Conference Champions Only
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State....1...12-0...11....1.....1
Big XII....Nebraska.........3...12-1...18....3.....2
Big East...Virginia Tech....2...11-1...43....2.....3
Big Ten....Wisconsin........7...10-2...59....4.....8
Big West...Boise State.....NR...10-3..106...NR....53
C-USA......Southern Miss...NR....9-3...62...13....14
MAC........Marshall........11...13-0..111...10....13
MWC........Utah............NR....9-3...74...NR....25 *
Pac 10.....Stanford........NR....8-4...38...NR....28
SEC........Alabama..........4...10-3....1....8....10
WAC........Hawaii..........NR....9-4...105..NR....69 **
* Utah is listed as having tied Colorado State (8-4, BCS NR) and BYU (8-4 BCS NR) for the 1999 (and first ever) Mountain West Title. Utah was selected for consideration here for best overall record.
** Hawaii shared the 1999 WAC crown with Fresno State (8-5 BCS NR) and TCU (8-4 BCS NR) and gets the nod for consideration herein for better overall record. Note - First number is "seed," number following the team name is the actual BCS rank of that team. ** see post 1 for bracket construction method.
The Brackets (Used the Big Ten basketball Tournament bracket as the model for an 11 team tournament) as before, seeds precede the team name, actual BCS ranks in parens:
8 Southern Miss (NR) v. 9 Utah (NR) winner to play 1 Florida State (1)
7 Boise State (NR) v. 10 Hawaii (NR) winner to play 2 Virginia Tech (2)
6 Marshall (NR) v. 11 Stanford (NR) winner to play 3 Nebraska (3)
4 Alabama (4) v. 5 Wisconsin (7) winner to play winer of Florida State v. 8/9 winner game.
The dreaded rematch: Boise State v. Hawaii is a rematch, the first contest being won by Hawaii (9/18/99 34-19 at Hawaii). While these games tend to match relatively equally skilled teams together, as with the 1998 bracket, few games jump off the page at you. Alabama v. Wisconsin looks like the "best" of the bunch, while Marshall v. Stanford may have also held some intrigue. The second round does not have a "great game" among them as Florida State would get Southern Miss or Utah, Virginia Tech getting Boise State or Hawaii and Nebraska getting Marshall or Stanford. While we could argue that there's chances for upsets here, the plain fact is none of those hypothetical games makes a person forget Hawaii v. Gerogia in 2007, really. That is to say, based on a cold analysis, these contests should have resulted in blow-outs. Reality may have been another matter.
In any case, round 3 begins the "high caliber" match-ups - assuming the top seeds advanced. As stated on the 1998 analysis, however, while the Cinderella story does indeed add an element of interest, it does little in making a determination of who is the champion.
1999 represents a clear example of what is "wrong" with the principled conference champions only model, as several of 1999's top rated teams nationally are on the outside looking in while Stanford and the like get their shot at undeserved glory. Body of work should matter for something, but #5 BCS Tennessee (9-3) and #6 BCS Kansas State (11-1) would be licking their wounds and perhaps arguing that fair isn't always fair. Again, if we believe 2008 Utah deserved a chance and their conference affiliation and SOS don't matter, then that should be true of ALL mid majors, not just the ones we select. That is, if we're to rest on the principle of it. As such, you have to invite clearly undeserving teams under this "fair" formula.
Six Plus Two System
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State....1...12-0...11....1.....1
Big XII....Nebraska.........3...12-1...18....3.....2
Big East...Virginia Tech....2...11-1...43....2.....3
Big Ten....Wisconsin........7...10-2...59....4.....8
Pac 10.....Stanford........NR....8-4...38...NR....28
SEC........Alabama..........4...10-3....1....8....10
SEC........Tennessee........5....9-3...14....9.....9 At Large 1
Big XII....Kansas State.....6...11-1...72....6.....4 At Large 2
Pairings:
8 Stanford (NR) v. 1 Florida State (1)
7 Wisconsin (7) v. 2 Virginia Tech (2)
6 Kansas State (6) v. 3 Nebraska (3)
5 Tennessee (5) v. 4 Alabama (4)
I must admit, seeding-wise, as it relates to BCS standing, we have a pretty solid looking field from 1999. The only team which doesn't belong is Stanford who sits in position on account of it's Pac 10 crown, while Michigan (10-2 BCS #8) contemplates how great they were in 1901. But, before you get too excited, there's more reason to wonder if this is such a good idea (for this particular year). Setting aside the same comments about how this impressive field suffers the same arbitrary selection criteria the current BCS suffers in regards to conference auto bids we have to take a closer look at the pairings here. First, as mentioned, Stanford is out of place and would be hard pressed to give eventual champion FSU a game. We may disagree on this point, but if I'm a betting man, I'll take FSU straight up any day of the week in 1999, and if you're honest, you would have too. But, wait... it gets worse. Not only do we get a rematch of Alabama v. Tennessee in the first round, (Tennessee won on 10/23/99 by the score of 21-7), we also have to re-endure Kansas State v. Nebraska (11/13/99 Nebraska 41, KSU 15).
Excitement? No thanks, "I've seen this already" Never mind that unranked Stanford could have ended up with the Crystal (no matter how unlikely).
BCS Top 8
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State....1...12-0...11....1.....1
Big East...Virginia Tech....2...11-1...43....2.....3
Big XII....Nebraska.........3...12-1...18....3.....2
SEC........Alabama..........4...10-3....1....8....10
SEC........Tennessee........5....9-3...14....9.....9
Big XII....Kansas State.....6...11-1...72....6.....4
Big Ten....Wisconsin........7...10-2...59....4.....8
Big Ten....Michigan.........8...10-2....2....5.....6
Bubble Teams: 9 Michigan State (10-2), 10 Florida (9-4), 11 Marshall (13-0), 12 Penn State (10-3), 13 Minnesota (8-4)
First, I wouldn't really put Minnesota on the bubble here, but for the fact that I wanted to remind readers that the Big Ten wasn't always a bit of a national "power conference" disgrace. That's 5 Big Ten teams in the top 13 of the BCS. Impressive indeed. It's probably no coincidence that Ohio State was "down" then. But, I digress.
While Florida State v. Michigan is a better contest than present in the Six Plus Two format, we are left with the same rematches as above under this formulation as well. Here again, one is left to wonder where all the excitement will come from for the more "casual" fan among us when we already know that Nebraska is better on the field than KSU and we already know Tennessee bested Alabama. (I would note, I personally do not believe one game - as a snapshot in time - solves the issue. That is, upsets happen. When Boise State beats Oklahoma we see the upset pretty clearly. When the teams are closer matched, it's harder to know if its what "should" have happened, or if it too is nothing more than an upset on some level.)
As in 1998, there is no mid major getting a taste, despite Marshall's 13-0 record (against a schedule rated 111th) Thus, even to the extent that we can over look the rematches, we are left with the same problem the current BCS is accused of - not letting "little brother" play.
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....1...12-0...11....1.....1
Big XII....Nebraska.........3...12-1...18....3.....2
Big East...Virginia Tech....2...11-1...43....2.....3
Big Ten....Wisconsin........7...10-2...59....4.....8
Big West...Boise State.....NR...10-3..106...NR....53
C-USA......Southern Miss...NR....9-3...62...13....14
MAC........Marshall........11...13-0..111...10....13
MWC........Utah............NR....9-3...74...NR....25 *
Pac 10.....Stanford........NR....8-4...38...NR....28
SEC........Alabama..........4...10-3....1....8....10
WAC........Hawaii..........NR....9-4...105..NR....69 **
* Utah is listed as having tied Colorado State (8-4, BCS NR) and BYU (8-4 BCS NR) for the 1999 (and first ever) Mountain West Title. Utah was selected for consideration here for best overall record.
** Hawaii shared the 1999 WAC crown with Fresno State (8-5 BCS NR) and TCU (8-4 BCS NR) and gets the nod for consideration herein for better overall record. Note - First number is "seed," number following the team name is the actual BCS rank of that team. ** see post 1 for bracket construction method.
The Brackets (Used the Big Ten basketball Tournament bracket as the model for an 11 team tournament) as before, seeds precede the team name, actual BCS ranks in parens:
8 Southern Miss (NR) v. 9 Utah (NR) winner to play 1 Florida State (1)
7 Boise State (NR) v. 10 Hawaii (NR) winner to play 2 Virginia Tech (2)
6 Marshall (NR) v. 11 Stanford (NR) winner to play 3 Nebraska (3)
4 Alabama (4) v. 5 Wisconsin (7) winner to play winer of Florida State v. 8/9 winner game.
The dreaded rematch: Boise State v. Hawaii is a rematch, the first contest being won by Hawaii (9/18/99 34-19 at Hawaii). While these games tend to match relatively equally skilled teams together, as with the 1998 bracket, few games jump off the page at you. Alabama v. Wisconsin looks like the "best" of the bunch, while Marshall v. Stanford may have also held some intrigue. The second round does not have a "great game" among them as Florida State would get Southern Miss or Utah, Virginia Tech getting Boise State or Hawaii and Nebraska getting Marshall or Stanford. While we could argue that there's chances for upsets here, the plain fact is none of those hypothetical games makes a person forget Hawaii v. Gerogia in 2007, really. That is to say, based on a cold analysis, these contests should have resulted in blow-outs. Reality may have been another matter.
In any case, round 3 begins the "high caliber" match-ups - assuming the top seeds advanced. As stated on the 1998 analysis, however, while the Cinderella story does indeed add an element of interest, it does little in making a determination of who is the champion.
1999 represents a clear example of what is "wrong" with the principled conference champions only model, as several of 1999's top rated teams nationally are on the outside looking in while Stanford and the like get their shot at undeserved glory. Body of work should matter for something, but #5 BCS Tennessee (9-3) and #6 BCS Kansas State (11-1) would be licking their wounds and perhaps arguing that fair isn't always fair. Again, if we believe 2008 Utah deserved a chance and their conference affiliation and SOS don't matter, then that should be true of ALL mid majors, not just the ones we select. That is, if we're to rest on the principle of it. As such, you have to invite clearly undeserving teams under this "fair" formula.
Six Plus Two System
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State....1...12-0...11....1.....1
Big XII....Nebraska.........3...12-1...18....3.....2
Big East...Virginia Tech....2...11-1...43....2.....3
Big Ten....Wisconsin........7...10-2...59....4.....8
Pac 10.....Stanford........NR....8-4...38...NR....28
SEC........Alabama..........4...10-3....1....8....10
SEC........Tennessee........5....9-3...14....9.....9 At Large 1
Big XII....Kansas State.....6...11-1...72....6.....4 At Large 2
Pairings:
8 Stanford (NR) v. 1 Florida State (1)
7 Wisconsin (7) v. 2 Virginia Tech (2)
6 Kansas State (6) v. 3 Nebraska (3)
5 Tennessee (5) v. 4 Alabama (4)
I must admit, seeding-wise, as it relates to BCS standing, we have a pretty solid looking field from 1999. The only team which doesn't belong is Stanford who sits in position on account of it's Pac 10 crown, while Michigan (10-2 BCS #8) contemplates how great they were in 1901. But, before you get too excited, there's more reason to wonder if this is such a good idea (for this particular year). Setting aside the same comments about how this impressive field suffers the same arbitrary selection criteria the current BCS suffers in regards to conference auto bids we have to take a closer look at the pairings here. First, as mentioned, Stanford is out of place and would be hard pressed to give eventual champion FSU a game. We may disagree on this point, but if I'm a betting man, I'll take FSU straight up any day of the week in 1999, and if you're honest, you would have too. But, wait... it gets worse. Not only do we get a rematch of Alabama v. Tennessee in the first round, (Tennessee won on 10/23/99 by the score of 21-7), we also have to re-endure Kansas State v. Nebraska (11/13/99 Nebraska 41, KSU 15).
Excitement? No thanks, "I've seen this already" Never mind that unranked Stanford could have ended up with the Crystal (no matter how unlikely).
BCS Top 8
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State....1...12-0...11....1.....1
Big East...Virginia Tech....2...11-1...43....2.....3
Big XII....Nebraska.........3...12-1...18....3.....2
SEC........Alabama..........4...10-3....1....8....10
SEC........Tennessee........5....9-3...14....9.....9
Big XII....Kansas State.....6...11-1...72....6.....4
Big Ten....Wisconsin........7...10-2...59....4.....8
Big Ten....Michigan.........8...10-2....2....5.....6
Bubble Teams: 9 Michigan State (10-2), 10 Florida (9-4), 11 Marshall (13-0), 12 Penn State (10-3), 13 Minnesota (8-4)
First, I wouldn't really put Minnesota on the bubble here, but for the fact that I wanted to remind readers that the Big Ten wasn't always a bit of a national "power conference" disgrace. That's 5 Big Ten teams in the top 13 of the BCS. Impressive indeed. It's probably no coincidence that Ohio State was "down" then. But, I digress.
While Florida State v. Michigan is a better contest than present in the Six Plus Two format, we are left with the same rematches as above under this formulation as well. Here again, one is left to wonder where all the excitement will come from for the more "casual" fan among us when we already know that Nebraska is better on the field than KSU and we already know Tennessee bested Alabama. (I would note, I personally do not believe one game - as a snapshot in time - solves the issue. That is, upsets happen. When Boise State beats Oklahoma we see the upset pretty clearly. When the teams are closer matched, it's harder to know if its what "should" have happened, or if it too is nothing more than an upset on some level.)
As in 1998, there is no mid major getting a taste, despite Marshall's 13-0 record (against a schedule rated 111th) Thus, even to the extent that we can over look the rematches, we are left with the same problem the current BCS is accused of - not letting "little brother" play.
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: