CollegeSportsInfo.com Forums
http://collegesportsinfo.com/forum/

Ideal playoff format for the BCS/FBS level
http://collegesportsinfo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4156
Page 1 of 1

Author:  jlog3000 [ Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Ideal playoff format for the BCS/FBS level

After hearing the proposal of the new playoff format the NCAA made for the FBS level, starting in 2014 with this "national semifinals" system; I was wondering and thinking about a different playoff format. I believe that EVERY FBS school should be eligible (as long as the school has 6 or 7 wins for a 0.500+ win%), regardless of the conference a school belongs to. The final conference tournament/bowl champions will automatically be qualified in the NCAA BCS tournament, regardless of poll rankings. I believe that a maximum of 48-50 teams should be eligible for the postseason. Here's an example of a playoff realignment:

Region East-A: Big East (with Independent Notre Dame)
Region East-B: ACC (with Independents Army and Navy)
Region Mideast-A: SEC
Region Mideast-B: C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt
Region Midwest-A: Big 12
Region Midwest-B: Big Ten
Region West-A: Mountain West (with Independent BYU)
Region West-B: Pac-12

And as far as the top bowls go, the winners of the "Sub-Regionals" within the Elite Eight will compete within those specific bowls. For instance, the East Regionals should sponsor the Orange Bowl, while the Mideast Regionals should sponsor the Sugar Bowl, then the Midwest Regionals should sponsor the Fiesta Bowl, and the West Regionals should sponsor the Rose Bowl.

Let's just say that it should add a little college basketball flavor in such terms. Any opinions or thoughts, feel free to share.

Author:  46566 [ Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ideal playoff format for the BCS/FBS level

I would prefer a simple 16 team playoff. 10 conference champs and 6 at large bids. Home games would be at the higher seeded school. seeding would be simple(carry over of BCS formula) The catch would be that all conference champs are automatically ranked higher then the auto bids. The reason for this is to favor winning your conference title and to help the lower conferences money problems.

The bowl games would pick any remaining school that's 6-6 or higher but the games will be played Monday to Friday while the playoffs could be Saturday and Sunday. The bow games would be asked to chose conferences close to the site of the bowl.(I.E. the sugar bowl would be asked to chose from the sun belt,SEC,C-USA,Big East and the Big 12)

Author:  TKthunder [ Thu Jan 03, 2013 4:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ideal playoff format for the BCS/FBS level

I'm a big fan of the 8 (the next progressive step after 4) could take in the Big5/ND+the highest non AQ and 1-2 at larges. If ND is in the top 12 they make it in but dont take the non AQs bid.

This year it'd be ND, Bama, Florida (at large), KSU, Stanford, FSU, NILL, and Wisconsin (sorry Oregon).

Wisconsin @ ND (wouldn't it be great TV if they got upset)
NILL @ Bama (blow out)
FSU @ UF (rematch)
Stanford @ KSU (finally a good game)

While I'd like to says switch it around some I think the highest teams would wants that seeding...

Next round:
NYD BCS bowl 2pm: KSU v ND
NYD BCS bowl 7pm: UF v Bama

NCG:
Bid out location Jan 9th: Bama v ND

Yeah Oregon, Georgia, Boise St getting left out sucks but you have to draw a line somewhere and 16 is far too radical for now. We like it but most in control don't, there was a minor push for 8. (Also pretending Lville is in the ACC and SJSU/USU are in the MWC)

If NILL had lost another game or Boise won 1 more they'd be there and noone would say a thing, and if ND wasn't good this year Oregon would have made it too, then we wouldn't hear much complaining.

Oregon win your conference, Georgia win your conference, Boise just have 1 loss.

Author:  jlog3000 [ Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ideal playoff format for the BCS/FBS level

I like and respect your own ideas about the format. But I have an observation. What would happen if the FBS/BCS goes regional, just like on D-II and D-III?

Author:  sec03 [ Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ideal playoff format for the BCS/FBS level

Looking at last nights BCS Championship game between Alabama & Notre Dame, it certainly did not look like #1 was playing #2. Alabama looked like they certainly belonged there; Notre Dame looked so over-matched.

That's why the play-off system is crucial if crowning a national champion is going to have a more objective process to it. Also, the selection process needs to scrutinize better Notre Dame's scheduling that does not have to negotiate a conference slate and maintaining an abundance of home and friendly site games. Not to take away from ND's fine undefeated, regular season, but that was not the #2 team in the country. TV pundits can make excuses, but it comes down to delivering or not, not background stories with flare.

Author:  Quinn [ Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ideal playoff format for the BCS/FBS level

sec03 wrote:
Looking at last nights BCS Championship game between Alabama & Notre Dame, it certainly did not look like #1 was playing #2. Alabama looked like they certainly belonged there; Notre Dame looked so over-matched.

That's why the play-off system is crucial if crowning a national champion is going to have a more objective process to it. Also, the selection process needs to scrutinize better Notre Dame's scheduling that does not have to negotiate a conference slate and maintaining an abundance of home and friendly site games. Not to take away from ND's fine undefeated, regular season, but that was not the #2 team in the country. TV pundits can make excuses, but it comes down to delivering or not, not background stories with flare.


Agreed on the playoff system.

But I also think that the problem starts way earlier.

1) Importance of the Conference Championship Game as a Filter:

I think the conference championship game is an important aspect as well. It's a filter or sorts, whereby the school that finished top in one division needs to play the best from the other division, many times, a school that they might not have played against. And we've even seem some strong opponents from the other division that might not be Top 10 ranked, give the higher ranked opponent from the other division a run for their money, a way to toughen them up for the Bowl game (in this case NCG). And when that lower ranked opponent upsets in the conference championship game, it removes a potential fraud from being in the NCG.

Those filters are a big help to ensure a school is prepared and more worthy of being in the NCG.



2) 1 (and some 2 loss schools) ARE Better than Some Undefeated Teams:

There is also the matter of the ranking system. For some reason, pollsters from the media to the coaches, seem to be stuck in an archaic system where they reward undefeated schools, regardless of who they have played. We have seen this forever with Big East schools ranked in the top 3 going into the final 2 weeks of the season, despite schedules that include 7 Big East games and 4 against FCS, Sun Belt, MAC schools. When a Big East team plays an average CUSA school, it's considered some sort of huge accomplishment or test.

Notre Dame's home win over Stanford in OT was their lone big win. Some might look at their wins over Michigan and MSU or even Oklahoma as huge accomplishments. They were good, don't get me wrong. But not SEC good. The SEC schools play those types of games 5 to 6 times per season in some years. Throw in a CCG over what is usually a top 7 school and it's another one. The Pac-12 has had years like that as well, when you had only 10 members and 7-8 were ranked. Big Ten certianly has had those types of years too with OSU, UM, MSU, PSU, Wis and even Purdue not that long ago (Tiller/Brees years).

Did anyone really think Notre Dame was a better school than Oregon this year? Likely not.



But back to a playoff...it does come back to that. 4 schools isn't quite enough right now but Notre Dame would have had a chance perhaps to play a school like Oregon (if at-large schools could get playoff bids in the future) with the winner moving on to a semifinal and then NCG.

So yes, a playoff system will certainly help in at least 1 way: a school will need to be battle tested in at least 1 game to reach the NCG...which Notre Dame did not have this year. SEC, Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC schools will have (2) games to get it right with the CCG and the Semi-Final (in years when each gets a team in the Playoff4)

Author:  jlog3000 [ Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ideal playoff format for the BCS/FBS level

I believe that the new playoff format would have killed for the "BCS Busters" (or non-AQ conferences/schools). And why removing the Fiesta Bowl away from the BCS? I believe that the BCS should upgrade some Bowls (like the Cotton/Chick-fil-A (formerly Peach)/Gator/Capital One (formerly Citrus), etc.) and each conference champion (AQ and non-AQ alike) should host its own respective Bowl Game; while those in the top 10-25 should compete in the BCS National Tournament.

Author:  TKthunder [ Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ideal playoff format for the BCS/FBS level

ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
I believe that the new playoff format would have killed for the "BCS Busters" (or non-AQ conferences/schools). And why removing the Fiesta Bowl away from the BCS? I believe that the BCS should upgrade some Bowls (like the Cotton/Chick-fil-A (formerly Peach)/Gator/Capital One (formerly Citrus), etc.) and each conference champion (AQ and non-AQ alike) should host its own respective Bowl Game; while those in the top 10-25 should compete in the BCS National Tournament.

The Fiesta will still be a BCS bowl (or whatever it will be called) along with the Cotton and Peach they just don't have tie-ins. And then Non-AQ now get an automatic bid w/ non special requirements. Its easier for them.

Its been rumored that the Fiesta will back up the Rose Bowl when they host the semi final, and the Cotton will back up the Sugar, and Peach will backup the Orange.

So every year 5 of the 6 bowls will be taken by the SEC/B12, B1G/PAC, ACC/ND/SEC/B1G, Semifinal, Semifinal, and leaving one bowl open for the non-AQ (assuming they don't make the playoffs) and an at large.

This year we could have seen.
Rose - B1G/PAC Wisconsin/Oregon
Fiesta - Semi - Stanford/ND
Cotton - NonAQ/At Large - NILL/LSU
Sugar - SEC/B12 - Florida/Oklahoma
Peach - Semi - Alabama/K State

I still think we needed a 7th bowl for more access (most likely would have been played in Houston per reports) which would have added another At Large v At Large matchup like South Carolina/Clemson.
Orange - ACC/ND/SEC/B1G - FSU/UGA

Author:  jlog3000 [ Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ideal playoff format for the BCS/FBS level

tkalmus wrote:
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
I believe that the new playoff format would have killed for the "BCS Busters" (or non-AQ conferences/schools). And why removing the Fiesta Bowl away from the BCS? I believe that the BCS should upgrade some Bowls (like the Cotton/Chick-fil-A (formerly Peach)/Gator/Capital One (formerly Citrus), etc.) and each conference champion (AQ and non-AQ alike) should host its own respective Bowl Game; while those in the top 10-25 should compete in the BCS National Tournament.

The Fiesta will still be a BCS bowl (or whatever it will be called) along with the Cotton and Peach they just don't have tie-ins. And then Non-AQ now get an automatic bid w/ non special requirements. Its easier for them.

Its been rumored that the Fiesta will back up the Rose Bowl when they host the semi final, and the Cotton will back up the Sugar, and Peach will backup the Orange.

So every year 5 of the 6 bowls will be taken by the SEC/B12, B1G/PAC, ACC/ND/SEC/B1G, Semifinal, Semifinal, and leaving one bowl open for the non-AQ (assuming they don't make the playoffs) and an at large.

This year we could have seen.
Rose - B1G/PAC Wisconsin/Oregon
Fiesta - Semi - Stanford/ND
Cotton - NonAQ/At Large - NILL/LSU
Sugar - SEC/B12 - Florida/Oklahoma
Peach - Semi - Alabama/K State

I still think we needed a 7th bowl for more access (most likely would have been played in Houston per reports) which would have added another At Large v At Large matchup like South Carolina/Clemson.
Orange - ACC/ND/SEC/B1G - FSU/UGA


I remember that the WAC champion was the tie-in for the Fiesta Bowl back before the 80's or 90's (which unfortunately the WAC will stop sponsor football next season due to the damn conference realignment and most heading to the Mountain West. Football would still be alive for the WAC if they could find more teams from the FCS level and upgrade them; like the Dakotas schools (North Dakota State, South Dakota and South Dakota State of the Summit [the MVFC in football], and North Dakota of the Big Sky), Nebraska-Omaha (from the Summit, possibly reviving football after abolished it this season to join D-I from D-II), and Northern Colorado and Southern Utah from the Big Sky. And also the Cotton Bowl had the defunct Southwest Conference with its champion as its tie-in host. But that's all history.

Author:  sec03 [ Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ideal playoff format for the BCS/FBS level

Quinn wrote:
Those filters are a big help to ensure a school is prepared and more worthy of being in the NCG.

But back to a playoff...it does come back to that. 4 schools isn't quite enough right now but Notre Dame would have had a chance perhaps to play a school like Oregon (if at-large schools could get playoff bids in the future) with the winner moving on to a semifinal and then NCG.

So yes, a playoff system will certainly help in at least 1 way: a school will need to be battle tested in at least 1 game to reach the NCG...which Notre Dame did not have this year. SEC, Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC schools will have (2) games to get it right with the CCG and the Semi-Final (in years when each gets a team in the Playoff4)


After the process completed itself, I believe most close followers with appreciable objectivity would say a 'Bama-Oregon match would have been the best selection. Perhaps it will take "8" to determine the better two for most years. No system shall be perfect. Agree, getting "battle-tested" should be real important, and it may need to be more than one game. CCGs' do serve a valuable purpose, though 'Bama missed one the year prior---but it was the BCS system, yet deemed the best real #1 & #2 among the options. That's why if the system can have fewer "apples and oranges" factors to assess, perhaps the better. Yet, a new system should not punish any conference that would have a strong playoff candidate(s) beyond the assured one.

While schedules and conferences vary in strength, the guantlet to getting there needs more consistencies.

One thing though, that's a heck of a lot of money ND is taking to the bank and does not have to share. Their fiscal chiefs have been brilliant at working the system for so long. They are very smart in this regard.

Author:  fighting muskie [ Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ideal playoff format for the BCS/FBS level

My ideal playoff would be an 8 team playoff that included the champs of the 5 major conferences and 3 at-large selections awarded to the 3 highest ranked teams who didn't win their leagues. First round games would be at campus sites while the Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Cotton bowls would rotate as the semi-final and title game sites.

I also think their should be an 8 team playoff for members of the American, MWC, C-USA, MAC, and Sunbelt with all but the final being played on campus sites.

Author:  jlog3000 [ Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Ideal playoff format for the BCS/FBS level

fighting muskie wrote:
My ideal playoff would be an 8 team playoff that included the champs of the 5 major conferences and 3 at-large selections awarded to the 3 highest ranked teams who didn't win their leagues. First round games would be at campus sites while the Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Cotton bowls would rotate as the semi-final and title game sites.

I also think their should be an 8 team playoff for members of the American, MWC, C-USA, MAC, and Sunbelt with all but the final being played on campus sites.


Good format. But what about the Fiesta and Peach (I mean, Chick-fil-A) bowls? And we all know with the new national semifinals, it's going to be so hard for the "BCS Buster" conferences and teams to qualify and/or compete for a national title shot.

Author:  46566 [ Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Ideal playoff format for the BCS/FBS level

fighting muskie wrote:
My ideal playoff would be an 8 team playoff that included the champs of the 5 major conferences and 3 at-large selections awarded to the 3 highest ranked teams who didn't win their leagues. First round games would be at campus sites while the Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Cotton bowls would rotate as the semi-final and title game sites.

I also think their should be an 8 team playoff for members of the American, MWC, C-USA, MAC, and Sunbelt with all but the final being played on campus sites.

what about having one of the auto bids be like the auto bid for the "new" high end bowls games. (I.E. the top team out of the 5 make it to your top 8 playoff)

I personally do not like the idea of splitting it into 2 playoffs. If your going to set up 2 separate playoffs why not just have a 16 team playoff?(the first games could be at campus sites) The way home field would be determined is that the 5 power conference champs get a home game. the remaining 3 games would be given to the higher ranked team.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/