Based on the method posted below, here is what 2009 will look like (current as of 12/6/09):
Sugar Bowl (1) Alabama v (8) Ohio State
Rose Bowl (4) TCU v (5) Florida
Orange Bowl (3) Cincinnati v (6) Boise St
Fiesta Bowl (2) Texas v (7) Oregon
semis:
Sugar v Rose winners
Orange v Fiesta winners
Alabama qualifies as SEC champ
Texas qualifies as BigXII champ
Ohio State qualifies as Big Ten champ
Cincinnati qualifies as Big East champ
Oregon qualifies as Pac10 champ
Florida is an at-large
TCU meets the mid-major at-large qualification
Boise St brings a 2nd mid-major since they are undefeated, ranked in the top 12, and ahead of a big 6 conference champ in the BCS rankings
The ACC champ, Georgia Tech, is left out. They are the lowest ranked big six conference champ in a year with two quality mid-majors. They have two losses already. Some years that would be good enough. This year, it is not.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Monday, October 29, 2007
What the NCAA FBS Playoffs Should Look Like!
Last Edited January 10, 2008
This is something I originally worked on post the 2006 season. I will amend it some, but it stands the test of one year IMO. It also includes responses to some initial concern and feedback I received on the twoplustwo forums.
I'm interested in a BCS solution that is best for the future growth and appreciation of college football as the best sport in the United States. I love the sport and wish it only the best.
alright, inevitably, a playoff system will come.
The quest then becomes what is the right system:
well, there should be a few requirements:
1) I would hate to spoil the greatest regular season in all of sports.
2) I would hate to remove the bowl system and the idea that there is more than one winner in college football (especially with 119 teams).
3) I would like to encourage more interesting non-conference season games. Who didn't enjoy Texas-Ohio State? Why punish a SC team that schedules Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame? That behavior should be encouraged.
4) A compromise between the interested parties that is win-win (-win-win-win-win for all the parties)
OK...so here goes
8 teams
Conference champs of the big 6 (Big10, Pac10, ACC, BigXII, ACC, and SEC)
--Review to maintain big 6 status: conferences would need to average one top10 team at the end of the regular season and 2 in the top18 over the previous 7 years.
--Due to the exclusivity of an 8-team tourney, there will be years when the worst of the big 6 champs do not receive an auto-bid when there are more worthy mid-majors, at-larges, and independents. This will be rare, but will happen.
2 at-large teams consisting of lower conference champs, Notre Dame, and big 6 conference non-champions as determined using the current BCS ranking system, but allowing MOV with a cap for computer use
-- highest rated at-large teams get the berth excepting the following Notre Dame and midmajor champ rules
----- keep the current Notre Dame rule on an automatic berth for top8 BCS standings finish
----- a special set of rules to include the best midmajor conference champion:
might as well go with the BCS current rules that seem to work. It goes as follows:
"The champion of Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, or the Western Athletic Conference will earn an automatic berth in a BCS bowl game if either:
A. Such team is ranked in the top 12 of the final BCS Standings, or,
B. Such team is ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS Standings and its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls."
-----A second midmajor team can qualify if they are in the top 12 of the final BCS standings, undefeated, and ranked higher than a big 6 conference champ in the BCS standings. The second midmajor would then bump one of the big 6 out of an auto-berth and take that spot. This keeps open a spot for great at-large teams.
-BCS ranking system used for seeding: still important to be #1 rather than #4
-1st round games are the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange on Jan 1-2
---those 4 bowls would keep their highlight status and have the attention of the college world after the other bowl games are completed
---Team-selection for the bowls will be determined by bowl-conference affiliations starting with the #1 seed
-----Atlantic Coast Conference-Orange Bowl
-----Big Ten Conference-Rose Bowl
-----Big 12 Conference-Fiesta Bowl
-----Pac-10 Conference-Rose Bowl
-----Southeastern Conference-Sugar Bowl
-----for example, if the Pac10 champ is the #1 BCS team, they would be assigned the Rose Bowl verse the lowest rated of the 8 playoff team
-----If the next highest seed while allocating the 4 bowls is tied to a bowl that is already taken, the bowl with next highest conference champ gets the next pick of which matchup they would like that is available. A match-up is not available, however, if the higher seeded conference champ's home bowl is still open.
--------don't worry, there will be lots of examples of how it all works when I outline how it would've worked in past BCS years.
--------Example using 2007 season:
Rose Bowl #1 Ohio State (B10) v #10 Hawai'i (MM)
Sugar Bowl #2 LSU (SEC) v #9 West Virginia (BEAST)
Orange Bowl #3 Virginia Tech (ACC) v #7 USC (P10)
Fiesta Bowl #4 Oklahoma (BXII) v #5 Georgia (ATL)
Ohio St as the one seed goes to its conference tie-in host Rose Bowl.
LSU as the two seed goes to its conference tie-in host Sugar Bowl.
The same reasoning for V Tech and Oklahoma placements.
The rest of the bracket just fills in the seeding with Hawai'i entering as a mid-major qualifier and Georgia filling the one at-large spot left being the highest rated BCS team left.
Notice that no matter how a team qualifies, they are all seeded based on the final BCS standings and place in a traditional 1v8, 4v5, 3v6, 2v7 8-team single elimination bracket. This maximizes the advantage 'earned' by the higher seeds for their work during the season.
Examples from other years are later in this post.
two semifinal games rotating around bid-for sites 7 to 9 days later
-semifinals should be hosted by different cities that bid for the game
---among candidates are other cities that host bowl games and major NCAA events
-----for example--Dallas, San Diego, Orlando, San Antonio, Atlanta, Nashville, etc
---at least one semifinal every 2 years should be hosted in a 'Northern City' to reduce the bias and complaining about Midwest/Northeast teams playing 'road' games
-----for example, Minneapolis, Detroit, Seattle, Indianapolis, Washington DC, etc
-----bias toward domes obviously as we don't want terrible field and game conditions
-should definitely work around the NFL schedule as not to compete
-only way to get the BCS bowl groups to agree to cede some control...gotta give them a carrot
---they will profit from bidding out the semifinal games, yet they keep the title and the first round Bowl extravaganza
---Included in the Bids would of course be corporate sponsorship for the semifinal games
-It will be the #2 seed first round game winner v #3 seed first round game winner. The other game will be the #1 seed game winner verse the other bowl winner.
---For the 2007 example above, the winner of the Sugar and Orange would play each other in one semifinal, while the winner of the Rose and Fiesta would meet in the other.
-the relevant example is the current bidding for the Final Four sites in Men's Basketball. Here, sites are bidding to be one of two Final Four locations to the BCS.
-plenty of money to split among Big 4 bowl committees, the BCS, participating schools, the NCAA, and FBS members
national title game rotating big4 BCS site
---it's already being done, just make it 7-9 days after the semi
---just keep the rotation going between Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta.
Here's why I can live with it. The strict 8 team with favortism toward conference champs keeps the tradition on the importance of conference titles and regular season games mattering. Frankly, there are never enough interconference games to truly know which conference is better without subjectivity. Even the sagarin ratings are often predicting only a fg difference between the teams in one conference to another. It will work like a pool play, or mini-tourney with every team playing their playoff all conference season long to see who is the best of the bunch. The at-large berths acknowledge that one conference maybe blessed with 2 very talented teams. The playoff also acknowledges that, since one conference's dominance over another is the subject of sample size and subjectivity, each major conference champ should be included in the parade. The big 4 bowls are an award in themselves for winning a difficult conference. The system also encourages tough non-conf scheduling as teams try to prepare themselves to win their conference opposed to racking up a huge record to look good in the BCS (2006 Wisconsin anyone?). This proposal also encourages conference parity, which keeps for a healthy fanbase growth across the land.
The playoff isn't diluted too badly and keeps a high level of performance during the season as a mandatory criteria. Other teams can still goto bowl games and appease their alumni, gain practice time, etc. Coaches won't be failures because they don't make the dance, as it is in the NCAAB. 8 teams keeps it from becoming the crap shoot NCAAB is and doesn't allow the playoffs to take more time than the bball tourney does.
Allowing the Rose, Fiesta, Orange, and Sugar to be rotating hosts appeases the bowl committees and sponsors whose money makes the whole thing run. I think the real test is to how in demand the tickets remain with one week travel times for big alums. No matter what, everyone gets the big trip to the Jan 1-2 bowl. Honestly, there are never enough tickets for the big schools for each bowl. I see little problem with Ohio State, Florida, or USC filling the stadium for multiple games though it might not be the same fans at each game. It will be tougher for those without a football tradition and smaller alumi bases like the 2006 Wake Forest or Louisville to fill multiple games, but I think that is a secondary concern. With the additional semifinal cities, one can expect at least half of the available tickets to goto the local semifinal sponsoring committee. With the final a few weeks past Jan 1, perhaps it will work like the Final Four where the host city gets quite a large allocation (once every 4 years for the local city, so not likely to burn out) and a large gathering of coaches and athletic directors in the sport.
The proposed solution restores Jan 1-2 as an amazing period. It's frankly started to fizzle with games being played the 3rd, 4th, etc.
One thing the current #1v#2 one game playoff BCS approach has given is national appeal to games that were mainly regional before. For instance, the entire SEC viewing audience was glued to watching Pitt beat West Virginia in 2007. This system still preserves that atmosphere. However, instead of 1v2, everyone will be watching to see who wins the at-large lotteries and, less important, what seeding will be.
This system gives alot of clarity to teams in that it lets them know what they must do to goto a title game, but it still provides that element of extra luck with at-larges.
The system gives the Utah's and Boise St's their chance.
The system will likely mean that an undefeated major conference team never gets spurned again. sorry Auburn
ummm...I rambled alot
I see the coming tide. You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. I just hope it is done well. This is my best guess.
I much prefer this to just taking the BCS top8 or whatever.
Am I off my rocker? Or, would this appease the gripes from most corners? Or, am I off my rocker and this still is a viable 'solution'?
that was the original idea
now, the follow-up and original feedback
--------------------------------------------
Ok...I also see my system being ok as far as length of time
for only 4 teams, does it mean more time at all
one week extra for 4 teams from the current system during a 'light' period of the school year
I like the time off between the season before the bowls for both finals (these are students) and recover from the physical grind of a season. Teams should come in rested and ready to peak for the bowl. It also maintains the 'bowl' season idea and allows the month travel planning to begin the BCS quest.
The playoffs take place within the first week or two of a spring semester. As we all know, not much gets done the first few weeks, and I think this is an ok tradeoff for the money and reduced controversy.
-----------------------------------------------
to support my assertion that including the conference champions is better than taking the top 8 BCS, Here are the sagrin conference ratings for recent years.
There is alot of flux and small edges.
With the sample size issues, it's tough to determine if the second best team in the fourth best conference is better than the champ of the best, etc.
I admit that Sagarin is not the end-all, be-all, but it's one of the better objective ways of comparison.
2008 Final
1 SEC
2 BIG 12
3 ACC
4 PAC-10
5 BIG EAST
6 BIG TEN
2007 Final
1 SEC
2 PAC-10
3 BIG 12
4 BIG EAST
5 ACC
6 BIG TEN
2006 Final
1 SEC
2 BIG EAST
3 PAC-10
4 ACC
5 BIG TEN
6 BIG 12
2005 Final
1 BIG TEN
2 ACC
3 BIG 12
4 PAC-10
5 SEC
6 I-A INDEPENDENTS
7 BIG EAST
2004 Final
1 ACC
2 PAC-10
3 I-A INDEPENDENTS
4 BIG 12
5 BIG TEN
6 SEC
7 MWC
8 BIG EAST
2003 Final
1 ACC
2 SEC
3 BIG TEN
4 PAC-10
5 BIG 12
6 BIG EAST
2002 Final
1 BIG 12
2 PAC-10
3 SEC
4 ACC
5 BIG TEN
6 BIG EAST
2001 Final
1 SEC
2 BIG 12
3 PAC-10
4 ACC
5 BIG TEN
6 BIG EAST
2000 Final
1 PAC-10
2 BIG 12
3 BIG TEN
4 BIG EAST
5 SEC
6 ACC
1999 Final
1. BIG TEN
2. SEC
3. ACC
4. BIG 12
5. PAC-10
6. MWC
7. BIG EAST
1998 Final
1. BIG 12
2. BIG TEN
3. SEC
4. PAC-10
5. BIG EAST
6. ACC
--------------------------------------------
responding to:I think 4-5 would work better.For example, the ACC and big east shouldn't be guaranteed a spot in a year like this.
reply: This, again, puts too much in the hands of voters who are charged with the very difficult, almost impossible task of comparing schedules and conferences. For instance, every objective rating system has the BigEast superior to the Big10 this year (2006), yet the BigEast champ Louisville is seen as inferior to Michigan by a large margin. It's unfair for a school to have to battle the idiotic perceptions and behind the scenes power that some major schools have.
By ensuring conference champs get in, it in essence creates a 60 team playoff.
Disallowing certain champs ruins the specialness of the regular season (imagine Wake not getting a great berth), encourages conference disharmony and politicking, leads to a greater growth in conference disparity levels, etc. Now, I do want a review. However, looking at the last 7 years of ratings that I posted, it's tough to say one of the top 6 conferences doesn't belong.
I should say more about conference disparity. By ensuring the conference champ getting in, the system ensures healthy, competitive conferences across the land. There are programs in every conference competing for the BCS spot. They can get recruits, appease fans, and keep power from every accumulating too much to one area.
I see the arguments both ways, but I think the health of college football is predetermined by the health of the underlying conferences.
I just wish Notre Dame would join the Big East for football and everything would be much more appealing to all parties debating the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------
responding to:My problem is that 3 neutral site games suck. Hard for fans to travel, hard for the team, and it limits one of the great things in college football: the gameday atmosphere on various college campuses. I'd like Round 1 at home at least. It also creates a bigger incentive to do well/have a strong SOS. Sure, you can get in at 11-1 in a major conference, but if you play all patsies (Wisconsin), you ain't getting a home game, and that would matter (they wouldn't get in this year, but you know what i mean).
reply: you bring up good points and you are probably correct. Ideally, it is the best method.
I picture two problems, however. One is major, the other minor.
The problem is dealing with the bowl system. They wouldn't allow such lucrative opportunities to get away. They control the purse strings right now and make athletic directors, university presidents, corporate sponsors, etc quite happy.
The second problem would be the seeding controversy. It would be HUGE. The voices of ire would be as loud as they are now about 1 v 2.
Also, the semifinal city rotation and national title game a few weeks later allow for a very large allocation to the host city sponsors and coaches, atheltic directors, etc. The Final Four in men's basketball has hundreds of coaches and athletic directors present. With a few weeks after the bowls, we could see the same thing in NCAA football.
--------------------------------------------------
It continually strikes me as interesting that the conference rated the best in a season struggles to put teams in the national title game.
The system I'm in favor of implementing gives the champ of a conference were everyone beats each other up a chance to challenge the undefeated team that runs over a conference lacking a middle and depth.
--------------------------------------------------
Update--May 13
1. It is pretty exclusive to smaller conferences.
You wouldn't get their backing at all.
2. It encourages big conference disharmony.
As opposed to the 8-team alternative given here, we will constantly be caught in the subjective weighting of conference strength with some conference champs being excluded alltogether.
3. Still relies on subjective opinion alot.
I thought one of the big controversies with just number one verse number two is that voters are determining the two best teams too often. Here, we have them trying to decide the four best teams over and over instead of just determining the at-larges as in the 8-team alternative given here. Again, teams will not have their fate in their own hands under a 4-team or plus one system.
4. Creates the illusion of more important games among the big 4 BCS bowls.
Which of the Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta gets to host games? Those excluded will be viewed inferior for that year. Why would the bowls want that?
5. There is no additional game and money.
Part of the allure of an 8-team playoff is the addition of highly profitable games that will send money to bowls, BCS, NCAA, and member institutions of the NCAA. A plus one adds no lucrative payback, which is disasterous. The BCS would have to petition the NCAA to allow teams multiple postseason games with any 'playoff' type deal. This opens up a renegotiation and a lining of NCAA pockets. There needs to be additional games to fund the additional payouts.
Here's a decent article with an interview of Mike Tranghese http://wvgazette.com/Sports/MitchVingle/200805100418
You see Mr. Tranghese talking alot and highlighting the examples of points 2 and 3 above. For example, the final 2007 BCS standings had Ohio St (B10 champ), LSU (SEC champ), V Tech (ACC champ), and Oklahoma (BigXII champ) as the top 4 teams. However, media opinions were that Georgia and USC were the two best teams. In the 8-team alternative, both would've had their chance. In the 4-team scenario, there is the same old bickering that is one of the most negative aspects of the 2-team playoff we currently have.
However, I definitely disagree with Mr. Tranghese in that a playoff could be done that doesn't hurt academics (I've pointed out that the 8-team alternative promoted here means 4 teams play one more week of football), that a playoff doesn't have the grow (the taking of big conference champs insures a 65-team playoff already were everyone has their shot), and the bowl system doesn't have to be scraped.
--------------------------------------------------
Update--November 19, 2008
Just doing the top8 does not work and here is why:
1) you need to get every conference to agree to a playoff
-Most conferences are not going to go along if they are not guaranteed one representative and the money/exposure that comes with it
2) a simple top 8 in the standings keeps all of the problems inherent in the current system except for it's more teams
-you still have crazy subjective debates on who is ranked where based on crummy comparisons across conferences with huge sample size issues. I posted the Sagarin levels of conferences above to show how conference verse conference comparisons are pretty poor overall. Let's end the subjectivity and embrace objective ways of determining the champs.
3) ensuring every conference winner grows the sport nationally
-it's in the interests of NCAA football as a whole to have every geographical region represented. It keeps the game in the eyes of all the nation's sporting fans. You don't want to further stigmatize the game into being a sunbelt game. That would bring up the problems hockey and nascar have.
4) A simple 8-team playoff has a much greater effect on reducing the importance of the regular season than a conference champ 8-team playoff.
-college football is special for its regular season games that lead to conference titles
-a simple 8-team system eliminates the importance of Texas-Oklahoma 2008 or Texas-Texas Tech 2008
5) A conference champ system effectively makes it a 65 team tourney
-every single major conference team plays a playoff all year to come up with a champ. Though it is not a bracket, the round robin is a valid playoff method. Why have sympathy for the 3rd place teams that already lost a playoff verse one that won their playoff, especially since we don't truly know the differences in conference strengths due to small sample sizes of inter-conference match-ups.
--------------------------------------------------
Update--November 19, 2008
1. A 16-team playoff will crush the bowl system.
--It attracts too many good teams away
--It makes every team not in the playoff look like a failure
--The bowls are loved by the University Presidents and Alumni for the extra trips
--The bowls are loved by coaches for the extra practice time
2. A 16-team playoff minimizes the importance of the regular season
--One of the comparative advantages of college football is that every regular season game can count. By throwing 16 teams in, who cares what happens in the Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma St round-robin of 2008?
3. It spreads power disproportionately to the low conferences
--While the current system keeps the lower conferences disenfranchised, a 16-team system goes to far. I do not have the numbers handy, but the attendance and tv ratings for the large conferences are far, far above the midmajors. The solution is not to disenfranchise the large conferences just because they are wealthy.
4. There are too many poor teams in the playoffs
--Let's face it, only exceptional mid-majors can compete verse the top of the big conferences. We don't need to see the Sunbelt or CUSA champ get crushed by 30 in the playoffs.
--------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLES
Year-by-year look at how this system would've come out
Following 2008 Season
Fiesta Bowl #1 Oklahoma (BXII) v #12 Cincinnati (BEAST)
Sugar Bowl #2 Florida (SEC) v #9 Boise State (MM)
Rose Bowl #3 Texas (At-L) v #8 Penn State (B10)
Orange Bowl #5 USC (Pac10) v #6 Utah (MM)
Semis: Fiesta v Orange and Sugar v Rose
Top 10 left out:
#4 Alabama
#7 Texas Tech
#10 Ohio State
Oklahoma goes Fiesta based on conference tie-in. Florida goes Sugar based on conference tie-in. The Rose Bowl gets the next choice since their conference tie-in champs, USC and Penn State, are rated higher than the Orange Bowl conference champs of Cincinnati and Virginia Tech. My guess is that the Rose Bowl will take the higher tv, higher profile match-up of Texas and Penn State over USC and Utah, especially since USC has been to the Rose Bowl so much lately.
Notice that no matter how a team qualifies, they are all seeded based on the final BCS standings. This maximizes the advantage 'earned' by the higher seeds for their work during the season.
It follow the 1 v 8, 4 v 5, 3 v 6, 2 v 7 common formating for 8-team single elimination playoffs.
IMO, it would be grossly unfair to seed at-larges and mid-majors as automatically the #7 or #8 seed in the tourney as they are often better than the worst Big 6 champ, which would make for an unfair tough road for the #1 or #2 seed as well as for the strong mid-major or at-large.
Actually, 2008 is pretty unappealing in the first round due to two midmajors and Cincinnati. People just are not that interested in those schools. Oh well.
Following 2007 Season
Rose Bowl #1 Ohio State (B10) v #10 Hawai'i (MM)
Sugar Bowl #2 LSU (SEC) v #9 West Virginia (BEAST)
Orange Bowl #3 Virginia Tech (ACC) v #7 USC (P10)
Fiesta Bowl #4 Oklahoma (BXII) v #5 Georgia (ATL)
Semis: Sugar v Orange and Rose v Fiesta
Top 10 left out:
#6 Mizzou
#8 Kansas
Ohio St as the one seed goes to its host Rose Bowl.
LSU as the two seed goes to its host Sugar Bowl.
Next is the #3, V Tech, and its tie-in the Orange is available.
Oklahoma as the #4 is slotted in for the remaining bowl, which happens to be its conference tie-in as well. The rest just fills in the seeding with Hawai'i entering as a mid-major qualifier and Georgia filling the one at-large spot left being the highest rated BCS team left.
Following 2006
Rose Bowl #1 Ohio State (B10) v #14 Wake Forest (ACC)
Sugar Bowl #2 Florida (SEC) v #10 Oklahoma (BXII)
Orange Bowl #3 Michigan (ATL) v #8 Boise State (MM)
Fiesta Bowl #5 USC (P10) v #6 L'ville (BEAST)
Semis: Sugar v Orange and Rose v Fiesta
Top 11 left out:
#4 LSU
#7 Wisconsin
#9 Auburn
#11 Notre Dame
This is an interesting case in that the #3 seed is an at-large and the Fiesta and Orange conference champ tie-ins are already committed to other games. What happens here is that the Fiesta would get pick of the remaining two match-up after the #1 seed Rose tie-in and #2 seed Sugar tie-in due to Oklahoma finishing ahead of Wake Forest. The Bowl with next highest conference champ gets the next pick of which matchup they would like that is available. A match-up is not available if the higher seeded conference champ's home bowl is still open. In this case, the Orange's tie-in ACC champ is not available as a higher seeded winner. Thus, the Fiesta can choose either of the two remaining match-ups. My guess is pure conjecture that the Fiesta in Glendale would much rather have the PAC10, close school of USC as an appeal to fill the seats. Regardless, the potential match-ups for the semifinal games do not change based on the first round Bowl match-up selections by the Fiesta and Orange. The 1 v 8 and 4 v 5 on one side of the bracket compared to the 3 v 6 and 2 v 7 remains.
Following 2005
Rose Bowl #1 USC (P10) v #22 Florida State (ACC)
Fiesta Bowl #2 Texas (BXII) v #11 West Virginia (BEAST)
Sugar #3 Penn St (B10) v #7 Georgia (SEC)
Orange #4 Ohio St (At-L) v #6 Notre Dame (ND)
Final Four: Rose v Orange and Fiesta v Sugar
Top 10 left out:
#5 Oregon
#8 Miami Fl
#9 Auburn
#10 V Tech
USC and Texas placements are easy to see. Notre Dame qualifies automatically for being top 8. There is no mid-major and Ohio State is highest ranked at-large. The Sugar gets to choose before the Orange due to Georgia's higher place in the standings than FSU.
Following 2004
Rose Bowl #1 USC (P10) v #13 Michigan (B10)
Fiesta Bowl #2 Oklahoma (BXII) v #9 Boise St (MM)
Sugar #3 Auburn (SEC) v #8 Virginia Tech (ACC)
Orange #4 Texas (At-L) v #6 Utah (MM)
Final Four: Rose v Orange and Fiesta v Sugar
Top 10 left out:
#5 California
#7 Georgia
#10 Louisville
The USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn placements all follow from the seeding and conference bowl tie-ins. Now, 2004 is an interesting case year in which my method differs slightly from what the BCS current rules are. The current BCS only allows for one mid-major for the most part. By the current rules, Texas as the #4 at-large would be in and Boise St would be out. However, My addendum would have an undefeated, top 10 Boise in play. If there is only one mid-major, it would be Texas v Utah in the Orange and Auburn v V Tech in the Sugar. To alleviate this, a #21 Pitt would fall short of qualifying. The second mid-major team would keep the Big East champ out. Note that this is only the second time a big 6 conference champ is eliminated.
Following 2003
Fiesta Bowl #1 Oklahoma (ATL) v #10 Kansas St (BXII)
Sugar Bowl #2 LSU (SEC) v #9 Miami (BEAST)
Rose Bowl #3 USC (P10) v #7 Florida St (ACC)
Orange Bowl #4 Michigan (B10) v #5 Ohio St (ATL)
Top 10 left out:
#6 Texas
#8 Tennessee
Very strong year with all 8 teams in the top 10 of the BCS rankings. No conference champ was weak in 2003. The placement goes easy with 1, 2, and 3 all having a bowl tie-in. The interesting thing in this season was this was the year where Oklahoma was blown out in the BIGXII title game, yet played for the national title. Looking here, it would be a re-match with K St in the first round Fiesta for them and a Michigan-tOSU rematch in the Orange Bowl. That is not exactly ideal, but the situation looks much better than what was the reality of the 3-team clusterf*ck for the title in '03.
Following 2002
following the 2002 season
Orange Bowl #1 Miami (BEAST) v #14 Florida St (ACC)
Rose Bowl #2 Ohio St (B10) v #7 Oklahoma (BXII)
Sugar Bowl #3 Georgia (SEC) v #6 Wazzu (P10)
Fiesta Bowl #4 USC (ATL) v #5 Iowa (ATL)
Top 10 left out:
#8 Kansas St
#9 Notre Dame
#10 Texas
This one works out quite well, but I'd like to see the uproar caused when a #9 Notre Dame team is just left out of the party with their huge following.
Following 2001
Orange Bowl #1 Miami (BEAST) v #13 LSU (SEC)
Fiesta Bowl #2 Nebraska (ATL) v #10 Maryland (ACC)
Sugar Bowl #3 Colorado (BXII) v #8 Illinois (B10)
Rose Bowl #4 Oregon (P10) v #5 Florida (ATL)
Top 10 left out:
#6 Tennessee
#7 Texas
#9 Stanford
The odd thing about this season would be the bowl team placement with an unaffiliated Big East winner, an at-large BIGXII team seeded higher than the conference winner and a team that beat them soundly, and so on. The Miami-Nebraska title game was a real black eye for the #1 v #2 BCS title game method. If Nebraska had beat Maryland and Colorado to get to the title that year, the controversy would be much less IMO. The Colorado v Illinois Sugar Bowl looks odd, but it would've sold out IMO. Illinois had no trouble filling all its allotment for the actual Sugar Bowl that year.
Following 2000
Fiesta Bowl #1 Oklahoma (BIGXII) v Purdue (B10)
Orange Bowl #2 Florida St (ACC) v #7 Florida (SEC)
Sugar Bowl #3 Miami (BEAST) v #6 Oregon St (ATL)
Rose Bowl #4 Washington (P10) v #5 V Tech (ATL)
Top 11 left out:
#8 Nebraska
#9 Kansas St
#10 Oregon
#11 Notre Dame
FSU-Florida in the Orange Bowl; please get me a ticket for that!
Following 1999
Orange Bowl #1 Florida St (ACC) v Stanford (P10)
Rose Bowl #2 V Tech (BEAST) v #12 Marshall (MM)
Fiesta Bowl #3 Nebraska (BXII) v #7 Wisconsin (B10)
Sugar Bowl #4 Alabama (SEC) v #5 Tennessee (ATL)
Top 10 left out:
#8 Michigan
#9 Michigan St
#10 Florida
The year the Rose Bowl would've dreaded. Wisconsin verse Stanford was the actual Rose Bowl that year. It had very good attendance and tv ratings. However, this is where the restrictions upon not snatching a higher seeded conference champ with a tie-in weighs in as the Fiesta and Sugar can both grab their conference champs and avoid the less appetizing V Tech v Marshall match-up. It would've been quite the sight to see Michael Vick playing in the Rose Bowl.
Following 1998
Sugar #1 Tennessee (SEC) v #15 Syracuse (BEAST)
Orange #2 Florida St (ACC) v #10 Tulane (MM)
Fiesta #3 Kansas St (ATL) v #9 Wisconsin (B10)
Rose #5 UCLA (P10) v #6 Texas A&M (BXII)
Top 10 left out:
#4 Ohio St
#7 Arizona
#8 Florida
Again, a #4 gets left out due to a midmajor snatching a berth. But, again, this #4 didn't win its own conference. It already fell short in a fair tourney.
--------------------------------------------------
Now, let's take a look bowl-by-bowl to see if we got seat and tv fillers
Rose Bowl
1998 #5 UCLA (P10) v #6 Texas A&M (BXII)
1999 #2 V Tech (BEAST) v #12 Marshall (MM)
2000 #4 Washington (P10) v #5 V Tech (ATL)
2001 #4 Oregon (P10) v #5 Florida (ATL)
2002 #2 Ohio St (B10) v #7 Oklahoma (BXII)
2003 #3 USC (P10) v #7 Florida St (ACC)
2004 #1 USC (P10) v #13 Michigan (B10)
2005 #1 USC (P10) v #22 Florida State (ACC)
2006 #1 Ohio State (B10) v #14 Wake Forest (ACC)
2007 #1 Ohio State (B10) v #10 Hawai'i (MM)
2008 #3 Texas (At-L) v #8 Penn State (B10)
Looks to me that the Rose comes out pretty good. They get traditional Big10 and Pac10 as team quite a bit. Ohio State, USC, and UCLA are for sure stadium fillers. In addition, programs like Texas, FSU, Oklahoma, Florida, and Texas A&M add to the history. The only real questionable game is the 1999 one. Hopefully, the Vick verse Leftwich would be enough magnetic personality to bring the place alive. In addition, the bowl would've hosted the 2001 and 2005 finals. Those were Miami-Nebraska and Texas-USC respectively. If those brackets held to form, looks like the Rose Bowl might even gain prestige with a properly done 8-team tourney.
Sugar Bowl
1998 #1 Tennessee (SEC) v #15 Syracuse (BEAST)
1999 #4 Alabama (SEC) v #5 Tennessee (ATL)
2000 #3 Miami (BEAST) v #6 Oregon St (ATL)
2001 #3 Colorado (BXII) v #8 Illinois (B10)
2002 #3 Georgia (SEC) v #6 Wazzu (P10)
2003 #2 LSU (SEC) v #9 Miami (BEAST)
2004 #3 Auburn (SEC) v #8 Virginia Tech (ACC)
2005 #3 Penn St (B10) v #7 Georgia (SEC)
2006 #2 Florida (SEC) v #10 Oklahoma (BXII)
2007 #2 LSU (SEC) v #9 West Virginia (BEAST)
2008 #2 Florida (SEC) v #9 Boise State (MM)
Ten SEC Teams in eleven Sugar Bowls. Twice it's LSU hosting. In addition, visits from Miami, Penn St, and Oklahoma. Only one team out of 20 not rated in the top 10! Only one midmajor and two non-conference champs. Add in title games in 1999, 2003, and 2007... looks sweet!
Orange Bowl
1998 #2 Florida St (ACC) v #10 Tulane (MM)
1999 #1 Florida St (ACC) v Stanford (P10)
2000 #2 Florida St (ACC) v #7 Florida (SEC)
2001 #1 Miami (BEAST) v #13 LSU (SEC)
2002 #1 Miami (BEAST) v #14 Florida St (ACC)
2003 #4 Michigan (B10) v #5 Ohio St (ATL)
2004 #4 Texas (At-L) v #6 Utah (MM)
2005 #4 Ohio St (At-L) v #6 Notre Dame (ND)
2006 #3 Michigan (ATL) v #8 Boise State (MM)
2007 #3 Virginia Tech (ACC) v #7 USC (P10)
2008 #5 USC (Pac10) v #6 Utah (MM)
Five ACC champs in the eleven years. 7 appearances by teams from Florida. Michigan-tOSU and tOSU-ND marquee match-ups in 2 of the other years. Really, the Texas verse Utah in 2004, Michigan v Boise St 2006, and USC v Utah in 2008 match-ups are the ones that might struggle to be a hot ticket. That's a much better run than we've seen from the actual Orange Bowl.
Fiesta Bowl
1998 #3 Kansas St (ATL) v #9 Wisconsin (B10)
1999 #3 Nebraska (BXII) v #7 Wisconsin (B10)
2000 #1 Oklahoma (BIGXII) v Purdue (B10)
2001 #2 Nebraska (ATL) v #10 Maryland (ACC)
2002 #4 USC (ATL) v #5 Iowa (ATL)
2003 #1 Oklahoma (ATL) v #10 Kansas St (BXII)
2004 #2 Oklahoma (BXII) v #9 Boise St (MM)
2005 #2 Texas (BXII) v #11 West Virginia (BEAST)
2006 #5 USC (P10) v #6 L'ville (BEAST)
2007 #4 Oklahoma (BXII) v #5 Georgia (ATL)
2008 #1 Oklahoma (BXII) v #12 Cincinnati (BEAST)
Ten BIGXII teams in eleven years. The 2 games without a BIGXII team featured the nearby Pac10 stadium-filler USC. In addition, many of the other teams feature large, public schools with decent amounts of retired alumni in the Phoenix area (such as Wisconsin, Purdue, Maryland, and Iowa). Not really one weak ticket demand match-up in all ten years.
-----------------------------------------------
Summary
[x] Fans win
[x] Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta bowls win
[x] other bowls win
[x] BCS wins
[x] NCAA wins
[x] Big 6 conferences and Notre Dame win
[x] Non-Big 6 conferences and independents win
[x] Those that want a playoff win
[x] Those that want to protect the greatest regular season win
[x] Media wins
This is something I originally worked on post the 2006 season. I will amend it some, but it stands the test of one year IMO. It also includes responses to some initial concern and feedback I received on the twoplustwo forums.
I'm interested in a BCS solution that is best for the future growth and appreciation of college football as the best sport in the United States. I love the sport and wish it only the best.
alright, inevitably, a playoff system will come.
The quest then becomes what is the right system:
well, there should be a few requirements:
1) I would hate to spoil the greatest regular season in all of sports.
2) I would hate to remove the bowl system and the idea that there is more than one winner in college football (especially with 119 teams).
3) I would like to encourage more interesting non-conference season games. Who didn't enjoy Texas-Ohio State? Why punish a SC team that schedules Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame? That behavior should be encouraged.
4) A compromise between the interested parties that is win-win (-win-win-win-win for all the parties)
OK...so here goes
8 teams
Conference champs of the big 6 (Big10, Pac10, ACC, BigXII, ACC, and SEC)
--Review to maintain big 6 status: conferences would need to average one top10 team at the end of the regular season and 2 in the top18 over the previous 7 years.
--Due to the exclusivity of an 8-team tourney, there will be years when the worst of the big 6 champs do not receive an auto-bid when there are more worthy mid-majors, at-larges, and independents. This will be rare, but will happen.
2 at-large teams consisting of lower conference champs, Notre Dame, and big 6 conference non-champions as determined using the current BCS ranking system, but allowing MOV with a cap for computer use
-- highest rated at-large teams get the berth excepting the following Notre Dame and midmajor champ rules
----- keep the current Notre Dame rule on an automatic berth for top8 BCS standings finish
----- a special set of rules to include the best midmajor conference champion:
might as well go with the BCS current rules that seem to work. It goes as follows:
"The champion of Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, or the Western Athletic Conference will earn an automatic berth in a BCS bowl game if either:
A. Such team is ranked in the top 12 of the final BCS Standings, or,
B. Such team is ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS Standings and its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls."
-----A second midmajor team can qualify if they are in the top 12 of the final BCS standings, undefeated, and ranked higher than a big 6 conference champ in the BCS standings. The second midmajor would then bump one of the big 6 out of an auto-berth and take that spot. This keeps open a spot for great at-large teams.
-BCS ranking system used for seeding: still important to be #1 rather than #4
-1st round games are the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange on Jan 1-2
---those 4 bowls would keep their highlight status and have the attention of the college world after the other bowl games are completed
---Team-selection for the bowls will be determined by bowl-conference affiliations starting with the #1 seed
-----Atlantic Coast Conference-Orange Bowl
-----Big Ten Conference-Rose Bowl
-----Big 12 Conference-Fiesta Bowl
-----Pac-10 Conference-Rose Bowl
-----Southeastern Conference-Sugar Bowl
-----for example, if the Pac10 champ is the #1 BCS team, they would be assigned the Rose Bowl verse the lowest rated of the 8 playoff team
-----If the next highest seed while allocating the 4 bowls is tied to a bowl that is already taken, the bowl with next highest conference champ gets the next pick of which matchup they would like that is available. A match-up is not available, however, if the higher seeded conference champ's home bowl is still open.
--------don't worry, there will be lots of examples of how it all works when I outline how it would've worked in past BCS years.
--------Example using 2007 season:
Rose Bowl #1 Ohio State (B10) v #10 Hawai'i (MM)
Sugar Bowl #2 LSU (SEC) v #9 West Virginia (BEAST)
Orange Bowl #3 Virginia Tech (ACC) v #7 USC (P10)
Fiesta Bowl #4 Oklahoma (BXII) v #5 Georgia (ATL)
Ohio St as the one seed goes to its conference tie-in host Rose Bowl.
LSU as the two seed goes to its conference tie-in host Sugar Bowl.
The same reasoning for V Tech and Oklahoma placements.
The rest of the bracket just fills in the seeding with Hawai'i entering as a mid-major qualifier and Georgia filling the one at-large spot left being the highest rated BCS team left.
Notice that no matter how a team qualifies, they are all seeded based on the final BCS standings and place in a traditional 1v8, 4v5, 3v6, 2v7 8-team single elimination bracket. This maximizes the advantage 'earned' by the higher seeds for their work during the season.
Examples from other years are later in this post.
two semifinal games rotating around bid-for sites 7 to 9 days later
-semifinals should be hosted by different cities that bid for the game
---among candidates are other cities that host bowl games and major NCAA events
-----for example--Dallas, San Diego, Orlando, San Antonio, Atlanta, Nashville, etc
---at least one semifinal every 2 years should be hosted in a 'Northern City' to reduce the bias and complaining about Midwest/Northeast teams playing 'road' games
-----for example, Minneapolis, Detroit, Seattle, Indianapolis, Washington DC, etc
-----bias toward domes obviously as we don't want terrible field and game conditions
-should definitely work around the NFL schedule as not to compete
-only way to get the BCS bowl groups to agree to cede some control...gotta give them a carrot
---they will profit from bidding out the semifinal games, yet they keep the title and the first round Bowl extravaganza
---Included in the Bids would of course be corporate sponsorship for the semifinal games
-It will be the #2 seed first round game winner v #3 seed first round game winner. The other game will be the #1 seed game winner verse the other bowl winner.
---For the 2007 example above, the winner of the Sugar and Orange would play each other in one semifinal, while the winner of the Rose and Fiesta would meet in the other.
-the relevant example is the current bidding for the Final Four sites in Men's Basketball. Here, sites are bidding to be one of two Final Four locations to the BCS.
-plenty of money to split among Big 4 bowl committees, the BCS, participating schools, the NCAA, and FBS members
national title game rotating big4 BCS site
---it's already being done, just make it 7-9 days after the semi
---just keep the rotation going between Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta.
Here's why I can live with it. The strict 8 team with favortism toward conference champs keeps the tradition on the importance of conference titles and regular season games mattering. Frankly, there are never enough interconference games to truly know which conference is better without subjectivity. Even the sagarin ratings are often predicting only a fg difference between the teams in one conference to another. It will work like a pool play, or mini-tourney with every team playing their playoff all conference season long to see who is the best of the bunch. The at-large berths acknowledge that one conference maybe blessed with 2 very talented teams. The playoff also acknowledges that, since one conference's dominance over another is the subject of sample size and subjectivity, each major conference champ should be included in the parade. The big 4 bowls are an award in themselves for winning a difficult conference. The system also encourages tough non-conf scheduling as teams try to prepare themselves to win their conference opposed to racking up a huge record to look good in the BCS (2006 Wisconsin anyone?). This proposal also encourages conference parity, which keeps for a healthy fanbase growth across the land.
The playoff isn't diluted too badly and keeps a high level of performance during the season as a mandatory criteria. Other teams can still goto bowl games and appease their alumni, gain practice time, etc. Coaches won't be failures because they don't make the dance, as it is in the NCAAB. 8 teams keeps it from becoming the crap shoot NCAAB is and doesn't allow the playoffs to take more time than the bball tourney does.
Allowing the Rose, Fiesta, Orange, and Sugar to be rotating hosts appeases the bowl committees and sponsors whose money makes the whole thing run. I think the real test is to how in demand the tickets remain with one week travel times for big alums. No matter what, everyone gets the big trip to the Jan 1-2 bowl. Honestly, there are never enough tickets for the big schools for each bowl. I see little problem with Ohio State, Florida, or USC filling the stadium for multiple games though it might not be the same fans at each game. It will be tougher for those without a football tradition and smaller alumi bases like the 2006 Wake Forest or Louisville to fill multiple games, but I think that is a secondary concern. With the additional semifinal cities, one can expect at least half of the available tickets to goto the local semifinal sponsoring committee. With the final a few weeks past Jan 1, perhaps it will work like the Final Four where the host city gets quite a large allocation (once every 4 years for the local city, so not likely to burn out) and a large gathering of coaches and athletic directors in the sport.
The proposed solution restores Jan 1-2 as an amazing period. It's frankly started to fizzle with games being played the 3rd, 4th, etc.
One thing the current #1v#2 one game playoff BCS approach has given is national appeal to games that were mainly regional before. For instance, the entire SEC viewing audience was glued to watching Pitt beat West Virginia in 2007. This system still preserves that atmosphere. However, instead of 1v2, everyone will be watching to see who wins the at-large lotteries and, less important, what seeding will be.
This system gives alot of clarity to teams in that it lets them know what they must do to goto a title game, but it still provides that element of extra luck with at-larges.
The system gives the Utah's and Boise St's their chance.
The system will likely mean that an undefeated major conference team never gets spurned again. sorry Auburn
ummm...I rambled alot
I see the coming tide. You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. I just hope it is done well. This is my best guess.
I much prefer this to just taking the BCS top8 or whatever.
Am I off my rocker? Or, would this appease the gripes from most corners? Or, am I off my rocker and this still is a viable 'solution'?
that was the original idea
now, the follow-up and original feedback
--------------------------------------------
Ok...I also see my system being ok as far as length of time
for only 4 teams, does it mean more time at all
one week extra for 4 teams from the current system during a 'light' period of the school year
I like the time off between the season before the bowls for both finals (these are students) and recover from the physical grind of a season. Teams should come in rested and ready to peak for the bowl. It also maintains the 'bowl' season idea and allows the month travel planning to begin the BCS quest.
The playoffs take place within the first week or two of a spring semester. As we all know, not much gets done the first few weeks, and I think this is an ok tradeoff for the money and reduced controversy.
-----------------------------------------------
to support my assertion that including the conference champions is better than taking the top 8 BCS, Here are the sagrin conference ratings for recent years.
There is alot of flux and small edges.
With the sample size issues, it's tough to determine if the second best team in the fourth best conference is better than the champ of the best, etc.
I admit that Sagarin is not the end-all, be-all, but it's one of the better objective ways of comparison.
2008 Final
1 SEC
2 BIG 12
3 ACC
4 PAC-10
5 BIG EAST
6 BIG TEN
2007 Final
1 SEC
2 PAC-10
3 BIG 12
4 BIG EAST
5 ACC
6 BIG TEN
2006 Final
1 SEC
2 BIG EAST
3 PAC-10
4 ACC
5 BIG TEN
6 BIG 12
2005 Final
1 BIG TEN
2 ACC
3 BIG 12
4 PAC-10
5 SEC
6 I-A INDEPENDENTS
7 BIG EAST
2004 Final
1 ACC
2 PAC-10
3 I-A INDEPENDENTS
4 BIG 12
5 BIG TEN
6 SEC
7 MWC
8 BIG EAST
2003 Final
1 ACC
2 SEC
3 BIG TEN
4 PAC-10
5 BIG 12
6 BIG EAST
2002 Final
1 BIG 12
2 PAC-10
3 SEC
4 ACC
5 BIG TEN
6 BIG EAST
2001 Final
1 SEC
2 BIG 12
3 PAC-10
4 ACC
5 BIG TEN
6 BIG EAST
2000 Final
1 PAC-10
2 BIG 12
3 BIG TEN
4 BIG EAST
5 SEC
6 ACC
1999 Final
1. BIG TEN
2. SEC
3. ACC
4. BIG 12
5. PAC-10
6. MWC
7. BIG EAST
1998 Final
1. BIG 12
2. BIG TEN
3. SEC
4. PAC-10
5. BIG EAST
6. ACC
--------------------------------------------
responding to:I think 4-5 would work better.For example, the ACC and big east shouldn't be guaranteed a spot in a year like this.
reply: This, again, puts too much in the hands of voters who are charged with the very difficult, almost impossible task of comparing schedules and conferences. For instance, every objective rating system has the BigEast superior to the Big10 this year (2006), yet the BigEast champ Louisville is seen as inferior to Michigan by a large margin. It's unfair for a school to have to battle the idiotic perceptions and behind the scenes power that some major schools have.
By ensuring conference champs get in, it in essence creates a 60 team playoff.
Disallowing certain champs ruins the specialness of the regular season (imagine Wake not getting a great berth), encourages conference disharmony and politicking, leads to a greater growth in conference disparity levels, etc. Now, I do want a review. However, looking at the last 7 years of ratings that I posted, it's tough to say one of the top 6 conferences doesn't belong.
I should say more about conference disparity. By ensuring the conference champ getting in, the system ensures healthy, competitive conferences across the land. There are programs in every conference competing for the BCS spot. They can get recruits, appease fans, and keep power from every accumulating too much to one area.
I see the arguments both ways, but I think the health of college football is predetermined by the health of the underlying conferences.
I just wish Notre Dame would join the Big East for football and everything would be much more appealing to all parties debating the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------
responding to:My problem is that 3 neutral site games suck. Hard for fans to travel, hard for the team, and it limits one of the great things in college football: the gameday atmosphere on various college campuses. I'd like Round 1 at home at least. It also creates a bigger incentive to do well/have a strong SOS. Sure, you can get in at 11-1 in a major conference, but if you play all patsies (Wisconsin), you ain't getting a home game, and that would matter (they wouldn't get in this year, but you know what i mean).
reply: you bring up good points and you are probably correct. Ideally, it is the best method.
I picture two problems, however. One is major, the other minor.
The problem is dealing with the bowl system. They wouldn't allow such lucrative opportunities to get away. They control the purse strings right now and make athletic directors, university presidents, corporate sponsors, etc quite happy.
The second problem would be the seeding controversy. It would be HUGE. The voices of ire would be as loud as they are now about 1 v 2.
Also, the semifinal city rotation and national title game a few weeks later allow for a very large allocation to the host city sponsors and coaches, atheltic directors, etc. The Final Four in men's basketball has hundreds of coaches and athletic directors present. With a few weeks after the bowls, we could see the same thing in NCAA football.
--------------------------------------------------
It continually strikes me as interesting that the conference rated the best in a season struggles to put teams in the national title game.
The system I'm in favor of implementing gives the champ of a conference were everyone beats each other up a chance to challenge the undefeated team that runs over a conference lacking a middle and depth.
--------------------------------------------------
Update--May 13
Why a 4-team or plus one format just won't work?
1. It is pretty exclusive to smaller conferences.
You wouldn't get their backing at all.
2. It encourages big conference disharmony.
As opposed to the 8-team alternative given here, we will constantly be caught in the subjective weighting of conference strength with some conference champs being excluded alltogether.
3. Still relies on subjective opinion alot.
I thought one of the big controversies with just number one verse number two is that voters are determining the two best teams too often. Here, we have them trying to decide the four best teams over and over instead of just determining the at-larges as in the 8-team alternative given here. Again, teams will not have their fate in their own hands under a 4-team or plus one system.
4. Creates the illusion of more important games among the big 4 BCS bowls.
Which of the Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta gets to host games? Those excluded will be viewed inferior for that year. Why would the bowls want that?
5. There is no additional game and money.
Part of the allure of an 8-team playoff is the addition of highly profitable games that will send money to bowls, BCS, NCAA, and member institutions of the NCAA. A plus one adds no lucrative payback, which is disasterous. The BCS would have to petition the NCAA to allow teams multiple postseason games with any 'playoff' type deal. This opens up a renegotiation and a lining of NCAA pockets. There needs to be additional games to fund the additional payouts.
Here's a decent article with an interview of Mike Tranghese http://wvgazette.com/Sports/MitchVingle/200805100418
You see Mr. Tranghese talking alot and highlighting the examples of points 2 and 3 above. For example, the final 2007 BCS standings had Ohio St (B10 champ), LSU (SEC champ), V Tech (ACC champ), and Oklahoma (BigXII champ) as the top 4 teams. However, media opinions were that Georgia and USC were the two best teams. In the 8-team alternative, both would've had their chance. In the 4-team scenario, there is the same old bickering that is one of the most negative aspects of the 2-team playoff we currently have.
However, I definitely disagree with Mr. Tranghese in that a playoff could be done that doesn't hurt academics (I've pointed out that the 8-team alternative promoted here means 4 teams play one more week of football), that a playoff doesn't have the grow (the taking of big conference champs insures a 65-team playoff already were everyone has their shot), and the bowl system doesn't have to be scraped.
--------------------------------------------------
Update--November 19, 2008
Why this system beats just taking the BCS top 8 in the final standings?
Just doing the top8 does not work and here is why:
1) you need to get every conference to agree to a playoff
-Most conferences are not going to go along if they are not guaranteed one representative and the money/exposure that comes with it
2) a simple top 8 in the standings keeps all of the problems inherent in the current system except for it's more teams
-you still have crazy subjective debates on who is ranked where based on crummy comparisons across conferences with huge sample size issues. I posted the Sagarin levels of conferences above to show how conference verse conference comparisons are pretty poor overall. Let's end the subjectivity and embrace objective ways of determining the champs.
3) ensuring every conference winner grows the sport nationally
-it's in the interests of NCAA football as a whole to have every geographical region represented. It keeps the game in the eyes of all the nation's sporting fans. You don't want to further stigmatize the game into being a sunbelt game. That would bring up the problems hockey and nascar have.
4) A simple 8-team playoff has a much greater effect on reducing the importance of the regular season than a conference champ 8-team playoff.
-college football is special for its regular season games that lead to conference titles
-a simple 8-team system eliminates the importance of Texas-Oklahoma 2008 or Texas-Texas Tech 2008
5) A conference champ system effectively makes it a 65 team tourney
-every single major conference team plays a playoff all year to come up with a champ. Though it is not a bracket, the round robin is a valid playoff method. Why have sympathy for the 3rd place teams that already lost a playoff verse one that won their playoff, especially since we don't truly know the differences in conference strengths due to small sample sizes of inter-conference match-ups.
--------------------------------------------------
Update--November 19, 2008
Why this system beats the 16-team plan or Wetzel Plan?
1. A 16-team playoff will crush the bowl system.
--It attracts too many good teams away
--It makes every team not in the playoff look like a failure
--The bowls are loved by the University Presidents and Alumni for the extra trips
--The bowls are loved by coaches for the extra practice time
2. A 16-team playoff minimizes the importance of the regular season
--One of the comparative advantages of college football is that every regular season game can count. By throwing 16 teams in, who cares what happens in the Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma St round-robin of 2008?
3. It spreads power disproportionately to the low conferences
--While the current system keeps the lower conferences disenfranchised, a 16-team system goes to far. I do not have the numbers handy, but the attendance and tv ratings for the large conferences are far, far above the midmajors. The solution is not to disenfranchise the large conferences just because they are wealthy.
4. There are too many poor teams in the playoffs
--Let's face it, only exceptional mid-majors can compete verse the top of the big conferences. We don't need to see the Sunbelt or CUSA champ get crushed by 30 in the playoffs.
--------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLES
Year-by-year look at how this system would've come out
Following 2008 Season
Fiesta Bowl #1 Oklahoma (BXII) v #12 Cincinnati (BEAST)
Sugar Bowl #2 Florida (SEC) v #9 Boise State (MM)
Rose Bowl #3 Texas (At-L) v #8 Penn State (B10)
Orange Bowl #5 USC (Pac10) v #6 Utah (MM)
Semis: Fiesta v Orange and Sugar v Rose
Top 10 left out:
#4 Alabama
#7 Texas Tech
#10 Ohio State
Oklahoma goes Fiesta based on conference tie-in. Florida goes Sugar based on conference tie-in. The Rose Bowl gets the next choice since their conference tie-in champs, USC and Penn State, are rated higher than the Orange Bowl conference champs of Cincinnati and Virginia Tech. My guess is that the Rose Bowl will take the higher tv, higher profile match-up of Texas and Penn State over USC and Utah, especially since USC has been to the Rose Bowl so much lately.
Notice that no matter how a team qualifies, they are all seeded based on the final BCS standings. This maximizes the advantage 'earned' by the higher seeds for their work during the season.
It follow the 1 v 8, 4 v 5, 3 v 6, 2 v 7 common formating for 8-team single elimination playoffs.
IMO, it would be grossly unfair to seed at-larges and mid-majors as automatically the #7 or #8 seed in the tourney as they are often better than the worst Big 6 champ, which would make for an unfair tough road for the #1 or #2 seed as well as for the strong mid-major or at-large.
Actually, 2008 is pretty unappealing in the first round due to two midmajors and Cincinnati. People just are not that interested in those schools. Oh well.
Following 2007 Season
Rose Bowl #1 Ohio State (B10) v #10 Hawai'i (MM)
Sugar Bowl #2 LSU (SEC) v #9 West Virginia (BEAST)
Orange Bowl #3 Virginia Tech (ACC) v #7 USC (P10)
Fiesta Bowl #4 Oklahoma (BXII) v #5 Georgia (ATL)
Semis: Sugar v Orange and Rose v Fiesta
Top 10 left out:
#6 Mizzou
#8 Kansas
Ohio St as the one seed goes to its host Rose Bowl.
LSU as the two seed goes to its host Sugar Bowl.
Next is the #3, V Tech, and its tie-in the Orange is available.
Oklahoma as the #4 is slotted in for the remaining bowl, which happens to be its conference tie-in as well. The rest just fills in the seeding with Hawai'i entering as a mid-major qualifier and Georgia filling the one at-large spot left being the highest rated BCS team left.
Following 2006
Rose Bowl #1 Ohio State (B10) v #14 Wake Forest (ACC)
Sugar Bowl #2 Florida (SEC) v #10 Oklahoma (BXII)
Orange Bowl #3 Michigan (ATL) v #8 Boise State (MM)
Fiesta Bowl #5 USC (P10) v #6 L'ville (BEAST)
Semis: Sugar v Orange and Rose v Fiesta
Top 11 left out:
#4 LSU
#7 Wisconsin
#9 Auburn
#11 Notre Dame
This is an interesting case in that the #3 seed is an at-large and the Fiesta and Orange conference champ tie-ins are already committed to other games. What happens here is that the Fiesta would get pick of the remaining two match-up after the #1 seed Rose tie-in and #2 seed Sugar tie-in due to Oklahoma finishing ahead of Wake Forest. The Bowl with next highest conference champ gets the next pick of which matchup they would like that is available. A match-up is not available if the higher seeded conference champ's home bowl is still open. In this case, the Orange's tie-in ACC champ is not available as a higher seeded winner. Thus, the Fiesta can choose either of the two remaining match-ups. My guess is pure conjecture that the Fiesta in Glendale would much rather have the PAC10, close school of USC as an appeal to fill the seats. Regardless, the potential match-ups for the semifinal games do not change based on the first round Bowl match-up selections by the Fiesta and Orange. The 1 v 8 and 4 v 5 on one side of the bracket compared to the 3 v 6 and 2 v 7 remains.
Following 2005
Rose Bowl #1 USC (P10) v #22 Florida State (ACC)
Fiesta Bowl #2 Texas (BXII) v #11 West Virginia (BEAST)
Sugar #3 Penn St (B10) v #7 Georgia (SEC)
Orange #4 Ohio St (At-L) v #6 Notre Dame (ND)
Final Four: Rose v Orange and Fiesta v Sugar
Top 10 left out:
#5 Oregon
#8 Miami Fl
#9 Auburn
#10 V Tech
USC and Texas placements are easy to see. Notre Dame qualifies automatically for being top 8. There is no mid-major and Ohio State is highest ranked at-large. The Sugar gets to choose before the Orange due to Georgia's higher place in the standings than FSU.
Following 2004
Rose Bowl #1 USC (P10) v #13 Michigan (B10)
Fiesta Bowl #2 Oklahoma (BXII) v #9 Boise St (MM)
Sugar #3 Auburn (SEC) v #8 Virginia Tech (ACC)
Orange #4 Texas (At-L) v #6 Utah (MM)
Final Four: Rose v Orange and Fiesta v Sugar
Top 10 left out:
#5 California
#7 Georgia
#10 Louisville
The USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn placements all follow from the seeding and conference bowl tie-ins. Now, 2004 is an interesting case year in which my method differs slightly from what the BCS current rules are. The current BCS only allows for one mid-major for the most part. By the current rules, Texas as the #4 at-large would be in and Boise St would be out. However, My addendum would have an undefeated, top 10 Boise in play. If there is only one mid-major, it would be Texas v Utah in the Orange and Auburn v V Tech in the Sugar. To alleviate this, a #21 Pitt would fall short of qualifying. The second mid-major team would keep the Big East champ out. Note that this is only the second time a big 6 conference champ is eliminated.
Following 2003
Fiesta Bowl #1 Oklahoma (ATL) v #10 Kansas St (BXII)
Sugar Bowl #2 LSU (SEC) v #9 Miami (BEAST)
Rose Bowl #3 USC (P10) v #7 Florida St (ACC)
Orange Bowl #4 Michigan (B10) v #5 Ohio St (ATL)
Top 10 left out:
#6 Texas
#8 Tennessee
Very strong year with all 8 teams in the top 10 of the BCS rankings. No conference champ was weak in 2003. The placement goes easy with 1, 2, and 3 all having a bowl tie-in. The interesting thing in this season was this was the year where Oklahoma was blown out in the BIGXII title game, yet played for the national title. Looking here, it would be a re-match with K St in the first round Fiesta for them and a Michigan-tOSU rematch in the Orange Bowl. That is not exactly ideal, but the situation looks much better than what was the reality of the 3-team clusterf*ck for the title in '03.
Following 2002
following the 2002 season
Orange Bowl #1 Miami (BEAST) v #14 Florida St (ACC)
Rose Bowl #2 Ohio St (B10) v #7 Oklahoma (BXII)
Sugar Bowl #3 Georgia (SEC) v #6 Wazzu (P10)
Fiesta Bowl #4 USC (ATL) v #5 Iowa (ATL)
Top 10 left out:
#8 Kansas St
#9 Notre Dame
#10 Texas
This one works out quite well, but I'd like to see the uproar caused when a #9 Notre Dame team is just left out of the party with their huge following.
Following 2001
Orange Bowl #1 Miami (BEAST) v #13 LSU (SEC)
Fiesta Bowl #2 Nebraska (ATL) v #10 Maryland (ACC)
Sugar Bowl #3 Colorado (BXII) v #8 Illinois (B10)
Rose Bowl #4 Oregon (P10) v #5 Florida (ATL)
Top 10 left out:
#6 Tennessee
#7 Texas
#9 Stanford
The odd thing about this season would be the bowl team placement with an unaffiliated Big East winner, an at-large BIGXII team seeded higher than the conference winner and a team that beat them soundly, and so on. The Miami-Nebraska title game was a real black eye for the #1 v #2 BCS title game method. If Nebraska had beat Maryland and Colorado to get to the title that year, the controversy would be much less IMO. The Colorado v Illinois Sugar Bowl looks odd, but it would've sold out IMO. Illinois had no trouble filling all its allotment for the actual Sugar Bowl that year.
Following 2000
Fiesta Bowl #1 Oklahoma (BIGXII) v Purdue (B10)
Orange Bowl #2 Florida St (ACC) v #7 Florida (SEC)
Sugar Bowl #3 Miami (BEAST) v #6 Oregon St (ATL)
Rose Bowl #4 Washington (P10) v #5 V Tech (ATL)
Top 11 left out:
#8 Nebraska
#9 Kansas St
#10 Oregon
#11 Notre Dame
FSU-Florida in the Orange Bowl; please get me a ticket for that!
Following 1999
Orange Bowl #1 Florida St (ACC) v Stanford (P10)
Rose Bowl #2 V Tech (BEAST) v #12 Marshall (MM)
Fiesta Bowl #3 Nebraska (BXII) v #7 Wisconsin (B10)
Sugar Bowl #4 Alabama (SEC) v #5 Tennessee (ATL)
Top 10 left out:
#8 Michigan
#9 Michigan St
#10 Florida
The year the Rose Bowl would've dreaded. Wisconsin verse Stanford was the actual Rose Bowl that year. It had very good attendance and tv ratings. However, this is where the restrictions upon not snatching a higher seeded conference champ with a tie-in weighs in as the Fiesta and Sugar can both grab their conference champs and avoid the less appetizing V Tech v Marshall match-up. It would've been quite the sight to see Michael Vick playing in the Rose Bowl.
Following 1998
Sugar #1 Tennessee (SEC) v #15 Syracuse (BEAST)
Orange #2 Florida St (ACC) v #10 Tulane (MM)
Fiesta #3 Kansas St (ATL) v #9 Wisconsin (B10)
Rose #5 UCLA (P10) v #6 Texas A&M (BXII)
Top 10 left out:
#4 Ohio St
#7 Arizona
#8 Florida
Again, a #4 gets left out due to a midmajor snatching a berth. But, again, this #4 didn't win its own conference. It already fell short in a fair tourney.
--------------------------------------------------
Now, let's take a look bowl-by-bowl to see if we got seat and tv fillers
Rose Bowl
1998 #5 UCLA (P10) v #6 Texas A&M (BXII)
1999 #2 V Tech (BEAST) v #12 Marshall (MM)
2000 #4 Washington (P10) v #5 V Tech (ATL)
2001 #4 Oregon (P10) v #5 Florida (ATL)
2002 #2 Ohio St (B10) v #7 Oklahoma (BXII)
2003 #3 USC (P10) v #7 Florida St (ACC)
2004 #1 USC (P10) v #13 Michigan (B10)
2005 #1 USC (P10) v #22 Florida State (ACC)
2006 #1 Ohio State (B10) v #14 Wake Forest (ACC)
2007 #1 Ohio State (B10) v #10 Hawai'i (MM)
2008 #3 Texas (At-L) v #8 Penn State (B10)
Looks to me that the Rose comes out pretty good. They get traditional Big10 and Pac10 as team quite a bit. Ohio State, USC, and UCLA are for sure stadium fillers. In addition, programs like Texas, FSU, Oklahoma, Florida, and Texas A&M add to the history. The only real questionable game is the 1999 one. Hopefully, the Vick verse Leftwich would be enough magnetic personality to bring the place alive. In addition, the bowl would've hosted the 2001 and 2005 finals. Those were Miami-Nebraska and Texas-USC respectively. If those brackets held to form, looks like the Rose Bowl might even gain prestige with a properly done 8-team tourney.
Sugar Bowl
1998 #1 Tennessee (SEC) v #15 Syracuse (BEAST)
1999 #4 Alabama (SEC) v #5 Tennessee (ATL)
2000 #3 Miami (BEAST) v #6 Oregon St (ATL)
2001 #3 Colorado (BXII) v #8 Illinois (B10)
2002 #3 Georgia (SEC) v #6 Wazzu (P10)
2003 #2 LSU (SEC) v #9 Miami (BEAST)
2004 #3 Auburn (SEC) v #8 Virginia Tech (ACC)
2005 #3 Penn St (B10) v #7 Georgia (SEC)
2006 #2 Florida (SEC) v #10 Oklahoma (BXII)
2007 #2 LSU (SEC) v #9 West Virginia (BEAST)
2008 #2 Florida (SEC) v #9 Boise State (MM)
Ten SEC Teams in eleven Sugar Bowls. Twice it's LSU hosting. In addition, visits from Miami, Penn St, and Oklahoma. Only one team out of 20 not rated in the top 10! Only one midmajor and two non-conference champs. Add in title games in 1999, 2003, and 2007... looks sweet!
Orange Bowl
1998 #2 Florida St (ACC) v #10 Tulane (MM)
1999 #1 Florida St (ACC) v Stanford (P10)
2000 #2 Florida St (ACC) v #7 Florida (SEC)
2001 #1 Miami (BEAST) v #13 LSU (SEC)
2002 #1 Miami (BEAST) v #14 Florida St (ACC)
2003 #4 Michigan (B10) v #5 Ohio St (ATL)
2004 #4 Texas (At-L) v #6 Utah (MM)
2005 #4 Ohio St (At-L) v #6 Notre Dame (ND)
2006 #3 Michigan (ATL) v #8 Boise State (MM)
2007 #3 Virginia Tech (ACC) v #7 USC (P10)
2008 #5 USC (Pac10) v #6 Utah (MM)
Five ACC champs in the eleven years. 7 appearances by teams from Florida. Michigan-tOSU and tOSU-ND marquee match-ups in 2 of the other years. Really, the Texas verse Utah in 2004, Michigan v Boise St 2006, and USC v Utah in 2008 match-ups are the ones that might struggle to be a hot ticket. That's a much better run than we've seen from the actual Orange Bowl.
Fiesta Bowl
1998 #3 Kansas St (ATL) v #9 Wisconsin (B10)
1999 #3 Nebraska (BXII) v #7 Wisconsin (B10)
2000 #1 Oklahoma (BIGXII) v Purdue (B10)
2001 #2 Nebraska (ATL) v #10 Maryland (ACC)
2002 #4 USC (ATL) v #5 Iowa (ATL)
2003 #1 Oklahoma (ATL) v #10 Kansas St (BXII)
2004 #2 Oklahoma (BXII) v #9 Boise St (MM)
2005 #2 Texas (BXII) v #11 West Virginia (BEAST)
2006 #5 USC (P10) v #6 L'ville (BEAST)
2007 #4 Oklahoma (BXII) v #5 Georgia (ATL)
2008 #1 Oklahoma (BXII) v #12 Cincinnati (BEAST)
Ten BIGXII teams in eleven years. The 2 games without a BIGXII team featured the nearby Pac10 stadium-filler USC. In addition, many of the other teams feature large, public schools with decent amounts of retired alumni in the Phoenix area (such as Wisconsin, Purdue, Maryland, and Iowa). Not really one weak ticket demand match-up in all ten years.
-----------------------------------------------
Summary
[x] Fans win
[x] Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta bowls win
[x] other bowls win
[x] BCS wins
[x] NCAA wins
[x] Big 6 conferences and Notre Dame win
[x] Non-Big 6 conferences and independents win
[x] Those that want a playoff win
[x] Those that want to protect the greatest regular season win
[x] Media wins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)