Author
Topic: Various playoff schemes applied to this season
(Read 5113 times)

medinabuckeye1 · « **on:** December 07, 2022, 04:08:14 PM »

I'll start with the groundrules. First, here are the league champions in order of ranking. For those that ARE ranked in the CFP top-25 I've used that. For the others I've used Sagrin:

#1 SEC Champion, 13-0 Georgia
#2 B1G Champion, 13-0 Michigan
#7 ACC Champion, 11-2 Clemson
#8 PAC Champion, 10-3 Utah
#9 B12 Champion, 10-3 KSU
#16 AAC Champion, 11-2 Tulane
#24 SBT Champion, 11-2 Troy
#25 CUSA Champion, 11-2 UTSA
#49 MWC Champion, 9-4 Fresno St
#79 MAC Champion, 8-5 Toledo

Next are the at-large possibilities (all from CFP rankings):

#3 12-1 TCU
#4 11-1 tOSU
#5 10-2 Bama
#6 10-2 Tennessee
#10 11-2 USC
#11 10-2 PSU
#12 10-2 Washington
#13 9-3 FSU
#14 9-3 OrSU
#15 9-3 Oregon
#17 9-4 LSU
#18 9-3 UCLA
#19 8-4 USCe
#20 8-4 Texas
#21 8-4 Notre Dame
#22 8-4 MsSt
#23 8-4 NCST

So first, old school, pre-BCS:

#1 Georgia would be in the Sugar Bowl
#2 Michigan would be in the Rose Bowl against #8 10-3 Utah
#3 TCU would be in the Fiesta Bowl?
#4 tOSU would be in the Citrus Bowl likely against #5 10-2 Bama

Obviously Georgia wins the NC if they win. Michigan is in the unenviable position of needing someone to take out Georgia and Georgia's opponent isn't necessarily going to be all that good.

If Georgia and Michigan were to both lose it would at least theoretically open the door for TCU or Ohio State. Both of them have a problem though in that they already have a loss and in Ohio State's case that loss is H2H to Michigan so even if Georgia and Michigan lose and Ohio State wins, would the Buckeyes really leapfrog both the Wolverines and the Bulldogs? It is doubtful but maybe if Ohio State just flat obliterated Bama? IMHO Bama would have no chance because even if they obliterated Ohio State they'd still be an 11-2 team from the same conference as SEC Champion 13-1 Georgia. They don't have a H2H loss to UGA like tOSU does to M, but they have an extra loss and both losses were to teams that UGA beat. TCU probably would have a better chance than either tOSU or Bama but it would likely depend who they played and how badly they beat them.

BCS era, 1998-2013:

#1 13-0 Georgia would play #2 13-0 Michigan in the BCSNCG for the NC.

Current 4-team CFP:

#1 13-0 Georgia plays #4 11-1 Ohio State
#2 13-0 Michigan plays #3 12-1 TCU
Winners play for the NC

Soon-to-be 12 team format:

#1 13-0 Georgia gets a bye
#2 13-0 Michigan gets a bye
#7 11-2 Clemson gets a bye
#8 10-3 Utah gets a bye

First round games:

#16 Tulane at #3 TCU
#11 Penn State at #4 Ohio State
#10 USC at #5 Bama
#9 KSU at #8 Utah

Second Round games:

KSU/Utah vs Georgia
USC/Bama vs Michigan
PSU/tOSU vs Clemson
Tulane/TCU vs Utah

Semi-finals:

KSU/Utah/UGA vs Tulane/TCU/Utah
USC/Bama/Michigan vs PSU/tOSU/Clemson
Winners play for NC

ELA's proposed 10+2:
First round games (I'm assuming top-4 league champs get a bye just like the soon-to-be scheme):

#79 Toledo at #3 TCU
#49 Fresno St at #4 Ohio State
#25 UTSA at #9 KSU
#24 Troy at #16 Tulane

Second round games:

Troy/Tulane vs Georgia
UTSA/KSU vs Michigan
FresnoSt/tOSU vs Clemson
Toledo/TCU vs Utah

Semi-finals:

Troy/Tulane/UGA vs Toledo/TCU/Utah
UTSA/KSU/M vs FresnoSt/tOSU/Clemson
Winners play for NC

The 8-team model that I had hoped we would expand to:
First round games:

#16 Tulane at #1 Georgia
#9 KSU at #2 Michigan
#4 Ohio State at #7 Clemson
#3 TCU at #8 Utah

Semi-finals:

Tulane/UGA vs TCU/Utah
KSU/M vs tOSU/Clemson
Winners play for NC

A 10+6 combination of ELA's 10+2 and the soon-to-be 12-team format that eliminates the first round byes and replaces them with home games against tall midgets:
First round games:

#79 Toledo at #1 Georgia
#49 FresnoSt at #2 Michigan
#11 PSU at #7 Clemson
#10 USC at #8 Utah
#6 Tennessee at #9 KSU
#5 Bama at #16 Tulane
#4 tOSU at #24 Troy
#3 TCU at #25 UTSA

Second Round games:
My preference would be to do it based on the rankings of the first-round winners. Ie, if #3 TCU beats #25 UTSA (as expected), then #1 Georgia shouldn't have to play #3 in the second round. Thus, I'd reseed as highest remaining vs lowest remaining, etc. However, if you didn't then it would be:

Toledo/UGA vs TCU/UTSA
FresnoSt/M vs tOSU/Troy
PSU/Clemson vs Bama/Tulane
USC/Utah vs TN/KSU

Semi-finals:
Again, I'd reseed but if you didn't then:

Toledo/UGA/TCU/UTSA vs USC/Utah/TN/KSU
FresnoSt/M/tOSU/Troy vs PSU/Clemson/Bama/Tulane
Winners play for NC

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 07, 2022, 04:26:33 PM »

My takes:
A lot of people here push for "Champions Only". Some, such as @OrangeAfroMan push for "best teams" regardless of championships.

Personally, I take a middle road. I think we SHOULD reward Championships but I do see a need for at least some at-large slots. That said, I think six is WAY too many at-large slots. Looking at it applied to this year that would include four 2-loss teams (Bama, TN, USC, PSU). That is all but one 2-loss P5 (Washington is the odd-one out). That effectively gives the helmets TWO mulligans. To me, that is too many. I'd rather we had two at-large slots such that getting one would be difficult and no assured thing.

Second, I just don't like byes. I don't see the purpose. If we are playing games why not have everyone play? Thus, I see 12 as a silly number of teams because you end up with byes. I'd much rather be at 8 with the top six league champions and two at-large teams. If we insist on having six at-large slots then I think we should go to 16 and include all 10 league champions and let the top-8 league champions host. That why there is a reward for winning your league and a hierarchy even among league champions:

The best league Champions: Georgia and Michigan get EASY home games in the first round.
The next tier of league Champions: Clemson, Utah, and KSU get tough games but at least they get to host.
The best at-large teams: TCU, Ohio State, and Bama get weak opponents but have to face them on the road.
The last at-large teams: TN, USC, PSU get tough games on the road.
The tall midgets: Tulane, Troy, UTSA get tough games but at least they get to host.
The least-tall midgets: Toledo and FresnoSt get tough games on the road.

If we must have an expanded (beyond 4) playoff, my favorite remains the 6+2 model with the top-6 league champions (top-4 host) and two at-large teams. I think that it:

Rewards league Champions
Includes the non-P5 but without letting in too many tall midgets (Toledo and FresnoSt have no business in a playoff).
Creates a path for a team that has an off day and loses one game thus falling out of their league title but makes that path difficult enough that a single loss still *COULD* eliminate you

FearlessF · « **Reply #2 on:** December 07, 2022, 04:54:13 PM »

BCS era, 1998-2013:

#1 13-0 Georgia would play #2 13-0 Michigan in the BCSNCG for the NC.

_________________________________________________ ____

done

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 07, 2022, 04:59:55 PM »

Quote from: FearlessF on December 07, 2022, 04:54:13 PM

BCS era, 1998-2013:

#1 13-0 Georgia would play #2 13-0 Michigan in the BCSNCG for the NC.

_________________________________________________ ____

done

The first person I saw suggest this was @ELA , his idea was a flexible, "as needed" setup. In theory I agree completely. This year you have two undefeated P5 Champions, let them play and be done with it. However, if TCU had won you'd have three undefeated P5 Champions so you'd need a 4-team CFP, add in tOSU (as the next highest ranked team just to get to 4) and play. Etc. In theory that would be ideal but it has zero practical chance to be implemented.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #4 on:** December 07, 2022, 06:36:04 PM »

I'm ready to go back to the old bowls +1 as needed.
In terms of champions vs quality, I have no problem teams achieving in, based on resume. BUT, I don't automatically deem the champion of a weaker conference "more deserving" than the runner-up of the strongest conference.
I may see "resume" different than others.

MarqHusker · « **Reply #5 on:** December 07, 2022, 10:58:27 PM »

In old poll era, assuming we take that era and 2022 conference alignment, nothing keeps TCU from playing in the Sugar Bowl vs UGA or Ohio St. They aren't forced to the OB, that's KSU. Nebraska often ended up in the Sugar (and Fiesta) when finishing behind OU or CU.

a highly ranked Michigan once played Auburn in Sugar. Heck USC could be there too. It need not be some 3 or 4 loss total also ran. tOSU would love to get to Sugar to try to claim the MNC by upsetting UGA and watching Michigan lose to Utah.

Check 1985 for reference. OU 11-1 loss to Miami 27-14 in Norman. Miami 11-0, loses 35-7 in Sugar to Tennessee. Iowa 11-0 loses to UCLA 45-28 in Rose. OU beats 11-0 Penn St 25-10 in Orange. OU wins AP and UPI, despite h2h loss to Miami at Norman. Keep playing this game with 1983, 1989, 1990 sort of, and 1993. Losing first wins in these Mexican standoffs.

utee94 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 07, 2022, 11:24:04 PM »

Quote from: MarqHusker on December 07, 2022, 10:58:27 PM

In old poll era, assuming we take that era and 2022 conference alignment, nothing keeps TCU from playing in the Sugar Bowl vs UGA or Ohio St. They aren't forced to the OB, that's KSU. Nebraska often ended up in the Sugar (and Fiesta) when finishing behind OU or CU.

a highly ranked Michigan once played Auburn in Sugar. Heck USC could be there too. It need not be some 3 or 4 loss total also ran. tOSU would love to get to Sugar to try to claim the MNC by upsetting UGA and watching Michigan lose to Utah.

Check 1985 for reference. OU 11-1 loss to Miami 27-14 in Norman. Miami 11-0, loses 35-7 in Sugar to Tennessee. Iowa 11-0 loses to UCLA 45-28 in Rose. OU beats 11-0 Penn St 25-10 in Orange. OU wins AP and UPI, despite h2h loss to Miami at Norman. Keep playing this game with 1983, 1989, 1990 sort of, and 1993. Losing first wins in these Mexican standoffs.

Sure but in the old poll era, Georgia is automatically tied to the Sugar Bowl. After losing to KSU, TCU would certainly have been dropped to at best #4 and possibly lower depending on how much the poll voters wanted to punish them. Remember that in the poll era, it's ALWAYS better to lose early than to lose late. And Helmetosity also factors heavily.

So Michigan plays Utah in the Rose, and it's almost guaranteed that the Sugar takes Ohio State to match up against SEC conference champion Georgia. At that point there is no path for TCU to win the MNC because even if Michigan loses in the Rose, the winner of the Ohio State - Georgia Sugar Bowl becomes the de facto champion.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 08, 2022, 12:06:16 AM »

Quote from: MarqHusker on December 07, 2022, 10:58:27 PM

In old poll era, assuming we take that era and 2022 conference alignment, nothing keeps TCU from playing in the Sugar Bowl vs UGA or Ohio St. They aren't forced to the OB, that's KSU. Nebraska often ended up in the Sugar (and Fiesta) when finishing behind OU or CU.

a highly ranked Michigan once played Auburn in Sugar. Heck USC could be there too. It need not be some 3 or 4 loss total also ran. tOSU would love to get to Sugar to try to claim the MNC by upsetting UGA and watching Michigan lose to Utah.

Check 1985 for reference. OU 11-1 loss to Miami 27-14 in Norman. Miami 11-0, loses 35-7 in Sugar to Tennessee. Iowa 11-0 loses to UCLA 45-28 in Rose. OU beats 11-0 Penn St 25-10 in Orange. OU wins AP and UPI, despite h2h loss to Miami at Norman. Keep playing this game with 1983, 1989, 1990 sort of, and 1993. Losing first wins in these Mexican standoffs.

I was assuming that the Citrus contract would give them the first picks after the SEC and B1G Champions went to the Sugar and Rose.

MarqHusker · « **Reply #8 on:** December 08, 2022, 01:25:02 AM »

No doubt, TCU would likely be odd man out on getting the most attractive bowl bid in poll era. I was framing my poll era scenario response as a counter to Medina's suggestion that UGA would likely play a donkey in the Sugar. There are 3 relatively attractive teams for the Sugar to want to pull in to play undefeated Georgia. They would likely rank 1. tOSU 2. TCU and 3. USC. I suppose USC may be #2, though interestingly never in the history of the Sugar Bowl has an active Pac 12 team played in the game. '08 Utah was MWC. Of course Hawaii did, and years ago Santa Clara and St. Mary's. TCU's two claimed MNC's both ended with wins in the Sugar Bowl.

If memory serves the Citrus' only contractual pull for a time (late 80s until only '91 was as the ACC champ, but that got blown up by Bowl Alliance, move to SEC/BIG and frankly FSU move to ACC in '92 . The Big/SEC Citrus deal began in '92 season, so our fantasy exercise here is partly contingent on which era of the Poll era are we talking about? Fiesta was a great mercenary bowl host for years, thus I'd be convinced TCU ends there, and you're right with very little shot at the MNC based on the likely matchups. Had they won the XII CCG, its a no brainer, but still not a lock IMO that we get
UGA v TCU
Mich v Utah, and we'd have a '94 or '97 outcome on our hands.

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #9 on:** December 08, 2022, 05:39:55 AM »

The problem for auto-bids for all conferences is that the number of conferences is fluid. Conferences split and fold and level jump. Then you wind up in situations like March Madness, when the Mountain West split off of the WAC and the other conferences were unwilling to relinquish an at-large bid in order to accommodate the new conference, so they had to expand the field to 65, and the dreaded play-in game was born.

Since 2000, the Big West stopped sponsoring football, the Sunbelt started, the Wac stopped sponsoring football, now it does again but at the FCS level, and the Big East split, but only one of the resulting conferences sponsors football.

Then in the 90s The Big East launched football, the SWC and Big 8 folded, the Big 12 was born from the ashes, and the Mountain West split off of the WAC.

It never stops.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #10 on:** December 08, 2022, 08:03:16 AM »

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on December 08, 2022, 05:39:55 AM

The problem for auto-bids for all conferences is that the number of conferences is fluid. Conferences split and fold and level jump. Then you wind up in situations like March Madness, when the Mountain West split off of the WAC and the other conferences were unwilling to relinquish an at-large bid in order to accommodate the new conference, so they had to expand the field to 65, and the dreaded play-in game was born.

Since 2000, the Big West stopped sponsoring football, the Sunbelt started, the Wac stopped sponsoring football, now it does again but at the FCS level, and the Big East split, but only one of the resulting conferences sponsors football.

Then in the 90s The Big East launched football, the SWC and Big 8 folded, the Big 12 was born from the ashes, and the Mountain West split off of the WAC.

It never stops.

This is a good point but I think it has a fairly easy solution. However many league Champions are going to get auto bids, I'd word it as that many. Ie, if we used @ELA 's 10+2 or the above 10+6 model where all 10 league Champions get auto bids, I would say "top-10" rather than "all". That way if another league is created it doesn't create an extra auto bid.

TyphonInc · « **Reply #11 on:** December 08, 2022, 09:05:16 AM »

You left off my 6 team model... Any league champs ranked in the top 8 and fill in at large for the rest.

#1 SEC Champion, 13-0 Georgia
#2 B1G Champion, 13-0 Michigan
#7 ACC Champion, 11-2 Clemson
#8 PAC Champion, 10-3 Utah

#3 12-1 TCU
#4 11-1 tOSU

Lowest seeded champs host the at larges, to get to current playoff structure.

(My model would also push to have 4 Super Conferences, not the current "P5" or the mega 2 we are moving towards.)

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #12 on:** December 08, 2022, 01:14:58 PM »

I'm not sure why everyone is bending over backwards to get 12-1 TCU a possible NC. They lost to 3-loss KSU. Tough shit.
Win next time.

FearlessF · « **Reply #13 on:** December 08, 2022, 01:20:50 PM »

agreed

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Various playoff schemes applied to this season

medinabuckeye1

Various playoff schemes applied to this season

medinabuckeye1

Re: Various playoff schemes applied to this season

FearlessF

Re: Various playoff schemes applied to this season

medinabuckeye1

Re: Various playoff schemes applied to this season

OrangeAfroMan

Re: Various playoff schemes applied to this season

MarqHusker

Re: Various playoff schemes applied to this season

utee94

Re: Various playoff schemes applied to this season

medinabuckeye1

Re: Various playoff schemes applied to this season

MarqHusker

Re: Various playoff schemes applied to this season

Brutus Buckeye

Re: Various playoff schemes applied to this season

medinabuckeye1

Re: Various playoff schemes applied to this season

TyphonInc

Re: Various playoff schemes applied to this season

OrangeAfroMan

Re: Various playoff schemes applied to this season

FearlessF

Re: Various playoff schemes applied to this season