.

But they are still a good team that just couldn't get things done. Just like OSU. Except OSU's perception is negative while UCLA's is positive although I'm sure it will take a hit now.

So the truth of both teams is pretty close while the perception is far apart. I think changing the perception isn't necessary although it certainly would make Ohio State fans lives easier.

by gahnki on Apr 5, 2008 8:58 PM EDT up 0 recs

Perception

In basketball, perception doesn't really matter; winning tournament games does.

In football, perception is everything because it's the coaches' and Harris opinion polls that decides who gets to play for the national title.

by Year2 on Apr 6, 2008 1:07 AM EDT up 0 recs

Ohio State Perception

Ohio State got an (undeserved) bad rap in 2007 for doing something no other team (other than Illinois) did in the Big Ten--not looking like crap and/or having a signature loss. Weren't they picked behind Michigan, Wisconsin, and Penn State this year--a rebuilding year so to speak? And they gave us exactly what they were supposed to--solid, well-coached play. The last time they were in a rebuilding year of sorts (2004), they went to the Alamo Bowl. This year, because of events completely beyond their control, they were in the national title game.

In all seriousness did anyone believe Ohio State was one of the two best teams in the country at the end of the year? How about Top 5? Top 10?

Ohio State is, by a pretty good margin, the class of the Big Ten. The problem is that the Big Ten isn't very good right now.

by DoubleB on Apr 6, 2008 8:26 PM EDT 0 recs

Re: Ohio State Perception

OSU was consensus #11 in preseason rankings (http://preseason.stassen.com/consensus/2007.html) behind Michigan (#4) and Wisconsin (#7). As for the Buckeyes' standing at the end of the year, it was impossible to keep them out of the title game because they were the only BCS conference champ with only one loss. You could argue USC or Georgia being better teams, but the title game debate has quite clearly been won by the "most deserving" side (over the "best team" side) with Florida's selection in 2006 and the two teams' selections in 2007.

As for the Big Ten being down, it's true to a degree. There were three tiers among the BCS conferences last year: the top tier (SEC and Big 12), the middle (Big Ten, Pac 10), and bottom (ACC and Big East). The Big Ten and Pac 10 both had 4 teams in the final AP poll, and remarkably the two conferences' teams had the same average rank (16.75). So while it wasn't one of the two best conferences, the Big Ten was still better than the ACC and Big East were. I'll let others debate whether or not it was better than the Pac 10.

by Year2 on Apr 7, 2008 10:16 AM EDT up 0 recs

Re: Re: Ohio State Perception

I would argue the following teams were better than Ohio State last year: LSU, Georgia, USC, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Georgia, and Oregon (w/Dixon).

Your argument seems to be that if you're only BCS conference champ with one loss, that team deserves to play in the BCS title game (provided there aren't two undefeated teams). Would you have supported a one-loss Virginia Tech team had they held on to beat Boston College despite getting waxed by LSU? I guess I'm saying I don't buy that argument as a hard and fast rule.

Up until Michigan's victory over Florida, what is the best out of conference win by ANY Big Ten team? Is it Ohio State's win over Pac-10 bottom feeder Washington, Michigan State's win over Pitt, Wisconsin's win over Washington State? The conference didn't have one real quality win over an out-of-conference opponent until Penn State's victory over Texas A&M in late December. I believe the Big Ten reached a nadir last year in terms of its football play.

I disagree that the Big Ten was in a second tier of BCS conferences because of final AP poll positions. Sagarin's ratings put the conference sixth behind all the other BCS conferences.

And are you stating that Florida in 2006 was not the best team? Who was?

by DoubleB on Apr 7, 2008 5:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

Re: Ohio State Perception

It all depends on context, but I'm speaking in generalities about national sentiment. At the end of the year I thought that Georgia was a better team than LSU was, and that a number of teams could have been better than Ohio State.

However, that's all subjective, and certainly doesn't matter since I don't have a Harris Poll vote. If one BCS conference champion ends up with one fewer loss than the rest of them, that team is going to be seen by the voting populace as "more deserving" and will get in the national title game. Period.

The Sagarin ratings are also nice, but I can't say I'm a huge fan of them. I probably could be persuaded that the Big East was better than the Big Ten, but not the ACC.

As for Florida being the best team in 2006, it depends on which week we're talking about. That season was incredibly up and down, despite having only one loss, and at least for me as a Gator fan, it didn't feel like it could be a national title team until after beating Arkansas in the SEC championship game. Thanks to having the #1 schedule, Florida earned the title of "best team" more than anyone else did, but without a tournament at the end of the season, it's hard to say for certain.

But then you run into issues like with UGA last year, who for half the season was a lifeless collection of players, and then for half the season was a true team and a killing machine at that. Do we reward consistency over the whole season, or just who's best at the end? It's a complex question, one I explored back last December.

by Year2 on Apr 7, 2008 6:14 PM EDT up 0 recs

Hmm...

Another thing I'm wondering is why Oklahoma has not received the same backlash that Ohio State has in the national media. I;m pretty sure I know the answer, but anyone's opinion would be welcome.

by gahnki on Apr 7, 2008 8:02 PM EDT up 0 recs

Re: Hmm...

There was a backlash against Oklahoma after the 2004 season's bowls, since at it had lost two straight national title games. No difference there.

The BCS losses since then haven't made as big an impact because a) they weren't in the national title game, and b) the wins for Boise State and West Virginia were such good stories for those schools that no one blamed Oklahoma much for being the losing team.

Plus, Oklahoma had the good judgment of laying low for a season in 2005 (wink wink, nudge nudge) and letting Texas win the conference and national title to restore people's confidence in the Big 12.

by Year2 on Apr 7, 2008 9:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

I

"There was a backlash against Oklahoma after the 2004 season's bowls, since at it had lost two straight national title games. No difference there."

I'm sorry but, no, not at all. There is a HUGE difference there. Espin was not making ridiculous claims about speed difference or saying that the Big Twelve was on the level of the MAC. And that is the difference. There may have been some fan backlash, but nothing like a national media outlet becoming the number one enemy of a university.

And I will tell you why: The Big Ten Network. Espin does not like competition and they have done their best to stop it in the past. Now there is not much they can do except discredit an entire conference and the flagship of that conference, tOSU.

The Buckeyes have always drawn in the highest ratings of any single team in the country. Interesting matchups may draw higher ratings than, say, Northwestern vs. OSU, but no one draws an audience like the Buckeyes.

The BIG10 Network may not televise the most interesting games right now, but what happens when more people get it and the Michigan vs. Ohio State game is televised exclusively on it?

by gahnki on Apr 7, 2008 9:52 PM EDT up 0 recs

Interesting

Interesting thought, but I firmly believe that every fan base across the board is convinced ESPN hates them. If you need to see an Oklahoma backlash article from ESPN, it's not that hard to find. And the reason people are using hyperbole and calling the Big Ten the MAC is because the Big Ten has been down from its own high standards the past couple years, and with as many voices as there are these days the only way to get noticed just about is to be as obnoxious as possible.

After going back and looking for more than just that one anti-Oklahoma article, I realized the reason the backlash against Oklahoma then wasn't as big as the one against OSU now. It's because everyone was too busy crowning USC as the new dynasty and debating undefeated Auburn's claim to the throne. In other words, there were other storylines at the time.

In 2006, Ohio State was the national storyline. It was the only undefeated team, it went wire-to-wire at the top of the polls, and it had the wire-to-wire Heisman favorite in Troy Smith. When it was announced that Florida was going to play it in the BCSCG, it unleashed a flood of stories about how the Buckeyes would win in a blowout and how Michigan got robbed. Well, after Michigan got beat by USC in the Rose Bowl, all other storylines were dead. Ohio State was the glamor team of the year, and win or lose the Buckeyes were going to be the main story. It was a lot like 2005 USC, only the Trojans that year at least had the good sense to lose to Texas in an epic game.

In 2007, the story was chaos. It all began with Michigan losing to App State, which also sunk the Big Ten's flagging reputation to a new low where it stuck. Wisconsin was a disappointment as well, and Illinois got in the BCS practically by default despite being ranked #14, thanks to the BCS's rules limiting conferences to two participants per year. This lead to an avalanche of "Good for Ron Zook" articles, but the undercurrent if you read between the lines was "Really? Zook's Illinois was the second best team in the Big Ten?" Actually, it was third in the conference standings behind Michigan, but that doesn't matter to the BCS.

To make a long story short, there was no common thread through the whole season. The only thing left was grasping on to last year's storyline and adapting to this year. Not only did you have #1 Ohio State losing to the SEC champion to fill up your column space and airtime again, but hey, why not dump on the Big Ten too? It's cheap and easy, and keeps you from having to do the hard work of really sorting out the season.

I can tell you it's not just ESPN that is doing this. It's not just people in Florida, where I lived from birth to last December. It's even here in Charlotte, NC where I live now that the local sports talk radio (a CBS radio affiliate) makes fun of Ohio State anytime the school comes up. It's the heart of ACC basketball country where the locals hate the braggadocio of SEC fans as much as anyone, and they make fun of Ohio State mercilessly.

So to conclude, yes you're right the OSU backlash is greater than the OU backlash was, but the OU backlash did exist. Also, the people getting down on Ohio State is not just a vindictive thing ESPN is doing to get back at the Big Ten for making its own network.

by Year2 on Apr 8, 2008 12:15 AM EDT up 0 recs

B10 Network

As an aside, ESPN has no reason whatsoever to feel threatened by the Big Ten Network. There simply aren't enough non-Big Ten partisans who will pay extra the whole year on their TV bill just to get 4 months of the third or fourth best Big Ten game every week. And there simply aren't enough Big Ten grads and sympathizers dispersed through the country to make it on basic cable anywhere outside the Great Lakes states. For example, Fox (the corporate backer of the B10 Network) can't even get FSN Florida on Time Warner's basic cable package in the state; there's no chance the Big Ten Network will ever come close.

Because the viewership will never be anywhere near what ESPN's or ABC's are (the networks with the national Big Ten contract currently), it'd be a financial disaster to make the conference's headlining game an exclusive. Even if they did make it exclusive to try boost subscribers, one game isn't enough to justify paying for a whole additional channel. People would just say "No thanks, you money-grubbing pricks, I'll just catch the highlights later." The schools would never allow that to happen.

by Year2 on Apr 8, 2008 12:46 AM EDT up 0 recs

Interesting...

It is not what the Big Ten Network currently is that scares ESPN; it is what it represents for the future.

The Big Ten Network has had a moderate level of success, and the number of people and companies carrying it are growing greatly. And that has not escaped the attention of other conferences.

The Big Twelve already has begun preliminary plans for their own network, and the SEC has been rumored to be interested after their deal with CBS runs out.

One college network may not hurt Espin, but if every major conference has a network that would hurt them greatly.

by gahnki on Apr 9, 2008 8:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

Think National

Think from a national perspective here. The maximum viewership a game can get is if it's on one of the broadcast networks - ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox. Close behind that is basic cable. Then there is a big gap before you get to things like expanded basic, satellite, and so forth. So, if you want true national reach you've got to be on basic cable.

I made the case, and I stand by it, that the Big 10 Network will not find its way to basic cable outside of Big Ten states. On the same token, the Big 12 network won't make it on basic cable outside of Big 12 states, and so on. The same goes for all conference-controlled channels.

If conferences want all their big games to reach the entire country (and they do, since there's more money in it), they will still need the broadcast networks and ESPN to show the games. This is not a situation like with the NFL Network, because the NFL includes all the teams, not just a small set of them. These conference networks are to college football what a NFC South or AFC West Network would be to the NFL.

Since the broadcast networks and ESPN are required to reach a true national audience, these conference networks are not a threat to get premier games. If the national guys want to pick up a game, the conferences will gladly give it to them for an increased audience. The conference networks are more threats to outfits like Versus and Raycom Sports that show the non-major games than they are to the big national networks. Even then, a channel can only show one game at a time, so until we get even Florida versus FAU on something other than Pay Per View, there's more room in the market without pushing anyone out.

Until TV is replaced by streaming video over a nationwide fiber-to-the-home network, allowing everyone to get every channel, regional restrictions will apply and the broadcast guys and ESPN will always get the best games.

by Year2 on Apr 10, 2008 1:35 PM EDT up 0 recs

One Buckeye's opinion

As an anti-playoff Buckeye, this logic sways me none.

If OSU goes 11-1 and then wins the Rose Bowl, it's a tremendously successful season in my eyes, even if Georgia gets a BCS title for beating Oklahoma.

I have this antiquated view that college football is a regional sport, with an amusing exhibition season at the end. So what would I care about anti-OSU backlash?

by Georgia Buckeye on Apr 7, 2008 4:26 PM EDT 0 recs

Re: One Buckeye's opinion

If you don't care about national opinion, then I've got nothing for you. That the target audience of this piece mainly was Buckeyes who do care about national sentiment is implicit in its content.

If that's your opinion, then I respect that. The idea of college football being just a regional sport is somewhat ironic coming from a person with the nickname "Georgia Buckeye," though. That's not to ridicule you, it just points to how the increased mobility within society in recent decades has caused college football to grow beyond its regional roots into the national obsession it is today.

If that kind of season makes you happy, more power to you. I've run into more Buckeyes who aren't satisfied with back to back 12-2 seasons than I can count, despite how great a record that is.

by Year2 on Apr 7, 2008 6:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

Opinion

"I've run into more Buckeyes who aren't satisfied with back to back 12-2 seasons than I can count, despite how great a record that is."

Misinformed fans who don't know a damn about what it takes to coach or play football at a high level.

Some fans just can't accept that the other team has good players and coaches as well.

And it doesn't just happen with Buckeye fans. It is just the complex of the modern sports fan.

by gahnki on Apr 7, 2008 8:00 PM EDT up 0 recs

No doubt

No doubt. I can't tell you how many people this year called for Florida OC Dan Mullen's head this year despite 2007 being the 4th or 5th best offensive season in school history. Not to mention a year removed from a conference and national title. After Florida beat LSU in 2003, I heard caller after caller on LSU's network call for Jimbo Fisher to be fired, and not only did the Tigers go on to win the NC that year but now Fisher is the anointed successor to St. Bobby at FSU.

by Year2 on Apr 7, 2008 11:28 PM EDT up 0 recs