The PERFECT playoff system proposal...
alright, so there are 123 division 1-a college football teams in 11 leagues (with three independents). the premise of this proposal is that if a playoff system is going to be truly fair, each league champ should get a shot (...if you can't even prove that you are the best team in your league, i don't think that you deserve a shot to prove that you are the best team in the nation).
so, there will be 12 teams invited to this playoff, the 11 league champions, and 1 at-large (which gives the independents a shot). the seeding will be determined by a committee, much like that in the ncaa bball tourney (which works rather well, imo). the top 4 seeded teams will all get a bye week.
here's what it might have looked like this year...and i'm basing the seeding on the bcs rankins alone.
5) florida............4)tcu
12) troy
8) ohio state.........1) alabama
9) georgia tech
6) boise state........3) cincinnati
11) east carolina
7) oregon.............2) texas
10) central mich
first round: i think florida blows out troy; osu beats ga. tech in a close game; boise beats ecu in an interesting game; and oregon beats central good.
quarter-finals: i think florida beats tcu good; alabama beats osu good; cincinnati beats boise in a very exciting game; and texas edges out oregon in another very close game.
semi-finals: alabama beats florida again in another good game; and texas beats cincinati in a decent game.
finals: alabama beats texas in a good game.
so i guess that i think we'd end up with the same result, but there would be absolutely no doubt about it, everyone that deserved a shot would get one, and there would be ELEVEN excellent games to watch over the hollidays!!
i'm not going to get into the financial implications here, but with ELEVEN great meaningful games...as opposed to one meaningful game now in the bcs system (or maybe two in the old system), it seems like they would make some money.
if you still want to have a bunch of meaningless games, go ahead and have them. people are still going to want to see...LSU and Penn State in a bowl game, for instance. It will mean just as much then as it does now. The fans aren't stupid.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:36 PM ^
PERFEFT?
December 15th, 2009 at 5:45 PM ^
Perfeft Gear Industries
4, 31/5 street, new delhi 110005, delhi
p: 1125814595
Website - None Supplied
Email - None Supplied
December 15th, 2009 at 5:53 PM ^
FAIL. MISERABLY.
1) NCAA bylaws require half the field to be at-large teams.
2) WHAT. THE. FUCK would a playoff with one at-large bid solve? Do you remember last year at all? Do playoff proponents ever take into account anything but the current year when concocting gumdrop rainbow playoffs? Last year we had all these proposals based on allowing everyone in the Big 12 three-way mess to get in. Apply this playoff last year and you get to choose for your at-large bid between Texas Tech, Texas, and Alabama - all of whom would scream bloody murder about being left out. "Everyone who deserves a shot would get one" bullshit. Maybe this year - and plenty who don't deserve a shot would also get one, just so you could have a pretty bracket. If you're going to have a playoff to fix this problem and that problem that crops up every year with the BCS, try to address more than just one year's worth of pissing and moaning.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:27 PM ^
#1) step back from the ledge.
#2) i wasn't aware that the ncaa had already declared 'bylaws' for this hypothetical playoff system. good point though.
#3) i would personally prefer a debate over who is the 12th and 13th most deserving team than to have 3 undefeated teams not getting a shot.
#4) the big12 situation last season was a matter of the big12 not having a good system in place - and they have already corrected it.
#5) does florida deserve a shot to win it all this year? no, they couldn't even win their conference. does iowa? no, ditto. does va tech? no, ditto. does cincinnati? yes. does tcu? yes. does boise? yes.
imo, if you win your league, you should be granted advancement to the playoffs. if you can't stand hearing my opinion, go have an aneurism.
...i realize that there are some bad leagues out there...if there is a complete consensus that their best team doesn't EVER deserve a shot at the d 1-a national championship...then maybe they shouldn't be a d 1-a conference.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:43 PM ^
- The bylaws are for every actual tournament they run - basketball, soccer, lacrosse, etc. - not only for future hypothetical football playoffs. It's why we have 65 teams in March Madness.
- The Big 12 hasn't really "corrected" anything, they just (IIRC) removed the BCS standings as a tiebreaker - the very last tiebreaker it was too. The problem was that three teams did exactly what playoff proponents say would solve everything - "played it out on the field" - and solved nothing. It's still going to be a mess if it happens again.
- I would suggest you're likely to be in the minority that claims if you don't win your conference, you don't deserve a shot. And if that's the case, why the twelfth team? Why not just run an 11-team playoff?
December 15th, 2009 at 7:21 PM ^
because there are three independent teams that aren't in a league...and deserve a shot to compete for a nc.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:43 PM ^
I call BS, as you didn't fill your at-large bid with one of them. You just put 12 because it was a nice round number. You filled the spot with a team you openly admit deserves no chance.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:45 PM ^
the at large bid went to the highest rated non conference champion. if notre dame or navy had a good year, it would have been them.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:00 PM ^
Navy didn't have a good year? Someone better tell Navy.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:53 PM ^
My vote if for a World Cup style play-off, combined with World Series style best of seven.
We spend three years trying to qualify, and in the fourth year it's a free for all. Best of seven series' with 32 teams.
That way each college player gets one chance to play in the tournament. It will make the tournament so much more important. It's perfect.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:57 PM ^
EPIC FAIL.
in fact, any system that takes into account an automatic qualifier for winning a conference is wrong for football IMO.
the idea is to get the best teams in the playoff to determine the best team overall, right? so keep the BCS formula, take the top 4/6/8/12/whatever teams and let them duke it out.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:01 PM ^
If the BCS is the right formula, then why ever expand beyond two teams? If it gets 8 right, surely it gets two right as well? Why would we accept that it got the seedings right in an 8-team playoff if we don't accept that it gets the top two? And why would four be magically good while two is not? Because brackets are happy pretty fun times?
And if autobids are the wrong way to go, why does everyone say "well the other divisions have a playoff, why can't this one?"
December 15th, 2009 at 6:40 PM ^
I think few people who advocate for a playoff would argue in favor of all of the BCS criteria in selecting those teams.
In any case, once there are more teams involved, the process is more fair and more fun (for the players and fans). 8 teams may be an arbitrary number, but the argument about 2 vs. 3 is plainly not the same argument as 8 vs. 9 - that 9th place team doesn't have the same claim to be a national champ that the 3rd place team does. I could argue that point, but it seems obvious.
Making that kind of playoff is do-able if 1) the money it makes more than offsets the money lost by getting rid of the 12th game, and 2) if the first games are at home sites for top seeds, or else it's logistically impossible.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:55 PM ^
I think you're right - most people would probably want to ditch the BCS formula entirely. I just say that to pick off the sick and weak from the herd. (Of arguments, not people.) I think it's a legit point I make, for one. I don't want a playoff, but what angers me most is the large numbers of absurdly flimsy playoff ideas that people have. And to be rudely honest, "let's just use the BCS standings for seeding" is proof positive that the idea hasn't been thought out all the way through.
I think if you took a real poll, a competition committee would be the most popular idea. Also I think it's the best idea.
I really do contest the idea that a playoff would be more fun for the players. For the fans? Sure. Everyone loves brackets, wheee. But I think "brackets are fun" is an extremely poor argument for a playoff. And for the players? Playoff games would be played mostly at home sites. As a player, would you rather head to some dark, snowy college stadium where 100,000 fans are screaming for your head and 10,000 students are incessantly taunting you? And unless you're the one lucky team, end your season on a down note? Or would you rather head to a sunny vacation spot, get a schwag bag of electronic toys and goodies, and have a very good chance of going out a winner? Would the players have had the chance to carry Lloyd out on their shoulders in a playoff? No. And bowl games don't end like this:
http://www.ohio.com/multimedia/photo_galleries/viewer?galID=79177682&st…
Everyone's a loser in a playoff, except for one. I don't see how that's more fun for the players.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:08 PM ^
This isn't 5 year old kiddie soccer where everyone gets a trophy and a juice box.
This is huge business that men play to win and become champions at.
Some will win and some will lose, that is life. And this life lesson will play out for the men of Texas and Alabama on the field of play in about three weeks.
December 16th, 2009 at 7:41 AM ^
I didn't say we shouldn't have a playoff because playoffs are mean. I disputed the idea that it would be more fun for the players.
P.S. - why is it that in certain instances, like how we criticize their play on the field, they're just kids, but sometimes, like when it's convenient to a playoff argument, they're big men and can take their lumps?
December 15th, 2009 at 10:09 PM ^
Sorry for the 2x post.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:42 PM ^
I think this argument misses that the point of all this (if you're someone advocating for a playoff, or even originally for the BCS) is to identify the best team. Not to identify the 2 best teams in the current system, or the 8 best teams in a playoff system. The argument is that you identify some subset of teams that you think might be the best team, and then determine who is actually the best through elimination games. Either 1 game as it is now, or a playoff system. (Of course you could separately argue about whether or not 1-game eliminations will properly determine the "best team" but that's an argument against the BCS and playoffs).
So, assuming we're going to use the current formula to identify a subset of teams, and have those teams play each other to determine the best team, is it logical to argue that if we increase the size of the subset, our chances of finding the best team increase?
At first glance, yes obviously, since we increase the chance that our subset includes the best team. This should be clearly true regardless of the system for identifying the subset. Regardless of how well you think the BCS formula works, it seems clear that, similarly, it's more likely that the "best team" is ranked among the Top 4 than the Top 2, the Top 8 than the Top 4, etc. (Indeed it's a mathematical certainty, since the Top 8 includes the Top 2).
The only thing that fights back against this is that the larger we make our playoff system, the greater the chance of the best team losing at one point, since it has to play multiple games, and thus the chance of a "fluke" increases (although one could argue that if there's really no "true" best team, we at least increase our chances of getting "one of the best"). That's the logic behind not increasing to a 64 team playoff (as many will point out that the Tourney doesn't necessarily give us the "best" team). It does not seem to me, though, that the chance of the upset by going to 8 teams, outweighs the likelihood that the "best" team is ranked somewhere between 3 and 8 (not to say that 8 is a magical number, I think Brian's 6 team argument makes some sense as well).
None of this is to say that the BCS formula is good or not. Just that the logic that "if the BCS works for 8 it works for 2" doesn't seem sound to me. The point isn't whether it identifies the best 8 teams or best 2 teams, it's whether that set includes the best team.
(this is what happens when I should be studying for law school exams).
December 15th, 2009 at 8:11 PM ^
Yeah, get back to your damn books and keep your logical arguments to yourself.
No, I think you make a better point than I've ever heard about the eight teams vs. two. HOWEVA, I think your argument works mainly if you only use the formula to choose the teams and not seed them. Once you seed them, you're still using a formula that people consider flawed to make decisions about who gets what matchup and who gets to play at home, that sort of thing. And I don't think that would remove any unfairness or controversy, just shift it around to different subjects and spread it out a little bit more.
The basketball selection committee is generally seen as a fair arbiter of the process and I think would generate the least controversy. (Not eliminate it. Nothing can eliminate it. Ask a Virginia baseball fan.) And your argument about eight teams being a set more likely to include the best team than a set of two is a true enough point regardless of whether it's the BCS formula, a selection committee, or monkeys with darts, so why taint the nirvana that is a college football playoff with a front-and-center reminder of the system that people don't like?
December 15th, 2009 at 6:01 PM ^
And the fact that yours has TROY, E.Carolina and Central in it makes it a massive FAIL. The basketball playoff analogy is irrelevant for football, where there is a giant drop-off in talent for the last couple of divisions, and there is literally a 0.0 chance of Troy winning a game in this or any year of your playoff.
P.S. You consider Florida vs. Troy "an excellent game to watch?"
December 15th, 2009 at 6:04 PM ^
"Playoffs don't have to be fair."
I'll remember that next time a playoff proponent complains about the unfairness of the BCS, which is every day. I do hope the idea is not to replace an unfair system with another unfair system.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:11 PM ^
Why the vitriol?
Why does an opinion that you don't agree with get labeled with a huge "FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!" ?
The guy made his proposal; you don't like it...say so, POLITELY!
I love MGoBlog, but man, some of the sh*t that gets laid on people for completely innocuous posts is frightening. Seems like there is a lot of unresolved anger out there in MGoBlog-land.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:03 PM ^
My problem is that he titled it "The PERFECT playoff proposal". It's like when people preface a story with "OMG this is the funniest story ever!" and then proceed to tell a story about the time they got drunk and looked for a hardware store but couldn't find one.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:25 PM ^
Ignoring financial implications (i.e. Bowls) is like living in a fantasy land made of chocolate
December 15th, 2009 at 6:27 PM ^
D-1 teams. not 123
December 15th, 2009 at 6:30 PM ^
if you don't count the three independents.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:44 PM ^
Actually, there are 120 FBS teams including the 3 independents.
FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! just kidding, of course ;-)
December 15th, 2009 at 6:44 PM ^
It's 117 if you don't count the three independents.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:56 PM ^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_I#Football_Bowl_Subdivision
WKU made it 120 this year
December 15th, 2009 at 7:43 PM ^
i stand corrected
December 15th, 2009 at 6:28 PM ^
I'm always a fan of the two man sack race on consecutive Saturdays until a champion is crowned method.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:42 PM ^
Yes to 11 conference champions (arguably the only true champions to currently come out of the year...)
But why only 1 at-large? 5 at-large takes the field to 16 teams...
Take the regular season back down to 11 games (and send my kindest regards to all the 1-AAs that lose revenue while the rest of us gain meaningful games.) Play 8 first round games Thanksgiving weekend. Big 10 vs. MAC, SEC vs. Sun Belt, Pac 10 vs. MWC, Big 12 vs. Conf USA, Big East vs. ACC, WAC vs. Play-in #3, #1 vs. #5, #2 vs. #4. You can figure out the rest of the time-table...
Thanksgiving weekend becomes amazing, with regional games allowing fans to travel easily; the "importance of the regular season" is left intact, while the importance of conference championships is bolstered (the idea of a "new season beginning with conference play" becomes an actual truth...;) the small guys all get a chance; the scholarly people are happy as 107 teams have one less game per year, while 16 teams share the load of 15 games (meaning more time on average in the classroom;) and, there would be no reasonable complaining that "my team deserved a shot and wasn't selected" after the top 5-rated non-champions are selected at-large in addition to conference champions (everyone has a fair shot at a conference championship, and those from more difficult conferences have a fair shot at being ranked highly if they barely miss out on a conference championship.) This is not a one-year answer, rather, it is a response to all the factions of the debate.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:17 PM ^
This playoff proposal is not PERFECT. A plus-1 would be the easiest logistically and most probable. 6 would be the best imo, like Brian said.
1.)Alabama
4.)Cincinnati
5.)Boise State
3.)TCU
6.)Florida
2.)Texas
December 15th, 2009 at 7:20 PM ^
This thread and "OMG SPEND MONEY ON LIBRARIES NOT FOOTBALL" might have to fight over the award for worst user-created content ever.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:44 PM ^
I think a good playoff is no playoff.