Conference Champions Only
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State....7...10-3....2...11.....6
Big XII....Kansas State....10...11-4...49...14....14
Big East...Miami Florida....9...11-2...40....5.....7 *
Big Ten....Michigan.........4...10-3...36....6.....8
C-USA......Southern Miss...NR....9-4...74...NR....51
MAC........Miami Ohio......11...13-1...72...10.....5
MWC........Utah............22...10-2...62...21....25
Pac 10.....USC..............3...12-1...19....1.....2
SEC........LSU..............2...13-1...28....2.....1
Sun........North Texas.....NR....9-4..112...NR....73
WAC........Boise State.....17...13-1..103...16....12
* Miami Florida tied West Virginia (8-5 (BCS NR) for the 2003 Big East crown. Miami received the conference auto bid.
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 Boise State (17) v. 9 Utah (22) winner to play 1 LSU (2)
7 Miami Ohio (11) v. 10 Southern Miss (NR) winner to play 2 USC (3)
6 Kansas State (10) v. 11 North Texas (NR) winner to play 3 Michigan (4)
4 Florida State (7) v. 5 Miami Florida (11) winner to play winer of LSU v. 8/9 game winner.
As with each year, the 4 v. 5 match-up represents the best first round game. Though Florida State v. Miami is a rematch of a contest held on 10/11/03 and won by Miami 22-14. While the Kansas State v. North Texas game does not inspire much, the remaining matches are fairly balanced. While I believe these games would have been good, competitive games, I am again not sure of the national draw.
Regardless, despite a pretty even first round, the second round leave much to be desired. The winner of Boise State or Utah would then draw eventual BCS Champ LSU (with the winner then slated to go against Miami Florida or Florida State), while Miami of Ohio or Southern Miss would move on to get blasted by AP Champ USC. Michigan would get either of Kansas State or North Texas, but more likely Kansas State (who the Buckeyes ended up dispatching in the 2004 Fiesta 35-28). For what it's worth, Michigan had beaten that same Buckeye club (it's only win in the Tressel era). If Michigan had played Kansas State, however, it represents the best looking game "on paper" Likewise, the BCS gave us Michigan v. USC in the 2004 Rose Bowl (USC 29-14) which would have been the likely quarterfinal in this scenario. (It is noted that a potential Southern Miss Utah game exists (though highly unlikely) which was the 2003 Liberty Contest, won by Utah 17-0).
Rightly or wrongly, you should also notice who is not involved in this scenario - BCS #1 Oklahoma, who had been upset by Kansas State in the Big XII title game.
Six Plus Two System
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State....7...10-3....2...11.....6
Big XII....Kansas State....10...11-4...49...14....14
Big East...Miami Florida....9...11-2...40....5.....7
Big Ten....Michigan.........4...10-3...36....6.....8
Pac 10.....USC..............3...12-1...19....1.....2
SEC........LSU..............2...13-1...28....2.....1
Big XII....Oklahoma.........1...12-2...39....3.....3 At Large 1
Big Ten....Ohio State.......5...11-2...15....4....11 At Large 2
Pairings:
8 Kansas State (10) v. 1 Oklahoma (1)
7 Miami Florida (9) v. 2 LSU (2)
6 Florida State (7) v. 3 USC (3)
5 Ohio State (5) v. 4 Michigan (4)
At this point, it is becoming obvious that the Six Plus Two conception is a poor way to give the fans interesting match-ups owing to the propensity to create rematches. Straight away we have two first round matches that aren't just rematches, but rematches of each team's final games (before the bowls) So, Kansas State beats OU in the Big XII Championship game (35-7), and has to turn around in week 1 of the playoffs and do it again? Michigan settles it on the field against Ohio State (35-21), only to have to do it the very next week too. Think back to 2006 when it seemed possible that Michigan would get another shot at Ohio State using the BCS formualtion - now double that. Controversy aplenty.
Admittedly Miami of Florida v. LSU could have been interesting (they'd actually meet two years later in the Peach Bowl with LSU winning 40-3) as could have been Florida State USC. Assuming the higher seed won their first round contests, we certainly would not have reason for a split title in 2003 as LSU would have played USC in that event. While this has some initial allure, we should also realize that the BCS gave us OU (1) v. LSU (2) and USC (3) v. Michigan (4). Going in, it looked like excellent pairings, even if some believed SC was getting shafted.
Though beyond the scope of this exercise, it was probably 2003 which marked the true "beginning of the end" for the BCS. For whatever reason, the fans (aided by the media) could not deal with the BCS giving us a different pairing than what the Humans would have put together (USC v. LSU) despite the fact that only 6 years prior the BCS was created to put a check on the very notion that Humans are capable of picking the number one team without bias. The BCS made it's biggest mistake that year; no, not by choosing LSU and OU, but by not sticking to its guns, instead apologizing to USC (and the nation), and then retooling its formula (yet again) to basically put the determination right back in to the hands of voters (who were by now figuring out how they could manipulate the process).
In any case, for proponents of the mid major, we fail to see - once again - any mid major get their chance in a 6+2 system. And this, despite two 13-1 clubs (Boise State and Miami Ohio) and one 10-2 team (Utah). A possible solution would be to just add the MWC to the mix, for example (Making this a 7 + 1 format). However this "solution" is quite ridiculous as it is as arbitrary as taking just the six "power conferences" as the current BCS does, and assuming we agreed to include the MWC, it's unlikely that the WAC, MAC, C-USA and Sunbelt conferences would say "Good enough for us!" and go gently in to that good night. Again, if we add the MWC to the mix we might as well add them all. As I'll discuss in my "conclusion" if this be the "fix" I'm convinced it must be an 11+5 system (Conference Champs, plus 5 at large, for a sixteen team field).
BCS Top 8
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
Big XII....Oklahoma.........1...12-2...39....3.....3
SEC........LSU..............2...13-1...28....2.....1
Pac 10.....USC..............3...12-1...19....1.....2
Big Ten....Michigan.........4...10-3...36....6.....8
Big Ten....Ohio State.......5...11-2...15....4....11
Big XII....Texas............6...10-3...47...12....13
ACC........Florida State....7...10-3....2...11.....6
SEC........Tennessee........8...10-3...30...15....20
Bubble Teams: 9 Miami Florida (11-2), 10 Kansas State (11-4), 11 Miami Ohio (13-1), 12 Georgia (11-3)
Miami of Florida and Kansas State are out, and in come Tennessee and Texas. As it was, Kansas State won the Big XII championship and took the conference auto bid, but if you recall, we heard a lot of complaining from Texas, who had beaten Kansas State on October 4, 24-20. Texas parlayed this anger in to a 28-20 loss to Washington State in the Holiday Bowl. But, here, Texas is redeemed and given another shot! If they took advantage of their opportunity, and if OU likewise won its games, the Longhorns might have faced OU in a rematch for the National Title. That sounds really good, for sure, but would people have REALLY been inspired to see this contest if it played out that way? OU beat Texas 65-13 on October 11, 2003. I'm guessing that might have been a factor in how this hypothetical game would be perceived.
Tennessee replacing Miami Florida makes some sense, believe it or not, since UT beat Miami 10-6 on November 11, 2003. But, as it makes sense here, it makes less sense to include Miami in the scenarios above, but not UT, right? But as it is, what about Georgia? I have full confidence Mark Richt's whine machine would have been full steam ahead in 2003 - which as a bubble team would be arguing furiously, "We beat Tennessee 41-14! What else are we supposed to do!" Once again, a playoff and serious (and legitimate) controversy.
I will note that Ohio State and Michigan, in this system, still have to meet in the first round (more controversy) and we still don't see the beloved mid-major getting a taste of potential glory. USC - Texas is also a first round match, and that could have been interesting. 2 years hence, these two will of course square off in the Rose Bowl for the BCS Championship in one of the epic games of the BCS era. Who is to say 2003 would not have been as exciting? Certainly not Chance Mock and Carson Palmer.... wait... Chance Mock?
Again, the BCS pitted #1 v. #2 and #3 v. #4 (as well as #5 Ohio State v. #10 Kansas State and #10 Miami Fla v. # 7 Florida State). True enough, the FSU Miami game was a rematch and I've made a big deal about trying to avoid them in this series. But, that said, the Battle of Florida rematch was played in the 2004 Orange Bowl. I am doubtful that such a game would have been put together if it were to be played out of the region. In any case, it's not clear that the BCS Top 8 games would have been better than what we actually saw - just different pairings of almost the exact or very similar teams. (this is even more true in the 6+2 system)
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....7...10-3....2...11.....6
Big XII....Kansas State....10...11-4...49...14....14
Big East...Miami Florida....9...11-2...40....5.....7 *
Big Ten....Michigan.........4...10-3...36....6.....8
C-USA......Southern Miss...NR....9-4...74...NR....51
MAC........Miami Ohio......11...13-1...72...10.....5
MWC........Utah............22...10-2...62...21....25
Pac 10.....USC..............3...12-1...19....1.....2
SEC........LSU..............2...13-1...28....2.....1
Sun........North Texas.....NR....9-4..112...NR....73
WAC........Boise State.....17...13-1..103...16....12
* Miami Florida tied West Virginia (8-5 (BCS NR) for the 2003 Big East crown. Miami received the conference auto bid.
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 Boise State (17) v. 9 Utah (22) winner to play 1 LSU (2)
7 Miami Ohio (11) v. 10 Southern Miss (NR) winner to play 2 USC (3)
6 Kansas State (10) v. 11 North Texas (NR) winner to play 3 Michigan (4)
4 Florida State (7) v. 5 Miami Florida (11) winner to play winer of LSU v. 8/9 game winner.
As with each year, the 4 v. 5 match-up represents the best first round game. Though Florida State v. Miami is a rematch of a contest held on 10/11/03 and won by Miami 22-14. While the Kansas State v. North Texas game does not inspire much, the remaining matches are fairly balanced. While I believe these games would have been good, competitive games, I am again not sure of the national draw.
Regardless, despite a pretty even first round, the second round leave much to be desired. The winner of Boise State or Utah would then draw eventual BCS Champ LSU (with the winner then slated to go against Miami Florida or Florida State), while Miami of Ohio or Southern Miss would move on to get blasted by AP Champ USC. Michigan would get either of Kansas State or North Texas, but more likely Kansas State (who the Buckeyes ended up dispatching in the 2004 Fiesta 35-28). For what it's worth, Michigan had beaten that same Buckeye club (it's only win in the Tressel era). If Michigan had played Kansas State, however, it represents the best looking game "on paper" Likewise, the BCS gave us Michigan v. USC in the 2004 Rose Bowl (USC 29-14) which would have been the likely quarterfinal in this scenario. (It is noted that a potential Southern Miss Utah game exists (though highly unlikely) which was the 2003 Liberty Contest, won by Utah 17-0).
Rightly or wrongly, you should also notice who is not involved in this scenario - BCS #1 Oklahoma, who had been upset by Kansas State in the Big XII title game.
Six Plus Two System
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State....7...10-3....2...11.....6
Big XII....Kansas State....10...11-4...49...14....14
Big East...Miami Florida....9...11-2...40....5.....7
Big Ten....Michigan.........4...10-3...36....6.....8
Pac 10.....USC..............3...12-1...19....1.....2
SEC........LSU..............2...13-1...28....2.....1
Big XII....Oklahoma.........1...12-2...39....3.....3 At Large 1
Big Ten....Ohio State.......5...11-2...15....4....11 At Large 2
Pairings:
8 Kansas State (10) v. 1 Oklahoma (1)
7 Miami Florida (9) v. 2 LSU (2)
6 Florida State (7) v. 3 USC (3)
5 Ohio State (5) v. 4 Michigan (4)
At this point, it is becoming obvious that the Six Plus Two conception is a poor way to give the fans interesting match-ups owing to the propensity to create rematches. Straight away we have two first round matches that aren't just rematches, but rematches of each team's final games (before the bowls) So, Kansas State beats OU in the Big XII Championship game (35-7), and has to turn around in week 1 of the playoffs and do it again? Michigan settles it on the field against Ohio State (35-21), only to have to do it the very next week too. Think back to 2006 when it seemed possible that Michigan would get another shot at Ohio State using the BCS formualtion - now double that. Controversy aplenty.
Admittedly Miami of Florida v. LSU could have been interesting (they'd actually meet two years later in the Peach Bowl with LSU winning 40-3) as could have been Florida State USC. Assuming the higher seed won their first round contests, we certainly would not have reason for a split title in 2003 as LSU would have played USC in that event. While this has some initial allure, we should also realize that the BCS gave us OU (1) v. LSU (2) and USC (3) v. Michigan (4). Going in, it looked like excellent pairings, even if some believed SC was getting shafted.
Though beyond the scope of this exercise, it was probably 2003 which marked the true "beginning of the end" for the BCS. For whatever reason, the fans (aided by the media) could not deal with the BCS giving us a different pairing than what the Humans would have put together (USC v. LSU) despite the fact that only 6 years prior the BCS was created to put a check on the very notion that Humans are capable of picking the number one team without bias. The BCS made it's biggest mistake that year; no, not by choosing LSU and OU, but by not sticking to its guns, instead apologizing to USC (and the nation), and then retooling its formula (yet again) to basically put the determination right back in to the hands of voters (who were by now figuring out how they could manipulate the process).
In any case, for proponents of the mid major, we fail to see - once again - any mid major get their chance in a 6+2 system. And this, despite two 13-1 clubs (Boise State and Miami Ohio) and one 10-2 team (Utah). A possible solution would be to just add the MWC to the mix, for example (Making this a 7 + 1 format). However this "solution" is quite ridiculous as it is as arbitrary as taking just the six "power conferences" as the current BCS does, and assuming we agreed to include the MWC, it's unlikely that the WAC, MAC, C-USA and Sunbelt conferences would say "Good enough for us!" and go gently in to that good night. Again, if we add the MWC to the mix we might as well add them all. As I'll discuss in my "conclusion" if this be the "fix" I'm convinced it must be an 11+5 system (Conference Champs, plus 5 at large, for a sixteen team field).
BCS Top 8
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
Big XII....Oklahoma.........1...12-2...39....3.....3
SEC........LSU..............2...13-1...28....2.....1
Pac 10.....USC..............3...12-1...19....1.....2
Big Ten....Michigan.........4...10-3...36....6.....8
Big Ten....Ohio State.......5...11-2...15....4....11
Big XII....Texas............6...10-3...47...12....13
ACC........Florida State....7...10-3....2...11.....6
SEC........Tennessee........8...10-3...30...15....20
Bubble Teams: 9 Miami Florida (11-2), 10 Kansas State (11-4), 11 Miami Ohio (13-1), 12 Georgia (11-3)
Miami of Florida and Kansas State are out, and in come Tennessee and Texas. As it was, Kansas State won the Big XII championship and took the conference auto bid, but if you recall, we heard a lot of complaining from Texas, who had beaten Kansas State on October 4, 24-20. Texas parlayed this anger in to a 28-20 loss to Washington State in the Holiday Bowl. But, here, Texas is redeemed and given another shot! If they took advantage of their opportunity, and if OU likewise won its games, the Longhorns might have faced OU in a rematch for the National Title. That sounds really good, for sure, but would people have REALLY been inspired to see this contest if it played out that way? OU beat Texas 65-13 on October 11, 2003. I'm guessing that might have been a factor in how this hypothetical game would be perceived.
Tennessee replacing Miami Florida makes some sense, believe it or not, since UT beat Miami 10-6 on November 11, 2003. But, as it makes sense here, it makes less sense to include Miami in the scenarios above, but not UT, right? But as it is, what about Georgia? I have full confidence Mark Richt's whine machine would have been full steam ahead in 2003 - which as a bubble team would be arguing furiously, "We beat Tennessee 41-14! What else are we supposed to do!" Once again, a playoff and serious (and legitimate) controversy.
I will note that Ohio State and Michigan, in this system, still have to meet in the first round (more controversy) and we still don't see the beloved mid-major getting a taste of potential glory. USC - Texas is also a first round match, and that could have been interesting. 2 years hence, these two will of course square off in the Rose Bowl for the BCS Championship in one of the epic games of the BCS era. Who is to say 2003 would not have been as exciting? Certainly not Chance Mock and Carson Palmer.... wait... Chance Mock?
Again, the BCS pitted #1 v. #2 and #3 v. #4 (as well as #5 Ohio State v. #10 Kansas State and #10 Miami Fla v. # 7 Florida State). True enough, the FSU Miami game was a rematch and I've made a big deal about trying to avoid them in this series. But, that said, the Battle of Florida rematch was played in the 2004 Orange Bowl. I am doubtful that such a game would have been put together if it were to be played out of the region. In any case, it's not clear that the BCS Top 8 games would have been better than what we actually saw - just different pairings of almost the exact or very similar teams. (this is even more true in the 6+2 system)
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: