bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,774
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3310
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
RE: 8 team playoff format
(10-03-2018 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (10-03-2018 09:35 AM)ken d Wrote: (10-03-2018 08:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (10-03-2018 08:42 AM)ken d Wrote: We all have our individual preferences for how a more inclusive playoff should be structured. At the end of the day, the only people whose opinion will matter are the FBS presidents and the media companies who will provide the bulk of the money to be distributed. That being said, this is my opinion.
As I have said elsewhere, the only way I believe the decision makers will agree to expand the playoff is by extending the season at the beginning - that is, what is now called Week Zero. That means it will never, IMO, go beyond 8 teams in size.
In my scenario, the 12 teams would be chosen for the NY6 bowls as follows.
1. Any conference champion or independent ranked in the Top 12 automatically qualifies for the playoff. In the unlikely event there are more than 8 who meet this criterion, the 8 highest ranked are selected.
2. If there are fewer than 8 AQ schools, the remaining playoff spots go to the highest ranked teams regardless of conference affiliation.
3. The remaining four NY6 spots are filled as follows. Any champion of a conference that has a tie in with the Rose, Sugar or Orange Bowls that has not qualified for the playoff is guaranteed an NY6 slot. If no G5 school has qualified for the playoff, the highest ranked G5 conference champion is guaranteed a spot. The remaining spots are filled by the highest ranked teams still available.
4. The rankings used to determine which teams qualify would be a combination of human polls and computer rankings. Six such rankings would be selected, and each team's highest and lowest ranking among these six would be discarded and the remaining four ranks averaged.
5. A pairings committee will determine which teams play in which bowls, taking geography and tradition into account along with the rankings.
The four quarterfinal games will be played at neutral sites. The winners will advance to either the Peach Bowl or the Cotton Bowl for the semifinals. The losers will be assigned to the Rose, Sugar, Orange or Fiesta based first on contractual tie-ins, if any, and then at the discretion of the Pairings Committee in consultation with the Bowls and the media partners. The championship game will rotate among these four sites.
That's my scenario. What do you think are the chances that the presidents, conferences, bowls and media partners could agree to it?
The big flaw I see here are that the 8 highest-ranked conference champs get in. What if there are 8 conference champs ranked in the top 12, but a team that isn't a champ is ranked #1? They would miss the playoffs in your scenario, likely in favor of a #10 ranked G5 champ. Any system that leaves #1 out is doomed, IMO.
Also, while I like the way you try to accommodate the existing bowl arrangements by giving contract conferences an NY6 slot if their champ makes the playoffs, because 8 of the 12 slots are spoken for by the playoffs, this will basically cut back on the number of A5 teams in NY6 bowls. Conferences like the SEC and B1G have gotten used to putting 3 teams in the NY6 bowls, and that is a big appeal of the current arrangement for them. I don't see them surrendering that so that G5 champs can get in.
I'll address the second one first. The only situation in which the A5 conferences get fewer teams in the NY6 than they do now is if there are 2 or more non A5 champions ranked in the Top 8. That's going to be extremely rare, IMO. And if it happens, don't those schools deserve to be in there?
As for your first objection, has such a situation ever happened, or come close to happening? About the only way it is possible is if a team that didn't win its division is ranked #1, or goes into its CCG (in essence, the Sweet Sixteen round) ranked #1 and loses, but is still ranked #1 after that loss, ahead of the team that just beat them, and ahead of all the other A5 champions as well.
My feeling is that in either case the #1 team somehow played its way out of contention during the regular season (including CCG's) and blew its chance for the playoff (but not an NY6 bid). I can live with that.
Your objections to both of my points hinge in part on their rarity. I agree they are very unlikely to happen. But, I've seen many, many things happen in my life that were very unlikely to happen. Just when you think something can't happen, it does.
Also, it's not just #1 being left out. You could very well be leaving #2, or #3, or #4 out as well. That's exactly what prompted change in the NCAA tournament - in 1974 a #3 Maryland team that was clearly a top national title contender was left out because they lost their conference tournament to the #1 team.
To me, the validity of a playoff isn't defined by how many opportunities it provides for lower-ranked teams but by the odds that the truly "best" team is left out. Right now, the CFP-defined top 4 always get in. In your scenario, we expand the playoff to 8 but allow for top-4 teams to be left out. To me, that is a step backwards.
And there was the year #2USC stayed at home with a 24-2 record. Their only losses were to #1 UCLA.
|
|