au_weagle 0 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Obviously with the new system, and new bowls being created, it isn't possible to give the EXACT scenario, but if they were matched up 1-4, here's what it would have looked like. The rankings used were before the bowls happened. 2002: 1 Miami (11-0) vs. 4 Georgia (11-1) 2 Ohio St (13-0) vs. 3 Iowa (11-1) ..had the AP been voting under this system, UGA probably would have been bumped to 3 to avoid a Big Ten rematch. On the Bubble: 5 USC (10-2), 6 Kansas St (10-2)...not much controversy there. Score 1 for playoff. 2003 1 Oklahoma (12-0) vs. 4 Michigan (10-2) 2 USC (10-1) vs. 3 LSU (11-1) On the bubble: 5 Georgia, 6 Texas, 7 Tennessee, 8 Ohio St, 9 Florida St, 10 Miami- all 10-2... this would have been a nightmare. Controversy either way. 2004 1 USC (12-0) vs. 4 Cal (10-1) - Had this system been in place Utah would have been 4, because USC beat Cal earlier. 2 Oklahoma (12-0) vs. 3 Auburn (12-0) On the bubble: 5 Utah (11-0), 6 Texas (10-1), 7 Louisville (10-1)... another controversial year either way. 2005 1 USC (12-0) vs. 4 Ohio St (9-2) 2 Texas (12-0) vs. 3 Penn St (10-1) On the bubble: 5 Notre Dame (10-2), 6 Oregon (11-1), 7 Auburn (10-2), 8 Georgia (11-2)... this year, everyone knew USC and Texas were the two best, playoff unnecessary. NCG- 1, Playoff- 1 2006 1 Ohio St. (12-0) vs. 4 LSU (10-2) 2 Florida (11-1) vs. 3 Michigan (11-1) One the bubble: 5 Louisville (11-1), 6 Wisconsin (11-1)... Controversy either way. Would have been an awesome playoff though. *** Had AU not lost to UGA at home would would have been 4th at 11-1. 2007 1 Ohio St (11-1) vs. 4 Oklahoma (11-2) 2 LSU (11-2) vs. 3 Virginia Tech (11-2) On the Bubble: 5 Georgia (10-2), 6 Mizzou (10-2), 7 USC (10-2), 8 Kansas (11-1), 9 West Virginia (10-2), 10 Hawaii (12-0)...This year was a mess. Controversy either way. 2008 1 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. 4 Alabama (12-1) 2 Florida (12-1) vs. Texas (11-1) On the Bubble: 5 USC (11-1), 6 Utah (12-0), 7 Texas T (11-1), 8 Penn St (11-1), 9 Boise (12-0)...controversy either way 2009 1 Alabama (13-0) vs. 4 TCU (12-0) 2 Texas (13-0) vs. 3 Cincinnati (12-0) On the Bubble: 5 Florida (12-1), 6 Boise (12-0)...created additional controversy, the consensus this year was that Bama and Texas should play. NCG- 2, Playoff- 1 2010 1 Auburn (13-0) vs. 4 Stanford (11-1) 2 Oregon (12-0) vs. 3 TCU (12-0) On the bubble: 5 Wisconsin (11-1), 6 Ohio St (11-1), 7 Oklahoma (10-2)... created additional controversy, the consensus was Auburn and Oregon were the two best teams. NCG- 3, Playoff- 1 2011 1 LSU (13-0) vs. 4 Stanford (11-1) 2 Alabama (11-1) vs. 3 Oklahoma St (11-1) On the Bubble: 5 USC (10-2 on probation), 6 Arkansas (10-2), 7 Boise (11-1)...little to no controversy with playoff (maybe thats why it finally passed this year). NCG- 3, Playoff- 2. Conclusion: A 4 team playoff using the BCS standings would have resulted in MORE controversy 3 years since 2002, while it would have alleviated controversy 2 years. All other, there was controversy either way. Obviously this won't be how it actually works. The SEC and Big12 will play in the "Champions Bowl" for one spot, the Big Ten and Pac 12 will play in the Rose Bowl for on spot, and then the ACC and 3 at large teams will play in two other bowls (probably Fiesta and Sugar) for the other spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rednilla 5,438 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Meh, I don't know that I agree with the idea that it would have created more controversy; the farther away from number 1 you get, the less deserving teams are to get in. Even if there's controversy over who gets the number 4 spot, the teams who are vying for that spot wouldn't have even gotten a shot at it in the old system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
au_weagle 0 Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 Yeah but usually there are only a couple of teams that can honestly say they were in the Top 2. In this scenario, there are sometimes as many as 10 teams that can say they deserve the fourth spot, because you get into more 1 and 2 loss teams. In years like 2005, 2009, and 2010, there wasn't much argument on who were the best 2, but a ton of argument beyond that. In years like 2002 and 2011, a top 4 was much more concise than the top 2. Just happenstance. I still think it's very interesting that a playoff finally got approved the year after a season where a 4 team playoff would have worked perfectly. All in all, though, I would have been excited to see these playoffs. 2004 would have been awesome, especially if all 4 undefeateds made it. 2006 would have been cool, Michigan almost got a rematch with OSU instead of Florida. 2008 and 2011 would have been epic as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wareagletd 0 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 In 2009, playoff should've been there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellitor 33,657 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Obviously with the new system, and new bowls being created, it isn't possible to give the EXACT scenario, but if they were matched up 1-4, here's what it would have looked like. The rankings used were before the bowls happened. 2002: 1 Miami (11-0) vs. 4 Georgia (11-1) 2 Ohio St (13-0) vs. 3 Iowa (11-1) ..had the AP been voting under this system, UGA probably would have been bumped to 3 to avoid a Big Ten rematch. On the Bubble: 5 USC (10-2), 6 Kansas St (10-2)...not much controversy there. Score 1 for playoff. 2003 1 Oklahoma (12-0) vs. 4 Michigan (10-2) 2 USC (10-1) vs. 3 LSU (11-1) On the bubble: 5 Georgia, 6 Texas, 7 Tennessee, 8 Ohio St, 9 Florida St, 10 Miami- all 10-2... this would have been a nightmare. Controversy either way. 2004 1 USC (12-0) vs. 4 Cal (10-1) - Had this system been in place Utah would have been 4, because USC beat Cal earlier. 2 Oklahoma (12-0) vs. 3 Auburn (12-0) On the bubble: 5 Utah (11-0), 6 Texas (10-1), 7 Louisville (10-1)... another controversial year either way. 2005 1 USC (12-0) vs. 4 Ohio St (9-2) 2 Texas (12-0) vs. 3 Penn St (10-1) On the bubble: 5 Notre Dame (10-2), 6 Oregon (11-1), 7 Auburn (10-2), 8 Georgia (11-2)... this year, everyone knew USC and Texas were the two best, playoff unnecessary. NCG- 1, Playoff- 1 2006 1 Ohio St. (12-0) vs. 4 LSU (10-2) 2 Florida (11-1) vs. 3 Michigan (11-1) One the bubble: 5 Louisville (11-1), 6 Wisconsin (11-1)... Controversy either way. Would have been an awesome playoff though. *** Had AU not lost to UGA at home would would have been 4th at 11-1. 2007 1 Ohio St (11-1) vs. 4 Oklahoma (11-2) 2 LSU (11-2) vs. 3 Virginia Tech (11-2) On the Bubble: 5 Georgia (10-2), 6 Mizzou (10-2), 7 USC (10-2), 8 Kansas (11-1), 9 West Virginia (10-2), 10 Hawaii (12-0)...This year was a mess. Controversy either way. 2008 1 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. 4 Alabama (12-1) 2 Florida (12-1) vs. Texas (11-1) On the Bubble: 5 USC (11-1), 6 Utah (12-0), 7 Texas T (11-1), 8 Penn St (11-1), 9 Boise (12-0)...controversy either way 2009 1 Alabama (13-0) vs. 4 TCU (12-0) 2 Texas (13-0) vs. 3 Cincinnati (12-0) On the Bubble: 5 Florida (12-1), 6 Boise (12-0)...created additional controversy, the consensus this year was that Bama and Texas should play. NCG- 2, Playoff- 1 2010 1 Auburn (13-0) vs. 4 Stanford (11-1) 2 Oregon (12-0) vs. 3 TCU (12-0) On the bubble: 5 Wisconsin (11-1), 6 Ohio St (11-1), 7 Oklahoma (10-2)... created additional controversy, the consensus was Auburn and Oregon were the two best teams. NCG- 3, Playoff- 1 2011 1 LSU (13-0) vs. 4 Stanford (11-1) 2 Alabama (11-1) vs. 3 Oklahoma St (11-1) On the Bubble: 5 USC (10-2 on probation), 6 Arkansas (10-2), 7 Boise (11-1)...little to no controversy with playoff (maybe thats why it finally passed this year). NCG- 3, Playoff- 2. Conclusion: A 4 team playoff using the BCS standings would have resulted in MORE controversy 3 years since 2002, while it would have alleviated controversy 2 years. All other, there was controversy either way. Obviously this won't be how it actually works. The SEC and Big12 will play in the "Champions Bowl" for one spot, the Big Ten and Pac 12 will play in the Rose Bowl for on spot, and then the ACC and 3 at large teams will play in two other bowls (probably Fiesta and Sugar) for the other spot. This site has the last BCS ranking before the Bowls started. I think you were looking at a site that was only showing the polls for some of those years like ESPN does it. I say this because in 2002 USC was 4 Iowa was 5 and Wash. St. was 6 in the BCS. 1, 2, and 3 are givens but I do not know how they would do number 4. IMO it would be USC or Wash. St because they were co-Pac 10 champs. I would put Wash st. in because they beat USC heads up but for all you committee haters out there it is possible through corruption the committee would put USC in. 2003 you are correct although there would not be much controversy because Michigan was the Big 10 Champ. Miami and FSU were also 10-2 Conference champs. Miami won head to head so FSU is out. Miami was ranked 9th so there is no way they get in over #4 Michigan. The other 2 loss teams were not conference champs. 2004 Would have been interesting. I have it as 1 USC v. 4 Texas and 2 OU v. 3 Auburn. The question and controversy here is does the committe take 1 loss #4 Texas over Unbeaten #6 Utah?...I think they do. 2005 1, 2, and 3 are correct. I think Oregon with 1 loss to USC and being 5th in the BCS would get in over a 2 loss OSU. If OSU is chosen then it is another case for the committee corruption believers. 2006 1-3 are correct again. For #4 you don't mention USC at all and I think they would get in over LSU being 5th in the BCS and a conference champion. Little controversy here. 2007 You are spot on although not much controversy. Again can't just look at records. Must look at who was conference champs. 2008 You are right on the controversy although Alabama would not get in with 1 loss not winning the conference and maybe Texas also. Instead you have USC IN and possibly Penn St. as 1 loss conference champs. 2009 You have the right seedings although not much controversy 2010 1, 2, and 3 are correct although I think 1 loss Conference Champ Wisky gets in over Stanford. Controversy here is which 1 loss Big 10 champ gets in. Michigan St was ranked to low and Wisky beat OSU so I say Wisky is in...I disagree with your assertion that Auburn and Oregon were clearly the 2 best teams in the nation. TCU was unbeaten and from top to bottom much more consistent than Auburn and Oregon because those 2 teams had major defensive weaknesses and TCU did not. I think TCU would have beaten Oregon but lost to Auburn. 2011 With all due respect How in the Sam Hill do you not include 2 loss, 5th ranked in the BCS, Pac 12 Champ Oregon on the bubble? They whipped Stanford at Stanford. If Stanford got in over Oregon then that is HUGE!!!! controversy my friend. In your conclusion. The standard tie ins the Rose and Champoions Bowls have with the Pac 12 Big 10, SEC, and Big will not necessarily take place the years those Bowls host semifinal games. They have agreed to host semifinals games the same year every 3 years. My tally would be Playoffs 9 NCG 1 (the Vince Young year). Let's be clear about something. No matter what process is used there will almost always be controversy. I would personally rather have that controversy error on the side of more teams in the playoffs up to 8 rather than fewer teams such as 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augolf1716 21,935 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 good job weagle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Flight 0 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 The BCS got it wrong 10 out of 14 times. That is why BCS stands for Basically Crappy System. Controversy is always going to be there. But my response to we are finally going to have a playoff was quite simple. :party: :party: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :trampoline: :partey: :happydance: :bananadance: :yay: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.