College Playoff

[BearBuck27]

Sugar
1 LSU
vs
8 Kansas State

Rose
4 Stanford
vs
5 Oregon

Orange
2 Alabama
vs
7 Boise State

Fiesta
3 Oklahoma State
vs
6 Arkansas

I used to be totally against a playoff, but this season especially has made me change my mind. I like the 8 team set-up, personally.

However, I agree with others that say there needs to be conference champ tie-ins. The B1G, SEC, ACC, PAC-12, and B12 should get their five auto-bids. Then figure out a way to get three at-large bids. If there wasn't a conference champ tie-in, I think there would be just too much posturing for who the 8 should be.

I also have one small gripe with some of the other proposals. I hate the idea of playing a thirteen game season, taking a month off, then having to play three more games that will last most of January to finally crown the champion.

Why not take a week off after the season for the heisman ceremony and the army v. navy game? Then we can start the playoffs from there. I know people are trying to protect the history of the bowl system, but I think there has to be a better way doing this, while solving, what I think is the biggest problem surrounding the college football post-season-the month long layoff.

So for instance, this year the first round games (home games to highest seed) would be played on 12/17 (maybe some Friday games if thought that could generate more eyeballs.). Semi-final round games would be played around 12/24 (again highest remaining seed gets home games). Then championship would be played around new years at a BCS bowl. The first round losers could play in two different BCS bowls and the semi-final losers could play in a BCS bowl as well.

There's probably a better way to solve this problem, but I just generally hate the idea of kids having to take a month off then being forced to play three straight weeks at such a high level. Besides, one of the biggest arguments against a playoff is that it will interfere with school. In this system, the playoffs are played during most school's winter breaks and don't break into the second semester/quarter.

 

[zincfinger]

Josh, there's one thing that seems slightly contradictory to me in your view on playoffs, combined with your view on this year's actual championship matchup. In the thread on the latter, you described your opinion that Alabama shouldn't be in the championship game, in part because a possible Alabama victory over LSU would prove nothing, as the two teams would then have equivalent records and equivalent head-to-head results. I think that's a perfectly valid and logical opinion. But your proposed playoff scenario could possibly (perhaps would probably) result in the same championship game matchup. Or more generally, why should at-large conference runners-up be allowed to "prove it on the field" that they're the best in the country, when they've already had it proven on the field that they're inferior to at least one conference rival? If the real goal here is to give every team an opportunity to prove it on the field, in some objective, absolute way, that seems somewhat contradictory to me.

If the goal instead is to have an intriguing post-season, with a cluster of interesting matchups between the nation's top teams, that's a different story.

 

[BB73]

Look at the far left column - too much SEC bias! Alabama gets in as the #6, #7, AND the #8 seeds? Screw that.

 

[jwinslow]

BB.

If the goal instead is to have an intriguing post-season, with a cluster of interesting matchups between the nation's top teams, that's a different story.

In the BCS, I don't think Bama deserves another shot. In a postseason playoff, you have to settle somewhere, and a top ranked BCS team is a lot better than muddying the pool with too many teams (16), or giving lousy conferences an automatic bid instead (like the Big East, Sun Belt, etc) to round out the 8.


I'm working on a set of snapshots from past BCS rankings as well...

 

[RhodeIslandBuck]

My idea:

8 teams:
ACC Champ
Big 12 Champ
Big East Champ
B1G Champ
Pac-12 Champ
SEC Champ
Highest ranked Non AQ Champ
1 At-large

Keep the normal BCS bowl affiliations and have the teams play each other based on BCS ranking.

This year would look like:

Fiesta: Oklahoma State vs. TCU
Orange: Alabama vs. Clemson (As the highest ranked team without a bowl affiliation, Bama would play the lowest ranked team with a bowl affiliation)
Rose: Oregon vs. Wisconsin (B1G Champ and Pac-12 champ, cut and dry)
Sugar: LSU vs. West Virginia (the lowest ranked team without a bowl affiliation, WVU, plays the highest ranked team with one)

Then the highest ranked BCS bowl winner plays the lowest ranked winner and 2 would then play 3 for the rights to play in the BCS National Championship.

 

[zincfinger]

In the BCS, I don't think Bama deserves another shot. In a postseason playoff, you have to settle somewhere, and a top ranked BCS team is a lot better than muddying the pool with too many teams (16), or giving lousy conferences an automatic bid instead (like the Big East, Sun Belt, etc) to round out the 8.


I'm working on a set of snapshots from past BCS rankings as well...

But if you don't like rematches and the potentially contradictory results, why not exclude conference runners-up from the playoff? Since this is all hypothetical, your hands aren't tied in the number of teams you have to allow. Heck, if you wanted to, you could make it five teams (SEC, BigTen, BigXII, Pac, and ACC champs), with the lowest two playing a March Madness style "play-in". Maybe not perfect, but at least it avoids inherent, direct contradictions in who "proved it on the field".

 

[jwinslow]

Your idea is cleaner, though it probably means the SEC always gets two bids.

Then the highest ranked BCS bowl winner plays the lowest ranked winner and 2 would then play 3 for the rights to play in the BCS National Championship.

So fans would have to buy tickets on Sunday for a trip on Fri/Sat night?

 

[jwinslow]

But if you don't like rematches and the potentially contradictory results, why not exclude conference runners-up from the playoff? Since this is all hypothetical, your hands aren't tied in the number of teams you have to allow.

The playoff lessens the contradiction of a rematch. It would be stupid to have Bama play LSU in the first round. I don't think it's stupid to see Bama earn a shot at LSU after beating two more elite teams.

The BCS is a popularity contest.

The playoff is a football contest.

 

[zincfinger]

The playoff lessens the contradiction of a rematch. It would be stupid to have Bama play LSU in the first round. I don't think it's stupid to see Bama earn a shot at LSU after beating two more elite teams.

I don't see how it does, given that you'd still potentially have the situation of two teams with equivalent records and equivalent head-to-head results; one being crowned champion because they "proved it on the field" when it really mattered, and one being designated runner-up because their on-field proof occurred when it, ultimately, didn't really matter. How does Alabama having further proved their mettle by beating, say OK State and Stanford, alter that basic fact?

 

[jwinslow]

I'm not sure this is a sustainable model. It works out nicely this time, but what happens when WVU isn't terrible? Now LSU might have to play a 3rd in the BCS boise or TCU team.

Fiesta: Oklahoma State vs. TCU
Orange: Alabama vs. Clemson (As the highest ranked team without a bowl affiliation, Bama would play the lowest ranked team with a bowl affiliation)
Rose: Oregon vs. Wisconsin (B1G Champ and Pac-12 champ, cut and dry)
Sugar: LSU vs. West Virginia (the lowest ranked team without a bowl affiliation, WVU, plays the highest ranked team with one)

Minor correction, it should be Boise @ Fiesta. And did TCU go there because they were ranked between Bama & WVU? (same as Boise)

Last year it would be:

Fiesta: Oklahoma vs TCU
Orange: Va Tech vs Ohio St
Rose: Oregon vs Wisconsin
Sugar: Auburn vs Arkansas

 

[jwinslow]

I don't see how it does, given that you'd still potentially have the situation of two teams with equivalent records and equivalent head-to-head results. How does Alabama having further proved their mettle by beating, say OK State and Stanford, alter that basic fact?

Because after those six games, there aren't any alternatives to Bama, like there are now.

Because the goal of the BCS is to set up a 2 team playoff.

When you're setting up an 8 team playoff, you have to make concessions. You either allow more berths for unworthy conferences, or you let in more "unworthy" at-large teams.

The potential for a rematch is certainly still there, and LSU will still have accomplished more, but it's a different approach to crowning a champion.

 

[Oh8ch]

 

[BB73]

There's a lot of nacho cheese flying out of that brain.

 

[buckeyesin07]

The BCS is a popularity contest.

The playoff is a football contest.

I'm not sure I totally agree. The playoff (so long as the model contains an at-large bid or more) retains a popularity contest aspect.

 

[zincfinger]

Because after those six games, there aren't any alternatives to Bama, like there are now.

Because the goal of the BCS is to set up a 2 team playoff.

When you're setting up an 8 team playoff, you have to make concessions. You either allow more berths for unworthy conferences, or you let in more "unworthy" at-large teams.

The potential for a rematch is certainly still there, and LSU will still have accomplished more, but it's a different approach to crowning a champion.

Yes, Alabama would be the only alternative at that point, largely because you allowed them in in the first place. None of that addresses the issue of a champion being selected between two teams with equal records and equal head-to-head results. To shift the point slightly, why are you focused on eight teams as the target number, and why do you feel inclined to include conference runners-up?

In a sense, it seems like you're saying, "let Alabama prove they're the second-best team in the country. And then at that point, I'm prepared to throw out the pre-existing evidence that they're not the best". Why does further evidence that they're at least second-best wash out pre-existing evidence that they're at most second-best?