Alternate solutions

by talonk on Oct 27, 2009 5:12 PM EDT Comment 28 comments

[ Great work! I liked the work here and at We Will Always have Tempe, Don't let my pragmatic critique of this design tell you otherwise. You are on the front page after all! ]

utesfan,

Been lurking the site for a few weeks now, and I like the passion and dedication that you have. Not sure how the fluctuation from year to year (5 teams one year, 7 the next, etc) would really be able to be supported. But there are alternate solutions.

I do not want to cut and paste my Dream Scenario onto your site, because it is a slightly different take on revamping college football altogether, but a lot of the concepts could still apply. But I would love your insight and comments on it nonetheless.

But in my opinion, the BCS can still work in a playoff system, but 8 is not enough, it would require 12 or 16 teams. I believe, that if you win a conference title, that you have the right to play in the tournament. No matter if it would be a North Carolina/Sam Houston State 1 vs 16 seed basketball-type scrimmage.

If only 12 teams are used, the Top 4 from the BCS rankings would get the early bye and 12 would play 5, 11 would play 6, etc. However, if only 12 teams are used, that only allows one at-large team, and we all know that would never fly from the 6 BCS commisioners. So, we are left with a 16 team playoff, with no first round byes, 11 conference champions, and 5 at large berths. [Notre Dame, Army and Navy, can only get an at large by being in BCS Top 16].

Anyways, the BCS formula would be used to qualify the 5 at-large teams, and seed the 1-16 teams. I know the current release only gives the Top 25, but there must be a way to do it to also seed Troy, Central Michigan, Houston, etc. Most likely they would be the 14, 15, 16 seed, but they still need to be slotted correctly. This would also allow, say the SEC Chamionship game loser this year, to still get a #5 seed instead of relegating it to the #12 seed. Also, using the BCS rankings would still also push teams to schedule quality opponents. If Penn St finishes 11-1 and is an at-large, they may end up in the 9-16 range because of their out of conference (OOC) this year, but if they had played Pitt, they might have squeezed into the Top 8 and into a home game (See below).

The one change that would need to be done to accomodate 16 teams would be to start the season one week earlier or to eliminate the byes that most conferences have. Personally I think starting one week earlier, is better because it still gives some flexibility in scheduling, but I will leave that to the powers that be.

The reason to start one week earlier would be to finish all conference games and the conference championship games by the last week in November. I know this would affect the Thanksgiving holiday, but a good many teams already participate in this weekend already. Another option would be to eliminate the conference championship games since the playoff games/bowls would rake in just as much $$, but I seriously doubt those conferences give up that $$ grab.

This would allow the first round of the playoffs to start in the first weekend in December, at the higher seeds home venue (ie similar to early round NIT in basketball). This would also hopefully allow us to see some matchups in the north for once late in the season we normally wouldn't get to see. Can you imagine the intensity of a playoff game in Columbus, Ann Arbor, Morgantown, etc?

Round 2 takes place in the 3rd weekend in December at four bowls to be determined (The locations of the defunct conference chamionship games could also be used). There are existing bowls that weekend already, but I suspect that the Cotton, Gator, etc would love to be able to host one of the four quarterfinal games. My best suggestion would be to spread the 4 around the country (West, Midwest, South, Texas).

Round 3 (semifinals) would take place in 2 of the 4 current BCS bowls on a rotating basis year to year, while the other 2 BCS bowls host the losers from round 2 in consolation matches.

Ideally, the championship game takes place two weeks later at the rotating venue (like the system already taking place), but keeping it one week after is also possible if thats what the BCS wants.

Finally, all the other bowls, still operate as they did before. You can leave the affiliations as they are (minus the four bowls leaving for the quarterfinals). This would also eliminate some of the current 6-6 teams from the bowls, but I don't think that is that bad. If you can't win 7, then you shouldn't qualify anyways. Additionally, teams that get eliminated in Round 1, would still qualify for bowls as before.

I think this scenario is doable, but of course the commisioners will not go for it.

Let me know what you think utesfan.

1 recs | Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Ok, now for the fire ...

I want to have a new design implemented to fix the design by 2014. To accomplish this task it will require working within the existing governance structure of the sport. I have compiled a list of their primary concerns with playoff ideas they have been presented with and will examine your idea according to those shortly.

Some believe that it will take a forced change from outside to make a difference. This will take decades once the court filings are made, or will obliterate the concept of determining a national champion if a law making the current designs illegal is made to hastily. If this is the route you want to see your plan implemented some of these issues would be greatly diminished.

Strengths of your plan:
- All conference champions participate. This would allow it to qualify as an NCAA sanctioned tournament.
- Does not run further into January.

Suggestions:
- Alter the BCS formula to not truncate the computers at the top 25, allowing all teams to be ranked, though many would have a negative value.
- Use semi-final participants to determine BCS bowl’s semifinal usage
- Allow the first two rounds to be hosted by the favored teams
- Reseed teams after the first round is played
- Eliminate the bye week between the regular season and the bowls, rather than move the season
- Allow the teams dropping out of the first two rounds to participate in one of the traditional bowls

Enhance the value of the regular season
I don’t think moving the entire season forward a week is going to be considered an enhancement. The conference championship are viewed by the BCS like part of the regular season, and to eliminate them would be an issue here.

With the bye week existing between the regular season and the bowls it is also unnecessary.

Restore the value of the bowl tradition
The bowls will not like the idea of being reduced to neutral site locations. The ability to select teams is central to their image as exhibition games.

By selecting the bowls used as semifinals and allowing teams dropping out in the first two rounds to participate in bowls, the four BCS bowls and four other bowls could be used to accommodate this dynamically and allow all other teams to be cleared for selection by the remaining bowls once the tournament is seeded.

The bowls with the top 2 conference tie-ins would be selected as semi-finals, the remaining BCS bowls would select first from the remaining teams not advancing in the tournament with guarantees of any available conference tie-ins and the remaining bowls would then select from the remaining teams.

Some of the bigger traditional bowls would skip on this opportunity to take the highest available teams not selected as an at-large. And that is a good thing and should be left up to the individual bowl committees.

Respect the travel costs of fans
Are fans willing to travel 3 or 4 weeks to follow their team around the country? The BCS is concerned they might, reducing the tournament to a cooperate event true fans can no longer afford.

Allowing the first two rounds to be home games has proven to work in all other NCAA football tournaments and the NFL. It also reduces the overall travel cost of the design.

Reduce controversy to a manageable level
With 16 teams their would be more controversy regarding the at-large selections and co-championship situations. The former would be mitigated by the number of rounds.

If at-large selections begin making title runs pressure will build to expand the design.

Respect the established postseason time period
You keep the design out of January. The encroachment into December can be argued by comparing to other NCAA run football tournaments.

Improve the financial strength of college football as a whole
More games, more dollars for everyone. No one argues that a playoff would generate more money for the postseason.

Improve the financial strength of the bowl system
I am not certain how your original design would fair here, but the suggestions regarding allowing teams to participate in a bowl if they don’t succeed in the tournament would help maintain the value of the bowls.

The bowls not tied to the tournament would not be effected.

Enhance the student athlete’s bowl experience
Again, allowing teams to fall into a bowl would allow this to be preserved for those teams not making the final four.

Being eliminated in a tournament does not preserve this aspect of the bowls.

Improve the academic success of the students
This is a central goal of the NCAA and would be examined for any design. The claim, however, that a bye week is needed to accomplish this does not hold water.

Improve the financial success of proven championship contenders
Frankly, if the bowls outside the tournament can offer more money than the tournament provides to the conferences, they will not join the tournament. The top conferences need to be a part of the tournament for it to have credibility as a natinoal championship.

This is why the BCS conferences are who they are.

Be legal
The conference realignment you linked to, while beautiful, would fail this requirement.

Teams and conferences would have to be able to negotiate and arrange their partnerships to their own best interest, otherwise you are violating the same principles that the NCAA was violating in the 1980’s with their TV contracts.

Other common ideas people present that would be an issue here are:
- Forcing/eliminating conference championship games
- Forcing bowls to yield long standing conference tie-ins to join a tournament

Respect the health of the players due to extra games
By far, this is the largest issue with your design. The NCAA was formed to mitigate against football players killing each other. The safety of the athletes is always the #1 priority.

Adding more games adds more risk of injury to the players. The most games allowed by any championship team at any level is 16 games. FBS football has higher catastrophic injury rates than the other leagues. This is why FBS teams play at most 15 games at this time.

Your design could allow for up to 18 games (If a team travels to Hawaii and plays in a conference championship game prior to the tournament). I don’t see the number allowed going above 16.

One alternative would be to remove a regular season game and give teams with 14 games a first round bye. This would remove 60 games from the schedule to allow seven or 8 games in the first round of the tournament. This does not make financial sense.

Ending Remarks
Thank you for the idea, and I hope that this encourages you to look at some of these issues and hone your plan further.

I look forward to seeing what you are able to come up with!

BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter

by utesfan100 on Oct 27, 2009 9:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

wow, lengthy reply. I’ll need a few days to digest and respond.

by talonk on Oct 27, 2009 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would expect anyone would

I have developed this outline over the past year, and spent months honing my designs to address them.

BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter

by utesfan100 on Oct 27, 2009 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

a few questions about your comments:

Suggestions:
- Alter the BCS formula to not truncate the computers at the top 25, allowing all teams to be ranked, though many would have a negative value.

Now that I think about it, the BCS rankings may be sufficient for determining the 5 at large teams, but maybe a RPI like committee would be more appropriate for seeding the 1-16 teams.

- Use semi-final participants to determine BCS bowl’s semifinal usage

Am not clear what this point is meant to be. Currently I would have the final 8 from the first round play in those 4 games. The 4 winners move to the Rose/Sugar while the 4 losers move onto the Orange/Fiesta. [Following years would be Sugar/Orange and Fiesta/Rose, etc], Therefore the non semi-final bowls would get to invite whichever teams it wants from those 4. There would be no seeding. The actual semifinals could also pick matchups simialr to now. For example, let’s say 1-Florida is scheduled to meet 4-USC and 2-Texas is scheduled to meet 3-Iowa. This year the Rose has first option and would get to pick which matchup they want. The following year, the Sugar would get first choice of the semifinal, etc. I hope this is what you meant by that.

I think this alleviates your concerns for bowls being allowed to pick teams. Rather than always seedingthe #1 to the Sugar, the number 2 to the Rose, etc.

- Allow the first two rounds to be hosted by the favored teams

I would have no problem having the first two rounds played at the higher seeds home field. Only reason I included the second tier bowls is that I know the Cotton and a few others would like a bigger piece of the BCS pie. They could get the same rotation the current BCS bowls do now. Cotton has choice 1 of matchup this year, next year they would get #4, etc. But having the first two rounds at higher seeds home field would also encourage teams to schedule tougher teams, Because getting those 1-4 seeds would be much more important than scheduling 2 FCS schools in a season.

- Reseed teams after the first round is played

Reseeding after every round could be done, as long as you wouldn’t be penalizing the #1 team for beating Central Michigan/Troy and they end up now the #3 seed based on strength of schedule. But if you mean if the #3 team got upset in the first round that the following round, the #4 teams moves into the #3 slot, and so on, that works fine. Basically you are trying to ensure the #1 team gets the easiest path, which is fine for me because again it would encourage tougher OOC scheduling.

- Eliminate the bye week between the regular season and the bowls, rather than move the season

Only reason I had moved the season up one week and start the playoffs in first weekend in December, was to try and have each round split up by two weeks:

1st weekend in Dec: Round of 16
3rd weekend in Dec: Round of 8
1st weekend in Jan: Semis
2nd/3rd weekend in Jan: Final

One, this would allow teams to get slightly more healthy and gameplan (especially if reseeding would be done after every round). Two, It would allow fans only having to travel every other weekend, not every weekend as you are proposing. Every other weekend might be more doable for most fans.

- Allow the teams dropping out of the first two rounds to participate in one of the traditional bowls

I had already given the option of teams losing in the first round to be invited to bowls. If we had the second round in second weekend of Dec and scrapped the Round of 8 at “bowl” sites, I would have no problem with this. However, if the second round of playoffs are the 3rd week of Dec, it would be hard to get the invites done and everyone coordinated to get to their bowls. My plan already has the losers in the Round of 8 going to a significant bowl, and most likely one they would have already been associated with in today’s scenario. Plus, the paydays associated with the “loser” BCS games would still be paid out to those conferences.

by talonk on Oct 28, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent responses!

I agree with most of your comments. Most of these are clarifications of my meaning.

- Use semifinals as participants to determine BCS bowl usage

By this I meant that If the #1 seed is Florida and the #2 seed is Alabama, the #3 Texas would be used to select the Sugar and Fiesta Bowls this year, rather than have a set rotation. This would significantly increase the likelihood that the BCS bowls would get their traditional conference tie-ins.

- Reseed teams after every round

By reseeding I meant taking the lowest ranked team to advance would play the highest ranked team to advance, like the NFL wild cards games. I don’t mean re-ranking the teams each week.

The rest I I agree, or I think you understand what I was saying but we will have to agree to respectfully disagree.

BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter

by utesfan100 on Oct 28, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, I think I get where you are coming from/getting to on the bowl usage. Once we hash out all of the other items, we can reissue this scenario with the modifications you have suggested.

by talonk on Oct 28, 2009 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Enhance the value of the regular season
I don’t think moving the entire season forward a week is going to be considered an enhancement. The conference championship are viewed by the BCS like part of the regular season, and to eliminate them would be an issue here.

With the bye week existing between the regular season and the bowls it is also unnecessary.

Again the only reason I encouraged moving the season up a week, was to start the playoffs the first weekend in December and to have two weeks off between playoff games. This would allow the practices to still be similar to what they are now when prepping for a bowl game.

If the Conference Championship games are kept (and I see no reason the conferences eliminating them), they are usually played the first weekend in December. That means the earliest the playoffs could start would be the second weekend in December.

That pushes the round of 8 definitely to the 3rd weekend (which I had in my plan) and would really affect bowl invites for those non-winners.

My guess is that then there would be the one week off, and the semifinals played in BCS games and the final the following week.

It could be done, but I think having the first games in late August are probably better because 1- most classes haven’t begun or just started, 2- having games in the first 3 weekends of Dec would affect almost every players finals. With a week off between round 1 and round 2 should technically allow the players to take their finals.

Ideally the CCGs are eliminated, but no way the conferences give up those cash cows.

One other option would to go back to 11 game regular seasons, but that again would affect revenue from most schools. It would most likely eliminate many of the FCS schools being scheduled, but I don’t see them reducing the games by 1 either.

by talonk on Oct 28, 2009 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Restore the value of the bowl tradition
The bowls will not like the idea of being reduced to neutral site locations. The ability to select teams is central to their image as exhibition games.

I think I have covered this aspect above. But my intention was not to affect any of the current bowls except for the 4 needed for the Round of 8. They could be given selection priorities like the BCS bowls now have.

However, if we do the second round at the higher seeds, this issue becomes moot. Those bowls go back to their current affiliations, and invite as before (as well as all other bowls).

The BCS bowls will still most likely end up with the Top 8 teams in the country, Each bowl would get options every 2 years on who to pick (once for the best semifinal matchup, once for the best consolation matchup). I don’t think this would be too hard on them since Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Ohio State, etc most liekly will end up in the majority of these games. It would be interesting to see if the Sugar Bowl would choose the #1-Florida vs #4TCU matchup over the #2Texas vs #3LSU matchup etc.

by talonk on Oct 28, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Respect the travel costs of fans
Are fans willing to travel 3 or 4 weeks to follow their team around the country? The BCS is concerned they might, reducing the tournament to a cooperate event true fans can no longer afford.

Allowing the first two rounds to be home games has proven to work in all other NCAA football tournaments and the NFL. It also reduces the overall travel cost of the design.

Even if we reduce the first two rounds to the higher seeds, you would have to have one team travel. Basically you would be reducing the travel for 12 teams in the 1st two rounds and I could live with that.

As for the 3 to 4 travel sites, the FCS schools already do this and nobody blinks an eye. Besides, many of the larger schools (OSU, USC, Notre Dame, Florida, Texas etc) already have huge national followings anyways. I am sure that the fans closest to those locations would have no problem grabbing tickets. Besides, most of those locales are near major metropoliton sites too.

I never said my model was the best, but I think it is morphable.

by talonk on Oct 28, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reduce controversy to a manageable level
With 16 teams their would be more controversy regarding the at-large selections and co-championship situations. The former would be mitigated by the number of rounds.

If at-large selections begin making title runs pressure will build to expand the design.

I think the “controversy” associated with the 5 at large teams would actually be better than bickering about which 1 loss team deserves the title shot more. Look at how much is discussed in the basketball season for bubble teams.

In fact, having 5 at large teams actually is similar to the current model with 6 Automatic Qualifiers (AQ) and 4 at large selections.

If the playoff is reduced to 8 teams, you surely will get some blowback from the Big East/ACC, etc if their AQ is left out of the 8 team playoff. Plus not all conferences get a fighting chance with only 8 teams. Basically the 5 non-BCS conferences fight for one of the at large bids, And if all 6 BCS champs do qualify for the “Final 8” then there is basically 1 at large and 1 non-BCS school qualifying.

by talonk on Oct 28, 2009 4:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If you go to 8, it has to be all at-large (or, as a possible compromise, guarantee that at least six conference champions must be included but don’t guarantee any particular conference a spot – this would have put in Utah and Boise last year over VT and Cincy), which of course would never fly with the Big East or ACC (but is probably the ideal choice in a vacuum).

I don’t think the controversy for 16 would be a problem – if you have to argue about whether you’re #11 or #12 (assuming five of the conference champs would not have made it as at-large), you’re not #1. But eight, I think, would be better if it were possible to do so without the Big East and ACC vetoing it.

by SpartanDan on Oct 28, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Respect the health of the players due to extra games
By far, this is the largest issue with your design. The NCAA was formed to mitigate against football players killing each other. The safety of the athletes is always the #1 priority.

Adding more games adds more risk of injury to the players. The most games allowed by any championship team at any level is 16 games. FBS football has higher catastrophic injury rates than the other leagues. This is why FBS teams play at most 15 games at this time.

Your design could allow for up to 18 games (If a team travels to Hawaii and plays in a conference championship game prior to the tournament). I don’t see the number allowed going above 16.

One alternative would be to remove a regular season game and give teams with 14 games a first round bye. This would remove 60 games from the schedule to allow seven or 8 games in the first round of the tournament. This does not make financial sense.

While what you say is true about the potential for 18 games is there, that number would almost never be reached. Very few of the 13 game schedules are done by teams that qualify for the Top 25.

And I suspect, at most you would get is a 17 game season and that would only be accomplished by a team in one of the 5 conferences (SEC, ACC, Big12, MAC, C-USA) that have a CCG.

So in retrospect, I think at most 2 teams would match the 17 game season (say Texas v Florida), and most likely only 1 team would, while everyone else would play 13-15, with about 4-6 teams reaching 16 games.

by talonk on Oct 28, 2009 5:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You are certainly correct that only a few teams would push these limits.

Lets look at the expected number of teams one might expect to play the given number of games compared to the current levels and FCS football:

#: Now – Yours – FCS
18: NP – 0 – NP
17: NP – 1 or 2 – NP
16: NP – 1 or 2 – 2
15: 0 – 3 or 4 – 2
14: 4 to 6 – 7 to 9 – 4
13: 60 to 64 – 50 to 54 – 8
12: 52 to 54 – 52 to 54 – 84

Thus we see that in FCS far less teams play a 13th game, balancing the added games of a few teams. A 16 game tournament with the bowls does not have this trade off and would likely require reducing the season to 11 games.

1 week of games roughly equals the revenue of the entire BCS.

BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter

by utesfan100 on Oct 28, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Am not sure what you are gettting at here.

FBS teams today play 12, 13, or 14 games (15 on the off chance they had the Hawaii exemption, a CCG and a bowl game).

Under my scenario, the round of 16 losers would now play 1 extra game (first round) and still go to a bowl, so that is 8 extra games. The round of 8 games is one extra game for 8 teams. The semifinals/consolation are equivalent to the existing BCS bowls, so no added game for that round. The final would be one additional game for the two semifinal winners.

Of the qualifiying 16 teams in the playoff scenario, 8 play one extra game (first round losers), 6 play 2 extra games (all second round participants), and 2 play 3 extra games (final participants).

So this scenario adds a total of 26 games. This would not necessitate the need to reduce the regular season to 11 games for 120 teams.

by talonk on Oct 28, 2009 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe once the season is closer to being done, I can do a simulation and that in itself will show it more clearly.

by talonk on Oct 28, 2009 7:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I guarantee your design would win a poll!

BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter

by utesfan100 on Oct 28, 2009 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, if I can find a copy of last years final BCS poll, I’l ltry to show the simulation that way. That way we don’t have to wait for 4+ more weeks.

Hope to have it up by the end of the weekend.

Would you rather it be under a separate post? Or tacked onto this one?

by talonk on Oct 29, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would rather it be attached to my post "If I were the king"

We can have more than one king in this kingdom. LOL

The data for all years can be found here.

BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter

by utesfan100 on Oct 29, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But won’t the “If I were king post” fall off the front page soon?

by talonk on Oct 29, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A new one will appear each week.

Should be up Monday night.

BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter

by utesfan100 on Oct 29, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I plan on running a description of several alternatives latter

after the release of the final BCS standings. This would have included a 16 team design with the same selection process as yours, but without the elegant side bowl enhancements.

Your ideas are well sketched out. I shot all 12 criteria I have found at it and the only two issues that remain standing are the need to adjust the regular season in some manner and opposition to a high number of games. Everything else is acceptable as is but some improvements available to iron out.

I really think the NCAA rule changes this design would need are too much for the state of the current views by the people who would have to approve any rule changes. This says more about those making the decision than your design.

If a design is going to be implemented for 2014 it is going to have to answer the questions those making the decisions now will have.

BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter

by utesfan100 on Oct 28, 2009 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, if anyone wants me to create a separate thread I can, but I will leave it here for the time being.

Using last years results (through the conference chamionship games (CCG)) and the BCS rankings from that week as well, here is what the 16 team field would have yielded:

1. Oklahoma 12-1 (Big 12 Champ)
2. Florida 12-1 (SEC Champ)
3. Texas 11-1 (at-large)
4. Alabama 12-1 (at-large)
5. USC 11-1 (Pac 10 Champ)
6. Utah 12-0 (MWC Champ)
7. Tex Tech 11-1 (at-large)
8. Penn St 11-1 (Big 10 Champ)
9. Boise St 12-0 (WAC Champ)
10. Ohio St 10-2 (at-large)
11. TCU 10-2 (at-large)
12. Cincinnati 11-2 (Big East Champ)
13. VA Tech 9-4 (ACC Champ)
14. East Carolina 9-4 (C-USA Champ)
15. Troy 8-4 (Sun Belt Champ)
16. Buffalo 8-5 (MAC Champ)

the next at-large teams that just missed were Okla St (9-3), GA Tech (9-3), Georgia (9-3) and BYU (10-2).

With all the CCGs being played Sat Dec 6, Week 1 of the playoffs would have been Sat Dec 13 as follows:

Buffalo @ Oklahoma
Troy @ Florida
East Carolina @ Texas
VA Tech @ Alabama
Cincinnati @ USC
TCU @ Utah
Ohio St @ Tex Tech
Boise St @ Penn St

Let’s assume 2 upsets (Ohio St and VA Tech – only doing this to show the re-seeding for round 2, not that I think it would happen, relax!), the reseeded order for Round 2 would be:
1. Oklahoma
2. Florida
3. Texas
4. USC
5. Utah
6. Penn St
7. Ohio St
8. VA Tech

This leads to Round 2 on Sat Dec 20 (coincidentally, the first bowl games are played this day) of:

VA Tech @ Oklahoma
Ohio St @ Florida
Penn St @ Texas
Utah @ USC

Let’’s pick one upset (Penn St over Texas) and seed the 4 BCS bowls.

Fiesta: Oklahoma vs Penn St (lowest seed of 4 winners)
Sugar: Florida vs USC
Rose (lost Penn St and USC): Ohio St vs Texas
Orange: VA Tech vs Utah

The only change to the rest of the bowl season would be to incorporate Alabama and Cincinnati as they lost in the round of 16.

This would mean Alabama into the Top SEC bowl (Capitol One) and shift everyone down one and Cincinnati into the Sun Bowl aand shift everyone down one.

The bowls changed from last year would be as such:

Capitol One: Alabama vs Mich St
Cotton: Goergia vs Tex Tech
Outback: Ole Miss vs Iowa
Chick Fil-A: South Carolina vs GA Tech
Music City: LSU vs Boston College
Independence: Kentucky vs LA Tech (this would knock 6-6 Northern Illinois out of a bowl)

Sun Bowl: Cincinnati vs Ore St
Meinecke: Pitt vs North Carolina
PapaJohns: West Virginia vs NC State
International: Rutgers vs Buffalo
St Petersburg: UConn vs Memphis
New Orleans: South Florida vs Troy (knocking out a 6-6 Southern Miss team)

Note I am not sure if the Northern Illinois and Southern Miss would actually happen, I was looking for 6-6 teams going into the bowls; it may have been others that got moved.

Now it seems that the soonest most incvites could go out would be following the playoff games on Dec 13th. However, in utes other post, this seems to be an issue due to travel bookings for the bowls.

If this truly is the case with the FBS schools, then round one of the playoffs would have to be moved up a week earlier, pushing all those games in the first week in December back to the last weekend in November. Moving those games and CCGs would require either the leagues to drop the bye week during the regular season OR starting the season one week earlier in August. I don’t care either way for that. That can be the FBS’ decision.

by talonk on Oct 29, 2009 2:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Oh and I forgot to play out to the national title. I was assuming Florida and Oklahoma won the semifinals and played the National Title game the following week.

by talonk on Oct 29, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, now we have an entirely different set of issues ...

I would have picked a far different set of upsets at each round.

BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter

by utesfan100 on Oct 29, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ha …. I didn’t want to get into an argument about the upset picks … just wanted to show how the re-seeding process would work.

So do you think that would have been a fun set of games to wacth in rounds 1 and 2?

by talonk on Oct 29, 2009 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Looking at it ...

It might be good to add a realignment clause to allow teams from the same conference to miss each other (Utah vs. TCU, I don’t know if I could stomach a rematch of that one).

It also appears that requiring a team to win 10 games in addition to a conference championship and reducing the field to 12 might be a good compromise. This would give the top 4 teams a first round bye and a strong incentive to keep those top 4 spots.

What do I think about the game? What kind of question is that? I watch almost all of the bowl games every year. Every game is a good game.

BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter

by utesfan100 on Oct 29, 2009 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why would you want to do that?

Reducing the field to 12 introduces byes into the playoffs, and since byes are a huge advantage in football, you’re essentially giving the top four teams a near-free pass to the semis if you do that. At that point you might as well just do a seeded plus one and be done with it.

And requiring ten wins in addition to winning your conference is a strong disincentive for teams in strong conferences to schedule tough OOC games. Not good.

by drothgery on Nov 26, 2009 12:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

BCS rankings...

Anyways, the BCS formula would be used to qualify the 5 at-large teams, and seed the 1-16 teams. I know the current release only gives the Top 25, but there must be a way to do it to also seed Troy, Central Michigan, Houston, etc.

Actually, the BCS rankings go all the way down to the last team with a single top-25 poll vote or computer ranking. They only widely publish the top 25, but since some conferences use BCS rankings for tiebreakers, actual rankings exist quite a ways down. The most recent went down to #43.

by drothgery on Nov 26, 2009 12:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs