Finally, a 16-team solution I like

by The Boy on Dec 8, 2008 12:00 PM CST in National Football 2008 Comment 18 comments

I'll admit it: I'm starting to come around on the idea of a 16-team playoff. I'm still okay with a 4- or 8-teamer as well, but 16 is starting to sound appealing. I've previously had basically two concerns with this concept in the past: 1) it would give a 3-loss team a shot at the national title, which I hate, and 2) it would all but kill the bowl system...and I've made it very clear just how much I love the bowls.

But in a conversation with a friend of mine, he proposed something I somehow hadn't thought of: bowls as consolation games. Basically you could have the first and second rounds of a 16-team playoff before Christmas, and have the losers of those games still be eligible for bowls after Christmas. I LOVE that idea.

So in my head, here's how it would work:

The Sunday after Thanksgiving, you have your Tourney Selection Show, so to speak. No conference title games (or, alternately, all conferences have a title game). All conference champions get a seat at the table, meaning we would have champions from the Big 12, SEC, Big Ten, Pac-10, ACC, Big East, Conference USA, Mountain West, WAC, MAC and Sun Belt filling 11 of the 16 spots, with five at-large bids.

(Yes, that makes for some craptastic first-round matchups, but oh well. It also makes for an upset that makes "Boise > Oklahoma" look like child's play.)

I like the thought of a BCS-like formula determining the five at-large bids, simply because I don't trust a selection committee to choose a more deserving Texas Tech team over a bigger name like Ohio State. The formulas get rid of the built-in biases.
As with 1-AA, D-II, D-III, etc., the playoffs would start the next weekend. You'd have Round One the weekend after Thanksgiving (this year, that's 12/6).
The Quarterfinals take place the next weekend (12/13).
On the day after the quarterfinals (12/14), the bowl pairings are announced. All teams not in the semifinals are eligible. The tourney semifinals would take place at two rotating BCS sites. Where applicable, the other BCS bowls could go back to their 'automatic bids' process, where the Big Ten and Pac-10 champs are in the Rose, Big 12 in the Fiesta, SEC in the Sugar, et cetera. (I could see a problem here with travel--bowl bids are only being announced a week later, but that means fans only have 1.5 to 2.5 weeks to make official travel plans.)
As mentioned, the semis would take place on or very near January 1.
The finals would then take place at the same time the BCS Championship Game takes place now--a week(ish) after the semis.

The idea of consolation games assures that the bowl spectacle is not lost. The abbreviated travel plans strikes me as a sticking point, but really that's about the only one. Purists retain the tradition of the bowls, playoff enthusiasts get their playoff. I've finally found a 16-team solution I like.

Potential brackets after the jump.

Before we look at what that could mean for 2008, let's look at what that could have meant in 2007...since this is a Mizzou site, and Mizzou would have clearly been involved in '07.

Automatic Bids

ACC Champion: Virginia Tech
Big East Champion: West Virginia
Big 12 Champion: Missouri (no Big 12 title game, remember?)
Big Ten Champion: Ohio State
Conference USA Champion: Central Florida
MAC Champion: Central Michigan
Mountain West Champion: BYU
Pac-10 Champion: USC
SEC Champion: LSU (tie-breaker over Tennessee & Georgia, who they didn't play, would be highest BCS ranking, I guess?)
Sun Belt Champion: Troy
WAC Champion: Hawaii

At-Large Bids (from BCS standings)

Georgia
Kansas
Oklahoma
Florida
Boston College

Seeding (from BCS standings)

Missouri
Ohio State
Georgia
Kansas
Virginia Tech
LSU
USC
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Florida
Boston College
Hawaii
BYU
Central Florida
Central Michigan
Troy

Off the top of my head, it goes down like this...

First Round

1 Missouri > 16 Troy
9 West Virginia > 8 Oklahoma (it happened!)
5 Virginia Tech > 12 Hawaii
4 Kansas > 13 BYU
6 LSU > 11 Boston College
3 Georgia > 14 Central Florida
7 USC > 10 Florida
2 Ohio State > 15 Central Michigan

Quarterfinals

1 Missouri > 9 West Virginia (because I'm a complete, unabashed homer)
4 Kansas > 5 Virginia Tech
6 LSU > 3 Georgia
7 USC > 2 Ohio State

At this point, the following teams are in the bowl pool: Ohio State, Georgia, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Florida, Boston College, Hawaii, BYU, Central Florida, Central Michigan and Troy. So you could have Ohio State in the Rose Bowl, Georgia in the Sugar Bowl, OU in the Fiesta, Va Tech in the Orange, etc. Don't know which two BCS games would host the semis, but it doesn't really matter.

Semifinals

1 Missouri > 4 Kansas (damn right)
6 LSU > 7 USC

Finals

6 LSU > 1 Missouri

Anyway, I'm obviously forseeing a 16-team Rock M Nation tourney bracket, complete with polls for each game, if people think this format is actually a good idea. Let me know what you think in comments, and if people like the idea, it's a go!

Poll

Does a 16-team playoff, with the bowls as consolation, serve as a good solution?

Yes! Bring on the 16-team Rock M Nation bracket for '08!

54 votes

No, but you're close (explain in comments).

10 votes

No! Why the hell are you wasting my time with this?

14 votes

78 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 18 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

This is actually almost exactly what I started believing in 2 1/2 years ago

after Boise beat OU in the Fiesta Bowl. Only real difference is that I didn’t view the bowls as a consolation prize I viewed the top-tier bowls as the Quarters and Semis, on a rotating basis.

I like this idea better.

I juggle one handed, do some magic tricks and do the best imitation of myself.

Ben Folds Five

by Andy--01 on Dec 8, 2008 12:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I like this but,

I don’t think the losers in the first round should go to bowl games afterward…you’re getting an extra home game (if you’re seeded higher). Making the playoffs should be your reward, not a week down south somewhere. The lesser bowls can take those that don’t make the playoffs (I think they do this in D-II). I’ve also been a big fan of using the big bowls as the semi’s and then the champ and third place game.

I'm the guy that keeps Mr. Death in his pocket.

by Mizzou Grad on Dec 8, 2008 12:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

plenty of bowl games to go around...

you’d still be taking some pretty damn good teams out of bowl games…and you need the marquis people to keep the bowl games going with a plan like this.

"Write a wise saying and your name will live forever." - Anonymous
Rock M Nation

by The Beef on Dec 8, 2008 12:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, the only way bowls survive...

…is if you replenish the pool with the teams defeated in the playoffs. Otherwise the “big team vs big team” value of the big bowls is too far diminished…plus the smaller bowls aren’t even guaranteed that there will be enough 6-win teams to field a bowl. I realize that probably doesn’t matter to the “Who cares if some bowls die…there are too many anyway” crowd, but…like I said, I love bowls and I think they’re part of what makes college football so uniquely awesome.

Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!

by The Boy on Dec 8, 2008 1:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

dunno if you read mine or not

but you’ve got to limit the number of teams per conference or you’re going to end up with a ton of SEC, B12 and B10 teams every year. You’ve got to make available the chance for multiple teams from non-BCS conferences (look at the Mountain West this year….Utah, BYU and TCU all had unbelievable years). Your system would most likely put 4 or 5 teams in from the B12, which totally screws a BYU or TCU.

A buddy of mine has a website explaining his solution, which almost makes sense to me, but basically, all of the FBS schools are placed into 12 team conferences, and you don’t play a non-conference schedule, you just play the other 11 teams. I’m fine with that idea as long as you make a provision for a preseason game.

by leghumpingjihadkiller on Dec 8, 2008 12:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

This year does not look TOO bad...

If I am understanding this right…and this is totally off the top of my head…but the 5 this year that would make it would be Texas, ’Bama, Tech, Ohio State and TCU. Only 2 from Big XII, and three from three other conferences…including a “non” BCS conference. Okie State at #13 I believe is first to be on the outside looking in with Ga Tech at #14 right behind them.

"Write a wise saying and your name will live forever." - Anonymous
Rock M Nation

by The Beef on Dec 8, 2008 12:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I enjoy the "everybody's in a 12-team conference" thing...

…though I would HATE to be limited to playing almost only them. I love having an actual non-conference season and seeing new teams every now and then (like Ole Miss)…

As for the per-conference limitations…I guess you could limit them, but I’m not too worried about screwing the BYU’s and TCU’s of the world. First, there are rarely years where a mid-major conference has three outstanding teams, and second…their conference champ is guaranteed a spot in the dance. They both got pretty close to the “5 at-large” cutoff, but in the end, who’s more deserving of a bid in the bracket—a Texas Tech (who might get screwed if you cap the teams a conference can have) or a BYU? BYU is relatively deserving…Texas Tech is very deserving.

(I would be mostly okay with a 3-team cutoff, though. Just not a 2-team one.)

Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!

by The Boy on Dec 8, 2008 1:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sixteen might be too much, honestly

I don’t think there are sixteen teams deserving of a national title spot. Even eight might be too much.

I think the flex system proposed by billyzane at BON is a very interesting idea, since it pretty much expands the playoff as needed. If there are two, and only two, undefeated teams in the major BCS conferences, the current one game playoff will do. If there are three undefeated teams, like in 2004, #2 and #3 play and #1 plays the winner. If there are no undefeated teams but four one-loss teams, then you have a playoff with those four. And so it goes on, all the way to a possible 8 team playoff.

The most obvious problem is that you have try to describe every scenario and that the bowls would probably have problems with all the uncertainty. If they are scheduled to have a semifinal game, they darn want a semifinal game and will be most displeased if it’s just another BCS bowl game.

I think a simpler solution might be a six team playoff. I think #1 and #2 should get SOMETHING for being the two top ranked teams, and since there’s no way the bowls will allow these teams to hold the games at their homefields, I think byes will do. So the top two get byes and then you go from there with the remaining four.

And I am 100% against the notion of a conference limit. If you want to play in the playoffs, prove it. It’s embarrassing that the Big East and ACC right now get auto bids while Texas Tech has to go to the Cotton Bowl.

by TheElusiveShadow on Dec 8, 2008 1:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'd be okay with 4 teams and 8 teams too...

…and before the last couple of weeks, I was aghast at the idea of 16 teams. But I’m starting to come around…

Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!

by The Boy on Dec 8, 2008 1:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What's embarassing is

12-0 Boise State playing in the Poinsettia Bowl…this year is the first time that game is even relevant. I might have to see about tickets now.

by leghumpingjihadkiller on Dec 8, 2008 1:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

With 8 teams, you're getting back to the argument of deciding which teams

you keep out. That’s essentially the same problem we have now. As a wonderful write-up on BON (which I’m sure you’ve read) put it – we HAVE a playoff now, it’s just a 2 team playoff. The problem comes with people getting upset that their team didn’t make the cut.

You put 16 teams in, and guarantee all D1 Conference Champs get in, no one can claim that they were left out because their conference wasn’t seen as worthy. You win, you’re in. Boise St. can’t claim that they are screwed because no BCS schools will schedule them non-conference. I would much rather have the problem of too many teams in than not enough, at this point.

Honestly, I’d almost be most curious to see how this effects non-conference schedules. One school of thought is that as long as you win your conference, non-con can’t hurt you. Another possibility (more likely) is that since you need to be in the top-5 BCS if you DON’T win the conference, there is no reason to take a risk. If you only have 1 or two losses, you at least have a chance. Play a team like USC or Miami in non-con, and you’re risking losing even a shot at the title.

I juggle one handed, do some magic tricks and do the best imitation of myself.

Ben Folds Five

by Andy--01 on Dec 8, 2008 2:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

In any format, there will be teams unhappy they were left out

In basketball’s 65 team tournament, there are teams left out who complain.

However, in an 8 team tournament or six team tournament, while there will always be teams that think they got shafted, it’s a whole lot better than what we have now. This year, there’s no question Texas deserves shot. In previous years, it was bogus that Auburn was left out, that USC was left out, and that Miami was left out. When you go to six our eight, you pretty much guarantee that the consensus top teams in the country will have their chance, and while they may quibble about the final rankings, they are at least given the opportunity. The #7 team or the #9 team (whatever system you use) will obviously be ticked off, but that’s way different than #3 and #4 getting the short end.

Clearly, some conference champs should not go in over teams in other conferences, and it increases the chances that a key player will get injured playing some chump team, ruining future games. I think teams from non-major conferences should get a chance at bids, but having auto bids for simply winning in bad conferences is a mistake. I don’t even like doing it for the major BCS conferences, since the ACC and Big East haven’t really impressed anyone.

by TheElusiveShadow on Dec 9, 2008 3:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I like it, but

1) Lots of schools have finals this week, I think it’s good for students to be able to put as much of their focus on academics as possible for this one week.

2) This makes for a very long season, I would cut out a regular season game.

Then again,

1) We all know the players on the top teams will not be focusing on academics anyway.

2) I love football, I wish it could be year round. Why the hell would I suggest cutting out any games?

I’m sold.

by jws_ on Dec 8, 2008 1:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

My guess is that . . .

to get all of the major players on board, the playoff would have to include the bowls, not exclude them or treat them as mere consolations. It’s good and well to say “screw the bowls” but there are a lot of deeply entrenched interests at play. Instead, you might try to work a system like this: The round of eight losers meet in the Orange and Fiesta and the winners meet in the Sugar and Rose (alternate this each year), with the Sugar and Rose winners meeting a week later in the national championship game, which is played at the Orange or Fiesta site. The BCS bowls get to serve as national semifinals every other year, and in one out of every two years that they don’t, they get to host the title game. You’re going to have to give something to the big bowls to get what you want.

by Michael Atchison on Dec 8, 2008 1:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

oops . . .

during my first reading, I didn’t get that BCS bowls serve as national semi sites, so we’re pretty much on the same page here. I don’t think that there’s much of a chance that they’d start at a 16-game playoff. It could eventually expand to that point, but I think it’s much more likely to begin with eight teams.

by Michael Atchison on Dec 8, 2008 1:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Seven-per-cent Solution

I like the conference championship games. Strange, I’m aware, for a Mizzou fan to make that comment in light of recent events, but I enjoy them from a fan standpoint, the same way I like basketball conference tournaments (which also hasn’t worked out in Mizzou’s favor lately, either).
Add title games back in, and you’ll have my vote.

"Wherever you go, there you are" - Buckaroo Bonzai

by brik on Dec 8, 2008 7:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

They are fine for TV (I guess)

But they only end up screwing the conferences that have them (see Big XII) and favoring conferences that don’t (Big Ten). Plus, I don’t know if there was a single conference championship game that was sold out this weekend. As a conference, the Big XII has little to gain with a title game, and MUCH to lose (5 different opportunities at having a national champion have been blown in the Big XII CCG)

"I have CDO. It's like OCD, but the letters are in alphabetical order. Like they should be."

by BigMOman on Dec 8, 2008 8:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point

Everything you have said is true, and I don’t dispute it. And I must admit great pains that the BIg 10 usually receives a free pass because of the lack of title game (although once NBC’s Notre Dame contract dries up, BIg 10 will have it’s twelfth team and it’s own championship game). So logic is on your side and I won’t argue with it because you’ll win hands down.
I can only speak from a fan stand point. Removing myself from the equation of cheering for a particular team or conference (Mizzou, Big 12) or against specific teams, I generally find it a very enjoyable experience to sit back on “Championship” Saturday and watch ACC/SEC/BIG 12 games back-to-back-to-back. (Obviously that’s not been the case the last two seasons because of Missouri winning the North). Hell, I even like watching the CUSA championship. It stems from my desire to watch a game that actually MEANS something – because there are so few in college anymore that do.

"Wherever you go, there you are" - Buckaroo Bonzai

by brik on Dec 8, 2008 8:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs