4 Team Playoff Proposal

Last year, I got a lot of response from an 8 team playoff idea. Because so few people can agree on the type of playoff they want, it was not surprising that very few people liked it.

With a 4 team playoff looking very possible in the next few years, it is time to come up with some 4 team proposals. Here is mine:

1. 4 conference champs from 4 different conferences.

2. Use a committee like NCAA hoops does and simply have them seed the top 4 teams.

   * If BCS standings must be used, it is time to eliminate using the Coaches poll. Allowing them to vote and decide things is one of the most ridiculous things about the BCS. If I had my way, we would be done with computers, as well as coaches, choosing anything.

3. The first round games will be home teams for the top 2 seeds.  If the 3 or 4 seed want to complain, look at it this way: at least they are now in a playoff, instead of being left out watching #1 play #2. And, why complain? If you think you are that much more deserving than the home team, just go out and prove you are better by winning on the road. Last year, we would have had:

#4 Wisconsin @ #1 LSU and #3 Oregon @ #2 Oklahoma St.

4. These semi final games will be played 2 weeks after the conference title games. This would cause very little change. The Heisman award can still be presented the week after the conference title games and the rest of the bowls can still be played as planned. All other bowls will be played between the semi final games and New Year's Day.

5. Title game would be played on a Monday night around the same time as it is now. The site will be chosen well in advance similar to how the NFL does the Super Bowl. No set rotations and pretty much anyone can submit a bid to host. Cotton Bowl? Rose? Chick-Fil-A? Sugar? All of these and more would have a chance to host the game.

Pros:

1. We have 4 teams instead of 2.

2. Conference title games would always be meaningful, just like they should be. A team should not be able to lose its title game, or not win its conference, and play for the NC. There would be a lot more hype and importance to all of these games. A team that looks like they are a 5 or 6 seed and left out could win their title game and possibly get in the playoff if certain other teams lose.

3. We have less time off for the title game teams....they get WAY too much time between games right now. This way, they would play their conference title game, 2 weeks later play the semi finals, and about 3 weeks later (23 days) play the title game.

4. Semi final Saturday (around mid December) would be an AWESOME day of college football. At a time when college football is usually lacking any hype, this time of year would now be owned by college football. How awesome would it have been this past Dec. 17th to settle in and watch Wisky @ LSU at 4pm Eastern time and Oregon @ Okla. St at 8pm?

5. We can go back to having a bunch of good New Year's Day Bowl games and stop pretending like these other BCS bowl games are so important. We can eliminate the bowl tie ins and let the Bowls pick who they want. They would not have to settle for lesser teams if they do not want them. The Sugar and Orange Bowls can be played New Year's night like they used to be, the Rose and Fiesta can be played mid day New Year's Day. The earlier New Year's Day Bowl games can go on with little change. Every other bowl game can work around this very easily between the Semi final games and New Year's Day.

6. Following the New Year's Day Bowl games, we would turn all of the focus on the title game, where it should be. Both teams would have already won their conference and a tough semi final game, leaving very little doubt about their worthiness.

7. The national champ would be less controversial and more derserving than some we have had in the past. Let's say a 2 loss Wisky would have won it all last year. Some might say a 2 loss Wisky should not have been in a playoff, but how could anyone question them if they would have won @ LSU and then defeated Okie St.? That would look pretty deserving to me.

5'd ya pck. It's clear you put alot of thought in this idea. I can find no fault in your ideas and reasoning and like it. Well done

Here's some problems:

1. You would have to change the structure of winning your conference. Currently, the out of conference games don't count. See Stanford and Oregon.
2. Do you really think Wisconsin is better than Alabama or Stanford?
3. Jim Delaney is stubborn. If the Pac-12 and Big-10 get into the final four, he would want them to play each other.
4. Why not neutral field?

My idea is this:

Sugar Bowl - LSU (#1) vs. Stanford (#4)Fiesta Bowl - Bama (#2) vs. Oklahoma State (#3)
Rose Bowl - Oregon vs. Wisconsin
Orange Bowl - Clemson vs. KSU
Cotton Bowl - WV vs. VT

The top four ranked teams go play for the National Championship. Add an extra BCS bowl game, and give it a tie-in to the Big East. For the wildcards, use the top four ranked teams which either won their non-AQ conference or ranked 2nd among their AQ conference. Use a computer formula, which examines overall record, strength of schedule, and compares best win vs. worse loss.

Here's some problems:

1. You would have to change the structure of winning your conference. Currently, the out of conference games don't count. See Stanford and Oregon.

What do you mean? Are you questioning picking Oregon over Stanford? Oregon beat Stanford and won its side of the division. Case closed. No issue there at all. And, OOC games would still mean a lot with my plan. Oregon lost to LSU in the first game of the season and would have played @ Okla. St. in my plan. Had they defeated LSU, they would have hosted a 1st round playoff game.

2. Do you really think Wisconsin is better than Alabama or Stanford?

What kind of question is that? How on earth do we know? Did these teams play?

3. Jim Delaney is stubborn. If the Pac-12 and Big-10 get into the final four, he would want them to play each other.

??? Good luck with that. No matter what kind of 4 team plan we end up with, no plan will include making sure we have a Pac/Big Ten semi final. That is ridiculous. So, if Oregon and Wisky each go 13-0, and the 3 and 4 seeds have 2 losses each, you think Oregon and Wisky should play each other in the semis? 

4. Why not neutral field?

 Why should a 4 seed get the same benefit as the 1 seed? After LSU went 13-0 with impressive wins IC and OOC, why should they be treated the same as Wisky come playoff time? They should be rewarded and a home game would do that. Home field for the top 2 seeds would help keep every regular season game for playoff hopefuls meaningful.

See my Oregon/LSU example above: regular season OOC games would still mean a lot with 1st round home games at stake. Without home field being part of it, OOC games would only help decide whether or not the 5th or 6th seed should maybe be a 4 seed.

Also, where will the games be played if they were neutral? The neutral sites would have to be determined in advance. What if Ga. and FSU end up playing a 1st round game in the Fiesta Bowl? Does this make sense? If LSU goes 13-0 and plays #4 seed 11-2 Wisky, why should they play on a neutral site in the Rose Bowl?

People already are wondering how a playoff would work because of asking teams to travel for back to back games. The home field factor at least gives us the possibility that we could have a 4 team playoff, but the title game team's fans, if seeded 1 and 2, would only have to travel once for the title game. Sure, a 3 or 4 seed's fans would travle twice if they win, but the 1 and 2 seed only once if they win.

My idea is this:

Sugar Bowl - LSU (#1) vs. Stanford (#4)Fiesta Bowl - Bama (#2) vs. Oklahoma State (#3)
Rose Bowl - Oregon vs. Wisconsin
Orange Bowl - Clemson vs. KSU
Cotton Bowl - WV vs. VT

The top four ranked teams go play for the National Championship.

Right away, I have to ask you why you see nothing wrong with putting Stanford ahead of Oregon? So, Oregon beats Stanford, and wins the Pac, and stays home while Stanford goes? You are penalizing Oregon big time for playing LSU OOC. If this type of 4 game playoff happened, so much for ever seeing any quality OOC games. Also, the SEC title game would not have mattered with your plan. Geez, Ga. could have beaten LSU, and you would have had 3 non conference champs in your 4 team playoff. Yikes! So, basically your 4 team playoff would have set BEFORE the conference title games. How could that possibly be good for college football? Why even have conference standings with your plan?

Add an extra BCS bowl game, and give it a tie-in to the Big East. For the wildcards, use the top four ranked teams which either won their non-AQ conference or ranked 2nd among their AQ conference. Use a computer formula, which examines overall record, strength of schedule, and compares best win vs. worse loss.

Extra BCS bowl? Why? What does this accomplish as far as a playoff is concerned? Those games have run their course. We need fewer, not more. Computer formula? Man, I think this is not much better than what we have now. You do realize you could have 4 non conference champs playing in your playoff, right?

 Thanks for your reply.

I guess I have a lot of problems with this plan. But I don't count. However, I doubt the big boys would buy in either. I am in favor of a 4 team playoff and no two teams from the same conference. But I don't think conference champions will be accepable. If Georgia had beaten LSU they would be the 4th best team in the conference. Oregon won their conference, but Stanford was the 10-1 team ranked #4 before the bowls. If you choose conference champions Independents (ND and BYU)  and teams like Boise (although maybe they qualify but I doubt it) from the MWC next year would not be considered. Perhaps the author used the term conference champions without really meaning, strictly conference champions.  I like the NCAA committee like for Basketball. But since there is only 4 teams I would suggest each conference submit its team for consideration, and it need not be the conference champion. Last year we probably would have had LSU/OKSt./Stanford/Wisconsin/Clemso
n/Boise/etc. The PAC12 might submit Oregon, but Oregon with two losses vs Stanford with one loss, might be passed over. I know it won the CG but against UCLA which had 6 losses. If they had played USC and won a rematch, then I don't know. Personally, I think USC should have played in the CCG, just not eligible to go to a bowl. I also think the PAC was stupid in how they select who plays. Stanford had the better record. I know Oregon won the head-to-head, but in theory Oregon could have lost an OOC game and been 9-3 vs a 10-1 Stanford and been selected. That's a pretty dumb methodology in my book. He also wants to play the first round at home. Well if Oregon played Wisconsin I don't think either team would want to give up the Rose Bowl, and I know the conferences wouldn't want it. And I suspect LSU and OKSt. would like to have met in the Sugar Bowl. But then we would have the two higher rated teams playing each other, meaning you could not end up with an LSU - OKSt. championship game. The point is that what looks wasy isn't always that easy. If there was an 8 team playoff, then the major conferences could choose their rep, and you could add two at large teams. Alabama probably makes it this way. And probably Boise St. too. And if you think politics will not enter into the equation, you are sadly mistaken. Maybe a four team playoff is not the way to go. Maybe you just play all the bowl games and then choose two teams from the winners.

Some really good thoughts PCKank.

I would change one thing about how the four teams are picked: following the regular season, allow every conference to select its own "nominee team" for consideration for the four-team playoff.   THEN let a national committee pick four teams FROM those nominations.  This would take all the griping from conference fans and make it an internal, conference issue rather than a national issue.  For example, if the PAC 12 nominates Oregon and Oregon loses, the PAC fans can't come on here and whine about how Stanford should have received the nod.  They can take it up with their commissioner.   If LSU gets in over Alabama and LSU doesn't win it all, the SEC homers have an internal gripe and no right to blame any kind of anti-SEC conspiracy for not picking their strongest team.

There's another benefit to conferences nominating their own team: it pretty much discredits any notion from arrogant conference (*cough* SEC) homers that their conference is so good it should have two teams in the playoff.  Hey, if your conference nominates the best team, then it really doesn't matter, does it?

A national committe picking all teams out of whole cloth might work in basketball because the best conferences are already getting five teams or more.  In football that same method invites controversy.
 
Let the each conference pick their own best team and let the national committe take it from there.

pc.  Well done. You spent a great deal of time on this and in doing so, addressed some of the shortcomings in the current system and streamlining the timeline now in place.  In doing so, your plan does not endear you to the advertisers or the networks, especially when it comes to New Years. 

Adding the semi-final round in a dead period is a wonderful idea.  It will fill a void we see every year and give CFB fans a much anticipated and very welcome Saturday, much as last Sunday was for NFL fans.  That is a very welcome component.  Sign me up.


As always, the discussion comes down to WHAT teams qualify.  You had 4 conference champs.  Many years that will be a given, but in a year that just finished, that is not always the case.  On one hand, it is easy to include ORE, as they not only won the PAC, but destroyed STAN, that only finished ranked higher than ORE on the basis of ORE playing and losing a season opener to LSU. 

On the other hand, there is no doubt given the 'body of work," ALA was one of the top 4 teams in the country last year.  WIS did win the BIG, but lost 2 games, albeit on two hail Mary passes at the end of the game, but they still lost 2 games, and by every measurement, there were a handful of teams thought to be better. 

I know you reluctantly qualified your use of the BCS rankings, but no matter how the teams are chosen, to preclude a non-conference champ from participating, eliminates the premise that the playoff is open to ALL teams.  That, by definition, opens up the can of worms, that we have today.  No other playoff format keeps teams on the sideline on that basis.  Doing so here only exacerbates the arguments we currently see.  I would hope if we ever get to a final four, that ALL teams are included and they let the chips fall were they will.  Then it all boils down to how the 4 teams are determined. 

As mentioned earlier, the TV execs, or in this case, ESPN will not like having to double up the Rose and whatever game that normally gets the prime time slot.  Fans attending those games would enjoy it, as they could plan the trip, knowing it is on a holiday and not in the middle of the week.  I dont ever recall the Rose having a game shown opposite.  That was not the case with the Orange and Sugar.  Too many years were spent with multiple tv's in use, both for the early games and New Years night.

That may be problematic for fans and ESPN, especially if your idea of opening up the games to all comers.  If we get some marquee match-ups, how are the fans served by having to watch multiple games in the same time slot?  ESPN will want to maintain the status quo and string games out as it currently does.  That may be more desirable if we get some sexy match-ups, but if we get a repeat of the Orange and Sugar this year, no offense, but come New Years night, many may opt for getting to bed early, and forego watching the games as they did this year.  Hopefully opening it up to a free for all, takes care of that problem.

One question I would have is would the semi-final losers be candidates for bowl games?  If so, I am sure an attractive match-up would be having them meet in a consolation game, much like the old days in the BB tourney.

For instance, if the semi-final losers are eligible for bowl games, how does the Rose deal with the fact that the 2 desired conferences, tie-ins or not, deal with the fact that the BIG and PAC champs are in the semis?  They may not get either,  If the losers are eligible, it appears that one of the bowls would have to be designated as hosting those teams on a rotating basis, or leaving 2 open slots for those teams in 2 different games to accommodate those teams.  Anyway, that is a minor detail and can easily be worked out.

7. The national champ would be less controversial and more derserving than some we have had in the past. Let's say a 2 loss Wisky would have won it all last year. Some might say a 2 loss Wisky should not have been in a playoff, but how could anyone question them if they would have won @ LSU and then defeated Okie St.? That would look pretty deserving to me.

This is the major point of contention in your format I have.  There is no question if WIS won it all, no one could question they were NOT deserving.  That goes without saying, but it is NOT the issue.  The issue is if they should have been included in the first place.  There is no question they won their conference, but you had to drop all the way to #10 to fill your playoff.  As previously mentioned, that precludes having a handful of teams that were deemed better, regardless of how that determination was made, i.e. polls or computers.  Leaving out non-conference winners does not solve the problem and only perpetuates the status quo, as far as the shortcomings and limitations of the current system.

Just as you point out, no one could question WIS being deserving if they won it all, the same can be said for ALA this year.  They won the BCS NC game and I doubt anyone would question if they were deserving.  What got questioned was their inclusion in the first place.  If you include only conference champs, that does not change.  yes, the proponents can say the ALA's and STAN's did not win their conference, but is that the basis for keeping them out, in favor a team ranked far below.  That is the issue that has to be answered.

Again, well done.  You did a great job and came up with a very workable format, and one that can be easily implemented.  We can only hope the powers that be embrace the fact that the system in place has run its course and it is time to change.  Nice job.  Thanks for taking the time to shar it with us.


 
 

pc,

Nice work.

I like your plan.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if I am reading you right... you feel a team should win its conference first... in order to have a chance at winning a NC.  I agree with you... if that is the case... especially if we're going to narrow the field to just 4 teams.

When college basketball first started conducting a NCAA tournament to decide its champion, only conference champions were eligible.  It wasn't until around 1976 (I think) that the field expanded to include at-large teams.

If you have to start somewhere... and a 4 team playoff is pretty small... then I think a champion only format is appropriate.  If the playoff expands, then including worthy at-large teams... like that of Bama this year... is appropriate.

 

About the only chance we have is the "plus one" playoff to come about in the next several years. I like kank's ideas but I am ready to just get rid of a ranking system altogether. No matter how rankings are done, bias cannot be specifically excluded. Even computers cannot agree who is and who isn't worthy of being a playoff team because different people write the computer programs with different slants to favor certain things over other certain things.


I like the idea of the 12 team playoff best where every conference champion gets in, the teams with the best 4 records get a bye in the first round. The independent with the best record gets in if their record is superior to the conference champion with the worst record. If it isn't, then we have an 11 team playoff with the five teams with the best record getting the bye in the first round. Ties can be decided in all sorts of ways that involve no ranking system.

In order to be as close to 100% fair as possible, all ranking systems must be done away with - totally and completely.

2. Use a committee like NCAA hoops does and simply have them seed the top 4 teams.

I hate the way NCAA hoops does the playoff. It is pathetic when we end up with an 8th place team in its conference as the victor. NCAA hoops needs to be redone so that only the conference champions (overall conference records, not the winner of one single elimination tournament!) get into the playoff. This requires no ranking system or committee at all - which should be our ultimate goal. Let the teams' wins and losses decide who gets in totally. And the OOC records are important for the first round byes and seedings.

1. 4 conference champs from 4 different conferences.

2. Use a committee like NCAA hoops does and simply have them seed the top 4 teams.



Is it possible to have 4 conference champs from anything other than 4 different conferences?


I've said before that a committee should be used to determine the playoff field.  But a system that limits itself to conference champs should include all conference champs.  The step that needs to be taken prior to implementing this system, though, is to eliminate about half of the FBS teams that have no bearing on a national championship other than to squeeze money from the schools that drive the TV revenue.

6 conferences - ACC, SEC, BIG, B12, PAC, and what ever Land of Misfit Toys the best of the BEAST, MWC, ND, and CUSA can manage to throw together.  No one outside of those conference has gotten a whiff of a NC in eons, and that's not a BCS barrier either.  Historically, that's generously accepting more teams into consideration than have ever managed to realistically compete for a NC.

Committee seeds the six champs, and you go forward with whatever schedule works.


Otherwise, there's little reason to say we're only taking conference champs, but only the four champs a committee decides should move forward.  If you're adopting that position, just have the committee select the four participants, CC or not, and seed them.

Any format must remove subjectivity from the qualification process. Adopt a rules system that allows everyone to know what beats what before it happens and have teams compete based on those rules.

What do you mean? Are you questioning picking Oregon over Stanford? Oregon beat Stanford and won its side of the division. Case closed. No issue there at all.

Not questioning Oregon over Stanford, but simply pointing out conference champs are determined by conference records, not by overall records. The pollsters and computers look at overall records, key wins, and key losses. What about 2008, when Oklahoma and Texas were co-conference champs? Would you put Texas into the final four? You know, that they did beat Oklahoma. More over, why would you exclude 2011 Alabama's team? Do you really think Wisconsin deserved to be in over Alabama? Wisconsin was ranked 10th overall, and lost to 6-6 Ohio State. If we changed the structure of conference champs, then I would be in favor of conference champs only, but until conferences look at teams the same way computers and pollsters look at it, then my vote is no. 

What if the 4th best conference champion had 3-4 losses and the runner-up teams had 1 to 2 losses? It wouldn't be fair to give a three team the advantage.

What kind of question is that? How on earth do we know? Did these teams play?

None of these teams did play each other, but Stanford and Alabama deserved it more, based on their overall resume.

 

Why should a 4 seed get the same benefit as the 1 seed? After LSU went 13-0 with impressive wins IC and OOC, why should they be treated the same as Wisky come playoff time?

First off, I would not like to see Wisky getting a National Championship bid. Why don't we look at 2 vs. 3? In 2010, in would have been Oregon vs. TCU.  Why does Oregon deserve the home playoff game over TCU? Both have 0 losses. In 2009, we had 4 undefeated conference champs ranked in the top 4. Why would you give Alabama homefield over TCU, or Texas homefield over Cincinnati? If we're going to have a final four, we might as well treat them as equals. They all deserve to be in, right? Why not have these elite teams battle it over on neutral sites? The other problem here is that the state of New Orleans, Arizona, California, and Florida would complain.

I have to ask you why you see nothing wrong with putting Stanford ahead of Oregon?

Oregon beat Stanford. However, what about Oregon vs. USC, and Stanford vs. USC? What happened there? Stanford won. Oregon lost. Does that count for anything? Oregon would have been ranked ahead of Stanford, if they beat USC. Personally, if I were a Harris Poll voter, I would have done LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State, and then Oregon. And let me also remind you that what I presented was an example, not anything official. There's some exceptions I would make.

Ga. could have beaten LSU, and you would have had 3 non conference champs in your 4 team playoff.

Once again, what I presented was an example, not anything official. If LSU lost to Georgia, then who knows how the pollsters or computers would have reacted. Under my idea, only 2 teams per AQ conference would qualify for the BCS bowls, this means that Alabama would probably get knocked out of the BCS bowls, and Georgia would have made it in.

You do realize you could have 4 non conference champs playing in your playoff, right?

Nope, if you read my rules, you would not think that would happen.

 

But a system that limits itself to conference champs should include all conference champs.

Plus Two would work better than the OPs format. Why not just do 6 AQ conference champs and 2 Non-AQ conference champs?

So for 2011

WV @ LSU
Southern Miss @ Oklahoma St.
TCU @ Oregon
Clemson @ Wisconsin

So for 2010

Uconn @ Auburn
VT @ Oregon
Boise State @ TCU
Oklahoma @ Wisconsin (highest ranked Big-10 team)

I hate the way NCAA hoops does the playoff.

I agree Gene. In college hoops, there's no reward for winning your conference or winning 30 games. No home field advantage. No byes. And just look what happens every year? They make the tournament bigger and bigger, making it easier and easier to get in. My Orangemen will not get any rewards for being 22-1.

Plus Two would work better than the OPs format. Why not just do 6 AQ conference champs and 2 Non-AQ conference champs?


I'm just not a big fan of the non-AQs when it comes to national championship consideration.  I thought my system was being pretty generous to certain schools by allowing a 6th conference of of what is now the top non-AQ programs.

I understand the OP limiting the hypothetical system to 4 teams because that is likely all we are going to see in the near future.

Even with a system of 4 conference champions, I'd be fine with a committee selecting those four from the 5 AQs - ACC, SEC, BIG, PAC, and B12 - and dumping the Big East and remaining FBS conferences from leeching off of the TV contracts.

I really like your proposal, pckank. I see you've put a lot of time and reflection into it. It seems quite balanced and fair, and most people's reservations seem to be with functional details, not your whole playoff structure.

I wanted to point out this point, which I don't think got thoroughly addressed:

2. Do you really think Wisconsin is better than Alabama or Stanford?

What kind of question is that? How on earth do we know? Did these teams play? 

The only issue I see with not including the Bama is the fact that they won the National Championship this year, so by this system the current champs wouldn't have been champs. This does not throw your system into disrepute, but it is something to reflect upon in formatting the structure. With the SEC bulldozing over all other conferences in the last few years, there is likely going to be a repeat of the two best teams in the country being in the same conference and same division.