Future of post-season in college football...???

[sturt]

http://bettercollegefootball.angelfire.com/

BETTER COLLEGE FOOTBALL

Top 5 Pragmatic, Fair, and Lucrative Ideas for College Football Post-Season Improvements

(in lieu of a Playoff System)

Originally Published August 2007

1. Current Conference Championship Games and New BCS Play-In Games as BCS Qualifiers

First Saturday of December @ Various Sites

§ Background: Currently, there is a widely-acknowledged disparity in the fundamental fairness that some teams must endure a high-risk, high-profile conference championship game as an additional obstacle in the gauntlet toward a season’s National Championship, while other teams do not; that is, champions of the Big Ten, Big East, and Pac-10 currently are assigned a BCS ranking on the basis of one less high-caliber game than their counterparts in the SEC, ACC and Big XII

§ To correct this, the terms for automatic qualification for a BCS bowl are to be changed such that conference champions from the SEC, ACC, and Big XII (i.e, 12-team conferences which host a conference championship game) will continue to receive those bids, but that regular season conference champions from the Big Ten, Big East, and Pac-10 will be pitted against one another in a special BCS Play-In Game on the same weekend as the other conferences’ championships

§ For any given year, it may or may not be necessary to add one or more wild-card teams (i.e., the second-place team that finishes highest in the BCS rankings) to the play-in, depending on whether one or more of the three conferences has a co-champion for their regular season, or if Notre Dame has met their normal criteria for receiving an automatic bid (i.e., ranked #8 or higher in the BCS rankings); thus under ordinary circumstances there will be 2 Play-In Games, though the occurrence of co-champions or the addition of Notre Dame could increase that occasionally to 3, and under historically-rare circumstances, even 4.

§ Ordinarily, the participating teams will be seeded according to their BCS ranking, with the highest seeds receiving home field advantage

§ Losers of play-in games are like losers of conference championship games, in that, their loss does not prevent them from acquiring an at-large bid to a BCS bowl

§ Other Consequences: It is recognized that, in establishing this rule in fairness to the SEC, ACC and Big XII schools, the movement toward 12 members in each of the Big Ten, Big East, and Pac-10 may accelerate; however, that is considered to be a positive development--a more statistically-valid and efficiently-produced national champion for a given season emerges when conference champions are systematically and normally determined in larger groups (e.g., 12) than smaller groups (e.g., 8)

....................

Hmmmm....

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I got something in the works along these lines, although my system is different. I definitely see a need for a possible play-in game . . or two . . to balance things out for teams that don't win their conference championship.

But that past conference history element is BS. The Big East was completely off the map as a football power, when Miami, BC, and V-Tech bolted to the ACC. Now, they have 3 legit teams that can play with anybody on any given Saturday ( Louisville, Rutgers, West Virginia ).

You can't penalize a conference like the Big East, just because it sucked a few years back. You have to look at it on a year by year basis. I mean, look at the ACC 3 years ago, and look at it now. The Big East have more teams ranked in the top 20 this preseason, than the ACC does. You would've never said that 3 years ago.

Bottom line is that we need a straight 8-team playoff that rewards conference champions, not pit the top 8 teams against each other. This makes every college game you play, especially in conference, of the utmost importance.

The powers that be in college football makes this ish way more complicated than it should be, because they want to horde all the money for themselves.

And that whole "we care for the kid's academics" stance is a bunch of BS as well. If they cared about the kids and the time they spend out of class, why are 5 of the 11 conferences having conference championship games the week before friggin finals? ( SEC, ACC, Big-12, MAC, C-USA ). And you better believe that if the NCAA mandatory 12-conference teams required to have a conference championship game rule was lifted, the Big-10 and Pac-10 would have a championship game immeadiately as well.

Hell, it wouldn't have surprised me one bit, if the Big-10 would've try to pry Western Kentucky from going into the Sun Belt next year, and come to the Big-10, just to get that 12th team in the conference.

I plan to have my site up sometime in September, because I'm going to not only lay the system out, but I'll show how it would've worked in past years. Some of the matchups would've been intriguing to say the least.

Complex mathematical formulas aren't needed to make this work. Only common sense. The vast majority of college football fans definitely want some sort of playoff system.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

...The Big East was completely off the map as a football power, when Miami, BC, and V-Tech bolted to the ACC. Now, they have 3 legit teams that can play with anybody on any given Saturday ( Louisville, Rutgers, West Virginia ).

You can't penalize a conference like the Big East, just because it sucked a few years back. You have to look at it on a year by year basis. I mean, look at the ACC 3 years ago, and look at it now. The Big East have more teams ranked in the top 20 this preseason, than the ACC does. You would've never said that 3 years ago...

---

The Big East's current line-up of schools has had exactly one good season, and it just happens that it was the most recent one... you don't have to go back even two seasons, let alone three.

Let this season play out and see what happens before we consider the Big lEast a legitimate automatic bid qualifier.

Better yet, if they're that good, I'd say go with the idea listed on the Better Football site anyhow... they wouldn't lose it anyway if they're THAT good.

Personal prediction fwiw: Things return to normal next season, after West Virginia loses their backfield.

Quote:

---

Bottom line is that we need a straight 8-team playoff that rewards conference champions, not pit the top 8 teams against each other.

This makes every college game you play, especially in conference, of the utmost importance.

The powers that be in college football makes this ish way more complicated than it should be, because they want to horde all the money for themselves.

And that whole "we care for the kid's academics" stance is a bunch of BS as well. If they cared about the kids and the time they spend out of class, why are 5 of the 11 conferences having conference championship games the week before friggin finals? ( SEC, ACC, Big-12, MAC, C-USA ). And you better believe that if the NCAA mandatory 12-conference teams required to have a conference championship game rule was lifted, the Big-10 and Pac-10 would have a championship game immeadiately as well.

Hell, it wouldn't have surprised me one bit, if the Big-10 would've try to pry Western Kentucky from going into the Sun Belt next year, and come to the Big-10, just to get that 12th team in the conference.

I plan to have my site up sometime in September, because I'm going to not only lay the system out, but I'll show how it would've worked in past years. Some of the matchups would've been intriguing to say the least.

Complex mathematical formulas aren't needed to make this work. Only common sense. The vast majority of college football fans definitely want some sort of playoff system.

---

I'll be interested to see it. When you do, be sure to take into account and to address how the playoff system doesn't sabotage the bowl system... I say that, not so much as a skeptic but as a realist, ie, that that is what is keeping influential people like the Florida Pres (who recently flip-flopped following the SEC meetings) from signing on to a playoff.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Sturt, I understand the Big East question. It'll be very easy to downgrade them to Mountain West status. But even the Mountain West conference has years in which it's a pretty strong conference.

I've wrestled with a lot of ideas about this.

A 16 team playoff would fall in line with what everyone else in 1-AA, II, II and NAIA does, but that's too easy for 1-A I guess.

I was ( and still am to a certain extent ) a firm believer in a 12-team playoff . . which would rewarded the 6 BCS champions, the next top 4 BCS teams that didn't win their conference, and have the final 2 slots filled by the highest ranked champions in the lower conference. Last year, those spots would've been filled by Boise St. and BYU.

1st tier conference champs:

1) Ohio St: Big-10

2) Florida: SEC

3) USC: Pac-10

4) Louisville: Big East

2nd tier conference champs:

1) Boise St: WAC

2) Oklahoma: Big-12

3) Wake Forest: ACC

4) BYU: Mt-West

At-large:

1) Michigan

2) LSU

3) Wisconsin

4) Auburn

The 2nd tier conference champs and at-large teams play in round 1, with 2nd tier champs hosting 1st round game. That would mean:

4) Auburn @ 1) Boise St

3) Wisconsin @ 2) Oklahoma

2) LSU @ 3) Wake Forest

1) Michigan @ 4) BYU

Winners of these games would be re-seeded 1 - 4, and go to Round 2 to play the top tier champions on their home turf.

Personally, I'd love to see that 12-team system, because it'll give the "little guy" the chance to finally play a big name team on its home turf, and it would reward those top 4 conference champs. And in a way, those 2 at large teams that just missed out, would have to play the "weakest" conference champs, possibly giving them an easier road to the 2nd round.

In the end though, I think it's probably best to reduce it down to an 8-team field, with possible play-in games if necessary, instead of a flat 4 games in the first round and 4 more games in Round 2.

Like you said, it's in the best interest of college football to protect the bowl system, and not totally make it irrevelevant with a 12 or 16 team playoff. I have an easy fix for that, that would satisfy most everybody . . I think.

The problem though, is the friggin Rose Bowl and the Pac-10 commish. They want that Big-10 vs Pac-10 matchup every year.

leave then!

I would love for the other conferences to call their bluff, and just develop a playoff system without the Rose Bowl, or the involvement of the Big-10 and Pac-10. Let those teams have their Rose Bowl crown, and let the other schools fight for the national title.

In 1-AA, the SWAC Conference ( the historically black colleges in the south: Grambling, Southern, Jackson St, Alabama A&M, etc ), think playing for the SWAC title is more important than playing for the 1-AA national title. Money wise, it's definitely better for them as a conference. So they pretty much exclude themselves from the whole 1-AA playoff process, just to fight for the SWAC title. And those teams in that conference are content with that.

So if the Big-10 and Pac-10 feel that the Rose Bowl is so important, I say, let them go. After the national champion receives all of the accolades over the Rose Bowl champ, those conferences would go running to play in a playoff system. And it would force the Rose Bowl to change its thinking.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Sturt, I understand the Big East question. It'll be very easy to downgrade them to Mountain West status. But even the Mountain West conference has years in which it's a pretty strong conference.

---

Yeah... that's why the idea of placing some parameters on that sixth automatic bid slot is worthwhile... once you get beyond the fifth conference, there's enough parity that different conferences may be more deserving every year or two or three or four.

Quote:

---

I've wrestled with a lot of ideas about this.

A 16 team playoff would fall in line with what everyone else in 1-AA, II, II and NAIA does, but that's too easy for 1-A I guess.

I was ( and still am to a certain extent ) a firm believer in a 12-team playoff . . which would rewarded the 6 BCS champions, the next top 4 BCS teams that didn't win their conference, and have the final 2 slots filled by the highest ranked champions in the lower conference. Last year, those spots would've been filled by Boise St. and BYU.

1st tier conference champs:

1) Ohio St: Big-10

2) Florida: SEC

3) USC: Pac-10

4) Louisville: Big East

2nd tier conference champs:

1) Boise St: WAC

2) Oklahoma: Big-12

3) Wake Forest: ACC

4) BYU: Mt-West

At-large:

1) Michigan

2) LSU

3) Wisconsin

4) Auburn

The 2nd tier conference champs and at-large teams play in round 1, with 2nd tier champs hosting 1st round game. That would mean:

4) Auburn @ 1) Boise St

3) Wisconsin @ 2) Oklahoma

2) LSU @ 3) Wake Forest

1) Michigan @ 4) BYU

Winners of these games would be re-seeded 1 - 4, and go to Round 2 to play the top tier champions on their home turf.

Personally, I'd love to see that 12-team system, because it'll give the "little guy" the chance to finally play a big name team on its home turf, and it would reward those top 4 conference champs. And in a way, those 2 at large teams that just missed out, would have to play the "weakest" conference champs, possibly giving them an easier road to the 2nd round.

In the end though, I think it's probably best to reduce it down to an 8-team field, with possible play-in games if necessary, instead of a flat 4 games in the first round and 4 more games in Round 2.

Like you said, it's in the best interest of college football to protect the bowl system, and not totally make it irrevelevant with a 12 or 16 team playoff. I have an easy fix for that, that would satisfy most everybody . . I think.

---

Which is...???

Quote:

---

The problem though, is the friggin Rose Bowl and the Pac-10 commish. They want that Big-10 vs Pac-10 matchup every year.

leave then!

I would love for the other conferences to call their bluff, and just develop a playoff system without the Rose Bowl, or the involvement of the Big-10 and Pac-10. Let those teams have their Rose Bowl crown, and let the other schools fight for the national title.

In 1-AA, the SWAC Conference ( the historically black colleges in the south: Grambling, Southern, Jackson St, Alabama A&M, etc ), think playing for the SWAC title is more important than playing for the 1-AA national title. Money wise, it's definitely better for them as a conference. So they pretty much exclude themselves from the whole 1-AA playoff process, just to fight for the SWAC title. And those teams in that conference are content with that.

So if the Big-10 and Pac-10 feel that the Rose Bowl is so important, I say, let them go. After the national champion receives all of the accolades over the Rose Bowl champ, those conferences would go running to play in a playoff system. And it would force the Rose Bowl to change its thinking.

---

Thanks for that article... I'd missed that one. Arrogance-meter running high in the west, eh?

If you don't have the Big Ten and Pac-10, it really damages the whole purpose of having a BCS in the first place, which is fundamentally a unification movement to fill the vacuum that the NCAA won't fill (ie, since the NCAA has decided to abstain from an official NCAA football championship)... and obviously, the Pac-10 people understand all of that.

I'm thinking now that if you take three of the ideas as they're explained on that website--ie, (1) establish a fifth bowl game, (2) establish the sixth automatic bid as a conditional slot, and (3) establish that Grand National Championship Game--then, for the most part, the conversation about a playoff will be rendered moot. That's because there then is enough room to really accomodate the non-auto-bid conferences by virtue of the two additional slots... and because the conditional slot presents a legitimate opportunity for any non-auto-bid conference to achieve that (, and in the process, energizes the rest of the bowl system since all of the bowls become important to that determination)... and because this Grand National Champion concept is so much more legitimate than a single season champion, as a result of the 4x larger set of outcome data (BCS ranking score), that it would become the hallmark achievement, not unlike achieving the Hall of Fame trumps achieving All-Pro status.