GWPFFL BrianW Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 So everything is set, here is how it would've gone down if I was in charge... 12 Teams Get in 6 automatic qualifyers from the BCS conferences Top 4 BCS Conference Champions receive 1st round byes Final 2 BCS Conference Champions round out seeds 5 and 6. No limits on the amount of teams that can come from one conference. I would try to avoid conference foes meeting in the first 2 rounds if at all possible Final 6 At Large spots, based on the Final BCS Standings 1. Auburn -- SEC Champions 2. Oregon -- Pac 10 Champions 3. Wisconsin -- Big Ten Champions 4. Oklahoma -- Big 12 Champions 5. Virginia Tech -- ACC Champions 6. Connecticut -- Big East Champions 7. Texas Christian 8. Stanford 9. Ohio State 10. Arkansas 11. Michigan State 12. Boise State First Round 8. Stanford vs 9. Ohio State 5. Virginia Tech vs 12. Boise State 6. Connecticut vs 10. Arkansas 7. Texas Christian vs 11. Michigan State Arkansas and Michigan State would flip-flop to avoid a potential Wisconsin-Michigan State Quarterfinal Game Quarterfinals 1. Auburn vs Stanford/Ohio State winner 4. Oklahoma vs Virginia Tech/Boise State winner 3. Wisconsin vs Uconn/Arkansas winner 2. Oregon vs TCU/Michigan State winner Semifinals Auburn Bracket Winner vs Oklahoma Bracket Winner Wisconsin Bracket Winner vs Oregon Bracket Winner National Championship A True tried and tested National Champion would be crowned, and no one could dispute it. Regular Season incentive still there, as winning your conference is a true premium for the top 4 teams. Mid-majors still have an excellent shot to be rewarded (in this case both TCU and Boise made it). Games at the end of the year would actually have more meaning. Think about Ohio State-Michigan for example. Ohio State still would've had to win to get into the tournament, but not only that, but they still would've had a potential 1st round bye to play for, if Wisconsin would've slipped up. Teams like Michigan State who only slipped up one time, or Arkansas would still get another chance. Does anyone want to see Arkansas or Stanford right now? I guess I can only dream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 I assume 1st round and 2nd round games would be played on the higher seeds home field? This would make it better on two fronts. One, it destroys the argument often used against play-off systems saying that you'd need to get a fan base to travel as many as 3-4 times over the course of a month. In this case, there would only be a small amount of tickets made available to the traveling team. Secondly, it destroys Rocker's issue about making the regular season less important. Because there's massive incentive for ending up as high on the pecking order as you can. Because getting a bye and a home game is great. And getting a home game in the 1st round is better than going on the road. The only thing that I would change is blow up the seedings and just go by the BCS rankings. If there's one thing I like about the BCS, it's the fact that the rankings themselves actually tend to make sense. If you want to keep the BCS AQ bids alive, that's one thing, but I don't think you need to seed the 6 conference champs 1-6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 A playoff would make the current best sporting event on the planet - NCAA March Madness look like a pee-wee jamborie. That the idea these f sticks can't figure out a way to get this done is beyond me. as a die hard Pac 10 fan I can't believe that the P10/B10 leaders can't figure out a way to negotiate and continue to be the major hurdle. Chit, this year's Rose Bowl isn't even a Pac 10 Big 10 matchup!!! not that big of a deal anymore- this isn't 1978........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted December 9, 2010 Author Share Posted December 9, 2010 I assume 1st round and 2nd round games would be played on the higher seeds home field? This would make it better on two fronts. One, it destroys the argument often used against play-off systems saying that you'd need to get a fan base to travel as many as 3-4 times over the course of a month. In this case, there would only be a small amount of tickets made available to the traveling team. Secondly, it destroys Rocker's issue about making the regular season less important. Because there's massive incentive for ending up as high on the pecking order as you can. Because getting a bye and a home game is great. And getting a home game in the 1st round is better than going on the road. The only thing that I would change is blow up the seedings and just go by the BCS rankings. If there's one thing I like about the BCS, it's the fact that the rankings themselves actually tend to make sense. If you want to keep the BCS AQ bids alive, that's one thing, but I don't think you need to seed the 6 conference champs 1-6. Yeah I've thought about that too, but even if you're gonna go with home games for the 1st 2 rounds, I would still say that winning your conference should earn you a home game in the BCS. NOW, if you were going to say, the Big East no longer deserves an AQ... that is an entirely different debate. But here's the thing, I'm pretty sure the powers that be in the Big East probably have a fantastic relationship with the powers that be in the Big Ten, Pac 10, and SEC. Because as those 3 conferences go, so does the rest of the BCS conferences in lockstep when it comes to this stuff. If you're gonna give them an AQ, then I think that AQ should be rewarded with a home game. Not only that, but that would leave the door open for 2 Non AQ's getting home games, lending even more importance to the regular season in those final weeks. Yeah, you'll have debate at the bottom, but I'd rather have debate their then some system that only selects 2 teams. There would be no question who the National Champion is after a playoff like this. I agree with you, if nothing else, the BCS is a great ranking system, which is why I'm more than happy to use it if you're evaluating who the top 12 in the country are. But just the top 2, when you play such a small percentage of available opponents? I think it is an absolute crime. But I do think that there needs to be a premium on accomplishing a feat such as a Conference Championship. Because it is in fact accomplishing something. Auburn and Oregon aren't impressive to me because they were voted #1 and #2 in the BCS, they are impressive to me because they won their leagues. It's earned. Getting to the "National Championship" now is not earned, its awarded. That's the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 (edited) After catching the error that ended up moving Boise State to #10 and LSU to #11, here are the final BCS Rankings: 1 Auburn .9866 2 Oregon .9720 3 TCU .9102 4 Stanford .8365 5 Wisconsin .8041 6 Ohio State .7660 7 Oklahoma .7297 8 Arkansas .7274 9 Michigan State .6922 10 Boise State .6137 11 LSU .6134 12 Missouri .5276 13 Virginia Tech .5032 14 Oklahoma State .4897 15 Nevada .4336 16 Alabama .4328 17 Texas A&M .4151 18 Nebraska .3967 19 Utah .2549 20 South Carolina .2418 21 Mississippi State .1828 22 West Virginia .1330 23 Florida State .1140 24 Hawaii .0778 25 UCF .0545 26 Connecticut .0000 (*) -- Big East Champ is not in top 25 teams ******************************************************* Brian, I get your comments about the conf. champs from BCS automatic qualifiers, however, I think we should only give that sort of a nod to the top four of the six automatic qualifying conferences. Therefore, what about this ... top Four BCS Automatic Qualifying Conference Champs get seeded 1-4, next eight are slotted by BCS Ranking: Seedings: 1 Auburn (SEC Champ) 2 Oregon (Pac 10 Champ) 3 Wisconsin (Big 10 Champ) 4 Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ) 5 TCU 6 Stanford 7 Ohio State 8 Arkansas 9 Michigan State 10 Boise State 11 LSU 12 Missouri NOTE: West Virginia (#13) and Connecticut (n.r.) sit at home b/c they're not in the top 12 BCS rankings. ********************** Missouri ... AT ... TCU LSU ... AT ... Stanford Boise State ... AT ... Ohio State Michigan State ... AT ... Arkansas ********************** TCU / Missouri Winner ... AT ... Oklahoma Stanford / LSU Winner ... AT ... Wisconsin Ohio State / Boise State Winner ... AT ... Oregon Arkansas / Michigan State Winner ... AT ... Auburn ********************** Oklahoma Game Winner (#4) ... vs ... Auburn Game Winner (#1) --- at stadium selected years in advance like the Super Bowl Wisconsin Game Winner (#3) ... vs ... Oregon Game Winner (#2) --- at stadium selected years in advance like the Super Bowl ********************** Winner of 1/4 Game vs. Winner of 2/3 Game ... at stadium selected years in advance like the Super Bowl ...this way, each of the top 8 teams gets a 'home' game...and the final three games are played at neutral sites, increasing the probability that the better team wins (as opposed to being pushed over the top by a particularly large home field advantage).... Edited December 9, 2010 by muck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 FYI: Last year would have looked like this before the bowl games were played if you followed the rules I laid out above: 1 Alabama 2 Texas 3 Oregon 4 Ohio State 5 Cincinnati 6 TCU 7 Florida 8 Boise State 9 Georgia Tech 10 Iowa 11 Virginia Tech 12 LSU ********************************** LSU ... AT ... Cincinnati Virginia Tech ... AT ... TCU Iowa ... AT ... Florida Georgia Tech ... AT ... Boise State ********************************** Cincinnati / LSU Winner ... AT ... Ohio State TCU / Virginia Tech Winner ... AT ... Oregon Florida / Iowa Winner ... AT ... Texas Boise State / Georgia Tech Winner ... AT ... Alabama ********************************** Ohio State Winner (#4) vs. Alabama Winner (#1) -- at neutral site Oregon Winner (#3) vs. Texas Winner (#2) -- at neutral site ********************************** Winner of 1/4 vs Winner of 2/3 -- at neutral site Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Two years ago, it would have been: 1 Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ) 2 Florida (SEC Champ) 3 USC (Pac 10 Champ) 4 Penn State (Big 10 Champ) 5 Texas 6 Alabama 7 Utah 8 Texas Tech 9 Boise State 10 Ohio State 11 TCU 12 Cincinnati ********************************** Cincinnati ... AT ... Texas TCU ... AT ... Alabama Ohio State ... AT ... Utah Boise State ... AT ... Texas Tech ********************************** Texas / Cincinnati Winner ... AT ... Penn State Alabama / TCU Winner ... AT ... USC Utah / Ohio State Winner ... AT ... Florida Texas Tech / Boise State Winner ... AT ... Oklahoma ********************************** Penn State Winner (#4) vs. Oklahoma Winner (#1) -- at neutral site USC Winner (#3) vs. Florida Winner (#2) -- at neutral site ********************************** Winner of 1/4 vs Winner of 2/3 -- at neutral site Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted December 9, 2010 Author Share Posted December 9, 2010 As unrealistic as my dream system is (it would never happen), it is equally unrealistic to think that Big East Champions and ACC Champions would be left out of a system like this under any circumstances. So I am taking that into consideration. Ideally their would be provisions, and even just taking the Top 12 like you say would be ideal because no one thinks that UConn this year deserves anything. But the Big East isn't going anywhere. And if anything the perception is they got "stronger" by adding TCU, when all they've done is add another mid-major. Granted, TCU has been solid, but Louisville had been pretty decent too when the Big East added them a few years ago. While the Big Ten snatches up another BCS team, and the Pac 10 follows suit, the Big East is just adding more mid-majors to their conference. Again if we want to have the debate as to whether or not the Big East deserves an automatic qualifyer, then we can have that debate. I don't think they do, even with the addition of TCU, but the fact is they do have one, and as I said, I'm sure they have a great relationship with the power players in all of this. In other words my dream playoff, includes some of the things that people may not like, but are realities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 As unrealistic as my dream system is (it would never happen), it is equally unrealistic to think that Big East Champions and ACC Champions would be left out of a system like this under any circumstances. So I am taking that into consideration. Ideally their would be provisions, and even just taking the Top 12 like you say would be ideal because no one thinks that UConn this year deserves anything. But the Big East isn't going anywhere. And if anything the perception is they got "stronger" by adding TCU, when all they've done is add another mid-major. Granted, TCU has been solid, but Louisville had been pretty decent too when the Big East added them a few years ago. While the Big Ten snatches up another BCS team, and the Pac 10 follows suit, the Big East is just adding more mid-majors to their conference. Again if we want to have the debate as to whether or not the Big East deserves an automatic qualifyer, then we can have that debate. I don't think they do, even with the addition of TCU, but the fact is they do have one, and as I said, I'm sure they have a great relationship with the power players in all of this. In other words my dream playoff, includes some of the things that people may not like, but are realities. I agree that it would be impossible to keep the champs of BCS conferences out of the tourney, but like Muck's bit about the 4 highest ranked BCS conference champs being the top 4 seeds. Sort of a nice compromise. 1) It assures that a non AQ team is going to be a top 4 seed. They might host a 1st round game, but not a 2nd round game. 2) The reality is, for the most part, the teams that are going to be hosting instead of the poorly ranked conference champ is another BCS school. Think about it this year. Whether we do it your way or with only giving the top 4 champs the top and then following the BCS, TCU gets one of the 1st round home games and BSU is on the road. There's no net difference with respect to them. It's just that OSU and Arkansas move up into home games instead of VTech and UConn. So, it's a net zero deal in terms of BCS conferences. The very fact that UConn gets to play despite not even being in the top 25 is enough of a reward, IMO, it doesn't have to be coupled with a home game against a team that's nearly 20 spots ahead of them in the rankings. None the less, as long as we're going to consider the ACC and Big East as deserving of inclusion in the Big 6, they need to be AQs. Like you said, UConn sticks out mightily, so it looks particularly bad this year. But it is certainly not outside the realm that you could have a super deep conference where enough teams beat up on each other, where the winner is a damned good team that just happens to have 3 losses. Or, hell, what if South Carolina beat Auburn this week? They're the champion of the conference that everyone basically agrees has been the strongest in the country of late. But they're going to be kept out of the tourney because they're ranked 15th or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 A playoff would make the current best sporting event on the planet - NCAA March Madness look like a pee-wee jamborie. That the idea these f sticks can't figure out a way to get this done is beyond me. as a die hard Pac 10 fan I can't believe that the P10/B10 leaders can't figure out a way to negotiate and continue to be the major hurdle. Chit, this year's Rose Bowl isn't even a Pac 10 Big 10 matchup!!! not that big of a deal anymore- this isn't 1978........ I don't often agree with you, but, I have to give you a big AMEN on this one. We are all being cheated out of what would be a phenomenal experience for a sports fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Two years ago, it would have been: 1 Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ) 2 Florida (SEC Champ) 3 USC (Pac 10 Champ) 4 Penn State (Big 10 Champ) 5 Texas 6 Alabama 7 Utah 8 Texas Tech 9 Boise State 10 Ohio State 11 TCU 12 Cincinnati ********************************** Cincinnati ... AT ... Texas TCU ... AT ... Alabama Ohio State ... AT ... Utah Boise State ... AT ... Texas Tech ********************************** Texas / Cincinnati Winner ... AT ... Penn State Alabama / TCU Winner ... AT ... USC Utah / Ohio State Winner ... AT ... Florida Texas Tech / Boise State Winner ... AT ... Oklahoma ********************************** Penn State Winner (#4) vs. Oklahoma Winner (#1) -- at neutral site USC Winner (#3) vs. Florida Winner (#2) -- at neutral site ********************************** Winner of 1/4 vs Winner of 2/3 -- at neutral site What would it have looked like 7 years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 As unrealistic as my dream system is (it would never happen), it is equally unrealistic to think that Big East Champions and ACC Champions would be left out of a system like this under any circumstances. So I am taking that into consideration. Ideally their would be provisions, and even just taking the Top 12 like you say would be ideal because no one thinks that UConn this year deserves anything. But the Big East isn't going anywhere. And if anything the perception is they got "stronger" by adding TCU, when all they've done is add another mid-major. Granted, TCU has been solid, but Louisville had been pretty decent too when the Big East added them a few years ago. While the Big Ten snatches up another BCS team, and the Pac 10 follows suit, the Big East is just adding more mid-majors to their conference. Again if we want to have the debate as to whether or not the Big East deserves an automatic qualifyer, then we can have that debate. I don't think they do, even with the addition of TCU, but the fact is they do have one, and as I said, I'm sure they have a great relationship with the power players in all of this. In other words my dream playoff, includes some of the things that people may not like, but are realities. Ok, well, maybe if a BCS AQ conference champ isn't in the top 12, then they move up to #12 (and #11 in the case of two AQ CC's being out of the top 12 like this year) ... but no way should UCONN be a #6 seed this year ... maybe a #12 seed ... maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 I don't often agree with you, but, I have to give you a big AMEN on this one. We are all being cheated out of what would be a phenomenal experience for a sports fan. eff u Stealer. You are in good company then bc my 2 biggest haters are Private Ryan and Seahawks 21 u may need to re-evaluate some things..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 What would it have looked like 7 years ago? Using the "top four AQ Conference Champs are seeded 1-4" methodology, seven years ago, it would have been: 1 Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ) 2 LSU (SEC Champ) 3 USC (Pac 10 Champ) 4 Michigan (Big 10 Champ) 5 Ohio State 6 Texas 7 Florida State 8 Tennessee 9 Miami (FL) 10 Kansas State 11 Miami (OH) 12 Georgia ********************************** Georgia ... AT ... Ohio State Miami (OH) ... AT ... Texas Kansas State ... AT ... Florida State Miami (FL) ... AT ... Tennessee ********************************** Ohio State / Georgia Winner ... AT ... Michigan Texas / Miami (OH) Winner ... AT ... USC Florida State / Kansas State Winner ... AT ... LSU Tennessee / Miami (FL) Winner ... AT ... Oklahoma ********************************** Michigan Winner (#4) vs. Oklahoma Winner (#1) -- at neutral site LSU Winner (#3) vs. USC Winner (#2) -- at neutral site ********************************** Winner of 1/4 vs Winner of 2/3 -- at neutral site Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Using the "top four AQ Conference Champs are seeded 1-4" methodology, seven years ago, it would have been: 1 Oklahoma (Big 12 Champ) 2 LSU (SEC Champ) 3 USC (Pac 10 Champ) 4 Michigan (Big 10 Champ) 5 Ohio State 6 Texas 7 Florida State 8 Tennessee 9 Miami (FL) 10 Kansas State 11 Miami (OH) 12 Georgia ********************************** Georgia ... AT ... Ohio State Miami (OH) ... AT ... Texas Kansas State ... AT ... Florida State Miami (FL) ... AT ... Tennessee ********************************** Ohio State / Georgia Winner ... AT ... Michigan Texas / Miami (OH) Winner ... AT ... USC Florida State / Kansas State Winner ... AT ... LSU Tennessee / Miami (FL) Winner ... AT ... Oklahoma ********************************** Michigan Winner (#4) vs. Oklahoma Winner (#1) -- at neutral site LSU Winner (#3) vs. USC Winner (#2) -- at neutral site ********************************** Winner of 1/4 vs Winner of 2/3 -- at neutral site We had a sweet national championship run that year!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 We had a sweet national championship run that year!!!!! Sorry ... I just pulled the stuff from BCS's website for 2003. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Sorry ... I just pulled the stuff from BCS's website for 2003. I was being a smartass and insinuating that we would have won the NC game had the playoffs been in place that season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.