Hypothetical 2005 NCAA D1 football playoffs

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by rangers85

Also, if the above system was used last year (Number in parenthesis is BCS rank):

ACC-VTech (#8)
Big East-Pittsburgh (#21)
Big 10-Michigan (#13)
Big 12-Oklahoma (#2)
CUSA-Louisville (#10)
MAC-Toledo (N/A)
MWC-Utah (#6)
Pac 10-USC (#1)
SEC-Auburn (#3)
Sun Belt-North Texas (N/A)
WAC-Boise St (#9)
At Large 1-Cal (#4)
At Large 2-Georgia (#7)
At Large 3-LSU (#11)
At Large 4-Iowa (#12)
At Large 5-Miami (#14)

Thus pairings would look like:
(1) USC v (16) North Texas<---- Boring
(2) Oklahoma v (15) Toledo<----- Boring
(3) Auburn v (14) Pittsburgh<---- Would have liked to see that.
(4) Texas v (13) Michigan<------ That was a great game last year.
(5) Cal v (12) Iowa<------ I am just drooling thinking about that match-up.
(6) Utah v (11) LSU<----- Also that would have been nice also.
(7) Georgia v (10) Louisville<------ Does the scoreboard go high enough for those two teams? Wow that would have been a barn burner.
(8) VTech v (9) Boise St <---- Another great game.

I Like your system.

k

[rangers85]

Yeah, your 1/16 and 2/15 games would usually result in a than ideal matchup, but past that, the system will usually pan out to provide real good matchups from the first round to the championship. The 1/16 and 2/15 games are one reason I'd like to see the first round games played on campus. It'd give a reward for a good season to the seniors of the team to have 1 last home game, plus be an extra revenue generator as a reward to the home team. Past first round, all games should be good matchups and even in 2004 if the top seeds had all won the first round, your 1/8 game would have been USC vs VTech which would have been good. Plus you would have had a battle of undefeateds in the second round of Auburn and Utah.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Azamien

The NFL doesn't need extra rounds because they have a clear, concise method of determining playoff participants that doesn't include any human voting. And NCAA basketball has a playoff system, if you haven't noticed. In order to defend the lack of a playoff, you keep bringing up leagues that have playoffs. Ironic, huh?

Again, NCAA football has a playoff system, if you haven't noticed.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

I would too, because if UCF just had a better showing in the Championship game they could have made it. It makes it better because it keeps more fans interested.

Why would letting smaller conference teams in keeps more fans interested unless they are good teams? Everyone complained how boring the Texas vs. Colorado and USC vs. UCLA games yesterday were, and surely people would enjoy watching Texas vs. a 7-5 Akron.

[Aordolin]

To make a playoff theyd have to pretty much scrap all the bowl games and start over. I am in favor of a playoff system. Basically there is almost no college football from mid to late november through december so why couldnt they have 4 weeks of playoffs? Cut off a couple games off the regular seasons and just play 10 games instead of 12. It just wont happen though, it makes interesting message board and talk radio banter but its fantasy. The way I see it the most likely scenerio would be getting the top 4 teams in the polls, 1v4, 2v3 in the BCS Bowls that could rotate around (yes I know one is left out each year but they would still good a good game with other top 10 schools), play those games on new years weekend, and then the next week play the championship with the winner of those 2 games. Its not perfect and teams will get left out but teams get snubbed in the NCAA basketball tourney too. Having the top 4 teams atleast pretty much guarentees that the 4 best teams will be playing for the title. I havent seen to many compelling arguements that a number 5 team should be playing for the national title. I think this would resolve 99% of the problems and would be easy to implement IMO and cause a min. of disruption to the current bowl schedule.

[Skipaway]

I agree with Aordolin that probably the only feasible plan to expand the playoffs would be a four team system.

Everyone should keep in mind how that would further hurt NCAA's financial imbalance among teams and conferences. Right now you got lots of teams going to lots of different bowls with various payouts, and teams within a conference would share those revenues.

Even a two round four team system would damage that. You further shift the focus onto three specific games, and the two teams making the final game would have received two round of huge playoff payouts, and further distanced the financial standing of the conferences involved.

And there is no easy way to justify revenue sharing. If you ask those BCS conferences to share revenues from the playoffs to smaller conferences, they might as well scrap the BCS, and establish something like a four-conference playoff system to totally block out everyone else.

[Dougiestyle]

Ok, if we're discussing on how to make a WORKABLE REALISTIC D-1 football playoff, you cannot, AND I MEAN NEVER, have teams like Akron or Arkansas St. in there. Why? Ratings. If you use the system outlined where Akron and Ark St are in, you'd be fired in 5 years. Sure, it sounds *nice* in theory and definitely admirable, but it's unrealistic.

I think you have to take the top 6 teams (#1 and #2 getting a bye) or take 16. If you have 16, you take the winners of these conferences:
SEC
Big10
Pac10
Big12
ACC
BigEast
WAC
CUSA
MtnWest

Then add the next 7 best ranked teams in the BCS. SOOOOO, this year:

SEC = Georgia
Big 10 = Penn St
Pac 10 = USC
Big 12 = Texas
ACC = Florida St
Big East = West Virginia
WAC = Boise St
CUSA = Tulsa (this is close to being like Akron, but the CUSA, before the changes, was a very solid conference)
MtnWest = TCU

Then however it shakes out between these teams: LSU, VaTech, ND, Ohio State, Oregon, Alabama, Auburn, Miami, UCLA

Then, their seeding is determined by BCS ranking.

For instance, first round we see:

1 USC v 16 Tulsa
2 Texas v 15 Boise St
3 Penn St v 14 TCU
4 Ohio State v 13 Florida St
5 Oregon v 12 Alabama
6 Georgia v 11 West Virginia
7 Notre Dame v 10 LSU
8 Auburn v 9 Virginia Tech/Miami

then, it would get very interesting

1 USC v Auburn/VaTech/Miami (awesome game regardless)
2 Texas v Notre Dame/LSU (another good one)
3 Penn St v 6 Georgia
4 Ohio St v Oregon/Alabama

As you can see, it provides so many good matchups, but the uber small conferences get whacked. AND I DON'T CARE.

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by rangers85

It's all about access. Who's to say they may not pull off a miracle run. Would you be in favor of leaving out a division champion from the playoffs in baseball because another team being left out in another division had a better record? They won their conference, thus, should be rewarded with a spot in the playoffs.

Theoretically, each division in baseball is equal, overall. In an individual year that may not be the case (e.g. NL West this season), but that evens out over time. Given the current conference compositions and revenue structure in NCAA football, there's no way the Sun Belt, MAC, MWC, etc. will reach parity with the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, PAC 10 or Big 12.

March Madness also gives a guaranteed birth in the tournament to the winner of each conference no matter how good or bad the conference.

If the I-A playoffs for football were 64 teams, I'd be in favor of adding teams like Akron to the mix. With just 16 teams in the playoffs, however, that's a complete waste of a spot, both competitively and ratings-wise (revenue).

[Aordolin]

There is no reason to make a system to just allow access to smaller conferences. Its not about whether Akron will not attract viewers its about level of play. Maybe once in a blue moon one of those small conference teams would upset a major power but on balance those teams do not have a prayer. Who wants to watch a slaughter? The dont have the athletes, they dont play the kind of schedules to make you think regardless what their record is that they deserve to play with the big boys. In a college football tournament I want to see the best of the best, each round, I dont think we need to add a tier of first round asswhiping just for the sake of having more teams.

[gmo]

Originally Posted by Dougiestyle

Ok, if we're discussing on how to make a WORKABLE REALISTIC D-1 football playoff, you cannot, AND I MEAN NEVER, have teams like Akron or Arkansas St. in there. Why? Ratings. If you use the system outlined where Akron and Ark St are in, you'd be fired in 5 years. Sure, it sounds *nice* in theory and definitely admirable, but it's unrealistic.

If the whole point of a playoff system was admitted to be money, then I think you could justify to me saying that, e.g., the Sun Belt and MAC winners do not deserve to be in there with the other conference champs. But if you are intent on using the playoffs to pick your best team on the field, should not everybody have a chance even if seemingly not realistic? Is that not the principle of playoffs, that you win what you must to get in then you get a shot?

Everybody remembers how Auburn was "robbed" last year from not getting a shot at the Sears ( ) trophy. Most everybody remembers also that Utah went undefeated. Hey, those two teams plus OU & USC could have been a compelling final four for a semifinals/final playoff. But what about Boise State who also had an undefeated regular season last year? Is it enough to push them out by just declaring they do not deserve to be there? Is it enough to say they are not good enough to keep out an Arkansas State? How does that differ from just choosing who the top 2 are each season and having a one-game playoff.

If you are simply going to exclude some teams (unless they finish in the top howevermany of the whatever standings) I think you have to go the route like Skipaway has said of breaking down things as they are now and making superconferences that fit easily into a playoff system. You cannot have a playoff system that is all about results on the field and not include some D1 conference winners.

Of course this year it is easy to say that we have two separated teams and that the winner of their matchup can be the champ. But just in general, though the games may be interesting and fun, for the purposes of picking a "best" team or a national champion I see no need to pick out the best 9-2 teams to try to battle against the undefeateds in a playoff scheme.

[Cooleyvol]

The 16 team system could be overhauled (to get rid of the Ark St. scenario) by giving #1 and #2 a bye and going with 14 total teams.

And I disagree with Aordolin in that the bowl system would not have to be scrapped at all.

[Aordolin]

All the bowls are basically played in a 10 day peroid from christmas through the new year. So you would have to get all of them to agree to change their dates around to fit the new playoff system, so it really wouldnt be the bowls anymore. They might be called the Liberty.. Holliday, etc bowls but they arent really, not anymore. And lets say you do get it all arranged, say a playoff game which happens to feature (for the sake of argument) Oregon vs Wisconsin. Why on earth would anyone at the Liberty Bowl care for that matchup? Who in Memphis is going to care? No offense to those schools but those arent exactly schools that travel really well. Not everyone can have LSU, Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Penn State or other school that have large national followings and whos fans will go wherever the game is. Its about money which is why it wont work. Your never going to get everyone to agree. They had enough problems just getting the 4 BCS bowls to agree. Which is why if a playoff is ever created I believe it will be in the format I said earlier. The bowls dont care about a playoff, they just want to make money. The schools wont agree to a major overhall because it would affect the money alot of them can make for going to a bowl who dont really have a chance to win national titles.

[rangers85]

Originally Posted by Aordolin

There is no reason to make a system to just allow access to smaller conferences. Its not about whether Akron will not attract viewers its about level of play. Maybe once in a blue moon one of those small conference teams would upset a major power but on balance those teams do not have a prayer. Who wants to watch a slaughter? The dont have the athletes, they dont play the kind of schedules to make you think regardless what their record is that they deserve to play with the big boys. In a college football tournament I want to see the best of the best, each round, I dont think we need to add a tier of first round asswhiping just for the sake of having more teams.

But the thing is, part of the very reason some of these schools can't compete now is due to the disparity in cash from the top BCS schools to the non-BCS schools. When you have schools such as Baylor in the Big 12 that are raking in 3 mil a year in bowl payouts to sit around and win a few games a year while a team like TCU in the Mountain West who this year will probably get maybe $600,000, it causes a wide disparity in income, and that doesn't include teams like Texas who will end up raking in like 5 mil or more in bowl payouts this year. The system as it is now in inherently causing it to become harder and harder for the non-BCS schools to continue competing due to this disparity in income. That's the other half of the whole "The non-BCS schools can't compete" argument that people always tend to ignore. The money issue, as well as the recruiting advantage the BCS schools have in saying "Hey you can win a national championship here" while a non-BCS school can't make that statement at all because as Utah showed last year, you can go undefeated and still not make the national championship game. And let's not even mention the voter bias in the polls for BCS vs non-BCS schools which you have to look no further than where TCU is ranked currently in comparison to the other 1 loss schools in the country. They're currently ranked BEHIND not 2, not 4, but 8 2-loss teams.

Originally Posted by Aordolin

All the bowls are basically played in a 10 day peroid from christmas through the new year. So you would have to get all of them to agree to change their dates around to fit the new playoff system, so it really wouldnt be the bowls anymore. They might be called the Liberty.. Holliday, etc bowls but they arent really, not anymore. And lets say you do get it all arranged, say a playoff game which happens to feature (for the sake of argument) Oregon vs Wisconsin. Why on earth would anyone at the Liberty Bowl care for that matchup? Who in Memphis is going to care? No offense to those schools but those arent exactly schools that travel really well. Not everyone can have LSU, Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Penn State or other school that have large national followings and whos fans will go wherever the game is. Its about money which is why it wont work. Your never going to get everyone to agree. They had enough problems just getting the 4 BCS bowls to agree. Which is why if a playoff is ever created I believe it will be in the format I said earlier. The bowls dont care about a playoff, they just want to make money. The schools wont agree to a major overhall because it would affect the money alot of them can make for going to a bowl who dont really have a chance to win national titles.

That's part of the reason I'd advocate for the first round of a 16 team playoff to be played on the campus of the higher seed. Then, you're only adjusting the dates around of 7 bowls, 1 of which won't be moved since it's already on New Years Day. Thus, you'll have 6 bowls with slightly adjusted dates. The other 21 bowls can still be around if they want to play host to the other schools that didn't make the 16-team tournament.

[Skipaway]

Why would people bother helping the non-BCS teams? What did they bring to the table? More poor people to share the wealth?

[rudel.dietrich]

This still keeps with the dumb notion of losing late in the year having more impact that losing early in the early.
It would be like in baseball a game being lost in April counting as one loss and one is September counting three.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

This still keeps with the dumb notion of losing late in the year having more impact that losing early in the early.
It would be like in baseball a game being lost in April counting as one loss and one is September counting three.

Well, it's always more fair to have balanced schedules and no playoffs of any kind at all.

However, Americans love the idea of playoffs.

[rangers85]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Why would people bother helping the non-BCS teams? What did they bring to the table? More poor people to share the wealth?

Because they're part of the same level of play as those "uber awesome" BCS teams. Plus it's not always the fault of the non-BCS team that they're not in a BCS conference.

Want to know the real reason Baylor is in the Big 12 instead of say TCU? Because Ann Richards, a Baylor alum, as governor of Texas at the time the SWC disbanded and UT and A&M were heading to merge with the Big 8. Richards basically told Texas and A&M that if they didn't take Baylor with them, they'd lose their state funding. The same reason is why Texas Tech is in the Big 12, because some of the prominent people in the state legislature at the time were Tech alums.

Should be it be TCU's fault to lose out on the millions of BCS dollars all because of who was at governor at the time of the Big 12's formation? I'm not sure the circumstances of other schools, but I'm sure TCU's case isn't an isolated case of politics getting in the way of college football. Heck, I know because of politics, every time the MWC talks of expansion, UNLV is required to bring up Nevada for inclusion no matter if it wants to or not because of the state politics.

The other part is the fact that there's no set requirements that say that if a conference does X, Y, and Z they can become a BCS conference as well. Or if a BCS conference does A, B, and C, they lose their BCS status. The fact that it's a rigid system and doesn't allow for flux is another reason for the detest of it.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by rangers85

Because they're part of the same level of play as those "uber awesome" BCS teams. Plus it's not always the fault of the non-BCS team that they're not in a BCS conference.

Why should people care the reason for what team to be in which conference?

I do agree that it would be great if there could be separate levels for uber awesome BCS teams and non BCS teams though.

Maybe a relegation system would satisfy your complaint about how the world is not fair, but honestly why should people really bother? There are lots of schools in even lower divisions, and not like that's bad for them. They probably lose less money.

[mikev]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

Huh? I'm far from a Notre Dame football fan, but this is one year they certainly deserve to be named among the 16 best teams in the country.

As far as I'm concerned, Notre Dame's biggest highlight this year was LOSING to USC. They really didn't beat anybody except Michigan all year.

Whatever, though. They're in the BCS top 8, so I suppose they get to be in a BCS bowl.

Oregon is gonna get screwed though.

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by mikev

As far as I'm concerned, Notre Dame's biggest highlight this year was LOSING to USC. They really didn't beat anybody except Michigan all year.

Whatever, though. They're in the BCS top 8, so I suppose they get to be in a BCS bowl.

Oregon is gonna get screwed though.

I agree with your post. I think they're one of the top 16 teams this season, but not in the top eight. They get to be in a BCS bowl because they're in the top 12 (and because they draw huge crowds and fantastic ratings).