Conference Champions Only
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State...22....8-5...30...23....23
Big XII....Texas............2...13-0...13....1.....1
Big East...West Virginia...11...11-1...65....5.....6
Big Ten....Penn State.......3...11-1...17....3.....3 *
C-USA......Tulsa...........NR....9-4...84...NR....44
MAC........Akron...........NR....7-6...99...NR....94
MWC........TCU.............14...11-1...71...11....15
Pac 10.....USC..............1...12-1....8....2.....2
SEC........Georgia..........7...10-3...49...10....20
Sun........Louisiana Lay...NR....6-5..114...NR...119
WAC........Nevada..........NR....9-3..112...NR....73 **
* Penn State and Ohio State (10-2, BCS 4) shared the Big Ten Crown in 2005, Penn State received the auto bid
** Nevada and Boise State (9-4 BCS NR) tied for the WAC title, with Nevada getting the nod here owing to a better record.
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 Tulsa (NR) v. 9 Nevada (NR) winner to play 1 USC (1)
7 Florida State (22) v. 10 Akron (NR) winner to play 2 Texas (2)
6 TCU (14) v. 11 Louisiana Layfette (NR) winner to play 3 Penn State (3)
4 Georgia (7) v. 5 West Virginia (11) winner to play winner of USC v. 8/9 game winner... again, who are we kidding... winner to Play USC.
At this point, one wonders why I am even continuing with analysis of a Conference Champions approach. Not only are teams playing well out of position (Florida State, BCS 22 is the 7 seed, for example) but in this particular scenario we're looking at Akron (7-6) and Louisiana Lafayette (6-5). The BCS did actually give us the best game presented in the first round here, Georgia v. West Virginia (WVU 38 - 35, 2006 Sugar Bowl - in Atlanta) so we gain nothing we didn't already have. Tulsa v. Nevada, while not being a big national draw, may have been a competitive game, but Florida State Akron is a laugher while TCU - Louisiana Lafayette would hardly have us salivating. (To put the absurdity as to what an invite to Louisiana Lafayette means, the Longhorns beat them 60-3 in the opener.)
Likewise, in this format we are not assured of seeing Crotchety Old Man Bowl I, (Penn State v. Florida State), though there remains the possibility it would have materialized.
It appears plain to me that this sort of system is not what Playoff proponents have in mind. We don't really want to see conference champions in our playoffs. We only want to see certain champions - ie Utah 2008. Not to belabor the point, but in so deciding, we have done nothing but increase our arbitrary selection process by one. There remains the same lack of principled reasoning.
Six Plus Two System
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State...22....8-5...30...23....23
Big XII....Texas............2...13-0...13....1.....1
Big East...West Virginia...11...11-1...65....5.....6
Big Ten....Penn State.......3...11-1...17....3.....3
Pac 10.....USC..............1...12-1....8....2.....2
SEC........Georgia..........7...10-3...49...10....20
Big Ten....Ohio State.......4...10-2....2....4.....6 At Large 1
Pac 10.....Oregon...........5...10-2...34...12....17 At Large 2
Pairings:
8 Florida State (22) v. 1 USC (1)
7 West Virginia (11) v. 2 Texas (2)
6 Georgia (7) v. 3 Penn State (3)
5 Oregon (5) v. 4 Ohio State (4)
While this certainly looks better than the Conference Champions formula, it hasn't helped any mid major get a shot. As I was compiling this data, it occurred to me that I probably should have paid some attention under this system to "bubble teams" which here would include Notre Dame (9-3 BCS 6) and Miami Florida (9-3 BCS 8). While Miami did lose 10-7 to Florida State in the opener, they were rated significantly higher than the Seminoles in the final BCS poll. I doubt they would not have argued their merit. Likewise, I find the idea that a bubble Notre Dame staying quiet simply preposterous. At 9-3 (9-2 at the time), Notre Dame could state as equal a claim to the second at large bid as Oregon.
Their are several possible rematches on the horizon, several centering on Ohio State having played (and losing to) both Penn State and Texas, while USC - Oregon is likewise a possible rematch (USC 45-13, 9/24/05). As the BCS was in 2005, it seems materially similar to the possibilities here. Dropping Oregon and adding Notre Dame gives us the 2006 Fiesta Bowl pairing (Ohio State v. Notre Dame) while minor changes reveal West Virginia - Georgia (Sugar), Florida State - Penn State and USC v. Texas (Rose) Little would be gained in 2005 that we did not already have via the BCS.
BCS Top 8
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
Pac 10.....USC..............1...12-1....8....2.....2
Big XII....Texas............2...13-0...13....1.....1
Big Ten....Penn State.......3...11-1...17....3.....3
Big Ten....Ohio State.......4...10-2....2....4.....6
Pac 10.....Oregon...........5...10-2...34...12....17
IND........Notre Dame.......6....9-3...14....9.....8
SEC........Georgia..........7...10-3...49...10....20
ACC........Miami Florida....8....9-3...35...17....13
Bubble Teams: 9 Auburn (9-3), 10 Virginia Tech (11-2), 11 West Virginia (11-1), 12 LSU (11-2)
Another year, another format, another chance to see the "powerful" mid major fails to qualify or "deserve" a shot. As it happens, LSU crushed Miami 40-3 in the Peach bowl, but here Miami is shooting for the Crystal ball while LSU licks its wounds - even having a better record. Virginia Tech, winner of the ACC is also on the outside looking in, while conference-mate Miami, again, plays for it all. This pill is made easier to swallow when we realize Miami beat Virginia Tech 27-7 on November 5, 2005, but still strikes as no more "sound" in rationale than Nebraska playing for the 2001 BCS title. That is to say, yet another alleged problem with the BCS remains unsettled in a playoff format.
While Penn State may have been able to make some argument that it "deserved" a shot at USC or Texas, such an argument is confounded by PSU's conference loss to 7-5 Michigan while both SC and Texas were undefeated at the time, and especially in light of the reality that the BCS championship game in 2005 turned out to be one of the top games of the era, while Penn State struggled mightily with 8-5 Florida State. It seems fairly clear that in 2005 the BCS did a perfectly fine job delivering a "true" champion, and it's unlikely that this particular playoff format would have provided anything we didn't already have, while also providing no real limitation on - or perhaps even exaggerating - controversy.
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...22....8-5...30...23....23
Big XII....Texas............2...13-0...13....1.....1
Big East...West Virginia...11...11-1...65....5.....6
Big Ten....Penn State.......3...11-1...17....3.....3 *
C-USA......Tulsa...........NR....9-4...84...NR....44
MAC........Akron...........NR....7-6...99...NR....94
MWC........TCU.............14...11-1...71...11....15
Pac 10.....USC..............1...12-1....8....2.....2
SEC........Georgia..........7...10-3...49...10....20
Sun........Louisiana Lay...NR....6-5..114...NR...119
WAC........Nevada..........NR....9-3..112...NR....73 **
* Penn State and Ohio State (10-2, BCS 4) shared the Big Ten Crown in 2005, Penn State received the auto bid
** Nevada and Boise State (9-4 BCS NR) tied for the WAC title, with Nevada getting the nod here owing to a better record.
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 Tulsa (NR) v. 9 Nevada (NR) winner to play 1 USC (1)
7 Florida State (22) v. 10 Akron (NR) winner to play 2 Texas (2)
6 TCU (14) v. 11 Louisiana Layfette (NR) winner to play 3 Penn State (3)
4 Georgia (7) v. 5 West Virginia (11) winner to play winner of USC v. 8/9 game winner... again, who are we kidding... winner to Play USC.
At this point, one wonders why I am even continuing with analysis of a Conference Champions approach. Not only are teams playing well out of position (Florida State, BCS 22 is the 7 seed, for example) but in this particular scenario we're looking at Akron (7-6) and Louisiana Lafayette (6-5). The BCS did actually give us the best game presented in the first round here, Georgia v. West Virginia (WVU 38 - 35, 2006 Sugar Bowl - in Atlanta) so we gain nothing we didn't already have. Tulsa v. Nevada, while not being a big national draw, may have been a competitive game, but Florida State Akron is a laugher while TCU - Louisiana Lafayette would hardly have us salivating. (To put the absurdity as to what an invite to Louisiana Lafayette means, the Longhorns beat them 60-3 in the opener.)
Likewise, in this format we are not assured of seeing Crotchety Old Man Bowl I, (Penn State v. Florida State), though there remains the possibility it would have materialized.
It appears plain to me that this sort of system is not what Playoff proponents have in mind. We don't really want to see conference champions in our playoffs. We only want to see certain champions - ie Utah 2008. Not to belabor the point, but in so deciding, we have done nothing but increase our arbitrary selection process by one. There remains the same lack of principled reasoning.
Six Plus Two System
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Florida State...22....8-5...30...23....23
Big XII....Texas............2...13-0...13....1.....1
Big East...West Virginia...11...11-1...65....5.....6
Big Ten....Penn State.......3...11-1...17....3.....3
Pac 10.....USC..............1...12-1....8....2.....2
SEC........Georgia..........7...10-3...49...10....20
Big Ten....Ohio State.......4...10-2....2....4.....6 At Large 1
Pac 10.....Oregon...........5...10-2...34...12....17 At Large 2
Pairings:
8 Florida State (22) v. 1 USC (1)
7 West Virginia (11) v. 2 Texas (2)
6 Georgia (7) v. 3 Penn State (3)
5 Oregon (5) v. 4 Ohio State (4)
While this certainly looks better than the Conference Champions formula, it hasn't helped any mid major get a shot. As I was compiling this data, it occurred to me that I probably should have paid some attention under this system to "bubble teams" which here would include Notre Dame (9-3 BCS 6) and Miami Florida (9-3 BCS 8). While Miami did lose 10-7 to Florida State in the opener, they were rated significantly higher than the Seminoles in the final BCS poll. I doubt they would not have argued their merit. Likewise, I find the idea that a bubble Notre Dame staying quiet simply preposterous. At 9-3 (9-2 at the time), Notre Dame could state as equal a claim to the second at large bid as Oregon.
Their are several possible rematches on the horizon, several centering on Ohio State having played (and losing to) both Penn State and Texas, while USC - Oregon is likewise a possible rematch (USC 45-13, 9/24/05). As the BCS was in 2005, it seems materially similar to the possibilities here. Dropping Oregon and adding Notre Dame gives us the 2006 Fiesta Bowl pairing (Ohio State v. Notre Dame) while minor changes reveal West Virginia - Georgia (Sugar), Florida State - Penn State and USC v. Texas (Rose) Little would be gained in 2005 that we did not already have via the BCS.
BCS Top 8
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
Pac 10.....USC..............1...12-1....8....2.....2
Big XII....Texas............2...13-0...13....1.....1
Big Ten....Penn State.......3...11-1...17....3.....3
Big Ten....Ohio State.......4...10-2....2....4.....6
Pac 10.....Oregon...........5...10-2...34...12....17
IND........Notre Dame.......6....9-3...14....9.....8
SEC........Georgia..........7...10-3...49...10....20
ACC........Miami Florida....8....9-3...35...17....13
Bubble Teams: 9 Auburn (9-3), 10 Virginia Tech (11-2), 11 West Virginia (11-1), 12 LSU (11-2)
Another year, another format, another chance to see the "powerful" mid major fails to qualify or "deserve" a shot. As it happens, LSU crushed Miami 40-3 in the Peach bowl, but here Miami is shooting for the Crystal ball while LSU licks its wounds - even having a better record. Virginia Tech, winner of the ACC is also on the outside looking in, while conference-mate Miami, again, plays for it all. This pill is made easier to swallow when we realize Miami beat Virginia Tech 27-7 on November 5, 2005, but still strikes as no more "sound" in rationale than Nebraska playing for the 2001 BCS title. That is to say, yet another alleged problem with the BCS remains unsettled in a playoff format.
While Penn State may have been able to make some argument that it "deserved" a shot at USC or Texas, such an argument is confounded by PSU's conference loss to 7-5 Michigan while both SC and Texas were undefeated at the time, and especially in light of the reality that the BCS championship game in 2005 turned out to be one of the top games of the era, while Penn State struggled mightily with 8-5 Florida State. It seems fairly clear that in 2005 the BCS did a perfectly fine job delivering a "true" champion, and it's unlikely that this particular playoff format would have provided anything we didn't already have, while also providing no real limitation on - or perhaps even exaggerating - controversy.
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: