What would a college football playoff look like this year? (Version 2.0)
Last week, I debuted this season’s “what if” college football playoff bracket, and there was one serious flaw — Boise State was left out of the playoff despite being ranked ahead of Oregon and having a head-to-head win against the Ducks. This week, I’ll remedy that.
Here are my assumptions:
1. The six BCS-conference champs get an automatic bid unless they are ranked outside the top 15. There would need to be some sort of ranking system used. For now, we will use the BCS.
2. If a conference champ is ranked lower than #15 in the rankings, they give up their automatic bid and it becomes an at-large bid. (This rule is to ensure that the regular season keeps its meaning and only the elite teams make the playoffs.)
3. Seeds and at-large bids are distributed based on the current BCS standings. Certainly, these rankings need to be tweaked to place more of an emphasis on head-to-head matchups, but they are fine for now. If an at-large team has a better BCS ranking than a conference champion, they will get a higher seed.
4. There will be three rounds of playoffs. The first round will be held at the home stadium of the higher-seeded team. The semifinals and the final will rotate amongst the four BCS cities (Miami, Pasadena, Tempe and New Orleans), so that those cities don’t lose the revenue from the bowl games.
I’m adding a fifth assumption, the “I Drink Your Milkshake” Rule. Last week, Boise State was left out of this playoff despite having a head-to-head win against Oregon and being ranked ahead of the Ducks. So, there is one more caveat for the conference champions: If they are ranked behind a non-BCS school, and have a head-to-head loss to that team, then they give up their playoff bid to that team. I drink your milkshake!
How does this affect our bracket? Let’s take a look…
#8 Ohio State @ #1 Florida/Alabama
Assuming Florida and Alabama both enter the SEC Championship undefeated, the winner will likely be the #1 seed while the loser is likely to fall to #3. (I don’t see TCU or Cincinnati passing up the SEC runner-up in the BCS, but I may be wrong.) The Buckeyes’ win over Iowa on Saturday gives Ohio State a bid.
#5 Cincinnati @ #4 TCU
The Horned Frogs were impressive this weekend and they don’t show any signs of giving up their ranking to Cincy or Boise State, so they will host the Bearcats in the first round. Cincy still has a Dec. 5 date with #9 Pittsburgh looming, which will effectively become a play-in game for both teams.
#7 Georgia Tech @ #2 Texas
The Yellow Jackets need to beat Georgia at home and then win the ACC Championship (vs. Clemson?) to keep their bid. If they were to lose in the ACC Championship, the conference would likely give up its playoff bid. Texas looks like a shoe in to finish the season undefeated.
#6 Boise State @ #3 Florida/Alabama
The Broncos get Oregon’s bid due to a head-to-head win and a higher BCS ranking. I drink your milkshake! The SEC loser might drop to #4, but more likely they’ll finish in the #3 spot and host a first round game. Can you imagine Boise State heading to Tuscaloosa for a playoff? That would be fun.
Who gets screwed?
No one, really. #11 Oregon loses its spot due to a head-to-head loss to Boise State, so the Ducks only have themselves to blame. #8 LSU lost to Alabama and Florida, so the Tigers need to look in the mirror. #9 Pittsburgh still has a shot to make the the playoffs with a win over #5 Cincinnati on Dec. 5. #12 Oklahoma State lost to Texas and #13 Iowa lost to Ohio State. (See, Kirk Herbstreit, the regular season still matters.)
Some have said that they support taking the rankings #1 through #8 and awarding the bids that way, but I don’t think that’s a realistic option given our current situation. In order to transition to a playoff, we have to have buy in from the BCS conferences, so they need to get some preferential treatment to convince them to get away from the status quo. It seems relatively fair to give each conference a bid, assuming their champion is in the top 15 and isn’t ranked behind a non-BCS school that beat them head-to-head. This may result in fewer games between the BCS schools and the top non-BCS programs, but those are the breaks.
Here’s a question I’d like to pose — what if Oregon hadn’t lost to Stanford? They’d likely be ranked #7 or #8, still behind the Broncos because of the head-to-head loss. If I implement the “I Drink Your Milkshake” Rule, is it fair that the Ducks give up their bid but Ohio State — a lesser ranked team — still gets in?
I think it’s more fair than eliminating the Buckeyes due to a Boise State win over Oregon — Ohio State wasn’t even involved in that game.
Please discuss.
Follow the Scores Report editors on Twitter @clevelandteams and @bullzeyedotcom.
I like the Milkshake rule. If there is going to be an 8 team playoff, I think that you have everything covered.
Last week, I said that the loser of the SEC championship should be out of the playoffs. You disagreed. However, this week, you say that LSU has to look at their selves in the mirror due to their SEC losses. What is the difference?
I don’t think that either LSU or Alabama (assuming the Gators beat them) should be included.
LSU lost to both teams. I agree with your sentiment, but the SEC loser will likely be ranked in the top 3 in the nation, so it’s tough to exclude them as an at-large. (Though I agree with the reasoning that they had their chance.) I’m not sure what the “best” thing to do is, though I’d rather have a well-regarded SEC team than a seriously flawed team from the Big Ten or Pac-10.
You could just give the six BCS conf. champs an automatic bid and that would mean that TCU and Boise would get in as at-large teams, but then you have the Alabama/Florida loser eliminated even though the rankings have them #3 or #4. That’s tough.
LSU doesn’t deserve a third shot, but does the Alabama/Florida loser deserve a second shot? The SEC is the best conference in the nation, year in and year out.
I agree with the new format. You have to account for multiple dominant teams in power conferences. If there are two deserving teams that fit the criteria they should get it. Last year it would have been Texas and Oklahoma. The #8 seed it always the toughest. Oregon could say they lost to 2 Top 20 schools while Ohio St lost to Purdue and USC which isn’t as good as advertised and out of the Top 20. Nothing is going to be perfect but this is pretty close.
Not to beat a dead horse, because it’s not my blog but that is why I repeatedly come back to 12 teams. 6 BCS conference winners, 2 non conf. winners and 4 at large.
As of now, the teams would be FLA TEX CINCY GA TECH OREGON OHIO ST BOISE TCU BAMA PITT LSU and OK. ST.
No one gets ripped off. I keep coming back to this thought: 8 teams is not enough but 16 is too many.
Respectfully,
The Pittsburgh Kid
There will always be teams that have a beef. With a 12-team playoff, teams ranked #13-#16 will find arguments for inclusion. When does it end?
Apparently, it ends at 2. And at 2, it will remain.
Great article. I like this format. I think the 10 or 12 team playoff would be better than 8 but no more than 12. Where does it end?.. it ends at 10 or 12.
I’ve got 3 questions:
1. What would it take to make a playoff system a reality starting in 2014 (or sooner)?
2. When would these games be played? The 1st week of December followed by the 1st 2 weekends of the new year? Ideally a team would have more than 1 week to prepare rounds 2 and 3.
3. If this did play out, would we just keep the remaining 30 bowls? I’m guessing they would stay the same. They are enjoyable for the players and entertaining to the local fans now and they would remain so in the new format.
Alpha
1) It will never ever change so take your answers for #2 and #3 with a grain of salt.
2) Assuming anything from a 10-16 team playoff. Play round 1 at the sites of the upper seeded teams. If it isn’t 16 teams, there will be byes involved. Ideally, these games could be played the first week of December when the conf. championship games are currently held.
Then, the remaining 8 could play the 2nd weekend of December.
3) All of the other teams including the teams that lost in the 1st 2 rounds could be bowl eligble. The top 4 teams could play in 2 big bowls on New Years and have the championship game a week later.
You guys can say it ends at 10 or 12, but it won’t. No matter where the cutoff is, there will be some controversy.
I’ll be back next Monday with an update to my bracket.
You’ve done a very good job of considering important factors for an 8 game playoff. I’d sign up for it today over the BCS BS.
But I don’t understand the reluctance to have a 16 game playoff. It is the “end”. Eight and 12 game playoffs leave out worthy contenders and more games equal more dollars. Eight teams is simply too few and the 12 team format adds aother wek so why not have 16 teams.
You reaally can please ‘everyone” with 11 D-1 conference champs and 5-At Large bids based on criteria (i.e. BCS rankings). It’s simple, no conference champs are left out and worthy #2’s and 3’s can be included.
Conference consolidation will likely eliminate one or more conferences and the 12 game format could be acceptable but would have few at-large bids. Any team that loses in the first two rounds would still be bowl eligible.
Nobody is penalized for playing a tough non-conference schedule if they win their conference. Cinderella teams enhance March Madness and would do the same for the NCAA D-1 Playoffs. Teams ranked in the top 16 that don’t get in, because a lower or non-ranked conference champ is in, can’t complain because they simply didn’t get it done on the field in conference.
The 10 BCS teams are guaranteed a total of $180 million for 2009/2010 season. Including all conferences and the 16 team format would likely increase the entire payout so that the $288 million needed to ensure BCS conferences don’t lose a dime. Ensuring non-BCS conferences also get big payoffs will increase the quality of college football for ALL. What’s better than that?