Post-season Play-offs

[Spence]

What standard do you use to judge who is "sufficiently good" enough. Saying Virginia Tech shouldn't get picked over Tulsa or Akron doesn't make any sense to me. Virginia Tech would have won either conference. Won it handily.

I didn't advocate a 20 game playoff. I said to compare any BCS team top two and tell me which team from a non BCS school would be favored if they were to be matched up together. I ask another one using the teams you gave as examples. Which non BCS team would be favored in a game against Alabama, LSU, Virginia Tech, or Oregon?

I didn't use Miami because they weren't one of the teams you used as an example, but you may throw them in there if you like.

[Spence]

I don't think college football needs a play-off, but if they decided to go that route, then the only responsible and fair way to set it up would be to take the top 10 tens regardless of conference. In a playoff situation you are looking to decide the best team, so the top 10 should go. The way they BCS is set up currently they are looking for the two teams that performed the best throughout the year. So it doesn't really matter to the people who control it, to find out who the best team actually would be. I do think most years that the get it right or very close to right, but that has never been the point of the BCS. They are putting on a show. They gave us a host of pretty good "lower" bowl match ups to get us in the mood and then they blew us away with some really excellent BCS match ups.

I don't know how anyone could have watch those games and say that the BCS got it wrong. They absolutlely did it right this year.

[colorado_loves_football]

What standard do you use to judge who is "sufficiently good" enough. Saying Virginia Tech shouldn't get picked over Tulsa or Akron doesn't make any sense to me. Virginia Tech would have won either conference. Won it handily.

I didn't advocate a 20 game playoff. I said to compare any BCS team top two and tell me which team from a non BCS school would be favored if they were to be matched up together. I ask another one using the teams you gave as examples. Which non BCS team would be favored in a game against Alabama, LSU, Virginia Tech, or Oregon?

I didn't use Miami because they weren't one of the teams you used as an example, but you may throw them in there if you like.

Spence, I never meant to imply that Tulsa, Akron, Boise St. or TCU were necessarily 'better' than those teams you mention, but I maybe implied, they 'earned' representation to the BCS, in some fashion.

I know you weren't suggesting a 20-team playoff, but it strikes me as ironic, how much it parallels one, regardless. Pair those teams together in conference championship arrangements, and what's left approximates my proposal, but I think you left a conference out. Nevertheless, your 'argument' actually serves my position as much as it refutes yours.
Those teams (Alabama, Miami, Virginia Tech, LSU, Oregon) were good teams, no question about that, but they didnt' win their conference.
Of those I'd likely only allow Oregon a 'spot' in the BCS.
Akron, TCU, Tulsa, Boise St, and even Arkansas St, were legitimate conference champions. Doesn't mean they all necessarily deserve a 'spot' in the BCS, but doesn't mean that none do, either.
I would have 'paired' TCU and Boise St. together, allowing the winner to participate in the Liberty Bowl, against Tulsa, for 'traditon's sake. As it was, Fresno St, was selected, and lost, basically 'proving' my proposal has some merit to it. The C-USA 'champion' beat the WAC runner-up.
Boise St. and TCU both were likely candidates, but Fresno St appeared 'superior' to either one, but lost their last 3 games, including a game to Louisiana Tech, a possible Sun-Belt representative, in a future model.
So, you can't really tell me, that there's no basis whatsoever to what I 'support'. TCU likely 'belongs' in the Big XII confernece, and their game against Iowa St. demonstrated that, as did their 'win' over Oklahoma. That would have allowed them to play in the Holiday Bowl, a game I believe they might have won, against Oregon. So, the BCS came 'close' to getting it right, I suppose, so we maybe 'agree' on that.
But, I would prefer a model that gets it right every year, not once in it's checkered history. But give them credit for doing a good job, this year, in general. The pairings were competitive and the best teams were victorious, by-and-large. But that is maybe the first time I can remember it being this way, since Alabama played Miami, FL in the Sugar Bowl.
All I ever hoped to accomplish was allow the BCS a 'model' that if applied would assure it of competitive pairings that might also allow for some agreement applied to which team was selected national champions.
You obviously don't like my model, and it's admittedly flawed, but it hasnt' been implemented, either. You can't simply 'dismiss' it because you think it isn't a 'fair' way to select a national champion. I think it does work, although not perfectly, and that's one reason why I feel conference championship games need to be organized, to complement it.
Without those in place, it does rely on a ranking, something I believe isnt' essential to how teams are selected. I prefer competition to select a BCS 'field' over a ranking.

[Spence]

All I ever hoped to accomplish was allow the BCS a 'model' that if applied would assure it of competitive pairings that might also allow for some agreement applied to which team was selected national champions.
You obviously don't like my model, and it's admittedly flawed, but it hasnt' been implemented, either. You can't simply 'dismiss' it because you think it isn't a 'fair' way to select a national champion. I think it does work, although not perfectly, and that's one reason why I feel conference championship games need to be organized, to complement it.
Without those in place, it does rely on a ranking, something I believe isnt' essential to how teams are selected. I prefer competition to select a BCS 'field' over a ranking.

I don't have to agree with you, your model is a valid representation of what you believe. There is nothing wrong with that. That is part of what this is all about. If you have looked at all the possibilities and have decided that, in your opinion, this is the fairest and best system then so be it. You have the right to your opinion and the right to argue it here. Just remember that conference championship games do not always give us the best team in the conference either. In fact a lot of times they do not give us the best team. I believe if there were to be a playoff that the best (pick your number) should be the teams picked to play, regardless of conference.

A playoff would be different then the BCS. A playoff is done to find out who is the best team in the country. The BCS is about creating quality match ups and pairing the top 2 performing teams in the country that year. They are two different things. The BCS gives us a mythical national champion. A playoff would give us a true national champion. That is why it would be important to find the top 10 teams to play in it. Otherwise it would be a farce. The standards for a team getting in to the playoffs would have to be much more strigent then it is for getting into the BCS. The credibility of the sport would be at stake.

[colorado_loves_football]

I don't have to agree with you, your model is a valid representation of what you believe. There is nothing wrong with that. That is part of what this is all about. If you have looked at all the possibilities and have decided that, in your opinion, this is the fairest and best system then so be it. You have the right to your opinion and the right to argue it here. Just remember that conference championship games do not always give us the best team in the conference either. In fact a lot of times they do not give us the best team. I believe if there were to be a playoff that the best (pick your number) should be the teams picked to play, regardless of conference.

A playoff would be different then the BCS. A playoff is done to find out who is the best team in the country. The BCS is about creating quality match ups and pairing the top 2 performing teams in the country that year. They are two different things. The BCS gives us a mythical national champion. A playoff would give us a true national champion. That is why it would be important to find the top 10 teams to play in it. Otherwise it would be a farce. The standards for a team getting in to the playoffs would have to be much more strigent then it is for getting into the BCS. The credibility of the sport would be at stake.

Spence, you have a right to your opinion with respect to how the BCS is organized, but I heartily disagree with you on principle that somehow allowing for a 'playoff' within the BCS would necessarily ruin either one, it wouldn't.

As far as teams being either sufficiently good enough, I'll let the BCS pairings determine that. You yourself suggested they play each other, in 'preliminary' games, I'm guessing to a playoff. I simply want for there to be a way to select one team as a 'concensus' national champion. That's my objective, and that's possible through competition, in the BCS.
Maybe you dont' agree, but it works, and it would also address your concern that maybe a team traditionally 'outside' the BCS might not be sufficiently good enough. I think they are, and having them play in BCS pairings would either validate that, or refute it.

You suggest that a team from a 'lesser' conference couldn't play against a 'major' conference champion. My opinion is that they could play, but that will likely only happen if the BCS adopts my proposal, outside of that we may never really know for sure. And if nothing else, it does select a 'unique' ten-team field, every year, so it would make the BCS ranking unnecessary.

Finally, you imply somehow that my proposal really isn't a playoff but it is, just not in the 'traditional' sense. 9 games is maybe an unusual number, but I think it ties in well with what the BCS has already put together. This year, there will be a 'championship' game following the 4 'traditional' BCS games, and it will vaguely resemble a 'playoff' at least in terms of the two representative teams.

But that's where the similarity ends. It's already clear the BCS can't 'pick' the teams correctly, unless there aren't any alternatives, such as this year, so it's likely to be a 'hodge-podge' grouping of teams. That's unfortunate, because it's fairly simple, easy even to pair teams together competitively, which is why I support the model that allows for that to happen, as an 'alternative' to what the BCS already has in place, since it doesn't destroy anything, but rather complements it.

[Spence]

There is a very simple solution to being able to pick out the best teams. If all conferences would pair with their counterpart in out of conference games. 2 major and 2 mid major on everyones schedule.

An example of this would be; Penn State finished #1 in the Big 10 next year in the OOC games they would play say Akron, Boise St., West Virginia, and Texas. Then Ohio State plays #2 teams from 4 from 4 diiferent conferences like LSU, Oregon, BYU, and Central Florida and so on down the conference schedule. That way there would be a good representation of how teams fair against like opponents. That would be fair to the smaller conferences as well as the larger conferences. It would also create a lot of great match ups early in the year, which would create more interest, which would create more revenue.

If #1 teams from the previous year all played like teams you could compare how they did outside their conference to how they did inside their conference along with the #2's and the #3's and so on. It wouldn't require any changes in the current system and would provide an accurate view of all teams in college football. 1 BCS and 1 non BCS at home, 1 BCS and 1 non BCS team away.

The only thing wrong with your model is that it assumes parity among all conferences and there isn't parity among all conferences. My way lets the cream rise to the top. It provides equal access to all teams and gives everyone a fair shot at getting into the championship game every year provided they win.

This would also provide the poll voters and computers a more accurate picture of a teams strength.

This is me patting myself on the back.

[colorado_loves_football]

There is a very simple solution to being able to pick out the best teams. If all conferences would pair with their counterpart in out of conference games. 2 major and 2 mid major on everyones schedule.

An example of this would be; Penn State finished #1 in the Big 10 next year in the OOC games they would play say Akron, Boise St., West Virginia, and Texas. Then Ohio State plays #2 teams from 4 from 4 diiferent conferences like LSU, Oregon, BYU, and Central Florida and so on down the conference schedule. That way there would be a good representation of how teams fair against like opponents. That would be fair to the smaller conferences as well as the larger conferences. It would also create a lot of great match ups early in the year, which would create more interest, which would create more revenue.

If #1 teams from the previous year all played like teams you could compare how they did outside their conference to how they did inside their conference along with the #2's and the #3's and so on. It wouldn't require any changes in the current system and would provide an accurate view of all teams in college football. 1 BCS and 1 non BCS at home, 1 BCS and 1 non BCS team away.

The only thing wrong with your model is that it assumes parity among all conferences and there isn't parity among all conferences. My way lets the cream rise to the top. It provides equal access to all teams and gives everyone a fair shot at getting into the championship game every year provided they win.

This would also provide the poll voters and computers a more accurate picture of a teams strength.

This is me patting myself on the back.

Spence, it's not a bad model, but in my opinion, it's slanted toward the majors in terms of 'balance'. Why should Boise St. necessarily have to play Penn St? Not that I object, it would likely be a good 'test' for both teams, but that's sort of what I meant when I said it was equivalent to 'suicide' at least for those teams that arent' paired appropriately. That being said, I mostly like it, at least in terms of competition. I think TCU and Ohio St. ought to renew their long-standing rivalry. According to your model, they would likely play each other somewhere along the way and I think that would be good for everyone. But, as a bystander, I would be tempted to put a 'cap' on the number of teams any 'non-BCS' team would have to play that are #1. Two would be my cap. Other than that, I say it is a good idea.
Now, back to the proposal I am in favor of. I agree, it's probably not the 'best' in terms of assuring the BCS of 'comparable' pairings, in the 'championship' games. At best, it's only going to give them the best two, of the 'non-BCS' after the rest have been eliminated. But, proportionally-speaking, it is fair. My proposal depends on the BCS 'Big 6' having their 'full' allotment of 72 teams, meaning 48 are likely left over.
Divide each by 12 and you'll see how it works out, proportionally-speaking.
But, as far as the 'championship' games are concerned, the '6' BCS teams would have priority. They would maintain their position as 'priority' teams, occupying 6/8 positions or roughly 75%. To my mind, that's still giving them the 'competitive' advantage. Those two positions really only represent a small fraction, 25% of the NCAA. Awarding them to teams not traditionally part of the BCS in my opinion is fair.
But, because we already have different attitudes on this matter, suffice to say that I prefer my model over yours. Playing competitve regular season games, isn't a viable substitute for playing them in the BCS.

[Spence]

It's not a bad model, Spence, but unless I"m mistaken many, if not all of the games scheduled OOC are done several years in advance, in the case of Notre Dame, I think maybe it's even something like seven years, but I could be wrong. That being said, I have no objection, personally with that kind of scheduling, provided it's done with the best interests.
Simply having Penn St. play against teams like Boise St. might be one way to 'gauge' how strong they are, but it might also limit how well Boise St, can do competitively, depending on where the game is played.
And, as you already admitted, there is a discrepancy between the 'best' of the 'Big 6' and the rest of the NCAA. But when appropriate, it might be a good 'test' as to where they stand, so the 'occasional' Penn St. game might be a 'fair' evaluation of a Boise St. But I hope you aren't implying they schedule 4 #1's OOC. As I stated in a previous posting, that would equate to 'suicide', competitively, from my perspective.

They would have to schedule different. I am suggesting that all 4 conference games be against #1's. It would be the same for all #1 teams. Boise St. wouldn't neccessarily have to play at Penn St. Each team would have a BCS team home and on the road as well as a non BCS team home and on the road. #2's play the same way and so on. It would be a fair way to gauge all teams and pick the best teams accordingly. It would also hope the recruiting of small conference teams because of better competition.

[colorado_loves_football]

They would have to schedule different. I am suggesting that all 4 conference games be against #1's. It would be the same for all #1 teams. Boise St. wouldn't neccessarily have to play at Penn St. Each team would have a BCS team home and on the road as well as a non BCS team home and on the road. #2's play the same way and so on. It would be a fair way to gauge all teams and pick the best teams accordingly. It would also hope the recruiting of small conference teams because of better competition.

If Boise St, were to have to play 4 #1 teams they likely wouldn't be BCS eligible. But I agree there ought to be a way to secure a team to the BCS, if they play a competitive schedule. TCU would likely need to schedule more teams like Boise St, or even a team such as Oregon, but I think USC is maybe raising the bar a little too high. Same with Texas. So we don't agree on the particulars but in principle you are correct, that competition would have a role in selecting 'eligible' teams to a 'revised' BCS, something I support.

[Spence]

Boise St., may or may not get USC. They would get two out of the following Texas, USC, Penn St., Notre Dame, West Virginia, Georgia, or Florida St. Then they would also get two of the conference champions of the smaller conference teams. It is a perfect way to find out who the best teams are and it would take away the BCS-Mid Major bias. If a mid major team beat 3 or 4 of their OOC games, they would have the resume to have a shot at the championship game. If they didn't do well in the games and they drop down to #4 in their conference then next year they match up with 2 BCS #4 teams and 2 non BCS #4 teams out of conference. It would be a lot like playing in a playoff during the season. There wouldn't be as much controversy because all conference teams would be playing very good schedules against good competition. Then you wouldn't have guys like me saying that the mid majors can't hang at the top of the sport. BCS teams would still likely play harder schedules because the conferences are better top to bottom, but this way a team in Utah's position last year would get a fair shot at the title game and the chance to prove they belong. I think this is the most honest fair way to decide.

Remember that USC would also have to play 2 BCS #1 teams and 2 non BCS #1 teams. All the teams would be playing in equal position according to their conference ranking. No one would get by playing a weaker schedule because their conference was "down" that year. They would play minimum of 2 or 3 ranked teams during the season.

This would also help recruiting at the non BCS teams because they would be able to offer recruits a chance to play in really big games and a chance at a title every year if they play well.

My back is getting sore from all the patting i am doing now

I can't think of a more fair way to decide who the best teams in the country are and who should play in the big bowls. The TV people would go nuts with the early match ups and the regular season would mean more then it does now.

The only down side I can see to this is if a conference is particularly good top to bottom they will play an extremely tough schedule. That said, even the toughest conferences have two or three teams that aren't very good so they wouldn't be playing ranked teams every week.

Feel free to shoot this proposal full of holes, as of right now I can't think of a good reason that this wouldn't give everyone a fair shot at the national championship. The only way a team could get snubbed under this system is if the came out of the bottom of their conference to be undefeated. Even if this happens, though, it is likely they would have to beat a couple of ranked teams and would at least get consideration for that. Maybe it wouldn't be enough, but how often does a team go from worst to 1st. anyway. Teams in the 3rd or 4 th position in the smaller conferences may have an advantage, but they would still need to beat good teams to get there so I would say it is still fair.

[Jason G]

I like the idea as well. This is the kind of thing I was talking about when I said something about schedule reform in another thread.
I would tweak the idea a little though. I think you may want to have as many teams as possible playing equal caliber out of conference schedules instead of some teams playing all #1s and others playing all #8s or #9s. If a team went undefeated after finishing in 9th place the year before people would still point to their non-league schedule as a liability.

I'd like to see a system that is more like the following;

For simplicity I'll base it on 120 teams (maybe the 120th could be the previous season's 1-AA champ with respect to non-conf games only).

I'd like to see a system where the #1 hosted the #120 and travelled to #61. #2 would host #119 and travel to #62, continuing on down to #60 hosting #61 and visiting #120.
At least for those two games the SOS numbers would be pretty equal plus every team would be guaranteed one game at home and one game on the road The top teams would have the easiest games in the first week but the toughest ones in the second week. Mid-majors would get a fair chance against the big boys but still keep it fair.

Granted this only takes up two of the four non-conf games but I only divided the teams into the top 60 and bottom 60. 120 could also be divided into 4 groups of 30 or maybe there could be a combination of the way I stated and the plan you came up with.

One primary concern: What about traditional non-conference rivalries like ND/ USC and Florida/ Florida State or even Iowa/ Iowa State?

[Spence]

I like the idea as well. This is the kind of thing I was talking about when I said something about schedule reform in another thread.
I would tweak the idea a little though. I think you may want to have as many teams as possible playing equal caliber out of conference schedules instead of some teams playing all #1s and others playing all #8s or #9s. If a team went undefeated after finishing in 9th place the year before people would still point to their non-league schedule as a liability.

That is the beauty of this. Even if the #9 team played 4 #9 teams OOC, all of those teams would play the teams in their conference that would have played some highly ranked teams or would be highly ranked themselves. There would be a direct comparison as to their strength. It is possible that teams with better records could not make it, but it would be based on direct comparisons to ranked teams. This would always be the case.

Say the #9 team beat the #1 team in their conference by 25 points and the #1 team lost to #1 Penn St. by 5 and #1 Texas by 14. There would be sufficient evidence that they should be ranked above those teams, especially if they played well against their conference and the other #1's they played. This gives you a direct reference that works whether you play the toughest schedule in the country or the weakest schedule in the country. Although, it would promote teams coming out of the middle of they pack more often, it would also likely give us the best match ups come bowl time.

[Jason G]

Just to be sure I understand correctly... you are saying that even though a school might not play a top level team themselves in this system that they at least would be playing opponents in the course of their league schedule that did thus improving their SOS.

I believe that is would be especially true with the computer rankings but I'm not real sure how it would play out with the human polls. I think that sometimes those polls are based way too much on the name of the school and the tradition and history that goes with it.

I agree this would be much better than the way it is currently done since it would give everyone a better chance to make a name for themselves.

I think my main concern here would be if a non-BCS school started winning their league each and every year. Then they would be playing the top teams nationally year in and year out. This would be very attractive to "blue chip" recruits and certainly help that school but it may also create less parity in some cases too.

Also, if this type of thing ever did happen I would hope that the conferences that meet up each year wouldn't always be the same. There should be some sort of conference rotation or something in place. Also I don't think that every school from one conference should play schools from the same conferences as everyone else in their league. For example, if the MAC #1 plays the Big 10 #1, Big East #1, MWC #1, and Sun Belt #1 then maybe the MAC #2 should play the SEC #2, Pac-10 #2, C-USA #2, and WAC #2. It could be pre-determined a year or two in advance which spots and leagues would play each other. There good be a good mix and each team could play a wide variety of opponents over the course of a few years.
Also, I am assuming that each school would play two home and two away games with mid-majors actually being able to host BCS-type teams.

I'm still not sure about the whole traditional non-conf rivals thing. I don't think a lot of people would like to see a lot of those rivalries fall by the wayside. Plus, what do you do about independents? Would there still be a "Commander and Chief Trophy" to be had by one of the service academies? Just some thoughts.

I do think we are talking about the right thing here though. I whole-heartedly believe some sort of fair and systematic type of scheduling is the way to go.

[Spence]

[quote="Jason G]I think my main concern here would be if a non-BCS school started winning their league each and every year. Then they would be playing the top teams nationally year in and year out. This would be very attractive to "blue chip" recruits and certainly help that school but it may also create less parity in some cases too.

Also, if this type of thing ever did happen I would hope that the conferences that meet up each year wouldn't always be the same. There should be some sort of conference rotation or something in place. Also I don't think that every school from one conference should play schools from the same conferences as everyone else in their league. For example, if the MAC #1 plays the Big 10 #1, Big East #1, MWC #1, and Sun Belt #1 then maybe the MAC #2 should play the SEC #2, Pac-10 #2, C-USA #2, and WAC #2. It could be pre-determined a year or two in advance which spots and leagues would play each other. There good be a good mix and each team could play a wide variety of opponents over the course of a few years.
Also, I am assuming that each school would play two home and two away games with mid-majors actually being able to host BCS-type teams[/quote]

I think it would create more parity. Players would know that they would get attention in any league on most any team.

THe conferences shouldn't be the same every year. THey could get a computer to spit out the schedule like the conferences do. It would be random. Also the #2s wouldn't play the same conferences as the #1's. They would be mixed so that the there would be as many direct comparisons as possible. Pretty much like you example. (sorry I didn't read that as close as I should have.

Each school would play 2 home and 2 away. 1 BCS home, one away and 1 non BCS home, one away.

The bad thing about this is the non conference rivalries. I don't know any way to fix that and make this system work. Maybe they could kick out the championship game in every conference and add 1 elective game for everyone. It wouldn't make the season any longer for most conferences and that could be a money game for the schools.

The independents would have to be worked in based on strength of their schedule and wins from the previous year. That is the only way I know to do it. Unless of course they would finally decide that conference play would be a better way to go.

As far as the human polls are concerned I believe this would fix that. If say Ohio State is the media darling going into next year, but they don't have the team that the poll voters think they would be weeded out early by losing a few games OOC. They would be playing 4 #2 teams out af the gate. If they are 2-2 after 4 games there is no way the human polls could hold them up in the rankings over some other teams that are 4-0 or 3-1.

Teams coming from the weaker ends of the conference would likely have to wait longer, until they play the good teams in there conference, to move up. That would be because the top direct comparisons wouldn't come until they played the top half of their conference. But they would have a better chance to move up.

The only bad thing about this system is the non conference rivalry games.

[colorado_loves_football]

Spence, as you probably expected, there are some 'plusses' and some 'minuses' to your proposal. I actually like it in principle, it would be a 'fair' way to schedule non-conference games, but it would also maybe be a little too 'restrictive' for teams such as Jason mentioned, that already have 'rivals', non-confernece.
That being said, I think having a 'standardized' way to schedule non-conference games might allow for more interesting pairings early in the year, when some teams are simply getting their feet wet.
You referred to how TCU made a 'deal' with LSU, for 2013 & 2014, but that sort of tells you how far in advance those deals are made, at least for schools like Texas Christian, and that also might partly explain why they haven't had as strong OOC schedules as you might have preferred.
Even so, I think TCU has a fairly tough schedule ahead of them this year.
Baylor appears to be 'on the rise' and might even challenge for the Big XII S. title, if Texas doesn't run away with it.
Playing Texas Tech, in Ft. Worth, won't be easy, but I think the Frogs will be up for it, competitively-speaking. Army, actually isn't as bad a team as you might think, I believe they beat Air Force for like the first time since 1996. Air Force wasn't that good, but they generally play pretty well against service academies. We all know that Navy was decent, as well. Those are games that have to be 'included' in any revision of scheduling, but maybe you can 'trim' your proposal to two games?