(05-09-2012 07:05 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 02:37 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Interesting tweet and story by McMurphy.

Brett McMurphy‏@McMurphyCBS
W/Delany playoff plan last 8 years, SEC 8 teams, Pac-12 (6), Big 12 (6), Big Ten (5), MWC (4), Big East (2), ACC (1) http://cbsprt.co/IG8ote

Posted: 2:13 pm May 08, 2012

Under Delany proposal, seven top 4 teams would have missed playoffs since 2004
By Brett McMurphy | College Football Insider

CHICAGO -- Last week, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany floated a tweaked version of the conference champion model as a possibility for the new four-team playoff format in 2014.

Delany said one proposal under consideration is the conference champion only model with the requirement that the conference champion would have to be ranked among the top six teams in the country to qualify.

Only the highest four ranked conference champions within the top six rankings would advance to the national semifinals. If less than four conference champions were ranked among the nation's top six teams then the remaining spots would be filled by the highest ranked non-conference champions or independents to fill out the four-team field.

Under this format, in the past eight years, 30 of the 32 teams in the playoff would have been conference champions. Only two teams -- No. 2 Alabama (in 2011) and No. 4 Ohio State (in 2005) -- that weren't a conference champion would have qualified for the national semifinals.

Using the conference affiliation for the schools for each season and not their future affiliation, the SEC would have had the most schools in the playoffs from 2004-11 with eight, including seven conference champions. The Pac-12 and Big 12 would have been next, each with six schools, followed by the Big Ten with five (four conference champions, one at-large), the Mountain West with four, the Big East with two and the ACC with one.

Read the rest here: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...y/18992724

I assume the two BE representatives were just West VIrginia? Is that correct?

No, it would have been Louisville 2006....Louisville #6 in Final Regular Season BCS Rankings & last remaining conference champ and Cincinnati 2009 #3 in Final Regular Season BCS Rankings...major fail Tallgrass...lol

(05-08-2012 03:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 03:32 PM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  Alabama, lost the decisive division game at home. They don't have to be given a second chance if a championship model is to be considered legitimate.

True, but a conference champs provision means that Oregon would have been in the playoff last year, who lost in a much worse fashion to LSU.

Regardless, I think too much focus has been on #2 Alabama. Like you've said, you even thought that they were the best team in the country last year, and I think most people would agree with that, so it's not exactly a crime to let them into a 4-team playoff compared to propping up #10 Wisconsin.

The real crime with a straight top 4 playoff would have been that #4 Stanford would have gotten into the playoff INSTEAD of #5 Oregon that both beat Stanford head-to-head and won the Pac-12. There have been other instances where a #4 non-champ would have gotten in over a #5 conference champ right behind it based on miniscule differences in numbers.

This is where I have come to the conclusion that we need something a little more flexible than just taking the straight top 4. I think it's a major issue to not have a #2 team in the playoff (as that completely undermines the credibility of the system in the eyes of the *casual* sports fan that the TV networks really care about, whether us message board people want to believe it or not), but the difference between the #4 and #6 team (the "last team in") is almost always so immaterial (and virtually always based on tiny computer ranking differences) that it makes more sense to reward the team that won its conference over one that didn't.

I agree but a #2 team who didn't win their conference shouldn't be able to host a semi final. I think we can reward the conference champs that way.

(05-09-2012 07:40 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 03:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 03:32 PM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  Alabama, lost the decisive division game at home. They don't have to be given a second chance if a championship model is to be considered legitimate.

True, but a conference champs provision means that Oregon would have been in the playoff last year, who lost in a much worse fashion to LSU.

Regardless, I think too much focus has been on #2 Alabama. Like you've said, you even thought that they were the best team in the country last year, and I think most people would agree with that, so it's not exactly a crime to let them into a 4-team playoff compared to propping up #10 Wisconsin.

The real crime with a straight top 4 playoff would have been that #4 Stanford would have gotten into the playoff INSTEAD of #5 Oregon that both beat Stanford head-to-head and won the Pac-12. There have been other instances where a #4 non-champ would have gotten in over a #5 conference champ right behind it based on miniscule differences in numbers.

This is where I have come to the conclusion that we need something a little more flexible than just taking the straight top 4. I think it's a major issue to not have a #2 team in the playoff (as that completely undermines the credibility of the system in the eyes of the *casual* sports fan that the TV networks really care about, whether us message board people want to believe it or not), but the difference between the #4 and #6 team (the "last team in") is almost always so immaterial (and virtually always based on tiny computer ranking differences) that it makes more sense to reward the team that won its conference over one that didn't.

I agree but a #2 team who didn't win their conference shouldn't be able to host a semi final. I think we can reward the conference champs that way.

Yup...they would be like a "True Playoff Style Wildcard Team".

(05-08-2012 06:27 PM)UCF-ENG Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 06:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 03:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The real crime with a straight top 4 playoff would have been that #4 Stanford would have gotten into the playoff INSTEAD of #5 Oregon that both beat Stanford head-to-head and won the Pac-12.

Frank, you keep saying this, but I am not sure why. There had to be some reason why the rank system had Stanford ahead of Oregon. Probably because Oregon lost 2 games and Stanford only 1.

Remember, conference records and head-to-head results are by nature "local", but with a playoff for a national title, what should matter most is the "national" worthiness of a team, not its local worthiness.

It wasn't just the voters who had Stanford > Oregon, the computers did too.

I agree with Frank.

And Oregon defeated Stanford on the field. That should tell you something about the accuracy of voters and programmers...