My playoff proposal

[quietfan 233]

Okay, here’s my solution, which is worth about as much as the paper it's printed on (and this is an electronic media ). It tends to let the numbers speak loudly and keep the human polls less significant. (I distrust the human element because humans can have hidden agendas that numbers don’t.). It stresses strength of schedule heavily. (We may be unlucky SOS-wise at Auburn this year, but in general don’t we all feel like SEC teams have it harder than anyone else and should be reward for such?) It includes an eight-team playoff. It eliminates automatic conference bids because I think it’s ridiculous to take a 10-2 or 9-3 team over an 10-1 or 11-0 team just because the poorer team happened to get lucky in a conference championship game (See the Big 12 last year). However, it does reward a team that has the guts or strength to survive a 12th conference championship game.

The rankings, or seedings, in the playoffs are determined by rewarding points as follows:

1) 10 points for each victory (for a total possible of 110 points in a typical 11-game regular season)

2) 1 point for each victory by a defeated opponent (Another possible 10 points per game, if the defeated opponent goes 10-1. Again, 110 points possible in a regular season)

3) 0.1 point for each victory by a team defeated by a defeated opponent (Again, a possible 10 points per game if a defeated opponent won ten other games against other 10-1 teams: 0.1 point x 10 victories by the opponent x 10 victories by each of the opponents’ victims. 110 possible points per season.)

4) 3 points for each “controlling” victory, i.e., a victory by 15 points or more. A 15 point--or two score--MOV is sufficient to show control of a game and more impressive than squeaking through by a field goal. However, there is no incentive to risk injuries or embarrass opponents by running up 40-50 point margins. (3 points per game, and 33 points per season, possible.)

5) Victories over ranked opponents–the one place I let the human polls get involved. 2 points for beating an opponent ranked in the top 10 on either the AP or Coaches poll AT THE TIME OF THE GAME; 1 point for beating a top 25 team. I stress rank at the time of the game because the psychological pressure of playing a ranked team occurs at the time of the game, and opponents may get stronger or weaker later in the season. (2 possible points per game, 22 per season)

Thus, there are 35 points at stake in each game, for a maximum possible score of 385 in an 11-game regular season. Conference championship games guarantee no automatic berths because otherwise weaker teams might just get lucky in a conference championship. However, championship games would give those teams access to another possible 35 points, which rewards the pressure and strength of playing a 12th game in a big conference.

The eight teams with the most points after all conference championship games take part in an 8-team playoff described below. Tie-breakers between teams with equal scores are as follows:

1st: Head-to-Head competition

2nd: Records against common opponents

3rd: Fewest penalties (reward the team that makes fewer mistakes or plays the cleanest)

4th: Fewest penalty yards (again, reward the team that plays cleanest, i.e., commits fewer long-distance, “dirty-play” type penalties)

5th: Most seniors on team (Give the graduating seniors a last chance for glory in their college career—underclassmen can try again next year)

(Road vs. home victories could also be factored into the tie-breakers if you like.)

After all of this, the top eight teams would play in four New Year’s Day bowls--1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6, 4. vs. 5. These four winners meet in semi-finals a week after that, with the two survivors meeting in the championship game a week later. That requires only 3 more games in the season, and then only for four or two involved teams. It also give us college football almost up to Super Bowl weekend!

JMHO…

[AUloggerhead 2,227]

One of the strongest arguements against a playoff system in general is that it would overshadow the regular season games. As it stands now every game each week means something to the whole season. If a team were to play in a tough conference or say a tough division in a tough conference (does the SEC West ring a bell?) then they would be out of the running for a spot in the playoff format you're talking about if they suffered a couple of defeats early. The emphasis is all wrong. Rather than inspire the teams to keep fighting for wins, the playoff format might influence teams in a negative way (e.g. a coach might consider their season "over" with 2 early losses, and bench all the seniors to play freshmen to get playing time for next year.)

If you completely ignore legitimate conference winners in the playoff format just because they don't have a spotless or near spotless record, I think you buttress the arguement about the playoff overshadowing the regular season games.

I like the idea of taking only conference winners because that does keep the interest on winning the conference title and every conference game goes up in value as the season progresses. Yes, it's true that a team with some losses might win the conference game & get into the NC tournament. So what? In 2001, 9-3 LSU won the SEC over an 11-1 UT team. Decisively. Rohan Davey to Josh Reed was an unbeatable combination by the end of the year. Remember them passing for 600+ yards against uat? Teams aren't perfect all year long. Some take a little while to gel. LSU that year was a perfect example. By the end of the year they were playing as well as any team in the country. Oklahoma last year got punked by 4 TDs against KSU. 4 TDs. Let me repeat that ... 4 TDs! It may sound harsh but no way they should be eligible to play in the NC. Same with Nebraska's situation when they took an undefeated record out to Boulder & the Buffs hung 62 points on 'em. They didn't even play in their CCG. No way should they have played for the NC that year, either.

I say take the top 8 conference winners but let everyone know up front that no conference is guaranteed a tourney invite (you listening Big East?.)

[quietfan 233]

I understand what you're saying, we just view it differently--which is okay.

As I understand it, you believe taking conference championship game winners preserves the importance of the regular season since a fairly good 9-2 team still has a chance to go all the way if they can win their championship game. Their nine regular season wins still mean something if it gets them to the conference championship game. I understand a certain logic behind that viewpoint even if I don't really accept it.

I, on the other hand, see it as diminishing the regular season--you only have to play well enough during the regular season to get to the conference championship game, so once you've locked that up (like Auburn after the Ole Miss game) the rest of the season is not that important. Why not coast--save your stars until the SECCG & playoffs when you really need them. Plus, I refuse to accept any team with two regular season losses as a national champion unless all teams have two losses, no matter how lucky they get in the championships/playoffs.

I suppose it's sort of a "glass half empty, glass half full" debate over what the regular season means.

I do admit that overly large playoffs, i.e., too many berths, render the regular season moot. The NBA being the classic example, where almost any half-assed team can make it into the playoffs. The NCAA tournament is almost as bad: 64 teams is too many to keep the regular season extremely interesting. I'll bet most of us can predict in November at least half the teams that will get NCAA berths. And the top 10-12 college basketball teams can probably coast through most of their regular season and still win enough games to get a bid. So I definitely would be opposed to a football playoff that went beyond the top 4 to 8 teams.

Of course, another alternative, if you don't like playoffs, is to not have playoffs but pick a national champion after the bowls using my scoring season. [Obviously I like my scoring system--for the reasons outlined before]. I don't think that would eliminate all controversy, but it would remove the human bias element and the eternal "SEC/ACC/Big 12/etc. schedules-who is is better?" debate from the championship calculations.

Thanks for your reaction, though!

[AU4Ever 0]

I don't think the BCS is flawed to a point that it can't come up with the four or 8 best teams in the nation. The BCS Bowls plus one system makes the most sense, IMO. This year, the OB is the big one. And then maybe the Rose or Sugar is next down the ladder. It would be so easy to take the top 4 teams in the BCS, this year that's OU, USC, AU and Cal. USC is No. 1, OU 2, AU 3 and Cal 4. USC and Cal play again in one of the bowls. OU and AU play in the other. Which one they play in doesn't matter. The bowls still have high profile teams in their games and make money. After those two bowl games are played, the winners play in a NC game in one or two weeks. Maybe the weekend before the Super Bowl.

Everyone keeps talking about how complicated it is. Well....it's not complicated for Div III, Div II, and Div 1-AA. They seem to have come up with an equitable solution. But the bowl games keep getting in Div 1-A's way. Last year there was a split championship. And this year could have two or three undefeated teams, and a group of self-professed 'experts' decide who's No. 1. It's stupid, always has been stupid, and always will be stupid. Until the game is played on the field, there will alway be an M before the NC.

[auskull 239]

I like conference champions only. Quietfan, the reason a team, like Auburn, would keep playing after locking up the Conference Championship game is seeding. No. 1 seed would play, lets say, the No. 8 seeded team. Still some flaws but very similar to the current Division IIA system which has been working for some time. In addition, I would shorten the regular season to nine (9) games. That way the season still remains at possibly 13 games total.