What is Your Ideal Playoff Scenario?

[engie]

I put a lot of thoughts into this -- and came up with what I thought was a logical compromise for both main sides of the argument, the "conference champs only" faction and the "best teams period" faction for a future scenario. What do you think? Warning -- long.

I think 8 is approximately the correct number. But I also don't want to diminish or remove the conference championship games. So, we need to get creative on how we deal with that...

Maybe an 11-team playoff -- where the 5 conference championships are played as currently configured(also forcing the Big12 back to a championship game). Those 5 champions get a first round bye and homefield advantage while the 6 at-larges play the week after conference title games. That should be enough of an at-large pool to not really punish truly deserving teams for losing conference title games. And it still gets us back to 8 by the end of Dec 14ish weekend.

Then, you can play the 4 more games the 21st on the homefield of the highest-rated 4 conference champs. This gets you to a final 4 for 2 playoff games on New Years Day which is exactly how the 4-team playoff is currently configured. You can adjust dates to fit individual years...

Play the round of 10-11 and round of 8 at the home field of the higher-rated teams -- then go to neutral site for the final 4 and championship game.

My ideal tourney would then be:

My team "ranks" in order to set the brackets:
1) FSU
2) Auburn
3) Michigan St
4) Stanford
5) Alabama
6) Baylor
7) Ohio St
8) Mizzou
9) South Carolina, Oregon, or Oklahoma
10) UCF(yes, I'd reward the highest-ranked midmajor champ with the 10-seed -- or otherwise their worthy seed)

So, Conference championships:
Auburn vs Mizzou
Stanford vs Arizona St
Duke vs FSU
Michigan St vs Ohio St
Baylor vs Oklahoma
Meaning that-- how things turned out this year -- what we had was essentially a 13-team playoff -- with Duke, Arizona St, and Oklahoma all having a chance to play themselves into the real tournament and thus essentially already being in the playoffs by making their conference title games. Thus, the "number" of teams essentially in the playoff is basically never a "set" number really. It depends on the number of conference losers whose resume still merits making the playoff...

The next week(first round)
Alabama vs UCF in Tuscaloosa
Ohio St vs Mizzou in Columbus
South Carolina vs Oregon in Columbia (Clemson would generally have an argument as the second ACC team vs 4th SEC team -- but since USCe already beat them decisively, they get the spot. Oklahoma would have an argument currently -- but wouldn't assuming they lost to Baylor in a title game)

Following week(2nd round):
FSU vs winner of South Carolina/Oregon in Tallahassee
Auburn vs winner of Ohio St/Mizzou in Auburn
Michigan St vs winner of Alabama/UCF in East Lansing(again rewarding conference champions by giving them homefield and essentially a bye)
Baylor vs Stanford in WACO

New Years:
FSU/USCe/Oregon vs Baylor/Stanford(Rose Bowl this year)
Auburn/Ohio St/Mizzou vs Michigan St/Alabama/UCF(Sugar Bowl this year)

Title game - winner of those two(in Dallas this year)

 

[57stratdawg]

Good post, but i dont want to see it go beyond four. I think the two strongest conferences should be in and two at large teams. I feel like much beyond 4 things get too watered down. I wouldnt want 2013 Missouri in mine.

 

[patdog]

Just go with 5 major conference champs, highest ranked mid-major champ, and 2 at larges. Teams like Mizzou, South Carolina, and Oregon don't deserve to be in the playoffs.

FSU
Auburn
Michigan St.
Stanford
Alabama
Baylor
Ohio St.
Central Florida

 

[engie]

Good post, but i dont want to see it go beyond four. I think the two strongest conferences should be in and two at large teams. I feel like much beyond 4 things get too watered down. I wouldnt want 2013 Missouri in mine.

While I don't really disagree -- I don't want to punish an SEC team for making the SEC championship game and losing. If we stay at 4 -- that is a pretty strong reason to stop playing SEC title games altogether, since the game essentially punishes the team that loses it, who is fairly often worthy of being one of the top 4 teams in the country -- while also possibly rewarding good SEC teams for coming in second in their division.

Teams that would/could have been screwed by this in the BCS era:
2013 Mizzou(#5 and could have moved to #4 on the Ohio St loss)
2012 Georgia(#3 and a virtual lock for playoff before losing to Bama by a couple of yards)
2009 Florida(#1 before the loss to Bama in the game)
2008 Bama(#1 before the loss to Florida in the game)
2005 LSU(#3 before the loss to Georgia in the game)
2001 Tennessess(#2 before the loss to LSU in the game)
1999 Florida(#5 before the loss to Alabama in the game)

I have a problem with rewarding this year's Alabama team while punishing this year's Missouri team -- when both were complete flukes away from being undefeated in the regular season.

 

[engie]

Just go with 5 major conference champs, highest ranked mid-major champ, and 2 at larges. Teams like Mizzou, South Carolina, and Oregon don't deserve to be in the playoffs.

FSU
Auburn
Michigan St.
Stanford
Alabama
Baylor
Ohio St.
Central Florida

That's essentially what I'm doing -- only going with enough more at-larges to not punish deserving teams for losing conference title games(that's the sticking point for me expanding the size of the playoff).

If Mizzou doesn't play that game against Auburn -- they certainly deserve to be in at 11-1 with a total fluke loss to a top 10 South Carolina in a regular season game that they dominated statistically IMO.

I'd have a problem rewarding Ohio St over Mizzou for playing one decent team and losing to them. And I'd have a problem for rewarding Central Florida over a South Carolina team that beat them in their own house during the regular season.

The beauty of this setup is all of the "fat" gets trimmed in what would otherwise just be another off-week...

 

[patdog]

But Mizzou DID lose that game to Auburn. And the USC loss wasn't a fluke. South Carolina outgained Mizzou 498 yards to 404. The fluke was that Mizzou had the big lead until USC put their starting QB in.

 

[engie]

But Mizzou DID lose that game to Auburn.

So did Alabama. Why does one get rewarded for it while the other gets punished?

Fact is -- if you don't have a pretty significant pool of at-larges, conference title games can only serve to hurt conferences and would eventually go away... giving us even less postseason football rather than more...

 

[patdog]

Because Bama didn't also lose another game and their overall resume is just lot better than Mizzou's. The best Mizzou beat all season was #21 Texas A&M. Bama beat that team plus #16 LSU and their loss to Auburn wasn't as nearly as bad as Mizzou's was. When we start letting 2-loss teams play for the national championship, we start to diminish the regular season too much.

 

[engie]

Because Bama didn't also lose another game and their overall resume is just lot better than Mizzou's. The best Mizzou beat all season was #21 Texas A&M. Bama beat that team plus #16 LSU and their loss to Auburn wasn't as nearly as bad as Mizzou's was. When we start letting 2-loss teams play for the national championship, we start to diminish the regular season too much.

Mizzou was a 1-loss team prior to the title game that they never lose if it stays at 4 or goes to 8 with only 2 at-larges. Mizzou still had a better SOS prior to that title game than Alabama did. And at 11-1, had just as good of case for an at-large.

I have a huge problem with the "2-loss" distinction -- because it's an artificial constraint that seeks to discriminate against the SEC. Why does a 1-loss team with a #40 SOS playing(losing to) one decent team in the B1G deserve to be rewarded over a 2-loss SEC team with a top SOS?

 

[HammerOfTheDogs]

No playoffs. 10 games a year. No Conference Championship games. 70 bowl games. 15-20 teams claiming "National Championships" every year.

 

[patdog]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. But there would be no "artificial constraint" on a 2-loss team making the playoffs. Any 2-loss champion of a major conference would make the playoffs and there could even be an occasional 2-loss at large team in my model (such as LSU the year they won the title). But if you've got 2 losses, you'd better have a hell of a resume (a lot better than Missouri's) or win your conference. As for why a 1-loss Big Ten team like Ohio State deserves to be in the playoff over a 2-loss SEC team like Missouri, both polls and about 1/2 of the computers agree that Ohio St. deserves the shot. But it's real close. I'd have no problem putting Missouri in the playoffs and leaving Ohio St. out if that's what the selection process decided.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

I like 8 teams. Simpler is best. Every fan needs to be able to understand the system without any trouble.

I'm neutral on the idea of giving autobids vs. just taking the best 8 teams. Maybe as a compromise, take the 5 best conference champions and 3 at-larges, but don't predetermine which conferences get the bids and which don't. No need to artificially create haves and have nots.

 

[57stratdawg]

You have to punish teams for losing. Missouri blew a 17 point 4th quarter lead at home - I wouldn't call that a fluke. The 2013 and 2012 teams you listed both had regular season losses & SEC Championship game losses. I don't want to see two loss teams, from any conference, playing for the national title. The best thing about college football is the regular season. It's better than the bowl games, better than the Heisman trophy, better than the conference championship games. If you go beyond four teams, you're going to start to water down the last week or two of the regular season.

Would you start AJ McCarron or James Franklin if you're #1 in the country with an 8 or 16 team playoff system ahead? Suddenly the SEC Championship game feels like the SEC Tournament in basketball.

I really like the idea of the SEC Championship game being a national championship play-in game. If you don't want to be the team left out - then win it.







I don't want to see two loss teams playing for the national championship.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Would you start AJ McCarron or James Franklin if you're #1 in the country with an 8 or 16 team playoff system ahead? Suddenly the SEC Championship game feels like the SEC Tournament in basketball.

Yes. It's not that often that a team would go into the SEC Championship knowing for sure that it would be in the playoff even with a loss. Even in those years, a loss would plunge the seed, making the road to the Championship game much more difficult. Since all playoff games before the Final 4 would almost certainly be at home sites, having the #1 or another high seed would be very important.

If you're not convinced, consider 2011. LSU was guaranteed to play in the National Championship regardless of whether they won or lost the SEC Championship Game. They played all of their starters and kicked Georgia's *** 42-10.

 

[engie]

Yes. It's not that often that a team would go into the SEC Championship knowing for sure that it would be in the playoff even with a loss. Even in those years, a loss would plunge the seed, making the road to the Championship game much more difficult. Since all playoff games before the Final 4 would almost certainly be at home sites, having the #1 or another high seed would be very important.

If you're not convinced, consider 2011. LSU was guaranteed to play in the National Championship regardless of whether they won or lost the SEC Championship Game. They played all of their starters and kicked Georgia's *** 42-10.

Exactly. You aren't "diminishing" anything by extending the playoff. I never, ever understand why people say this. Instead of having 1-2 games per week that matter for the last month of the season -- you've suddenly got 7 or 8. It'll become obvious how much it actually enhances the last month of the season next year -- when you've got 10 teams vying for a spot instead of 2-3.

"Not ok with a 2-loss team from any conference" to me says "ok with a one-loss team from a worse conference". You take the best teams -- and if you don't, you dilute the playoffs into pointlessness. You can't show me 7 teams that can be proven are actually better than Mizzou and South Carolina.

 

[57stratdawg]

The problem is having them on campus. It basically takes restructuring the entire sport to adopt the FCS model (which Seems to be the basic idea, no?).

How can the SEC restructure its corporate sponsorships if they're not sure if Bama has 7 or 9 home games? "Well, we'll add them all after the season" but then you run into the college president who have stood by two points throughout these type of discussions 1)have to have a break in December for finals 2) protect the armature athlete with a short schedule.

You have to advocate for a 16 game season for larger playoff pools. I don't think that's a discussion you want to have in today's concussion-conscious enviromemt.

i don't think you can add that many games, and the games you can add is going to have to be neutral locations. Sorry guys, I think that leaves you at 4 teams.

 

[patdog]

It's pretty simple. The more you let teams lose games here and there and still get in the playoffs, the more you diminish the regular season. You say more games will matter each week, but they really won't, because it won't matter as much if you win or lose, you'll still make the playoffs.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

It's pretty simple. The more you let teams lose games here and there and still get in the playoffs, the more you diminish the regular season. You say more games will matter each week, but they really won't, because it won't matter as much if you win or lose, you'll still make the playoffs.

There would be a huge difference in making the playoff as a 1 seed vs. making the playoff as a 7 seed, for example. Home games and easier opponents, especially if autobids to the bad conferences are handed out.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

The problem is having them on campus. It basically takes restructuring the entire sport to adopt the FCS model (which Seems to be the basic idea, no?).

How can the SEC restructure its corporate sponsorships if they're not sure if Bama has 7 or 9 home games? "Well, we'll add them all after the season" but then you run into the college president who have stood by two points throughout these type of discussions 1)have to have a break in December for finals 2) protect the armature athlete with a short schedule.

It would just be like the baseball tournament, or most of the smaller sports. It would be treated like a neutral site/bowl game, except that it would happen to be held at Bryant-Denny or Ohio Stadium or wherever. It would be up to each conference how to split the revenues, like for the bowls.

If FCS/D2/D3/NAIA schools (and also high schools) can find away to deal with finals and 15-game schedules (and those are the athletes who are actually there for education), so can FBS.

 

[Miss.Stake]

Let Jerry Jones pick the best 8 teams*

Zing

 

[engie]

There would be a huge difference in making the playoff as a 1 seed vs. making the playoff as a 7 seed, for example. Home games and easier opponents, especially if autobids to the bad conferences are handed out.

Exactly. You reward conference champs and higher seeds with a MUCH easier path. Hence why I went with the hybrid model. Every single game still matters -- and every loss is basically still punished.

An SEC champion would play a game on it's home field -- after an off-week to recover/prepare while it's opponent was playing a tough game, potentially on the whole other side of the country. That's 2 layers worth of a big advantage.

 

[engie]

It would be up to each conference how to split the revenues, like for the bowls.

You could essentially handle revenue like the basketball tournament. Start out splitting revenue equally and eventually split it by total number of games played by each conference over an X year period. That way, you get out of it what you put into it...