Looks like being a conference champ will be important -- but not being a conference champ won't keep you out. Three highest rated conference champs + one wildcard (the Notre Dame rule all over).
I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as much weight if it's the top four conference champs. And they could even drop the whole "BCS conference" distinction - just make it the four top-ranked DIV I conference champs -- who cares if they're from the Sun Belt?
This limited expansion is all about opening the door to an extended 8 or 12 team playoff down the line, which is awesome. One thing about leaving some of the wishlist (first round at higher ranked team's stadium, for instance) out is that it will likely hasten the next expansion (we're sure to get something like that when they expand out to 8/12 teams).
> Looks like being a conference champ will be important -- but not being a
> conference champ won't keep you out. Three highest rated conference
> champs + one wildcard (the Notre Dame rule all over).
> I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one
> consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd
> likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as
> much weight if it's the top four conference champs. And they could even
> drop the whole "BCS conference" distinction - just make it the four
> top-ranked DIV I conference champs -- who cares if they're from the Sun
> Belt?
> This limited expansion is all about opening the door to an extended 8 or
> 12 team playoff down the line, which is awesome. One thing about leaving
> some of the wishlist (first round at higher ranked team's stadium, for
> instance) out is that it will likely hasten the next expansion (we're
> sure to get something like that when they expand out to 8/12 teams).
> Cheers.
Oh, yeah - possibility that the semis take place in the rose and sugar, with the sugar representing the new SEC/BIG12 alliance, and the final game rotating in some manner (possibly just between the sugar/rose).
Idea would be that it'll still be SEC/BIG12 sugar and PAC12/Big Ten rose if those happen to be the four teams - and replace those slots if those conferences don't have a qualifying team with the teams that do qualify.
Big holdout likely and predictably Big Ten/PAC12, who see it as sacrificing a great prize for their second-best teams the years their conference champ qualifies for the semis.
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:39:00 PM UTC-7, Kyle T. Jones wrote:
> Gonna be four teams, not a "true" +1.
Probably going to be Rose Bowl vs. New Bowl (Big XII vs. SEC).
Winners play a week to 10 days later.
> No home field for the higher seeds (boo).
> Looks like being a conference champ will be important -- but not being a > conference champ won't keep you out. Three highest rated conference > champs + one wildcard (the Notre Dame rule all over).
I find that hard to envision with the New Bowl I referred to above. It's one of the reasons I believe we are heading to four true BCS conferences, with the rest being shifted to, at best, an FBS-II if not outright FCS.
> I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one > consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd > likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as > much weight if it's the top four conference champs. And they could even > drop the whole "BCS conference" distinction - just make it the four > top-ranked DIV I conference champs -- who cares if they're from the Sun > Belt?
Kyle T. Jones wrote:
>Gonna be four teams, not a "true" +1.
>No home field for the higher seeds (boo).
You want to play a game in Ann Arbor in January? How about Seattle?
>Looks like being a conference champ will be important -- but not being a >conference champ won't keep you out. Three highest rated conference >champs + one wildcard (the Notre Dame rule all over).
Except that Notre Dame won't be guaranteed a spot - they'll have to
earn it like everybody else. It's there to prevent a repeat of the
arguments of the 1960s and early 1970s when the #2 basketball team was
left out of the tournament because it was conference champions only
and they happened to be in the same conference as the #1 team.
As for rankings, who decides them - the current BCS System? Will AP
talk its way back in? And can a conference champion get the wild card
spot?
>I still like all four slots to require conference champs
Maybe it is more of a "Notre Dame rule" than I thought...
>And they could even drop the whole "BCS conference" distinction - just
>make it the four top-ranked DIV I conference champs -- who cares if
>they're from the Sun Belt?
You can't leave too many schools out, or they'll block the whole thing
at the NCAA Convention. The bylaws still say that FBS teams can't
play more than one non-conference postseason football game per season.
Another possibility; the outcasts team up with FCS to reform a single
Division I football division, with all of the schools sharing at least
half of the tournament money. Oops!
>This limited expansion is all about opening the door to an extended 8 or >12 team playoff down the line, which is awesome.
Except that there's no way the NCAA will let the schools run the
tournament and make all of the money. The schools need the NCAA more
than we think; otherwise, they would have left over the basketball
money issue years ago.
> You want to play a game in Ann Arbor in January? How about Seattle?
Sure.
>> Looks like being a conference champ will be important -- but not being a
>> conference champ won't keep you out. Three highest rated conference
>> champs + one wildcard (the Notre Dame rule all over).
> Except that Notre Dame won't be guaranteed a spot - they'll have to
> earn it like everybody else. It's there to prevent a repeat of the
> arguments of the 1960s and early 1970s when the #2 basketball team was
> left out of the tournament because it was conference champions only
> and they happened to be in the same conference as the #1 team.
> As for rankings, who decides them - the current BCS System? Will AP
> talk its way back in? And can a conference champion get the wild card
> spot?
Likely will be the current BCS system. Yes, a CC can get the wild card spot.
The way it'll likely shake out - top three ranked of the six BCS conferences are in - wildcard goes to the highest ranked team setting those three aside - if that team is a conference champ, BCS or non, cool - if not, cool - if it's a second team from a conference that has a qualifying conference champ, also cool (might as well call it the Alabama rule).
>> I still like all four slots to require conference champs
> Maybe it is more of a "Notre Dame rule" than I thought...
>> And they could even drop the whole "BCS conference" distinction - just
>> make it the four top-ranked DIV I conference champs -- who cares if
>> they're from the Sun Belt?
> You can't leave too many schools out, or they'll block the whole thing
> at the NCAA Convention. The bylaws still say that FBS teams can't
> play more than one non-conference postseason football game per season.
Yep.
> Another possibility; the outcasts team up with FCS to reform a single
> Division I football division, with all of the schools sharing at least
> half of the tournament money. Oops!
Don't see that many teams being left out, under a four conference champ system - just a couple independents for a couple years while they secured spots.
Not gonna happen anyways - it'll be three and a wildcard.
>> This limited expansion is all about opening the door to an extended 8 or
>> 12 team playoff down the line, which is awesome.
> Except that there's no way the NCAA will let the schools run the
> tournament and make all of the money. The schools need the NCAA more
> than we think; otherwise, they would have left over the basketball
> money issue years ago.
> -- Don
They'll figure something out. Lots of money to go around.
> The way it'll likely shake out - the sec champ goes in addition to two other >champs from the big10, big12, or pac12. Another team from the sec will >probably go as well, and since it's likely the two sec teams are easily the best >teams, the winner of that game will be the national champion.
> On May 31, 11:14 pm, "Kyle T. Jones">
>> The way it'll likely shake out - the sec champ goes in addition to two other>champs from the big10, big12, or pac12. Another team from the sec will>probably go as well, and since it's likely the two sec teams are easily the best>teams, the winner of that game will be the national champion.
<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
> I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one
> consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd
> likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as
> much weight if it's the top four conference champs.
I don't agree with this. An OOC loss would carry more weight than an
OOC win. An OOC loss might be what drops a team out of the top 4.
Any team that goes undefeated OOC, regardless of the quality of
competition, is likely to be in the top 4, if they pair that with
winning one of the major conferences. They'd have more to lose than
to gain by scheduling good OOC games. I'm thinking of the big boys
here; a good OOC win could help get somebody from one of the little
conferences in.
Having the one wild card slot gives teams more of a reason to schedule
tough OOC opponents, because that could provide the marquee win that
separates them from the pack; it could even give them the chance to
beat one of the teams they're battling for the wild card.
<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/12 12:13 AM, michael anderson wrote:
> > On May 31, 11:14 pm, "Kyle T. Jones">
> >> The way it'll likely shake out - the sec champ goes in addition to two other>champs from the big10, big12, or pac12. Another team from the sec will>probably go as well, and since it's likely the two sec teams are easily the best>teams, the winner of that game will be the national champion.
> On Jun 1, 12:24 am, "Kyle T. Jones"
> <onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>> On 6/1/12 12:13 AM, michael anderson wrote:
>>> On May 31, 11:14 pm, "Kyle T. Jones">
>>>> The way it'll likely shake out - the sec champ goes in addition to two other>champs from the big10, big12, or pac12. Another team from the sec will>probably go as well, and since it's likely the two sec teams are easily the best>teams, the winner of that game will be the national champion.
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:48:40 -0500, "Kyle T. Jones"
<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>On 6/1/12 10:27 AM, michael anderson wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 12:24 am, "Kyle T. Jones"
>> <onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/1/12 12:13 AM, michael anderson wrote:
>>>> On May 31, 11:14 pm, "Kyle T. Jones">
>>>>> The way it'll likely shake out - the sec champ goes in addition to two other>champs from the big10, big12, or pac12. Another team from the sec will>probably go as well, and since it's likely the two sec teams are easily the best>teams, the winner of that game will be the national champion.
>>>> IFYPFY
>>> Lame.
>> perhaps, and yet also pretty accurate
A team from the Big TEAT and one other than the Rubbers (Trojans) from
the 1 PACK is
<sea...@altavista.com> wrote:
>On May 31, 3:39 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"
><onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
>> I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one
>> consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd
>> likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as
>> much weight if it's the top four conference champs.
>I don't agree with this. An OOC loss would carry more weight than an
>OOC win. An OOC loss might be what drops a team out of the top 4.
>Any team that goes undefeated OOC, regardless of the quality of
>competition, is likely to be in the top 4, if they pair that with
>winning one of the major conferences. They'd have more to lose than
>to gain by scheduling good OOC games. I'm thinking of the big boys
>here; a good OOC win could help get somebody from one of the little
>conferences in.
Big Boys like Cupcakes for OOC schedules... the exception seems to the
Domers...
>Having the one wild card slot gives teams more of a reason to schedule
>tough OOC opponents, because that could provide the marquee win that
>separates them from the pack; it could even give them the chance to
>beat one of the teams they're battling for the wild card.
--
"The omnipotence of clairvoyance is dreadfully dualistic in its agnosticism" MISC Quote
"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:45:43 -0700 (PDT), Seapig
> <sea...@altavista.com> wrote:
> >On May 31, 3:39 pm, "Kyle T. Jones"
> ><onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
> >> I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one
> >> consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd
> >> likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as
> >> much weight if it's the top four conference champs.
> >I don't agree with this. An OOC loss would carry more weight than an
> >OOC win. An OOC loss might be what drops a team out of the top 4.
> >Any team that goes undefeated OOC, regardless of the quality of
> >competition, is likely to be in the top 4, if they pair that with
> >winning one of the major conferences. They'd have more to lose than
> >to gain by scheduling good OOC games. I'm thinking of the big boys
> >here; a good OOC win could help get somebody from one of the little
> >conferences in.
> Big Boys like Cupcakes for OOC schedules... the exception seems to the
> Domers...
there is no such thing as an "ooc game" for ND......
> >Having the one wild card slot gives teams more of a reason to schedule
> >tough OOC opponents, because that could provide the marquee win that
> >separates them from the pack; it could even give them the chance to
> >beat one of the teams they're battling for the wild card.
> --
> "The omnipotence of clairvoyance is dreadfully dualistic in its agnosticism" MISC Quote
> "Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant
> "One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux
> "the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME
> To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:39:00 PM UTC-5, Kyle T. Jones wrote:
> Gonna be four teams, not a "true" +1.
> No home field for the higher seeds (boo).
> Looks like being a conference champ will be important -- but not being a > conference champ won't keep you out. Three highest rated conference > champs + one wildcard (the Notre Dame rule all over).
> I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one > consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd > likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as > much weight if it's the top four conference champs. And they could even > drop the whole "BCS conference" distinction - just make it the four > top-ranked DIV I conference champs -- who cares if they're from the Sun > Belt?
> This limited expansion is all about opening the door to an extended 8 or > 12 team playoff down the line, which is awesome. One thing about > leaving some of the wishlist (first round at higher ranked team's > stadium, for instance) out is that it will likely hasten the next > expansion (we're sure to get something like that when they expand out to > 8/12 teams).
> Cheers.
If you are going to argue for a playoff system where placement is strictly based on ranking, then I would demand that we make the rankings more than a beauty contest.
I would want a college basketball/RPI-style ranking system, where the quality of your opponents (and your opponent's opponents) influence your ranking. And for good measure, road games would weigh more than home games. So, if you schedule Northern Alabama State, that's on your dime and you get little to no credit. If your schedule is home-weighted, you get less credit than a balanced 6-home-6-road-game schedule.
If ranking is going to determine who gets in, then we need to have some honesty in scheduling so that your ranking honestly reflects your body of work on the field. Let's see which commisioner agrees to this first...
> On Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:39:00 PM UTC-5, Kyle T. Jones wrote:
>> Gonna be four teams, not a "true" +1.
>> No home field for the higher seeds (boo).
>> Looks like being a conference champ will be important -- but not being a
>> conference champ won't keep you out. Three highest rated conference
>> champs + one wildcard (the Notre Dame rule all over).
>> I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one
>> consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd
>> likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as
>> much weight if it's the top four conference champs. And they could even
>> drop the whole "BCS conference" distinction - just make it the four
>> top-ranked DIV I conference champs -- who cares if they're from the Sun
>> Belt?
>> This limited expansion is all about opening the door to an extended 8 or
>> 12 team playoff down the line, which is awesome. One thing about
>> leaving some of the wishlist (first round at higher ranked team's
>> stadium, for instance) out is that it will likely hasten the next
>> expansion (we're sure to get something like that when they expand out to
>> 8/12 teams).
>> Cheers.
> If you are going to argue for a playoff system where placement is strictly based on ranking, then I would demand that we make the rankings more than a beauty contest.
> I would want a college basketball/RPI-style ranking system, where the quality of your opponents (and your opponent's opponents) influence your ranking. And for good measure, road games would weigh more than home games. So, if you schedule Northern Alabama State, that's on your dime and you get little to no credit. If your schedule is home-weighted, you get less credit than a balanced 6-home-6-road-game schedule.
> If ranking is going to determine who gets in, then we need to have some honesty in scheduling so that your ranking honestly reflects your body of work on the field. Let's see which commisioner agrees to this first...
> -Junior
I think you're getting worked up about nothing. Scan back through the years, assume the top 3 ranked BCS CCs are in, and tell me there is controversy over that forth wildcard spot, using either the BCS or AP ratings.
This is my thinly veiled attempt to get you to do homework I can't be bothered to do.
>> If you are going to argue for a playoff system where placement is strictly based on ranking, then I would demand that we make the rankings more than a beauty contest.
>> I would want a college basketball/RPI-style ranking system, where the quality of your opponents (and your opponent's opponents) influence your ranking. And for good measure, road games would weigh more than home games. So, if you schedule Northern Alabama State, that's on your dime and you get little to no credit. If your schedule is home-weighted, you get less credit than a balanced 6-home-6-road-game schedule.
>> If ranking is going to determine who gets in, then we need to have some honesty in scheduling so that your ranking honestly reflects your body of work on the field. Let's see which commisioner agrees to this first...
>> -Junior
>I think you're getting worked up about nothing. Scan back through the >years, assume the top 3 ranked BCS CCs are in, and tell me there is >controversy over that forth wildcard spot, using either the BCS or AP >ratings.
>This is my thinly veiled attempt to get you to do homework I can't be >bothered to do.
2008 - the top four are Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, and Alabama.
Under the "3 and a wild card" system, USC gets Alabama's spot.
2006 - Ohio State, Florida, Michigan, LSU. Once again, an SEC team
gives up its top four spot to USC - this time, LSU.
>>> If you are going to argue for a playoff system where placement is strictly based on ranking, then I would demand that we make the rankings more than a beauty contest.
>>> I would want a college basketball/RPI-style ranking system, where the quality of your opponents (and your opponent's opponents) influence your ranking. And for good measure, road games would weigh more than home games. So, if you schedule Northern Alabama State, that's on your dime and you get little to no credit. If your schedule is home-weighted, you get less credit than a balanced 6-home-6-road-game schedule.
>>> If ranking is going to determine who gets in, then we need to have some honesty in scheduling so that your ranking honestly reflects your body of work on the field. Let's see which commisioner agrees to this first...
>>> -Junior
>> I think you're getting worked up about nothing. Scan back through the
>> years, assume the top 3 ranked BCS CCs are in, and tell me there is
>> controversy over that forth wildcard spot, using either the BCS or AP
>> ratings.
>> This is my thinly veiled attempt to get you to do homework I can't be
>> bothered to do.
> 2008 - the top four are Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, and Alabama.
> Under the "3 and a wild card" system, USC gets Alabama's spot.
> 2006 - Ohio State, Florida, Michigan, LSU. Once again, an SEC team
> gives up its top four spot to USC - this time, LSU.
> -- Don
I don't think that's very controversial. Those USC teams were both
@#$%ing monster. In both cases, the majority of CF fans would have preferred them in the four team playoff (admittedly tougher argument for 06 after that inexplicable UCLA loss to end the season).
> On Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:39:00 PM UTC-5, Kyle T. Jones wrote:
> > Gonna be four teams, not a "true" +1.
> > No home field for the higher seeds (boo).
> > Looks like being a conference champ will be important -- but not being a
> > conference champ won't keep you out. Three highest rated conference
> > champs + one wildcard (the Notre Dame rule all over).
> > I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one
> > consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd
> > likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as
> > much weight if it's the top four conference champs. And they could even
> > drop the whole "BCS conference" distinction - just make it the four
> > top-ranked DIV I conference champs -- who cares if they're from the Sun
> > Belt?
> > This limited expansion is all about opening the door to an extended 8 or
> > 12 team playoff down the line, which is awesome. One thing about
> > leaving some of the wishlist (first round at higher ranked team's
> > stadium, for instance) out is that it will likely hasten the next
> > expansion (we're sure to get something like that when they expand out to
> > 8/12 teams).
> > Cheers.
> If you are going to argue for a playoff system where placement is strictly based on ranking, then I would demand that we make the rankings more than a beauty contest.
> I would want a college basketball/RPI-style ranking system, where the quality of your opponents (and your opponent's opponents) influence your ranking.
--
You do realize, that RPI in college basketball is hardly a universally
accepted measure right? And that is the inherent problem with
computer rankings, etc. Someone is going to be unhappy that computers
took "common sense" out of the equation.
On Friday, June 1, 2012 2:46:20 PM UTC-7, unclejr wrote:
> On Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:39:00 PM UTC-5, Kyle T. Jones wrote:
> > Gonna be four teams, not a "true" +1.
> > No home field for the higher seeds (boo).
> > Looks like being a conference champ will be important -- but not being a > > conference champ won't keep you out. Three highest rated conference > > champs + one wildcard (the Notre Dame rule all over).
> > I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one > > consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd > > likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as > > much weight if it's the top four conference champs. And they could even > > drop the whole "BCS conference" distinction - just make it the four > > top-ranked DIV I conference champs -- who cares if they're from the Sun > > Belt?
> > This limited expansion is all about opening the door to an extended 8 or > > 12 team playoff down the line, which is awesome. One thing about > > leaving some of the wishlist (first round at higher ranked team's > > stadium, for instance) out is that it will likely hasten the next > > expansion (we're sure to get something like that when they expand out to > > 8/12 teams).
> > Cheers.
> If you are going to argue for a playoff system where placement is strictly based on ranking, then I would demand that we make the rankings more than a beauty contest.
> I would want a college basketball/RPI-style ranking system, where the quality of your opponents (and your opponent's opponents) influence your ranking. And for good measure, road games would weigh more than home games. So, if you schedule Northern Alabama State, that's on your dime and you get little to no credit. If your schedule is home-weighted, you get less credit than a balanced 6-home-6-road-game schedule.
> If ranking is going to determine who gets in, then we need to have some honesty in scheduling so that your ranking honestly reflects your body of work on the field. Let's see which commisioner agrees to this first...
I'll agree to that when they basically remove all pre-declared unfit programs from the rankings entirely.
On May 31, 10:13 pm, michael anderson <mianderso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 11:14 pm, "Kyle T. Jones" >
> > The way it'll likely shake out - the sec champ goes in addition to two other >champs from the big10, big12, or pac12. Another team from the sec will >probably go as well, and since it's likely the two sec teams are easily the best >teams, the winner of that game will be the national champion.
> IFYPFY
if two SEC teams are in and then win their way into the title game
then fine. I have no problem with that.
> On Jun 1, 4:46 pm, unclejr <wats...@kenyon.edu> wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:39:00 PM UTC-5, Kyle T. Jones wrote:
> > > Gonna be four teams, not a "true" +1.
> > > No home field for the higher seeds (boo).
> > > Looks like being a conference champ will be important -- but not being a
> > > conference champ won't keep you out. Three highest rated conference
> > > champs + one wildcard (the Notre Dame rule all over).
> > > I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one
> > > consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd
> > > likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as
> > > much weight if it's the top four conference champs. And they could even
> > > drop the whole "BCS conference" distinction - just make it the four
> > > top-ranked DIV I conference champs -- who cares if they're from the Sun
> > > Belt?
> > > This limited expansion is all about opening the door to an extended 8 or
> > > 12 team playoff down the line, which is awesome. One thing about
> > > leaving some of the wishlist (first round at higher ranked team's
> > > stadium, for instance) out is that it will likely hasten the next
> > > expansion (we're sure to get something like that when they expand out to
> > > 8/12 teams).
> > > Cheers.
> > If you are going to argue for a playoff system where placement is strictly based on ranking, then I would demand that we make the rankings more than a beauty contest.
> > I would want a college basketball/RPI-style ranking system, where the quality of your opponents (and your opponent's opponents) influence your ranking.
> --
> You do realize, that RPI in college basketball is hardly a universally
> accepted measure right? And that is the inherent problem with
> computer rankings, etc. Someone is going to be unhappy that computers
> took "common sense" out of the equation.
To college basketball's credit, they only use RPI as a tool to help
the process, they haven't taken common sense out of the equation. I
hope the BCS formula dies along with the BCS, and the new playoff uses
a committee similar to what basketball has.
<onexpadREM...@EVOMERyahoodotyouknow.com> wrote:
> This is my thinly veiled attempt to get you to do homework I can't be
> bothered to do.
You found another sucker to do your work for you - me. For each year,
I've listed who would be in, and who would be out, under the 3 champs
plus 1 format, using the BCS standings. For conferences with co-
champions, I've used whatever tiebreaker was used to determine the
conference's automatic BCS qualifier. I've listed the top 6 from each
season, plus the fourth-ranked champion, if they were outside the top
6.
1998
IN
1. Tennessee (12-0, SEC)
2. Florida State (11-1, ACC)
3. Kansas State (11-1, WC)
5. UCLA (10-1, P10)
OUT
4. Ohio State (10-1)
6. Texas A&M (11-2, B12)
1999
IN
1. Florida State (11-0, ACC)
2. Virginia Tech (11-0, BE)
3. Nebraska (11-1, B12)
4. Alabama (10-2, SEC)
OUT
5. Tennessee (9-2)
6. Kansas State (10-1)
2000
IN
1. Oklahoma (12-0, B12)
2. Florida State (11-1, ACC)
3. Miami (10-1, BE)
4. Washington (10-1, B10)
OUT
5. Virginia Tech (10-1)
6. Oregon State (10-1)
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Eric Ramon
<ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 31, 10:13=A0pm, michael anderson <mianderso...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 31, 11:14=A0pm, "Kyle T. Jones" >
>> > The way it'll likely shake out - the sec champ goes in addition to two =
>other >champs from the big10, big12, or pac12. =A0Another team from the sec=
> will >probably go as well, and since it's likely the two sec teams are eas=
>ily the best >teams, the winner of that game will be the national champion.
>> IFYPFY
>if two SEC teams are in and then win their way into the title game
>then fine. I have no problem with that.
But you seem to have a problem proving you are not a lying SoB about
my statements on military service. If you just admitted you were wrong
it would save me some time.
> On Jun 1, 6:24 pm, "J.C. Watts" <jonens...@charter.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 4:46 pm, unclejr <wats...@kenyon.edu> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:39:00 PM UTC-5, Kyle T. Jones wrote:
> > > > Gonna be four teams, not a "true" +1.
> > > > No home field for the higher seeds (boo).
> > > > Looks like being a conference champ will be important -- but not being a
> > > > conference champ won't keep you out. Three highest rated conference
> > > > champs + one wildcard (the Notre Dame rule all over).
> > > > I still like all four slots to require conference champs -- one
> > > > consequence that I didn't think of but read in a blog today is that it'd
> > > > likely encourage scheduling good OOC games, as losses OOC won't have as
> > > > much weight if it's the top four conference champs. And they could even
> > > > drop the whole "BCS conference" distinction - just make it the four
> > > > top-ranked DIV I conference champs -- who cares if they're from the Sun
> > > > Belt?
> > > > This limited expansion is all about opening the door to an extended 8 or
> > > > 12 team playoff down the line, which is awesome. One thing about
> > > > leaving some of the wishlist (first round at higher ranked team's
> > > > stadium, for instance) out is that it will likely hasten the next
> > > > expansion (we're sure to get something like that when they expand out to
> > > > 8/12 teams).
> > > > Cheers.
> > > If you are going to argue for a playoff system where placement is strictly based on ranking, then I would demand that we make the rankings more than a beauty contest.
> > > I would want a college basketball/RPI-style ranking system, where the quality of your opponents (and your opponent's opponents) influence your ranking.
> > --
> > You do realize, that RPI in college basketball is hardly a universally
> > accepted measure right? And that is the inherent problem with
> > computer rankings, etc. Someone is going to be unhappy that computers
> > took "common sense" out of the equation.
> To college basketball's credit, they only use RPI as a tool to help
> the process, they haven't taken common sense out of the equation. I
> hope the BCS formula dies along with the BCS, and the new playoff uses
> a committee similar to what basketball has.
