BCS Playoff

[BamaSully]

Don't you hate it when you think you have a great idea and no one else likes it? I do. I laugh at myself as I consider the remote possibility that I could be right and everyone else could be wrong.

Nonetheless, I still do not understand why no one likes my proposed system for a college football playoff. I posted it already and got not one single reply. I will repeat it one more time and use this season as an example, and see what happens. TELL ME IF YOU LIKE IT OR NOT AND WHY.

My proposed system is feasible from where we are today. It involves very little change from where we are today. It should please the old fashioned bowl lovers. It would scratch the playoff itch to a certain degree. All in all, it would reduce the chance of a big-time bungle-up like this season, from about 50% with the current system, to about 10%.

The proposal:
Go back to the good ole fashioned conference tie-ins with the major bowls, then, AFTER the bowls are over, have a 4-team playoff using the BCS poll for the seedings. Bowl games are bowl games and playoff games are playoff games. Quit trying to combine them. Then, both sides are happy. The bowl games become, in effect, just another regular season game.

Use this season as an example.
Rose: USC vs Michigan
Sugar: Auburn vs Texas
Orange: Oklahoma vs V.T. or Georgia
Fiesta: Utah vs Cal

Everyone is looking to retain or earn a spot in the top 4 of the BCS poll. I cannot image a system that would make these four bowl match-ups more exciting!

USC, Oklahoma and Auburn all know a win guarantees a spot in the top 4. A loss could knock them out. Except these ain't no reg'lar non-conference patsies. These are dadgum good opponents from BCS conferences.

Texas, Utah or Cal, would prove a major point with and win and would most likely jump into the top 4.

After these match-ups, and after the resulting poll shake-up, then it would really hard for anyone to say the best team is not included in the 4-team playoff.

Sure, my system has faults. Any system will. The faults of the current system are obvious. I think most agree that something should change. Please consider the example and then tell me why this would not be a great system. Give specifics so I can refine the system before I go before the BCS committee! Thanks.

-Sully

 

[BigTex]

Or how about this one

SEC Champ - ACC Champ
Big East Champ - Big 10 Champ


Big 12 Champ - Pac 10 Champ
Top 10 team not from any conferences listed - Top 10 team not from any conference listes


Let these 8 teams play it out.........................

 

[Bebes]

say AU and OU lost their conference championship games, USC loses to UCLA. now you have 6 one loss teams and Utah with 0 losses. That will be 7 teams who have a claim to being ranked in the top 4. So the argument is basically the same. Instead of "who should be #1 or #2" it would be "who should be #1-#4". Your plan might have worked this year, but wouldn't every year.

 

[BamaSully]

It's me again.

Thanks BigTex. But what about mine? Tell me what is wrong with mine. It just seems to make too much sense to me. Tell me what I am missing.

Just so no one is confused, the bowl match-ups in my original post are hypothetical. I am suggesting that this is what these 4 bowls would look like according to the traditional tie-ins. This actually gets the top 7 teams in the current BCS poll into these 4 bowls. Michigan is the exception. I realize that would not always be the case. But I am basing some of my argument on the fact that the old bowl tie-ins did, in fact, deliver some very interesting match-ups every year. Those match-ups would help to clear the smoke at the top of the polls.

To finish my hypothetic example for this season:

Let's say USC, Oklahoma, Auburn and Cal all win. They would be the top 4 in the BCS. The team complaining in this scenario would be Texas. They would have just lost to a team that may prove to be the best in the land (Auburn), while Cal got in by beating Utah, who may or may not be that good, really.

More to come......

-Sully

 

[BigTex]

Thanks BigTex. But what about mine? Tell me what is wrong with mine. It just seems to make too much sense to me. Tell me what I am missing.

Just so no one is confused, the bowl match-ups in my original post are hypothetical. I am suggesting that this is what these 4 bowls would look like according to the traditional tie-ins. This actually gets the top 7 teams in the current BCS poll into these 4 bowls. Michigan is the exception. I realize that would not always be the case. But I am basing some of my argument on the fact that the old bowl tie-ins did, in fact, deliver some very interesting match-ups every year. Those match-ups would help to clear the smoke at the top of the polls.

To finish my hypothetic example for this season:

Let's say USC, Oklahoma, Auburn and Cal all win. They would be the top 4 in the BCS. The team complaining in this scenario would be Texas. They would have just lost to a team that may prove to be the best in the land (Auburn), while Cal got in by beating Utah, who may or may not be that good, really.

More to come......

-Sully

It aint bad Sully. I believe both merit some consideration. Both are better than what we have now........

 

[BamaSully]

Thanks Bebes. I think my system would be better than what we have today, in the scenario you mentioned. Let's try it out. As a result of those upsets, the current BCS poll might look something like this.

Number of losses in parentheses.

1. Texas (1)
2. Cal (1)
3. Auburn (1)
4. Oklahoma (1)
5. USC (1)
6. Utah (0)
7. Georgia (2)
8. Viginia Tech (2)
9. Boise State (0)
10. Louisville (2)

Utah could be anywhere from 3 to 6. I ain't sure if the voters would put them ahead of USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn. The order of those three in my poll is due to the perceived strength of the team they lost to (UT, Colorado, UCLA).

The old traditional bowl tie-ins would probably give you this.

Rose: Cal vs Michigan
Sugar: Tennessee vs Oklahoma
Orange: Texas vs Auburn
Fiesta: USC vs Utah

More later........

-Sully

 

[BamaSully]

Once again, the smoke clears considerably after the bowls.

Chances are, Utah ends up with a blowout loss. Texas or Auburn is knocked out with it's second loss. That leaves exactly 4 one-loss teams from BCS conferences, plus a one-loss Utah. I'd be satisifed with the 4 BCS teams playing it out.

Possible problem:
Utah gives USC all they want and loses a close one, so suddenly they deserve a chance as much as Cal does.

Possible solution:
Oklahoma or Cal loses their bowl game, leaving exactly 4 one-loss teams INCLUDING Utah.

I still think this system gives us a much, much, much, much better chance of seeing the best team win it all. It also gives us some more great games to watch. Plus it would likely satisfy the most people due to the fact that the bowls would still be meaningful and they would retain their tradition AND we get a playoff.

More comments please (from someone other than me).

-Sully

 

[BamaSully]

I am guessing at the bowl match-ups based on my history as a fan of college football. I think my hypothetical bowl match-ups do represent the type of games we would see with the old traditional tie-ins. Does anyone disagree? Someone help me out here. Thanks.

-Sully

 

[BamaFlum]

In all systems, past, present, and proposed, someone gets left out. Nobody can change that and therefore, not everyone will be happy. Auburn gets left out this year. In a four team playoff, the #5 and #6 teams are left out. In a 8 team playoff, #9 and #10 get left out. In a 64 team playoff, the #65 gets left out. In bowls, deserving teams don't get invited. You can't please everyone all the time. I like you idea, blending the bowls with a playoffs seems to be the best tradeoff.

 

[Bebes]

I am guessing at the bowl match-ups based on my history as a fan of college football. I think my hypothetical bowl match-ups do represent the type of games we would see with the old traditional tie-ins. Does anyone disagree? Someone help me out here. Thanks.

-Sully

Wouldn't Colorado be in the Orange Bowl if they beat OU in the Big 12 CG? Are they still tied in to the Orange Bowl like they were when it was the Big Eight???
If so, then you got a bad Colorado team screwing everything up.

 

[BamaSully]

Reply to Bebes.

Oops! You're right.

 

[BamaSully]

Bebes, would this be more likely?

Rose: Cal vs Michigan
Sugar: Tennessee vs Texas/Oklahoma
Orange: Colorado vs Auburn/Utah
Fiesta: USC vs Texas/Oklahoma/Auburn

Utah probably either plays in the Liberty Bowl vs Louisville (which I think would be a good match-up), or in the Holiday bowl against Texas Tech.

I don't know where to go from here. I am not sure about the bowl match-ups.

The point is, all systems have flaws, but I think mine is the best possible with the least amount of change needed to get there.

I concede that the best scenario would be a rigid playoff system which only includes conference champs (no at large bids). It would require some obvious shake-ups in the power conferences, which does not seem likely to me. I just think my system is unique in the fact that while it is not perfect, it is actually feasible and it is far better than what we have today!

Anyway, thanks for playing along, Bebes and BigTex.

BamaFlum, the essence of what I am trying to do is, we need to make sure we include the best team in the nation. How big does a playoff really need to be to ensure that the best team is in it? I think the top 4 in the BCS is enough to ensure that the best overall team in the nation gets a chance.

-Sully