menu
Logo
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Interesting imbalanced playoff scenario being evaluated
Page: 1 of 2
cc-cat
General User
C
Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 4,016
person
mail
cc-cat
mail
Posted: 11/28/2010 11:40 AM
settings_applications edit_note

For what it is worth, my wife’s college roommate’s husband (I know, sounds made up) is a pretty senior production guy at ESPN.  Connected with each other for Thanksgiving.  ESPN always looking at playoff scenarios (include ex college presidents, ADs an coaches breaking down different options/areas).  He saw a “sample bracket” in a production meeting.  In a nutshell it is an imbalanced 16-team playoff.

 

Six major conferences winners automatically make the elite 8 (Big 10 and Pac-10 move to Championship Games help accommodate this).  These six teams are supplemented by two finalists from an “at-large” bracket.  This is where it gets bit confusing.  Five of the at-large are from the big-six (think OSU, MSU, Ark, Stanford and one other this year).  The other three “at-large” are “play-ins” from the “junior” conferences.  The five secondary conference winners are aligned as follows:  The highest ranked team (TCU this year) gets automatic slot in the at-large, the other four play play-in games at the home stadium of the higher ranked teams - Nevada and Northern Ill this year. (while initially insulted by the junior status, I understand it and am intrigue by Ohio hosting such a game.  Certainly would be the most important game ever at Pedan) – the two winners advance to the formal at-large bracket.  These play-in games would be played this coming weekend.  Mentioned MAC Championship is not until then.  His response, “don’t know, they’d (meaning MAC) probably have to accommodate or be left out.

 

The eight at-large then play down to four and then two the two weeks before Christmas.  The two finalists join the elite eight for New Year’s bowls – then play semi’s and finals the next two weeks. 

 

He said it is just “street level” now and has folks looking at specific areas (e.g., how to use the use the current secondary New Year’s bowls for the “at-large” games).  Lot’s of holes I’m sure, but interesting approach (and one of a slew being broken down, but the only one he was helping to evaluate).

OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,715
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 11/28/2010 11:53 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Some interesting stuff here and worth discussion, but I don't think the "play-in games" and the Big Six getting automatic first-round byes would meet the Joe-Biden-I-Aint-Gonna-Have-Justice-Department-sue-you-for restraint-of-trade criteria.  Having six automatic qualifiers that are awarded by some type of semi-objective poll might get the Justice Department off their back, though.  And, in most years this would probably be the Big Six, anyway. 
Athens
General User
A
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,454
person
mail
Athens
mail
Posted: 11/28/2010 12:46 PM
settings_applications edit_note
The bowl system is fine if they could make a few changes. I would start by requiring 7-5 records for bowl eligibility, no exceptions. Schools are losing too much money on the lower tier games the fanbase doesn't have the interest for. That would trim the system back to 27 games. Next I woud add the MWC as an automatic qualifying conference. I know they've lost Utah and BYU but the additions of Boise, Fresno, Hawaii, and Nevada more than make up for it. Have them put their champ in the Fiesta Bowl. Then elevate the Cotton Bowl as a BCS bowl for the Big XII champ. Finally for the small conferences like the MAC and CUSA they should get an automatic bid to the BCS with a top 16 ranked champ regardless of how many non-BCS schools are eligible that year. Also the BCS payout money for small conferences should be shared among the bowl eligible teams only to offset bowl expenses. That would be like a 500,000 check from the MAC office to Ohio this year for reaching a bowl game. The BCS payout money is also effected positively or negatively by the outcome of the bowl games so the bowl eligible schools deserve the reward. In fact I would work the MAC Champ into this by giving the champ a guaranteed 1 million dollar cut of the BCS money with the remaining bowl eligible schools splitting the remainder. The MAC made 2.1 million from the BCS last year so under my plan that would be 1 million to NIU and 275k to Ohio, Temple, Toledo, Miami for making a bowl. Winning a MAC Championship would then be worth something. 
cc-cat
General User
C
Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 4,016
person
mail
cc-cat
mail
Posted: 11/28/2010 8:18 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Good point about the legal side.  I'm sure there are lawyers looking at it all as well. 
Ohio69
General User
O69
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,124
person
mail
Ohio69
mail
Posted: 11/28/2010 8:21 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Somebody list how the games/bracket from the original post for me if it happened right now.  Please....  I think I'll only understand by seeing it all laid out.  Thanks.


KC Bobcat
General User
KB
Member Since: 11/22/2006
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post Count: 268
person
mail
KC Bobcat
mail
Posted: 11/28/2010 8:35 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Does the NCAA think that if they try to make it too complicated, everyone will shut up about a playoff and it will just go away?  Why do they have to make it so difficult?

16 team playoff.  12 automatic bids from 12 conferences. 4 at large bids.  It's not rocket science, but it's practically perfect.
Tyler
General User
Member Since: 7/7/2010
Location: AZ
Post Count: 894
mail
Tyler
mail
Posted: 11/28/2010 9:42 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
Somebody list how the games/bracket from the original post for me if it happened right now.  Please....  I think I'll only understand by seeing it all laid out.  Thanks.


This is what I got from it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
This is assuming that:
  • Auburn wins the SEC.
  • Oregon beats Oregon State.
  • Oklahoma wins the Big 12.
  • Virginia Tech wins the ACC.
  • UConn wins the Big East.
  • NIU wins the MAC.
  • FIU beats Middle Tennessee State.
  • Central Florida wins C-USA.
  • Boise State beats Utah State and Nevada beats Louisiana Tech. This would create a three-way tie atop the WAC with Hawaii. The WAC doesn't have tiebreakers and all teams are 1-1 against each other so I'm giving the spot to Boise because they have the highest ranking.


EDIT: What the Elite Eight would look like if the two highest-ranked at-large teams (TCU and Stanford) advance out of the At-Large Bracket and reseeding occurs:

Last Edited: 11/28/2010 10:40:40 PM by Tyler
cc-cat
General User
C
Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 4,016
person
mail
cc-cat
mail
Posted: 11/28/2010 9:59 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Thanks y-town.  He (I think) had them reseeded after at-large entries were determined, but this gives the overall concept he outlined.  KC, the imbalance makes the regular season more important, because the conference champ does not need to play the two at-large games to reach the elite 8.  Having the smaller conferences play the play-in may be just a bone thrown at the big boys, but is also necessary to still have 5 at-large from the big six conferences.  Again, this is just one of many that I'm sure are on a wall somewhere, but the only one he's been briefed on. 
Ohio69
General User
O69
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,124
person
mail
Ohio69
mail
Posted: 11/28/2010 11:59 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Thanks Youngstown.  

So, when can we get this implemented?  Would be pretty cool.


Tyler
General User
Member Since: 7/7/2010
Location: AZ
Post Count: 894
mail
Tyler
mail
Posted: 11/29/2010 1:38 AM
settings_applications edit_note
You're welcome guys.

My biggest problem with this is an at-large team could potentially play 6 extra games for a total of 18 for the season. The other divisions have a max of 5 games in the playoffs, and play between 9-11 games in the regular season. A straight 16-team bracket would have the finalists playing 4 extra games, more in line with the lower divisions.

On the other hand, the straight 16 would likely have some boring first-round blowouts. This scenario would weed out the bad teams early and help prevent blowout games (except the Boise State-FIU play-in). Plus I'm all for getting as many football games as possible and this would produce a couple extra weeks of great games.

Here's what a straight 16-team bracket would look like with the same teams and using the BCS to determine seeds.
Last Edited: 11/29/2010 1:54:56 AM by Tyler
Flomo-genized
General User
F
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574
person
mail
Flomo-genized
mail
Posted: 11/29/2010 6:52 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Youngstown Bobcat wrote:expand_more
Here's what a straight 16-team bracket would look like with the same teams and using the BCS to determine seeds.


This is the only real possibility, in my opinion.  Home games played at the site of the higher seeded team through the quarters or semis.  Some will complain about including non-BCS conference champions over 3rd or 4th place BCS conference teams, but that is essential for it to be a true NCAA tournament like those in the other sports (and hence avoid legal concerns), plus it helps protect the sanctity of the regular season, as the highest seeded teams will battle for an easier first round game.

This idea is so simple and perfect, that only the NCAA could screw it up.
Last Edited: 11/29/2010 6:54:01 AM by Flomo-genized
Turney13
General User
T13
Member Since: 7/28/2010
Post Count: 364
person
mail
Turney13
mail
Posted: 11/29/2010 8:47 AM
settings_applications edit_note
I am a 1000% in the camp of a playoff that includes all conferences, but I had an idea if we were stuck with the BCS and bowl system - Why not pick a weekend like the last weekend in October or mid November and conduct it exactly like bracket buster weekend - with every school in division 1 - 50% of the schools would be a home team and 50% of the schools would be away team - mix it up so some schools alternate every two years and others alternate every year so you dont always get the same teams on opposite sides.  So come mid November you have an open football date - either road game or home game - take the BCS standings and pair up the best matchups - This way it would serve as a set up / playoff for the bowls...
John C. Wanamaker
General User
Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 1,103
mail
John C. Wanamaker
mail
Posted: 11/29/2010 10:41 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Just what we need a network drawing up the plans.
cc-cat
General User
C
Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 4,016
person
mail
cc-cat
mail
Posted: 11/29/2010 10:55 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Money talks.

I know the “selling points” of the original concept were: maintaining the sanctity of New Years, while not extending the playoffs too far past the current championship game date; incorporating as many of the major bowls as possible (versus home hosts”); maintaining heavy value on the regular season, as the conference champs get a huge break, not just an easy first round game, and (where my friend comes in), not having to scramble to set up each production in a week (as you could not be sure who will host until after the games).  Agree a straight 16 team play-off is easier, but also has opposition.  This appears to be in response to some of those concerns.  Of course, we all know they probably won’t do anything for the next ten years anyway.

Last Edited: 11/29/2010 10:56:45 AM by cc-cat
Bobcatbob
General User
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Coolville, OH
Post Count: 1,351
mail
Bobcatbob
mail
Posted: 11/29/2010 7:56 PM
settings_applications edit_note

Besides all the aforementioned problems, I just don't see any Prez signing off on a plan to add 4, 5 or 6 more games to the college schedule.  It isn't that long ago that 12 seemed excessive to the same group.

Ohio69
General User
O69
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,124
person
mail
Ohio69
mail
Posted: 11/29/2010 8:05 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Bobcatbob wrote:expand_more
Besides all the aforementioned problems, I just don't see any Prez signing off on a plan to add 4, 5 or 6 more games to the college schedule.  It isn't that long ago that 12 seemed excessive to the same group.


I think you are giving them too much credit.


Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 11/29/2010 8:14 PM
settings_applications edit_note
It really sounds like something that would be put together by a money-grubbing Disney company.  But it's too complicated and, as some have mentioned, puts too many extra games out there.  Big 6 fans have always complained that a playoff would result in too much extra travel and would give them too little time to make travel plans for the championship game or any lesser bowl that they might be in.  The smaller conferences would only sign off on it if the payouts were big enough and had big increases the farther along they got.  They need to keep it simple to start with and complicate it only after Big 6 schools start bitching about being left out.
1989alum
General User
11989
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Post Count: 21
person
mail
1989alum
mail
Posted: 11/29/2010 8:53 PM
settings_applications edit_note
WAY too many games ! 

Have the regular bowl system.  Then, have the winners of the four BCS games play in a national championship game finale. Everyone gets their bowl games to make money and then you have a playoff system, albeit short.
cc-cat
General User
C
Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 4,016
person
mail
cc-cat
mail
Posted: 11/29/2010 9:32 PM
settings_applications edit_note
1989alum wrote:expand_more
WAY too many games ! 

Have the regular bowl system.  Then, have the winners of the four BCS games play in a national championship game finale. Everyone gets their bowl games to make money and then you have a playoff system, albeit short.


Personally, I agree.  Don't even think you need the 4 BCS games to be quarters as much as get it to four teams playing in two of the BCS games on New Years Day and then a final the next weekend.

If a 16 team playoff takes form, I like the at-large bracket approach.  Only adds one game (versus traditional 16 team bracket) unless the title winner comes from the play-in game (which would probably be the biggest Cinderella run ever!).
Last Edited: 11/29/2010 9:33:59 PM by cc-cat
Evil Gao
General User
Member Since: 11/1/2010
Location: Prefecture 23
Post Count: 16
mail
Evil Gao
mail
Posted: 11/30/2010 2:52 AM
settings_applications edit_note
KC Bobcat wrote:expand_more
Does the NCAA think that if they try to make it too complicated, everyone will shut up about a playoff and it will just go away?  Why do they have to make it so difficult?

16 team playoff.  12 automatic bids from 12 conferences. 4 at large bids.  It's not rocket science, but it's practically perfect.


I just can't agree with each conference getting a bid. Use the current BCS-type rankings. Top 16 make it to playoffs.
Bobcat Love
General User
BL
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Post Count: 1,193
person
mail
Bobcat Love
mail
Posted: 11/30/2010 9:40 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Evil Gao wrote:expand_more
I just can't agree with each conference getting a bid. Use the current BCS-type rankings. Top 16 make it to playoffs.


Definitely, the basketball tournament has been a flop using this format.
cc-cat
General User
C
Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 4,016
person
mail
cc-cat
mail
Posted: 11/30/2010 12:41 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Taking the top 16 would almost ALWAYS exclude the MAC Champion.  Northern this year is a perfect example.  The class of the MAC, but not in top 16 - they are a very, very distant 25.  So if you want the top 16, the MAC is out of it. 

With folks around the country, the NCAA, and even this board (not I) stating the MAC and Sun Belt are a joke and that MAC wins are a joke, I simply find it hard to believe that the BCS would ever grant the MAC the same entry as the big six conferences.  I honestly think we are looking at a play-in situation or nothing at all.
OUVan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Post Count: 5,580
mail
OUVan
mail
Posted: 11/30/2010 3:16 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Evil Gao wrote:expand_more
Does the NCAA think that if they try to make it too complicated, everyone will shut up about a playoff and it will just go away?  Why do they have to make it so difficult?

16 team playoff.  12 automatic bids from 12 conferences. 4 at large bids.  It's not rocket science, but it's practically perfect.


I just can't agree with each conference getting a bid. Use the current BCS-type rankings. Top 16 make it to playoffs.


Every conference champion must be included or it isn't any better than what we have now which is terrible.  It's what makes March Madness so interesting.   11 automatic bids and 5 at-larges.  The lesser teams get their shot at the apple and the powers get rewarded for finishing at the top. 
Evil Gao
General User
Member Since: 11/1/2010
Location: Prefecture 23
Post Count: 16
mail
Evil Gao
mail
Posted: 11/30/2010 5:42 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Bobcat Love wrote:expand_more
I just can't agree with each conference getting a bid. Use the current BCS-type rankings. Top 16 make it to playoffs.


Definitely, the basketball tournament has been a flop using this format.


It's a numbers thing...

Allow me to flip the script... for argument sake say the 2010 basketball tournament was reduced to only 16 teams with the same automatic conference bids and 4 at-large bids. Also for argument sake, we'll only use the same football conferences (no MAAC, MEAC, etc.)

Exercise 1:
Now just looking at JUST the Big East and Big 10(1)(2?), pick 4 teams that should have been in as at-large bids:
Note: Due to time constraints, I gave the team at the top of the end of year conference standings the auto-bid (Purdue/Syracuse)

Ohio State
Michigan State
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Pittsburgh
Georgetown
Villanova

Now pick 4. Now.

Wait, I haven't even included the ACC or SEC.

Now I do love me some Ohio, but I think ALL of these teams had a better case to be included in the tournament over Ohio in this hypothetical situation - regardless of the thrashing Ohio delivered GT.

The b-ball system works because it includes the "power" teams while including some of the little guys. Yes, it excludes the little guys more often than not (ever-changing secret RPI formula). The Cinderellas are great theater because they are playing against the best and that almost all of the Big Name best are included in the tourney. This happens because it's a numbers thing.

The numbers aren't there for the previously suggested football playoff scenario to include all deserving teams.

Exercise 2:
So out of the following 10 teams, which 6 of them are less deserving than Miami (OH) (USA) to be included in a football playoff?

Arkansas
LSU
Bosie St
Stanford or Oregon
Utah
Ohio State
Wisconsin
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Missouri

My Conclusion
This playoff scenario with auto conference bids seems to be the result of Everybody Gets a Trophy and Affirmative Action swapping lustily delivered bodily fluids in the Greenery's bathroom to the muffled beat of "Thank God I'm a Country Boy."
Last Edited: 11/30/2010 5:45:10 PM by Evil Gao
John C. Wanamaker
General User
Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 1,103
mail
John C. Wanamaker
mail
Posted: 11/30/2010 6:02 PM
settings_applications edit_note
cc cat wrote:expand_more
Taking the top 16 would almost ALWAYS exclude the MAC Champion.  Northern this year is a perfect example.  The class of the MAC, but not in top 16 - they are a very, very distant 25.  So if you want the top 16, the MAC is out of it. 

With folks around the country, the NCAA, and even this board (not I) stating the MAC and Sun Belt are a joke and that MAC wins are a joke, I simply find it hard to believe that the BCS would ever grant the MAC the same entry as the big six conferences.  I honestly think we are looking at a play-in situation or nothing at all.


This is exactly what I have been saying since day one!  Many mid major fans are yelling for a play-off, but do they really think they are going to get a seat at the table?  A play-off relegates us and many others right where we do not want to go and that is FCS.

For the poster that says all conference champions have to go, why?  What is a sham is that Northern Il would go over one of the three Big 10 teams with one loss, or that the SEC 3rd place team would be sitting at home.  And we all know that ND will have it worked out if they win 9 games they will get a birth.  Hell for all the BCS bashing that is a school that has the sweetest of all deals, they just haven't been good enough to take advantage of it.
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 31
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_forward
MAC News Links
chevron_left
Tuesday, May 12, 2026
chevron_right



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)