(02-26-2012 08:52 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(02-26-2012 08:45 PM)thekevo23 Wrote:  

(02-26-2012 10:50 AM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  Yeah, I really don't like this. Say Georgia would have beaten LSU in the SEC CG last year - Alabama would have been #1 and not playing for the national title.

I suspect the real motivation behind this is to increase the value of the conference championship games to TV and sponsors.

Then Alabama should have won its division.

Alabama had a tougher road than most other programs. Why should it matter that they didn't win the SEC CG last year. The beat the stuffing out of LSU in the BCS championship game.

(02-26-2012 08:52 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(02-26-2012 08:45 PM)thekevo23 Wrote:  

(02-26-2012 10:50 AM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  Yeah, I really don't like this. Say Georgia would have beaten LSU in the SEC CG last year - Alabama would have been #1 and not playing for the national title.

I suspect the real motivation behind this is to increase the value of the conference championship games to TV and sponsors.

Then Alabama should have won its division.

Sometimes the top 2 teams in the Nation just happen to reside in the same division of a conference. Why punish the #2 team from that division over one game when they are better than the other teams in the nation. As evident in that 21-0 blowout win, Alabama was the best team in the country. And I'm sure a 4 team playoff would've also proved this as a fact. I'm a proponent of bringing in the top 4 from the BCS standings. If there are 2 teams from the same conference, or same division for that matter, so what.

i was talking about that in the context of the top 4 conference champions qualify. If this was the scenario, the Alabama would have had no one to blame but themselves for not beating LSU in the regular season.

(02-26-2012 09:15 PM)thekevo23 Wrote:  i was talking about that in the context of the top 4 conference champions qualify. If this was the scenario, the Alabama would have had no one to blame but themselves for not beating LSU in the regular season.

That point is understood, we're just stating how dumb of an idea this is.

(02-26-2012 09:23 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(02-26-2012 09:15 PM)thekevo23 Wrote:  i was talking about that in the context of the top 4 conference champions qualify. If this was the scenario, the Alabama would have had no one to blame but themselves for not beating LSU in the regular season.

That point is understood, we're just stating how dumb of an idea this is.

I'm in favor of just the top 4 conference champions qualify and completely agree with the sentence in bold.

I think you're opinion would differ if NC's only loss was to the #1 team in the land VT. just sayin, just sayin

(02-26-2012 09:23 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(02-26-2012 09:15 PM)thekevo23 Wrote:  i was talking about that in the context of the top 4 conference champions qualify. If this was the scenario, the Alabama would have had no one to blame but themselves for not beating LSU in the regular season.

That point is understood, we're just stating how dumb of an idea this is.

I'm not convinced it is a dumb idea. Didn't the NCAA bb tournament start out when it was smaller as a conference champion only tourney?

It's certainly an idea that will have a hard time winning the day, imho, but the format has merit and should at least be considered.

Cheers,
Neil

I just prefer the top 4 rated BCS schools, whether its seeded or not.

I prefer the conf champions only. It makes winning the conference more important and it makes it more likely for the ACC to get a representative in.

A poster with the handle of John Bragg did an analysis of what a Final Four in college football would look like if it used either simply the Top 4 BCS finishers or the highest rated Conference Champions:

Note: Updated with 4x4Hokies' corrections:

2011
LSU, Alabama, Okie State, Stanford.
LSU, Okie State, #5 Oregon, #10 Wisconsin

2010
Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Wisconsin
Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Wisconsin

2009
Alabama, Texas, TCU, Cincinatti
Alabama, Texas, TCU, Cincinatti

2008
Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Alabama
Oklahoma, Florida, #5 USC, #6 Utah

2007
OSU, LSU, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma
OSU, LSU, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma

2006
OSU, Florida, Michigan, LSU
OSU, Florida, #5 USC, #6 Louisville

2005
USC, Texas, Penn State, Ohio State
USC, Texas, Penn State, #7 Georgia

2004
USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Texas
USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, #6 Utah

2003
Oklahoma, LSU, USC, Michigan
LSU, USC, Michigan, #7 FSU

2002
Miami, OSU, Georgia, USC
Miami, OSU, Georgia, #6 Washington State

2001
Miami, Nebraska, Colorado, Oregon
Miami, Colorado, Oregon, #8 Illinois

2000
Oklahoma, Miami, FSU, Washington
Oklahoma, Miami, FSU, Washington

1999
FSU, VT, Nebraska, Alabama
FSU, VT, Nebraska, Alabama

1998
Tenn, FSU, Kansas St, OSU
Tenn, FSU, OSU*, #5 UCLA,

*While it was true Wisconsin was the B10 "champion" in 98, they were so as a result of a tie-breaker that said if two teams tied with the same record and they didn't face each other in that season, the team that hadn't been to the Rose Bowl in the longest gets to go. So, for this analysis, I chose the higher rated OSU over Wisconsin since such an arbitrary system of deciding a conference champion would be pointless in this model.


In 6 of the 14 years it was a wash.

One year (2003), the #1 team Oklahoma doesn't make it in the conference champions model.

In 2 of the 12 years (2011 and 2001), the number 2 team in the country doesn't get into the Final Four with a Champions Only model.

In the simple take the 4 best Teams from the BCS this is how the 56 spots were divvied out:

SEC - 14
B12 - 14
BiG - 9
PAC - 8
BE - 5
ACC - 4
MW - 2

In the Conference Champions only model:

SEC - 12
PAC -11
B12 - 9
BiG - 9
BE - 6
ACC - 5
MW - 4


The data above (now adjusted with the corrections) is shown to give an idea of what conferences may or may not want either model.

I think it is pretty obvious using the correct data why Larry Scott likes the champions only model.

Cheers,
Neil

(02-27-2012 12:53 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I prefer the conf champions only. It makes winning the conference more important and it makes it more likely for the ACC to get a representative in.

I think the data shows why the Pac and possibly even the BiG might support this model.

Cheers,
Neil

(02-27-2012 01:03 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(02-27-2012 12:53 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I prefer the conf champions only. It makes winning the conference more important and it makes it more likely for the ACC to get a representative in.

I think the data shows why the Pac and possibly even the BiG might support this model.

Cheers,
Neil

Yea, I can also see why the BE and ACc would support that model as well and why the SEC and B12 would say "hell to the naw" to it. lol

(02-27-2012 12:58 AM)omniorange Wrote:  A poster with the handle of John Bragg did an analysis of what a Final Four in college football would look like if it used either simply the Top 4 BCS finishers or the highest rated Conference Champions:

2011
LSU, Alabama, Okie State, Stanford.
LSU, Okie State, #5 Wisconsin, #6 Oregon

2010
Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Wisconsin
Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Wisconsin

2009
Alabama, Texas, TCU, Cincinatti
Alabama, Texas, TCU, Cincinatti

2008
Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Alabama
Oklahoma, Florida, #5 USC, #6 Penn State

2007
OSU, LSU, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma
OSU, LSU, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma

2006
OSU, Florida, Michigan, LSU
OSU, Florida, #5 USC, #6 Louisville

2005
USC, Texas, Penn State, Ohio State
USC, Texas, Penn State, #7 Georgia

2004
USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Texas
USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, #6 Utah

2003
Oklahoma, LSU, USC, Michigan
Oklahoma, LSU, USC, Michigan

2002
Miami, OSU, Georgia, USC
Miami, OSU, Georgia, USC

2001
Miami, Nebraska, Colorado, Oregon
Miami, Colorado, Oregon, #8 Illinois

2000
Oklahoma, Miami, FSU, Washington
Oklahoma, Miami, FSU, Washington

In 6 of the 12 years it was a wash.

In 2 of the 12 years (2011 and 2001), the number 2 team in the country doesn't get into the Final Four with a Champions Only model.

In the simple take the 4 best Teams from the BCS this is how the 48 spots were divvied out:

B12 - 12
SEC - 11
BiG - 7
PAC - 7
BE - 3
ACC - 2
MW - 2

In the Conference Champions only model:

B12 - 9
SEC - 9
PAC - 9
BiG - 8
BE - 4 (2 of these were Miami now in the ACC)
MW - 3
ACC - 2

The data above is shown to give an idea of what conferences may or may not want either model.

Cheers,
Neil

Some of that data is wrong.

If it is just conf champions the data is as follows:
1998
1 Tennessee
2 FSU
5 UCLA
6 Texas A&M
9 Wisconsin
10 Tulane
15 Syracuse

1999
1 FSU
2 VT
3 Nebraska
4 Alabama
7 Wisconsin
12 Marshall
22 Stanford
2000
1 Oklahoma
2 FSU
3 Miami
4 Washington
7 Florida
11 Notre Dame
14 TCU
2001
1 Miami
3 Colorado
4 Oregon
8 Illinois
10 Maryland
13 LSU
2002
1 Miami
2 Ohio State
3 Georgia
6 Washington State
7 Oklahoma
14 FSU
2003
2 LSU
3 USC
4 Michigan
7 FSU
9 Miami
10 K State
11 Miami (OH)
2004
1 USC
2 Oklahoma
3 Auburn
6 Utah
8 VT
9 Boise St
10 Lville
13 Michgan
21 Pitt
2005
1 USC
2 Texas
3 PSU
6 Notre Dame
7 UGA
11 WVU
14 TCU
22 FSU
2006
1 Ohio State
2 Florida
5 USC
6 Lville
8 Boise
10 Oklahoma
11 Notre Dame
14 Wake Forest
2007
1 Ohio State
2 LSU
3 VT
4 Oklahoma
7 USC
9 WVU
10 Hawaii
2008
1 Oklahoma
2 Florida
5 USC
6 Utah
8 PSU
9 Boise
12 Cincy
19 VT
2009
1 Alabama
2 Texas
3 Cincy
4 TCU
6 Boise
7 Oregon
8 Ohio State
9 GA Tech
2010
1 Auburn
2 Oregon
3 TCU
5 Wisconsin
7 Oklahoma
13 VT
15 Nevada
NR Connecticut
2011
1 LSU
3 Oklahoma State
5 Oregon
10 Wisconsin
15 Clemson
18 TCU
23 WVU

So a team currently in the ACC would have qualified in 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, 03, and 07.

In 2004 the ACC was sitting at 5th with 8th ranked VT. Given that Utah and USC would be in the same conference it'd position the ACC well to get that 4th spot.

(02-27-2012 01:17 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Some of that data is wrong.

Thanks for the updates. Other than 2000 and 2001 which I added, the rest is from John Bragg's post.

I'll update my post with your corrections.

Cheers,
Neil

2003 in your initial quoted post was wrong. Oklahoma wasn't B12 champ that year, KSU was

The interesting part to me is that only once has the eventual champion not been a conference champion. Also, only once has Notre Dame qualified and even then it was for the 4th spot only one spot better than the SEC champion.

Conferences getting bigger is helping to clear this up some too. Given that the contenders are becoming more concentrated. There really is very little chance a team outside of the current AQ would ever make it.

Again, thanks for the updates. As I said, I basically took the data from John Bragg's post. I only added 2000 and 2001 myself. My old post has now been edited with the right data (hopefully), other than I chose OSU for BiG champion in 1998 rather than Wisconsin, the "true champion" since it was a weird tie-breaker that would make no sense when examining the proposed models.

(02-27-2012 01:43 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  2003 in your initial quoted post was wrong. Oklahoma wasn't B12 champ that year, KSU was.

The interesting part to me is that only once has the eventual champion not been a conference champion. Also, only once has Notre Dame qualified and even then it was for the 4th spot only one spot better than the SEC champion.

Conferences getting bigger is helping to clear this up some too. Given that the contenders are becoming more concentrated. There really is very little chance a team outside of the current AQ would ever make it.

Agreed. I, like John Bragg over on the Realignment Board, was somewhat surprised that Boise would never have made it, even with the champions model.

Cheers,
Neil