NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:33 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Dec 22, 2002 1:40 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 11:00 am
Posts: 41
Location: Greenville, SC
Here's something to use as a starting point for discussion on a proposed playoff plan. If you disagree on the format (which I do since I want 16 teams), provide an alternative playoff format.

http://www.floridatoday.com/football/college/stories/122102bowl.htm


I will post the article in multiple parts:

Officials discuss possibility of playoffs

By David Jones
FLORIDA TODAY

The Bowl Championship Series has three years left in its contractual agreement with ABC. But talks have already begun in order to ensure, come 2006, college football fans will get what they want.

A playoff.

"I think that is a process that has already begun," Sugar Bowl executive director Paul Hoolahan said. "The discussions are taking place and have been for a while now."

Any changes would have to be approved by NCAA's Executive Committee and would likely have to be made within the next year to give the television networks enough time to put together appropriate bids. The executive committee, made up of 16 university presidents, meets Jan. 14 in Anaheim, Calif.

Adding a playoff would open the door for the Capital One Bowl to make a move to get into the BCS bowl mix. The Fiesta, Sugar, Orange and Rose are currently affiliated with the BCS and host the national championship game on a rotating basis.

If the NCAA decides to go to a one-game playoff format while continuing the current plan in which one of the BCS bowls is the designated national title game on a rotating basis, it could open the door for fifth bowl to join the mix.

The idea that seems to be creating the most excitement and consideration from the NCAA is playing out the entire bowl season -- but holding back one of the four BCS bowls for a national championship game.

Under the format being discussed, the entire bowl season would be played. Then there'd be a revote and re-tabulation of the points system to determine which two teams would meet in the national title game.

If one of the four major bowls is held back for the designated championship game, the BCS would need another bowl to fill that fourth spot.

Capital One Bowl executive director Tom Mickle plans to jump into the new waters with both feet, if such an opening happens.

"We want to participate in the next bid cycle," Mickle said. "We plan to be ready. . . . We're waiting for it."

Fiesta Bowl chairman Steve Horrell feels there's a strong possibility the one-game playoff is going to be accepted by the NCAA. University presidents have been discussing the format for months and many like it.

"I think last year, the way things turned out, changed the whole perspective for everyone," Horrell said.

Miami ended up playing Nebraska -- which didn't even win its own division in the Big 12 -- for the national title in the Rose Bowl.

The year before, the Hurricanes ended up playing in the Sugar Bowl while Florida State met Oklahoma in the national title game. Never mind that Miami had beaten FSU earlier in the season.

"That made people look a lot harder than they used to" at a playoff, Horrell said. "And after Nebraska played Miami, we hadn't even played one game in the current (national title) rotation in the BCS and people are already talking about a playoff."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Dec 22, 2002 1:41 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 11:00 am
Posts: 41
Location: Greenville, SC
Part 2

Big moneymakers

Horrell feels many of the bowl directors would be comfortable with the one-game playoff format -- as long as the bowls were still involved. The heart of the issue is protecting the entire bowl system that pays the majority of the bills in Division I football.

"I can see (having a playoff)," Horrell said. "But I think you better look in the stands and see if anybody's there at the other bowl games."

That's what makes the one-game playoff so attractive to so many. The BCS bowls would still be important -- maybe even moreso than ever -- because the national title game could come from any of the major bowls.

Another suggestion being looked at is reopening the bidding for 2006 and letting cities bid each year on the host site -- instead of one of the major bowls. That's the format college basketball uses.

The major bowls, of course, would not quietly accept such a plan, making it highly unlikely.

"You've got to figure out: Is a playoff going to mean more money?" Hoolahan said. "I don't think so."

The total revenue from the 2003 BCS games is projected to be $86.8 million -- about $81 million of which will be distributed within the ACC, Big East, SEC, Pac-10 and Big Ten. Another $5.5 million will be rewarded to other Division I-A and I-AA conferences to aid in their finances.

More than $250 million will be shared over the next three bowl seasons -- assuring financial success for college football. Hoolahan is among those who wants to leave the system alone. He notes the BCS has been good for the NCAA and good for the bowls.

Gambling on a new format involving a playoff could be a disaster, creating financial ruin for the bowls and college programs.

"It could be," Hoolahan said . "I think that it's not something that can be looked at whimsically. . . . The bottom line is, college football has made a lot of money under the current system and the most important thing is to keep Division I-A football healthy and the system productive."

The BCS has taken a publicity hit again this year -- pairing Iowa against Southern Cal in the Orange Bowl, while the Rose Bowl did not get its traditional Big Ten vs. Pac-10 matchup.

"The bowl system has never been prefect," said BCS coordinator Mike Tranghese, the commissioner of the Big East. "We're sitting here and we're talking about all these negatives, but I'll remind everybody eight years ago you could not have brought together Ohio State and Miami. Ohio State would have been in the Rose Bowl and Miami would have been in the Orange Bowl.

"And everybody would have been clamoring for it and they would have said, 'Look at the stupidity of this system.' Now we bring them together and everybody wants to focus on everything else except the fact that the two teams 1 and 2 and undefeated are getting a chance to play each other. So I think we're not perfect, but I think we're doing what we started out to do."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Dec 22, 2002 1:42 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 11:00 am
Posts: 41
Location: Greenville, SC
Part 3

Other options

The BCS does something else universities like: guarantee piles of cash for its members.

"They're not about great television matchups. They're not about rewarding the teams. They're about making money," ESPN college football analyst Lee Corso said. "That is the object of all the bowls, except the one big one."

The one-game playoff, however, could bring an even bigger pile of cash when the networks begin the bidding for the new BCS contract for 2006.

"I think it's a possibility," Mickle said . "But I'm not sure if that's going to accomplish what you want. I think it would still be pretty tough to pick a 1-2 game, even after the bowls.

"The next logical step may be to set the seeding for the New Year's Day bowls, say the top four seeds. I don't think the presidents are going to be favorable of an eight-team playoff, so (four teams) is probably what you are going to see, with one game after the bowl are over. It's just a matter of how you're going to get there."

That's also a format that's going get a strong look. By seeding teams and pairing them off, it would also keep the BCS bowls lucrative. And it would keep the chance for a one-game national title alive.

Florida athletic director Jeremy Foley is outspoken about the need for a playoff. He doesn't like the idea of playing the bowls, then selecting two teams to meet in a national title game.

"I would think a better scenario there is you use the same system we have now, take the four winners (from the BCS bowls) and let them play," he said.

The two winners from that playoff would then meet for the national championship.

"It's three more ballgames," Foley said. "Let's take as an example a couple of years ago. The only undefeated team is Oklahoma and they played FSU (in the Orange Bowl). So they play it off and now they revote, and Oklahoma has to play someone else? That doesn't make any sense to me. But you sit here and you seed them one through eight and you put all those in the BCS bowls and then you let the four winners play. It may get people closer to what they want."

If the Capital One Bowl is able to get involved in the 2006 pool of BCS bowls, it could face rough competition. Mickle expects the Alamo, Cotton and Gator to be among those trying to also get in.

"I think there will probably be six or seven cities bid," he said. "There were nine that bid for one spot in 1992. The Fiesta Bowl, to its credit, came through with a hell of a bid."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Dec 22, 2002 1:43 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 11:00 am
Posts: 41
Location: Greenville, SC
Part 4

Controversy reigns

Regardless of the format the NCAA goes to in 2006, there will be some controversy. Even this year, with unbeaten Ohio State playing unbeaten Miami in the Fiesta Bowl, coaches in the Buckeyes' own league weren't sure it was fair.

"You have a team that is going to play in the national championship game and they are co-champions," Michigan coach Lloyd Carr said of Ohio State.

Iowa shared the Big Ten title with the Buckeyes, and the two didn't meet during the regular season. But the Hawkeyes lost a game, to Iowa State.

Outback Bowl chairman Carter McCain is like so many others at the non-BCS bowls -- looking in cautiously.

What the NCAA ultimately decides could determine whether the bowls underneath the BCS survive . If a playoff format becomes so important that the bowl system crumbles, those like the Outback could face a sudden death.

"When there is a season when you have three or four teams go undefeated, there will be more of a mounting pressure for a playoff game," McCain said. "If it happens, then you might see more reception to a four-team playoff or a two-team playoff. I think it really depends on what happens in the BCS the next four years."

In the meantime, other bowl officials are listening and watching closely.

"I would be receptive to any suggestions that would make our current bowl system better," Orange Bowl executive director Keith Tribble said. "But at this time, I could not say if I would be for or against a game after the BCS bowls without any additional data."

Tribble wants the NCAA to leave things the way they are. But he understands what ultimately is ahead.

"I would prefer to continue the present system, but I realize there must be changes made to address any inequities in the current BCS," he said.


----------------------------------------------------

So what do you guys think?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Dec 22, 2002 4:15 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 136
at least they're talking.

i know a lot of fans would like to see a 16-team playoff including the mid-majors, but that will NEVER happen. university presidents will not go for additional games in january or a 16-game season. the big six will not share any more money with the mid-majors. and mid-major champions most years could not beat the #4 team from the SEC.

that said, i think the best option is an 8-team playoff featuring the conference champions of the big six and two at-large teams determined by final bcs rankings. there would be a caveat that if a conference champ (like florida state this year) fails to rank among the top 12 or top 10, it would lose its spot to a third at-large team. first round would be played at the traditional BCS bowls, with the top four seeds going to their traditional tie-in and the bottom four going wherever (this may not result in a 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 etc. matchup, but it will ensure that first round matchups do not repeat regular season games and to the extent possible will keep the rose bowl big ten vs pac ten). this is what it might look like this year:

Orange Bowl: #1 Miami vs. #8 Kansas State
Rose Bowl: #2 Ohio State vs. #6 Washington State
Sugar Bowl: #3 Georgia vs. #5 Iowa
Fiesta Bowl: #7 Oklahoma vs. #4 USC

The Rose Bowl is a repeat of an in-season game, but it retains the traditional Big Ten-Pac Ten matchup. Or you could seed it however you want.

Two Saturdays later, the semifinals are played at pre-determined sites. Places like San Antonio, St. Louis, Anaheim, Tampa -- which do not have a major college team.

The championship is played the following week, in between the NFL Conference Championships and the Super Bowl, again at a pre-determined site.

That has about a 10% chance of happening.

The more likely scenario is the one that was revealed in the above article, that the top two teams after the bowls go at it a week later. The BCS would be used to seed the top two teams and send them each to their traditional bowls. In this scenario, we have

Fiesta: Miami vs. Iowa
Sugar: Georgia vs. USC
Orange: Florida State vs. Oklahoma
Rose: Ohio State vs. Washington State

So #1 does not play #2. The championship could include any of the top 5 teams (I don't think any team beyond USC could crack the top two, no matter what happens to Miami and Ohio State).

The problem is, college football is entrenched in ITS way of doing things, and they make half-assed changes on the margins to try to make everyone happy rather than solving the core problem, that fans want a competitive playoff format where the best teams play one another. This gets 30% of the way there. Just like all the other NCAA solutions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:40 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 11:00 am
Posts: 41
Location: Greenville, SC
You are right, atleast they are talking.

I hope they don't go with the system where the use the BCS and have #1 vs. #2 game with 3 other BCS bowls, then after those games are played and redo the BCS standings and have a new #1 vs. #2 game. Some will say "why not a 3rd time? why stop after 2?"


I would love a 16 team playoff, but that won't happen by 2006. To get to 16 team playoffs is going to take years.

Here's my option on the whole playoff while keeping the BCS intact. I hate the BCS concept but I am living with it.

My plan:
-----------

BCS expands to 6 bowls and 8 conferences (9 team membership minimum). No indies allowed:

6 bowls
----------

Rose
Sugar
Fiesta
Capital One
Orange
Cotton Bowl

(or a 7th option..Gator Bowl)

8 Conferences
-------------------

ACC (includes UCF)
Big East (includes Notre Dame,Toledo, Marshall, Navy)
SEC
Pac-10
Big Ten
Big Twelve
MWC ( includes Hawaii, BSU & Fresno St.)
C-USA (includes Toledo)


Set-Up
---------

The 6 bowls would alternate the National title game every year.

The 5 Non-Title Bowls would play Jan 1st and the National title game on Jan 8th.

8 conference champs plus 2 at-large (at-large slots added to replace Conference Champs with 3 loss or more, I don't want ranking to be used to determine eligibility)

At-Large selections would be limited to a 2nd team from any BCS conference or any non-BCS team. If a 3rd at-large selection becomes available, a 3rd team froma BCS conference can thus be selected.

The Orange Bowl & Fiesta would serve as National Semi-Finals (when they are hosting the Title Game, Capital One would replace tehm in Semi-Final).

If a Bowl loses one of it's traditional conference affiliation then it gets an at-large selection.

An at-large can be seeded ahead of it's conference champ, but it can't be selected ahead of it's conference champ for any of the semi-final games. An At-large team must be in the BCS top 12.

The winners from the semi-finals meet up in title game.


Traditional Matchups (non-title years)
--------------------------

Rose: Big Ten vs. Pac 10
Sugar: ACC vs. SEC
Cotton: Big XII vs. MWC
Capital One: C-USA vs. Big East
Orange: BCS #1- #4
Fiesta: BCS # 2 - #3


This season:
----------------

FSU would have been excluded from the BCS, opening a 3rd at-large bid ( ACC would still receive it's share of the BCS money though).

Notre Dame would have been Big East #2.

Since the Capital one would be used as a semi-final, it's affiliations would moved to other bowls. But the way things worked out, the Sugar bowl loses both traditional affiliations and would normally get 2 at-large picks, 1 used for semi-final seeding. SO 1 at-large (either Notre Dame or K-State or Texas) & TCU (originally of the Capital One) for the Sugar. The Rose Bowl also loses an affiliton and gets 1 at-large. The Rose Bowl would choose first and take Iowa to replace Ohio St. Wash St would normally have gone to Roses since it's not ranked in top 4 and USC just happen to be co-champs & at-large selection.

Bowls:

Fiesta Bowl: National Title Game: Orange winner vs. Capital One winner.

Orange: #1 Miami vs. #4 USC (at-large/co-champ)
Capital One: #2 Ohio St. vs. #3 Georgia

Rose Bowl: Wash St. vs. Iowa (at-large/co-champ)
Sugar: Notre Dame or K-State or Texas (at-large) vs. TCU
Cotton Bowl: Oklahoma vs. Colorado St.

(though a rule could be used to allow a swap of MWC & C-USA champs if a matchup could place a Texas based team into the Cotton Bowl which would move TCU to Cotton Bowl and Colorado St. to Sugar)


The end result would be that we'd have a playoff (4 teams but it's a start). The BCS can allow the Rose Bowl (5 years out of 6) to keep it's traditional matchup more often and you'd get less threats of lawsuits from non-BCS because you added 2 conferences.


Last edited by tigerfan79 on Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Dec 22, 2002 9:56 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 136
how do you justify leaving florida state out but keeping tcu and colorado state in? florida state is ranked ahead of both, has a better bcs rating (the others have none, since the bcs ranks only the top 15) and is a conference champion.

the only way the bcs opens up to allow conferences other than the big six to compete for its payouts is by lawsuit, which you mention, but no one has done more than pay lip service to so far. the bcs pays out 87 million, the top conferences pocket 81 million, and they like it that way.

i would rather institute a rule in the bcs that guarantees a spot to any champion of a mid-major who finishes in the top 10 or ahead of any big six champion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:24 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 11:00 am
Posts: 41
Location: Greenville, SC
Conspiracy....


What affects a team's BCS rating the most is the AP & Coaches' Polls. Polls are very subjective because it's based on the opinions of human beings. If pollsters are told that 6 conferences are the elite conferences and the rest of the conferences have "weak" teams, many pollsters will then vote BCS teams higher. because their opinion is comprimised. The BCS says 6 conferences are elite. This enters the pollster's mind. If suddenly the BCS starts saying 8 conferences are elite, pollsters will then start to think their teams are strong and they will start to climb the polls better. How else do you explain why BYU can win a National title in the 1980's and couldn't do it today with a perfect record...it's because pollsters have begun to believe the idea that unless your BCS, you are crap.

Bowling Green eventually faltered, but how come did it take them so long to enter polls when they were still undefeated and were rated near the bottom of the top 25. Granted, they may have played weaker opponents, but that still doesn't mean they are weak.

As for the computer formulas, they aren't perfect. If they were, then we'd need only 1 computer formula and no need for voting. Also, no one knows other than then their creators what exactly is the formula. Some of the formulas could be rigged in a way to favor a particular conference or team. (Look at FIFA, world governing body of soccer's ranking formula, it's favors particular regions by placing more weight on teams and less weight on other regions.)

As for strength of schedule, it's horrible. I mean Team A goes 11-0 beats out a 9-2 team, you say they beat a good team...how's that? their opponents record could be inflated. That's why they look at opponent's records and opponent's records, but that still isn't far enough because it can be misleading. Most pollsters don't even look at a team's opponents' opponents records. They just look at who a team beats. They don't usually check to see if an opponents record is padded as well. They just care if the team they are looking has a padded record or not. Not to mention, strength of schedule numbers don't even take into consideration if games were home or away (which is a big difference in college football).

You can't tell me that Colorado is a better team than Colorado St. this year. Colorado finished ranked higher than Colorado St. (Human vote). Colorado St never even passed Colorado in the polls, even after they beat Colorado. Colorado St. was ranked 2 spots below Colorado 2 days after the CSU win.

As for strength of schedule, at the end of the season, Colorado's was 10th and Colorado St. was 50th (or close to that). But I can say Colorado's was padded because it played in the Big XII against opponents that padded their schedules with 1-AA opponents, Sun Belt teams and Troy St. Sure they beat Nebraska who was 7-6, but I'm sure Nebraska was weaker than their record indicated. But strength of schedules don't always reflect if an opponents is also padded. K-State went 10-2 on a strength of schedule of 54 (but I doubt that factored into Colorado's strength of schedule). Pollsters only saw a 10-2 K-State (and so did SOS formula as well.)

Why I mention Colorado and Colorado St. as an example? Had Colorado beaten Oklahoma, it would have gotten a guaranteed spot at 10-3 into the BCS, but a team that beat them a 9-2 Colorado St. was not even considered.

The BCS is rigged to favor it's conferences and rigs the numbers to reflect that. Like the old axiom, "Numbers can be made to lie". And if you keep saying something over and over long enough, people will start to believe they are true. How else do you think some people believe the BCS is perfect.

Florida St. went 7-1 in the ACC & it got lucky and won in Maryland. Otherwise it would have been in Maryland's 2nd straight ACC crown. Nobody would have questioned an 11-2 Maryland's (they finished 10-3) inclusion into the BCS like some are questioning then inclusion of a 9-4 Florida St.



Last edited by tigerfan79 on Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2002 5:04 am 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 136
ok, but the polls can just as easily work in a mid-major's favor. boise state lost its only contest against a bcs program, to arkansas. 41-14. not even competitive. arkansas proceeds to play a schedule with alabama, tennessee, auburn, LSU and georgia -- teams that beat all comers from mid-major conferences -- and goes 9-4. boise state plays only two other opponents with a winning record all season: hawaii and fresno state. take a look at who is ranked higher: boise is at #15, and arkansas is "also receiving votes". because every week, while boise was beating up on rice, utep, tulsa and wyoming, they were picking up votes in the poll. and when arkansas lost to alabama, tennessee and kentucky, they were losing votes. marshall has enjoyed the same phenomenon, despite going 0-4 against bcs programs the last three years (unc, virginia tech, florida, michigan state).

i agree with you that the pollsters are generally too lazy to give this thing the attention it deserves. and i also think that boise state is a quality program, as is colorado state. but in general, the writers' and coaches' perspectives on a conference's relative strength is borne out of its performance. the only mid-major school that went undefeated out of conference is bowling green. and its wins came courtesy of missouri and kansas, to name two, neither of whom won six games all year.

colorado state WAS ranked ahead of colorado in the espn polls of september 14, 21 and 28, and again on november 2, 9, 16 and 23. that's half the season. they only dropped behind the buffs because they lost to unlv.

i think you can easily make the claim that colorado is the superior team -- a 5 point loss on the road to a rival whose game of the year takes place in september (when barnett's teams are notorious for being underprepared) notwithstanding. until the big xii championship, each team had three losses. colorado proceded to beat the same ucla team that beat colorado state. they beat better opponents, teams who have more wins in an 8-game conference schedule than 5/8 of the mwc had in a 12-game season. and their other losses came to 10-2 usc and 11-2 oklahoma, two of the top programs in the country by any definition. csu lost to 7-5 ucla, 8-5 fresno state and 5-7 unlv. those losses hurt more than the wins over wyoming, byu, nevada or san diego state help.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2002 5:05 am 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 136
and not that i'm an fsu fan, but fsu beat maryland 37-10 at maryland. that's not lucky. that's a good ol' fashioned woodshed job.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2002 1:29 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 11:00 am
Posts: 41
Location: Greenville, SC
But you get my point that ranking is not the best measure to determine if someone makes it to the BCS or not. If it was, then why come up with the whole BCS formula?

That said, my idea is not firm and can be tweaked in such way as to drop teams based on ranking. But I do feel the BCS needs to bring in more than just one more bowl for th idea of a limited playoff to work.

I also don't want to have a #1-#2 game during the bowls based on the BCS and then have the formula redo the numbers again just to spit another #1-#2 after the bowl season. If the BCS were to have two #1-#2 matchups like that, it would be worse than the current situation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2002 5:58 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 136
if i ruled college football, there would be two immediate changes injected into the system to ensure that the best teams end up on top after a 12-game season:

1) schedule reform. every team from every conference must schedule two bcs opponents out of conference, and three road games out of conference every two years (in a 12-game season). i would have the conferences take over some aspects of scheduling, and try to get annual conference matchups in september like the big ten-acc challenge. conferences that rarely play one another like the sec and pac ten. the mwc and wac. etc etc. rotate the matchups every two years. ensure that you have to beat a quality opponent to earn your ranking.

2) no polls until the first week in october. it's a fact that where you end up in the polls has a lot to do with where you start. and since these polls start in early august, weeks before the first game, it can take a team weeks to get on the radar screen while a perennial power like florida or ucla is allowed to lose 2 or 3 games. since we all know the writers and coaches blindly move teams up to the next available spot when they win, and drop them to the first available slot when they lose, and RARELY leapfrog, it would be nice if the first rankings were based on competition rather than prediction.

then we have a far more accurate picture of who's who.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:42 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:15 pm
Posts: 396
Location: Knoxville
sbro,

You seem to have spotted the answer! :) Unfortunately it seemed a little fuzzy, so let me clear it up.

In your discussion with tigerfan79 on the 22nd and 23rd, you both made valid points about the strength of schedule problem. An up and comming program like Marshall often has trouble scheduling BCS opponents. How can they prove that they deserve a BCS bowl? How many BCS conference schools could go undefeated in a non BCS conference? There are maybe 4 to 6 non BCS schools that could compete (break even or better) in a BCS conference on any given year.

The answer lies in your 23 Dec post. The conferences need to schedule 2 nonconference games per year. All schools would have 4 home and 4 away conference games and 1 home and 1 away nonconference games. The last 1 or 2 games would be scheduled by the schools. Schools that already have traditional non-conference games can be accomodated by the conferences. (KY -Louiseville for example, or SC - Clemson )

This way all your non BCS teams will get to play somebody good, and cannot complain when they get beat!

If the new 1A rules actually reduce the number of 1A schools, this could actually work! ;)

Oh well. I can dream at least.

FBfan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 11:36 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2660
Location: Phoenix Arizona
This year may be difficult to challenge the BCS as the championship game was a big TV hit with overtime and two undefeated teams, it does not change the fact that the BCS has two major flaws. The Big East/BCS commish stated recently that the BCS will not have many changes when the contact is renewed in 2006 especially concerning non BCS conferences. This leads into the first problem with the BCS.

The BCS needs to eliminate the at large bids and only include conference champions. Either include the four non BCS conference champions as playin games for the two at large teams or eliminate one of the BCS bowls.

Sorry Iowa fans your team proved they did not belong in this years BCS. Likewise Washington State proved that the Pac 10 did not deserve an at large bid. Yes Southern Cal won the Orange bowl, however could not win the Wahington State game. It should have been hello Holiday bowl for Southern Cal. Agreed the polls are very bias and were the major reason that Southern Cal got an at large bid.

The standard argument is SOS and a playoff would hurt the regular season. Then less please elimate the at large BCS bids to ensure that the regular season is kept important. Win your conference championship or else go to a non BCS bowl.

The second point to improve the BCS would be to take the four BCS bowl winners and play a four game championship. By including only conference champions, the championship would be won on the field and not in the polls. Adding one game would just continue to cause conflicts. Which of the four BCS winners (Southern Cal, Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma) would you picked. Well we have to go with Ohio State as one team, however, who would pick for the other.

Back to the first point, the BCS will most likly change very little in 2006 unless the NCAA or some other body steps in. The following will revenue idea is the reason that the BCS will not change until the NCAA mandates changes and takes back control from the folks who run the confernces.

If the BCS add a four team playoff using the current BCS bowl winners, the bowls would be preserved and the TV contract would be worth zillions of $. Lets say the contract would be 320 million. Divide by 16 shares for 20 million each.

The four non BCS conferences would play in for the two at large bids with the losers sharing one of the shares of 20 million.

Each of the six BCS confernces and the two winners get 20 million each with the total at 9 shares.

The four BCS winners would each get a 20 million for a total of 13 shares.

The two winners of the playoff would each get 20 million for a total of 15 shares.

The champion would get the final 20 million and the 16 share.

Revenue sharing could be completed in several type of formats and the conference could deside the best to share among confernce members.

Assumming that Ohio State would have won the playoff, the Big 10 would have got 4 shares for 20 million and the Pac 10 champion of Washington State would have got one share for 20 million assumming they lost in the first round in the Rose bowl.

The Pac 10 would have only got one share this year and this is reason the BCS will be difficult to change. Factor in Notre Dame that would have to join a confernce to qualify and you see the why the BCS will probably not change in 2006 unless the NCAA is involved.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Playoff Discussion
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2003 10:36 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:15 pm
Posts: 396
Location: Knoxville
I suggest the go slow approach. My playoff would use the current BCS bowls. Two bowls on a rotating basis would pit 1-vs-4 and 2-vs-3 on New Years or the Saturday before. The 2 winners would play the next Saturday. The BCS bowl left out could chose any 2 other teams than those 4.

While not perfect, it does have some advantages. 1. It uses the current bowl system. 2. It extends the season only 1 week (or less if you uses Saturday B4 and after). 3. You are unlikely to have 5 undefeated teams that play anybody. (You cannot be the man till you beat the man. If you don't have any top 20 scalps, you can't complain.) 4. Sbro's post on the New NCAA standards thread of Dec 5 stated that some D1a's will drop to 1aa or worse. An 8 or 16 team playoff would not be appropriate untill the shake-out has occurred.

FBfan


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group