College Playoff System

It's summer, and since there isn't much to talk about outide of some recruiting news every once in awhile, I thought I'd throw out my format for a college football playoff. I will probably break this down to a few posts.



My system takes on a few of the "concerns" regarding a playoff system. Three that I would like to focus on originally are:



1. Time out of the classroom - seems to be the biggest concern of the presidents. My system actually gets more students back in the classroom faster than the current system (ie if Ohio State loses in the first round, then they aren't practicing into January).



2. Bowl sponsorships - This is a crock and easily remidied anyway. If you're Kraft, which would you rather sponsor? A - The Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl or B - NCAA first round matchup between Arkansas and Boise St.



3. The loss of the traditonal bowls - this has some merit, but in my system, based on last years rankings two top 11 teams would be available to play in those games along several top 25 teams and big name teams as well.



My system would still utilize the BCS Poll formula for seeding, would include all 11 conference champions and 5 at large teams, again using the BCS poll infomration. The current rule about only 2 from each conference would again be in place.



I guess that's enough of the setup post. The next post deals with selecting the particpants.

Out of the 11 conferences five had championship games in 2010 (ACC, Big 12, C-USA, MAC, and the SEC) so the winners of those 5 games would make it into the field. *note: next year there will be 6 championship games with the addition of the Big 10 and Pac 10 Championships and the loss of the Big 12 Championship.



Last year those 5 champions were (Conference-School-overall record and conference redord) :



ACC – Virginia Tech (BCS) 10-3, 8-0

Big 12 – Oklahoma (BCS) 11-2, 6-2

C-USA – UCF 10-3, 8-1

MAC – Miami (OH) 9-4, 7-1

SEC – Auburn (BCS, NC) 13-0, 8-0



The other 6 conference champions were as follows:



Big East – Connecticut (BCS) 8-4, 5-2*; West Virginia 9-3, 5-2; Pittsburg 7-5, 5-2 (*beat other teams head to head)

Big 10 – Michigan State 11-1 (Iowa), 7-1; Ohio State (BCS) 11-1 (Wisconsin), 7-1; Wisconsin (BCS) 11-1, 7-1(Michigan State)*

MWC – TCU (BCS) 12-0, 8-0

Pac 10 – Oregon (BCS, NC runner up) 12-0, 9-0

Sun Belt – Florida International 6-6, 6-2*; Troy 7-5, 6-2 (*won head to head matchup)

WAC – Nevada 12-1, 7-1*; (Hawaii); Boise St. 11-1, 7-1 (Nevada); Hawaii 10-3, 7-1 (Boise St)



In 4 of those 6 conferences, there were teams that shared the title. The following tie-breaker rules would be used to determine the automatic qualifiers:



1. Head to head matchups (Connecticut from Big East beat other two conference champs; FIU beat Troy)

2. Best overall record (Eliminates Hawaii)

3. If you can now use head to head matchups after using best overall records to determine a conference winner, do so (Nevada beat Boise State)

4. Last tie breaker criteria: Final Poll Ranking (Wisconsin gets auto qualifier from Big 10 based on final BCS poll in 2010)



After automatic qualifiers have been determined, 5 at large teams are selected using the final poll numbers at the end of the regular season last year, without having 3 teams from any conference. Based on that the following 16 teams would qualify (team (ranking)).



1. Auburn (1)

2. Oregon (2)

3. TCU (3)

4. Wisconsin (5)

5. Oklahoma (7)

6. Virginia Tech (13)

7. Nevada (15)

8. UCF (25)

9. Connecticut (Unranked)

10. Miami (OH) (Unranked)

11. Florida International (Unranked)

12. Stanford (4)

13. Ohio State (6)

14. Arkansas (8)

15. Boise State (10)

16. Missouri (12)



The teams that were left out in the top 12 were Michigan State at #9 because Wisconsin and Ohio State were ranked higher and #11 LSU because Auburn and Arkansas were ranked higher.



The next post deals with seeding.

My original thought was to give the conference champions the top 11 seeds, but when I looked at it I really couldn't justify putting Stanford at number 12 behind Florida International, who went 6-6, so I decided to use the rankings as the seeding criteria. *note: I couldn't find a reliable source for anyone ranked after 25 (UCF), so I ranked the "unranked" teams are ordered UConn (auto BCS qualifier), Miami (OH) then FIU based on how I thought they would be ranked. Miami could have been ranked higher than UConn, but I really don't know.



Here are the seedings that I would come up with including their final poll ranking:



1. Auburn (1)

2. Oregon (2)

3. TCU (3)

4. Stanford (4)

5. Wisconsin (5)

6. Ohio State (6)

7. Oklahoma (7)

8. Arkansas (8)

9. Boise State (10)

10. Missouri (12)

11. Virginia Tech (13)

12. Nevada (15)

13. UCF (25)

14. Connecticut (Unranked)

15. Miami (OH) (Unranked)

16. Florida International (Unranked)



The next post will deal with the opening round matchups.

The opening round matchups would basically be the typical 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, ..., 8 vs 9 setup with the higher seeded team getting the home game. So it would start like this:



(16) FIU @ (1) Auburn

(15) Miami, OH @ (2) Oregon

(14) Uconn @ (3) TCU

(13) UCF @ (4) Stanford

(12) Nevada @ (5) Wisconsin

(11) Virginia Tech @ (6) Ohio State

(10) Missouri @ (7) Oklahoma

(9) Boise St @ (8) Arkansas



The issue with this is that it would pit two teams from the same conference against each other (Missouri and Oklahoma), and I think there should be a rule where that can't happen, so the lower seeded team will be adjusted either up or down a line but not change their seed. I would move them down and move Va Tech up because Va Tech is a conference champion. So the new pairings would be as follows.



(16) FIU @ (1) Auburn

(15) Miami, OH @ (2) Oregon

(14) Uconn @ (3) TCU

(13) UCF @ (4) Stanford

(12) Nevada @ (5) Wisconsin

(10) Missouri @ (6) Ohio State

(11) Virginia Tech @ (7) Oklahoma

(9) Boise St @ (8) Arkansas



The next post is on how it things would progress through the rounds.

I have zero problem with teams from same conference squaring off. Win or go home. Play whoever.

To the side of the matchup is my randombly predicted winner for future usage.



(16) FIU @ (1) Auburn - (1) Auburn

(15) Miami, OH @ (2) Oregon - (2) Oregon

(14) Uconn @ (3) TCU - (3) TCU

(13) UCF @ (4) Stanford - (4) Stanford

(12) Nevada @ (5) Wisconsin - (12) Nevada

(10) Missouri @ (6) Ohio State - (6) Ohio State

(11) Virginia Tech @ (7) Oklahoma - (7) Oklahoma

(9) Boise St @ (8) Arkansas - (9) Boise St



The 2nd round would be the highest remaing seed vs the lowest remaining seed, and re-seeding would continue throughout the tournament. The 2nd round would also be played at the higher seeds home field. Matchups as follows with predicted winners:



(12) Nevada @ (1) Auburn - (1) Auburn

(9) Boise St @ (2) Oregon - (9) Boise St

(7) Oklahoma @ (3) TCU - (3) TCU

(6) Ohio St @ (4) Stanford - (4) Stanford



The next round would be played at 2 pre-determined sites. One would be East or Central and the other would be West or Central. The two sites that I randomly chose were Atlanta and Phoenix. The higher seeded team would get their choice of venue. The matchups and my predicted winners are as follows:



(9) Boise St vs (1) Auburn @ Atlanta - (1) Auburn

(4) Stanford vs (3) TCU @ Phoenix - (4) Stanford



The championship game would be played in a different pre-determined site. The site I chose for this example would be the Rose Bowl. The matchup and my predicted winner:



(4) Stanford vs (1) Auburn - (4) Stanford.



The next post will deal with the timing of the games.

This year the conference championship games were on December 4th. The first bowl games were on December 18th. The championship game was on January 10. I can fit all of the games into no more than 6 added days (2 before the 18th and 4 after January 10) or shrink it by 1 day.



The first round would have started on Thursday Dec 16 with two games that night, followed by two games on Friday and a four game set on Saturday.



The second round would have started on Friday Dec 24 with two quarterfinal games and two more on Saturday. I know that is Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, but we do play bowl games on those days.



The semi-finals would be played the following Saturday, in this case Jan 1.



The finals could be played on any number of days. Either the following Friday (Jan 7), because of NFL wildcard on Saturday, the follwing Monday (Jan 10, same day as last year), or the following Friday (Jan 14) the night before the divisional round in the NFL. Out of these 3 options I think I prefer the Monday one, although I could be pushed to the following Friday for almost two weeks of prep.



There you go. You now have my opus. Thanks to a boring summer without much to talk about and a slow day at work. Please comment and tear it apart or improve if you want. I welcome all feedback. One intitial critique I have myself looking at it right now is it doesn't really take into account the independents. But if the four of them are good enough, they will be ranked in the top 10, and only one of those teams is left out.



I think this would improve overall scheduling throughout the season too, because big name teams won't be afraid to increase their OOC schedule strength, because win your conference and you're in.

Just take the best 16 teams period. No need to include the Sun Belt or anyone else just because they have a conference. It puts teams without a conference at a disadvantage.

This was very well thought out. Nice job.



That being said, I don't want college football to be like every other sport where the prize for winning your conference/division is a mere higher seed in an arbitrary playoff. If Oregon proves on the field that they are the best team in their conference by going undefeated and winning the conference outright, then they should be the only one from that conference to participate in a tournament to determine the best team in the country. Allowing Stanford to participate as an "at large" team completely undermines Oregon's accomplishment.



Playing at an elite level throughout the entire season should earn you more than an extra home game against an opponent that through their body of work has already proven to be inferior. By allowing teams to participate in a playoff that have already proven on the field that they are not the best team in the country, the postseason merely becomes playoffs for playoffs sake instead of a playoff to truly find the best team in the country for the season.



I've proposed my own dramatic change for college football (which you didn't like and has zero chance of being implemented)



http://www.cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1751" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



As flawed as college football is, I'd rather keep the system closer to what we have now rather than a 16 team playoff. Keep everything the same except have the two highest ranked teams after the bowls play in the BCS championship game. That reduces the amount of "at-large" garbage and dumb axioms like "winning when it matters" from college football.

But, Rasta, you have to take into account OOC games, perhaps Stanford didn't have as much gas left because they played a more brutal OOC schedule, etc. There are so many variables because you have many teams and so few games. Most people see a playoff as an opportunity for 8 or 16 teams to play and prove who's the best, as opposed to only two teams getting a shot.

Schmoe wrote:
But, Rasta, you have to take into account OOC games, perhaps Stanford didn't have as much gas left because they played a more brutal OOC schedule, etc. There are so many variables because you have many teams and so few games. Most people see a playoff as an opportunity for 8 or 16 teams to play and prove who's the best, as opposed to only two teams getting a shot.

If you don't have enough gas in the tank to beat Oregon on October 2 after playing Sacramento St., Wake Forest, UCLA and Notre Dame then you definitely don't deserve to play for the national title. Thanks for proving my point. You don't need 16 teams to have a legitimate playoff.

I hate to dump on the OP's thoughtful post. But Rasta has a point. Why is a 16 team playoff better than 8 teams? The trend towards CCGs ensures that we’re decreasingly likely to see 2 NC contenders from 1 conference. So there’s really no need for an at-large bid.



The 2 team playoff obviously isn’t working. Neither would a 4 team playoff. Say 4-6 BCS conferences produce 1 legit NC contender. Not likely, but quite conceivable. Any excellent non-BCS team would still be left out in the cold.



With an 8 team playoff, you’d still have 2 spots for excellent non-BCS teams. In the unlikely event that all 5 mid-major conference champs & Indys go undefeated, we can afford to snub the weaker non-BCS teams.



(Army & Navy play each other every year, anyway. Notre Dame usually gets in on this action. BYU wants to get in there, too. And the WAC may not even last as an FBS football conference.)

Yep, a playoff with all conference champs would be nice, but you have to use your brain and realize that the party in power needs to be appeased for this to happen. Since most BCS conferences get two teams into BCS bowls now, they'd want to get two teams into a playoff as well. 16 teams: 11 conf champs, 5 AL bids, call it a day and be happy that teams get a chance to prove what they're worth.

I still like a 16-team playoff. Go look at the NFL recently, and see teams that get to the SB and win it. Many recently are Wild Cards teams, or ones that would not get there under an 8-team playoff. I think there is enough depth of really great to excellent teams to allow 16 teams in as well. And I do not think it needs be tied to conference affiliation. I think using a format similar to BCS ranking for top 16 should do it, with a simple caveat that no loeague gets more than 2 teams.

I like the 16 team playoff idea. I don't like giving every conference champ an automatic bid. I'd modify it so that the conference champ must be ranked in the top 25 or 30 to be eligible. What's the point of having a 6-6 Sunbelt champ in the playoff? I'd leave the 2 team per conference maximum; however, I'd allow a 3rd team from a conference if they are ranked in the top 8 and they are replacing a conference champion that didn't qualify.

The reason I went with a 16 team playoff was to be able to include all of the conference champions. To answer Rasta's point about teams that haven't proven to be the best in their conference should not be allowed a chance to be proven to be the best in the country, I would have to point to his other favorite team, the University of Arizona Wildcats. If other teams were not given an opportunity, the Wildcats wouldn't have won their basketball national championship. If I remember correctly, they were the 5th place Pac-10 team that year and ended up winning the tournament.



Teams change over the course of the year, so I have no problems letting the elite of the remaining teams be given the opportunity to play for a title. The system right now allows a team that isn't ranked in the top 25 to play in the big money bowls. I think that is definitely more absurd then letting Stanford play for a NC, even though they lost to Oregon in early to mid October.

Wickchad84087 wrote:
I like the 16 team playoff idea. I don't like giving every conference champ an automatic bid. I'd modify it so that the conference champ must be ranked in the top 25 or 30 to be eligible. What's the point of having a 6-6 Sunbelt champ in the playoff? I'd leave the 2 team per conference maximum; however, I'd allow a 3rd team from a conference if they are ranked in the top 8 and they are replacing a conference champion that didn't qualify.

I like some of what you said. If I implemented that rule into my equation then UConn, Miami, and FIU would not be in the tournament. The problem is, there isn't anyone in the top 8 that would allow for a 3rd participant from a league. The two team leagues right now under my scenario the are the Pac-10 (Oregon, Stanford), SEC (Auburn, Arkansas), Big 10 (Wisconsin, Ohio State), WAC (Nevada, Boise St.), and Big 12 (Oklahoma, Missouri).



The next 3 teams in, given that only two teams from a conference are eligible unless they are ranked top 8, are: Utah (19), West Virginia (22), and Florida State (23). I'm not sure any of these teams are any more deserving of a title shot than the 3 conference champions that have dropped out. WV did tie for their conference title, and actually had a better overall record than the team that did get in from their conference.



If we moved the line from 8 to 14, the three additional teams would be Michigan St (9, tied for conference championship), LSU (11), and Oklahoma St (14).

Schmoe wrote:
Yep, a playoff with all conference champs would be nice, but you have to use your brain and realize that the party in power needs to be appeased for this to happen. Since most BCS conferences get two teams into BCS bowls now, they'd want to get two teams into a playoff as well. 16 teams: 11 conf champs, 5 AL bids, call it a day and be happy that teams get a chance to prove what they're worth.

Wouldn't the BCS conference championship games essentially part of the playoffs, since the winner would actually advance to the college playoff system.

stuckinbig10country wrote:
The reason I went with a 16 team playoff was to be able to include all of the conference champions. To answer Rasta's point about teams that haven't proven to be the best in their conference should not be allowed a chance to be proven to be the best in the country, I would have to point to his other favorite team, the University of Arizona Wildcats. If other teams were not given an opportunity, the Wildcats wouldn't have won their basketball national championship. If I remember correctly, they were the 5th place Pac-10 team that year and ended up winning the tournament.

Just because a team wins a tournament doesn't mean that they belong there. Even though UofA went on the single greatest tournament run in history by beating three number one seeds and God (Shammgod), they weren't even the best team in their conference that year and shouldn't have been in a tournament if the tournament is designed to determine the best team of that season. However, because the regular season means very little in college basketball UofA was the beneficiary of that system that year. I'll take it, it's a National Title but that doesn't make the system right. The same could be said for the 1984 football season.

stuckinbig10country wrote:
Teams change over the course of the year, so I have no problems letting the elite of the remaining teams be given the opportunity to play for a title. The system right now allows a team that isn't ranked in the top 25 to play in the big money bowls. I think that is definitely more absurd then letting Stanford play for a NC, even though they lost to Oregon in early to mid October.

So you think a team that wins a conference championship playing in a prestigious bowl game against another conference champion is more ridiculous than telling a conference champion that they have to beat an inferior team from their conference twice in order to win a national title while that inferior team only has to beat that champion once? Really?



Your playoff proposal suggests that a team like UConn might be THE BEST TEAM IN THE COUNTRY!!!!! And you think a system that says they aren't, but still deserve recognition for winning their conference is absurd?