CSNbbs

Full Version: BCS Playoff?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
This is an article from the Atlanta paper today. It suggests a 8 team BCS playoff system that is right in line with what I have been saying all along about who should qualify for BCS bowls. Take a minute to read it. Of course, it is not complimentary to FSU, but facts are facts....It makes sense!

Inside Ball's eight-team BCS playoff

Inside Ball finally has found a good use for the BCS rankings. Use 'em to put together a Division I-A college football playoff.

Put the BCS's top eight teams in the field. Seed them based on their BCS ranking. And let them go at it -- seven games, total, in three weeks -- to determine the national champion.

Hey, what's so hard about that?

You can't argue that it adds too many games for the student-athletes, considering that only four of the 117 Division I-A teams would play even one more game under this system than under the current bowl system. (Besides, the NCAA has shown zero reluctance to add games in recent years.) You can't argue that it would diminish or destroy the existing bowls, because seven of the 28 bowls could be incorporated into an eight-team playoff, which would enhance them. (As for the other 21 bowls: They could continue as they are, largely irrelevant.)

You can argue that an eight-team playoff would ever-so-slightly dilute college football's regular season, but it would remain the most decisive regular season in big-time sports with just 6.8 percent of the teams getting into the playoffs, compared with 37.5 percent in the NFL, 55 percent in the NBA and 20 percent in Division I college basketball.

OK, we're sold on the idea.

On with it.

Inside Ball's 2002 college football playoff would include two teams from the Big Ten (Ohio State and Iowa), two from the Pac-10 (Washington State and Southern Cal), two from the Big 12 (Oklahoma and Kansas State), one from the SEC (Georgia) and one from the Big East (top seed Miami). If this year's example is typical, an eight-team playoff is the right size. Any larger, and the field would include Notre Dame, the BCS's No. 9 team and a 44-13 loser to Southern Cal in its regular-season finale.

(The ACC is not represented in the field. ACC champ Florida State does not qualify because its four losses led to a BCS ranking of 14. If there really were an eight-team playoff, the money-grabbing major conferences presumably wouldn't stand for a setup in which one of their champs could be excluded. Whatever. In our playoff, there's no room for a team with four losses.)

Seeding the eight teams by their BCS rankings, our bracket produces four compelling first-round matchups: Miami's high-powered offense vs. Kansas State's top-ranked defense; Southern Cal vs. Iowa in a higher-stakes version of a game that really will be played in the Orange Bowl on Jan. 2; peaking-at-the-right-time Georgia vs. Washington State and star quarterback Jason Gesser; unbeaten Ohio State vs. Oklahoma in a battle of great defenses.

Too bad this is just fantasy football.

Tim Tucker-Atlanta Journal/Constitution
You are correct...

A format like that will never come to past...NEVER!

#1: Every great intersectional and Out of Conference
game would fall by the wayside. ALL teams...would
play "dogs" from outside their leagues, to insure "easy"
wins.

#2: When the NCAA votes...ALL members vote. There
will never be a yes vote, for something that elminates
most leagues, interferes with recruiting, cast doubt on
their respective conferences.

If you want a National Playoff...Then propose a format
that sends the League Champions from all the Div 1
leagues into the format. IT WOULD BE APPROVED...
Tomorrow!

The integrity of college football has always been...Every
Game Counts. That would still be maintained at the
League level. The "True" Number #1 team would be standing
at the end of this format. That is the ONLY reason why
you would have a National Title...i.e. To Determine Who is #1.

Reality Man...Reality! Ain't gonna be no playoff with at-large
teams before all Leagues are represented. Karl Marx theory...
"Before anybody has two, everybody will have one!"

You wouldn't sit at a table and deprive yourself of something
and they won't either.

The fact is...the College Presidents and certainly the College
Coaches like the way things are now...or they would have
changed a long time ago.
The easiest way to prevent teams from loading their out of conference schedules with easy games is to put more emphasis on schedule strength. Schedule strength's importance in the BCS rankings was reduced this year over previous years. Emphasize that more and teams will have to load up their out of conference schedules if they play in a weak conference.

UGA for instance did have some pushover games out of conference, but our schedule strength was still the 5th toughest in the nation and that was even with a down year in the SEC. FSU's schedule strength was 3rd in the nation because they had a tough out of conference schedule AND the ACC is improving.

FSU is a perfect example of this fix, but even with a schedule strength of 3rd, FSU's 4 losses would still not have been enough to rank them high enough to get into the playoff. Even with more emphasis on schedule strength, 4 losses would all but eliminate a team from post season play.
That scenario would render conference championships worthless. Instead of increased emphasis on conference games, there would be a businesslike approach to all games being the same. Trust me -- it would be boring.

I like the fact that you have to win your conference to get to the BCS... or be one of two at-large teams. It means that every conference game is going to be a little more important, which is the way it should be.

I think that the BCS formula is perfect for an 8-team playoff. Don't change a thing -- just take that formula and apply it to a true "Bowl Championship Series.

Take the winners of the six major conferences and then the two highest-ranked at-large teams. Seed the teams based on their BCS ranking. (This would mean that FSU would make the playoffs this year, but they'd be the lowest seed.) Then, match them up #1 vs. #8, etc. Three rounds and you have a champion.

The only details (which are major, I admit) that would need to be hammered out are where the games of the playoffs would be played. I'm not quite sure about that -- the four BCS bowl sites would obviously be involved. I'm not sure if the seven games of the playoffs should be limited to only those four cities, or if others should be involved. I'm sure something can be worked out....

-JD
There are any number of scenario's that would make
an excellent playoff...

I am just trying to convey the reasons why it does not
happen...has never happened and WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

WHEN THE NCAA VOTES...ALL SCHOOLS VOTE!

C-USA...The Sun Belt...The WAC...The MTN WEST...THE
MAC are not going to vote against themselves...That's
why we don't have one now.

The BCS is involved with the Bowls...not with the NCAA.
The bowls are sanctioned. But any game after a bowl...
needs NCAA approval...and that needs ALL MEMBERS
VOTING.

You want a Playoff...do this...(This Year as the Example)

Week #1:

MAC vs Sun Belt (1)

C-USA vs WAC (2)

ACC vs MTN WEST (3)

Week #2:

Big East vs Winner Game 1 (4)

Big 12 vs PAC 10 (5)

SEC vs Winner Game 2 (6)

Big 10 vs Winner Game 3 (7)

Week#3

Winner Game 4 vs Winner Game 5 (8)
Winner Game 6 vs Winner Game 7 (9)

Week #4

Winner Game 8 vs Winner Game 9 (For National Title)

If y'all want a National Championship Game...Want the
National Championship to be decided on the field...then
this is the way to get it. As far as Notre Dame is concerned,
well...They share that NBC money with the Big 10 or
forever be playing in the Gator Bowl.

This is the format to a National Championship Playoff.

Human hands only touch this in regards to seeding...everything
else is done on the field. The Big 10, will have to add Notre
Dame or someone and establish a Conf Title game to resolve
another Iowa/Ohio State conflict. Southern Calif??? I would
suggest they learn how to kick extra points and win the
PAC 10...instead of finishing second.

BTW...Want to know the team that was really screwed in
this year's BCS...KANSAS STATE!!!! Iowa has only one lost...
they lost to Iowa State who was beaten 58-7 by Kansas St.

USC...Lost in OT to Wash State and they also lost to KANSAS
STATE. Looks like that Orange Bowl wouldn't fare very well
in Manhatten, Kansas...huh?

Guest

Only thing I have to say about the playoffs is if its the top 8 teams, what happens if teams 9 10 and 11 have just as much right as being in the playoffs as anyone else does?
Does this solve a problem or create more?
Im all for the playoffs, but there is always that thought on the teams that are left out that could just very well be as deserving
Garnet & Gold Wrote:Only thing I have to say about the playoffs is if its the top 8 teams, what happens if teams 9 10 and 11 have just as much right as being in the playoffs as anyone else does?
Does this solve a problem or create more?
Im all for the playoffs, but there is always that thought on the teams that are left out that could just very well be as deserving
I'm of the opinion that you're better off when team #9 is left out in the cold rather than (a possibly undefeated) team #3. The further down the line you go, the more you can say a team squandered its own chance to make the playoffs. Sure, they might have the same type of claim as team #8, but they never would have been considered under the current system.

As for Paul's saying that the mid-majors wouldn't go for a playoff -- the scenario I suggested doesn't change a thing for those conferences. There would still be two at-large spots (as there are currently) for teams outside the six major conferences. The only difference is that if one ended up making the BCS, they would have a shot at a national title instead of merely playing in a bowl that people will suddenly not care about if they're there. The rest of the bowls can remain the same, for all I care.

-JD
There are so many good points made here.

I prefer the simple approach.

The "elimination process"...

It begins in the Regular Season...the Conference Champ
of each league "eliminates" everyone from that league.

You are looking for #1 and only #1. It really doesn't
matter if the "real" #2 team in the country is in the
same league as the eventual champ. Being a Champion
must mean something. It doesn't mean squat in Basketball.

Nah...I do not like "at-large" selections..."Human Hands"
must touch that...League Champs are decided on the field.

I involve the mid-majors for a couple of reasons. First
and foremost...in THREE previous attempts to have some
sort of playoff at the end ofthe bowl season or a playoff
per say...THE MID-MAJORS HAVE VOTED IT DOWN in the
NCAA.

Second...as witnessed here...When some boast that it is
more important for a team to have a win over New Mexico
State than a one point loss to Miami...then you are giving
credence to the mid-majors.

Plus, I still believe that excluding the mid-majors, will always
deprive us of a National Title. "Cause they ain't gonna vote
for it.
Quote:Paul Said:It begins in the Regular Season...the Conference Champ of each league "eliminates" everyone from that league. You are looking for #1 and only #1. It really doesn't matter if the "real" #2 team in the country is in the same league as the eventual champ. Being a Champion must mean something.

Great point Paul! Finally. A conference championship certainly must mean something if that team is to qualify for a BCS playoff. If this champion has more than, say 3 losses, then this champion is disqualified from playing in the BCS playoff. As Pauls says, being a champion must mean something.

What if a 4 loss team ended up winning their conference (see FSU 2002) and they make the playoff and hit a stride where they win a few games and end up winning the National Championship with a 12-4 record and someone they beat ends up 13-1? Kinds of screws things up real bad.
YouGeeAye Wrote:What if a 4 loss team ended up winning their conference (see FSU 2002) and they make the playoff and hit a stride where they win a few games and end up winning the National Championship with a 12-4 record and someone they beat ends up 13-1? Kinds of screws things up real bad.
No, it really doesn't screw things up at all. You just described something many others call a "tournament team." This four loss team struggled during the regular season but when it came down to the heart of the matter, this "monkeywrench" of a team beat the best in the nation, including an undefeated team (by your example). Do people say Arkansas didn't win the Basketball NC in 1994? Do you deny LSU won the College World Series in 2000 (I think that was the year.)?

If a four loss team wins the National Championship tourney, then it deserves the Trophy. However, now we see why I am in favor of only four teams in the tournament. It makes less room for these teams by selecting only a very few of the best.
Hey Wit. How many games are played in a baseball and basketball season?

A 4 loss conference champion in football lost 30%-33% of their games.

I am not sure what basketball and baseball have to do with this. Maybe you can explain.

Thanks.
I wasn't comparing the regular seasons of different sports. Okay, let me clean up my side a bit.

You said,
Quote:What if a 4 loss team ended up winning their conference (see FSU 2002) and they make the playoff and hit a stride where they win a few games and end up winning the National Championship with a 12-4 record and someone they beat ends up 13-1? Kinds of screws things up real bad.

I should have left it at this:
Quote:No, it really doesn't screw things up at all. You just described something many others call a "tournament team." This four loss team struggled during the regular season but when it came down to the heart of the matter, this "monkeywrench" of a team beat the best in the nation, including an undefeated team (by your example).
If you want the best team as your champion, then it all comes down to how you define "best team."

Some people think the "best team" is one that is near-perfect. They want an undefeated team to win the national title. If that's your bag, then the current scenario is probably the best for you.

But, what if there is an undefeated team and fifty one-loss teams... and then the one-loss team that ends up in the championship somehow beats the undefeated team. How do you know if you have the "best team" as champion?

Some people think the "best team" is one that can beat all the other "best teams" in a tournament scenario. Put me in this category. I think this scenario provides for the most excitement and also gives anybody a shot at the national title (provided they take care of matters themselves and win their conference championship). This scenario has a lot of stages that a champion must go through to be crowned -- but I think only a darn good team is going to be able to do that.

If we had a playoff scenario this year, and then FSU were able to beat Miami (whom they would face in the first round of an 8-team tourney) and two other top 8 teams, I think they would deserve the national championship. Certainly the other teams wouldn't deserve it because they all lost when it counted.

-JD



<!--EDIT|JD Heel|Dec 19 2002, 03:13 PM-->
Exactly, JD. 04-cheers
Reference URL's