Our arch nemesis (UVB, aka Clay) has thrown out an idea that has also been stated by Dan Weasel (heh heh) regarding the overlapping issues of the so-called playoff and the conference championship issue. Before I start this, let me say as CLEARLY AS POSSIBLE that I AM NOT ADVOCATING this. I am asking for input, hoping for some logical flow even if we disagree on the fine points. (Note that some of this is edited verbatim from 'his' site - before I'm accused of plagiarism)
===============================
The basic proposal works like this (I've edited it just a bit):
1) Eliminate Divisions
Have one division and take the top two teams in every conference to your title game. Instead of playing a round-robin division schedule with one yearly rival from the opposite side and one rotating opponent, do away with divisions and play three yearly rivals and play the other five teams in alternating years. The 14-team SEC would play every school home and home in a four-year window.
2) Eliminate the Conference Championship Game
Use that week instead to OPEN the playoff. The 'bad' thing about CCGs is that they allow upsets to take out teams that were indisputably superior over the rest of the season. It doesn't happen in the SEC very often, but it did in the Big 12 and has elsewhere as well.
3) Eight-Team Playoff - Five Conference Champions and Three Wildcards (this eliminates the 2011 Alabama problem that almost never happens)
There are some immediate problems but then again - aren't there always?
======================
The one way I could see this happening would be if they could actually convince the SEC that a first-round playoff game would generate more money than the SECCG does. That is an obvious problem, but there are a few others.
1) In theory, of course, you can have more than one unbeaten team in a conference if there's no title game. It rarely happens, but if the BCS showed us ANYTHING, it's that if it CAN happen, it WILL. It's unlikely, though, you could ever have more than TWO unbeaten teams finish the season (I guess it can be shown it could happen that you have three, but oh well). However, let's just assume 2009 involved a 14-team SEC and both Florida and Alabama made it through undefeated.
a) both teams would make a playoff (maybe....but what if you have ANOTHER conference or TWO with TWO unbeaten teams?)
b) would they be forced to face each other in the first round even if you surmised they were the two best teams or would there be seeding?
c) if there is seeding.......how does the 'sixth' conference champion (e.g. the co-champ) fare, as a champion or as a wild card?
2) This DOES make the 'conference champion' slugs very happy and eliminates that last hurdle of a potential 7-5 South Carolina divisional champ ending a BCS #2s national title dreams in a rematch (2010 Auburn-SCe could have turned out that way theoretically).
3) It does NOT add any EXTRA games to what we have now.......although it might now be even more tempting or better to drop one of the cupcake games.
4) Should the round of eight be a HOME game? This creates a MAJOR problem if you have 2009 Florida-Alabama........which team gets to host the game? Of course, this could be handled if they don't have to play one another in the first round a bit easier.
But there's an OBVIOUS problem I haven't addressed yet.......how do we select the 3 wild card teams?
Polls? Do we bring back the BCS computer rankings and go by 'team that didn't win conference championship? SoS?
HOW?????
This is where krazy's point comes out more clearly than ever before - no matter what method you use, SOMEBODY is going to complain. Add it to eight teams? Team nine is going to complain (heck, we see this now with March Madness).
I do think this has the potential at least of not overly diluting the regular season - it also provides incentive for a team that might have played a killer schedule and has an early close conference loss or a disputed official's call loss but looks like 'the best team at this time of year' when selection is made.
Try not to get overly emotional. I'm not ADVOCATING it, I'm ASKING about it. But some of it sounds pretty good to me.
The ONE thing I want gone is the committee of bias.
===============================
The basic proposal works like this (I've edited it just a bit):
1) Eliminate Divisions
Have one division and take the top two teams in every conference to your title game. Instead of playing a round-robin division schedule with one yearly rival from the opposite side and one rotating opponent, do away with divisions and play three yearly rivals and play the other five teams in alternating years. The 14-team SEC would play every school home and home in a four-year window.
2) Eliminate the Conference Championship Game
Use that week instead to OPEN the playoff. The 'bad' thing about CCGs is that they allow upsets to take out teams that were indisputably superior over the rest of the season. It doesn't happen in the SEC very often, but it did in the Big 12 and has elsewhere as well.
3) Eight-Team Playoff - Five Conference Champions and Three Wildcards (this eliminates the 2011 Alabama problem that almost never happens)
There are some immediate problems but then again - aren't there always?
======================
The one way I could see this happening would be if they could actually convince the SEC that a first-round playoff game would generate more money than the SECCG does. That is an obvious problem, but there are a few others.
1) In theory, of course, you can have more than one unbeaten team in a conference if there's no title game. It rarely happens, but if the BCS showed us ANYTHING, it's that if it CAN happen, it WILL. It's unlikely, though, you could ever have more than TWO unbeaten teams finish the season (I guess it can be shown it could happen that you have three, but oh well). However, let's just assume 2009 involved a 14-team SEC and both Florida and Alabama made it through undefeated.
a) both teams would make a playoff (maybe....but what if you have ANOTHER conference or TWO with TWO unbeaten teams?)
b) would they be forced to face each other in the first round even if you surmised they were the two best teams or would there be seeding?
c) if there is seeding.......how does the 'sixth' conference champion (e.g. the co-champ) fare, as a champion or as a wild card?
2) This DOES make the 'conference champion' slugs very happy and eliminates that last hurdle of a potential 7-5 South Carolina divisional champ ending a BCS #2s national title dreams in a rematch (2010 Auburn-SCe could have turned out that way theoretically).
3) It does NOT add any EXTRA games to what we have now.......although it might now be even more tempting or better to drop one of the cupcake games.
4) Should the round of eight be a HOME game? This creates a MAJOR problem if you have 2009 Florida-Alabama........which team gets to host the game? Of course, this could be handled if they don't have to play one another in the first round a bit easier.
But there's an OBVIOUS problem I haven't addressed yet.......how do we select the 3 wild card teams?
Polls? Do we bring back the BCS computer rankings and go by 'team that didn't win conference championship? SoS?
HOW?????
This is where krazy's point comes out more clearly than ever before - no matter what method you use, SOMEBODY is going to complain. Add it to eight teams? Team nine is going to complain (heck, we see this now with March Madness).
I do think this has the potential at least of not overly diluting the regular season - it also provides incentive for a team that might have played a killer schedule and has an early close conference loss or a disputed official's call loss but looks like 'the best team at this time of year' when selection is made.
Try not to get overly emotional. I'm not ADVOCATING it, I'm ASKING about it. But some of it sounds pretty good to me.
The ONE thing I want gone is the committee of bias.
Last edited:
