Blog Entry

Conference champs only in the postseason

Posted on: February 17, 2012 3:52 pm
Edited on: February 17, 2012 5:34 pm
 

Former SEC commissioner Roy Kramer advocated taking only conference champions for any kind of postseason structure starting in 2014.

Just for giggles I went back and used only conference champions (or BCS automatic qualifier in the case of ties) in figuring both the current 1 vs. 2 game and a Plus One. Three times in 14 years, the 1 vs. 2 BCS title game would have been different. In 10 of 14 years, at least one team in the top four would have had to be replaced. In 2011, there would have been two – Alabama and Stanford.

Here’s how BCS title games and a Plus One would have looked if only conference champions were allowed, 1998-2011:

 

1998 championship: No. 1 Tennessee vs. No. 2 Florida State (same)

1998 Plus One: No. 1 Tennessee vs. No. 5 UCLA; No. 2 Florida State vs. No. 4 Ohio State

Not included: No. 3 Kansas State.

 

1999 championship: No. 1 Florida State vs. No. 2 Virginia Tech (same)

1999 Plus One: No. 1 Florida State vs. No. 4 Alabama; No. 2 Virginia Tech vs. No. 3 Nebraska

 

2000 championship: No. 1 Oklahoma vs. No. 2 Florida State (same)

2000 Plus One: No. 1 Oklahoma vs. Washington; No. 2 Florida State vs. No. 3 Miami

 

2001 championship:  No. 1 Miami vs. No. 3 Colorado

2001 Plus One: No. 1 Miami vs. No. 8 Illinois; No. 3 Colorado vs. No. 4 Oregon

Not included: No. 2 Nebraska, No. 5 Florida, No. 6 Tennessee, No. 7 Texas

 

2002 championship: No. 1 Miami vs. No. 2 Ohio State (same)

2002 Plus One: No. 1 Miami vs. No. 6 Washington State;  No. 2 Ohio State vs. No. 3 Georgia

Not included: No. 4 USC, No. 5 Iowa

 

2003 championship: No. 2 LSU vs. No. 3 USC

2003 Plus One: No. 2 LSU vs. No. 7 Florida State; No. 3 USC vs. No. 4 Michigan

Not included: No. 1 Oklahoma, No. 5 Ohio State, No. 6 Texas

 

2004 championship: No. 1 USC vs. No. 2 Oklahoma (same)

2004 Plus One: No. 1 USC vs. No. 6 Utah;  No. 2 Oklahoma vs. No. 3 Auburn

Not included:  No. 4 Texas, No. 5 California

 

2005 championship:  No. 1 USC vs. No. 2 Texas (same)

2005 Plus One: No. 1 USC vs. No. 7 Georgia; No. 2 Texas vs. No. 3 Penn State

Not included: No. 4 Ohio State, No. 5 Oregon, No. 6 Notre Dame

 

2006 championship: No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 2 Florida (same)

2006 Plus One:  No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 6 Louisville; No. 2 Florida vs. No. 5 USC

Not included: No 3. Michigan, No. 4 LSU

 

2007 championship: No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 2 LSU (same)

2007 Plus One: No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 4 Oklahoma; No. 2 LSU vs. No. 3 Virginia Tech

 

2008 championship: No. 1 Oklahoma vs. No. 2 Florida (same)

2008 Plus One: No. 1 Oklahoma vs. No. 6 Utah; No. 2 Florida vs. No. 5 USC

Not included: No. 3 Texas, No. 4 Alabama

 

2009 championship:  No. 1 Alabama vs. No. 2 Texas (same)

2009 Plus One: No. 1 Alabama vs. No. 4 TCU; No. 2 Texas vs. No. 3 Cincinnati

 

2010 championship: No. 1 Auburn vs. No. 2 Oregon (same)

2010 Plus One: No. 1 Auburn vs. No. 5 Wisconsin; No. 2 Oregon vs. No. 3 TCU

Not included: No. 4 Stanford

 

 

2011 championship: No. 1 LSU vs. No. 3 Oklahoma State

2011 Plus One: No. 1 LSU vs. No. 10 Wisconsin; No. 3 Oklahoma State vs. No. 5 Oregon

Not included: No. 2 Alabama, No. 4 Stanford,  No. 6 Arkansas, No. 7 Boise State, N. 8 Kansas State, No. 9 South Carolina

 

Comments

Since: Aug 9, 2011
Posted on: February 18, 2012 8:21 pm
 

Conference champs only in the postseason

This idea contains a number of flaws. For one, some conferences might have the two best teams in the country as the SEC did this year with L.S.U. and Alabama. Under the proposed idea, Alabama would not have been able to prove that they had the best team, and L.S.U. or Oklahoma State or Stanford would have been #1. That would have been a travesty.
No, the travesty was Bama playing in the national championship and it's subjective to say that they were one of the two best teams in the country since someone had to win the game--you can't even say they are the best in the SEC as LSU still is #1 in the SEC if you look at the records.  I personally don't think Bama was the 2nd best team last year, I agree with the computers that had Okie State #2 and a B1G fan in 2006 could have complained that Michigan was left out of the chance to prove that they were #1 when the 2 best teams were in the B1G that year (I'm not saying it is true, but a B1G fan could say it), furthermore in 2008 a B12 fan could have said the same thing about Texas when Florida went instead of them to play Oklahoma for the championship--all the computers said Texas was #2 and OU was #1 and by your claim about the SEC, a B12 fan could say that the two best teams in the country that year were in the B12. 

No, I think this idea is a start as it should be official that only conference champs can play in the national championship as it has been unofficially since like 2002 prior to this year.  In fact I recall hearing in both 2006 and 2008, the biggest reason that Michigan and Texas were excluded from the national championship was that they didn't win their conference.  That all changed with the travesty that occurred this year.

  



Since: Jan 2, 2012
Posted on: February 18, 2012 5:45 pm
 

Conference champs only in the postseason

This idea contains a number of flaws. For one, some conferences might have the two best teams in the country as the SEC did this year with L.S.U. and Alabama. Under the proposed idea, Alabama would not have been able to prove that they had the best team, and L.S.U. or Oklahoma State or Stanford would have been #1. That would have been a travesty.

Second, what happens if an independent team such as Notre Dame (God forbid), Army or Navy had an unbeaten season, but were unable to play in the championship owing to the fact that they were not a conference champion? Again justice would not be served under such a system.

The upshot is that only choosing conference champions to produce a national champion is a bad idea! 



Since: Aug 9, 2011
Posted on: February 18, 2012 10:06 am
 

Conference champs only in the postseason

I must be missing how you guys keep saying 2006 is wrong, he doesn't have LSU vs. Florida in the playoff, he has LSU not included because they didn't win a conference and couldn't be included.  I don't see what ya'll are talking about. 



Since: Dec 4, 2011
Posted on: February 18, 2012 8:39 am
 

Conference champs only in the postseason

Again. No Thank You! Just end up with mediocre teams from weak conferences in a playoff. Again. Selection committee please. 


andyham7
Since: Oct 29, 2011
Posted on: February 18, 2012 6:47 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Oct 6, 2011
Posted on: February 17, 2012 8:35 pm
 

Conference champs only in the postseason

Any National Championship playoff system should include only FBS conference champs, but all FBS conferences should be included, not just the big boys.



Since: May 1, 2011
Posted on: February 17, 2012 7:12 pm
 

Conference champs only in the postseason

The plus one should be the four highest conference champions pain and simple. If ND wants to be part f it then have them join a conference and win a title like everyoneelse



Since: Nov 9, 2008
Posted on: February 17, 2012 5:36 pm
 

Conference champs only in the postseason

Dodd, you dope. Do you really think Kramer meant that independent teams should be completely left out of a plus one? I'm sure he meant conference champs OR independent teams. So #6 Notre Dame would have been the 4th team in 2005, not #7 Georgia.



Since: Aug 26, 2008
Posted on: February 17, 2012 5:16 pm
 

Conference champs only in the postseason

I liked this article better the first time I read it last week when Stewart Mandel wrote it.



Since: Sep 22, 2007
Posted on: February 17, 2012 4:21 pm
 

Conference champs only in the postseason

in 2006 you can't have Florida vs LSU in a semifinal, it's against the rules.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com