BCS charging toward playoffs

[Chaotic_zx 1,070]

It appears that the BCS officials along with the 11 conference commissioners and Notre Dame's AD are charging toward(slowly) a playoff system(http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2012-03-27/BCS-playoff-meeting-format/53796132/1). While I'm sure the pluse one will be adopted, I figured I'd throw out an idea.

It is possible to add a 12 team playoff although it would add 4 games to the schedule for the lower ranked teams(assuming they make the Championship game). The committee is looking at adding one more game(that would make 15 in a season for two teams). So I say cut back to 11 regular season games. Teams not in the playoffs would have their bowls. So every bowl eligible team is going to have a minimum of 12 games. It is possible for a team to play 15 games in a season if they reach the Championship game having played in earlier rounds.

Below you'll find my best guess at how it would look(based off the 2011 conference champs). The four highest seeds get a bye week(just one of the perks). The other seedings were leaning more towards proximity to other teams(kind of like regions). I attempted to make it so that there would be at least one larger institution in the brackets of the four highest seeds. This was an attempt to avoid an easy path for the highest seeds. The games would be played at the higher seeded team's home in the first round. If the traveling team wins round one, they would play home for round two. Home team in round three would be the team that has traveled more. If both teams have traveled the same amount then the higher seed gets the home game. Round four will be the neutral site Championship game.

And don't anyone give me a hard time about OK. St. playing at Arkansas St. in round 2( ).

[autiger221345162924 0]

Giving the top 4 seeds a bye is fine, but their 1st game should be a home game, another perk for being in the top 4.

This looks great, but I don't see it happening...just having a 4 team playoff will be hard to believe.

[dpwspringer 0]

You did not take into account playing a conference champion game when you came up with the 4 additional games.  In a conference champ only tournament, the conference championship games are the first round of the playoffs.  I would like to see the the Rose Bowl, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta/Cotton bowls be for the same 8 conference champs each year such that they were laid out on a regional basis.  Their champs could play in the next round for the east and west championships and then those winners would play for the overall championship. 

But that concept only has room for 8 conferences with 2 divisions each and amounts to a 16 team playoff.  Hopefully the conference expansions/realignments are heading into that direction, or will once they all get on the same page.

[Stripe 5]

You have 11 conferences, I think 2 of the small conferences are supposed to join together starting this year or maybe it's the next. It's been a while since I read about the merger, not sure if it's still happening or not.  This would put D1 at 10 conferences. Furthermore, I think independents can bite my butt, they can join a conference if they want to win it all.

[AuburnEngineer 0]

Aweful  idea simply aweful

[fly757au 0]

I posted my thoughts in another BCS thread......here goes:

I hate letting the polls be the determination, but I think you have to. There is no way to make a truly fair competitive evaluation of a team vs another team without them playing on the field. There are too many teams to do that so you are pretty much stuck with coaches, ex-coaches, writers, and computers. It isn't going to be perfect, nothing ever will, but I think you have to use the some combination, calculation of polls to determine the competitors for the playoff.

8 team playoff

ALL BCS CONFERENCES ARE REQUIRED TO PLAY A CHAMPIONSHIP GAME TO BE IN THE PLAYOFF.

All conference champions will be included in the playoff with the requirement that they are in the top 15 (or 20)of the BCS poll. Conference championships must mean something, completely fair or not. The top 15 (or 20) requirement makes it more fair to other teams. See UCONN 2010. They weren't in the top 25 BCS. The computers didn't even have them in the top 50.

1. SEC champ

2. Big 12 champ

3. Big East champ

4. B1G champ

5. PAC 12 champ

6. ACC champ

7. wild card

8. wild card

The last two spots, and any vacated by non-qualifying conference champs, will be filled by the highest ranked teams not already included in the playoff. If Notre Dame wants in, join a conference and win it, or get a wild card spot.

All conference championships MUST be completed by the first Sunday in December.

This takes 2 weeks prior to Christmas break to complete. These are played at the higher ranked teams home field.

This year, Conference Championships would be 12/1/12. The first playoff round would be 12/8/12 and the second round would 12/15/12.

You are now at the two teams set to play on a neutral field for the title.

Teams can now take a Christmas break and then regroup for practice. Of course, the highest ranked teams will have the longest break.

I think you add the Cotton Bowl to the list of BCS bowls. I believe that you should cycle through the Championship game location, but that in no case should one location host two games a year. That is just ridiculous. If it is your games year for the championship game, it will be the last bowl to be played. This is not a complicated problem and you know the rotation and know which date the game will be years and years ahead. The game will still be the Cotton Bowl, Sugar Bowl, etc. The winner will just be named the NATIONAL CHAMPION.

[Chaotic_zx 1,070]

I did take into account the conference championships. The conference champs and top independent are the only ones allowed in the playoff. It gives every conference a chance and eliminates the non-champ having another chance to beat their conference champ.

The conferences themselves are fluid currently. I was using their overall record after the year of 2011 conferences alignment to determine where they might fall in the playoff. I was also trying to keep it as close to the current number of games as they currently have.

I understand that CUSA and another conference are working out a deal to become a big conference but as I said, I was using 2011 as the starting point.

[21 flames 0]

I like Fly's scenario better. The problem with the lower conferences automatically being included is it penalizes tough conferences for their schedule. Everyone would be trying to move to weaker conferences. Plus, the larger conferences will, rightly, feel entitled and not approve the 12 team playoff because no one wants to see the smaller schools, unless they have proven to be a top contender. Ok St vs Ark St would just about be unwatchable. So, if you could tweak it to account for the disparities in talent and schedule, you may have something.

[Chaotic_zx 1,070]

Maybe it's just me but I don't want to see a team that didn't win it's conference win the National Championship.

[Stripe 5]

Maybe it's just me but I don't want to see a team that didn't win it's conference win the National Championship.

I completely agree. By using conference champions you can eliminate coaches, ex-coaches, writers, supposed experts, and computers all together. You want a chance to play for it all? Win your conference.

As far as the thoughts on weaker conferences being included: It really doesn't matter, either they man up and beat a team, or they get blasted out the first game. Whatever happens they will either go home or earn their place in the next round.  As for independents (I’m talking to you ND, even though you’re not even relevant) If you want to have a shot at winning the NC, Join the Big 10 like you should have years ago.

Until computers, writers, coaches and every other bull$**t poll is removed from the equation college football will continue to crown a MNC. It's not that hard to come up with a version of a playoff that eliminates the favoritism  polls. Don't fool yourself in to thinking it doesn't happen every year. Why these idiots can’t sit down and make it so that the NC is crowned on the field instead of on ESPN will baffle me to the end of time.

Once the 2 weak conferences merge and create the first super conference D1 will be down to 10 conferences and this scenario is super easy. It completely takes all the favoritism out of it. Removes the power from ESPN and the supposed Experts. It also removes power/Favoritism (See Nick Satan’s ballet from last year) from the coaches that if they are doing their job, don’t have time to rank their favorite ice cream much less evaluate 120 football teams and rank their top 25 each week.

Stupid easy, but these idiots couldn't find they way out of a wet paper bag with a chainsaw.

[fly757au 0]

I understand the idea of wanting conference champs to play. I also understand that you will have teams that don't deserve to be in a playoff there every year. I believe that you will also detrimentally affect realignment. I think you will see conference members VERY wary about adding teams that would be good for their conference but detrimental to them having an easy path to a playoff.

I can say that I am love the idea in theory but I believe that it falls far short of a good idea in practical use.

I feel like my idea accounts for conference champions well. If you are not in the top 20, you do NOT deserve to be in a playoff. Hell, you can even make it in the top 25 if you like that better. The rankings are not perfect, but comparing conference champs to conference champs isn't either.

I can assure you that when Auburn has a great football team and we lose one close, poorly played game, to another great football team and don't get to play in ATL you will like my system giving us a chance in a playoff. The other team getting to ATL is their prize. They now control their destiny to get into the playoff and we wouldn't. Please save the everyone hates us, the system is biased against us, and we will be dropped to 34th in one week arguments.

I would be pissed seeing a UCONN playing in a playoff over Auburn in that situation.

I just believe that you have to some type of system in place to protect the other teams from a completely undeserving team getting in the playoff over a MUCH MUCH more deserving team.

[dpwspringer 0]

I understand the idea of wanting conference champs to play. I also understand that you will have teams that don't deserve to be in a playoff there every year. I believe that you will also detrimentally affect realignment. I think you will see conference members VERY wary about adding teams that would be good for their conference but detrimental to them having an easy path to a playoff.

I can say that I am love the idea in theory but I believe that it falls far short of a good idea in practical use.

I feel like my idea accounts for conference champions well. If you are not in the top 20, you do NOT deserve to be in a playoff. Hell, you can even make it in the top 25 if you like that better. The rankings are not perfect, but comparing conference champs to conference champs isn't either.

I can assure you that when Auburn has a great football team and we lose one close, poorly played game, to another great football team and don't get to play in ATL you will like my system giving us a chance in a playoff. The other team getting to ATL is their prize. They now control their destiny to get into the playoff and we wouldn't. Please save the everyone hates us, the system is biased against us, and we will be dropped to 34th in one week arguments.

I would be pissed seeing a UCONN playing in a playoff over Auburn in that situation.

I just believe that you have to some type of system in place to protect the other teams from a completely undeserving team getting in the playoff over a MUCH MUCH more deserving team.

The problem is that which team is deserving and which team is not is in the eye of the beholder. 

[fly757au 0]

I completely, whole-heartedly agree with the fact that deserving depends on where you sit.

I am fairly certain that the vast majority can agree that if you are not in the TOP-25 of the polls (even taking into account bias, and general dislike for human polls) that you should not be in a playoff.

I cannot see that blindly placing a conference champion in a national playoff is the right way to go.

[dpwspringer 0]

I completely, whole-heartedly agree with the fact that deserving depends on where you sit.

I am fairly certain that the vast majority can agree that if you are not in the TOP-25 of the polls (even taking into account bias, and general dislike for human polls) that you should not be in a playoff.

I cannot see that blindly placing a conference champion in a national playoff is the right way to go.

Blindly you say... you do realize that a conference champion had to win the championship on the playing field, don't you?  What is so blind about that, isn't that better than giving a team that lost their conference championship a do-over by putting them into the championship game via votes that are often biased with various agendas, agendas that have nothing to do with fairness? 

Look, if there are ways to cheat, influence polls, buy votes, etc to gain an unfair advantage, there are teams/coaches that have proven over and over again that they will do it.  That's a fact, just like the best team in a particular conference is their conference champion.  We don't need the second best team in a conference in a playoff where the goal of the playoff is to determine the overall champ.  If the conference champ is not the best team in that conference, then let that conference fix its championship game such that it does produce its best team.

[fly757au 0]

I'm not going to apologize for thinking the Big East champ shouldn't get an automatic bid if they aren't ranked in the top 25. I agree that the polls are biased and far from perfect. I welcome any proposal of a better way to compare teams that don't play each other.

If you believe that LSU was the best team this year I can't you. If the two best teams in the SEC had played in Atlanta, it would have been a rematch there.

I feel that straight conference champs going into a playoff will have some detrimental unintended consequences. If you thought conference realignment was blowing up now, just wait until we see what conference champs automatic bids would do.

Do you really want to see a 2-3 loss team get into a playoff? Hell, UCONN lost to Temple in 2010!

[dpwspringer 0]

If you believe that LSU was the best team this year I can't you. If the two best teams in the SEC had played in Atlanta, it would have been a rematch there.

Was LSU the SEC champion or not and if not, why not?   This last year was weird and it will lead to some changes in the how the BCS champ is determined.  We are SEC fans with different degrees of bias but I guarantee you if in 2006 (or whenever it was) they had a rematch of Ohio State and Michigan we would not have had that rematch last year... the rest of college football would not stand for it and they would have insisted on some rule changes to prevent that from happening again.  The current BCS championship system is so fundamentally flawed that decades from now the new generation of fans will have a hard time understanding why such a ridiculous system was ever used.

[fly757au 0]

They were and it got them into the NC game.

I would like to consider this scenario.

Assume LSU and Oregon played a tight game last year with both teams looking horrible and LSU eeking out a win. The rest of the season plays out as it did in regards to the SEC. Let's assume Oregon went through their schedule without so much as a challenge.

You are saying Oregon deserves to be in the playoff while Alabama doesn't even though they lost to the same team as their only loss. This loss precluded Alabama from playing in the conference championship while it didn't affect Oregons conference championship at all.

[Chaotic_zx 1,070]

Yes I am saying a team that doesn't win its conference has no place in a playoff. I do not care if they have lost 5 games and won their conference. Neither do I care if a one loss team is better than the ones in the playoff. I also do not care if the team left out is Auburn. The smaller conferences have every right to complain. The bigger conferences won't schedule them with regularity(at least the good teams anyway).

The bigger conference schools will claim that their conference is tougher(and it is). If they did schedule them then we wouldn't exactly be having these kinds of conversations. If you leave the BCS up to voters then you will see the likes of FSU, OSU, Texas, Oklahoma, USCw, and bama every freaking year no matter how much they lost from the previous year or how bad they were. I couldn't care less about polls voted on by by sports writers or coaches that can't pay attention. With a playoff a team won't have to deal with the garbage of 2004 like Auburn did.

Think about it this way. Higher rated athletes will not sign with teams like Western Kentucky or Bowling Green. Not getting those kinds of athletes make it almost impossible to win a national title. Even if those teams go undefeated they aren't even going to sniff the title game. Hence why higher rated athletes won't sign there. It's a never ending cycle that is just wrong. I for one am willing to overlook a 4 loss team getting blown out in round two to make the situation right. Besides that, I don't have to watch.

It's ok that we disagree.

[fly757au 0]

If everyone agreed then the conversation would get old real quick.

I guess what I am saying is that I don't have an issue with two teams from a conference getting into a playoff. If they both deserve to be there. If they end up meeting in the NC game, or a reg playoff game, then they both earned it, even if it is a rematch from the regular season.

I think we have differing opinions of deserving in this case.

I just don't like the idea of giving a sub-par team a free shot in a playoff because they play in a weak conference.

[Stripe 5]

The problem lies with who actually deserves to be there. by leaving it up to voters and computers the favoritism will continue to ruin college football.

Like I said before, If you place conference championship teams in a playoff, at least those teams won their conferences. Regardless of wins-losses, If you can't win your conference you don't deserver to be there. This whole mess with Bama going to the NC game, Satan flat out cheating by the way he voted ( Favoritism), ESPN influencing voters with their slander and malice and also their overly praising the favorites, It all ruins the purity of the game.

The only way to make this all right is take the power out of voters hands. No polls The only way to do that fairly is Conference champions in a playoff. It doesn't matter that the #2 team in the SEC doesn't go, they should have stepped up their game. It doesn't matter that a 3 loss team from a minor conference gets in and a second SEC team doesn't. The fact is that once play begins we will actually have a NO BS champion. the Champion will come from playing the game on the field and not from the voters. Every conference will have had a chance to play in the playoffs and prove they are the best. Those little teams will get the experience they need to progress their team and conference in the long run even though they get bounced in the first or second round each year.

Everyone opposed to conference champions and crying about the little conferences getting in over a second SEC team really need to take a look at your thought process. That is one of the reasons college football is screwed up now...favoritism. I deserve….whine, cry, scream. Prove it on the field, Win your conference, and play in the playoffs. It’s that simple. No more crying about being second place and who is deserving. Win and be deserving or come back next year.

Listening to people say “well a second place SEC team with 2 losses should go over a tiny little CUSA school with 3 losses that won their conference, Because…”  If the second place SEC team was so deserving to go to the playoffs they wouldn’t be second place in the SEC. They would have won the conference. 

With all this being said, we may need to adjust our conference champ game selection to where the best 2 teams in the conference play in the CCG instead of the east and west 2 best teams play. Personally feel that change needs to be made now.

Overall conference champs to a playoff is a completely fair and easy way to remove all the favoritism from college football. Remove the favoritism polls and computers. Remove the power from ESPN that they have touted for way too long. Crown a true National Champion.

[fly757au 0]

I really like the idea of creating a good system to allow the two best teams in the conference championship game. What would you propose to create a system that fairly handles that?

I agree that their is favoritism in the polls, tons of it, however, I do think the BCS top 25 is a pretty fair representation of the best 25 teams. The problem, IMO, lies in the top 10 and that is the real core of the important teams when considering the playoff scenario.

I think your scenario will play out as soon college football becomes about football and not money.

[Stripe 5]

I really like the idea of creating a good system to allow the two best teams in the conference championship game. What would you propose to create a system that fairly handles that?

I agree that their is favoritism in the polls, tons of it, however, I do think the BCS top 25 is a pretty fair representation of the best 25 teams. The problem, IMO, lies in the top 10 and that is the real core of the important teams when considering the playoff scenario.

I think your scenario will play out as soon college football becomes about football and not money.

I believe the PAC 12 already is using a model for this. It could be modded to fit in the SEC.

[dpwspringer 0]

I really like the idea of creating a good system to allow the two best teams in the conference championship game. What would you propose to create a system that fairly handles that?

I agree that their is favoritism in the polls, tons of it, however, I do think the BCS top 25 is a pretty fair representation of the best 25 teams. The problem, IMO, lies in the top 10 and that is the real core of the important teams when considering the playoff scenario.

I think your scenario will play out as soon college football becomes about football and not money.

I believe the PAC 12 already is using a model for this. It could be modded to fit in the SEC.

Nope, the PAC12 played 9 conference games and had their 2 division champs play for their championship.  Last year USCw was not eligible so a weak (5-4 conf, 6-7 over all) UCLA team lost to Oregon in the first PAC12 championship game.

[Stripe 5]

I really like the idea of creating a good system to allow the two best teams in the conference championship game. What would you propose to create a system that fairly handles that?

I agree that their is favoritism in the polls, tons of it, however, I do think the BCS top 25 is a pretty fair representation of the best 25 teams. The problem, IMO, lies in the top 10 and that is the real core of the important teams when considering the playoff scenario.

I think your scenario will play out as soon college football becomes about football and not money.

I believe the PAC 12 already is using a model for this. It could be modded to fit in the SEC.

Nope, the PAC12 played 9 conference games and had their 2 division champs play for their championship.  Last year USCw was not eligible so a weak (5-4 conf, 6-7 over all) UCLA team lost to Oregon in the first PAC12 championship game.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. for some reason I was thinking that they took the top 2 teams in the conference.

[dpwspringer 0]

I really like the idea of creating a good system to allow the two best teams in the conference championship game. What would you propose to create a system that fairly handles that?

I agree that their is favoritism in the polls, tons of it, however, I do think the BCS top 25 is a pretty fair representation of the best 25 teams. The problem, IMO, lies in the top 10 and that is the real core of the important teams when considering the playoff scenario.

I think your scenario will play out as soon college football becomes about football and not money.

I believe the PAC 12 already is using a model for this. It could be modded to fit in the SEC.

Nope, the PAC12 played 9 conference games and had their 2 division champs play for their championship.  Last year USCw was not eligible so a weak (5-4 conf, 6-7 over all) UCLA team lost to Oregon in the first PAC12 championship game.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. for some reason I was thinking that they took the top 2 teams in the conference.

I'm sure there was some PAC12 people wishing they could have.  They had 3 very good teams last year- Oregon, Stanford, and USCw.  USCw was on probation and could not play while Oregon and Stanford were in the same division.  Sanford was the PAC12's highest ranked team when the BCSC opponents were being decided and their only regular season loss was to Oregon... if only they had gotten a do-over and beat them in the PAC12 championship game maybe they could have gotten into the BCSCG?  Who knows?