tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post5942374333752880757..comments2023-12-22T14:33:15.754-08:00Comments on Playoff Guru: Why 4-Team Playoff Is Good EnoughSamuel Chihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07694013336972776957noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-23569244629253736312014-04-11T09:30:43.038-07:002014-04-11T09:30:43.038-07:00Actually, the Big East champs were 9-7 (counting U...Actually, the Big East champs were 9-7 (counting UCF in the last season) in BCS bowls. The one that frequently tanked was the ACC champ.<br /><br />I am only advocating giving the highest-ranked conference champion from the 'have-nots' an automatic berth, and the history of BCS proves that most of those teams can compete, and win. <br /><br />And by having this provision it addresses the problem of access. This way you can say that every team in FBS theoretically has a chance.The Gurunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-62265451830669296862014-04-10T18:12:08.454-07:002014-04-10T18:12:08.454-07:00You say that UCF proved they were deserving, but w...You say that UCF proved they were deserving, but what you cite for their worthiness would have happened after a playoff field was selected. By that logic, OU clearly proved they deserved an at-large berth by beating Alabama...but before they did it, most people would have been able to point at three or four teams clearly more deserving.<br /><br />The problem with giving certain conference champions automatic bids has been illustrated by some of the embarrassing teams that the Big East, in particular, has sent to the BCS in recent years. (The ACC has also been a frequent offender.) What if a conference stinks on ice? For that matter, what if the 5 smaller conferences between them can't produce a credible champion.<br /><br />Conference champions should absolutely get preferential treatment, but at the end of the day, a playoff should be about seeding the best teams. That's why I say, if a conference champion meets a certain standard, lock their berth down first. Otherwise, find the best teams to fill out the field. If that means we have no at-large teams one year and three the next, so be it. If that means three of the eight teams are from the same conference, so be it.Demosthenesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-6229771498499301632014-04-10T09:08:26.984-07:002014-04-10T09:08:26.984-07:00Let's just say we go with eight, then I still ...Let's just say we go with eight, then I still would prefer to give preponderance to conference champs. For example, last year I'd given berths to the big 5 plus the highest group of 5 champs - UCF, who proved they were deserving by walloping Baylor.<br /><br />I don't think you should ever have three teams from the same conference in the playoff. With only two at-large berths, they should come from different conferences.The Gurunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331918571067993675.post-37580772644164393222014-04-05T22:39:13.771-07:002014-04-05T22:39:13.771-07:00I'd still like to move to eight teams. Althou...I'd still like to move to eight teams. Although I think it would be fun to see a sixteen-team tournament where every conference champion gets an automatic berth, there are simply too many practical obstacles. But if a four-team tournament works out, I see no reason why it couldn't expand to eight in a decade or so. There are simply too many quality teams in the top conferences, and too much money on the table, to stop at four.<br /><br />To prevent the games from being watered-down BCS style, by giving automatic berths to major conference champions no matter where they finished -- and to prevent the access argument frequently made by the minor conferences -- you could simply structure qualifying like this:<br /><br />1) Any conference champion in the committee's top eight at the end of the season gets an automatic berth.<br />2) If there are any berths remaining, then any other conference champion in the top ten (or twelve) can get a berth, with preference being given to higher-ranking teams.<br />3) Any berths remaining will go to at-large teams that the committee feels are most deserving, with no limitation on the number of teams from one conference.<br />4) Teams will then be seeded by final ranking, with allowances made to avoid conference games and/or regular-season rematches before the semifinals.<br /><br />Had these standards been applied to the BCS standings this year, the top eight teams would have made the playoffs, five as conference champions and three as at-large teams. The matchups would have been:<br /><br />#1 Florida State - #8 Missouri<br />#2 Auburn - #7 Ohio State<br />#3 Alabama - #6 Baylor<br />#4 Michigan State - #5 Stanford<br /><br />And for one of the most controversial years in BCS history (2004), the matchups would have drawn from outside the top eight, giving teams like Boise State access to the national championship picture. In fact, seven of the eight participants would have been conference champions. That year, we would have seen:<br /><br />#1 USC - #10 Louisville<br />#2 Oklahoma - #9 Boise State<br />#3 Auburn - #8 Virginia Tech<br />#4 Texas - #6 Utah<br /><br />Seems like that would have been a lot of fun to me...Demosthenesnoreply@blogger.com