Makes you go hhhmmm....who didn't see this coming to get Notre Dame and the SEC on board.
Kramer has done some thinking about who should be in the Final Four. Earlier this year he told our Dennis Dodd he was leaning toward a four-team playoff that would include conference champions only.
Now Kramer believes the way to go is to pick the three highest-rated conference champions. The fourth spot would be a "wild card" that would go to the highest-rated non-conference champion. This is from the article.
"Had that plan been in place last season, LSU (SEC), Oklahoma State (Big 12), and Oregon (Pac-12) would have qualified as the highest-ranked conference champions. Alabama, No. 2 in the final BCS standings and whose only loss was 9-6 to No. 1 LSU, would have been the wild card.
"[With this system,] you've elevated the importance of the conference championships and kept the significance of the regular season," Kramer said. "But you still have room for a team like Alabama."
Or Notre Dame. If it qualified. (But that's a story for another day)."
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...es-caution
Sounds good to me. Win and you are in. Has an undefeated BCS team not finished in the top 4 recently?
(04-16-2012 12:49 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds good to me. Win and you are in. Has an undefeated BCS team not finished in the top 4 recently?
I think the point here is that the Big East Champion would almost have to be undefeated where as a Big 12/Big 10/SEC champion likely would not, or at least a wild card runner up from that same conference.
I personally would much prefer the 4 conference champions. This would also force ND to pick a conference and BYU too for that matter.
(04-16-2012 01:07 PM)Coog82 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-16-2012 12:49 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds good to me. Win and you are in. Has an undefeated BCS team not finished in the top 4 recently?
I think the point here is that the Big East Champion would almost have to be undefeated where as a Big 12/Big 10/SEC champion likely would not, or at least a wild card runner up from that same conference.
I personally would much prefer the 4 conference champions. This would also force ND to pick a conference and BYU too for that matter.
Thats how it is now except even an undefeated big east champ would likely be left out.
(04-16-2012 01:07 PM)Coog82 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-16-2012 12:49 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds good to me. Win and you are in. Has an undefeated BCS team not finished in the top 4 recently?
I think the point here is that the Big East Champion would almost have to be undefeated where as a Big 12/Big 10/SEC champion likely would not, or at least a wild card runner up from that same conference.
I personally would much prefer the 4 conference champions. This would also force ND to pick a conference and BYU too for that matter.
What about the PAC 12 and ACC? That is why it has to be at least an8 team playoff.
Well, let look @ how it would have went since the first realignment was complete:
2005-2006
1. Southern Cal-(Pac 12), 2. Texas-(Big XII), 3. Penn State-(B1G), 4. Ohio State-(B1G Wildcard)
2006-2007
1. Ohio State-(B1G), 2. Florida-(SEC), 5. Southern Cal-(Pac 12), 3. Michigan-(B1G Wildcard). Snub LSU-(BCS Rankings 4th)...Louisville-(BIG EAST Champ BCS Ranking 6th).
2007-2008
1. Ohio State-(B1G), 2. LSU-(SEC), 3. Virginia Tech-(ACC) 4. Oklahoma-(Big XII). No Wildcard that year.
2008-2009
1. Oklahoma-(Big XII), 2. Florida-(SEC), 3. Texas-(Big XII Wildcard), 5. Southern Cal-(Pac 12). Sub-(Alabama BCS Ranking 4th).
2009-2010
1. Alabama-(SEC), 2. Texas-(Big XII), 3. Cincinnati-(BIG EAST), 4. TCU-(MWC). Top 4 and all different conference champions. No Wildcard that year.
2010-2011
1. Auburn-(SEC), 2. Oregon-(Pac 12), 3. TCU-(MWC), 4. Stanford-(Pac 12 Wildcard).
2011-2012
1. LSU-(SEC), 3. Oklahoma State-(Big XII), 5. Oregon-(Pac 12), 2. Alabama-(SEC Wildcard). Snubs Stanford-BCS Ranking 4th
Under this arrangement the MWC would have the same number of Final Four appearences as the ACC/BIG EAST Combined.
(04-16-2012 01:44 PM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ]Well, let look @ how it would have went since the first realignment was complete:
2005-2006
1. Southern Cal-(Pac 12), 2. Texas-(Big XII), 3. Penn State-(B1G), 4. Ohio State-(B1G Wildcard)
2006-2007
1. Ohio State-(B1G), 2. Florida-(SEC), 5. Southern Cal-(Pac 12), 3. Michigan-(B1G Wildcard). Snub LSU-(BCS Rankings 4th)...Louisville-(BIG EAST Champ BCS Ranking 6th).
2007-2008
1. Ohio State-(B1G), 2. LSU-(SEC), 3. Virginia Tech-(ACC) 4. Oklahoma-(Big XII). No Wildcard that year.
2008-2009
1. Oklahoma-(Big XII), 2. Florida-(SEC), 3. Texas-(Big XII Wildcard), 5. Southern Cal-(Pac 12). Sub-(Alabama BCS Ranking 4th).
2009-2010
1. Alabama-(SEC), 2. Texas-(Big XII), 3. Cincinnati-(BIG EAST), 4. TCU-(MWC). Top 4 and all different conference champions. No Wildcard that year.
2010-2011
1. Auburn-(SEC), 2. Oregon-(Pac 12), 3. TCU-(MWC), 4. Stanford-(Pac 12 Wildcard).
2011-2012
1. LSU-(SEC), 3. Oklahoma State-(Big XII), 5. Oregon-(Pac 12), 2. Alabama-(SEC Wildcard). Snubs Stanford-BCS Ranking 4th
Under this arrangement the MWC would have the same number of Final Four appearences as the ACC/BIG EAST Combined.
Seems like a respectable outcome. Much better than our current situation and possibly the best possible outcome given the parties invovled do not want 8 team playoff.
(04-16-2012 01:07 PM)Coog82 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-16-2012 12:49 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds good to me. Win and you are in. Has an undefeated BCS team not finished in the top 4 recently?
I think the point here is that the Big East Champion would almost have to be undefeated where as a Big 12/Big 10/SEC champion likely would not, or at least a wild card runner up from that same conference.
I personally would much prefer the 4 conference champions. This would also force ND to pick a conference and BYU too for that matter.
Why does everyone have to be in these conglomerations called football conferences?
Top four conference champions ... or top three champions and highest independent if ranked above the fourth-best conference champion ... would be the fairest set-up.
I do not like the idea of a permanent Wild Card because it almost guarantees that a worthy conference champion will be excluded in favor of a Big Ten or SEC runner-up.
(04-16-2012 04:40 PM)Lolly Popp Wrote: [ -> ]Top four conference champions ... or top three champions and highest independent if ranked above the fourth-best conference champion ... would be the fairest set-up.
I do not like the idea of a permanent Wild Card because it almost guarantees that a worthy conference champion will be excluded in favor of a Big Ten or SEC runner-up.
I fully agree there. We'll see what happens though.
This plan is the one I think we see will out but there are issues out that needed to be solved.
What happens to the current BCS Bowl games? Where do you play semifinals? When do you plan the semifinals and championship game? Where do you plan the Championship? What happens to the entire bowl system. Does the Big 12 expand because the value of conference championship game has now increased or do they protect thier conference champion by staying at 10 schools. How much longer until we get a eight team playoff?
(04-16-2012 04:40 PM)Lolly Popp Wrote: [ -> ]Top four conference champions ... or top three champions and highest independent if ranked above the fourth-best conference champion ... would be the fairest set-up.
I do not like the idea of a permanent Wild Card because it almost guarantees that a worthy conference champion will be excluded in favor of a Big Ten or SEC runner-up.
While I understand the point, can anyone in this thread say with a straight face that either Clemson
(I laugh just typing that, and I'm an ACC fan) or Wisconsin was better than Alabama?
I don't think the "at-large" caters to ND as much as it caters to a runner-up in a loaded football conference (right now, the SEC, some day, maybe the B1G).
I think this method actually reduces the value of a conference championship. Imagine your team being in that top 3 category but having to play an extra game vs a divisional champ ranked #10 and losing. There goes your conference champ slot in the playoff. Big12 without a championship game would benefit the most.
Look at the Big East only entry with Cincy as #3 it would had put that BE entry at risk by having o play another game.
(04-16-2012 05:24 PM)Cubanbull Wrote: [ -> ]I think this method actually reduces the value of a conference championship. Imagine your team being in that top 3 category but having to play an extra game vs a divisional champ ranked #10 and losing. There goes your conference champ slot in the playoff. Big12 without a championship game would benefit the most.
Look at the Big East only entry with Cincy as #3 it would had put that BE entry at risk by having o play another game.
Plus look at the number of times a conference champion got in without having to risk its slot by playing an extra game that would have knocked out. The Pac10 champions before last year, the MWC champion, and Cinncinati. Eight times they got in
Eh. It can happen either way. As OSU found out, not having a CCG didn't save them because they blew it against a team they had no business losing to. If anything, it may have helped them if they still had a CCG to help erase that ISU loss.
Actually look at the rankings going into conference championship games you stand a higher chance at losing the spot than moving up.
Let's look at last year
Sec #1 LSU beat 12 Georgia
ACC 3Vtech loss to 21 Clemson. The ACC would have lost a slot here
Pac12. 9 Oregon vs unranked UCLA
Big Ten 15 Wisconsin beat 13 Michigan State
Who did it help? One lost it and some could have hurt had they lost
2010
SEC. Auburn 1 beat 19 South Carolina
ACC. VTech 11 beat FSU 20
Big12. Oklahoma 10 beat 13 Nebraska
again helped no one. Could have hurt had they lost.
I could go on and show you the rest but in most cases it would actually hurt you. If they go that model it's going to feed Texas stand for the Big12 not to expand. They remember how close they came in 2009 playing a #21 Nebraska
(04-16-2012 05:40 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote: [ -> ]Eh. It can happen either way. As OSU found out, not having a CCG didn't save them because they blew it against a team they had no business losing to. If anything, it may have helped them if they still had a CCG to help erase that ISU loss.
But under this system OSU would have played in playoff but having another game could have knocked them out. So they would not gain anything from it
(04-16-2012 05:52 PM)Cubanbull Wrote: [ -> ] (04-16-2012 05:40 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote: [ -> ]Eh. It can happen either way. As OSU found out, not having a CCG didn't save them because they blew it against a team they had no business losing to. If anything, it may have helped them if they still had a CCG to help erase that ISU loss.
But under this system OSU would have played in playoff but having another game could have knocked them out. So they would not gain anything from it
Oh yes, that is right. I wasn't thinking from the perspective of the proposed system. True, then...
I don't see why the WC slot should exclude conference champions. That 4th slot should go to the highest-rated team after the first 3 slots are filled, whether that team is a conference champ or not.
(04-16-2012 06:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see why the WC slot should exclude conference champions. That 4th slot should go to the highest-rated team after the first 3 slots are filled, whether that team is a conference champ or not.
That's a good point.