Conference Champions Only
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State....2...11-2....5....3.....3 *
Big XII....Texas A&M........6...11-3....3...11.....7
Big East...Syracuse........15....8-4...27...25....15
Big Ten....Wisconsin........9...11-1...55....6.....6 **
Big West...Idaho...........NR....9-3..105...NR....69
C-USA......Tulane..........10...12-0...91....7....19
MAC........Marshall........NR...12-1..118...NR....54
Pac 10.....UCLA.............5...10-2....6....8.....8
SEC........Tennessee........1...13-0...24....1.....2
WAC........Air Force.......NR...12-1...83...NR....17
* Florida State tied for the ACC crown with Georgia Tech (10-2, BCS 14) Florida State received the conference auto bid.
** Wisconsin tied with Michigan (10-3, BCS NR) and Ohio State (11-1, BCS 4). Wisconsin received the conference auto bid, though Ohio State played in the BCS Sugar Bowl against Texas A&M.
Before looking at the potential bracket that will result, it's easy for Ohio State fans to notice an immediate problem with this formulation - Ohio State, BCS #4 (and Sagarin's eventual selection for Champion) would not have been afforded their "shot" which they allegedly "deserved." That not withstanding, the brackets:
Note - First number is "seed," number following the team name is the acutal BCS rank of that team. ** see post 1 for bracket construction method.
10 Idaho (NR) v. 9 Marshall (NR) winner to play Tennessee (1)
8 Air Force (NR) v. 7 - Syracuse (15) winner to play Florida State (2)
3 UCLA (5) v. 6 Tulane (10) winner to play winner of Tennesse v. 9/10 winner
4 Texas A&M (6) v. 5. Wisconsin (9) winner to play winner of Florida State v. 7/8 winner.
The first thing we notice, both mentioned in the methodology post and consistent throughout the remaining posts, is that there are several "worthy" teams who have been left out of consideration while teams like Idaho and Marshall get shots at glory. Said slightly differently, would you bet on Ohio State or Idaho in 1998? Assuming you're not completely insane, I assume you think Ohio State would win. And yet, under the "principled" conference only formula, Ohio State would never get the chance while Idaho is among those to be considered for National Champion. Second, in response to those who would favor a Playoff for the potential of more epic games, the first round provides no true "must see" contest, the most notable probably being A&M v. Wisconsin.
Likewise, second round games of Marshall/Idaho against Tennessee or Air Force/Syracuse v. Florida State don't jump off the page at you either. It's not until the third round that we can expect consistent "on paper" good games, and that's assuming there are no upsets. Admittedly the upset would make for a nice Cinderella story, but does little in establishing a "true" Champion. So the point is not missed - a great Cinderella story, while interesting and sellable, does nothing to establish a "better" or more "true" champion than the current BCS system.
Six Plus Two System
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State....2...11-2....5....3.....3
Big XII....Texas A&M........6...11-3....3...11.....7
Big East...Syracuse........15....8-4...27...25....15
Big Ten....Wisconsin........9...11-1...55....6.....6
Pac 10.....UCLA.............5...10-2....6....8.....8
SEC........Tennessee........1...13-0...24....1.....2
Big XII....Kansas State.....3...11-2...56...10.....4 At Large 1
Big Ten....Ohio State.......4...11-1...25....2.....1 At Large 2
This gets closer to what playoff proponents truly are asking for. The real question in 1998 wasn't if Tulane should have received a shot, but whether it was fair to exclude Ohio State and Kansas State. A six plus two, while being less principled and fair with respect to the mid major conferences, would have given both Ohio State and Kansas State their opportunities.
Pairings:
8 Syracuse (15) v. 1 Tennessee (1)
7 Wisconsin (9) v. 2 Florida State (2)
6 Texas A&M (6) v. 3 Kansas State (3)
5 UCLA (5) v. 4 Ohio State (4)
These games, with the exception of Syracuse v. Tennessee, do have the markings of better battles than some games the current system produces (ie Hawaii v. Georgia) But, that notwithstanding, it does nothing to include the mid major, and keeps all the money with the "power" schools. While the fan in us likes what we see, such a system is essentially the same as the BCS, giving the fans match-ups of 8, rather than 2, teams they perceive to be "the best" in any given season. Likewise, while we might agree that Ohio State, Kansas State, Tennessee, and Florida State might have had "legitimate claims" to the title, and to lesser extents UCLA, A&M and Wisconsin (did not play Ohio state in 1998), I am certainly not sold the Syracuse warrants the opportunity.
BCS Top 8
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
SEC........Tennessee........1...13-0...24....1.....2
ACC........Florida State....2...11-2....5....3.....3
Big XII....Kansas State.....3...11-2...56...10.....4
Big Ten....Ohio State.......4...11-1...25....2.....1
Pac 10.....UCLA.............5...10-2....6....8.....8
Big XII....Texas A&M........6...11-3....3...11.....7
Pac 10.....Arizona..........7...12-1...68....4....10
SEC........Florida..........8...10-2...47....5.....5
Bubble Teams: 9 Wisconsin (11-1), 10 Tulane (12-0), 11 Nebraska (9-4), 12 Virginia (9-3)
I won't spell out the bracket as it is fairly self evident. I would note that said bracket would include Kansas State v. Texas A&M in the first round (rematch of the Big XII championship game) as well as Tennessee v. Florida (rematch of regular season contest (won by UT 20-17). To put this in some perspective, in 1996 many folks were furious that Florida got a second shot at Florida State while Ohio State didn't get the chance to avenge their lone loss (Michigan) on their way to the Mythical National Title. How many of those people are also playoff proponents is unknown, however. In any case, straight away, this sort of playoff structure creates the "forbidden" rematch, and does so twice! Personally, I'm not as adverse to rematches as some, but for consistency sake, I think it's fair to point out the problem with this system of determining a champion as it relates to other college football "talking points" or maybe "taboos."
In any case, even more so here, the proposed 8 team format is truly what fans of college football are asking for when they talk about Playoffs. In 1998, it would have done nothing to include the undefeated mid major power (Tulane), but of course, a 16 team playoff would have afforded them the opportunity (It must be noted, the BCS only ranked 15 teams in 1998). As the "bubble teams" listed above suggest, however, after 8 teams we begin to see teams who maybe aren't as sure fire "in the conversation" sorts of teams, and only 1 mid major to consider - leaving all the money to be distrubed even more so to the power conferences. As it is, we are greeted with 2 SEC teams, 2 Big XII teams, and two Pac 10 teams, a Big Ten team and a ACC team.
Likewise, in as much as this formulation is based on the BCS rankings, as indicated in post 1 above, all we've really accomplished here is create more potentially exicting games, inviting more teams to participate in "meanigful" games but based on the same otherwise unprincipled "voodoo" that is the BCS System. While that is fine for what its worth, as a fan, I'd like to see these sorts of match-ups, it doesn't address any "real" issues with the BCS's failings excpet that more teams get a shot, some 'deserved' (Ohio State) and others not so 'deserved' (Arizona, and perhaps Florida who had once lost to UT already). Indeed, why is it OK to take 10-3 Texas A&M as the 6th seed when Wisconsin ended up 11-1 and on the outside looking in? What is equitable about that? While my answer to the question revolves around factors such as performance as against a team's SOS, playoff proponents tend not to place as much stock in the SOS instead looking at record alone. Whether that last statement is true notwithstanding, it is plain that the top 8 formula is not without its own contreversy and failings.
To re-iterate a point I don't want loss in this mass of language - There is nothing wrong with wanting high quality match-ups generally, or a playoff specifically. But, don't take that simple desire and trump it up with discussions about fairness and how it solves anything the BCS doesn't address any better. To be "true" to the principle of fairness, we get games like the first analysis above. Yawn. Everyone's included (any team can win their conference), but not really (Ohio State lost on the Big Ten's silly tie break, Kansas State was upset by A&M (less infuriating, I suppose)). The 6 plus 2 generates better games, but is as arbitrary as the BCS, taking 6 champions as auto bids (one of whom, Syracuse, doesn't belong) and in this instance not giving the mid major power a shot. While the top 8 formula stuggles to justify the lower seeds as compared to the bubble teams, does not give the mid major any more realistic a chance in fact and creating no less than 2 of the dreaded rematch.
Link to Methodology
Link to 1998 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 1999 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2000 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2001 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2002 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2003 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2004 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2005 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2006 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2007 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2008 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to Conclusion
http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/...arding-playoff-possibilities.html#post1383197
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State....2...11-2....5....3.....3 *
Big XII....Texas A&M........6...11-3....3...11.....7
Big East...Syracuse........15....8-4...27...25....15
Big Ten....Wisconsin........9...11-1...55....6.....6 **
Big West...Idaho...........NR....9-3..105...NR....69
C-USA......Tulane..........10...12-0...91....7....19
MAC........Marshall........NR...12-1..118...NR....54
Pac 10.....UCLA.............5...10-2....6....8.....8
SEC........Tennessee........1...13-0...24....1.....2
WAC........Air Force.......NR...12-1...83...NR....17
* Florida State tied for the ACC crown with Georgia Tech (10-2, BCS 14) Florida State received the conference auto bid.
** Wisconsin tied with Michigan (10-3, BCS NR) and Ohio State (11-1, BCS 4). Wisconsin received the conference auto bid, though Ohio State played in the BCS Sugar Bowl against Texas A&M.
Before looking at the potential bracket that will result, it's easy for Ohio State fans to notice an immediate problem with this formulation - Ohio State, BCS #4 (and Sagarin's eventual selection for Champion) would not have been afforded their "shot" which they allegedly "deserved." That not withstanding, the brackets:
Note - First number is "seed," number following the team name is the acutal BCS rank of that team. ** see post 1 for bracket construction method.
10 Idaho (NR) v. 9 Marshall (NR) winner to play Tennessee (1)
8 Air Force (NR) v. 7 - Syracuse (15) winner to play Florida State (2)
3 UCLA (5) v. 6 Tulane (10) winner to play winner of Tennesse v. 9/10 winner
4 Texas A&M (6) v. 5. Wisconsin (9) winner to play winner of Florida State v. 7/8 winner.
The first thing we notice, both mentioned in the methodology post and consistent throughout the remaining posts, is that there are several "worthy" teams who have been left out of consideration while teams like Idaho and Marshall get shots at glory. Said slightly differently, would you bet on Ohio State or Idaho in 1998? Assuming you're not completely insane, I assume you think Ohio State would win. And yet, under the "principled" conference only formula, Ohio State would never get the chance while Idaho is among those to be considered for National Champion. Second, in response to those who would favor a Playoff for the potential of more epic games, the first round provides no true "must see" contest, the most notable probably being A&M v. Wisconsin.
Likewise, second round games of Marshall/Idaho against Tennessee or Air Force/Syracuse v. Florida State don't jump off the page at you either. It's not until the third round that we can expect consistent "on paper" good games, and that's assuming there are no upsets. Admittedly the upset would make for a nice Cinderella story, but does little in establishing a "true" Champion. So the point is not missed - a great Cinderella story, while interesting and sellable, does nothing to establish a "better" or more "true" champion than the current BCS system.
Six Plus Two System
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State....2...11-2....5....3.....3
Big XII....Texas A&M........6...11-3....3...11.....7
Big East...Syracuse........15....8-4...27...25....15
Big Ten....Wisconsin........9...11-1...55....6.....6
Pac 10.....UCLA.............5...10-2....6....8.....8
SEC........Tennessee........1...13-0...24....1.....2
Big XII....Kansas State.....3...11-2...56...10.....4 At Large 1
Big Ten....Ohio State.......4...11-1...25....2.....1 At Large 2
This gets closer to what playoff proponents truly are asking for. The real question in 1998 wasn't if Tulane should have received a shot, but whether it was fair to exclude Ohio State and Kansas State. A six plus two, while being less principled and fair with respect to the mid major conferences, would have given both Ohio State and Kansas State their opportunities.
Pairings:
8 Syracuse (15) v. 1 Tennessee (1)
7 Wisconsin (9) v. 2 Florida State (2)
6 Texas A&M (6) v. 3 Kansas State (3)
5 UCLA (5) v. 4 Ohio State (4)
These games, with the exception of Syracuse v. Tennessee, do have the markings of better battles than some games the current system produces (ie Hawaii v. Georgia) But, that notwithstanding, it does nothing to include the mid major, and keeps all the money with the "power" schools. While the fan in us likes what we see, such a system is essentially the same as the BCS, giving the fans match-ups of 8, rather than 2, teams they perceive to be "the best" in any given season. Likewise, while we might agree that Ohio State, Kansas State, Tennessee, and Florida State might have had "legitimate claims" to the title, and to lesser extents UCLA, A&M and Wisconsin (did not play Ohio state in 1998), I am certainly not sold the Syracuse warrants the opportunity.
BCS Top 8
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
SEC........Tennessee........1...13-0...24....1.....2
ACC........Florida State....2...11-2....5....3.....3
Big XII....Kansas State.....3...11-2...56...10.....4
Big Ten....Ohio State.......4...11-1...25....2.....1
Pac 10.....UCLA.............5...10-2....6....8.....8
Big XII....Texas A&M........6...11-3....3...11.....7
Pac 10.....Arizona..........7...12-1...68....4....10
SEC........Florida..........8...10-2...47....5.....5
Bubble Teams: 9 Wisconsin (11-1), 10 Tulane (12-0), 11 Nebraska (9-4), 12 Virginia (9-3)
I won't spell out the bracket as it is fairly self evident. I would note that said bracket would include Kansas State v. Texas A&M in the first round (rematch of the Big XII championship game) as well as Tennessee v. Florida (rematch of regular season contest (won by UT 20-17). To put this in some perspective, in 1996 many folks were furious that Florida got a second shot at Florida State while Ohio State didn't get the chance to avenge their lone loss (Michigan) on their way to the Mythical National Title. How many of those people are also playoff proponents is unknown, however. In any case, straight away, this sort of playoff structure creates the "forbidden" rematch, and does so twice! Personally, I'm not as adverse to rematches as some, but for consistency sake, I think it's fair to point out the problem with this system of determining a champion as it relates to other college football "talking points" or maybe "taboos."
In any case, even more so here, the proposed 8 team format is truly what fans of college football are asking for when they talk about Playoffs. In 1998, it would have done nothing to include the undefeated mid major power (Tulane), but of course, a 16 team playoff would have afforded them the opportunity (It must be noted, the BCS only ranked 15 teams in 1998). As the "bubble teams" listed above suggest, however, after 8 teams we begin to see teams who maybe aren't as sure fire "in the conversation" sorts of teams, and only 1 mid major to consider - leaving all the money to be distrubed even more so to the power conferences. As it is, we are greeted with 2 SEC teams, 2 Big XII teams, and two Pac 10 teams, a Big Ten team and a ACC team.
Likewise, in as much as this formulation is based on the BCS rankings, as indicated in post 1 above, all we've really accomplished here is create more potentially exicting games, inviting more teams to participate in "meanigful" games but based on the same otherwise unprincipled "voodoo" that is the BCS System. While that is fine for what its worth, as a fan, I'd like to see these sorts of match-ups, it doesn't address any "real" issues with the BCS's failings excpet that more teams get a shot, some 'deserved' (Ohio State) and others not so 'deserved' (Arizona, and perhaps Florida who had once lost to UT already). Indeed, why is it OK to take 10-3 Texas A&M as the 6th seed when Wisconsin ended up 11-1 and on the outside looking in? What is equitable about that? While my answer to the question revolves around factors such as performance as against a team's SOS, playoff proponents tend not to place as much stock in the SOS instead looking at record alone. Whether that last statement is true notwithstanding, it is plain that the top 8 formula is not without its own contreversy and failings.
To re-iterate a point I don't want loss in this mass of language - There is nothing wrong with wanting high quality match-ups generally, or a playoff specifically. But, don't take that simple desire and trump it up with discussions about fairness and how it solves anything the BCS doesn't address any better. To be "true" to the principle of fairness, we get games like the first analysis above. Yawn. Everyone's included (any team can win their conference), but not really (Ohio State lost on the Big Ten's silly tie break, Kansas State was upset by A&M (less infuriating, I suppose)). The 6 plus 2 generates better games, but is as arbitrary as the BCS, taking 6 champions as auto bids (one of whom, Syracuse, doesn't belong) and in this instance not giving the mid major power a shot. While the top 8 formula stuggles to justify the lower seeds as compared to the bubble teams, does not give the mid major any more realistic a chance in fact and creating no less than 2 of the dreaded rematch.
Link to Methodology
Link to 1998 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 1999 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2000 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2001 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2002 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2003 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2004 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2005 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2006 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2007 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to 2008 Playoff Hypotheticals and discussion
Link to Conclusion
http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/...arding-playoff-possibilities.html#post1383197
Last edited: