Who should receive the last two FOFC-BBCF playoffs bids?

[Huckleberry]

Information:

Total Combined Averages:
Penn State 11/1.375
Georgia 21/2.625
Auburn 28/3.500
Wisconsin 28/3.500
UCLA 32/5.000

Overall Record:
Auburn 10-2
Wisconsin 10-2
Penn State 10-2
UCLA 9-2
Georgia 9-3

Strength of Schedule:
Georgia 21
Penn State 28
Auburn 55
UCLA 52
Wisconsin 58

Winning Pct. Of Teams Beat:
Penn State .466 (55-63)
Georgia .462 (48-56)
Wisconsin .449 (48-59)
Auburn .437 (52-67)
UCLA .436 (45-57)

Winning Pct. Of Teams Lost To:
Penn State .875 (21-3)
Georgia .842 (32-6)
Auburn .792 (19-5)
UCLA .773 (17-5)
Wisconsin .696 (16-7)

Winning Pct. Of Nonconference Opponents/Record Against:
Penn State .574 (27-20) / 4-0
Georgia .457 (16-19) / 3-0
UCLA .429 (15-20) / 2-1
Wisconsin .426 (20-27) / 4-0
Auburn .354 (17-31) / 4-0

Wins Against Teams w/6 or More Victories:
Penn State 6
UCLA 5
Auburn 4
Georgia 4
Wisconsin 4

Average Computer Ranking Of Teams Beat:
Wisconsin 56.7
Penn State 57.0
Georgia 61.3
Auburn 65.5
UCLA 66.0

Average Computer Ranking Of Teams Lost To:
Penn State 5.5
Georgia 10.3
Auburn 10.5
UCLA 18.0
Wisconsin 21.0


AUBURN (10-2)
SOS: 55
Wins
No. 11 Georgia (9-3) 28-13
No. 15 Ole Miss (9-3) 31-27
No. 52 Alabama (6-6) 28-16
No. 58 Syracuse (6-6) 50-7
No. 67 Middle Tenn. St. (5-7) 25-21
No. 79 South Carolina (5-7) 48-17
No. 85 Navy (4-8) 53-3
No. 88 Tennessee (3-9) 38-34
No. 89 Arkansas (3-8) 41-20
No. 111 SMU (2-10) 59-6
Combined Record: 52-67 (.437)
Average Ranking: 65.5
Losses
No. 9 LSU (11-2) 37-6
No. 12 Mississippi St. (8-3) 31-14
Combined Record: 19-5 (.792)
Average Ranking: 10.5
Nonconference Opponents
Combined record: 17-31 (.354)

GEORGIA (9-3)
SOS: 21
Wins
No. 12 Mississippi St. (8-3) 47-44
No. 22 Utah (9-3) 37-6
No. 41 Kentucky (7-5) 41-10
No. 50 Georgia Tech (5-6) 42-28
No. 55 Florida (6-6) 45-23
No. 79 South Carolina (5-6) 41-16
No. 88 Tennessee (3-9) 44-41
No. 97 Utah State (2-10) 51-10
No. 108 Vanderbilt (3-8) 44-8
Combined Record: 48-56 (.462)
Average Ranking: 61.3
Losses
No. 9 LSU (11-2) 24-16
No. 9 LSU (11-2) 24-16
No. 13 Auburn (10-2) 28-13
Combined Record: 32-6 (.842)
Average Ranking: 10.3
Nonconference Opponents
Combined record: 16-19 (.457)

PENN STATE (10-2)
SOS: 28
Wins
No. 20 West Virginia (8-2) 48-19
No. 35 Michigan St. (6-5) 34-10
No. 37 Ohio State (6-6) 29-3
No. 42 Pittsburgh (7-5) 47-7
No. 46 Minnesota (5-7) 15-13
No. 48 Maryland (8-5) 20-15
No. 53 Iowa (6-6) 27-26
No. 81 Illinois (4-8) 24-16
No. 90 Cincinnati (4-8) 27-13
No. 118 Northwestern (1-11) 34-12
Combined Record: 55-63 (.466)
Average Ranking: 57.0
Losses
No. 4 Purdue (11-1) 35-29
No. 7 Michigan (10-2) 40-29
Combined Record: 21-3 (.875)
Average Ranking: 5.5
Nonconference Opponents
Combined record: 27-20 (.574)

UCLA (9-2)
SOS: 52
Wins
No. 16 California (7-4) 27-20
No. 39 Washington St (6-6) 22-10
No. 49 New Mexico St (7-5) 25-10
No. 56 Stanford (7-4) 37-13
No. 57 Oregon (5-6) 20-0
No. 73 Arizona (6-6) 32-13
No. 76 Washington (5-6) 40-13
No. 112 Temple (2-9) 45-19
No. 116 Arizona St (0-11) 27-10
Combined Record: 44-57 (.436)
Average Rating: 66.0
Losses
No. 3 USC (10-1) 34-13
No. 33 Texas A&M (7-4) 20-13
Combined Record: 17-5 (.773)
Average Rating: 18.0
Nonconference Opponents
Combined record: 15-20 (.429)

WISCONSIN (10-2, 6-2)
SOS: 58
Wins
No. 4 Purdue (11-1) 28-13
No. 31 N.C. State (7-5) 30-20
No. 46 Minnesota (5-7) 17-10
No. 53 Iowa (6-6) 37-3
No. 63 Colorado (6-6) 46-10
No. 81 Illinois (4-8) 37-14
No. 82 Missouri (4-8) 30-6
No. 90 Cincinnati (4-8) 41-6
No. 117 Indiana (1-10) 38-17
Combined Record: 48-59 (.449)
Average Ranking: 56.7
Losses
No. 7 Michigan (10-2) 21-20
No. 35 Michigan State (6-5) 24-14
Combined Record: 16-7 (.696)
Average Ranking: 21.0
Nonconference Opponents
Combined record: 20-27 (.426)

Links:

Human Polls (http://www.fofc-bbcf.com/league/reports/top25.htm)
Computer Polls (http://www.fofc-bbcf.com/league/reports/gdcs.htm)
My computer ratings (http://www.hornfans.com/recruiting/huckleberry/FOFC-BBCFRatings.htm)

Strong argument/weakness:

Wisconsin (Beat Purdue/58 SOS)
Georgia (Only losses to Auburn & LSU (2X) /3 losses)
Auburn (Beat Georgia /55 SOS)
Penn State (Only losses to Michigan & Purdue/a lot of close victories)
UCLA (Only conference loss to USC/52 SOS)

[Celeval]

Army!

[SackAttack]

Anybody but UCLA!

[KWhit]

Penn State and Auburn.

[John Galt]

I thought Penn State was a pretty easy call. After that I went with Auburn, but it was a much closer decision. One other piece of information that I would have liked (although you did provide plenty) was whether the games were at home or on the road.

[albionmoonlight]

I see Penn St. as the clear #1 of this group.

I see Auburn as #2--though that is much less clear.

[Passacaglia]

I thought Penn State was a pretty easy call. After that I went with Auburn, but it was a much closer decision. One other piece of information that I would have liked (although you did provide plenty) was whether the games were at home or on the road.

As the Michigan coach, I can speak to the Big Ten games. Penn State lost to me at Michigan, but Purdue at home. Wisconsin lost to Michigan in Wisconsin, but on the road to Michigan State. Oh, and Wisconsin beat Purdue on the road.

[Passacaglia]

dola, this is a really interesting thread. The conference commishes are currently deciding which teams make the playoffs, and it's interesting comparing your guys's thought from the outside (i.e. not playing in the league), compared to our thoughts from the inside.

[muns]

I went with Penn State, and Georgia. Penn state gets in first and Georgia pulls in second with the strength of schedule, by Winning Pct. Of Teams Lost To, and Wins Against Teams w/6 or More Victories

[Coffee Warlord]

I see Penn St. as the clear #1 of this group.

I see Auburn as #2--though that is much less clear.

Exactly my thoughts.

[Passacaglia]

This thread should be titled, Ping: JeeberD

[Huckleberry]

I can say that Wisconsin's signature win is getting much less play here than amongst the selection committee.

[Passacaglia]

I can say that Wisconsin's signature win is getting much less play here than amongst the selection committee.

Yeah, I'm a but surprised by that. Maybe some voted before I mentioned that the game was AT Purdue. But still.

[kcchief19]

I see the reason for controversey. I think Penn State is a smidge above everyone else. I think Georgia and Auburn are next. Normally I would favor Auburn for the head-to-head win against Georgia. But given the rankings and strength of schedule combined with what I'm assuming as Georgia making it to the SEC title game, I'll give the nod to Georgia -- but not by much. I imagine Auburn would be the more popular choice.

[Ajaxab]

Which two teams will draw the largest television audience? Which teams' fan bases travel the best? ;)

[Abe Sargent]

This is old info, not up to date. For example, WVU is 9-3, not 8-2. I'd have to look it up, but I think we are higher than 20 too.

-Anxiety

[KWhit]

I would say Auburn should definitely get in over Georgia. They beat them head to head and have 1 less loss.

[Abe Sargent]

Dola - just checked, we are higher than 20 in the Media, Coaches, and GSDS computer ranking - all three. Sort of a Straw Man if the info isn't up to date.

-Anxiety

[Passacaglia]

For those that voted, and not in the league: Do you think that if the information were presented differently, that you might have voted differently? I know that John Galt mentioned wanting to know about where each game was played -- and I agree that's significant data left out. I just think the poll results are surprising, and BBCF coaches will know why.

[Passacaglia]

And we finally have out first non-Penn State vote, from yabanci -- however, he only voted for one team. Interesting.

[sovereignstar]

Heh.. I like how the Penn State owner is the guy who put the majority of that info together.

[KWhit]

For those that voted, and not in the league: Do you think that if the information were presented differently, that you might have voted differently?

Not really. It seems pretty clear cut to me.

[Passacaglia]

Heh.. I like how the Penn State owner is the guy who put the majority of that info together.

Not the majority of it. All of it. That's why I asked my question in the earlier post. It's like a study in propaganda.

[KWhit]

Not the majority of it. All of it. That's why I asked my question in the earlier post. It's like a study in propaganda.

The only thing that might sway me was "when did the losses come?" If Penn State was undefeated and then lost its last 2 games, that might be enough to make me rethink my position, but it seems that they are the top team listed, IMO.

[John Galt]

Yeah, I'm a but surprised by that. Maybe some voted before I mentioned that the game was AT Purdue. But still.

I think knowing the game was at Purdue definitely makes it closer. I do think, however, that one win really is Wisconsin's whole season. Given that Penn State and Michigan (I assume) were already invited to the playoff, I probably held that against Wisconsin.

Georgia was a tough call too. The extra loss definitely cuts against them, but I assume it was in the conference championship game, so I think that doesn't hurt them too much. However, they also have 1 less regular season game then. I really think the Georgia head-to-head loss with Auburn and Auburn's better winning % made the difference to me.

I really do think home-road data is important in these decisions. Having played many seasons of BBCF, I could see any of the above schedules being so brutal as deserving much higher praise if the home/road split was so awful. And so my vote is based on a faulty neutral-site assumption.

[John Galt]

The only thing that might sway me was "when did the losses come?" If Penn State was undefeated and then lost its last 2 games, that might be enough to make me rethink my position, but it seems that they are the top team listed, IMO.

The early/late thing would matter a little to me, but the home/road split would matter much more, IMO. If, for example, they played MSU, OSU, Michigan, and Purdue at home, then I may not have voted for them. I now know where the Michigan game was played. But where were the OSU, Iowa, Minnesota, and MSU games played?

[Huckleberry]

League Site (http://www.fofc-bbcf.com/league/reports/index.htm)
Penn State team page (http://www.fofc-bbcf.com/league/reports/team27.htm)
Wisconsin team page (http://www.fofc-bbcf.com/league/reports/team29.htm)

[Passacaglia]

The early/late thing would matter a little to me, but the home/road split would matter much more, IMO. If, for example, they played MSU, OSU, Michigan, and Purdue at home, then I may not have voted for them. I now know where the Michigan game was played. But where were the OSU, Iowa, Minnesota, and MSU games played?

Geez, you need to know where the games against THOSE middling teams were, too? Well, now that we're on to discussing it as propaganda, it doesn't matter! :p Anyway, yes, you're right, Michigan is an at-large lock, which is why we're not involved in the poll, despite being 10-2 -- our only losses were road losses against #4 Purdue and #1 Oklahoma. Just want to brag a little, and talk about how we still have pretty good hopes of winning this thing. And your thinking about not wanting 4 teams from the Big Ten seems to agree with the rest of the selection committee -- even though as Big Ten Commish, I would have liked to see it!

[sachmo71]

Navy!

[John Galt]

League Site (http://www.fofc-bbcf.com/league/reports/index.htm)
Penn State team page (http://www.fofc-bbcf.com/league/reports/team27.htm)
Wisconsin team page (http://www.fofc-bbcf.com/league/reports/team29.htm)

Looking at the two teams (Wisconsin and PSU), they had very similar inconference schedules (not playing each other; one team avoids NW, the other avoids Indiana). That should make the comparison easier. I really think PSU deserves credit for their nonconference road victory against WVU (better than Wisconsin's road wins at Mizzou and Colorado). Having looked at the information from the league itself (and not from the propoganda source), I still think PSU has a better argument than Wisconsin (although the pollsters disagree with me). I haven't looked at the other teams involved, but I think PSU gets the nod over Wisconsin for getting into the playoff.

[Abe Sargent]

Looking at the two teams (Wisconsin and PSU), they had very similar inconference schedules (not playing each other; one team avoids NW, the other avoids Indiana). That should make the comparison easier. I really think PSU deserves credit for their nonconference road victory against WVU (better than Wisconsin's road wins at Mizzou and Colorado). Having looked at the information from the league itself (and not from the propoganda source), I still think PSU has a better argument than Wisconsin (although the pollsters disagree with me). I haven't looked at the other teams involved, but I think PSU gets the nod over Wisconsin for getting into the playoff.


If you look at the states, the PSU WVU game was much closer than the final score.

-Anxiety

[Coffee Warlord]

What I wanna know.

Who is managing Colorado, and how DARE they get killed by the damn cheeseheads.

[Passacaglia]

What I wanna know.

Who is managing Colorado, and how DARE they get killed by the damn cheeseheads.

Ha ha....he can't post here to defend himself, let's put it that way.

[Passacaglia]

Ha ha....he can't post here to defend himself, let's put it that way.

Because he's busy looking for an Elmo Says Your Name doll. :)

[panerd]

In Mizzou's defense of their loss I was playing without about 80 guys as the acedemic suspensions in BBCF are even more random than the injuries used to be in TCY. I guess I should have played the game a little more before I joined multiplayer, but allocating 30% of your hours to a player should get his grades up a little! I still think Wisconsin deserves at least one of the bids. There is something I can't explain other than to say it just felt that way all season.

[panerd]

Dola: And speaking only for Missouri's #82 ranking on the above data. There are like 4 different ways teams are ranked and this is the lowest (by far) ranking our team had. We actually had top 25 votes in the final poll. Don't know if that was totally random pick by the PSU coach, but I doubt it.

(EDIT: We were #44 in Huckleberry's rankings)

[Franklinnoble]

Doesn't a poll sort of invalidate the whole purpose of having a playoff system?

[Passacaglia]

Doesn't a poll sort of invalidate the whole purpose of having a playoff system?

I don't think so. If we didn't have a playoff system, according to the GDCS rankings, Oklahoma and Texas would play for the title. Are you thinking that this poll will decide who gets in? I already said that the conference commissioners decide that (you should know, you used to be one). This poll is just for funsies.

[Toddzilla]

Why not leave it up to the BBCF polls? Oh, wait, that would put a 7-4 Ohio State and a 6-5 Arizona in the playoffs.....

[Franklinnoble]

I don't think so. If we didn't have a playoff system, according to the GDCS rankings, Oklahoma and Texas would play for the title. Are you thinking that this poll will decide who gets in? I already said that the conference commissioners decide that (you should know, you used to be one). This poll is just for funsies.

Yeah, I know... I was just being a smart-ass.

[rafini]

Since there were a few questions and I was the guy that put everything together - I used the in-game Computer Rankings for the teams. I tried to make sure everything was correct, but there were a lot of numbers and I may have missed something. Also, with WVU's ranking, I was using the online numbers, which has you at No. 20.

I actually put this together to mostly focus on the actual results and not as much the polls because I think there are still some problems with the polls. That's why I think the most important numbers were the records of teams you beat and lost to and the SOS.

P.S. I wholeheartedly agree with the opinions of this board. :)

[kingfc22]

Because he's busy looking for an Elmo Says Your Name doll. :)

rofl

[Grammaticus]

I think knowing the game was at Purdue definitely makes it closer. I do think, however, that one win really is Wisconsin's whole season. Given that Penn State and Michigan (I assume) were already invited to the playoff, I probably held that against Wisconsin.

Georgia was a tough call too. The extra loss definitely cuts against them, but I assume it was in the conference championship game, so I think that doesn't hurt them too much. However, they also have 1 less regular season game then. I really think the Georgia head-to-head loss with Auburn and Auburn's better winning % made the difference to me.

I really do think home-road data is important in these decisions. Having played many seasons of BBCF, I could see any of the above schedules being so brutal as deserving much higher praise if the home/road split was so awful. And so my vote is based on a faulty neutral-site assumption.
Auburn's strength of schedule was 55 and Georgia's was 21, plus 2 of Georgia's losses were to the same team, LSU. Once in regular season and once in the championship game. But yeah, Auburn won the head to head.

[Bearcat729]

So for those who wanted to know the home and road splits here are mine.



AUBURN (10-2)
SOS: 55
Wins
No. 11 @ Georgia (9-3) 28-13
No. 15 @ Ole Miss (9-3) 31-27
No. 52 @ Alabama (6-6) 28-16
No. 58 Syracuse (6-6) 50-7
No. 67 Middle Tenn. St. (5-7) 25-21
No. 79 South Carolina (5-7) 48-17
No. 85 Navy (4-8) 53-3
No. 88 @ Tennessee (3-9) 38-34
No. 89 Arkansas (3-8) 41-20
No. 111 SMU (2-10) 59-6
Combined Record: 52-67 (.437)
Average Ranking: 65.5
Losses
No. 9 LSU (11-2) 37-6
No. 12 Mississippi St. (8-3) 31-14
Combined Record: 19-5 (.792)
Average Ranking: 10.5
Nonconference Opponents
Combined record: 17-31 (.354)

[albionmoonlight]

Personally, I don't care about when teams won/lost. Maybe it is because I started my fandom with pro sports, but I don't like the idea that a game in September should count less than a game in November.

I also put a lot of weight on the head-to-head matchup between Auburn and Georgia. Maybe too much weight, but it is just such a stark stat when you are trying to decide between two teams.

Finally, I think that it is really interesting how the sense of people who have followed the league differs from those of us who are just looking at these numbers. I wonder what that says about "gut feelings" and the like. Or about the way these numbers were presented to us.

[Passacaglia]

Personally, I don't care about when teams won/lost. Maybe it is because I started my fandom with pro sports, but I don't like the idea that a game in September should count less than a game in November.

I also put a lot of weight on the head-to-head matchup between Auburn and Georgia. Maybe too much weight, but it is just such a stark stat when you are trying to decide between two teams.

Finally, I think that it is really interesting how the sense of people who have followed the league differs from those of us who are just looking at these numbers. I wonder what that says about "gut feelings" and the like. Or about the way these numbers were presented to us.

I see what you mean about late games vs. early games, but personally, I think the fact that this is our first season, and for many of us, our first time playing the game really (at least a few of us don't even play it in SP) means a lot. I lost in Week 1, granted it was on the road to the #1 team, but I feel like I've really fine-tuned my offense since then. Now, they've probably improved to, but it would be interesting to see how much, and I hope to get a playoff rematch.

And I don't think college sports is as much like that (where a late game counts more than an early game) as people think. I'm thinking back to the year when Nebraska lost bad in their last game of the season (vs. Colorado maybe?), but still went to the title game.

[Swaggs]

PSU and Georgia.

[KWhit]

PSU and Georgia.

How can you (and others) pick Georgia when they lost head-to-head to Auburn? And the game was played at Georgia!

[Grammaticus]

How can you (and others) pick Georgia when they lost head-to-head to Auburn? And the game was played at Georgia!
The head to head win is a pretty compelling point. If you use that logic, Wisconsin beat Perdue head to head and Perdue is in the tourney, so Wisconsin should be too. Problem is Perdue won the Big 10 and Wisconsin did not. Why PSU over Wisconsin then? Because PSU played a tougher schedule and beat more top 25 teams.

Back to GA / AUB, over the haul Auburn played a much easier schedule putting them at risk far less than Georgia. They failed to win their conference division (SEC West). Georgia played a top 25 schedule and won their division (SEC East). I think Georgia is a better team and would represent the SEC better in the tournament. With so many poor teams getting automatic bids due to winning lower tier conferences, the SEC will at best get 2 teams in the tourney.

On the other hand, the big 10 and big 12 teams had much easier schedules across the board. In the end the argument could be made that Georgia and Auburn in the tourney over PSU and Wisconsin would make for a stronger field.

I think the real problem is we went with assigning all conference champs an auto bid in the tourney, which leaves us with half or a third of the tourney not even being ranked in the top 25 on ANY polls. We should have said conference champs get an auto bid IF they are ranked in the top 25 on ANY in game poll. That would ensure all of the teams actually belong in a national championship tournament.

By the way, it has been a lot of fun navigating through all of this in the game. I’m excited to see how things pan out.

[Huckleberry]

They failed to win their conference division (SEC West). Georgia played a top 25 schedule and won their division (SEC East).

The only reason Georgia won their division and Auburn did not is because Auburn is in the same division as LSU and Georgia is not.

[albionmoonlight]

I think the real problem is we went with assigning all conference champs an auto bid in the tourney, which leaves us with half or a third of the tourney not even being ranked in the top 25 on ANY polls. We should have said conference champs get an auto bid IF they are ranked in the top 25 on ANY in game poll. That would ensure all of the teams actually belong in a national championship tournament.

I think that it actually gets to the issue of what it means to "belong in a national championship tournament."

I see two main ways of looking at playoff tournaments. First, you can try to find the best (say) 16 teams in the country and put them in the tournament with no regard to conference championships or the like. Pick a method of ranking teams, and put #s 1-16 in the tourney and be done with it.

Second, you can look at the tournement as a reward for a great season and as a way of trying to make sure that as many teams as possible have at least a theoretical chance of actually competing for a national championship--as a chance to put as many teams' destinies into their own hands as possible.

I tend to fall into the second group. If you win your conference, you have earned the right to go swim in the big kids' pool. If you finish 2nd in a "power" conference and are frozen out of the playoffs--well, maybe you shouldn't have finished second.

I have no doubt that the best bubble team left out of the NCAA tournament would beat the worst conference champ in the tournament 9 years out of 10. But I still prefer the system where the conference champs get to go to the show over the first bubble team left out.

Maybe the best way to phrase it: Are you looking to find the best team, or are you looking to find the National Champion. Sometimes, those are not the same thing.

[KWhit]

The head to head win is a pretty compelling point. If you use that logic, Wisconsin beat Perdue head to head and Perdue is in the tourney, so Wisconsin should be too. Problem is Perdue won the Big 10 and Wisconsin did not. Why PSU over Wisconsin then? Because PSU played a tougher schedule and beat more top 25 teams.

You can always play the X beat Y and Y beat Z and Z is a playoff team, so X should be too (or whatever), but we're talking about 2 bubble teams that actually played each other and Auburn handily beat Georgia at Georgia. Oh yeah, and Auburn has fewer losses, too. The strength of schedule is nowhere near enough to overcome those facts.

[Passacaglia]

On the other hand, the big 10 and big 12 teams had much easier schedules across the board.

Well, maybe not COMPLETELY across the board. ;)

[Passacaglia]

The only reason Georgia won their division and Auburn did not is because Auburn is in the same division as LSU and Georgia is not.

That may be true, but if our philosophy has been to make sure each conference is represented, shouldn't there be an argument that states that, at least in close cases, each division should be represented as well?

[KWhit]

That may be true, but if our philosophy has been to make sure each conference is represented, shouldn't there be an argument that states that, at least in close cases, each division should be represented as well?

Uh, no. If that's the case, what's the point of the Championship Game?

[Grammaticus]

The only reason Georgia won their division and Auburn did not is because Auburn is in the same division as LSU and Georgia is not.
That’s true. If you take the common opponent and conference champ LSU, Georgia played them 24-16. One score and 2 point convert from a tie. Auburn got spanked by LSU 37-6. I think if you played GA /AUB 10 times GA would come out on top more frequently. So, in the tourney, they will likely do better.

But really, the differences are not that much. I won’t cry over AUB getting in. In fact, I hope they whip azz for the SEC. Plus, AUB beat me, so it makes me look a little bit better.

[Passacaglia]

Uh, no. If that's the case, what's the point of the Championship Game?

Uh, apparently to give one team an extra loss, and eliminate them from the playoffs.