College football postseason options - POLL #2

[BamaSully]

Guys here we go again. Please drop in and vote and let me know what you think. Thanks.

For option #4, the "hybrid" refers to something that was tossed around in the other thread and I think might still actually be on the table for discussion at this time. That is, the 4 teams would be conf champs as long as they are ranked #6 or better (or something like that). In the case that there are only 3 conf champs ranked that high, the 4th seed goes to the highest ranked (BCS poll) non-conf champ (at-large). If there are only 2 conf champs in the opt 6, then we would have two at-large spots. Etc, Etc...

For the purpose of this poll, in all of the "playoff" scenarios, assume whatever you want to about the inclusion or excusion of the bowls in the process. In other words, don't let that sway your vote.

-Sully

 

[GrayTide]

I am going to go out on a limb and predict that Bama Fan in AU and I will not vote the same way. Sully, I was torn between #1 and #2 and would be okay with either, but believe that the current system better rewards the two highest rated teams after all conference championship games, it does make every game count during the regular season. I also believe it might better keep the Big 10 and PAC 12 from ganging up on the other conferences. IMO it is unlikely what happened this past season would be a regular occurence.

 

[BamaSully]

Vote Gray

Nevermind...you did...lol...its called "view results"

 

[BamaSully]

This is funny. I didn't even include my own idea. Much like Al Gore invented the internet, I invented the original +1, which is to let the bowls play out any way they want to (old school) and then put #1 vs #2 after the bowls.

Well, it looks like I should have included it. The Nebraska chancellor, Harvey Perlman, who is also a member of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee, said this in an article I just read...

"I think we're largely aligned in thinking a plus-one with a different ranking after the bowl games to select No. 1 and No. 2 would be acceptable," Perlman said. "Our second choice would probably be a four-team playoff inside the bowls."

WOW

Here is the link...

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/05/nebraska_chancellor_says_not_s.html

 

[crimsonaudio]

There will ALWAYS be arguments, but even after last season everyone knows the best team in the country won it all. The current system is fine.

 

[GrayTide]

This is funny. I didn't even include my own idea. Much like Al Gore invented the internet, I invented the original +1, which is to let the bowls play out any way they want to (old school) and then put #1 vs #2 after the bowls.

Well, it looks like I should have included it. The Nebraska chancellor, Harvey Perlman, who is also a member of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee, said this in an article I just read...

"I think we're largely aligned in thinking a plus-one with a different ranking after the bowl games to select No. 1 and No. 2 would be acceptable," Perlman said. "Our second choice would probably be a four-team playoff inside the bowls."

I am going to have to think about this proposal. My initial concern is which teams get which bowls?

As I have said several times, put the final 8 highest ranked teams after all conference championship games (with no regard to conference champions) in the 4 BCS bowls (in affect seeding in the 4 BCS bowls) thereby preserving and actually enhancing these bowls. Have all of these bowls played on New Year's Day. Have a final BCS poll after the New Year's Day games. The 2 highest ranked teams play one week later for the NC.

Final BCS Poll Prior to Bowl Games 2011
1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma State
4. Stanford
5. Oregon
6. Arkansas
7. Boise State
8. Kansas State

The seedings would work, but you would have a rematch of Stanford vs Oregon from the PAC 12 CCG.

 

[ALA2262]

I am going to have to think about this proposal. My initial concern is which teams get which bowls?

As I have said several times, put the final 8 highest ranked teams after all conference championship games (with no regard to conference champions) in the 4 BCS bowls (in affect seeding in the 4 BCS bowls) thereby preserving and actually enhancing these bowls. Have all of these bowls played on New Year's Day. Have a final BCS poll after the New Year's Day games. The 2 highest ranked teams play one week later for the NC.

Final BCS Poll Prior to Bowl Games 2011
1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. Oklahoma State
4. Stanford
5. Oregon
6. Arkansas
7. Boise State
8. Kansas State

The seedings would work, but you would have a rematch of Stanford vs Oregon from the PAC 12 CCG.

This is why I voted for the current system. It would have really sucked if Bama had been required to play and beat Boise State in order to play in the BCSNCG.

In fact, the more I think about this, the more I am opposed to even a 4 team playoff. Last season, why should Bama have even been required to play and beat a team that couldn't beat Iowa State? I wouldn't want Bama in the mix if they couldn't beat Auburn. As coach Bryant once said, "If you can't beat those folks, just go home and plow."

 

[BamaSully]

Gray the essence of my little idea is that you are combining the current BCS with the old school era where we had no system. You asked how the bowls would be selected. The answer is, the way they always were. The conferences and the bowls decide what they want to do and they do it. Thus tradition is allowed to play as big a part as it always did. Then after they "do their thing", the final BCS poll is used to decide #1 vs #2.

To be clear, this proposal is really nothing more than a tweak to the current system. Suggesting this change is saying simply, here is a little bit better way to do it. I said 5 or 6 years ago that the teams should be chosen after the bowls. In essence it makes the bowls part of the regular season. The bowl game becomes one more game by which the teams are judged (by pollsters and computers) in order to determine who plays for the title.

So I hope I am answering your question. The answer is the BCS has no say whatsoever in who plays in what bowl. You simply wait till the bowls are over to pick the two teams, meaning you have the potential (like it used to be) for 3 or 4 bowls to actually have a say in the final outcome.

-Sully

 

[TideFan in AU]

I am going to go out on a limb and predict that Bama Fan in AU and I will not vote the same way. Sully, I was torn between #1 and #2 and would be okay with either, but believe that the current system better rewards the two highest rated teams after all conference championship games, it does make every game count during the regular season. I also believe it might better keep the Big 10 and PAC 12 from ganging up on the other conferences. IMO it is unlikely what happened this past season would be a regular occurence.

No, we're pretty much on the same page here - just leave my bowl games alone! -lol . I don't hate the current system, but its obvious that change is inevitable. I do lean towards #2, although Krazy and Sully's proposals are interesting. I just doubt that they would ever be accepted by the PTB. I am 100% opposed to #3 and #4.

 

[ALA2262]

Gray the essence of my little idea is that you are combining the current BCS with the old school era where we had no system. You asked how the bowls would be selected. The answer is, the way they always were. The conferences and the bowls decide what they want to do and they do it. Thus tradition is allowed to play as big a part as it always did. Then after they "do their thing", the final BCS poll is used to decide #1 vs #2.

To be clear, this proposal is really nothing more than a tweak to the current system. Suggesting this change is saying simply, here is a little bit better way to do it. I said 5 or 6 years ago that the teams should be chosen after the bowls. In essence it makes the bowls part of the regular season. The bowl game becomes one more game by which the teams are judged (by pollsters and computers) in order to determine who plays for the title.

So I hope I am answering your question. The answer is the BCS has no say whatsoever in who plays in what bowl. You simply wait till the bowls are over to pick the two teams, meaning you have the potential (like it used to be) for 3 or 4 bowls to actually have a say in the final outcome.

-Sully

As I said to you, in your other thread, this is the way it should have been done when they added the fifth BCS Bowl. Which is what I thought they were doing at the time it was announced without details. I remember being so frustrated and disappointed when the details were made known that they were adding two more teams instead.

 

[B1GTide]

I went with the second option, but I would like to see more direct visibility into the formulas that produce the rankings. Hard to believe that the BCS is willing to accept the polls when they are not even allowed to validate the results. Maybe the public has no right to see the actual formulas, but how about using an independent agency to validate the results. Something.

 

[GrayTide]

Well the old school had the SEC champs hosting the Sugar Bowl, the SWC champs hosting the Cotton Bowl, the Big Eight champs hosting the Orange Bowl and the Big 10 and PAC champs in the Rose Bowl. That guaranteed 5 teams in the major bowls. If LSU hosted Kansas State in the Sugar Bowl, what bowl does that put Alabama vs Boise State in? Doesn't the ACC champion have a tie in with the Orange Bowl? No ACC team in the top 8 who goes to the Orange Bowl. In this case I could see all bowl tie ins dissolved, boy the Big 10 would block that immediately. So would say the Sugar Bowl matchup #1 vs #8 this year and next year the Fiesta Bowl hosts #1 vs #8? A lot of unknowns in this scenario.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I am abstaining. My suspicion is that since the last vote didn't turn out the way too many here suggested, this is merely an attempt to split the playoff/Plus One vote into enough fragments to say the pro-BCS contingent wins. For the record, I don't think that krazy's patented plus one is a bad idea at all. In fact, it shows a detail of thought & commitment to retaining the best of the existing systems that the PTB in the NCAA with all their college degrees can't figure out.

But there's one flaw unless I missed something - the team having 51 days off has to play a lower seed that just got it's rust shook off. Seems to me that would favor the team that played, the exact opposite intent.

 

[BamaSully]

Ummm no selma, that aint it. This is just me wantin to know what's really on your minds

 

[BamaSully]

Well the old school had the SEC champs hosting the Sugar Bowl, the SWC champs hosting the Cotton Bowl, the Big Eight champs hosting the Orange Bowl and the Big 10 and PAC champs in the Rose Bowl. That guaranteed 5 teams in the major bowls. If LSU hosted Kansas State in the Sugar Bowl, what bowl does that put Alabama vs Boise State in? Doesn't the ACC champion have a tie in with the Orange Bowl? No ACC team in the top 8 who goes to the Orange Bowl. In this case I could see all bowl tie ins dissolved, boy the Big 10 would block that immediately. So would say the Sugar Bowl matchup #1 vs #8 this year and next year the Fiesta Bowl hosts #1 vs #8? A lot of unknowns in this scenario.

Come on now Gray. You set the date back a little to far in the Delorean. Dr. Brown will have to adjust the flux capacitor after that one. The freakin Big Eight and SWC don't exist so let's try that again.

Last season....

LSU would have hosted the Sugar against the best they could find (best meaning the team that the SEC and the Sugar Bowl execs felt would be the best traveling fan base and bring in the most money and be the most compelling match-up, just like it was always done before the BCS).

Oregon-Wisconsin in the Rose is a given. All parties involved (Rose execs, Wisc, Ore, PAC10, BIG10) would have wanted that.

OSU as the BIG12 winner would host the Fiesta against the best they could find (best meaning the team that the BIG12 and the bowl execs felt would be the best traveling fan base and bring in the most money and be the most compelling match-up, just like it was always done before the BCS).

The Orange might have taken Clemson as the official ACC champ or VT as the highest ranked ACC team. Again, in the old system they would have their choice. They would then go out and look for the best opponent they could find (best meaning the team that the ACC and the bowl execs felt would be the best traveling fan base and bring in the most money and be the most compelling match-up, just like it was always done before the BCS).

I don't think the Sugar would invite another SEC team that LSU had already played. There is no precedent I am aware of that this ever happened. However, I know that both the Fiesta and the Orange would have loved to have Bama last year (excellent traveling fan base, high profile tradition-rich school, highest ranked team available). But, in the off-chance that neither of them was able to "strike a deal" with Bama and the SEC at that time, then Bama would have likely played in the Capital One bowl against the next best BIG10 team.

The point is, Gray, that this suggestion is not confusing at all. It is simply to revert back to pre BCS (and pre Bowl Coalition) days and let the bowls and the conferences do what they always did, and that is do whatever the heck they want to, independent of any BCS involvement.

In some circumstances, those bowls would give us some very compelling match-ups that might clear-up some confusion at the top of the polls. In some cases that would not happen at all. In some cases it might muddy the water even further.

IN ALL CASES, it would take the BCS out of the bowls, which was my original intent when I said I prefer to do it this way.

Maybe a better way to package this proposal is to say it like this. This is not a "next step". This recently proposed 4-team playoff is viewed as a next step in the progression toward a big playoff like March Madness. The idea I am discussing is not that at all. This is a simply tweak of the current system. This is admitting that the current system would have always been better served to wait until after the bowls to do its thing instead of trying to incorporate the bowls and the BCS together.

-Sully

 

[bamaslaw]

If we're talking about real reform, I also think the Coaches poll needs to be done away with. The Coaches have no time to watch other games, and the conflict of interest possibilities are HUGE.

 

[colbysullivan]

There will ALWAYS be arguments, but even after last season everyone knows the best team in the country won it all. The current system is fine.

I agree the current system is fine. However, even after the BCSCG, a lot of people I have talked to simply don't believe we were the best team in the country last year. I honestly do not understand how they can think this way, especially with the way our defense performed. The problem is, unfortunately, most people in our country are just plain stupid. Not sure if you read the comments on the link, but they are full of people saying Bama didn't even deserve to be there, and they certainly don't recognize us as the best team. I think Ron White said it best, "You can't fix stupid".

 

[BamaSully]

If we're talking about real reform, I also think the Coaches poll needs to be done away with. The Coaches have no time to watch other games, and the conflict of interest possibilities are HUGE.

You know I hear this all the time but I have a little problem with the theory. It sounds legit . But the problem I always have (as a quality engineer with a large manufacturing company which operates at the whim of fickle consumers) is the intense need to gather all the information and make informed decisions about the real pros and cons.

Sure it seems like they would have a conflict of interest and insufficient time and/or motivation to watch/study all the games to be as informed as you'd like. Makes sense. Problem is, just stating that fact doesn't constitute any effort at all toward solving the problem. The easy part is to state what is wrong. The real work comes in finding a solution that creates a better overall scenario.

I would submit to you that it is entirely possible that the coaches poll, with its built in bias and even considering that the coaches can't watch all the games, probably does a better job of truly ranking the teams in the order of their worth than the AP poll or any computer. Why? Think about it. They know the sport as good as anyone on the planet. If they see the score and the stats, and have some SID telling them the details like, "so and so was injured", or "the rain made the passing games inept", or whatever, they instantly know more about the value of those teams than sportswriters, or me, or you, or a dork nerd who wrote a computer program. And the bias...well that is why there are 60 or 70 of them from all conferences and all areas of the country. For every SEC coach that voted LSU, Bama and Arky 1,2,3, you probably had a west coast guy with LSU, oregon, stanford 1,2,3, and a BIG10 guy with something entirely different. They should somewhat balance out.

When I watch them on the field myself, I tend to agree with the coaches poll, and of course I think I know what I'm looking at and I think I can set aside my Bama and SEC bias in order to make objective judgements.

So sure, theoretically it aint a perfect system, but I think its a damn good one (polls in general) and I am willing to bet that if we do something significantly different we will eventually realize the cons outweighed the pros and regret the decision.

 

[GrayTide]

If you assume that the best 8 teams only get to the 4 major bowls and throwing out the BCS and it's poll how do you decide who are the best or top 8 teams?

 

[BamaSully]

If you assume that the best 8 teams only get to the 4 major bowls and throwing out the BCS and it's poll how do you decide who are the best or top 8 teams?

What are you talking about Gray? Toss me a bone here.