Conference Champions Only
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Wake Forest.....14...11-3...46...18....27
Big XII....Oklahoma........10...11-3...32...11....16
Big East...Louisville.......6...12-1...27....6.....5
Big Ten....Ohio State.......1...12-1...38....2.....4
C-USA......Houston.........NR...10-4..100...NR....54
MAC........Central Mich....NR...10-4...97...NR....56
MWC........BYU.............20...11-2...74...16....13
Pac 10.....USC..............5...11-2....2....4.....2 *
SEC........Florida..........2...13-1....8....1.....1
Sun Belt...Troy............NR....8-5..117...NR....81
WAC........Boise State......8...13-0...90....5.....6
* USC shared the Pac 10 title with California (10-3 BCS 18)
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 BYU (20) v. 9 Central Michigan (NR) winner to play 1 Ohio State (1)
7 Wake Forest (14) v. 10 Houston (NR) winner to play 2 Florida (2)
6 Oklahoma (10) v. 11 Troy (NR) winner to play 3 USC (5)
4 Louisville (6) v. 5 Boise State (8) winner to play winner of Ohio State v. 8/9 game winner.
As is typical, the first round has no match-ups which are particularly compelling to a national audience. Likewise, Second round games of Ohio State against BYU or Central Michigan are all but assured wins for the Buckeyes. Indeed, the Buckeyes schedule MAC teams in the out of Conference schedule for that very reason, though BYU has kept it close with historical Buckeye teams (OSU 28-21 in the 1993 Holiday, 10-7 1985 Citrus, but there was also the 47-17 1982 Holiday bowl beat down the Bucks put on BYU) and may have given the Buckeyes a decent fight in 2006. Eventual champion Florida would probably had little trouble dispatching either Wake or Houston, while USC v. Troy would have been a laugher, though USC - Oklahoma would have selling power (though the last time these two met it was 55-19 USC, and OU did end up actually losing to Boise State in the 2007 Fiesta, so pre-game hype may have betrayed on the field results.) Ohio State, assuming victory in their first contest, would get either Louisville (recall this team had less defense than Notre Dame and Ohio State was being lead by the likes of Troy Smith and Ted Ginn, Jr.) or Boise State. In retrospect, it might be fashionable to say Boise State could have beat the Buckeyes, but realistically, the Broncos would have been heavy underdogs in a game against the top ranked Buckeyes. It's easy to forget because Boise State beat OU in a exciting Fiesta Bowl that the game looked like a snoozer on paper, and only is held in regard now because of the result. In short, it wasn't a big sell at the time and only became well watched when it looked like Boise might pull off the upset, which they ultimately did.
Thus, after the preliminary rounds, we're left with Ohio State facing the winner of USC or Florida. USC - Florida is an interesting match, though going in to the Rose Bowl against BCS #3 Michigan, things looked equally as interesting in the BCS System. While ending up with essentially the same finale' we have to endure several "throw away" games with limited national interest. BCS #3 Michigan sits on the sidelines as 8-5 Troy is given a chance no one would argue they "deserved" even on the heels of Boise State's actual success in defeating Oklahoma. That is to say, once again, even if we agree that Boise State "deserved" a chance (or even if we say they earned it), when you play it out in a realist - or possible - hypothetical scenario, you give clearly undeserving teams chances too, while teams like BCS 3 Michigan and BCS 4 LSU get nothing.
Six Plus Two System
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Wake Forest.....14...11-3...46...18....27
Big XII....Oklahoma........10...11-3...32...11....16
Big East...Louisville.......6...12-1...27....6.....5
Big Ten....Ohio State.......1...12-1...38....2.....4
Pac 10.....USC..............5...11-2....2....4.....2
SEC........Florida..........2...13-1....8....1.....1
Big Ten....Michigan.........3...11-2...12....8.....7 At Large 1
SEC........LSU..............4...11-2...20....3.....3 At Large 2
Pairings:
8 Wake Forest (14) v. 1 Ohio State (1)
7 Oklahoma (10) v. 2 Florida (2)
6 Louisville (6) v. 3 Michigan (3)
5 USC (5) v. 4 LSU (4)
First, it seems that Ohio State and Michigan get the easiest road to the next round. I suppose that may be unfair to Louisville, but I would still take Michigan in the contest and I'm betting you would too. USC - LSU would have sold seats, as would Florida - Oklahoma. Again, in as much as OU lost to Boise State, however, the game against Florida may not have been as good as it looks. That said, it's unlikely the Sooners would have been uninterested as they may have been in the 2007 Fiesta. Depending on when a Playoff of this type might have been implemented, the LSU - USC game could have been hyped as settling the score from the BCS split title between the two in 2003.
In any event, there was much controversy regarding if Michigan deserved another shot at Ohio State, and in this format, we would have to accept it as a possible title game, assuming both Ohio State and Michigan took care of business. Why? If we're to believe that a head to head match actually stands for anything then should we just hand the Buckeyes the title if they're to face Michigan? They settled it once, after all. Of course not. They'd play and Michigan would get their shot and playoff proponents would have to accept it even if Michigan beat Ohio State the second time around. What would be settled in such a situation? Think about that and its implications as you consider the "force" of arguments against the BCS about Oklahoma getting the bid over Texas - who had defeated OU head to head. In a playoff, the head to head result wouldn't have stood for much either. Maybe both Michigan 2006 and Texas 2008 "deserved" their respective chances at the titles. I don't know. But I do know a playoff isn't immune from similar controversies as the BCS presents. In short, Playoffs are no "holy grail" for determining a champion. They are a legitimate way. But, as all this material has demonstrated, so is the BCS. Both the BCS and the Playoff systems have advantages, and both have failings. But, you're kidding yourself if you think a playoff solves anything.
As one final note, regarding the 6+2 format, Boise State wouldn't have beaten OU because Boise State wouldn't have qualified. Should they have? I don't know.. maybe. But, playoff proponents couldn't really argue that with a straight face in light of their own system (at least in a 6+2) being what prevented their inclusion whereas the BCS, in fact, gave them the opportunity!
BCS Top 8
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
Big Ten....Ohio State.......1...12-1...38....2.....4
SEC........Florida..........2...13-1....8....1.....1
Big Ten....Michigan.........3...11-2...12....8.....7
SEC........LSU..............4...11-2...20....3.....3
Pac 10.....USC..............5...11-2....2....4.....2
Big East...Louisville.......6...12-1...27....6.....5
Big Ten....Wisconsin........7...12-1...82....7.....9
WAC........Boise State......8...13-0...90....5.....6
Bubble Teams: 9 Auburn (11-2), 10 Oklahoma (11-3), 11 Notre Dame (10-3), 12 Arkansas (10-4)
Well, here Boise State sneaks in with the BCS 8 seed and fans of both the mid major and also playoffs can be happy for a rare time in this particular format. Take a closer look,though. Notice a slight preponderance of Big Ten teams? How many SEC teams can you spot including the Bubble? Make no mistake, the money is staying with the power conferences. While we're at it, have a look at Wisconsin and Boise State's records but pay some attention to their SOSs. Is Wisconsin truly deserving of a shot with thier 12-1 record against an 82 rated schedule? Does the fact they lost to Michigan enter in to it? Boise State's 13-0 came against the 90th rated schedule - and that number (as a consequence of the numbers I chose to examine, I admit) was moved upwards as a result of having played OU in the Fiesta Bowl. True enough, Boise State beat OU. Two simple words: Upsets happen. There is no need to extrapolate larger conclusions, nor is there evidence that some other system needs to take the BCS's place. Again, if that playoff were a 6+2, Boise State wouldn't have been given the chance at all. In this format, the Broncos are rewarded with playing the season long #1 team in the nation, instead of an uninspired OU club.
We are presented with Wisconsin - Florida instead of Oklahoma - Florida (6+2) while Michgan - Louisville remains, as does USC - LSU. Perhaps Wisconsin's 82 rated schedule prepared them to play the eventual national champion Gators. I doubt it. Again, anything could have happened on the field, but I still doubt it. On the plus side for Big Ten Fans, this particular playoff could have ended with the Big Ten getting 3 of 4 teams in the final four, if Wisconsin did pull off the upset over Florida and Ohio State and Michigan took care of their business, and maybe Wisconsin wins a rematch against Michigan, and the Buckeyes and Badgers get to face off in 2006 after all (they did not meet in the regular season).
As mentioned in analysis of other seasons hypotheticals, the BCS top 8 is not the only conceivable formula and some suggest a 4 team or 16 team field is more appropriate. Obviously a 4 team field keeps the strength of competition up higher, but limits those who might "deserve" the chance (Boise State, allegedly) while a 16 team field simply feeds even more revenue to the big schools and would give the SEC at least 4 teams, including 4 loss Arkansas, the Big 10 3 teams. The Big East, in a 16 team field, would also have had 3 teams in(Louisville 6, WVU 13, Rutgers 16) while the ACC would have had two (Wake Forest (14) and Virginia Tech (15)). Arguments in favor of a playoff which are couched in terms of "fairness" suddenly don't sound quite so fair.
I will note here that the above paragraph, of course, assumes a BCS Top 16 formula which is not the only possible model for a 16 team tournament. In fact, as my Conclusions post discusses, the "best" Playoff model would probably be one which includes 11 conference champions (is "fair" to all) and 5 at large teams (But, it's not really fair - that is - we actually want to see big time teams play big time games, and see a big time team win. Just like the NCAA Basketball tournament. Maybe we can put up with the occasional Villanova 1985 or NC State 1983 in football too. For my personal preference and based now also on the data I am sharing in these posts, I say, "just leave well enough alone. You're not solving anything. You're generating rematches at a blistering pace, and chances are the results with respect to who wins it all aren't likely to be materially different and many of the better match ups a playoff would create came to pass in the current BCS model anyway. But, if you must be "fair" please don't be actually fair because a Conference Champs only tournament would be snooze city." But, I digress.)
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........Wake Forest.....14...11-3...46...18....27
Big XII....Oklahoma........10...11-3...32...11....16
Big East...Louisville.......6...12-1...27....6.....5
Big Ten....Ohio State.......1...12-1...38....2.....4
C-USA......Houston.........NR...10-4..100...NR....54
MAC........Central Mich....NR...10-4...97...NR....56
MWC........BYU.............20...11-2...74...16....13
Pac 10.....USC..............5...11-2....2....4.....2 *
SEC........Florida..........2...13-1....8....1.....1
Sun Belt...Troy............NR....8-5..117...NR....81
WAC........Boise State......8...13-0...90....5.....6
* USC shared the Pac 10 title with California (10-3 BCS 18)
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 BYU (20) v. 9 Central Michigan (NR) winner to play 1 Ohio State (1)
7 Wake Forest (14) v. 10 Houston (NR) winner to play 2 Florida (2)
6 Oklahoma (10) v. 11 Troy (NR) winner to play 3 USC (5)
4 Louisville (6) v. 5 Boise State (8) winner to play winner of Ohio State v. 8/9 game winner.
As is typical, the first round has no match-ups which are particularly compelling to a national audience. Likewise, Second round games of Ohio State against BYU or Central Michigan are all but assured wins for the Buckeyes. Indeed, the Buckeyes schedule MAC teams in the out of Conference schedule for that very reason, though BYU has kept it close with historical Buckeye teams (OSU 28-21 in the 1993 Holiday, 10-7 1985 Citrus, but there was also the 47-17 1982 Holiday bowl beat down the Bucks put on BYU) and may have given the Buckeyes a decent fight in 2006. Eventual champion Florida would probably had little trouble dispatching either Wake or Houston, while USC v. Troy would have been a laugher, though USC - Oklahoma would have selling power (though the last time these two met it was 55-19 USC, and OU did end up actually losing to Boise State in the 2007 Fiesta, so pre-game hype may have betrayed on the field results.) Ohio State, assuming victory in their first contest, would get either Louisville (recall this team had less defense than Notre Dame and Ohio State was being lead by the likes of Troy Smith and Ted Ginn, Jr.) or Boise State. In retrospect, it might be fashionable to say Boise State could have beat the Buckeyes, but realistically, the Broncos would have been heavy underdogs in a game against the top ranked Buckeyes. It's easy to forget because Boise State beat OU in a exciting Fiesta Bowl that the game looked like a snoozer on paper, and only is held in regard now because of the result. In short, it wasn't a big sell at the time and only became well watched when it looked like Boise might pull off the upset, which they ultimately did.
Thus, after the preliminary rounds, we're left with Ohio State facing the winner of USC or Florida. USC - Florida is an interesting match, though going in to the Rose Bowl against BCS #3 Michigan, things looked equally as interesting in the BCS System. While ending up with essentially the same finale' we have to endure several "throw away" games with limited national interest. BCS #3 Michigan sits on the sidelines as 8-5 Troy is given a chance no one would argue they "deserved" even on the heels of Boise State's actual success in defeating Oklahoma. That is to say, once again, even if we agree that Boise State "deserved" a chance (or even if we say they earned it), when you play it out in a realist - or possible - hypothetical scenario, you give clearly undeserving teams chances too, while teams like BCS 3 Michigan and BCS 4 LSU get nothing.
Six Plus Two System
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Wake Forest.....14...11-3...46...18....27
Big XII....Oklahoma........10...11-3...32...11....16
Big East...Louisville.......6...12-1...27....6.....5
Big Ten....Ohio State.......1...12-1...38....2.....4
Pac 10.....USC..............5...11-2....2....4.....2
SEC........Florida..........2...13-1....8....1.....1
Big Ten....Michigan.........3...11-2...12....8.....7 At Large 1
SEC........LSU..............4...11-2...20....3.....3 At Large 2
Pairings:
8 Wake Forest (14) v. 1 Ohio State (1)
7 Oklahoma (10) v. 2 Florida (2)
6 Louisville (6) v. 3 Michigan (3)
5 USC (5) v. 4 LSU (4)
First, it seems that Ohio State and Michigan get the easiest road to the next round. I suppose that may be unfair to Louisville, but I would still take Michigan in the contest and I'm betting you would too. USC - LSU would have sold seats, as would Florida - Oklahoma. Again, in as much as OU lost to Boise State, however, the game against Florida may not have been as good as it looks. That said, it's unlikely the Sooners would have been uninterested as they may have been in the 2007 Fiesta. Depending on when a Playoff of this type might have been implemented, the LSU - USC game could have been hyped as settling the score from the BCS split title between the two in 2003.
In any event, there was much controversy regarding if Michigan deserved another shot at Ohio State, and in this format, we would have to accept it as a possible title game, assuming both Ohio State and Michigan took care of business. Why? If we're to believe that a head to head match actually stands for anything then should we just hand the Buckeyes the title if they're to face Michigan? They settled it once, after all. Of course not. They'd play and Michigan would get their shot and playoff proponents would have to accept it even if Michigan beat Ohio State the second time around. What would be settled in such a situation? Think about that and its implications as you consider the "force" of arguments against the BCS about Oklahoma getting the bid over Texas - who had defeated OU head to head. In a playoff, the head to head result wouldn't have stood for much either. Maybe both Michigan 2006 and Texas 2008 "deserved" their respective chances at the titles. I don't know. But I do know a playoff isn't immune from similar controversies as the BCS presents. In short, Playoffs are no "holy grail" for determining a champion. They are a legitimate way. But, as all this material has demonstrated, so is the BCS. Both the BCS and the Playoff systems have advantages, and both have failings. But, you're kidding yourself if you think a playoff solves anything.
As one final note, regarding the 6+2 format, Boise State wouldn't have beaten OU because Boise State wouldn't have qualified. Should they have? I don't know.. maybe. But, playoff proponents couldn't really argue that with a straight face in light of their own system (at least in a 6+2) being what prevented their inclusion whereas the BCS, in fact, gave them the opportunity!
BCS Top 8
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
Big Ten....Ohio State.......1...12-1...38....2.....4
SEC........Florida..........2...13-1....8....1.....1
Big Ten....Michigan.........3...11-2...12....8.....7
SEC........LSU..............4...11-2...20....3.....3
Pac 10.....USC..............5...11-2....2....4.....2
Big East...Louisville.......6...12-1...27....6.....5
Big Ten....Wisconsin........7...12-1...82....7.....9
WAC........Boise State......8...13-0...90....5.....6
Bubble Teams: 9 Auburn (11-2), 10 Oklahoma (11-3), 11 Notre Dame (10-3), 12 Arkansas (10-4)
Well, here Boise State sneaks in with the BCS 8 seed and fans of both the mid major and also playoffs can be happy for a rare time in this particular format. Take a closer look,though. Notice a slight preponderance of Big Ten teams? How many SEC teams can you spot including the Bubble? Make no mistake, the money is staying with the power conferences. While we're at it, have a look at Wisconsin and Boise State's records but pay some attention to their SOSs. Is Wisconsin truly deserving of a shot with thier 12-1 record against an 82 rated schedule? Does the fact they lost to Michigan enter in to it? Boise State's 13-0 came against the 90th rated schedule - and that number (as a consequence of the numbers I chose to examine, I admit) was moved upwards as a result of having played OU in the Fiesta Bowl. True enough, Boise State beat OU. Two simple words: Upsets happen. There is no need to extrapolate larger conclusions, nor is there evidence that some other system needs to take the BCS's place. Again, if that playoff were a 6+2, Boise State wouldn't have been given the chance at all. In this format, the Broncos are rewarded with playing the season long #1 team in the nation, instead of an uninspired OU club.
We are presented with Wisconsin - Florida instead of Oklahoma - Florida (6+2) while Michgan - Louisville remains, as does USC - LSU. Perhaps Wisconsin's 82 rated schedule prepared them to play the eventual national champion Gators. I doubt it. Again, anything could have happened on the field, but I still doubt it. On the plus side for Big Ten Fans, this particular playoff could have ended with the Big Ten getting 3 of 4 teams in the final four, if Wisconsin did pull off the upset over Florida and Ohio State and Michigan took care of their business, and maybe Wisconsin wins a rematch against Michigan, and the Buckeyes and Badgers get to face off in 2006 after all (they did not meet in the regular season).
As mentioned in analysis of other seasons hypotheticals, the BCS top 8 is not the only conceivable formula and some suggest a 4 team or 16 team field is more appropriate. Obviously a 4 team field keeps the strength of competition up higher, but limits those who might "deserve" the chance (Boise State, allegedly) while a 16 team field simply feeds even more revenue to the big schools and would give the SEC at least 4 teams, including 4 loss Arkansas, the Big 10 3 teams. The Big East, in a 16 team field, would also have had 3 teams in(Louisville 6, WVU 13, Rutgers 16) while the ACC would have had two (Wake Forest (14) and Virginia Tech (15)). Arguments in favor of a playoff which are couched in terms of "fairness" suddenly don't sound quite so fair.
I will note here that the above paragraph, of course, assumes a BCS Top 16 formula which is not the only possible model for a 16 team tournament. In fact, as my Conclusions post discusses, the "best" Playoff model would probably be one which includes 11 conference champions (is "fair" to all) and 5 at large teams (But, it's not really fair - that is - we actually want to see big time teams play big time games, and see a big time team win. Just like the NCAA Basketball tournament. Maybe we can put up with the occasional Villanova 1985 or NC State 1983 in football too. For my personal preference and based now also on the data I am sharing in these posts, I say, "just leave well enough alone. You're not solving anything. You're generating rematches at a blistering pace, and chances are the results with respect to who wins it all aren't likely to be materially different and many of the better match ups a playoff would create came to pass in the current BCS model anyway. But, if you must be "fair" please don't be actually fair because a Conference Champs only tournament would be snooze city." But, I digress.)
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: