Get your office pools ready, everyone...
by vineyarddawg on Mar 21, 2010 11:27 PM EDT
Email
Print
The discussion in MaconDawg's thread about Northern Iowa's upset of Kansas got me to thinking... what if this massive behemoth of a tournament were translated into a college football context? After all, many college football playoff advocates are currently in favor on a 8-team playoff, and the 8-team format is exactly how the NCAA basketball tournament started in 1939. Is it truly that much of a logical stretch to think that the football tournament could be expanded over the years in exactly the same way that basketball has?
To help highlight the absurdity of such a large college football tournament, I decided to seed a 64-team field using the 2009 season as a benchmark. The rules I used when creating the tournament were the following:
- I seeded the first 25 teams by using the final Coaches' Poll of the 2009 season. I then filled in the remaining 39 teams by selecting from the bowl participant list from the 2009 bowl season. This ensures that only teams with at least 6 wins (and at least 5 against I-A competition) are selected for the postseason.
- I did not change seed numbers, but I did arrange the first-round matchups so that no team could play another team from their conference until at least the second round. I also avoided repeating a regular-season matchup in the first round.
- I ranked the #1 and #2 seeds and put the best #1's with the worst #2's, but did not rank the rest of the seeds. (It was hard enough making sure the power conferences did not play each other in the first round.)
- The first, second, and third round games will be played at the higher seed's home stadium. Starting with the Regional Finals (Elite Eight), bowl sites will be used. I picked the top eight bowls in my opinion, and placed the #1 or #2 seed in a bowl that was as close to them as possible.
- The "BCS Bowls" will be used for the Final Four, with the National Championship Game played at a site to be determined.
And now, without further ado, I give you the 2009 NCAA College Football Tournament!
(You'll probably have to click on the bracket to get the larger version. If that doesn't work, click here.)
Now, I have to admit, the prospect of seeing the following games is at least mildly appealing:
- Southern Cal vs. Fresno St.(The Have's vs. the Have-Not's)
- Ga. Tech vs. Central Florida (Call it the George O'Leary Bowl)
- BYU vs. Tennessee
- Texas Tech vs. South Carolina
- Va. Tech vs. UCLA
- Nebraska vs. California
- Navy vs. Arizona (Call it the "Pearl Harbor Bowl")
In spite of the above, however, the following problems also arise:
- The second round could see rematches of Alabama vs. Auburn, Florida vs. FSU, and Oregon vs. Oregon St., in addition to potential third-round matchups of FSU vs. Miami and South Carolina vs. Clemson.
- By using existing bowl sites (the only logistically viable alternative to campus sites all the way through the championship game), the teams from southern and western states are all playing significantly closer to their homes than teams from northern states. Boise St. could be playing USC in San Diego. Ohio State could be playing Ole Miss in Jacksonville. And Iowa could be playing Texas Tech in El Paso, Texas.
- None of the teams currently ranked in the Top 25 were in any remote danger of missing the tournament, so in essence the last game of their respective regular seasons was essentially meaningless.
- Alabama and Florida both received 1 seeds, so the SEC Championship Game was essentially meaningless.
I think the complete destruction of the importance of the regular season is readily apparent here. I mean, for the love of pete, every SEC team except Vandy and Mississippi State made the tournament! (Would that mean that Mississippi State is the best team not invited to the postseason, Kyle?)
Not only does the regular season become about as important as the basketball season, though. Traditional rivalries that carry huge meaning and tradition can also become essentially meaningless. I mean, we would be starting to become UNC/Duke in basketball. In a "normal" season the Tarheels and Blue Devils play twice in the regular season, then they probably meet in the ACC tournament, and if they're very good, they meet for a fourth time in the Elite Eight or the Final Four. Would you really be relishing a Georgia/Auburn matchup for the third time in a football season? Or an Alabama/Florida matchup for the third time?
For the love of the game, people, let this be a cautionary tale to avoid the playoff at all costs! College football does not get any better than it is right now. Let's not follow the old government axiom, "If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is."
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The fact that Georgia is a 7 Seed...
Should tell you everything you need to know about why this is a bad idea.
"We have a lot of passionate fans at Georgia and we look forward to giving them something to be positive about."
-Todd Grantham.
by RedCrake on Mar 22, 2010 7:29 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
And rather unreasonable...
while I can follow the “basketball began at 8 and expanded to 64”, that is also a tournament that lasts in 3 weekends. The football version would take 2 months.
Other points don’t pass reason either (not that much the NCAA does anyway), but “the teams from southern and western states are all playing significantly closer to their homes than teams from northern states.” In the proposed scenario you’d assume Chicago, Detroit, and other northern cities would bid to host local schools/playoff games evening that problem out.
The chances of “Would you really be relishing a Georgia/Auburn matchup for the third time in a football season? Or an Alabama/Florida matchup for the third time?” are pretty slim. With Bama/Florida, you’ve got a 1/3 or 1/4 chance of them playing in the regular season since it’s not a cross rivalry like Auburn/Georgia, then the slim chance they play in the SEC C (if that even exists under this format) and then again having their draw play out to play again. The chances are extremely remote, and if they did occur, it’d be because those teams were extremely good and giving a very compelling matchup.
In essence, I agree with the overall premise that this is absurd. And just how absurd it is should explain why the theory is completely unrealistic as presented.
This is my biggest counter argument to the whole basketball/football tourney thing
College football could never expand past probably a 16 team tourney at most. There simply isn’t enough time in the season unless teams are gonna start playing twice a week. I think an 8 team playoff would be perfect with the BCS conference champs getting a berth and two slots being held for other teams. Assuming a Boise or Utah or someone like that takes one every year that leaves one spot for a non-champ to get which isn’t too much different than the SEC putting a team in the Sugar and Fiesta Bowls. Count me as a playoff advocate because I honestly don’t think it’s possible to go past 8 games and certainly it would never expand to 64 teams
I understand it's part of the politics to get it passed...
but I’m anti-automatic berths. A crap ACC or Big East champ is generally less deserving that maybe a dozen others who’d get left by the wayside, especially with non-BCS schools demaning a slice if their record is good enough and the politics that mandate an automatic Notre Dame if Brian Kelly can actually get them to 10+ wins.
Heck, I'm a fan of a Big East school
And automatic berths are nuts in an 8 team or smaller playoff. I want a spot for all conference champs, but that takes a 16-team playoff.
I'd be more upset at...
an 8-4 Wake Forest knocking off a 12-0 LSU in round one of an 8 team playoff than a 8-4 Louisiana-Monroe knocking off a 12-0 Alabama in round one of a 64 team playoff. But that’s just me.
Totally understand that
I just think that giving automatic berths to the conference champs is the best way to have a playoff and still ensure that the regular season means everything that it should mean. If you lose more than 2 games in a quality conference you aren’t gonna win your championship. You make valid points about an 8-4 Rutgers team getting in though and I’m hoping that they wouldn’t unfairly tip the scales in Notre Dame’s favor but they probably will
This is one of the fundamentally insoluble problems of a playoff
As a practical matter, there is no way you will ever get a playoff without all six BCS conference champions being guaranteed bids. It won’t happen any other way.
Even philosophically, though, you have a problem that cannot be avoided or solved satisfactorily. Either you guarantee bids to conference champions (and, thus, get a Wake Forest into the mix) or you load the playoff up with at-large teams (and, thus, allow for the possibility that the second-best team in its league has a chance to win a national title, which means nothing if it doesn’t mean being the best, and which can’t mean being the best if the second-best are eligible). Either way, you’re eventually going to get the Florida Marlins or the New York Giants. There’s just no way around it.
Right now, Division I-A college football is the only sport that annually produces a national champion that at least has an argument for being the best team in the sport. We have seen inferior Super Bowl champions, inferior World Series champions, and a whole host of inferior NCAA tournament champions, but we haven’t seen poll champions without at least an honest case to make. A playoff would destroy that. Entertaining? Yes. Legitimate? No way.
Go 'Dawgs!
Those inferior teams you mention...
all won the games between the lines. It is just as legitimate as deciding a champion by vote after a year against maybe good competition, or maybe patsies. FSU cakewalked through weak ACC schedules for 10 years and won 2 titles in the process. BYU in 84 a “legit” champ? Ohio St cruise through the weak Big 10, or Miami through a weak Big East, and that’s a “fair” way to decide things?
With the uneven balance of conferences and schedules overall, I find the college football champion no less legitimate than any of those “inferior” champs you mention.
Despite the weak ACC in the late 80s, early 90s
FSU Still had to get by Miami and FSU….which explains only winning 2 titles in that ridiculous stretch!
Um....
“allow for the possibility that the second-best team in its league has a chance to win a national title”
See Nebraska in 2000 or 01. Were Georgia fans not clamoring for that exact scenario in 2007? The argument of a regular season that matter in college football doesn’t hold up against Nebraska in a title game after Colorado won their conference, after Miami beats FSU and has a similar record yet watches FSU lose in a national title game, after Auburn can go undefeated against the toughest conference in the country and be left in the cold.
I agree that this is absurd, Mr. Sanchez.
That, in fact, is the point. No one thinks an 8-team playoff is incredibly absurd now (albeit a bad idea… but not absurd). One must look down the road, though, to try and picture a half-empty Sanford Stadium in some future year when the #7-seed Georgia Bulldogs are playing the #10-seed Middle Tennessee State Blue Raiders in the first round of a truly-absurd 64 team tournament.
It’s easy to say now that such an event can’t happen. I feel certain that it was also very easy to say in 1939 that the NCAA basketball tournament would never, under any circumstances, expand to include 96 teams.
by vineyarddawg on Mar 22, 2010 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions
The biggest draw of a play-off is the big games
Seriously, how often in CFB do two legitimate superpowers duke it out at any point other than the NCG? Ohio State has played a bunch in the last few years (v. Texas, Michigan, USC) but they’re one of only a few that have consistently scheduled big games. Even the BCS bowls fail to deliver on this count; usually the NCG is the only heavyweight match-up out of all five.
But these are some possibilities from the 2nd round of your proposal:
-Utah v. Wisconsin
-Georgia v. Penn State
-USC v. Georgia Tech
-OSU v. Oklahoma
-Oregon v. West Virginia
-Nebraska v. Miami
-Virginia Tech v. Texas Tech
-Piit v. LSU
-Texas v. Clemson
Now, a lot of those teams had down years in 2009, but still, in terms of “brand” recognition alone, those would be some pretty sweet match-ups to see. Personally, I think watching Navy tackle Boise State and Central Michigan play Cincy would be plenty fun to watch as well.
3rd Round:
-Alabama v. Wisconsin/Utah
-Cincy v. Penn State
-Boise State v. USC/Georgia Tech
-BYU v. OSU/Oklahoma
-TCU v. Oregon/West Virginia
-Florida v. Miami/Nebraska
-Iowa v. Virginia Tech/Texas Tech
-Texas v. LSU/Pitt
Regionals
-Wisconsin/Alabama v. Cincy/Penn State
-Boise State/Georgia Tech v. BYU/Ohio State
-TCU/Oregon v. Florida/Nebraska
-Iowa/Virginia Tech v. Texas/Pitt
All of those are Big Games, and under the current system we’ll only see them once in a blue moon, since the BCS Bowl match-ups are rarely very exciting and only a few teams are willing to schedule even one of these kind of games for fear (and justifiably so) of being knocked out of the NCG hunt.
Now, with 64 team the likelihood of seeing all these games is low. But with a 16 team format (conf champs + at large) we would see teams like Bama, Florida, Georiga, LSU, Penn State, OSU, Michigan, USC, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Miami, Florida State, Boise State, TCU and BYU duking it out in the postseason every year. I don’t see how that would be bad for CFB.
Leaving insightful football commentary and analysis to other people since 2006.
Ummm...
I know this is just a theoretical exercise and you hate playoffs, but there are three times as many teams playing Division I basketball as FBS football. Heck, there are half again as many teams playing Division I basketball as FBS & FBS football combined. An FBS playoff that covered the same proportion of teams as the 65-team basketball field would have 23 teams. If you really wanted a 64-team basketball-style field you’d probably need to undo the FBS/FCS split and fill the 13-16 seeds mostly with FCS conference champions.
Still, I think a big bracket in college football would be fun. Unfortunately, you need a Crazy Realignment Scheme™ to make it work. But I’ve got one of those.
Something else to consider
Ever noticed how empty the stands are for the 1st round games? Not sure that would fly for football. Half the games would look like the ACC Championship Game.
Early round games would be at the higher seed's home field
You SEC types sell out games vs. FCS schools. I think you’ll manage for a first-round playoff game.
Playoffs Won't Work in College Football
The desire for a true “champion” is illusory. It takes more games to make it work – see the NFL. With only 32 teams, they play a 16-game schedule and have a 12-team playoff. To have an equal proportion of Div I teams in a playoff, you’d have to have at least 32 teams in the playoffs (with nobody getting a first round bye), and that it not accounting for the shorter college season.
Any system will be under-inclusive and will deemphasize the regular season. Why schedule a tough regular season opponent? Seeding?
Let’s ditch the BCS and go back the bowls.
Oh, and I appreciate the fact that no one noticed...
… that I completely screwed up the bowl game/BCS bowl thing. In actuality, I have bowl games as the location for the eight regional semifinal games (Sweet 16) and the BCS Bowl games for the four regional finals (Elite Eight). I have no idea where the national semifinal or championship game would be held. It’s a terrible idea anyway, so it doesn’t matter. :-)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
