The Rest of College Football

[THE_WIZARD_]

np liney...

[madootra]

That's some funny stuff!

[WM Wolverine]

Take from elsewhere on the 3 CC + top ranked team...

Is "3+1" so bad?
So apparently, the big point of contention between conferences is whether or not to go with the top 4 ranked teams or go to a 3+1 format, where the top 3 conference champions are in the playoff and then an at-large if they're in the top 8 (or something like that.)

I got to thinking... how much would it REALLY impact things if the 3+1 was adopted? Here are the final BCS top 8 rankings in the last 14 seasons; the teams in red are the teams I guess you could say would get "screwed" vs a top 4 model. The conference champs are in parentheses.

2011-2012
#1 LSU (SEC)
#2 Alabama
#3 Oklahoma State (BIG XII)
#4 Stanford
#5 Oregon (PAC 12)
#6 Arkansas
#7 Boise St
#8 Kansas St

2010-2011
#1 Auburn (SEC)
#2 Oregon (PAC 10)
#3 TCU (MWC)
#4 Stanford
#5 Wisconsin (B1G)
#6 Ohio St
#7 Oklahoma (BIG XII)
#8 Arkansas

2009-2010
#1 Alabama (SEC)
#2 Texas (BIG XII)
#3 Cincinnati (Big East)
#4 TCU (MWC)
#5 Florida
#6 Boise St (WAC)
#7 Oregon (PAC 10)
#8 Ohio St (B1G)

2008-2009
#1 Oklahoma (BIG XII)
#2 Florida (SEC)
#3 Texas
#4 Alabama
#5 USC (PAC 10)
#6 Utah (MWC)
#7 Texas Tech
#8 Penn St (B1G)

2007-2008
#1 Ohio St (B1G)
#2 LSU (SEC)
#3 VA Tech (ACC)
#4 Oklahoma (BIG 12)
#5 Georgia
#6 Missouri
#7 USC (PAC 10)
#8 Kansas

2006-2007
#1 Ohio St (B1G)
#2 Florida (SEC)
#3 Michigan
#4 LSU
#5 USC (PAC 10)
#6 Louisville (Big East)
#7 Wisconsin
#8 Boise St (WAC)

2005-2006
#1 USC (PAC 10)
#2 Texas (BIG XII)
#3 Penn St (B1G)
#4 Ohio St
#5 Oregon
#6 Notre Dame
#7 Georgia (SEC)
#8 Miami

2004-2005
#1 USC (PAC 10)
#2 Oklahoma (BIG XII)
#3 Auburn (SEC)
#4 Texas
#5 Cal
#6 Utah (MWC)
#7 Georgia
#8 VA Tech (ACC)

2003-2004
#1 Oklahoma (BIG XII)
#2 LSU (SEC)
#3 USC (PAC 10)
#4 Michigan (B1G)
#5 Ohio St
#6 Texas
#7 FSU (ACC)
#8 Tennessee

2002-2003
#1 Miami (Big East)
#2 Ohio St (B1G)
#3 Georgia (SEC)
#4 USC
#5 Iowa
#6 Washington St (PAC 10)
#7 Oklahoma (BIG XII)
#8 Kansas St

2001-2002
#1 Miami (Big East)
#2 Nebraska
#3 Colorado (BIG XII)
#4 Oregon (PAC 10)
#5 Florida
#6 Tennessee
#7 Texas
#8 Illinois (B1G)

2000-2001
#1 Oklahoma (BIG XII)
#2 FSU (ACC)
#3 Miami (Big East)
#4 Washington (PAC 10)
#5 VA Tech
#6 Oregon St
#7 Florida (SEC)
#8 Nebraska

1999-2000
#1 FSU (ACC)
#2 VA Tech (Big East)
#3 Nebraska (BIG XII)
#4 Alabama (SEC)
#5 Tennessee
#6 Kansas St
#7 Wisconsin (B1G)
#8 Michigan

1998-1999
#1 Tennessee (SEC)
#2 FSU (ACC)
#3 Kansas St
#4 Ohio St
#5 UCLA (PAC 10)
#6 Texas A&M (BIG XII)
#7 Arizona
#8 Florida

So... 4 times in 14 seasons? And in 2 of those instances, the team went on to lose their BCS game...

Just a random "food for thought" post out of boredom

[Mike]

In a 3+1 is the at-large team automatically the highest ranked team not to win a conference? And does the Mountain West count? In 2010 TCU finished #3 but under the new system would they be passed over for #5 Wisconsin out of a BCS conference? Would they have to get in as the at-large team and would they automatically get in ahead of #4 Stanford?

[Rob F]

WM--for some reason, nothing red showed up on your post above showing showing the 14 seasons worth of Top 8 standings. Could it be because red is not a "good" color around here?

Maybe try editing it with Maize or Blue - colors that stand out better!

[Mackenzie]

Take from elsewhere on the 3 CC + top ranked team...

Is "3+1" so bad?
So apparently, the big point of contention between conferences is whether or not to go with the top 4 ranked teams or go to a 3+1 format, where the top 3 conference champions are in the playoff and then an at-large if they're in the top 8 (or something like that.)

I got to thinking... how much would it REALLY impact things if the 3+1 was adopted? Here are the final BCS top 8 rankings in the last 14 seasons; the teams in red are the teams I guess you could say would get "screwed" vs a top 4 model. The conference champs are in parentheses.

2011-2012
#1 LSU (SEC)
#2 Alabama
#3 Oklahoma State (BIG XII)
#4 Stanford
#5 Oregon (PAC 12)
#6 Arkansas
#7 Boise St
#8 Kansas St

2010-2011
#1 Auburn (SEC)
#2 Oregon (PAC 10)
#3 TCU (MWC)
#4 Stanford
#5 Wisconsin (B1G)
#6 Ohio St
#7 Oklahoma (BIG XII)
#8 Arkansas

2009-2010
#1 Alabama (SEC)
#2 Texas (BIG XII)
#3 Cincinnati (Big East)
#4 TCU (MWC)
#5 Florida
#6 Boise St (WAC)
#7 Oregon (PAC 10)
#8 Ohio St (B1G)

2008-2009
#1 Oklahoma (BIG XII)
#2 Florida (SEC)
#3 Texas
#4 Alabama
#5 USC (PAC 10)
#6 Utah (MWC)
#7 Texas Tech
#8 Penn St (B1G)

2007-2008
#1 Ohio St (B1G)
#2 LSU (SEC)
#3 VA Tech (ACC)
#4 Oklahoma (BIG 12)
#5 Georgia
#6 Missouri
#7 USC (PAC 10)
#8 Kansas

2006-2007
#1 Ohio St (B1G)
#2 Florida (SEC)
#3 Michigan
#4 LSU
#5 USC (PAC 10)
#6 Louisville (Big East)
#7 Wisconsin
#8 Boise St (WAC)

2005-2006
#1 USC (PAC 10)
#2 Texas (BIG XII)
#3 Penn St (B1G)
#4 Ohio St
#5 Oregon
#6 Notre Dame
#7 Georgia (SEC)
#8 Miami

2004-2005
#1 USC (PAC 10)
#2 Oklahoma (BIG XII)
#3 Auburn (SEC)
#4 Texas
#5 Cal
#6 Utah (MWC)
#7 Georgia
#8 VA Tech (ACC)

2003-2004
#1 Oklahoma (BIG XII)
#2 LSU (SEC)
#3 USC (PAC 10)
#4 Michigan (B1G)
#5 Ohio St
#6 Texas
#7 FSU (ACC)
#8 Tennessee

2002-2003
#1 Miami (Big East)
#2 Ohio St (B1G)
#3 Georgia (SEC)
#4 USC
#5 Iowa
#6 Washington St (PAC 10)
#7 Oklahoma (BIG XII)
#8 Kansas St

2001-2002
#1 Miami (Big East)
#2 Nebraska
#3 Colorado (BIG XII)
#4 Oregon (PAC 10)
#5 Florida
#6 Tennessee
#7 Texas
#8 Illinois (B1G)

2000-2001
#1 Oklahoma (BIG XII)
#2 FSU (ACC)
#3 Miami (Big East)
#4 Washington (PAC 10)
#5 VA Tech
#6 Oregon St
#7 Florida (SEC)
#8 Nebraska

1999-2000
#1 FSU (ACC)
#2 VA Tech (Big East)
#3 Nebraska (BIG XII)
#4 Alabama (SEC)
#5 Tennessee
#6 Kansas St
#7 Wisconsin (B1G)
#8 Michigan

1998-1999
#1 Tennessee (SEC)
#2 FSU (ACC)
#3 Kansas St
#4 Ohio St
#5 UCLA (PAC 10)
#6 Texas A&M (BIG XII)
#7 Arizona
#8 Florida

So... 4 times in 14 seasons? And in 2 of those instances, the team went on to lose their BCS game...

Just a random "food for thought" post out of boredom

I was listening to one of the college sports programs on Sirius last week and, perhaps based on the same data, a guest caller indicated that there was really not much difference between the "top four vs 3 cc +1" model. Though I can't remember who the guest caller was he was a former coach or AD with an SEC bias. He went on to cite some recent instances where a crazy last weekend of upsets could throw a wrench into either system but particularly the 3 +1. An upset by Georgia in the SEC championship game was on example. Still the "caller" essentially said that there was not much difference and that crazy things could happen in either model. Duh!

What I thought was interesting was that the "caller" went on to say that, as there was not much difference, he did not know why the BIG was hanging on to the 3 + 1 and just not give their blessing to the "top 4" model. I guess I did not know that the BIG is adamant about the 3 + 1 model. And, if the "caller" and the data is correct and they are virtually the same--or could be virtually the same--then why doesn't the SEC just adopt the 3 + 1 model and stop hanging on to the "top 4" model. I guess Slimey is right and the SEC just won't budge no matter what. Anyway, an interesting debate.

[WM Wolverine]

I copy and pasted so the color coding didn't show up, oops... You can figure the 3 CC's out, and yes winning the MWC counts the same as winning the SEC but the polls and computers should help balance that out...

In a 3 CC + 1 system, anytime you have 3 CC's in top 4 in BCS (it'll be renamed) rankings; you'd have exactly what the SEC wants; a straight, top 4 system. What the above does show though is that, there are times when a #5 or #6 CC (conference champ) is chosen in favor of a non CC #3/#4... People have looked at the history and found there isn't much difference between these #3/#4 seeds vs the #5/#6 seeds in terms of BCS bowl performance...

No team < #6 BCS ranking would ever make any 4-team playoff as if you only have 2 CC's in the top 6 (very unlikely), you'd have two at-large spots...

re: Not sure on the B10's position, but I don't think any conference has a 3 CC + 1 at-large model as a proposal.

[SeanB]

Unless I miscounted, it looks like ND only shows up once in the last 14 seasons, yet they still get a seat at the table as if the are representing an entire conference. They just don't deserve the amount of sway they are given in this process, IMO.

[Rob F]

My guess is that the B1G is adamant about the 3+1 model for a variety of reasons, but the biggest being to both try to enhance the B1G's chances of locking up at least one spot most years and to try to limit SEC from getting any more than 2 spots. Maybe some day the axis of power will shift away from the SEC; that's what the other conferences are hoping for and trying to figure out in the meantime.


My take (and I'll try to limit myself here to the main points) is as follows:

1) CFB is right now in too much a state of flux to lock into any one "system" for more than a relatively small # of seasons. A ton of issues are yet to be sorted thru with each and every issue deeply woven into coming up with a process and format that will keep the majority of both CFB fans and schools happy.

Just a few of the many issues: How many conferences will be left standing when it all shakes out? Which conferences will then be included in the lineup to be sorted thru to name 3 of those 4 teams, and how will those 3 teams be picked each season? How many teams per conference? Conference championship games and their role? Independants included or excluded? So-called "mid-major" conferences and their inclusion? Where to play the semi-final and Championship Games? And, to finish it off, once the top 3 CC's are determined, then narrowing it down to one "wildcard" team if there isn't 4 CC's that qualify by being also highly enough ranked? Not to mention, off the field, AD's vs. college presidents calling the shots? (I'm sure most of you can add other "issues" to this list; this is just off the top of my head as i type this)

2) The powers-that-be are too stuck on preserving what is left of the past and of the status quo regarding the Bowl system ($$$$$ largely dictating this, including a helluva lot of "lobbying" by Bowl Reps with cash and perks to pass out to "friendly voters"). I loved, as a CFB fan, the old New Year's Day-centric bowl season---there was nothing like sitting back on that day, remote in hand, and enjoying first the nationally-televised parades, with the first games then starting at noon. Sure, you had to either decide which of the early games to watch or bounce back-and-forth, but that was a minor inconvenience to me. Then came the Rose Bowl---a must-see game start-to-finish, followed by finally the Orange Bowl and its always-special halftime show.

That ship (the NYD traditions I listed above), sad to say, has sailed away forever, and while parts of it might somehow be resurrected, it really isn't in the long-term best interest of the B1G to pretend we can go back to the pre-BcS days.

3) Intertwined with both of the above main points is the idea/thought/fear that what is going to start with a 4-team 2-round playoff is further future expansion to either 6 or 8 teams and an additional round, or even someday to 16 teams. I understand---and support---the notion of making the regular season as meaningful as possible. I also recognize that football is an extremely violent game that has a large amount of injury-related attrition, so there has to be finite limits to the # of games these college students can be expected to play per season.

With that (and everything else) in mind, I no longer want a 16-team playoff like I did years ago. Even then, with CCG's already the norm, we really do have a de-facto additional round of playoff games already there, if this thing is properly thought-out.


Solutions? Answers? Opinions? Insights?

Anyone?

Here's what I'd like to see, in short:

.A short-term agreement of approximately 3 seasons using the 3+1 model while CFB sorts out the eventual conference line-ups. Then, starting in that 4th season, an 8-team tournament, as that is (IMO) the optimal # of teams if you truly wish to make things fair for all teams, fans, conferences, and regions.

.A selection committee to be used, with clearly-defined and transparent procedural rules used to pick the participants.

.Uniformity among the conferences on # of teams, CCG's, # of regular-season conference games, and anything else that is un-balanced when comparing one conference to another (including, of course, recruiting practices such as over-signing, etc.)

.The NCAA to be done away with in its present form, to be replaced by a more fairly-administered form of governing CFB. The Bowls, the TV networks, and special-interest groups have all done damage to CFB for way too long and it IS time for a stronger centralized leadership if you want a fair and level playing field for all.

[entropy]

I misse the old bowls. I'd rather see a +1 at the end. Bowls don't mean as much as they once did and that is sad.

[Tony G]

Regrettably they never will again.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Thanks for that post, Rob. First, I dislike what has happened to CFB since the advent of the BCS. Interestingly, the advent of the BCS parallels the increasing values of TV contracts to the conferences.

In my view, the intrusion of mega-profits into college football, cloaked as a means of funding lesser sports, has done a lot of damage to the sport. I'd like to see numbers showning need (not just a desire to build new multimilion dollar wrestling venues and nautitoriums to say you have them) for the large increase in revenues to run these lesser sports that ADs vocally claim they need.

To me its an ego thing for conference big wigs, including people like Dave Brandon, who can claim they have the best this and that while fans pay higher and higher prices to see a sport that was once for students and student athletes and was both affordable and fun to watch .... this is a lot like what has happened to and, for me, ruined pro-sports and produced such iconic structures as Jerry's World and the ruinous behavior of the various pro-sports league commisoners and team owners.

College sports is headed down that road and I supsect it won't be long before Dave Brandon schedules monster truck pulls in the Big House claiming he has to do that to keep up with the "Jones'" (literally) or raise revenue for needy soccer and lacrosse players. I hate that. It's coming. It's also pretty clear that the race for dollars is at the heart of conference restructuring and plans for the post season.

In that kind of environment, the fans interests are the last of concerns for the deciders. I believe even some of the anachronistic bowl traditions, along with the 70 year old fat guys in orange blazers and madras pants, are minor players in this discussion. Show me the money. Show me how I can look like the biggest bad ass conference, league, AD, you name it, on the block and I'll show you what's driving all of this. Sadly, it has nothing wahtsoever to do with doing something good for the post season and for CFB in general. That's why I'm pretty much done talking about it.

[whodean]

the fans interests are the last of concerns for the deciders

And yet college football is more popular than ever...maybe most fans enjoy the system more than you do, Jeff

[WM Wolverine]

Athletic departments for the most part are NOT self sufficient. They generally run in the red and are 'saved' by revenues from football. If not for the massive amounts of revenue from football, you'd see conferences dropping college sports regularly...

The playoffs are something that both the fans want and is good for the AD's budget. The 4-team playoff only adds 1 extra bowl game to two teams. The main concern should be what's in the best interests of the student athletes. They (athletes) overwhelmingly are in support of it and these playoffs are at a time when these schools are on break, except for the title game which might conflict with some schools first week of class.

[Jeff Buchanan]

And yet college football is more popular than ever...maybe most fans enjoy the system more than you do, Jeff

Don't kid yourself. These boys have a slew of Harvard Business school grads who design computer based algorithms that determine exactly how to push the price points for individual games and for season ticket holders as well as the cost of luxury boxes to that specific demographic.

This has become big business. That is not to say there is still not a group of loyal fans who will continue to spend 1000s for a shit home schedule like M's 2012 disaster (and pay another grand for a weekend in Dallas to see M v. Alabama) but that group is going to be dwindling, not growing I would think. CFB is not an elastic commodity. The price of enjoying it is going to reach a limit and the trick will be for the deciders to not go over the fiscal cliff. I'm not sure Dave Brandon is capable of avoiding that and there are a lot of bozo's just like him out there running CFB programs.