4 Team Playoff Proposal

Lets see here:

- Did the Tide lose to a .500 team, which ended up going 6-7? Nope.
- Oklahoma State beat 2-loss KSU by 7 points, in a 52-45 game. Alabama beat 2-loss Arkansas by 24 points, in a 38-14 game.
- Alabama was 1st in defense, 20th in offense. Oklahoma State was 1st in offense, but 61st in defense.

Ok State put up weaker stats than Bama - Fact
Ok State state didn't have to play LSU - Fact.
Ok State didn't play in the SEC - Fact.
Ok State fell asleep in at the wheel against a 6-6 team - Fact.

Fact:  Upsets happen all the time in CFB.

Fact:  all the stats you want to put up does not prove Bama was a better team than Ok State.  Only one way to definitively prove that.   Since that did not happen, you are left with an assumption that Bama was the better team.

Take the 2011 Bama team and give them Buffalo's Schedule.  Do they go undefeated?   Probably.   To say otherwise is an assumption.    If the 2011 Bama team went undefeated with Buffalo's schedule, do they deserve to play for a NC over the Bama team that played the 2011 Bama schedule?    Just saying the assumption is the Bama team playing Bama's schedule is better than the Bama team playing the Buffalo schedule.  That is the BCS.   


Setting hard standards/criteria for inclusion in a playoff helps eliminate the assumptions the BCS operates under now.  

If we narrow it down to 8 conferences (and all independents join a conference), an 8 team conference champs only playoff makes sense.  It's all inclusive and there is no subjectivity as to who makes it.  It's perfectly clear - win your conference and you are in.

But here's the problem: 8 conferences means 15 teams per conference. Teams only play 12 regular season games. That would mean you would have to cut out the OCC games or split the conferences into two unequal parts.

 

But conferences have tie-breakers to determine who landed their BCS bids or berths in their championship games.

 The only reason why Wisconsin got into the Rose Bowl in 2010 is because of the BCS standings. Oklahoma got into the NCG, despite losing to Texas, simply because the pollsters felt they had a better schedule and gave them high points for running up the scoreboard against Texas Tech.

My view is that we should simply take the top 4 ranked teams.

Fact:  Upsets happen all the time in CFB.

Any Given Sunday is applied to all sports really. A team with a perfect record is still capable of losing.

all the stats you want to put up does not prove Bama was a better team than Ok State.  Only one way to definitively prove that.   Since that did not happen, you are left with an assumption that Bama was the better team.

I hate to use the NFL. But how do we know that the Patriots were better than the 49ers or Packers. They never played each other.

If the 2011 Bama team went undefeated with Buffalo's schedule, do they deserve to play for a NC over the Bama team that played the 2011 Bama schedule?

If Alabama had Buffalo's schedule, then no. They would most likely go undefeated and would get a BCS bowl invite, not in the National Championship race. 

Fact:  Upsets happen all the time in CFB.

Fact:  all the stats you want to put up does not prove Bama was a better team than Ok State.  Only one way to definitively prove that.   Since that did not happen, you are left with an assumption that Bama was the better team.

These two "facts" seem to contradict each other.

Bama lost to LSU the first time.  Bama had more first downs and outgained LSU.  Bama missed 4 field goals, so LSU won.  All the stats in the world might have told us that Bama was the better team, but LSU won, so they were better.  Or were they?  The rematch pretty much told the story of who the better team was.  Bama probably should have won the first game and then won the second game in relatively convincing fashion.

If you can't use the "eye test", stats or some other subjective measures, how else do you distinguish between multiple teams with the same records?  How do you tell the difference between four 11-1 teams?  Is an 11-1 Alabama better than a 12-0 TCU?  Is a 10-2 LSU better than a 12-0 Hawaii?

In 2006, you would have had #1 Ohio State, #2 Florida, #5 Louisville and #7 Oklahoma in a 4 team conference champs only playoff, leaving out #3 Michigan, and #4 LSU.  Oklahoma lost to Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl that season to finish #11.  LSU pounded Notre Dame in the Sugar finishing #3, and Michigan lost in the Rose to USC (final #4) to drop to #9.  Louisville won their bowl and actually dropped two spots.  I would say that maybe Oklahoma and Louisville didn't deserve to be in any playoff over LSU at the very least.

I just don't think "conference champs only" is the way to go for a 4 team playoff, and I think it's even worse if you go to an 8 team playoff.

Any Given Sunday is applied to all sports really. A team with a perfect record is still capable of losing.

Your'e right, but guess what?   We have a system that evaluates a best loss.  A best loss means more than overall body of work.  Take away Bama and Ok State's losses and look at the overall body, OK State had a better body of work.  A better body of work that was nullified by best loss scenario.

I guarantee you if the roles were reversed, Bama (and Team SEC) fans would be screaming bloody murder too.  

I hate to use the NFL. But how do we know that the Patriots were better than the 49ers or Packers. They never played each other.

We don't.   Just like we don't know Bama was better or more deserving than OK State.   However, the Patriots won their division which is one of the criteria for getting into the playoffs.   Once teams get into the playoffs, all have a shot to win a championship.   All teams in the NFL start the season with an equal chance to get into the playoffs.  Win your division or play well enough to get a wildcard.    There is no your loss was worse than my loss therefore you don't get a shot.

There are no assumptions in the NFL when it comes to picking the playoff field or determing the champion. 
   
I would much rather watch Michigan win the Big Ten and get into a playoff (even if they lose)  than have them excluded because they are assumed to not be as good as another team.

If Alabama had Buffalo's schedule, then no. They would most likely go undefeated and would get a BCS bowl invite, not in the National Championship race.

And you don't have a problem with this?

These two "facts" seem to contradict each other.

Bama lost to LSU the first time.  Bama had more first downs and outgained LSU.  Bama missed 4 field goals, so LSU won.  All the stats in the world might have told us that Bama was the better team, but LSU won, so they were better.  Or were they?  .

That is a case where the eye-test failed.   I had no doubt that Bama was the better team.  However all the experts began to jump on the LSU may be the greatest, at least BCS era, Champion ever.  

Was Bama upset?  I say yes, however LSU was ranked above them at the time.


So maybe we move away from conference champ only to having "are you a conference champ"  being a "tie-breaker".      






          

Games and competitions are played to determine WINNERS. Rules are the instructions for winning a game or competition. They provide teams with a task and the team or teams that best accomplish that task win the game or place higher in the competition. It is not about figuring out which teams are better than which. Being a better team or the best team is an unquantifiable competitive advantage only. Only in college football do fans seem obsessed with the idea that the champion under any format must validate or identify the best team. Clearly, the best team does not win every football game. Therefore, it follows that the best team does not need to win every competition involving several games.  

Your'e right, but guess what?   We have a system that evaluates a best loss.  A best loss means more than overall body of work.  Take away Bama and Ok State's losses and look at the overall body, OK State had a better body of work.  A better body of work that was nullified by best loss scenario.

We have a system which evaluates best win and best loss, along with other things. I hate to repeat myself, but look at this:

Alabama - Best win was a 24 point victory over 2-loss Arkansas, Bama's worst loss was a 3 point against LSU (as the other poster pointed out, Bama only lost because it missed four field goals).

Okie State - Best win was against KSU, where they won by just 7 points. Their best loss was against Iowa State by 6 points.

Then you add to the kettle the fact that Alabama possessed an above average offense and defense, while Okie State had a great offense, but an average defense.

Just like we don't know Bama was better or more deserving than OK State.

The word "deserve" is subjective. Not every person is going to agree on which teams "deserve" something. And even in a playoff format, we don't see all the playoff teams playing each other.

And you don't have a problem with this?

And why should I have a problem with this? The Bulls objective at the end of the season is not to win a National title, but to win conference USA, and get into a bowl game. This is why they have a light schedule. This is why they are in Conference USA, not the SEC.

And why should I have a problem with this? The Bulls objective at the end of the season is not to win a National title, but to win conference USA, and get into a bowl game. This is why they have a light schedule. This is why they are in Conference USA, not the SEC. 

That's one of the problems.   Under the old system, the Non-AQ schools were under no illusion they had a chance at a NC.   The BCS, however dispelled that notion when they made exceptions for non-AQ's.  Whether you accept it or not, the implied message is all teams have a shot at playing for a NC.

Because it may not be a realistic expectation (or goal) for lots of teams every year, that is no reason to justify them not having/denying them a shot.  
   
Though you never really answered the question/point.  I know you answered the question, but you don't have a problem with the scenario I listed?

If Alabama had Buffalo's schedule, then no. They would most likely go undefeated and would get a BCS bowl invite, not in the National Championship race.

I do.    I'm not using the SoS argument to say teams will start scheduling scrubs to get an easier undefeated schedule.  Not every team in CFB can be in the SEC, Big Ten, Pac 12 or Big 12.    It's just not possible.   We have a system that gives the impression all teams have a shot, when this is not even close to being true.  Some schools will have a more difficult SoS just because of the conference they are in.   Other schools, no matter how hard they try or who they schedule, will never match the same SoS.   

2008 Utah was a good team.  Though outside of Utah, they weren't given much chance against Bama.  Why was that?  Bama was a former #1 team.  Bama played in the SEC.  Bama played a more difficult SoS.  Yet when they took the field, Bama was the team that looked like they didn't belong.   There have been many "excuses" given.  When the bottom line is, Utah wasn't given much, if any shot based on assumption/perception. 

The only place it should matter, or be decided is on the field.   That is the one place assumptions, perceptions and/or SoS have no infuence.
 




       

the Non-AQ schools were under no illusion they had a chance at a NC.   The BCS, however dispelled that notion when they made exceptions for non-AQ's.  Whether you accept it or not, the implied message is all teams have a shot at playing for a NC.

All 120 teams do have a shot at a National Championship, and seeing as how the winds are blowing in a direction of a Plus One, then that possilibity is getting even better.

Look at Hawaii's 2008 schedule. They played the Gators in Florida, Oregon State (when they were good), and Cincinnati (Big East champ). If Hawaii went undefeated with that type of schedue, they would have been shoo-ins for a National Championship appearance. If Boise State in 2011 went undefeated in 2011, they also would be strong candidates for a National Championship bid, seeing as how they a) went undefeated, b) beat last season's Rose Bowl champion, and c) beat Georgia in Georgia by 14 points.

2008 Utah was a good team.  Though outside of Utah, they weren't given much chance against Bama.

Utah won the Sugar Bowl, a major BCS bowl game. This helped them gain respect and changed their status from minor leaguer to big leaguer. It helped them go from a small conference to a big conference. In other words, if you beat Utah, you were seen as a strong team.

The problem with Utah in 2008 was their schedule and how they won their games. In the opening game of the season, they just barely beat Michigan, which went 3-9 for the season. Against Oregon State, they had to comeback and win in a squeaker. Against TCU, they won by a field goal.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to degrade Utah for what happened, but you have to realize that going to a BCS bowl game is almost as relevant as going to the National game. It is still a major prize.
 

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to degrade Utah for what happened, but you have to realize that going to a BCS bowl game is almost as relevant as going to the National game. It is still a major prize.

Would you be happy if your team only played for "almost as relevant"?

Also, there are an awful lot of if's in your reply.   A whole lot of if's that don't apply to the AQ teams.   A whole lot of if's that apply even less to SEC teams.

When Bama played for the NC game, did they do it based of what they did during the 2011 season?  of was the history (and recent success) of Bama factored in as well?

A contender for a NC should be determined based of the results of the season they are being crowned champion for.

A contender for a NC should be determined based of their body of work;  not what other teams in their conference did the year (or years) prior.

Just because Bama won the NC for the 2011 season, shouldn't give them an advantage over the other 119 teams going into the 2013 season.

See where I'm coming from here?   The like you, the BCS has too many if's for the non-pedigreed teams.  

Nice thing about the BCS, there have always been enough if's to keep the non-pedigreed out of a NC game berth.
               

@Chief, how about we just do my 8 team playoff idea? This system would have included all the conference champs ranked in the top 12.