|
Replies: 7
| visibility 1493
|
Oculus Spirit [94415]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95606
Joined: 12/25/09
|
This playoff thing is in danger of being snuffed by the...
Jun 25, 2012, 5:40 PM
|
|
presidents oversight committee. The Nebraska guy want a plus one. According to the talking heads on ESPiN one more member standing with him could ruin the four team model.
|
|
|
|
 |
Fan [64]
TigerPulse: 56%
Posts: 96
Joined: 6/14/12
|
Re: This playoff thing is in danger of being snuffed by the...
Jun 25, 2012, 5:50 PM
|
|
When are they ever going to realize that they will never be able to please everyone. No matter what route they go, someone will always be complaining.
If its a plus one: Why them and not us.
If its a 4 team playoff: Whats the difference in #4 and #5. History has shown us......not that much!!
Selection committee: Who is on it and what kind of biased selections are there going to be.
Conference champs only: I can understand it, but it still isnt going to get the best football teams in it.
I would personally like to see the 4 team playoff, or make it a 6 team playoff. No matter what choice they go with, people will still be pissed about the outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94415]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95606
Joined: 12/25/09
|
My problem is paying too much attention to this issue...
Jun 25, 2012, 6:16 PM
|
|
and still not know chit about it. 
I'm only wanting this thing to be setup so that we, Clemson, control our destiny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7831]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20489
Joined: 10/9/04
|
My problem is
Jun 25, 2012, 8:45 PM
|
|
the goobermint taking time to try and fix footbal...they need to fix the budget, economy and a gazillion other things before they do anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6781]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5464
Joined: 8/14/03
|
I honestly think thats a good thing. It will force them to
Jun 25, 2012, 5:52 PM
|
|
go back and consider something with deference to the Conference Champions. I am in favor of the original Delaney Plan. Not to beat a dead horse, but it is DT afterall.
Here you go.
NCAA Playoffs by Year 1998-2011
(Hypothetical Under Delaney’s plan)
Top 4 Conference Champions ranked in the top 6 receive a playoff bid. Playoff slots are filled with the top non conference champions as at large bids if fewer than four conference champions are ranked in the top 6.
*For the purposes of this Graph, the at large will receive the lowest seed.
*BCS Ranking of teams pre-bowl season is used
* Seeding is left BCS rack is right
1981 – (Just for Fun) UPI Poll
1.Clemson ACC
4.Penn State At Large
2. Georgia SEC
3. Pittsburgh At Large
1998
1. 1.Tennessee SEC
4. 6.Texas A&M Big 12
2. 2. Florida State ACC
3. 5. UCLA PAC 10
1999
1. 1.Florida State ACC
4. 4.Alabama SEC
2. 2.Virginia Tech Big East
3. 3.Nebraska Big 12
2000
1. 1.Oklahoma Big 12
4. 4.Washington Pac 10
2. 2.Florida State ACC
3. 3.Miami Big East
2001
1. 1.Miami Big East
4. 6.Tennessee SEC
2. 3.Colorado Big 12
3. 4Oregon PAC 10
#-2.Nebraska ended up playing Miami this year. Even though they lost to 3.Colorado near the end of the season and Colorado won the B12 championship
2002
1. 1.Miami Big East
4. 6.Washingtom State Pac 10
2. 2.Ohio State Big 10
3. 3.Georgia SEC
2003
1. 2.LSU SEC
4. 1.Oklahoma At Large
2. 3.USC Pac10
3. 4.Michigan Big 10
#- these games were actually played. The winners would have produced the Championship game most people believed should have been played.
2004
1. 1.USC Pac10
4. 6.Utah Mountain West
2. 2.Okalahoma Big 12
3. 3.Auburn SEC
#- in this playoff model, Utah enters a scenario in which a non BCS Conference team has a shot at the title instead of just a crappy fiesta bowl against Pitt.
2005
1. 1.USC Pac 10
4. 4.Ohio State at Large
2. 2. Texas Big 12
3. 3. Penn State Big 10
2006
1. 1.Ohio State Big 10
4. 6.Louisville Big East
2. 2.Florida SEC
3. 5.USC Pac 10
2007
1. 1.Ohio State Big 10
4. 4.Oklahoma Big 12
2. 2.LSU SEC
3. 3.Virginia Tech ACC
2008
1. 1.Oklahoma Big 12
4. 6.Utah Mountain West
2. 2.Florida SEC
3. 5.USC Pac 10
2009
1. 1.Alabama SEC
4. 4.TCU Mountain West
2. 2.Texas Big 12
3. 3.Cinncinati Big East
2010
1. 1.Auburn SEC
4. 5.Wisconson Big 10
2. 2.Oregon Pac 10
3. 3.TCU Mountain West
2011
1. 1.LSU SEC
4. 2.Alabama At Large
2. 3.Oklahoma State Big 12
3. 5.Oregon Pac 12
#-There is a rematch but it doesn’t stop there.
Notes: Only 3 non-conference champions have a chance at the title the entire span of the BCS era. (2003 Oklahoma, 2005 Ohio State, 2011 Alabama).
#- Playoff Appearances by Conference ( at the time of entry)
ACC - 4
Big Ten - 7
Big East -6 (2 by current Big East Teams)
Big 12 -11
SEC –13
Mountain West- 4 (0 by current MWC teams)
PAC 12-11
#-Noticeably Absent – Boise State
#-Opportunities for an all conference Championship Game – 1 in 2005 ( Ohio State, Penn State)
#-Not designating AQ schools gives the best teams a shot each year without harming the status of the big conferences.
#- all teams with an argument for a BCS championship shot in the past 14 years are not in those big(er) Conferences. (TCU, Boise St, Utah)
#- the number 1 and 2 teams make the playoff every year in this model with the exception of 2001 when #3 Colorado defeated #2 Nebraska to play and win the B12 Championship game.
-MSTiger02
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94415]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95606
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Gentlemen, the commissioners, by all reports, have agreed...
Jun 25, 2012, 6:13 PM
|
|
on a selection committee. It's also reported by every new media that I'v read and watched on TV that the SOS/RPI with consideration given to conference champs will be the criteria for seeding the four.
Another proposal is for a plus one. Again a selection committee will choose two teams based on SOS/RPI with consideration given to CC.
Neither of these models lends credibility to examination of past polls for 'what might have been,' scenarios for the polls have no bearing.
Therefore the Delaney model along with any and all others poll dependent models, including the BCS poll, died last week in Chicago with the commishes.
It took me the entire weekend to get the fact that the polls, which have been with us as long as my 60 year old brain can remember, are not relative to what is happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16476]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12847
Joined: 11/14/09
|
Any selection committee is going to have to be actively
Jun 25, 2012, 8:34 PM
|
|
following the progress of the season as it plays out. There's no way to do this without being inundated with the multitude of polls that are just as much a part of the fabric of college football as are fight songs and bowl games.
From this I would envision that we'll see something close to a de facto version of the Delaney plan as a result - the top 4-6 teams in the polls will wind up making up the four teams selected. A conference champion that's ranked in the upper tier like this will likely get the nod over a non-champion that's considered vulnerable - a team in the 3-6 range, not a clear favorite to win it all.
What the prior poster showed from the past 13 years is probably very close to what we would have wound up seeing based on how they described the scenario.
The Plus 1 model, IMO, is simply there for the presidents to look at what was considered the next best option in order to have a "choice" in the matter. At the end of the day the Plus 1 is no different than what we have in place now where there are generally two clear top choices but oftentimes three and occasionally a fourth team, except that it happens after the bowls instead of before them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94415]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95606
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Everybody but the Presidential Oversite Committee is...
Jun 25, 2012, 8:52 PM
|
|
talking about the polls. The POC is now the only group that matters. They have the final say.
The polls will continue and I'll look forward to seeing where my Tigers rank ever week but when it comes time for the selection committee to seed teams for whatever the system becomes, the polls will not be considered only RPI and Conference Champions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 7
| visibility 1493
|
|
|
50
