Conference Champions Only
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Virginia Tech....8...10-3...42...10.....7
Big XII....Oklahoma.........2...12-1...13....3.....3
Big East...Pittsburgh......21....8-4...66...25....55 *
Big Ten....Michigan........13....9-3...36...14....19 **
C-USA......Louisville......10...11-1...82....6.....5
MAC........Toledo..........NR....9-4..116...NR....83
MWC........Utah.............6...12-0...67....4.....4
Pac 10.....USC..............1...12-0....7....1.....1
SEC........Auburn...........3...13-0...60....2.....2
Sun........North Texas.....NR....7-5..101...NR...102
WAC........Boise State......9...11-1...78...12....10
* Pittsburgh shared the 2004 Big East (post exodus) crown with Boston College (9-3 BCS NR), Syracuse (6-6, BCS NR), and West Virginia (8-4 BCS NR) but received the auto bid (to face Utah in the 2005 Fiesta Bowl)
** Michigan shared the 2004 Big Ten title with Iowa (10-2 BCS 12) but recieved the auto bid (to Texas in the 2005 Rose)
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 Michigan (13) v. 9 Pittsburgh (21) winner to play 1 USC (1)
7 Louisville (10) v. 10 Toledo (NR) winner to play 2 Oklahoma (2)
6 Boise State (9) v. 11 North Texas (NR) winner to play 3 Auburn (4)
4 Utah (6) v. 5 Virginia Tech (8) winner to play winner of USC v. 8/9 game winner... who are we kidding... winner to Play USC.
See any first round games that suggest you'll be glued to your television? As typical in this format, Utah v. Virginia Tech seems the most compelling at a glance, but when you realize the winner of that game was then to face USC, one is left to wonder how much that game would really matter. Assuming Virginia Tech advancing over Utah, we get a rematch of Virginia Tech and USC (USC 24-13, 8/28/04), assuming Utah won, well.. who among us takes Utah over USC in 2004?
Likewise, are you setting your DVRs to make sure you don't miss a play of Louisville or Toledo v. Oklahoma? True, the 04 Cardinals played 9-3 Miami Florida to a close 38-41 loss, so perhaps they could have had a little something for the Sooners. Toledo would have been lucky to make it's way back to the airport after the beating they'd take at the hands of Big Game Bobby Stoops ... excuse me.. I mean "Run it up" Bobby Stoops. How about Boise State or North Texas against 2004 cry-baby Auburn (60th rated SOS, read em and weep)? Auburn kills North Texas, but I must admit, I'm not sold that Boise State is a push over for the Tigers. Winner of this hypothetical gets Oklahoma and if then prevailing squares off with USC.
Thus far, however, 2004 seems to state the strongest case for a Conference Champion Only format. It was 2004 which saw the truest begining of the mid major rise, even if most people were too busy paying attention to Tommy Tubberville's complaining about going 13-0 and being left out. Ironically, the BCS did its job in 2004 - separating three undefeated teams from one another. Look at the SOS of each of USC, Oklahoma and Auburn. Yes, going undefeated is a heck of an accomplishment. It's even more impressive when you do it against a schedule rated in the top 10% of the nation (See USC and OU) and not the bottom half (see Auburn). On this point, I suggest to you that the BCS does something to encourage teams not to go too easy on their regular season schedules - giving fans more quality games during the year than they might otherwise have if we took the view that schedule strength was a non factor, a win is a win - the more, the better.
True enough, a playoff would have invited all three (and undefeated Utah), and - as we'll see below as well - provide the mid majors a chance to flex their muscles. In this respect, again, 2004 is probably the strongest example of the "need" for a playoff. Considering this is the first time it "works" out of 7, I'm not convinced it's worth it.
Six Plus Two System
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Virginia Tech....8...10-3...42...10.....7
Big XII....Oklahoma.........2...12-1...13....3.....3
Big East...Pittsburgh......21....8-4...66...25....55
Big Ten....Michigan........13....9-3...36...14....19
Pac 10.....USC..............1...12-0....7....1.....1
SEC........Auburn...........3...13-0...60....2.....2
Big XII....Texas............4...11-1...28....5.....8 At Large 1
Pac 10.....California.......5...10-2...12....9.....6 At Large 2
Pairings:
8 Pittsburgh (21) v. 1 USC (1)
7 Michigan (13) v. 2 Oklahoma (2)
6 Virginia Tech (8) v. 3 Auburn (3)
5 California (5) v. 4 Texas (4)
USC v. Pittsburgh doesn't jump off the page at you as a must see, but a Michigan v. Oklahoma match would have been only the second meeting all time (1976 Orange Bowl being the only other meeting) between these two traditional powers. Michigan, at BCS 13 is a little out of position to be facing the BCS #2 but the game would have held intrigue no less. (For what it's worth, Michigan lost the Rose Bowl 38-37 to Texas, who Oklahoma had beat 12-0) Virginia Tech - Auburn is precisely the same game as the BCS gave us for the 2005 Sugar Bowl (Auburn 16 - 13) while California v. Texas likewise has the makings of an interesting game.
One has to wonder why Michigan and even more so Pittsburgh are getting shots at the title, however. That seems even more evident in 2004, where there were so many mid majors sporting strong W/L records and relatively strong ratings (Utah being the leader in that regard). In other words, 2004 was probably the mid-major's strongest year in the BCS era, and yet in the six plus two system, not one is represented while 21st rated Pittsburgh gets the opportunity.
As for rematches, there are only potential ones looming, California - USC and Oklahoma - Texas. As compared to the BCS bowls, there is not much substantive difference. OU and USC played in the Orange Bowl (USC 55 - 19), while - again - Texas beat Michigan in the Rose and Virginia Tech lost a close one to Auburn in the Sugar. Thus, while the above bracket looks strong, it's no different from the BCS format materially. More importantly for our purposes here, and ironically, it was the BCS system which afforded the mid-major power, Utah, its opportunity (Utah beat Pittsburgh in the 2005 Fiesta Bowl 35-7), where as, again, the 6+2 leaves Utah out.
BCS Top 8
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
Pac 10.....USC..............1...12-0....7....1.....1
Big XII....Oklahoma.........2...12-1...13....3.....3
SEC........Auburn...........3...13-0...60....2.....2
Big XII....Texas............4...11-1...28....5.....8
Pac 10.....California.......5...10-2...12....9.....6
MWC........Utah.............6...12-0...67....4.....4
SEC........Georgia..........7...10-2...41....7....11
ACC........Virginia Tech....8...10-3...42...10.....7
Bubble Teams: 9 Boise State (11-1), 10 Louisville (11-1), 11 LSU (9-3), 12 Iowa (10-2)
As strong a case as the mid majors had in 2004, only 1 would have qualified in an 8 team playoff with two more being firmly planted on the Bubble. Obviously these teams would have made a 16 playoff, but such a scenario has not been examined here. Briefly, and as indicated in the methodology post, choosing a 16 team field has the same theoretical failings as this 8 team metric, while also making teams with as many as 3, and sometimes even 4 losses, eligible for consideration as against, in this case no less than 4 undefeated programs. I'm hard pressed to see the "fairness" in that. To illustrate, say BCS 16 Florida State (9-3) upset BCS 1 USC. USC finishes with 1 loss, and if Florida State goes on to win them all, becomes your champion while having been clearly inferior through the course of the year. Don't think it could happen? Stanford beat 41 point favorite USC in 2007. I'm not sure Florida State would be incapable, considering.
Fact is, when people suggest certain teams "deserve" chances, they fail to appreciate the other ramifications. Should Utah or Auburn had a shot at USC in 2004? I don't know. Maybe. But, as all these posts reveal, it's not that easy. There are other consequences to a playoff then simply providing the team(s) left out and looking in their "deserved" opportunity. That's not to say there's anything particularly wrong with such a result (ie Florida State over USC), it just sits quite a bit different than the playoff proponents Utopian view that Utah or Auburn would be getting a shot. Sure, you can argue reasonably that Utah or Auburn should have had the chance. But in that, you have to accept teams that maybe aren't quite as deserving too. Proponents never mention that part, and it's what I mean to illustrate by this discussion.
As for the pairings, it is materially similar to the six plus two, though Pittsburgh is correctly replaced by a more powerful Utah team, Michigan rides the pine while Georgia gets a chance. Likewise, here we are assured of a Virginia Tech v. USC first round rematch, with potential for an Auburn Georgia rematch to go along with the aforementioned California - USC and Oklahoma - Texas possibilities.
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........Virginia Tech....8...10-3...42...10.....7
Big XII....Oklahoma.........2...12-1...13....3.....3
Big East...Pittsburgh......21....8-4...66...25....55 *
Big Ten....Michigan........13....9-3...36...14....19 **
C-USA......Louisville......10...11-1...82....6.....5
MAC........Toledo..........NR....9-4..116...NR....83
MWC........Utah.............6...12-0...67....4.....4
Pac 10.....USC..............1...12-0....7....1.....1
SEC........Auburn...........3...13-0...60....2.....2
Sun........North Texas.....NR....7-5..101...NR...102
WAC........Boise State......9...11-1...78...12....10
* Pittsburgh shared the 2004 Big East (post exodus) crown with Boston College (9-3 BCS NR), Syracuse (6-6, BCS NR), and West Virginia (8-4 BCS NR) but received the auto bid (to face Utah in the 2005 Fiesta Bowl)
** Michigan shared the 2004 Big Ten title with Iowa (10-2 BCS 12) but recieved the auto bid (to Texas in the 2005 Rose)
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 Michigan (13) v. 9 Pittsburgh (21) winner to play 1 USC (1)
7 Louisville (10) v. 10 Toledo (NR) winner to play 2 Oklahoma (2)
6 Boise State (9) v. 11 North Texas (NR) winner to play 3 Auburn (4)
4 Utah (6) v. 5 Virginia Tech (8) winner to play winner of USC v. 8/9 game winner... who are we kidding... winner to Play USC.
See any first round games that suggest you'll be glued to your television? As typical in this format, Utah v. Virginia Tech seems the most compelling at a glance, but when you realize the winner of that game was then to face USC, one is left to wonder how much that game would really matter. Assuming Virginia Tech advancing over Utah, we get a rematch of Virginia Tech and USC (USC 24-13, 8/28/04), assuming Utah won, well.. who among us takes Utah over USC in 2004?
Likewise, are you setting your DVRs to make sure you don't miss a play of Louisville or Toledo v. Oklahoma? True, the 04 Cardinals played 9-3 Miami Florida to a close 38-41 loss, so perhaps they could have had a little something for the Sooners. Toledo would have been lucky to make it's way back to the airport after the beating they'd take at the hands of Big Game Bobby Stoops ... excuse me.. I mean "Run it up" Bobby Stoops. How about Boise State or North Texas against 2004 cry-baby Auburn (60th rated SOS, read em and weep)? Auburn kills North Texas, but I must admit, I'm not sold that Boise State is a push over for the Tigers. Winner of this hypothetical gets Oklahoma and if then prevailing squares off with USC.
Thus far, however, 2004 seems to state the strongest case for a Conference Champion Only format. It was 2004 which saw the truest begining of the mid major rise, even if most people were too busy paying attention to Tommy Tubberville's complaining about going 13-0 and being left out. Ironically, the BCS did its job in 2004 - separating three undefeated teams from one another. Look at the SOS of each of USC, Oklahoma and Auburn. Yes, going undefeated is a heck of an accomplishment. It's even more impressive when you do it against a schedule rated in the top 10% of the nation (See USC and OU) and not the bottom half (see Auburn). On this point, I suggest to you that the BCS does something to encourage teams not to go too easy on their regular season schedules - giving fans more quality games during the year than they might otherwise have if we took the view that schedule strength was a non factor, a win is a win - the more, the better.
True enough, a playoff would have invited all three (and undefeated Utah), and - as we'll see below as well - provide the mid majors a chance to flex their muscles. In this respect, again, 2004 is probably the strongest example of the "need" for a playoff. Considering this is the first time it "works" out of 7, I'm not convinced it's worth it.
Six Plus Two System
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Virginia Tech....8...10-3...42...10.....7
Big XII....Oklahoma.........2...12-1...13....3.....3
Big East...Pittsburgh......21....8-4...66...25....55
Big Ten....Michigan........13....9-3...36...14....19
Pac 10.....USC..............1...12-0....7....1.....1
SEC........Auburn...........3...13-0...60....2.....2
Big XII....Texas............4...11-1...28....5.....8 At Large 1
Pac 10.....California.......5...10-2...12....9.....6 At Large 2
Pairings:
8 Pittsburgh (21) v. 1 USC (1)
7 Michigan (13) v. 2 Oklahoma (2)
6 Virginia Tech (8) v. 3 Auburn (3)
5 California (5) v. 4 Texas (4)
USC v. Pittsburgh doesn't jump off the page at you as a must see, but a Michigan v. Oklahoma match would have been only the second meeting all time (1976 Orange Bowl being the only other meeting) between these two traditional powers. Michigan, at BCS 13 is a little out of position to be facing the BCS #2 but the game would have held intrigue no less. (For what it's worth, Michigan lost the Rose Bowl 38-37 to Texas, who Oklahoma had beat 12-0) Virginia Tech - Auburn is precisely the same game as the BCS gave us for the 2005 Sugar Bowl (Auburn 16 - 13) while California v. Texas likewise has the makings of an interesting game.
One has to wonder why Michigan and even more so Pittsburgh are getting shots at the title, however. That seems even more evident in 2004, where there were so many mid majors sporting strong W/L records and relatively strong ratings (Utah being the leader in that regard). In other words, 2004 was probably the mid-major's strongest year in the BCS era, and yet in the six plus two system, not one is represented while 21st rated Pittsburgh gets the opportunity.
As for rematches, there are only potential ones looming, California - USC and Oklahoma - Texas. As compared to the BCS bowls, there is not much substantive difference. OU and USC played in the Orange Bowl (USC 55 - 19), while - again - Texas beat Michigan in the Rose and Virginia Tech lost a close one to Auburn in the Sugar. Thus, while the above bracket looks strong, it's no different from the BCS format materially. More importantly for our purposes here, and ironically, it was the BCS system which afforded the mid-major power, Utah, its opportunity (Utah beat Pittsburgh in the 2005 Fiesta Bowl 35-7), where as, again, the 6+2 leaves Utah out.
BCS Top 8
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
Pac 10.....USC..............1...12-0....7....1.....1
Big XII....Oklahoma.........2...12-1...13....3.....3
SEC........Auburn...........3...13-0...60....2.....2
Big XII....Texas............4...11-1...28....5.....8
Pac 10.....California.......5...10-2...12....9.....6
MWC........Utah.............6...12-0...67....4.....4
SEC........Georgia..........7...10-2...41....7....11
ACC........Virginia Tech....8...10-3...42...10.....7
Bubble Teams: 9 Boise State (11-1), 10 Louisville (11-1), 11 LSU (9-3), 12 Iowa (10-2)
As strong a case as the mid majors had in 2004, only 1 would have qualified in an 8 team playoff with two more being firmly planted on the Bubble. Obviously these teams would have made a 16 playoff, but such a scenario has not been examined here. Briefly, and as indicated in the methodology post, choosing a 16 team field has the same theoretical failings as this 8 team metric, while also making teams with as many as 3, and sometimes even 4 losses, eligible for consideration as against, in this case no less than 4 undefeated programs. I'm hard pressed to see the "fairness" in that. To illustrate, say BCS 16 Florida State (9-3) upset BCS 1 USC. USC finishes with 1 loss, and if Florida State goes on to win them all, becomes your champion while having been clearly inferior through the course of the year. Don't think it could happen? Stanford beat 41 point favorite USC in 2007. I'm not sure Florida State would be incapable, considering.
Fact is, when people suggest certain teams "deserve" chances, they fail to appreciate the other ramifications. Should Utah or Auburn had a shot at USC in 2004? I don't know. Maybe. But, as all these posts reveal, it's not that easy. There are other consequences to a playoff then simply providing the team(s) left out and looking in their "deserved" opportunity. That's not to say there's anything particularly wrong with such a result (ie Florida State over USC), it just sits quite a bit different than the playoff proponents Utopian view that Utah or Auburn would be getting a shot. Sure, you can argue reasonably that Utah or Auburn should have had the chance. But in that, you have to accept teams that maybe aren't quite as deserving too. Proponents never mention that part, and it's what I mean to illustrate by this discussion.
As for the pairings, it is materially similar to the six plus two, though Pittsburgh is correctly replaced by a more powerful Utah team, Michigan rides the pine while Georgia gets a chance. Likewise, here we are assured of a Virginia Tech v. USC first round rematch, with potential for an Auburn Georgia rematch to go along with the aforementioned California - USC and Oklahoma - Texas possibilities.
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: