CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Dec 9, 2008 12:39:31 GMT -5
In what has become an annual undertaking for me, I'd like to offer a hypothetical, parallel universe - a more perfect world, if you will. Let's pretend for a second that NCAA Division I-A (or FBS, whatever) Football had what we all want - a playoff system. This system is based on the current BCS sytem, i.e. a playoff based on the teams that made it to a BCS bowl or the national championship game this year.
However, a few changes:
1) Let's assume that the Big 12 actually had a legitimate tiebreaker system, and what should have happened did - Texas played in the Big 12 championship game instead of Oklahoma, and defeated Missouri to take, let's say, the number two spot in the BCS standings. Let's put Florida as number one by virtue of their defeat of #1 Alabama, jumping three spots from #4 to top dog, and Oklahoma as #3.
2) That any FBS team, no matter what conference, that finishes the season undefeated gets an automatic spot in the BCS playoffs. I think this would be a great thing, because it actually gives a mid-major school the shot it deserves if they win all of their games throughout the season. In my mind, it's only fair. Plus Ball State would be kicking themselves big-time right now for losing to Buffalo. It would also give BCS schools incentive to schedule good mid-majors like Utah and Boise State, in order to have a chance to give them a loss and essentially eliminate them from the BCS race.
3) Because of the undefeated mid-major stipulation, let's expand the BCS playoffs two slots to 12 teams. Imagine the controversy if 3 or 4 mid-majors went undefeated, and took spots from power conference teams. It would get ugly.
So, under the "CAHoya07" system, the playoffs would look a lot like those of the NFL - 12 teams, with the top 4 getting byes.
Here are the BCS seedings right now, under current system: (1) Oklahoma (2) Florida (3) Texas (4) Alabama (5) USC (6) Utah (7) Penn State (8) Ohio State (9) Cincinnati (10) Virginia Tech
Under the "CAHoya07" system, with all my stipulations, this is what the seedings would look like, based on automatic bids and final BCS standings: (1) Florida (2) Texas (3) Oklahoma (4) Alabama (5) USC (6) Utah (7) Texas Tech (8) Penn State (9) Boise State (10) Ohio State (11) Cincinnati (12) Virginia Tech
Let's take a look at the matchups.
(5) USC vs. (12) Virginia Tech (6) Utah vs. (11) Cincinnati (7) Texas Tech vs. (10) Ohio State (8) Penn State vs. (9) Boise State
Possible second-round matchups: (1) Florida vs. (8) Penn State/(9) Boise State winner (2) Texas vs. (7) Texas Tech/(10) Ohio State winner (3) Oklahoma vs. (6) Utah/(11) Cincinnati winner (4) Alabama vs. (5) USC/(12) Virginia Tech
Now come on, who WOULDN'T want to see this? Granted, first round matchups are kind of blah, but imagine: a possible Texas-Texas Tech rematch? Alabama vs. USC? Boise State possibly upsetting another BCS team to get a shot at Florida? The possibilities are endless. But most of all, this is the most FAIR way to decide a national champion, with every deserving team getting a chance. I don't see how we can have it any other way.
I have a few items to address that I'm sure critics will bring up, and I'll discuss this more in depth in a future post. But briefly:
1) Existing bowl system? Convert BCS bowls and other high profile bowls into sites for different rounds of the playoffs. For example, the Rose Bowl and the Orange Bowl could serve the semifinal games this year, then rotate out as the Orange and Fiesta Bowl serve as those sites for the next year. That way you can keep some of the tradition of the bowls, but now they actually mean something - moving on to the next round of the playoffs. Remaining bowls? Keep them, play them during the week as sort of an NIT game for those who didn't qualify, and for football fans, an appetizer for the BCS playoff games that matter on Saturday.
2) Scheduling? Common criticisms of a possible playoff system are that there would be too many games, and that playoff games would occur during students' exam periods. In response, I would shorten the season by a game or two, making 10 or 11 game seasons instead of 12 or 13, depending on your conference. One or two less non-conference games, or one less non-conference and one less in-conference, should do the trick. Then, you could have a bye week after the regular season when students can take exams, then the playoffs will happen and roll into early January.
3) Money? I have no concrete evidence for this, but I'd imagine TV ratings would skyrocket with a playoff system. Plus, keeping the bowls in name as playoff rounds will allow those bowls to keep their sponsors, and added TV revenue would give these sponsors more exposure, and more money.
Questions, comments, concerns, anything I left out? Lemme know.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 9, 2008 12:48:19 GMT -5
CAHoya07 for President!
(or at least NCAA commissioner)
Oh, I'm sure there are flaws in this system, but the fundamental question remains: Is It Better?
I say yes, by an exponential factor.
And I also agree that having a playoff does not mean you have to get rid of bowl games. People who say that sort of thing are just making excuses.
Well done.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,441
|
Post by hoyarooter on Dec 9, 2008 12:59:34 GMT -5
The funny thing about this (and it's just the way things turned out this year) is that the semis could potentially feature two conference rematches - Florida/Alabama (although I wouldn't take odds on Bama beating USC) and, of course, Texas/Oklahoma. Some people might find this objectionable, but if it's the way the system plays out, so be it.
And to answer your question as to who would oppose this: No football fan with half a brain.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 9, 2008 13:31:50 GMT -5
I see no reason for this to be 12 teams. 8 teams. The only reason to be 12 is to play politics -- basically to allow the BCS conferences to have auto bids without making it suck. But does anyone want to see those first round games?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 9, 2008 13:42:56 GMT -5
CAHoya07, that is almost identical to the system I proposed before the season even started. The only real differences is that I was taking it an additional step by trying to incorporate the bowls into the equation, while also acknowleging the significance in giving the week plus off for finals/holidays etc....
Basically, my 12 teamer started the same as yours, with the top 4 receiving first round byes. The first round matchups would then be played this coming weekend (the Saturday after the Conference Championship games). These games would be played at the home of the higher seeded team. So with your example, USC, Utah, Texas Tech and Penn. St. would have home games this weekend.
Then there would be the break for finals and holidays, with the final 8 teams playing in 4 of the "major" bowls -- for example, the Cotton, Orange, Sugar and Gator. Then under this scenario, the Rose and Fiesta would host the semi-finals the following week. This time schedule would maintain the current bowl arrangements with very slight modifications. This would maintain the integrity of the student part of the student-athlete by still having the two weeks off for studying/finals. This would be a financial windfall for all teams involved. And by rotating the playoffs through the involved bowls, there would be sufficient incentive for the bowls to go along with the idea. There is just very little downside to this suggestion. Think about it: as CA points out, you have 12 teams with a shot at the National Title. I think it's fair to say that it would be highly unlikely for a team out of the top 12 to win the 4 games in a row that would be necessary for them to win a national title. So the bottom line is that a suggestion like this makes far too much sense for anyone to consider it.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Dec 9, 2008 13:46:33 GMT -5
And to answer your question as to who would oppose this: No football fan with half a brain. That still leaves a significant amount of potential opposition, doesn't it?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 9, 2008 13:59:50 GMT -5
I see no reason for this to be 12 teams. 8 teams. The only reason to be 12 is to play politics -- basically to allow the BCS conferences to have auto bids without making it suck. But does anyone want to see those first round games? I see your point, but there are some reasons to go with 12 teams. On on hand, it makes the regular season more important, as there is a big incentive to be a top 4 seed. Secondly, there are times that you could make a case for a #9 or #10 team having a legitimate shot at the title. For instance this year, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Alabama, Texas Tech, Penn. State could all easily have a legitimate shot at the title. Would Utah or Boise St.? I don't think so, but it is hard to deny them a chance. Additionally, CIncy won the Big East and Va. Tech. did win the ACC eventually. Would either of them have a shot? I don't think so, but as the champion of their conference -- as determined on the field -- it seems unfair to deny them a shot. Forget about this particular season, which is a bit of an anomoly. But in most seasons, it's probably reasonable to think that the ACC champion has a legitimate shot at winning the National Title. I just don't think that pairing it down from 12 to 8 adds a lot to the equation. But I think we would all admit that either an 8 or 12 team playoff would be better than the 2 teamer that we have now. But I'm not going to complaing too much this year anyway.
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Dec 9, 2008 16:40:23 GMT -5
For once, I agree with hifigator. I think it should be 12 teams, because of the stipulation that undefeated non-BCS schools get an automatic bid. I think this is especially true this year, because I'm of the opinion that both Texas Tech and Boise State deserved to get into a BCS bowl more than Ohio State.
I am also philosophically against using a BCS computer to determine these seedings, but that's an argument for another time.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 9, 2008 17:23:49 GMT -5
For once, I agree with hifigator. I think it should be 12 teams, because of the stipulation that undefeated non-BCS schools get an automatic bid. I think this is especially true this year, because I'm of the opinion that both Texas Tech and Boise State deserved to get into a BCS bowl more than Ohio State. I am also philosophically against using a BCS computer to determine these seedings, but that's an argument for another time. Yeah, I know it will be somewhat different every year, but if I had to narrow it down to three particular reasons, this is what they would be: 1. I think it's fair to include the champions of all conferences. I could easily dream up a situation where a conference was especially difficult and the Champion came through with 2 or even 3 losses, but still very capable and deserving of making the playoffs. 2. The cutoff at 8 teams might leave worthy, valid or legitimate teams off, while I think there will be very few years where the 13th team has much of a realistic shot at winning. 3. The regular season retains more importance as there is a big incentive to be in the top 4. You have a bye week and depending on the format, a potential home game.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 9, 2008 17:27:36 GMT -5
If you design a proper selection system, why is this an issue? I envision a committee system like the NCAA tourney. It would use polls and computers but no set formula.
I just see no reason to think that the BCS conferences should have this built in fail-safe. Does anyone think Cincinnatti is a top 8 team? Heck, are they a Top 12 team? Really?
A #9 team has a shot? I personally doubt that. But you're right that #13 has less of a shot than #9.
The issue is, is it worth it to move from a team potentially playing 3 games to 4 games?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 10, 2008 11:43:52 GMT -5
I don't want to beat this dead horse here, and especially since we are in agreement for the most part. As for the inclusion of conference champions, I just think that needs to be a given. Obviously there will be years where the Champion, was only such because the league stinks. Forget about the Cincinnatis of the world; just look 2 years ago. Everyone presumed that Ohio State was the consensus #1 team, the only question was who to pair them with. When all was said and done, I think you could argue that they were not only not the #1 team, but maybe not even the #8 team. Still, can anyone argue that they shouldn't have been included in a hypothetical playoff? And secondly, although it is unlikely, I could see something like this: Suppose FSU had one of their elite teams -- maybe even undefeated. Then suppose Bama had the team they had this year. Then suppose that Florida did the same thing through the first 11 games that they did -- 10-1, 7-1 in conference, with the one loss being to what has now proven to be an at least quality team in Ole Miss, and only by one point on a missed field goal. So in other words, going into the season finale at FSU, Florida's season went just like it did. I could see that being realistic. Now, as I said, suppose FSU had the type of team that they had in 96, when they beat Florida in Tallacrappy 24-21 on a hotly contested game. Florida would then limp into the SEC Championship game against Alabama, which is undefeated and ranked #1 -- just as it did this year (except with losing to FSU). Then suppose Bama finds a way to win a close contest. Again, none of this is out of the question. But it's very realistic that a Florida team coming off 2 straight losses might be outside of the top 8, while a team like an Ohio St. remains in the top 8 because of their relatively weak conference. That is what I meant about a #9 team having a legitimate shot while a #13 probably doesn't. This scenario, while requiring a lot, is not very hard to fathom. Essentially, it would require FSU to return to its elite teams of yesteryear -- something I certainly don't want to see, but could easily envision. And then Florida -- which played without Percy Harvin, and was much more beatable -- would have needed to lost to Bama, which is something I could see happening by turning just a couple of plays around. All of that being said, I think most of us would still think that Florida would still have a legitimate shot at the title, yet in that scenario, would likely be ranked just outside the top 8. That is all that I am saying.
Lastly:
The issue is, is it worth it to move from a team potentially playing 3 games to 4 games?
It is unlikely that teams would play four games, as the bye week and homefield advantage would probably hold up for one of the top 4 teams more times than not, but it is possible. Remember, however, in my scenario, the first round (games between seeds #5 through #12) would take place this weekend, prior to the break for finals/holidays. The remaining 8 teams would have a playoff beginning after Christmas, depending on how the days fall, probably between 12/29 and 1/1. Under this scenario, the two teams that make it to the title game would be doing so between 1/10 and 1/14. That is not really all that dramatic of a change from the 1/8 that we are having this year.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 10, 2008 12:19:30 GMT -5
In this hypothetical playoff system, couldn't we just get rid of the conference championship games, the divisions in the conferences and have the champion of that conference simply be the team with the best regular season record?
Yes, that will mean conferences will have to use tiebreakers sometimes, which is unfortunate, and would not have solved the Big XII problem this year, but every sports league in the world uses tiebreakers for getting into playoffs. (And the Big XII's problem is of its own making for choosing such a stupid method of tiebreaker). It will also mean unbalanced schedules in many conferences, but those are taking place right now anyway, so big whoop.
And it will accomplish two things:
1. It can help shut up those people who say that the playoff system is a bad idea because it makes the regular season meaningless (I don't buy that argument in any case, but it would allow them one less reason to complain).
2. It will remove a week from the regular season schedule, helping to ensure that the season isn't too long and allowing the playoffs to be scheduled better around exams. (Again, I don't buy the reason for not having a playoff is because players need to study, but I know too many self-righteous columnists who use this as an excuse).
Not sure if that would be feasible or not, but it'd be worth exploring.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 10, 2008 14:21:37 GMT -5
Boz, I understand your logic, but I disagree. The conference Championship game is a positive in my mind. From the financial standpoint, it is a windfall, and, at least in the SEC which splits revenues evenly, it is a cash cow for all 12 schools. From the fan standpoint, it gives us another big game to enjoy. Sorry, I get to be greedy sometimes. Also, I think it will solve more problems than it creates with regards to ties. As you mentioned, it wouldn't have mattered in the Big 12 this year, but I think it makes sense. Also, you mention that every sports league in the world uses tiebreakers. While that is true, most also have divisions which are between 4 and 6 teams. So using that logic, we would get rid of the conference championship game, but retain the divisions, rewarding division champions with a bid to the playoffs. Then presumably we would have some number of wild cards to allocate to the best teams that didn't win their division. I might go for that, but the obvious problem is that real conference champions would cease to exist. Instead you would have SEC east champions, akin to NL East or AFC East divisional titles. I don't see what a championship game really harms, aside from the potentially "too long of a season" argument, which I, like you, think is largely bunk.
On Edit: another obvious problem with doing it that way is that the playoffs would be way too long. If division winners got playoff bids, then you would be looking at a 16 team playoff minimum.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 10, 2008 15:35:52 GMT -5
I said to get rid of the divisions. The SEC, ACC, Big XII are all one conference, no divisions. You play who you play and try to keep the schedules as even as possible from top to bottom. Whoever wins the conference regular season is the conference champ. the conferences themselves are the "divisions" of who gets into the playoffs.
Yes, the championship games are a financial windfall, but I think that (w)could be dwarfed by the amount of money that (w)could go equally to each conference from a playoff system.
Is it good for the fans? Sure. But again, why? It's a pseudo-playoff game. I think the fans would enjoy a REAL playoff game better.
Yes, Florida fans would have had to live with Alabama being SEC champs this year. But guess what? The Florida fans would have had at least one, if not more playoff games to look forward to where their team would be playing for a NATIONAL championship.
I want Georgetown to win the Big East every year. It means a lot. But if I could trade a Big East title for a national title? I'd do that in a heartbeat, and so would pretty much anyone. (No, I wouldn't trade it for a Sweet 16, not even last year, but I would trade it for a nat'l. title, or maybe even a Final Four).
I won't defend getting rid of the conference championships to the death or anything, I just think it's worth looking into. But seeing as how none of it at all is being looked into, I guess it really doesn't matter.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 10, 2008 16:44:55 GMT -5
Boz, I know you mentioned getting rid of divisions, and that "all other sports" find ways to break ties. My point was that virtually all other divisions I can think of are 4 to 6 teams, not 12 like the ACC, SEC and Big 12. The closest I can think of was in the old school major leagues, where all AL teams were playing for the one chance to win the pennant and compete against the NL team that did the same. But in baseball, there are 152-162 games, depending on the era. Back then each team played each other team something like 12 or 15 times. That is plenty to determine one true winner. But even then, if there was a tie, then there was a tie breaker game. I'm just saying that having 12 teams playing for the one spot is a bit much. Plus, if an SEC or Big 12 team were to get left out of the playoff because of a tiebreaker, but a Cincy, Utah or Boise St team makes it by virtue of their crappy conference then something went wrong. If we choose your idea, and I sort of like it to a degree, then I think the bids would have to go to the division winners.
|
|
mchoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 377
|
Post by mchoya on Dec 10, 2008 17:53:48 GMT -5
16 teams: Every conference gets an auto-bid, 5 at-larges are selected by a selection committee, no more that 3 per conference. Additionally, no teams can play a team in its own conference in the first round.
To appease ND, they would get an automatic bid if they went 8-4 and had a strength of schedule in the Top 10 (those points are arbitrary and can change, but it seems like ND would be a tough team to work around in order to get a playoff system off the ground. They are, of course, eligible for an at-large much like the way Savannah State is eligible for an at-large bid in college basketball). I don't understand how you can call a team Division 1-A, but then make it tougher on some teams to have a shot at a D1-A championship than others. Even if you let in a bad team from the Sun Belt every year, the worst that happens is that the best team in the country has a relatively easy first round game and the best that happens is that we get a quality football match and a possible upset. To put it in another way, did anyone mind in 1979 when low seeds Penn and Indiana State got to the Final Four?
As for sites, the first round should be at home and would have occurred last weekend (CCs would have occurred a weekend before because the season is shortened to 11 games under my plan). The second round games would occur this weekend at one of the 4 BCS bowls or the Cotton (once that game gets moved to New Texas Stadium, there is going to be significant clamor for it to be added to the BCS anyway, so why not move the process along). Then, we will have the break for exams/finals. Since there are only 4 games that can be played during the second round weekend, the bowl that does not get a quarter-final will host the semis and the finals (much like Detroit hosting this year's Final Four and National Championship game), which will be held on Christmas and New Year's Day. I recognize that this could be a logistical nightmare, so I am amenable to any suggestions on how to put the BCS bowls in the playoff and making it fit.
So, how would my tournament look this year?
First Round: All games at home sites (1) Oklahoma (B12) vs. (16) Buffalo (MAC) (2) Florida (SEC) vs. (15) Troy (Sun Belt) (3) USC (Pac-10) vs. (14) ECU (CUSA) (4) Alabama (At-large) vs. (13) Va. Tech (ACC) (5) Texas (At-large) vs. (12) Ohio State (At-large) (6) Utah (MWC) vs. (11) TCU (At-large) (7) Penn State (B10) vs. (10) Cincinnati (BE) (8) Texas Tech (At-large) vs. (9) Boise State (WAC)
Thoughts? Other non-playoff bowls become the NIT of the bowl system, attracting whoever they can.
On Edit: I forgot to put tOSU into the tournament, so I slotted them as the 11th seed. I also added the no intra-conference games in the first round rule.
On second edit: I'm an idiot and forgot about Boise St. I gave them the 9 and dropped everyone down one slot.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 11, 2008 12:22:06 GMT -5
16 teams: Every conference gets an auto-bid, 5 at-larges are selected by a selection committee, no more that 3 per conference. Additionally, no teams can play a team in its own conference in the first round. To appease ND, they would get an automatic bid if they went 8-4 and had a strength of schedule in the Top 10 (those points are arbitrary and can change, but it seems like ND would be a tough team to work around in order to get a playoff system off the ground. They are, of course, eligible for an at-large much like the way Savannah State is eligible for an at-large bid in college basketball). I don't understand how you can call a team Division 1-A, but then make it tougher on some teams to have a shot at a D1-A championship than others. Even if you let in a bad team from the Sun Belt every year, the worst that happens is that the best team in the country has a relatively easy first round game and the best that happens is that we get a quality football match and a possible upset. To put it in another way, did anyone mind in 1979 when low seeds Penn and Indiana State got to the Final Four? As for sites, the first round should be at home and would have occurred last weekend (CCs would have occurred a weekend before because the season is shortened to 11 games under my plan). The second round games would occur this weekend at one of the 4 BCS bowls or the Cotton (once that game gets moved to New Texas Stadium, there is going to be significant clamor for it to be added to the BCS anyway, so why not move the process along). Then, we will have the break for exams/finals. Since there are only 4 games that can be played during the second round weekend, the bowl that does not get a quarter-final will host the semis and the finals (much like Detroit hosting this year's Final Four and National Championship game), which will be held on Christmas and New Year's Day. I recognize that this could be a logistical nightmare, so I am amenable to any suggestions on how to put the BCS bowls in the playoff and making it fit. So, how would my tournament look this year? First Round: All games at home sites (1) Oklahoma (B12) vs. (16) Buffalo (MAC) (2) Florida (SEC) vs. (15) Troy (Sun Belt) (3) USC (Pac-10) vs. (14) ECU (CUSA) (4) Alabama (At-large) vs. (13) Va. Tech (ACC) (5) Texas (At-large) vs. (12) Ohio State (At-large) (6) Utah (MWC) vs. (11) TCU (At-large) (7) Penn State (B10) vs. (10) Cincinnati (BE) (8) Texas Tech (At-large) vs. (9) Boise State (WAC) Thoughts? Other non-playoff bowls become the NIT of the bowl system, attracting whoever they can. On Edit: I forgot to put tOSU into the tournament, so I slotted them as the 11th seed. I also added the no intra-conference games in the first round rule. On second edit: I'm an idiot and forgot about Boise St. I gave them the 9 and dropped everyone down one slot. What would the total be for that Texas Tech- Boise St. game? 95? I like the idea, but I don't think we need to do that Christmas-New Year's thing. You could have the exact same format, but put an extra week off and start the semifinals on New Year's Day or Eve, depending on how the calender falls.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 11, 2008 16:13:05 GMT -5
|
|
mchoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 377
|
Post by mchoya on Dec 11, 2008 16:16:17 GMT -5
16 teams: Every conference gets an auto-bid, 5 at-larges are selected by a selection committee, no more that 3 per conference. Additionally, no teams can play a team in its own conference in the first round. To appease ND, they would get an automatic bid if they went 8-4 and had a strength of schedule in the Top 10 (those points are arbitrary and can change, but it seems like ND would be a tough team to work around in order to get a playoff system off the ground. They are, of course, eligible for an at-large much like the way Savannah State is eligible for an at-large bid in college basketball). I don't understand how you can call a team Division 1-A, but then make it tougher on some teams to have a shot at a D1-A championship than others. Even if you let in a bad team from the Sun Belt every year, the worst that happens is that the best team in the country has a relatively easy first round game and the best that happens is that we get a quality football match and a possible upset. To put it in another way, did anyone mind in 1979 when low seeds Penn and Indiana State got to the Final Four? As for sites, the first round should be at home and would have occurred last weekend (CCs would have occurred a weekend before because the season is shortened to 11 games under my plan). The second round games would occur this weekend at one of the 4 BCS bowls or the Cotton (once that game gets moved to New Texas Stadium, there is going to be significant clamor for it to be added to the BCS anyway, so why not move the process along). Then, we will have the break for exams/finals. Since there are only 4 games that can be played during the second round weekend, the bowl that does not get a quarter-final will host the semis and the finals (much like Detroit hosting this year's Final Four and National Championship game), which will be held on Christmas and New Year's Day. I recognize that this could be a logistical nightmare, so I am amenable to any suggestions on how to put the BCS bowls in the playoff and making it fit. So, how would my tournament look this year? First Round: All games at home sites (1) Oklahoma (B12) vs. (16) Buffalo (MAC) (2) Florida (SEC) vs. (15) Troy (Sun Belt) (3) USC (Pac-10) vs. (14) ECU (CUSA) (4) Alabama (At-large) vs. (13) Va. Tech (ACC) (5) Texas (At-large) vs. (12) Ohio State (At-large) (6) Utah (MWC) vs. (11) TCU (At-large) (7) Penn State (B10) vs. (10) Cincinnati (BE) (8) Texas Tech (At-large) vs. (9) Boise State (WAC) Thoughts? Other non-playoff bowls become the NIT of the bowl system, attracting whoever they can. On Edit: I forgot to put tOSU into the tournament, so I slotted them as the 11th seed. I also added the no intra-conference games in the first round rule. On second edit: I'm an idiot and forgot about Boise St. I gave them the 9 and dropped everyone down one slot. What would the total be for that Texas Tech- Boise St. game? 95? I like the idea, but I don't think we need to do that Christmas-New Year's thing. You could have the exact same format, but put an extra week off and start the semifinals on New Year's Day or Eve, depending on how the calender falls. I was thinking about the dates for the semi-final/championship games and there were two things I had in mind: 1) I wanted to give the games maximum exposure (everyone is home for Christmas and New Year's) 2) I wanted to avoid potential conflicts with the NFL playoffs because every bowl site I picked except for the Rose Bowl is has the potential to be a playoff site (Orange- Dolphins, Sugar- Saints, Fiesta- Cardianals, Cotton- Cowboys). That being said, I think the extra week off could work, and would give more time for the lesser bowls to serve as NIT-style bowls.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Dec 11, 2008 16:37:44 GMT -5
I don't think NFL conflicts will really matter. They don't now and the BCS games are straggled along for a whole week. Just have the semifinals on Jan 1, and the Championship on the 8th -- when it just happens to be this year. If that falls on a Sunday, then move to the 2nd and 9th.
|
|