College Playoff

[bukIpower]

Nahh man they'd be like I had them. Because the Highester ranked team would always play the worst team on the board (rank wise).


For example if #1 is still in play they always play the lowest seed. There for if Alabama is #1 and OSU was the lowest ranked team at #10 then they would play.

 

[Oh8ch]

The current discussion of whether Texas should be ranked ahead of OU underscores my opposition to a Playoff.

The playoff argument is that the best team should be determined on the field.

Yet many of those arguing OU should be ahead of Texas support a playoff even though Texas beat OU on the field. And given endless round robin scenarios you will always have that issue. In an 8 or more team playoff you are likely to have rematches in the playoffs every season - often with different results than the regular season.

I agree that OU has the better team based on the 11 game body of evidence in front of us. At the end of 12/13 games it may be even clearer. How a one and done playoff that includes clearly inferior teams improves on subjective rankings (imperfect as they may be) is what I can't follow.

 

[CookyPuss]

The current discussion of whether Texas should be ranked ahead of OU underscores my opposition to a Playoff.

The playoff argument is that the best team should be determined on the field.

Yet many of those arguing OU should be ahead of Texas support a playoff even though Texas beat OU on the field. And given endless round robin scenarios you will always have that issue. In an 8 or more team playoff you are likely to have rematches in the playoffs every season - often with different results than the regular season.

I agree that OU has the better team based on the 11 game body of evidence in front of us. At the end of 12/13 games it may be even clearer. How a one and done playoff that includes clearly inferior teams improves on subjective rankings (imperfect as they may be) is what I can't follow.

I absolutely agree that is does not clarify the subjective rankings or avoid pitfalls. I favor a playoff because of the potential for many great matchups and exciting games. Most of the current bowl games are not that compelling to me. UC vs. Bc/Va Tech in the Orange? I couldn't care less.

I'm still in favor of a play off and continue to like the 12 team system. You give the top 4 BSC conf champs a buy. Next 8 BCS ranked teams get in (keep the 1 non-BCS auto bid), all 6 BCS conference champs get auto bid.

If the rankings held, this would give you the following:
Alabama, Oklahoma, USC, Penn State get first round byes as top ranked conf champs.

First round playoffs (Dec 12-13, 1 game Fri & 3 Sat) at host school site:
Texas vs. BC/Va Tech
Florida vs. UC
Utah vs. Ohio St.
Texas Tech vs. Boise St.

Round 2 (Dec 19-20, 1 game Fri & 3 Sat) at host school site:
Alabama vs. Texas Tech
Oklahoma vs. Ohio St.
USC vs. Florida
Penn State. vs. Texas

Semi-Finals (New Year's Day)
Alabama vs. Ohio St. at Sugar Bowl
USC vs. Texas at Fiesta Bowl

Championship game (Jan 10)
Ohio St. vs. USC at Orange Bowl

Of course, OSU defeats USC this time to win the Championship.

I know many talk about the magnitude of the current regular season. My problem is that I really don't get to watch many regular season games apart from OSU. Be it timing of the games, availability of broadcast, or just having other things to do... I might get to watch part of another game or two each week. However, I'd make it a point to watch the playoffs. And just look at the potential matchups of the 2nd round. Wow. That would be one hell of a Friday night and Saturday of football.

As for the NC game site, I'd rotate it though the current 4 BCS sites, on the years the Rose hosted, you would have the other sites on a rotating schedule of which site gets left off. The Rose could continue to host a New Year's Day bowl of the PAC 10 vs Big 10.

Just my 2 cents... again this year.

 

[BB73]

In order to see which teams that 4-team, 6-team, 8-team, 12-team, and 16-team playoff formats would have selected, here are the final BCS standings for each year (note that the BCS formula has changed a few times):

BCS Conference Champion or non-BCS Automatic Bid (*)

1998
01. Tennessee..........(*)..12-0
02. Florida St.........(*)..11-1
03. Kansas St...............11-1
04. Ohio State..............10-1
05. UCLA...............(*)..10-1
06. Texas A&M..........(*)..11-2
07. Arizona.................11-1
08. Florida..................9-2
09. Wisconsin..........(*)..10-1
10. Tulane..................11-0
11. Nebraska.................9-3
12. Virginia.................9-2
13. Arkansas.................9-2
14. Georgia Tech.............9-2
15. Syracuse...........(*)...8-3
16. ?? (11-1 Air Force, 9-2 ND, or 9-3 Michigan)

1999
01. Florida St.........(*)..11-0
02. Virginia Tech......(*) .11-0
03. Nebraska...........(*)..11-1
04. Alabama............(*)..10-2
05. Tennessee................9-2
06. Kansas State............10-1
07. Wisconsin..........(*)...9-2
08. Michigan.................9-2
09. Michigan St..............9-2
10. Florida..................9-3
11. Penn State...............9-3
12. Marshall................12-0
13. Minnesota................8-3
14. Texas A&M................8-3
15. Texas....................9-4
16. ?? (9-2 Miss St, 8-3 S. Miss, or 8-3 GTech)
??. Stanford...........(*)...8-3

2000
01. Oklahoma...........(*)..12-0
02. Florida State......(*) .11-1
03. Miami..............(*)..10-1
04. Washington.........(*)..10-1
05. Virginia Tech...........10-1
06. Oregon State............10-1
07. Florida............(*)..10-2
08. Nebraska.................9-2
09. Kansas State............10-3
10. Oregon...................9-2
11. Notre Dame...............9-2
12. Texas....................9-2
13. Georgia Tech.............9-2
14. TCU.....................10-1
15. Clemson..................9-2
16. Michigan.................8-3
??. Purdue.............(*)...8-3

2001
01. Miami..............(*)..11-0
02. Nebraska................11-1
03. Colorado...........(*)..10-2
04. Oregon.............(*)..10-1
05. Florida..................9-2
06. Tennessee...............10-2
07. Texas...................10-2
08. Illinois...........(*)..10-1
09. Stanford.................9-2
10. Maryland...........(*)..10-1
11. Oklahoma................10-2
12. Washington State.........9-2
13. LSU................(*)...9-3
14. South Carolina...........8-3
15. Washington...............8-3
16. ?? (8-3 Michigan, 8-3 GTech, or 8-3 VaTech)

2002
01. Miami..............(*)..12-0
02. Ohio State.........(*) .13-0
03. Georgia............(*)..12-1
04. USC.....................10-2
05. Iowa....................11-1
06. Washington State...(*)..10-2
07. Oklahoma...........(*)..11-2
08. Kansas State............10-2
09. Notre Dame..............10-2
10. Texas...................10-2
11. Michigan.................9-3
12. Penn State...............9-3
13. Colorado.................9-4
14. Florida State......(*)...9-4
15. West Virginia............9-3
16. ?? (10-3 Alabama)

2003
01. Oklahoma................12-1
02. LSU................(*) .12-1
03. USC................(*)..12-1
04. Michigan...........(*)..10-2
05. Ohio State..............10-2
06. Texas...................10-2
07. Florida State......(*)..10-2
08. Tennessee...............10-2
09. Miami..............(*)..10-2
10. Kansas State.......(*)..11-3
11. Miami (OH)..............11-1
12. Georgia.................10-3
13. Iowa.....................9-3
14. Purdue...................9-3
15. Florida..................8-4
16. Washington State.........9-3
17. Boise State.............12-1
18. TCU.....................11-1

2004
01. USC................(*)..12-0
02. Oklahoma...........(*) .12-0
03. Auburn.............(*)..12-0
04. Texas...................10-1
05. Cal.....................10-1
06. Utah...............(*)..11-0
07. Georgia..................9-2
08. Virginia Tech......(*)..10-2
09. Boise State.............11-0
10. Louisville..............10-1
11. LSU......................9-2
12. Iowa.....................9-2
13. Michigan...........(*)...9-2
14. Miami....................8-3
15. Tennessee................9-3
16. Florida State............8-3
17. Wisconsin................9-2
18. Virginia.................8-3
19. Pitt...............(*)...8-3

2005
01. USC................(*)..12-0
02. Texas..............(*) .12-0
03. Penn State.........(*)..10-1
04. Ohio State...............9-2
05. Oregon..................10-1
06. Notre Dame.........(*)...9-2
07. Georgia............(*)..10-2
08. Miami....................9-2
09. Auburn...................9-2
10. Virginia Tech...........10-2
11. West Virginia......(*)..10-1
12. LSU.....................10-2
13. Alabama..................9-2
14. TCU.....................10-1
15. Texas Tech...............9-2
16. UCLA.....................9-2
17. Florida..................8-3
18. Wisconsin................9-3
22. Florida State......(*)...8-4

2006
01. Ohio State.........(*)..12-0
02. Florida............(*) .12-1
03. Michigan................11-1
04. LSU.....................10-2
05. USC................(*)..10-2
06. Louisville.........(*)..11-1
07. Wisconsin...............11-1
08. Boise St...........(*)..12-0
09. Auburn..................10-2
10. Oklahoma...........(*)..11-2
11. Notre Dame..............10-2
12. Arkansas................10-3
13. West Virginia...........10-2
14. Wake Forest........(*)..11-2
15. Virginia Tech...........10-2
16. Rutgers.................10-2
17. Tenneseee................9-3
18. Cal......................9-3

2007
01. Ohio State.........(*)..11-1
02. LSU................(*) .11-2
03. Virgina Tech.......(*)..11-2
04. Oklahoma...........(*)..11-2
05. Georgia.................10-2
06. Missouri................11-2
07. USC................(*)..10-2
08. Kansas..................11-1
09. West Virginia......(*)..10-2
10. Hawaii.............(*)..12-0
11. Arizona State...........10-2
12. Florida..................9-3
13. Illinois.................9-3
14. Boston College..........10-3
15. Clemson..................9-3
16. Tennessee................9-4
17. BYU.....................10-2
18. Wisconsin................9-3

 

[Oh8ch]

I absolutely agree that is does not clarify the subjective rankings or avoid pitfalls. I favor a playoff because of the potential for many great matchups and exciting games.

If that is the argument for a playoff I can not argue. But I do love it when events make it clear why a playoff would not work to identify the "best team" in any given season - not only nationally, but even within a conference.

Last night Buffalo beat Ball St on the field. As a championship game with all that was on the line for Ball St it was clearly as close to a playoff environment as you can get. And the better team lost.

Buffalo and Ball St have FIVE common opponents. Buffalo lost to three of them. Ball St beat them all. Two of the teams who beat Buffalo were beaten by Ball St by three touchdowns (home field advantage was the same for both).

Two straight possessions where a fumble was returned for a TD. It doesn't get much more flukey than that. One single play following a reviewable call determined the outcome of that game.

So you want excitement? Let's have a playoff and give the tournament winner a title they may not deserve.

But quit arguing that we are going to "settle things on the field" - cause it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Jake]

So you want excitement? Let's have a playoff and give the tournament winner a title they may not deserve.

But quit arguing that we are going to "settle things on the field" - cause it ain't gonna happen.

I think the "settle things on the field" argument comes in to play when we are told we have a "national championship game", yet the 2 participants are picked by voters and computers. If we're not going to have a playoff, then let's just skip the whole "national champion" thing, too. Just play the conference schedules, have a few bowl games and call it a season.

Instead, we have a "system" that tries to have it both ways, often producing questionable results. :ohwell:

 

[Zem]

If we simply went with the top eight, the first round of an eight-team playoff would have been:
#1 Oklahoma - #8 PSU
#2 Florida - #7 TTU
#3 Texas - #6 Utah
#4 Alabama - #5 USC

I think whatever team was to play the mid-major in the first round would have an unfair advantage since they would usually have an easier game. If you think Utah shouldn't be included until they join a legitimately strong conference: TTU and PSU would move up one seed and Ohio State would play Oklahoma. Very interesting match-ups.

 

[HailToMichigan]

Part of the problem - and this is pure unadulterated opinion here - is that while it sounds really neato to have all these cool matchups every year, to me it'd get old fast. Assume eight teams - over a ten-year span, really those eight teams would come from a pool of about 20 of the same teams each year. Of course, there's interlopers every year, but nobody says they want a playoff for the purposes of seeing Iowa and Washington State duke it out in the semis. I think the matchups would start to get repetitive and lose their luster. Example: If the playoffs shook out strictly by rankings with no upsets, USC and Texas would have met every year from 2003-2005.

 

[MaxBuck]

Example: If the playoffs shook out strictly by rankings with no upsets, USC and Texas would have met every year from 2003-2005.

[methomps]And this is a problem because ... ?[/methomps]

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

I think the matchups would start to get repetitive and lose their luster. Example: If the playoffs shook out strictly by rankings with no upsets, USC and Texas would have met every year from 2003-2005.

That is how great rivalries are built up. One team beats the other team to deny them a chance at the title. Then a year later the other team has a chance to do the same. Has the OSU v Michigan game lost its luster because of repetitiveness? If they are evenly matched games, I would love to watch OSU play Texas every year.

 

[Mike80]

Part of the problem - and this is pure unadulterated opinion here - is that while it sounds really neato to have all these cool matchups every year, to me it'd get old fast. Assume eight teams - over a ten-year span, really those eight teams would come from a pool of about 20 of the same teams each year. Of course, there's interlopers every year, but nobody says they want a playoff for the purposes of seeing Iowa and Washington State duke it out in the semis. I think the matchups would start to get repetitive and lose their luster. Example: If the playoffs shook out strictly by rankings with no upsets, USC and Texas would have met every year from 2003-2005.

So?

Look at the NFL from about the mid-80s on into the late 90s. There wasn't exactly a ton to choose from yet the league had never been more popular.

Look at it this way - the pool of 20 (I'm going to assume we are thinking about the same 20) have the largest fan bases, the largest national followings and certainly have the fan bases willing to travel multiple weeks to see a playoff occur. Add to that most of that 20 is LIKELY to be the biggest schools out there as well (well minus probably Miami, FL)....

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

Of course, there's interlopers every year, but nobody says they want a playoff for the purposes of seeing Iowa and Washington State duke it out in the semis.

If they make it to the semis, more power to them. If they make if to the finals, that means they are playing some good football. It would make a great story.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

In order to see which teams that 4-team, 6-team, 8-team, 12-team, and 16-team playoff formats would have selected, here are the final BCS standings for each year (note that the BCS formula has changed a few times):

Love it. In a 16 team format, Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee would all have had to play December games in Columbus.

The SEC would pull out of the NCAA before they'd allow that to happen. Somebody might get frostbitten.

 

[Gatorubet]

Love it. In a 16 team format, Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee would all have had to play December games in Columbus.

The SEC would pull out of the NCAA before they'd allow that to happen. Somebody might get frostbitten.

And your win would be because you needed an unfair advantage (weather than no southern team experiences, as opposed to the current play in dome temperature weather northern schools experience for the majority of their season) to prevail.

Hey, it would be good for you, I'll admit.

 

[TheIronColonel]

As opposed to the advantage that most bowl teams enjoy against Big 10 teams: shorter travel distance (or virtual home games - LSU and USC) and shorter lay-offs leading up to the bowl games. I know we've been over this repeatedly - somebody gets screwed either way. However, once in a while I'd like to see someone other than a Big 10 team screwed by the bowl system.