In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 463
Online now 501 Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
For those college football nutjobs like me who can’t stand the offseason, this might be for you. With all the talk of a college football playoff in the news lately I decided to get creative with the only simulation tools I have: a PS3 and NCAA 12. Using the final BCS regular season standings for seeding; I have created a 24 team playoff (24 teams because the BCS standings doesn’t extend to 32) that I will simulate to see who virtually would have been the national champion. First off, I am in not in favor at all of a 24 team playoff. This is not conducive in reality. My playoff starts on December 17 (two weeks after the conference title games) and extends until January 14th. The Top 8 seeds all have first round byes and the higher seeded team will host until the semi-finals. The semi-finals will be played at the Orange and Sugar Bowls. The championship will be played at the Rose Bowl. I have gone to great extents to make this simulation as legitimate as possible including roster changes due to injury or suspension and even accurate weather conditions at the site where the games would have been played. Check it out here: http://short-sideoption.blogspot.com/ , it’s a good source of entertainment in the off-season! Michigan is the #13 seed and will host #20 Nebraska in the first round.
Should it stay or go?
I love the Clash.
He brings up a pretty good topic.
How do others fell about a playoff?
I always felt it should be based on Conference champions, if you cant win you conference you shouldn't be entitled to a National Title
I'd be fine with a playoff as long as they fixed this stupid polling system they have. It doesn't do much to change the icing on the cake if the cake is still crap cake. Know what I mean?
Definitely, I would be opposed to a plus 1 system either, just something to either do away with or fix the current system. Also, welcome to board!
Go Blue & Gig Em'!
What kind of icing are we talking here?
@ Butte: I don't intend to be a spammer; this was just an interesting topic that I wanted to discuss with a variety of fans. I already know what fans of my team think of a playoff and of simulations; I just wanted to branch out a bit and see what others thought. You'd be amazed at the variety of opinions throughout different fan bases. Thank you for checking it out!
@Tru & Brady: Tru; I agree with you to a point. If the best two teams in the country are from the same conference, let them play for the title. I thought in 2006 that the OSU/Michigan game should have been the national title. Yes, Florida hammered OSU in the title game and Michigan lost the Rose Bowl, but how much of that was emotional drain from The Game? It would have been nice though to see LSU or Alabama play Oklahoma St this year though.... Brady, definitely. The current formula they use is terrible, but not totally unuseful. Use the BCS Formula along with a NCAA tournament-like selection committee and I think we've got something. Keeping in mind ofcourse that any selection process will have its bias in some way shape or form. Thank you both for checking it out! Keep the ideas coming.
@ TAMU Thank you for the welcome! Did you mean you wouldn't be opposed to a plus one?
Thanks....been lurking for a while...decided to join the party
I don't think it's fair to simply complain about something if you aren't willing to offer up solutions to help fix the problem. So here's my take on what should happen every year to complete a fantastic year of college football.
First, I hear all these folks wanting a playoff. They'd have an 8 team or 16 team or plus one type of playoff. That's great, but MOST of them would base those teams and their qualifications on the BCS criteria. These folks are starting out on the wrong path to begin with. Garbage in , garbage out. We first have to address the polls. We either get rid of the coaches' poll all together or we include every coach in America in the poll. Strength of schedule AND margin of victory need to be taken into account and, if we use any sort of computer poll it would have to be 100% transparent. The criteria for what the pollsters should be / would be looking for would be published so all the schools could schedule accordingly. If I had my way, the polls would not be released until 5ish weeks into the season. I understand that some won't go for that, so if the preseason polls thru week 4 are a must, we can assign a confidence factor that increases each week. This means that being #1 in week 2 isn't the same as being #1 in week 8.
Second, with all the poll stuff taken care of we can look at the playoff scenarios. The numbers I am going to use would be adjusted according to how many teams are in the playoff. For the example, I will assume an 8 team playoff. Of the 8 slots, 5 would go to conference champions of the SEC, ACC, B1G, B12 and P12 IF they are also in the top 12 of the final rankings. This means if a team wins the conference but finishes outside the final rankings, they have to hope for an at large berth. This actually adds a dash of "every game matters" to the mix (something the current system claims it has, but clearly doesn't). You'll notice I didn't include the Big East as a group who can automatically qualify. Sorry, in my opinion, you've lost any credibility you had and no longer warrant preferential treatment. That leaves 3 at large berths to be filled by the highest ranked teams at the end of the year. If the conferences can't produce champions that are also in the top 12, those slots for automatic berths simply go to the wildcard slot. If four conferences have qualifiers, then there would be four wild cards.
That's the process I would use if I were running things all by myself. I haven't made mention of how I'd incorporate the bowls because I really don't care. That should be easy enough to figure out to make all happy. So, how would this process translate to this year?
Auto bids would be: #1 LSU, #3 OSU, #5 Oregon and #8 Wisconsin
At large bids would be: #4 Stanford, #6 Arkansas, #7 BSU and #2 Alabama
#1 vs #8
#2 vs #7
#3 vs #6
#4 vs #5
After each round the highest ranked team to make it through always played the lowest ranked team to make it through. Obviously, if you wanted fewer or more teams you could adjust. You'd also have to adjust the cut off for the automatic qualifier line as well. For example, if you wanted to just do 6 teams, you'd probably want to make the cut off finishing in the top 10.
If one still didn't trust the polling method to rank the teams, and I completely understand why one wouldn't, the other option is to have a committee very similar to that of the NCAA basketball tournament. Have a group of folks sit down and hand pick a group of teams based on specific criteria clearly outlined so everyone knows what the criteria are for being considered.
I think we are all in agreement here that any playoff proposal is enhanced if Michigan is given an autobid.
@ Brady: Excellent Ideas in there, I agree. The BCS formula (or whatever formula they would decide to use) ABSOLUTELY has to be transparent. If that is the metric by which teams are being measured; the teams need to know the metric. I think that is (or should be) fairly obvious. I've read more and more about the idea to reward conference champions with automatic playoff births within a given threshold (you used the Top 12); I am completely onboard with that as long as there are a couple wildcards out there to be given to teams like Alabama this year who didn't win their conference but are easily in the Top 8. I've read a lot of proposals and I think yours stands right up there with the best. Too bad the powers that be in college football don't listen to the fans more than they do. Just out of curiousity, you use 8 teams in your playoff; is that optimum number you would use if you had complete control?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports