DVD Talk
You wanted a CFB Playoff? SI gives you one. [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : You wanted a CFB Playoff? SI gives you one.


DVD Josh
12-05-07, 04:38 PM
http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/football/ncaa/12/05/ultimate.playoff/t1_ultimateplayoffinside.jpg

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/ncaa/12/05/ultimate.playoff/index.html?eref=T1

My upset pick: Florida over Mizzou.

My really big upset pick: Clemson over LSU.

Toad
12-05-07, 04:42 PM
It would be nice. Regular season wouldn't be meaningless, since it gets you to the friggin' playoffs.

Florida is a good team; I think they could win that entire side of the bracket unless LSU or USC really turned it on.

shizawn
12-05-07, 04:48 PM
December Debauchery!!!

Toad
12-05-07, 04:52 PM
Debauchery? What, are we having orgies with the teams? I retract my support of the playoff system if that's the case.

namja
12-05-07, 04:58 PM
So how does that work? Do we get to vote who wins each game?

DVD Josh
12-05-07, 05:01 PM
So how does that work? Do we get to vote who wins each game?

Exactly. Go to the SI link and pick. They will advance the brackets periodically, crown a champ next week.

namja
12-05-07, 05:11 PM
Exactly. Go to the SI link and pick. They will advance the brackets periodically, crown a champ next week.
Done. I picked 2 upsets:
Illinois
Florida

If CFB ever goes the 16-team playoff route, then they should crown the champ in the same manner: by having a poll (combine Harris Poll & Coaches Poll?). It makes just about as much sense as actually having playoff games, so why not. :lol:

El Scorcho
12-05-07, 06:03 PM
December Delirium!

This sort of playoff would never work because there are entirely too many people out there who believe in retarded traditions and popularity contests instead of, you know, crazy concepts like letting on-field battles decide things!

El Scorcho
12-05-07, 06:04 PM
PS LOL @ the 26% that think Hawaii would stand a chance against USC on a neutral field.

ahahhahahaha

Bacon
12-05-07, 06:24 PM
PS LOL @ the 26% that think Hawaii would stand a chance against USC on a neutral field.

ahahhahahaha
yep any of the 15 teams would own Hawaii

clemente
12-05-07, 07:29 PM
I am amused by the inference that the BCS blows because of the human bias factor...and then setting up a scenario where human bias (votes) advances a team in a faux playoff.

Its funny to me.

TruGator
12-05-07, 08:39 PM
This concept makes me :drool:.

How fun would it be to talk about upsets like this and sleepers in a football tournament for once.

NotThatGuy
12-05-07, 08:55 PM
I love hawaii...and I am a homer for them, but if they aren't at home....they will probably get rocked. I still them they have an OUTSIDE chance of keeping it close in the bowl game, but they'll need to actually show up on defense....at least for a bit.

-p

Patman
12-05-07, 09:29 PM
December Dementia!!!

cck
12-05-07, 10:59 PM
yep any of the 15 teams would own Hawaii

And that's PRECISELY why we need a playoff. Hawaii killed that same Arizona State team last year.

kenbuzz
12-06-07, 06:36 AM
I like the notion of playoffs (obviously), but this just makes me -ohbfrank-

- 16 teams is too many teams by AT LEAST 2x. Some would say 4x, and the BCS (of course) says 8x.
- Team selection/seeding is based strictly on the BCS. No weighting is given to being a conference champion or earning your way in through wins and losses, it's still about style points and impressing voters.
- Advancement in this "game" is based on fan voting, making it just another popularity contest with no bearing to on-the-field performance

It's fine for what it is - a fairy tale. But a playoff it isn't.

chrisih8u
12-06-07, 06:46 AM
I like the notion of playoffs (obviously), but this just makes me -ohbfrank-

- 16 teams is too many teams by AT LEAST 2x. Some would say 4x, and the BCS (of course) says 8x.
- Team selection/seeding is based strictly on the BCS. No weighting is given to being a conference champion or earning your way in through wins and losses, it's still about style points and impressing voters.
- Advancement in this "game" is based on fan voting, making it just another popularity contest with no bearing to on-the-field performance

It's fine for what it is - a fairy tale. But a playoff it isn't.

Who are the teams in your version?

The_Cube
12-06-07, 10:56 AM
PS LOL @ the 26% that think Hawaii would stand a chance against USC on a neutral field.

ahahhahahaha


LOL at the 74% of people that think USC would beat Hawaii on a neutral field. Ahahahahahhahahah hahahahahah haahahhahahahhahaha ahahahhahahahhaahhh!!!!!ROTFLROTFL

Matt
12-06-07, 10:59 AM
LOL at the 74% of people that think USC would beat Hawaii on a neutral field. Ahahahahahhahahah hahahahahah haahahhahahahhahaha ahahahhahahahhaahhh!!!!!ROTFLROTFL

December Dementia, indeed.

DVD Josh
12-06-07, 11:11 AM
LOL at the 74% of people that think USC would beat Hawaii on a neutral field. Ahahahahahhahahah hahahahahah haahahhahahahhahaha ahahahhahahahhaahhh!!!!!ROTFLROTFL

Just out of curiosity I ran a simulation of USC vs. Hawaii on a neutral field on NCAA football.

10-0 USC. No game was even close.

WallyOPD
12-06-07, 11:24 AM
How about if you simulate Stanford at USC 10 times?

DVD Josh
12-06-07, 11:35 AM
How about if you simulate Stanford at USC 10 times?

I'm sure it's the same result.

das Monkey
12-06-07, 12:15 PM
yep any of the 15 teams would own Hawaii
Bullshit. Hawaii would match up very well with Arizona State (beat them soundly last year, in fact), Boston College, Illinois, and Clemson. They might also win a shootout with West Virginia, Kansas, or Missouri, whose defenses would struggle to get to Colt in games that should break 100 points. USC, of course, would slaughter them, neutral field or not. Same with teams like LSU, Georgia, or Virginia Tech, whose pass rushes would knock Brennan out of the game before the coin toss.

das

DVD Josh
12-06-07, 12:22 PM
Teams advancing. No surprises:

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/football/ncaa/12/06/ultimateplayoff.eliteeight/t1_ultimateeliteeightinside.jpg

DVD Josh
12-06-07, 12:24 PM
The OSU vs. WVU matchup would be incredible.

lotsofdvds
12-06-07, 12:30 PM
8 teams would make a good playoff bracket. 12 maybe with first round byes. 16 teams just makes for too many games.

El Scorcho
12-06-07, 01:26 PM
I like the notion of playoffs (obviously), but this just makes me -ohbfrank-

- 16 teams is too many teams by AT LEAST 2x. Some would say 4x, and the BCS (of course) says 8x.
- Team selection/seeding is based strictly on the BCS. No weighting is given to being a conference champion or earning your way in through wins and losses, it's still about style points and impressing voters.
- Advancement in this "game" is based on fan voting, making it just another popularity contest with no bearing to on-the-field performance

It's fine for what it is - a fairy tale. But a playoff it isn't.

My optimal solution:

- 8 teams
- 8 teams are decided solely based on a winning percentage/strength of schedule formula. No polls.
- #8 team is automatically dropped out for any undefeated team in any conference that is not currently in the top 8 to begin with (Hawaii this year)
- Lowest seed gets the home field in the preliminary round.
- 4 major bowls get the Semifinals
- Current BCS championship site gets the Finals

- Advancement in this "game" is based on fan voting, making it just another popularity contest with no bearing to on-the-field performance

Uhhh, it's a hypothetical situation, we have no choice but to vote. It wouldn't be that way if it actually existed. :lol: What point are you trying to make?

El Scorcho
12-06-07, 01:30 PM
Hey by the way -- why do we even need to have weekly polls anyway?

Why not just save BCS, AP, and Coaches polls until when they're actually needed?

das Monkey
12-06-07, 01:40 PM
8 teams would make a good playoff bracket. 12 maybe with first round byes. 16 teams just makes for too many games.
As I've mentioned many times before, anything more than 4 teams would turn the regular season into a snoozefest. No one would ever schedule a meaningful non-conference game again, since winning a BCS conference would guarantee a shot in the playoffs. Cal vs Tenn? USC vs Nebraska? Miami vs. Oklahoma? Oregon vs. Michigan? LSU vs. Va Tech? Forget it. You may even lose good rivalries like WVU vs. Maryland or Louisville vs. Kentucky. Mid-majors would never have a prayer of convincing anyone they were good, because no one would ever have a reason to play them, even at home. There'd be 2 or 3 undefeated mid-majors or independents each season. The same 12 BCS-conference programs would make the playoffs almost every year after relatively boring seasons where most of them played, at best, 2 competitive games. And get used to Notre Dame in the playoffs every year. The only teams that would schedule the Irish would be service academies and bottom feeders. Sure, the Irish were terrible this year, but why risk it? There's no upside.

NFL playoffs work because there's enforced competitive balance between schedules (as much as possible). NCAA tourney works because every school with an enrollment over 100 can field a team, and they play multiple times per week, so you can fill a massive bracket with every conference champion and still force majors and mid-majors to play non-conference games. Lower division football tournaments work, because absolutely no one gives a shit about the regular season and will only pay attention to the league if there's a tournament. The only way a playoff could work in Division 1-A (or whatever stupid name they call it now) is if the NCAA forced scheduling from above (would never happen) or conferences were mandated to be 12 teams where everyone had to play at least 10 conference games. In the latter case, you'd have to open it up to 16 teams to be fair to mid-majors.

Or you just make it 4 teams and say "tough shit" to all the teams like West Virginia who had every opportunity in the world to make the title game and choked all over themselves to the embarrassment of generations of Mountaineer fans.

das

WallyOPD
12-06-07, 01:55 PM
So every BCS conference team will be betting on winning their conference championship and not going for an at-large? The past few years Cal would have had no incentive to schedule a tough non-conference game or two because all they have to do is beat USC and win the Pac-10? I think you would still see tough scheduling to try to earn one of the at-large berths in an 8 team tournament.

El Scorcho
12-06-07, 01:59 PM
The biggest problem with both the theoretical playoff system and the current system is that I-AA teams are allowed to play I-A teams which is purely just a fiscal transaction and has nothing to do with trying to put a competitive game on the field, the once-in-a-lifetime App St/Michigan debacle not withstanding.

If you base the playoff system on a winning%/SOS formula, you'd kind of have to play (and schedule) a tough schedule to make it into the playoffs. There'd be no way a 2007 Kansas team would make an 8-team playoff because they played nobody of importance and when they did, they lost.

starman9000
12-06-07, 02:21 PM
The biggest problem with both the theoretical playoff system and the current system is that I-AA teams are allowed to play I-A teams which is purely just a fiscal transaction and has nothing to do with trying to put a competitive game on the field, the once-in-a-lifetime App St/Michigan debacle not withstanding.


Well, for the top teams yeah. But I think the top 1-AA teams are pretty competitive with the bottom 1/2 - 1/3 of 1-A teams.

El Scorcho
12-06-07, 02:35 PM
Well, for the top teams yeah. But I think the top 1-AA teams are pretty competitive with the bottom 1/2 - 1/3 of 1-A teams.

Probably true, but do we really need to have games like Idaho vs. Cal Poly or LA Lafayette vs. McNeese St.?

coli
12-06-07, 02:39 PM
I think 16 teams is too much, especially that these are college kids playing, and 4 more games may be a bit too much at 21-22 years old.

Each team should play an 10 game regular season, and discard this whole conference championships, as they are just another way for the conferences to make money, and it isn't fair that the Big 10 and Pac 10 don't have to play one.

Have an 8 team playoff 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5, and have the Quarterfinals and Semifinals in the first and second weekends of December, and then you have the National Championship on New Years Night.

das Monkey
12-06-07, 02:44 PM
So every BCS conference team will be betting on winning their conference championship and not going for an at-large? The past few years Cal would have had no incentive to schedule a tough non-conference game or two because all they have to do is beat USC and win the Pac-10? I think you would still see tough scheduling to try to earn one of the at-large berths in an 8 team tournament.
Cal had every incentive the last few years. Winning the conference alone would not be enough to go to the title game. Auburn proved that. Right now, winning your conference guarantees you a BCS game, not a shot at the title. In an 8-team playoff, it would guarantee you an actual shot at the title. That's a big difference. The risk of losing a game in search of an at-large would be way too great IMO, especially when you consider that this setup would yield at least one undefeated mid-major/independent and often two, limiting these at-large opportunities.

das

das Monkey
12-06-07, 02:52 PM
Each team should play an 10 game regular season, and discard this whole conference championships, as they are just another way for the conferences to make money, and it isn't fair that the Big 10 and Pac 10 don't have to play one.
The Pac-10 play 9 conference games, opposed to 8 from everyone else. Their method of determining the champion is based on the entire season, not a final game that could mean playing the same team twice (neither a better solution than the other -- just different methods), but both methods result in 9 conference games. I don't think it's fair to lump the Pac-10, where everyone plays everyone, in with the Big-11, who only play 8 games and often dodge the best teams.

das

DVD Josh
12-06-07, 02:58 PM
The Pac-10 play 9 conference games, opposed to 8 from everyone else. Their method of determining the champion is based on the entire season, not a final game that could mean playing the same team twice (neither a better solution than the other -- just different methods), but both methods result in 9 conference games. I don't think it's fair to lump the Pac-10, where everyone plays everyone, in with the Big-11, who only play 8 games and often dodge the best teams.

das

Like Kansas.

kenbuzz
12-06-07, 05:11 PM
Who are the teams in your version?Not everyone like an 8-team playoff, but if I were king for a day...

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8331580&postcount=190Hypothetical NCAA Div-IA Playoffs:

Top 15 Teams:
1: 97.5% * Ohio State
2: 94.0% * LSU
3: 88.2% * Oklahoma
4: 86.3% * Georgia
5: 83.9% * Virginia Tech
6: 82.3% * USC
7: 73.6% Missouri
8: 72.4% Kansas
9: 65.7% * West Virginia
10: 65.4% * Hawaii
11: 62.6% Florida
12: 58.9% Arizona State
13: 49.4% Illinois
14: 41.1% Boston College
15: 37.8% Clemson

Conference Ranks:
1 - SEC (40-8 0.833) (LSU)
2 - B10 (35-9 0.795) (Ohio State)
3 - BE (29-11 0.725) (West Virginia)
4 - ACC (33-15 0.688) (Virginia Tech)
5 - B12 (41-19 0.683) (Oklahoma)
6 - P10 (21-10 0.667)
7 - MW (20-16 0.556)
8- WAC (17-20 0.459)
9 -CUSA (16-32 0.333)
10 - MAC (17-41 0.293)
11 - SB (9-31 0.225)

SEC champs get automatic bid (defending national champion)
B10, BE, ACC, B12 champs get automatic bid (4 best conferences)
At-Large bids to top three remaining teams. (Georgia, USC, Missouri)
Undefeated Hawaii bumps lowest At-Large team (Missouri) from tourney.
Seeds based on final rankings

Opening Round (campus sites): December 14-15
(8)Hawaii at (1)Ohio State
(7)West Virginia at (2)LSU
(6)USC at (3)Oklahoma
(5)Virginia Tech at (4)Georgia

Semi-Finals (neutral sites, Dallas & Tempe): December 28-29
Best vs Worst (avoid teams from same conference playing each other)

Finals (New Orleans): January 5Note that my rankings (shown as %) are based on an average of the AP and USA Today polls. It is not the BCS ranking score. The eight berths go to (a) the champion of the conference of the defending national champion, (b) the champions of the four best-ranked conferences, based on W-L percentage in all non-conference games, and (c) the three best-ranked teams that did not get a bid from (a) or (b). If there are any undefeated teams left out, the first one goes in and bumps the third at-large school. If there are any more, they are added and a play-in game (or games) are used to whittle the field down to 8.

Red Dog
12-06-07, 05:40 PM
As I've mentioned many times before, anything more than 4 teams would turn the regular season into a snoozefest. No one would ever schedule a meaningful non-conference game again, since winning a BCS conference would guarantee a shot in the playoffs. Cal vs Tenn? USC vs Nebraska? Miami vs. Oklahoma? Oregon vs. Michigan? LSU vs. Va Tech? Forget it. You may even lose good rivalries like WVU vs. Maryland or Louisville vs. Kentucky. Mid-majors would never have a prayer of convincing anyone they were good, because no one would ever have a reason to play them, even at home. There'd be 2 or 3 undefeated mid-majors or independents each season. The same 12 BCS-conference programs would make the playoffs almost every year after relatively boring seasons where most of them played, at best, 2 competitive games. And get used to Notre Dame in the playoffs every year. The only teams that would schedule the Irish would be service academies and bottom feeders. Sure, the Irish were terrible this year, but why risk it? There's no upside.

NFL playoffs work because there's enforced competitive balance between schedules (as much as possible). NCAA tourney works because every school with an enrollment over 100 can field a team, and they play multiple times per week, so you can fill a massive bracket with every conference champion and still force majors and mid-majors to play non-conference games. Lower division football tournaments work, because absolutely no one gives a shit about the regular season and will only pay attention to the league if there's a tournament. The only way a playoff could work in Division 1-A (or whatever stupid name they call it now) is if the NCAA forced scheduling from above (would never happen) or conferences were mandated to be 12 teams where everyone had to play at least 10 conference games. In the latter case, you'd have to open it up to 16 teams to be fair to mid-majors.

Or you just make it 4 teams and say "tough shit" to all the teams like West Virginia who had every opportunity in the world to make the title game and choked all over themselves to the embarrassment of generations of Mountaineer fans.

das


I'm not sure what the incentive is now to play challenging non-conference games if you are in a BCS conference. Ask Ohio State. :shrug:

I'm also sure that the Hokies wish they played some cupcake instead of LSU.

das Monkey
12-06-07, 06:39 PM
I'm not sure what the incentive is now to play challenging non-conference games if you are in a BCS conference. Ask Ohio State. :shrug:

I'm also sure that the Hokies wish they played some cupcake instead of LSU.
I think this year's an anomaly under the current BCS structure. Ohio State got incredibly lucky to back into that game. It took injuries to both Dennis Dixon and Sam Bradford, plus LSU dropping one late at home to Arkansas and West Virginia puking all over themselves against Pitt for them to slither into the national championship. Going back further, the only reason USC lost to Stanford was Booty throwing 4 INTs with a broken finger (and all of these were conference games). Most years, they'd get Auburned for that weak schedule, but everyone fell apart down the stretch this year in epic fashion. I don't think expecting the seas to part like this again is a successful longterm strategy. The only team to get hurt by playing a difficult non-conference game was Virginia Tech, but the only reason it matters is because of all the other craziness that I believe is unique to this season. Almost any other year, Ohio State gets shutout for not playing anyone, and a 1-loss Virginia Tech would as well without LSU on their schedule. It just so happens that USC, Oregon, and Oklahoma all lost their QBs against conference opponents in the same season to create this freak series of events. Longterm, the current system rewards strong non-conference games. Even this year, it's LSU's beatdown of Va. Tech that probably got them their shot. Without it, I think we're talking about Oklahoma in the final game.

das

Red Dog
12-06-07, 07:07 PM
Going by the usually argument...I would say there is usually at least one great team bitten by injuries in a given year. Furthermore, if there is an injury that kills you one game, I find it ridiculous that it should cost you a shot at a championship, particularly with the insanity of having a championship in January - or, hypothetically, playoffs starting around Christmas time where players could be fully recovered.

Usually there is at least 1 once-defeated in the title game (so the don't complain if you lose argument pretty much falls flat with me).

The question is how many 1-loss teams are there usually in a given year and is the trump factor their conference record and standing or having a decent non-conference win? If it's their conference standing (perception), then the OOC argument means squat.

kenbuzz
12-06-07, 07:18 PM
Someone beat me to it. Thank god, it's a LOT of number crunching...

http://www.vaporia.com/sports/collegefootballrpi.html

Top 25
1: 0.641 Virginia Tech(10-2)
2: 0.637 Missouri (10-2)
3: 0.624 Ohio St (10-1)
4: 0.624 LSU (11-2)
5: 0.622 Georgia (9-2)
6: 0.614 Oklahoma (11-2)
7: 0.609 Boston College (9-3)
8: 0.609 Illinois (8-3)
9: 0.609 Florida (9-3)
10: 0.605 West Virginia (10-2)
11: 0.601 South Florida (8-3)
12: 0.598 Michigan (8-3)
13: 0.594 Arizona St (10-2)
14: 0.593 Clemson (8-3)
15: 0.592 Kansas (10-1)
16: 0.591 Tennessee (9-4)
17: 0.586 Oregon (8-4)
18: 0.580 Brigham Young (9-2)
19: 0.579 Oregon St (7-4)
20: 0.575 Cincinnati (8-3)
21: 0.575 Southern Cal (10-2)
22: 0.573 Wisconsin (8-3)
23: 0.570 Texas A&M (6-5)
24: 0.570 Auburn (7-4)
25: 0.568 Texas (9-3)

If we redid my playoffs using the RPI instead of the AP/USA Today average ranking:

Automatic Bids: LSU, Ohio State, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma
At Large: Missouri, Georgia, Boston College
Undefeated: Hawaii (bumps Boston College)

Opening Round (campus sites)
(8)Hawaii at (1)Virginia Tech
(7)West Virginia at (2)Missouri
(5)Georgia at (3)Ohio State
(6)Oklahoma at (4)LSU

(Georgia/Oklahoma swapped to avoid an all-SEC first round pairing)

das Monkey
12-06-07, 08:54 PM
Going by the usually argument...I would say there is usually at least one great team bitten by injuries in a given year.
Sure, but three major injuries to QBs directly leading to losses of teams that were certainly going to be major players in the title game is something unique. It's unlikely to happen again, and unlikely that Ohio State's weak schedule would hold up in future years. I see this year as an anomaly, not a trend.
Furthermore, if there is an injury that kills you one game, I find it ridiculous that it should cost you a shot at a championship, particularly with the insanity of having a championship in January - or, hypothetically, playoffs starting around Christmas time where players could be fully recovered.
I disagree, but you know where I stand on this. I'm a full-season guy. I don't buy into the playing-well-at-the-end thing, which is why I'm less inclined to care about playoffs. I like when the first game matters as much as the last. Most people disagree with me on that, but I've been consistent on that point. If you lose a game, you lose a game. How or when is relevant for betting lines or predicting future outcomes, but is irrelevant to me in terms of choosing a champion. But then, you know I don't really care about the "championship" game anyway. A month after the season, anything can happen. I'll always see the bowl games as exhibitions.

The question is how many 1-loss teams are there usually in a given year and is the trump factor their conference record and standing or having a decent non-conference win? If it's their conference standing (perception), then the OOC argument means squat.
It seems to me that when there are a bunch of 1-loss teams, the loss typically comes within the conference, and the trump is typically a mix of perceived conference strength and non-conference opponents, the former influenced by OOC games as well. This was definitely the case when there were 3 undefeateds. It's hard to gauge, though, because they've tweaked the rules so many times. There was a time when a weak schedule was an advantage, but I don't think that's the case anymore. Unless of course, three of the best teams in the country lose their starting QB, and West Virginia pulls the embarrassment to end all embarrassments (in fairness to them, they lost their badass QB too), in which case damn near anyone can get in that final game. :)

das

kenbuzz
12-07-07, 10:23 AM
I disagree, but you know where I stand on this. I'm a full-season guy. I don't buy into the playing-well-at-the-end thing, which is why I'm less inclined to care about playoffs.Dude, I know and respect you and your opinion on this topic a great deal, and I also know that we've had a difficult time finding any common ground between us, but your "full-season" comment...

I see the BCS (and polls in general) as NOT being about the full-season. By the time we get to mid-season, the polls have all of the teams stacked up. If you lose, you drop down a distance depending on who you lost to. Then you start percolating back up again if/as those above you fall. Look at Ohio State - had the Buckeyes lost to Illinois as their final game, there's no way they'd be #1 in the polls. But because they lost to the Illini earlier in the year, they're now in the BCS title game. So the order you lose your game(s) does matter, especially in the eyes of the voters who are picking who will play for the title.

Look at it this way. Ohio State, LSU, Kansas, West Virginia, Missouri, they were all on a giant merry-go-round. Ohio State lost first, so the wheel turned and LSU-Kansas was your matchup. Then LSU lost and it was Kansas-West Virginia. Then Kansas goes down and it's WV-Mizzou. Then WV and Mizzou go down, and hey look, it's Ohio State-LSU again. Ohio State had the benefit of already being in the clubhouse after they beat Michigan, so it was unlikely they'd drop any in the polls (unlike the debacle last year with an idle one-loss Michigan being bumped because the voters jobbed the system to avoid a Big Ten rematch, but that's a different discussion). But had there still been games to play, the wheel would've kept turning. To me, that shows that late season losses are more costly than mid- or early-season losses, which again reinforces my belief that the voters aren't "full-season" at all.

Red Dog
12-07-07, 10:36 AM
The only part of the BCS that is truly about the full-season is the computers. They treat every game equally and they don't give anyone a head-start at the beginning before a game is even played.

LurkerDan
12-07-07, 01:28 PM
SI is down to 8 teams. I agreed with all the votes to trim 16 to 8, but didn't agree with any of the choices to trim 8 to 4 (though there were a lot of close ones in there).

Lastblade
12-07-07, 03:17 PM
This is almost as good as jerking off to a picture of Angelina Jolie.

twikoff
12-07-07, 03:54 PM
link
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/ncaa/12/06/ultimateplayoff.eliteeight/index.html

das Monkey
12-07-07, 07:51 PM
To me, that shows that late season losses are more costly than mid- or early-season losses, which again reinforces my belief that the voters aren't "full-season" at all.
I don't disagree. But I don't think like pollsters do. I hate that they're so swayed by the short-term, and I think it's idiotic that UGA was ever ranked above LSU. As I've said many times, I don't like the BCS, but I do think it's better than the chaos that came before because of the balance provided by dispassionate computers, and I do believe that anything more than a 4-team playoff would ultimately hurt the game. But you know that, because we've had this discussion 1000 times. :) My post was not intended to rehash the age-old argument, but to address the assertion that scheduling weak OOC games is an advantage because of what's happened with Ohio State, whereas I believe this year is an anomaly, with far more significant injuries than normal, and more often than not, teams will be penalized for pussy schedules.

das

kenbuzz
11-28-08, 09:40 PM
It's about time to crunch the 2008 numbers. Based on the current standings, here's how the conferences stack up:

* 0.818 SEC (36-8)
**0.792 B12 (38-10)
**0.773 ACC (34-10)
**0.727 B10 (32-12)
**0.694 MWC (25-11)
0.693 BE (27-12)
0.486 WAC (17-18)
0.448 P10 (13-16)
0.434 MAC (22-30)
0.375 CUSA (18-20)
0.308 SunB (12-27)

*SEC gets automatic bid as home to defending 2007 national champion (Florida).
** Conference in top 4, secures bid for champ

Using last week's Coach's Poll rankings, the current bids would be
Automatic: Alabama, Oklahoma, Boston College, Penn St, Utah
At-Large: Florida, Texas, USC
Undefeated: Boise State (bumps USC), Ball State (play-in team)

Seeds:
1 = Alabama (SEC Champion)
2 = Oklahoma (B12 Champion)
3 = Florida (SEC At-Large)
4 = Texas (B12 At-Large)
5 = Penn State (B10 Champion)
6 = Utah (MWC Champion)
7 = Boston College (ACC Champion)
8 = Boise State (WAC Undefeated)
9 = Ball State (MAC Undefeated)

Play-in: Ball State at Boise State

Quarterfinals (campus sites):
Play-in Winner at (1) Alabama
(7) Boston College at (2) Oklahoma
(6) Utah at (3) Florida
(5) Penn State at (4) Texas

Bids/rankings will change, this is just how they fall as of right now.

Quake1028
11-29-08, 10:31 AM
The National Champ last year was LSU, not Florida.

kenbuzz
11-29-08, 05:48 PM
LSU, you're right. The SEC still gets the "defender" bid, no change to the last-week situation.

Note that the Big East and Mtn West are mere percentage points apart for the 4th conference bid. If any of those schools are playing non-conference games this weekend or next, Cincinnati might bump Utah for a conference bid. But if the Utes are still undefeated you may be looking at 2 play-in games instead of one.

kenbuzz
11-29-08, 05:56 PM
This week's non-conference games (per ESPN):

Florida (SEC) at Florida $tate (ACC) = Florida 45-15
Vanderbilt (SEC) at Wake Forest (ACC) = Wake Forest 23-10
Notre Dame (ind) at USC (P10) = USC 38-3
Washington St (P10) at Hawaii (WAC) = Hawaii 24-10
Georgia Tech (ACC) at Georgia (SEC) = Georgia Tech 45-42
South Carolina (SEC) at Clemson (ACC) = Clemson 31-14
Navy (ind) at Northern Illinois (MAC) = Navy 16-0

Wins/Losses by Conference:
ACC 3-1
WAC 1-0
P10 1-1
SEC 1-3
MAC 0-1

Updated Conference Standings:
**0.792 B12 (38-10)
**0.771 ACC (37-11)
* 0.771 SEC (37-11)
**0.727 B10 (32-12)
**0.694 MWC (25-11)
0.693 BE (27-12)
0.500 WAC (18-18)
0.452 P10 (14-17)
0.415 MAC (22-31)
0.375 CUSA (18-20)
0.308 SunB (12-27)

*SEC gets "defender" bid as home to defending 2007 national champion (LSU).
** Automatic bid (top 4 conferences, excluding "defender" conference)

Next weekend's non-conference schedule:
Western Ky (ind) at Florida International (SunB)
Cincinnati (BE) at Hawaii (WAC)

Note: If Cincinnati (BE) beats Hawaii (WAC), the Big East will pass the Mountain West into 5th place overall, giving the Bearcats an automatic tourney bid.