Conference Champions Only
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State....2...11-1...12....5.....1
Big XII....Oklahoma.........1...12-0...29....1.....3
Big East...Miami Florida....3...10-1...31....2.....2
Big Ten....Purdue..........NR....8-3...45...13....19 *
Big West...Boise State.....NR....9-2..111...NR....36
C-USA......Louisville......NR....9-2...89...NR....27
MAC........Marshall........NR....7-5..102...NR....76
MWC........Colorado State..NR....9-2...90...14....33
Pac 10.....Washington.......4...10-1....6....3.....8 **
SEC........Florida..........7...10-2...27...10.....6
WAC........TCU.............14...10-1..101...21....12 ***
Note: Again, the Sagarin page for 2000 is the only of them all to not capture the standings post bowl results. This accounts for the disparity in the Sagarin Final Ratings. When compiling this, I also realized the teams Records were also "pre-bowl" (unlike each other thread)
* Purdue was Big Ten Co-Champion with Michigan (8-3 BCS NR) and Northwestern (8-3 (BCS NR) but received the conference autobid.
** Washington was Pac 10 Co Champion with Oregon (9-2 (BCS 10) and Oregon State (10-1 BCS 6) but received the conference auto bid
*** TCU shared the WAC crown with UTEP (8-3 BCS NR) and was selected owing to better overall record (10-1)
The Brackets (Used the Big Ten basketball Tournament bracket as the model for an 11 team tournament) as before, seeds preceed the team name, actual BCS ranks in parens:
8 Colorado State (NR) v. 9 Boise State (NR) winner to play 1 Oklahoma (1)
7 Louisville (NR) v. 10 Purdue (NR) winner to play 2 Florida State (2)
6 TCU (14) v. 11 Marshall (NR) winner to play 3 Miami Florida (3)
4 Washington (4) v. 5 Florida (7) winner to play winner of Oklahoma v. 8/9 game winner winner.
As before, with the exception of the 4 v. 5 match-up, I'm hard pressed to find a must see first round contest. Though that does not necessarily mean that there are uneven match-ups top to bottom. Colorado State v. Boise State and TCU Marshall, while not big selling games, probably would have been hard fought as between the contestants. Unless I am overlooking it, I likewise do not see any rematch games.
The second round games are equally wanting in firepower as 2000 seemed to be a year where there were a handful of very good teams at the top (OU, FSU, Miami and Washington), and where that top tier's chief competition came from its own conference(s) (Virginia Tech in the Big East, Oregon State in the Pac 10, Nebraska in the Big XII). I'm not too certain the draw of Oklahoma v. Boise State or Colorado State would be much (Remember, this is 2000, and not the same Boise State who would beat OU in the 2007 Fiesta. This OU team ended up being the National Champion, after all). Likewise, Florida State v. Louisville or Purdue doesn't have me salivating (FSU beat Louisville 31-0 in 2000 on 9/23/00), While Miami v. either TCU or Marshall would almost certainly have been a blood bath. You may recall that the 2000 Hurricanes were being bandied about as the better team to face OU in as much as the Hurricanes beat Florida State 27-24 earlier in the year. They were in the midst of their 34 game winning streak which would be ended in the 2003 Fiesta Bowl by Ohio State.
Six Plus Two System
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State....2...11-1...12....5.....1
Big XII....Oklahoma.........1...12-0...29....1.....3
Big East...Miami Florida....3...10-1...31....2.....2
Big Ten....Purdue..........NR....8-3...45...13....19
Pac 10.....Washington.......4...10-1....6....3.....8
SEC........Florida..........7...10-2...27...10.....6
Big East...Virginia Tech....5...10-1...42....6.....5 At Large 1
Pac 10.....Oregon State.....6...10-1...28....4.....7 At Large 2
Pairings:
8 Purdue (NR) v. 1 Oklahoma (1)
7 Florida (7) v. 2 Florida State (2)
6 Oregon State (6) v. 3 Miami Florida (3)
5 Virginia Tech (5) v. 4 Washington (4)
As strong as the 1999 Big Ten was, the 2000 Big Ten represents the Six Plus 2 system's most out of place team as Purdue and Drew Brees would have to face eventual champion OU. I must admit this matchup is mildly compelling as OU had a superior defense and Joe Tiller's basketball on grass was at it's apex. Still, my money would be squarely on OU in that one. Florida v. Florida State is a rematch game (Florida State 30, Florida 7 11/18/00) It should be noted, if Florida did move on, and they had to face Miami, that would have been what turned out to be the 2001 Sugar Bowl (Miami 37, Florida 20). Also, looming as a potential rematch is Washington v. Miami (Washington 34 Miami 29).
Rematches aside, on paper 2000 appears to be one of those years which may have lent itself well to a 6 plus two format, as the balance of power in 2000 was such that the "power conference" champions were on a different level than most the rest of the field. While I have suggested in earlier posts that rematches are to be avoided, I would concede that Miami v. Washington would have been a rematch which would have seen a big draw. Likewise, Florida and Florida State would have drawn well (in Florida especially - the 1996 Sugar Bowl rematch didn't suffer, after all) and the Florida State Miami game was close enough that a rematch would have still held interest. In 2000, as the final AP poll attests, the state of Florida was all the rage in college football.
Of course, there is no mid major afforded a shot here. Nor should there have been.
BCS Top 8
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
Big XII....Oklahoma.........1...12-0...29....1.....3
ACC........Florida State....2...11-1...12....5.....1
Big East...Miami Florida....3...10-1...31....2.....2
Pac 10.....Washington.......4...10-1....6....3.....8
Big East...Virginia Tech....5...10-1...42....6.....5
Pac 10.....Oregon State.....6...10-1...28....4.....7
SEC........Florida..........7...10-2...27...10.....6
Big XII....Nebraska.........8....9-2...19....8.....4
Bubble Teams: 9 Kansas State (10-3), 10 Oregon (9-2), 11 Notre Dame (9-2), 12 Texas (9-2)
For everything the BCS top 8 would give us in quality games, it is even more apparent that there was no true mid major contestant to be considered (Or Big Ten School, as it turns out) TCU being the only one ranked in the final BCS (14) and not truly warranting consideration. As the Bubble attests, the Big XII could have seen as many as 4 teams argue they "deserved" a shot, while the Pac 10 could boast as many as 3. How odd was 2000? Even Notre Dame could argue for a piece of the action. In any case, if you thought the love for the 2008 Big XII was bordering on ridiculous, 2000 - in this format - could have driven you right over the edge. Top that off with 3 Pac 10 teams bickering about "east coast bias" and the playoff format may be regarded as highly as the current BCS as a system of determination. Ironic.
None the less, we continue with the analysis.
As far as pairings in the first round; Nebraska v. Oklahoma is a rematch (Oklahoma 31 - 14) as is Florida v. Florida State (Florida State 30 - 7). But, Virginia Tech v. Washington and Miami v. Oregon State present novel and potentially interesting games (Again, I'd take Miami in a run away against Oregon State, but who knows?). Like above, there are other potential rematches on the horizon, including a potential Washington - Miami Championship, Florida State - Miami 2nd round game, or even a possible Floria - Florida State championship. As indicated above, considering the balance of power in 2000, each of these rematches held some degree of interest, though it's not clear how much the casual fan would appreciate the likelihood of so many games that had already been played once in 2000.
Frankly, 2000 may be the best example of a season warranting a playoff of 8 teams - if our interest is seeing high caliber match-ups (even if we'd already seen them
) There was BCS conflict in the selection of Florida State over Miami (who had beaten them) while Washington, having beat Miami also felt they deserved a shot. To lesser extents, Oregon State and Virginia Tech had reasonable arguments, (Oregon State's loss was to Washington, while Virginia Tech's was to Miami), though not overly compelling ones. Meanwhile, Nebraska had only lost to Oklahoma and highly rated Kansas State in a tight game (KSU 29, Nebraska 28). As it was, Washington beat Purdue in the Rose (34-24), Oregon State beat Notre Dame in the Fiesta (41-9), Miami bested Florida in the Sugar (37-20) and Oklahoma beat Florida State in the Orange (13-2), while Nebraska crushed Northwestern in the Alamo (66-17) and Virginia Tech beat the snot out of Clemson 41-20 in the Gator bowl.
With that in mind, it seems firm that in the year 2000 the top teams were truly far and away better than the next tier. A playoff would have been exciting, though - again - not based on the principle of fairness across the NCAA division I (as represented above in the Conference Champs model), but instead regarding fairness to those teams perceived as deserving the (second) chance. As before, such a result is fine for what it's worth, but proponents need to understand that they're simply asking for a different arbitrary system then the current one and not one which is on some level more "sound" at producing a champion. To re-iterate, playoff's are a legitimate way to crown a champion. That does not mean it is a perfect way to do so. Supposing we did have a playoff in 2000, no better year would there have been to make the claim "Sure, Florida State beat Florida, but if their First Round match had instead been Nebraska or Virginia Tech... well, anything could have happened." In short, and again, this is meant to illustrate that controversy does not go away simply because a playoff exists. A playoff, then, does nothing to solve this particular alleged problem with the BCS. But, a playoff would have worked quite nicely in 2000. I'll admit that.
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...11-1...12....5.....1
Big XII....Oklahoma.........1...12-0...29....1.....3
Big East...Miami Florida....3...10-1...31....2.....2
Big Ten....Purdue..........NR....8-3...45...13....19 *
Big West...Boise State.....NR....9-2..111...NR....36
C-USA......Louisville......NR....9-2...89...NR....27
MAC........Marshall........NR....7-5..102...NR....76
MWC........Colorado State..NR....9-2...90...14....33
Pac 10.....Washington.......4...10-1....6....3.....8 **
SEC........Florida..........7...10-2...27...10.....6
WAC........TCU.............14...10-1..101...21....12 ***
Note: Again, the Sagarin page for 2000 is the only of them all to not capture the standings post bowl results. This accounts for the disparity in the Sagarin Final Ratings. When compiling this, I also realized the teams Records were also "pre-bowl" (unlike each other thread)
* Purdue was Big Ten Co-Champion with Michigan (8-3 BCS NR) and Northwestern (8-3 (BCS NR) but received the conference autobid.
** Washington was Pac 10 Co Champion with Oregon (9-2 (BCS 10) and Oregon State (10-1 BCS 6) but received the conference auto bid
*** TCU shared the WAC crown with UTEP (8-3 BCS NR) and was selected owing to better overall record (10-1)
The Brackets (Used the Big Ten basketball Tournament bracket as the model for an 11 team tournament) as before, seeds preceed the team name, actual BCS ranks in parens:
8 Colorado State (NR) v. 9 Boise State (NR) winner to play 1 Oklahoma (1)
7 Louisville (NR) v. 10 Purdue (NR) winner to play 2 Florida State (2)
6 TCU (14) v. 11 Marshall (NR) winner to play 3 Miami Florida (3)
4 Washington (4) v. 5 Florida (7) winner to play winner of Oklahoma v. 8/9 game winner winner.
As before, with the exception of the 4 v. 5 match-up, I'm hard pressed to find a must see first round contest. Though that does not necessarily mean that there are uneven match-ups top to bottom. Colorado State v. Boise State and TCU Marshall, while not big selling games, probably would have been hard fought as between the contestants. Unless I am overlooking it, I likewise do not see any rematch games.
The second round games are equally wanting in firepower as 2000 seemed to be a year where there were a handful of very good teams at the top (OU, FSU, Miami and Washington), and where that top tier's chief competition came from its own conference(s) (Virginia Tech in the Big East, Oregon State in the Pac 10, Nebraska in the Big XII). I'm not too certain the draw of Oklahoma v. Boise State or Colorado State would be much (Remember, this is 2000, and not the same Boise State who would beat OU in the 2007 Fiesta. This OU team ended up being the National Champion, after all). Likewise, Florida State v. Louisville or Purdue doesn't have me salivating (FSU beat Louisville 31-0 in 2000 on 9/23/00), While Miami v. either TCU or Marshall would almost certainly have been a blood bath. You may recall that the 2000 Hurricanes were being bandied about as the better team to face OU in as much as the Hurricanes beat Florida State 27-24 earlier in the year. They were in the midst of their 34 game winning streak which would be ended in the 2003 Fiesta Bowl by Ohio State.
Six Plus Two System
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State....2...11-1...12....5.....1
Big XII....Oklahoma.........1...12-0...29....1.....3
Big East...Miami Florida....3...10-1...31....2.....2
Big Ten....Purdue..........NR....8-3...45...13....19
Pac 10.....Washington.......4...10-1....6....3.....8
SEC........Florida..........7...10-2...27...10.....6
Big East...Virginia Tech....5...10-1...42....6.....5 At Large 1
Pac 10.....Oregon State.....6...10-1...28....4.....7 At Large 2
Pairings:
8 Purdue (NR) v. 1 Oklahoma (1)
7 Florida (7) v. 2 Florida State (2)
6 Oregon State (6) v. 3 Miami Florida (3)
5 Virginia Tech (5) v. 4 Washington (4)
As strong as the 1999 Big Ten was, the 2000 Big Ten represents the Six Plus 2 system's most out of place team as Purdue and Drew Brees would have to face eventual champion OU. I must admit this matchup is mildly compelling as OU had a superior defense and Joe Tiller's basketball on grass was at it's apex. Still, my money would be squarely on OU in that one. Florida v. Florida State is a rematch game (Florida State 30, Florida 7 11/18/00) It should be noted, if Florida did move on, and they had to face Miami, that would have been what turned out to be the 2001 Sugar Bowl (Miami 37, Florida 20). Also, looming as a potential rematch is Washington v. Miami (Washington 34 Miami 29).
Rematches aside, on paper 2000 appears to be one of those years which may have lent itself well to a 6 plus two format, as the balance of power in 2000 was such that the "power conference" champions were on a different level than most the rest of the field. While I have suggested in earlier posts that rematches are to be avoided, I would concede that Miami v. Washington would have been a rematch which would have seen a big draw. Likewise, Florida and Florida State would have drawn well (in Florida especially - the 1996 Sugar Bowl rematch didn't suffer, after all) and the Florida State Miami game was close enough that a rematch would have still held interest. In 2000, as the final AP poll attests, the state of Florida was all the rage in college football.
Of course, there is no mid major afforded a shot here. Nor should there have been.
BCS Top 8
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
Big XII....Oklahoma.........1...12-0...29....1.....3
ACC........Florida State....2...11-1...12....5.....1
Big East...Miami Florida....3...10-1...31....2.....2
Pac 10.....Washington.......4...10-1....6....3.....8
Big East...Virginia Tech....5...10-1...42....6.....5
Pac 10.....Oregon State.....6...10-1...28....4.....7
SEC........Florida..........7...10-2...27...10.....6
Big XII....Nebraska.........8....9-2...19....8.....4
Bubble Teams: 9 Kansas State (10-3), 10 Oregon (9-2), 11 Notre Dame (9-2), 12 Texas (9-2)
For everything the BCS top 8 would give us in quality games, it is even more apparent that there was no true mid major contestant to be considered (Or Big Ten School, as it turns out) TCU being the only one ranked in the final BCS (14) and not truly warranting consideration. As the Bubble attests, the Big XII could have seen as many as 4 teams argue they "deserved" a shot, while the Pac 10 could boast as many as 3. How odd was 2000? Even Notre Dame could argue for a piece of the action. In any case, if you thought the love for the 2008 Big XII was bordering on ridiculous, 2000 - in this format - could have driven you right over the edge. Top that off with 3 Pac 10 teams bickering about "east coast bias" and the playoff format may be regarded as highly as the current BCS as a system of determination. Ironic.
None the less, we continue with the analysis.
As far as pairings in the first round; Nebraska v. Oklahoma is a rematch (Oklahoma 31 - 14) as is Florida v. Florida State (Florida State 30 - 7). But, Virginia Tech v. Washington and Miami v. Oregon State present novel and potentially interesting games (Again, I'd take Miami in a run away against Oregon State, but who knows?). Like above, there are other potential rematches on the horizon, including a potential Washington - Miami Championship, Florida State - Miami 2nd round game, or even a possible Floria - Florida State championship. As indicated above, considering the balance of power in 2000, each of these rematches held some degree of interest, though it's not clear how much the casual fan would appreciate the likelihood of so many games that had already been played once in 2000.
Frankly, 2000 may be the best example of a season warranting a playoff of 8 teams - if our interest is seeing high caliber match-ups (even if we'd already seen them
) There was BCS conflict in the selection of Florida State over Miami (who had beaten them) while Washington, having beat Miami also felt they deserved a shot. To lesser extents, Oregon State and Virginia Tech had reasonable arguments, (Oregon State's loss was to Washington, while Virginia Tech's was to Miami), though not overly compelling ones. Meanwhile, Nebraska had only lost to Oklahoma and highly rated Kansas State in a tight game (KSU 29, Nebraska 28). As it was, Washington beat Purdue in the Rose (34-24), Oregon State beat Notre Dame in the Fiesta (41-9), Miami bested Florida in the Sugar (37-20) and Oklahoma beat Florida State in the Orange (13-2), while Nebraska crushed Northwestern in the Alamo (66-17) and Virginia Tech beat the snot out of Clemson 41-20 in the Gator bowl. With that in mind, it seems firm that in the year 2000 the top teams were truly far and away better than the next tier. A playoff would have been exciting, though - again - not based on the principle of fairness across the NCAA division I (as represented above in the Conference Champs model), but instead regarding fairness to those teams perceived as deserving the (second) chance. As before, such a result is fine for what it's worth, but proponents need to understand that they're simply asking for a different arbitrary system then the current one and not one which is on some level more "sound" at producing a champion. To re-iterate, playoff's are a legitimate way to crown a champion. That does not mean it is a perfect way to do so. Supposing we did have a playoff in 2000, no better year would there have been to make the claim "Sure, Florida State beat Florida, but if their First Round match had instead been Nebraska or Virginia Tech... well, anything could have happened." In short, and again, this is meant to illustrate that controversy does not go away simply because a playoff exists. A playoff, then, does nothing to solve this particular alleged problem with the BCS. But, a playoff would have worked quite nicely in 2000. I'll admit that.
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: