PLAYOFF COMING?

[GatorGrad]

Terry Bowden thinks so...

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=tb-playoffs033007&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

[CJHawkeyes]

The slowest moving sport. As if they actually have to wait five years.

[GatorGrad]

Well, contractually, there is no incentive to do it any sooner since they already have a nice deal in place w/ Fox that takes them through the 2009 season under the current setup. I expect a 4-team playoff starting in 2010.

[Blue Hen]

That's encouraging but a 4 team 'BCS' concoction would still not be an NCAA D1 football championship. It's got to be open to all the leagues.

[ZOOMBAG]

I imagine it will start being based on the current BCS ratings, but will quickly expand to 16-24 over a period of a few years and be structured a lot like hockey and such.

[Blue Hen]

That would be good, but I still don't like a breakaway cartel of 66 schools ( and a few big bowls ) controlling the college football post season......but anything beyond a 'voted' 2 team MNC would be better.

[CJHawkeyes]

I imagine it will start being based on the current BCS ratings, but will quickly expand to 16-24 over a period of a few years and be structured a lot like hockey and such.

I wish there was someone like Florida's AD to push for a completely transparent objective ranking system. Nine years of the BCS and far too many fans continue to embrace the worthless opinion polls in large part due to ignorance about "computers". Not my first choice, but ranking teams by records is more fair and practical than the BCS formula.

[GatorGrad]

That's encouraging but a 4 team 'BCS' concoction would still not be an NCAA D1 football championship. It's got to be open to all the leagues.

How would it not be "open to all leagues?" I'm sure there will be a way for mid major conference teams to qualify for a 4-team playoff. Of course a 16-team NCAA Playoff including all 11 conference champs would be ideal, but let's face it...that is not happening anytime soon. Baby steps. This is the necessary first step towards an 8 or 16 team tournament. Let's just cross our fingers that it gets done for now.

The game has evolved and gone in the right direction the last 10-15 years. Think about it - we used to have the normal bowl tie ins where the top four teams would all play in different bowls. Then we had the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance which tried to at least match up #1 and #2 (except for the Big Ten and PAC 10 which stayed loyal to the Rose Bowl and thus Penn St '94 and Az St '96 screwed themselves out of a MNC shot.) Then in 1998, we got the BCS. Say what you want about it as it certainly is flawed, but it IS a playoff involving all teams and conferences. The problem is that it's just a TWO team playoff. And the criteria for who plays in the game is flawed. But it's better than any of the older systems where #1 could not always play #2. The Big Ten/Pac 10/Rose Bowl agreeing to the BCS was a HUGE step.

So we DO have a playoff! It's just not enough teams and the criteria is wrong. The next step is doubling it to four teams and expanding the field which will at least avoid situations like Ohio St '98, Miami '00, Oregon '01, USC '03, and Auburn '04. If that works out well, the next step will be expanding to 8 or 16, which would probably require the NCAA to finally step in and take it over which doesn't seem likely at this point.

I think a 4-team playoff would be great. It won't make the regular season meaningless as it's not easy to finish in the top four. You'll either need to go unbeaten, or probably have one loss at the most. A two loss team would need to have played a heck of a schedule. The structure is already in place with the bowls...let's make it happen boys!

[Blue Hen]

To have a real championship, simply replace rankings, ratings, and assorted opinionated stuff with.....................

...........STANDINGS !

Every Conference has standings...and they are not 'opinionated'. Everything is in place. Let standings determine which teams advance to the post season to play for national championships...no votes necessary.

[GatorGrad]

To have a real championship, simply replace rankings, ratings, and assorted opinionated stuff with.....................

...........STANDINGS !

Every Conference has standings...and they are not 'opinionated'. Everything is in place. Let standings determine which teams advance to the post season to play for national championships...no votes necessary.

I agree...but it's not that easy to have standings when there are over 100 teams competing and only playing against 10% of the rest of the competition. How would you determine the 5 "at large" bids in a 16-team tourney assuming the 11 conference champs (which would be based on standings) would get auto bids? What "standings" would you use?

You have also used basketball as an example but even they have to use SOME "ratings and opinions" to determine at large bids. The only way that pure standings could be used for a playoff is if they realigned conferences with equal # of teams and only conference or division champs playing. That's easy to do in pro sports when there are only approx 30 teams, but not when there are 100+ teams with traditional conferences in place.

No system is perfect. Give me the 4 team playoff for now, and I'll be happy.

[CJHawkeyes]

I agree...but it's not that easy to have standings when there are over 100 teams competing and only playing against 10% of the rest of the competition. How would you determine the 5 "at large" bids in a 16-team tourney assuming the 11 conference champs (which would be based on standings) would get auto bids? What "standings" would you use?

You have also used basketball as an example but even they have to use SOME "ratings and opinions" to determine at large bids. The only way that pure standings could be used for a playoff is if they realigned conferences with equal # of teams and only conference or division champs playing. That's easy to do in pro sports when there are only approx 30 teams, but not when there are 100+ teams with traditional conferences in place.

No system is perfect. Give me the 4 team playoff for now, and I'll be happy.


On the contrary, it is very easy to have standings for over 100 teams. The problem are those people that dismiss any standings produced by objective rules if they don't match their subjective answers to irrelevant questions.

[Blue Hen]

All 11 conferences have champions based on a combination of standings and CCCs.......... nothing opinionated. Conference champs are not 'voted'. They're the only real thing we have. The champs automatically advance.

Yes, the 5 'at large' teams would require the judgement of the selection committee. I don't see any way around that.

[CJHawkeyes]

All 11 conferences have champions based on a combination of standings and CCCs.......... nothing opinionated. Conference champs are not 'voted'. They're the only real thing we have. The champs automatically advance.

Yes, the 5 'at large' teams would require the judgement of the selection committee. I don't see any way around that.

About the only thing we seem to disagree on. Subjectivity is not required nor useful.

[GatorGrad]

About the only thing we seem to disagree on. Subjectivity is not required nor useful.

CJ - So I take it that you don't agree with how the NCAA Tournament selects at large bids?

[CJHawkeyes]

CJ - So I take it that you don't agree with how the NCAA Tournament selects at large bids?


No, I don't agree.

[Blue Hen]

Interesting that you mention 04 Auburn, 01 Oregon, 03 USC etc., as samples of the 'exclusion' problem.............but not 04 Utah, 06 Boise St. 03 Miami,O etc. As long as these 'BCS' concocted championships are restricted to 'popular' and 'name brand' teams only it won't be fully legitimate. That's the fairness of all other NCAA sports.....name brand recognition is not 'the' primary qualifying factor.
But, of course, I agree with you in that a 4 team mythical national championship would be 100% better than the 2 team MNC that we have now. In my lifetime I just hope to see a 100% 'open' and real one. For that to happen, the NCAA would have to control the post season............not the bowls and a half dozen rich leagues.

[Don]

On the contrary, it is very easy to have standings for over 100 teams. The problem are those people that dismiss any standings produced by objective rules if they don't match their subjective answers to irrelevant questions.

Fine, one of the rules to get an autobid for the playoffs is that you must be a conference champ and play at least 2 and beat at least 1 opponent in the top 25 as ranked by the Massey composite rankings.

[GatorGrad]

Interesting that you mention 04 Auburn, 01 Oregon, 03 USC etc., as samples of the 'exclusion' problem.............but not 04 Utah, 06 Boise St. 03 Miami,O etc. As long as these 'BCS' concocted championships are restricted to 'popular' and 'name brand' teams only it won't be fully legitimate. That's the fairness of all other NCAA sports.....name brand recognition is not 'the' primary qualifying factor.
But, of course, I agree with you in that a 4 team mythical national championship would be 100% better than the 2 team MNC that we have now. In my lifetime I just hope to see a 100% 'open' and real one. For that to happen, the NCAA would have to control the post season............not the bowls and a half dozen rich leagues.

I did not list '04 Utah, '06 Boise St, etc as being issues that would be resolved under the 4-team BCS playoff because quite simply, those issues would not be resolved. Those teams didn't finish in the top four, so they would be left out. I only said that the 4-team playoff would resolve those other issues as stated above. Perfect? No. But better than what we have now. The next step would be making sure that no team can finish unbeaten and not have a shot at the title. Until that happens, any system will be flawed. If you can't control your own destiny for a title by going unbeaten, then the system is flawed. As you said, that would probably require the NCAA to take over which isn't happening anytime soon. Thus, I'll take the 4-team playoff...for now. It would be exciting and would eliminate a LOT of issues. Not all, but a lot of them.

[FLORIDA HERD FAN]

The best solution is way too simple.

Let the BCS conferences do as they please postseason, but also have a true 16-team NCAA D-IA national championship tournament.

If any eligible teams from BCS conferences desire to compete for a true national championship, they would be welcomed to participate in the NCAA tournament. If not -- it would be their lost opportunity.

[CJHawkeyes]

Fine, one of the rules to get an autobid for the playoffs is that you must be a conference champ and play at least 2 and beat at least 1 opponent in the top 25 as ranked by the Massey composite rankings.


I could see a minimum ranking required for a conference champion to retain an auto bid. For example, a top 32 finish. But I'm not sure your requirements are practical. For starters, top 25 is an arbitrary cutoff. That said, the odds of everyone being able to meet your schedule requirements in order to make all conference title races relevant are limited. NonBCS conferences are lucky to have one team ranked and that team, likely the conference champion, will have no ranked opponents in conference. That leaves four games for them to schedule two. This leaves nonBCS schools at the mercy of BCS schools. Any games scheduled will be on their terms and there is ultimately no reason for BCS schools to schedule the better nonBCS schools in order to prevent them from meeting auto bid requirements thereby creating five more at-large berths. If I'm not mistaken Boise State did not meet this requirement last year.

[Don]

I could see a minimum ranking required for a conference champion to retain an auto bid. For example, a top 32 finish. But I'm not sure your requirements are practical. For starters, top 25 is an arbitrary cutoff. That said, the odds of everyone being able to meet your schedule requirements in order to make all conference title races relevant are limited. NonBCS conferences are lucky to have one team ranked and that team, likely the conference champion, will have no ranked opponents in conference. That leaves four games for them to schedule two. This leaves nonBCS schools at the mercy of BCS schools. Any games scheduled will be on their terms and there is ultimately no reason for BCS schools to schedule the better nonBCS schools in order to prevent them from meeting auto bid requirements thereby creating five more at-large berths. If I'm not mistaken Boise State did not meet this requirement last year.

That's right Boise St, Troy, Houston, Central Michigan, and Oklahoma wouldn't get an autobid. That leaves the other 6 conference champs with auto bids.

Actually, IF there are going to be auto bids I would like to see it upped to 3 ranked opponents and 2 victories. That would cut the autobids to 3 (UF, OSU ans USC) and open the rest up to the field.

[HellYeahHokie]

I did not list '04 Utah, '06 Boise St, etc as being issues that would be resolved under the 4-team BCS playoff because quite simply, those issues would not be resolved. Those teams didn't finish in the top four, so they would be left out....

I could be wrong, but it wasn't that long ago.

[CJHawkeyes]

That's right Boise St, Troy, Houston, Central Michigan, and Oklahoma wouldn't get an autobid. That leaves the other 6 conference champs with auto bids.

Actually, IF there are going to be auto bids I would like to see it upped to 3 ranked opponents and 2 victories. That would cut the autobids to 3 (UF, OSU ans USC) and open the rest up to the field.


Based on those requirements, auto bids would be pointless and you might as well take the top 16 teams straight as that is what you will get anyway. How many teams will beat two ranked opponents, win their conference, and finish outside the top 16? BTW, I think any requirements like the ones you favor here should be limited to victories. Why should 2-1 versus three ranked opponents be worth more than 3-0 versus three opponents with two ranked?

[H.I.]

just start a 16 team playoff with 8 auto bids from the top 8 conference champions and have 8 at-large teams based on some type of computer ranking sort of like the BCS now. it is that simple. you'll have a good mix of traditional powers and at least 2 so-called "mid-majors" each year. and if for example, if boise state is ranked 7th in the computer standings but happens to play in the 10th best conference they'd still get an at-large bid. and this way it also ensures that nobody ranked in the top 8 in the nation gets left out of the playoff.

[CJHawkeyes]

just start a 16 team playoff with 8 auto bids from the top 8 conference champions and have 8 at-large teams based on some type of computer ranking sort of like the BCS now. it is that simple. you'll have a good mix of traditional powers and at least 2 so-called "mid-majors" each year. and if for example, if boise state is ranked 7th in the computer standings but happens to play in the 10th best conference they'd still get an at-large bid. and this way it also ensures that nobody ranked in the top 8 in the nation gets left out of the playoff.


Unless nine champions are ranked outside the top 16, there is no way a top 8 team fails to make a 16 team playoff. That said, I think there can be no stipulations on auto bids. Their purpose is to ensure each conference is represented. I think NonBCS conferences need the guaranteed auto bid for recruiting purposes if they are ever to close the gap on BCS conferences. Furthermore, auto bids for all conferences favors the best BCS teams. If you are the top seed, you prefer BYU, Houston, Central Michigan, and Troy in the playoff field.

[Blue Hen]

Nah.....you gotta get that whole idea of 'ranked' out of champioship criteria. 'Rankings' are , basically, opinionated votes based on name brand recognition, expectations, reputations, biases............especially the idiotic pre-season rankings which determine so much of the post season pie. As long as big time college football is powered by 'rankings' it will always be mythical in nature.

[CJHawkeyes]

Nah.....you gotta get that whole idea of 'ranked' out of champioship criteria. 'Rankings' are , basically, opinionated votes based on name brand recognition, expectations, reputations, biases............especially the idiotic pre-season rankings which determine so much of the post season pie. As long as big time college football is powered by 'rankings' it will always be mythical in nature.

Is this directed at me? If so, rankings and standings mean the same thing to me. I'm not referring to any subjective rankings when I use the word "ranked".

[Blue Hen]

More to Don's post. Rankings and ratings are opinions. I'm for minimizing opinions in formulating sports championships.

[Don]

So how would you select the field of 64?

[ZOOMBAG]

You have to have hard-and-fast standing rules much like the NFL, where the tie breakers for the at-large (wild cards) go very deep.

Bottom line, OBJECTIVE criteria such as, records of opponents, margin of victory, home-away and so on. Make your tie-breakers go 10 deep or more. No subjectivity at all is to ever be applied. No "selection" committees.

[CJHawkeyes]

So how would you select the field of 64?

Me? I'd use the same rules I favor for football. In fact, I posted an approximation around the time the NCAA field was announced. The approximation agreed with the committee on 57 of 64 teams and seeds of actual qualifiers were within +/- two spots on average. Also, the higher seeds under the approximation were 50-14 in the tournament and wins by Winthrop and VCU were not upsets based on those seedings.

[Don]

The best solution is way too simple.

Let the BCS conferences do as they please postseason, but also have a true 16-team NCAA D-IA national championship tournament.

If any eligible teams from BCS conferences desire to compete for a true national championship, they would be welcomed to participate in the NCAA tournament. If not -- it would be their lost opportunity.

I agree. Let the BCS schools do what they want which is to have a meaningful D1 tournament using only BCS schools for an 8 team playoff and let the non-bcs schools have a D1A playoff also. The D1A (AKA non-BCS) schools would soon be relegated to D1AA status.

[Don]

More to Don's post. Rankings and ratings are opinions. I'm for minimizing opinions in formulating sports championships.


There is no way there is ever going to be a playoff that includes autobids for ALL conference champs (as in BB). In order to include all champions the field would have to include more at large berths than auto bids (as in BB) and that would put the field at 24 at the least. This would mean an unacceptable number of rounds (at least 5) the crown a champion (that will NEVER fly).

The absolute maximum number of teams to be included would be 8 and this would require a selection process. As soon as you begin "selecting" teams the "selection" is going to have to include not just won-loss record but would include a "strength of schedule" component. This would then result in the elimination of nearly all non-BCS schools. Like it or not the smaller conferences MUST work to build up the NON-CONFERENCE games by playing GOOD BCS teams and beating them.

[Don]

I could be wrong, but it wasn't that long ago.

It was 04 and here are the regular season schedules.

Team records for Utah
G1) UNLV (2-9-0) 63-28
G2) Arizona (3-8-0) 23-6
G3) Utah St. (3-8-0) 48-6
G4) Colorado St. (4-7-0) 63-31
G5) San Diego St. (4-7-0) 51-28
G6) BYU (5-6-0) 52-21
G7) Air Force (5-6-0) 49-35
G8) North Carolina (6-6-0) 46-16
G9) New Mexico (7-5-0) 28-7
G10) Wyoming (7-5-0) 45-28
G11) Texas A&M (7-5-0) 41-21
TOTAL (53-72-0)

Team records for USC
G1) Washington (1-10-0) 38-0
G2) Arizona (3-8-0) 49-9
G3) Colorado St. (4-7-0) 49-0
G4) Stanford (4-7-0) 31-28
G5) BYU (5-6-0) 42-10
G6) Washington St. (5-6-0) 42-12
G7) UCLA (6-6-0) 29-24
G8) Notre Dame (6-6-0) 41-10
G9) Oregon St. (7-5-0) 28-20
G10) Arizona St. (9-3-0) 45-7
G11) California (10-2-0) 23-17
G12) Virginia Tech (10-3-0) 24-13
TOTAL (69-59-0)

Team records for Auburn
G1) Kentucky (2-9-0) 42-10
G2) Mississippi St. (3-8-0) 43-14
G3) Mississippi (4-7-0) 35-14
G4) Arkansas (5-6-0) 38-20
G5) La.-Monroe (5-6-0) 31-0
G6) Alabama (6-6-0) 21-13
G7) Louisiana Tech (6-6-0) 52-7
G8) LSU (9-3-0) 10-9
G9) Georgia (10-2-0) 24-6
G10) Tennessee (10-3-0) 38-28
G11) Tennessee (10-3-0) 34-10
TOTALl (70-59-0)

Note that Utah never played anyone with a better record than 7-5.

There were 11 teams that finished in the top25 that played at either 1 or 2 OOC BCS opponent with at least 7 wins. None played 3 or more.
Arizona St.
Boise St.
Florida
Florida St.
Georgia
Iowa (2)
Louisville
LSU
USC
Utah
Virginia Tech (2)

Here is the top25 with the games against major conference opponents that won at least 7 games.
Louisville 1
Boise St. 1
Utah 1
Florida St. 3
Florida 4
Ohio St. 4
Texas Tech 4
Virginia 4
Boston College 3
California 3
Pittsburgh 3
Arizona St. 4
LSU 4
Tennessee 4
Miami (FL) 4
Michigan 4
Wisconsin 4
Georgia 5
Auburn 4
USC 4
Texas 5
Virginia Tech 5
Oklahoma 5
Iowa 7

Why should Utah be in the tournament when there are 22 other teams that played better opponents?

[GatorGrad]

The more I think of it, the more I really think that 4 teams would be just fine. It would pretty much guarantee that if you finished unbeaten, and played a decent schedule, that you will have the opportunity to play for the MNC. Think about it - when do unbeaten teams that play good schedules ever finish outside of the top four? All of those mid major teams that finished unbeaten, but didn't finish in the BCS Top Four did not play schedules that compared to the others. If a mid major plays a strong non conference schedule AND goes unbeaten, then they WILL finish in the top four.

Four teams would keep the regular season important, and you wouldn't see any 3-4 loss teams involved. It would make overall record and strength of schedule the most important factors which makes sense. To finish in the top four in MOST year, you will either need to go unbeaten with a legit schedule, or have one loss with a hard schedule. Of course a full blown 16-team playoff with all 11 conference champs would be ideal, but let's face it...that won't happen until the NCAA takes over which is a long way away. Give me the 4-team playoff!

[Blue Hen]

The SOS is not equal to all teams. Teams in the non 'chosen' leagues will rarely have the SOS advantage , simply because they must play league schedules within their conferences. It's not a level playing field.

Anyway, doubling the field for the BCS championship is certainly better but the winner will still not be able to display a D1 NCAA national championship trophy in its trophy case. All other NCAA sports champions have such trophies to display.

[GatorGrad]

The SOS is not equal to all teams. Teams in the non 'chosen' leagues will rarely have the SOS advantage , simply because they must play league schedules within their conferences. It's not a level playing field.

Anyway, doubling the field for the BCS championship is certainly better but the winner will still not be able to display a D1 NCAA national championship trophy in its trophy case. All other NCAA sports champions have such trophies to display.

That is true, but at some point we might have to accept that the NCAA will not be running a real 16-team tournament and settle for a 4-team BCS Playoff. I think most college football fans would settle for such a setup.

[Blue Hen]

Agree. I'm a stubborn old fart who wants big time CF to be a genuine and legitimate NCAA championhip sport, but it will probably stay more of an exhibition sport.

[Don]

Agree. I'm a stubborn old fart who wants big time CF to be a genuine and legitimate NCAA championhip sport, but it will probably stay more of an exhibition sport.

I want a "big time CF to be a genuine and legitimate NCAA championhip sport" also. The only problem is that would mean eliminating "small time CF" teams from the playoff.