Conference Champions Only
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Virginia Tech....3...11-3...36....9.....9
Big XII....Oklahoma.........4...11-3...44....8.....5
Big East...West Virginia....9...11-2...40....6.....3
Big Ten....Ohio State.......1...11-2...53....5....11
C-USA......Central Florida.NR...10-4...83...NR....46
MAC........Central Mich....NR....8-6...86...NR....82
MWC........BYU.............17...11-2...59...14....17
Pac 10.....USC..............7...11-2...29....3.....4 *
SEC........LSU..............2...12-2...11....1.....1
Sun Belt...Troy............NR....8-4...78...NR....53 **
WAC........Hawaii..........10...12-1..132...19....35
* USC shared the Pac 10 title with Arizona State (10-3 BCS 11)
** Troy Shared the Sun Belt title with Florida Atlantic (8-5 BCS NR)
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 (17) v. 9 Central Florida (NR) winner to play 1 Ohio State (1)
7 Hawaii(10) v. 10 Troy (NR) winner to play 2 LSU (2)
6 West Virginia (9) v. 11 Central Michigan (NR) winner to play 3 Virginia Tech (3)
4 Oklahoma (4) v. 5 USC (7) winner to play winner of Ohio State v. 8/9 game winner.
Some real barn burners here, no? BYU - Central Florida, Hawaii - Troy, West Virginia - Central Michigan? It must be early September, right? Oh no, this is your Conference Champs Playoff Model round 1. Again the most interesting match is 4 v. 5, though - as a prior model mentioned with regard to OU and USC, the last time these two played it wasn't much of a game (55-19 USC). On the other hand, this USC team managed to lose to Stanford 24-23 at home.
On the plus side for OSU fans is they'd probably get to see a post season win as the Buckeyes take on either BYU or Central Florida, though the post season might also be short lived when the next week would bring USC in all probability, though I would like the Buckeyes against the Sooners. But, never mind that. We've got a possible LSU against Troy match-up! Please. If I want to see that, I'll simply watch any number of SEC September OOC contests. How about LSU - Hawaii instead? Even worse. LSU's defense was certainly as good as, and more probably better than Georgia's which limited Hawaii's high octane offense to a paltry 10 points. Maybe Hawaii's 132nd (Yes, you read that right, 132 out of 119 D-IA teams (Obviously some D-IAA schools took on tougher roads)) schedule shouldn't have been so easily overlooked? Maybe Hawaii shouldn't have received the benefit of the doubt simply because Boise State beat OU the year before. In any case LSU v. Hawaii wou hardly be regarded as a potential game of the century. West Virginia v. Virginia Tech would have held some interest as a renewal of a rivalry which was played each year from 1973 through 2005, though there probably would have been plenty of extra tickets available if it were instead Central Michigan v. the Hokies.
Speakig of Central Michigan, they're 8-6 and playing for a national title. Let that sink in if it hasn't yet. "Fair?" Sure is, as this formula is based on giving every conference an equal chance. Now, ask non Conference Champions 11-2 Georgia (BCS #5) 11-1 Missouri (BCS # 6) or 12-1 Kansas (BCS #8) how "fair" this system is. I say again, there is nothing inherently better about a playoff than the BCS. While Missouri got "screwed" out of playing in a BCS bowl, they would have been screwed here anyway. Kansas, on the other hand, did go to a BCS bowl and beat Virginia Tech 24-21 completing their best season since 1995 (Glen Mason's 10-2 group) while Georgia, as mentioned above, beat the snot out Hawaii.
Six Plus Two System
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Virginia Tech....3...11-3...36....9.....9
Big XII....Oklahoma.........4...11-3...44....8.....5
Big East...West Virginia....9...11-2...40....6.....3
Big Ten....Ohio State.......1...11-2...53....5....11
Pac 10.....USC..............7...11-2...29....3.....4
SEC........LSU..............2...12-2...11....1.....1
SEC........Georgia..........5...11-2...23....2.....7 At Large 1
Big XII....Missouri.........6...11-2...25....4.....4 At Large 2
Pairings:
8 West Virginia (9) v. 1 Ohio State (1)
7 USC (7) v. 2 LSU (2)
6 Missouri (6) v. 3 Virginia Tech (3)
5 Georgia (5) v. 4 Oklahoma (4)
I must confess, when I embarked on this project I was quite curious as to what would come of 2008 which seemed like a year where so many teams could stake a reasonable claim and thus ripe for a playoff. While this formulation once again does nothing to help the mid major, it sets up almost perfectly as a BCS top 8 type, with only West Virginia out of position, and only out of place by 1 spot (Seed compared to BCS rank). None-the-less, it is this sort of thing which Playoff proponents see when they say a "playoff is better!" or words to that effect. It's also the first time we've seen such a playoff in the so called 6+2, lending to the conclusion that the 6+2 "works" once every 10 years. Still, that said, the BCS contained 7 of the 8 teams listed above (Missouri replaces Hawaii) and aside from being a one and done put together similar match-ups as seen here.
West Virginia - Ohio State sits well for Buckeye fans, especially comparative to having to go against LSU in a one shot deal. Likewise, it would have had increase local interest if we can assume Rich Rod would still leave WVU in the same manner and for the same school up north. USC v. LSU would have been a solid match, and most likely far more competitive than the 49-17 USC blasting of Illinois in the Rose Bowl. Missouri v. Virginia Tech, I would think, would be similar to Kansas v. Virginia Tech, though there would be individual match-up differences (ie Chase Daniel and Jeremy Macklin) which might tilt the game slightly more in Missouri's favor. As it was, the Kansas - Virginia Tech game was probably the best 2007 BCS game. Georgia - Oklahoma holds interest as two traditional powers go head to head (and in a strange twist of alternate universe fate, both of whom lost to West Virginia when heavy favorites in BCS games).
Yes, a 6+2 probably would have been just fine in 2007. Again, however, there is no mid major represented so that issue would remain, even if the games held potential to be exciting. Also, and again, picking conference champs and 2 at large in this manner is essentially the same exact thing as the BCS. If anything, it's more restrictive because this formula takes the highest non conference champion seeds, while the BCS affords some discretion to take whichever at large(s) it wants from a larger "qualified" pool. Likewise, even to the extent the BCS truly only picks 2 teams, the 6+2 suffers the same logistical/theoretical failings.
BCS Top 8
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
Big Ten....Ohio State.......1...11-2...53....5....11
SEC........LSU..............2...12-2...11....1.....1
ACC........Virginia Tech....3...11-3...36....9.....9
Big XII....Oklahoma.........4...11-3...44....8.....5
SEC........Georgia..........5...11-2...23....2.....7
Big XII....Missouri.........6...11-2...25....4.....4
Pac 10.....USC..............7...11-2...29....3.....4
Big XII....Kansas...........8...12-1...74....7.....2
Bubble Teams: 9 West Virginia (11-2), 10 Hawaii (12-1), 11 Arizona State (10-3), 12 Florida (9-4)
The only material difference here from the 6+2 is Kansas replacing West Virginia who becomes the first bubble team. There isn't a whole lot more that needs to be said regarding the match-ups as they are exactly the same, but for Kansas v. Ohio State. Here again, I like Ohio State's chances better than I did seeing them against LSU, but that has little to do with the project here.
Not to belabor the point made in the 6+2 above, but the BCS Top 8 System clearly offers no "fairness" to the mid major, as they are once again left out of the mix while the Big XII gets 3 teams in and the SEC 2, with one more on the bubble. After Georgia's shellacking of Hawaii, their spot on the bubble looks a little less deserving anyway.
Again, it seems quite plain playoff proponents have this sort of thing in mind when they talk about how great a playoff would be. But, as has been shown repeated by now is a system as unprincipled as the current BCS, still delivering essentially all the money to the "power conferences" and even making it harder for a non BCS team to get in (lack of discretion (or instruction) to take a mid major with a certain ranking). We could conceive a system where we are required to take a mid major who is ranked X or higher, replacing the 8 seed. But, wouldn't such a playoff format be even more arbitrary than the one above? How is Kansas, here, supposed to control their destiny when they have to worry about if Hawaii is going to be ranked high enough to get the mid major auto bid? Again, it would work. It would be legitimate. But, it wouldn't work any better, nor would it be any more legitimate than they current system. If you think otherwise, you haven't been reading along.
Once again, it's one thing to say, "Utah did everything they could, they deserve a chance" when you don't actually evaluate the ramifications of what including Utah would mean over the remainder of the proposed playoffs. When you actually SEE what it would mean, however, it's plain that including the team that might "Deserve" the chance often means including several teams that have NO CLAIM of deserving it. Would it be nice to include 13-0 Auburn in 2004? Sure. But, you can't just throw them in the mix and call it a day. Other teams come along too. Playoff proponents, I'm convinced, have never considered the actual logistics. As I've labored to present - it's vastly more complicated than giving any particular team their "fair" or "deserved" chance to compete. I submit it the BCS is neither better nor worse than a playoff. There is simply no reason to change formats as there is nothing to be gained, and truth is, much to be lost (Unless we go to a 16 game format with 11 conference champs and 5 at large, or what I have come to call, the "Fair, but.. not really" System. I think convincing Presidents to allow 4 more games in season a tough sell. An even harder sell would be to take away games from the regular season, though that may be the most viable solution logistically).
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....3...11-3...36....9.....9
Big XII....Oklahoma.........4...11-3...44....8.....5
Big East...West Virginia....9...11-2...40....6.....3
Big Ten....Ohio State.......1...11-2...53....5....11
C-USA......Central Florida.NR...10-4...83...NR....46
MAC........Central Mich....NR....8-6...86...NR....82
MWC........BYU.............17...11-2...59...14....17
Pac 10.....USC..............7...11-2...29....3.....4 *
SEC........LSU..............2...12-2...11....1.....1
Sun Belt...Troy............NR....8-4...78...NR....53 **
WAC........Hawaii..........10...12-1..132...19....35
* USC shared the Pac 10 title with Arizona State (10-3 BCS 11)
** Troy Shared the Sun Belt title with Florida Atlantic (8-5 BCS NR)
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 (17) v. 9 Central Florida (NR) winner to play 1 Ohio State (1)
7 Hawaii(10) v. 10 Troy (NR) winner to play 2 LSU (2)
6 West Virginia (9) v. 11 Central Michigan (NR) winner to play 3 Virginia Tech (3)
4 Oklahoma (4) v. 5 USC (7) winner to play winner of Ohio State v. 8/9 game winner.
Some real barn burners here, no? BYU - Central Florida, Hawaii - Troy, West Virginia - Central Michigan? It must be early September, right? Oh no, this is your Conference Champs Playoff Model round 1. Again the most interesting match is 4 v. 5, though - as a prior model mentioned with regard to OU and USC, the last time these two played it wasn't much of a game (55-19 USC). On the other hand, this USC team managed to lose to Stanford 24-23 at home.
On the plus side for OSU fans is they'd probably get to see a post season win as the Buckeyes take on either BYU or Central Florida, though the post season might also be short lived when the next week would bring USC in all probability, though I would like the Buckeyes against the Sooners. But, never mind that. We've got a possible LSU against Troy match-up! Please. If I want to see that, I'll simply watch any number of SEC September OOC contests. How about LSU - Hawaii instead? Even worse. LSU's defense was certainly as good as, and more probably better than Georgia's which limited Hawaii's high octane offense to a paltry 10 points. Maybe Hawaii's 132nd (Yes, you read that right, 132 out of 119 D-IA teams (Obviously some D-IAA schools took on tougher roads)) schedule shouldn't have been so easily overlooked? Maybe Hawaii shouldn't have received the benefit of the doubt simply because Boise State beat OU the year before. In any case LSU v. Hawaii wou hardly be regarded as a potential game of the century. West Virginia v. Virginia Tech would have held some interest as a renewal of a rivalry which was played each year from 1973 through 2005, though there probably would have been plenty of extra tickets available if it were instead Central Michigan v. the Hokies.
Speakig of Central Michigan, they're 8-6 and playing for a national title. Let that sink in if it hasn't yet. "Fair?" Sure is, as this formula is based on giving every conference an equal chance. Now, ask non Conference Champions 11-2 Georgia (BCS #5) 11-1 Missouri (BCS # 6) or 12-1 Kansas (BCS #8) how "fair" this system is. I say again, there is nothing inherently better about a playoff than the BCS. While Missouri got "screwed" out of playing in a BCS bowl, they would have been screwed here anyway. Kansas, on the other hand, did go to a BCS bowl and beat Virginia Tech 24-21 completing their best season since 1995 (Glen Mason's 10-2 group) while Georgia, as mentioned above, beat the snot out Hawaii.
Six Plus Two System
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
ACC........Virginia Tech....3...11-3...36....9.....9
Big XII....Oklahoma.........4...11-3...44....8.....5
Big East...West Virginia....9...11-2...40....6.....3
Big Ten....Ohio State.......1...11-2...53....5....11
Pac 10.....USC..............7...11-2...29....3.....4
SEC........LSU..............2...12-2...11....1.....1
SEC........Georgia..........5...11-2...23....2.....7 At Large 1
Big XII....Missouri.........6...11-2...25....4.....4 At Large 2
Pairings:
8 West Virginia (9) v. 1 Ohio State (1)
7 USC (7) v. 2 LSU (2)
6 Missouri (6) v. 3 Virginia Tech (3)
5 Georgia (5) v. 4 Oklahoma (4)
I must confess, when I embarked on this project I was quite curious as to what would come of 2008 which seemed like a year where so many teams could stake a reasonable claim and thus ripe for a playoff. While this formulation once again does nothing to help the mid major, it sets up almost perfectly as a BCS top 8 type, with only West Virginia out of position, and only out of place by 1 spot (Seed compared to BCS rank). None-the-less, it is this sort of thing which Playoff proponents see when they say a "playoff is better!" or words to that effect. It's also the first time we've seen such a playoff in the so called 6+2, lending to the conclusion that the 6+2 "works" once every 10 years. Still, that said, the BCS contained 7 of the 8 teams listed above (Missouri replaces Hawaii) and aside from being a one and done put together similar match-ups as seen here.
West Virginia - Ohio State sits well for Buckeye fans, especially comparative to having to go against LSU in a one shot deal. Likewise, it would have had increase local interest if we can assume Rich Rod would still leave WVU in the same manner and for the same school up north. USC v. LSU would have been a solid match, and most likely far more competitive than the 49-17 USC blasting of Illinois in the Rose Bowl. Missouri v. Virginia Tech, I would think, would be similar to Kansas v. Virginia Tech, though there would be individual match-up differences (ie Chase Daniel and Jeremy Macklin) which might tilt the game slightly more in Missouri's favor. As it was, the Kansas - Virginia Tech game was probably the best 2007 BCS game. Georgia - Oklahoma holds interest as two traditional powers go head to head (and in a strange twist of alternate universe fate, both of whom lost to West Virginia when heavy favorites in BCS games).
Yes, a 6+2 probably would have been just fine in 2007. Again, however, there is no mid major represented so that issue would remain, even if the games held potential to be exciting. Also, and again, picking conference champs and 2 at large in this manner is essentially the same exact thing as the BCS. If anything, it's more restrictive because this formula takes the highest non conference champion seeds, while the BCS affords some discretion to take whichever at large(s) it wants from a larger "qualified" pool. Likewise, even to the extent the BCS truly only picks 2 teams, the 6+2 suffers the same logistical/theoretical failings.
BCS Top 8
Conference.Team...........BCS...Rec...SOS...AP..Sagarin
Big Ten....Ohio State.......1...11-2...53....5....11
SEC........LSU..............2...12-2...11....1.....1
ACC........Virginia Tech....3...11-3...36....9.....9
Big XII....Oklahoma.........4...11-3...44....8.....5
SEC........Georgia..........5...11-2...23....2.....7
Big XII....Missouri.........6...11-2...25....4.....4
Pac 10.....USC..............7...11-2...29....3.....4
Big XII....Kansas...........8...12-1...74....7.....2
Bubble Teams: 9 West Virginia (11-2), 10 Hawaii (12-1), 11 Arizona State (10-3), 12 Florida (9-4)
The only material difference here from the 6+2 is Kansas replacing West Virginia who becomes the first bubble team. There isn't a whole lot more that needs to be said regarding the match-ups as they are exactly the same, but for Kansas v. Ohio State. Here again, I like Ohio State's chances better than I did seeing them against LSU, but that has little to do with the project here.
Not to belabor the point made in the 6+2 above, but the BCS Top 8 System clearly offers no "fairness" to the mid major, as they are once again left out of the mix while the Big XII gets 3 teams in and the SEC 2, with one more on the bubble. After Georgia's shellacking of Hawaii, their spot on the bubble looks a little less deserving anyway.
Again, it seems quite plain playoff proponents have this sort of thing in mind when they talk about how great a playoff would be. But, as has been shown repeated by now is a system as unprincipled as the current BCS, still delivering essentially all the money to the "power conferences" and even making it harder for a non BCS team to get in (lack of discretion (or instruction) to take a mid major with a certain ranking). We could conceive a system where we are required to take a mid major who is ranked X or higher, replacing the 8 seed. But, wouldn't such a playoff format be even more arbitrary than the one above? How is Kansas, here, supposed to control their destiny when they have to worry about if Hawaii is going to be ranked high enough to get the mid major auto bid? Again, it would work. It would be legitimate. But, it wouldn't work any better, nor would it be any more legitimate than they current system. If you think otherwise, you haven't been reading along.
Once again, it's one thing to say, "Utah did everything they could, they deserve a chance" when you don't actually evaluate the ramifications of what including Utah would mean over the remainder of the proposed playoffs. When you actually SEE what it would mean, however, it's plain that including the team that might "Deserve" the chance often means including several teams that have NO CLAIM of deserving it. Would it be nice to include 13-0 Auburn in 2004? Sure. But, you can't just throw them in the mix and call it a day. Other teams come along too. Playoff proponents, I'm convinced, have never considered the actual logistics. As I've labored to present - it's vastly more complicated than giving any particular team their "fair" or "deserved" chance to compete. I submit it the BCS is neither better nor worse than a playoff. There is simply no reason to change formats as there is nothing to be gained, and truth is, much to be lost (Unless we go to a 16 game format with 11 conference champs and 5 at large, or what I have come to call, the "Fair, but.. not really" System. I think convincing Presidents to allow 4 more games in season a tough sell. An even harder sell would be to take away games from the regular season, though that may be the most viable solution logistically).
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: