Lindy is a known homer for the SEC and openly admits it. Yet this morning, he said the only thing good about it being an all SEC CFP game is that it will piss off more conferences to push for an 8 team playoff. He almost sounded irate when saying this will be the second time Alabama is getting to play for a national championship when they didn’t even win their division. He went on to say that if it was an 8 team this year, the four he would add are UCF, Ohio State, USC and Wisconsin.
The P5 would push for a P5-G5 split into two divisions before agreeing that a 10-3 FAU deserves a shot at a championship over a 10-2 Washington or 10-2 Miami. The goal should be making a proposal that will give more teams access but still look equally beneficial to the ones with the power already.
The first step is to leave the CFP completely out of it. They have had their chance to recognize that a 4 team playoff has been controversial and refuse to acknowledge changes are needed. A new version of the BCS can be brought back, either as before or slight modifications like using the Massey composite.
The second step is to give conference champions a priority. The four highest ranked champions, (regardless of conference), receive the top 4 seeds. The top 4 seeds host the first round the Saturday after championship week. The semis and final will be held on the last Saturday before New Years (could be Christmas) and the week after that (could be New Years Day) The last 4 seeds are based in order of BCS ranking. Up to two more conference champions get a place if ranked in the top 12. The rest of the spots are filled by the highest ranked non-champ/independents.
BCS 2017 rankings per @BCSKnowHow
1 *Clemson .9859
2 *Georgia .9375
3 *Oklahoma .9317
4 Alabama .8491
5 *Ohio State .8479
6 Wisconsin .7813
7 *USC .7098
8 Auburn .7060
9 *UCF .6970
10 Penn State .6636
11 Miami ,6047
12 Washington .5295
Conference champion
First round matchups (seed)
UCF (8) at Clemson (1)
USC (7) at Georgia (2)
Wisconsin (6) at Oklahoma (3)
Alabama (5) at Ohio State (4)
2016
W. Mich (8) at Alabama (1)
Oklahoma (7) at Clemson (2)
Michigan (6) at Washington (3)
Ohio State (5) at Penn State (4)
Note: The NCAA could let individual conferences vote on limiting teams OOC schedules to 3 games or shortening the conference schedules by 1 game or keeping 12 game schedules.
If the goal is to have the best teams in the playoff you have to count from the top down, so no UCF under BCS methodoly either. BCS, I believe gave some weight to the opinion polls which makes it less good that a system that just crunches the raw imperial data from the season and spits out your playoff teams.
I would rather have all conference champs in the playoff regardless of how good they are than to have people pick the teams.
You are completely wrong there. The BCS had specific terminology to ensure that a non-AQ champ that was in top 12 received an invite and that if it was in the top 16 and higher than an AQ champ. The same would easily be applied to an 8 team playoff.
A computer would say the top 8 teams are the best 8 teams but the BCS recognized that a conference champion has added strength and also that teams outside of AQ conferences can be a better team but the computer ratings wont show it because of the schedule.
They played and beat everyone on their schedule. They did what they could do. Hell, it’s by sheer luck that Louisville happened to have a Heisman QB when we played them.
FIU, Maryland, and Austin Peay. They even had another game against Saint Mary’s sisters of the poor (an all girls school) that was mercifully cancelled. “G5” teams that go undefeated in conference with an OOC schedule like that DOES NOT help anybody.
Even if we had beaten Uconn in 2015, we would not have made the playoff. The only reason we were in the discussion in 2016 is because of 2015, and we beat OU and LU in 2016. That’s it. Rigged system, and they beat the team that beat the 2 teams in the Championship game. They played Austin Peay instead of Maine, because of the Hurricane, and had to cancel Georgia Tech. Go ahead and carry water for the P5. That talk is not welcome at my fireplace. Prove it on the field, or don’t, but don’t cry when other’s don’t bow down to your champion, water carriers.
sisters of the poor?? Not hardly…Their cancelled game was against a well regarded Georgia Tech team that only would have increased their stature to beat…
Using the old BCS ranking, we were ranked 12th the week before we lost to UConn. We fell to 21st after the loss and were back to 15th after winning the championship. According to the guidelines I put in the original post using the BCS rankings and BCS bowl invite guidelines, Houston would have made the playoffs had they remained undefeated.
Even if we had beaten Uconn in 2015, we would not have made the playoff. The only reason we were in the discussion in 2016 is because of 2015, and we beat OU and LU in 2016.
I don’t disagree the system is unfair. But UH did way more to earn national respect than what UCF has done. And now this marketing stunt they’re trying to pull is going to make them and our conference a laughing stock. UCF better do it again, otherwise they’re writing checks that they can’t cash.
I wouldn’t call it a “stunt”. It was partially done tongue-in-cheek to bring national attention to the flaw in the system Even Aresco said as much in a great interview on ESPN radio, in which he said AAC deserves better consideration than what they received. ESPN agreed with Aresco, even supporting an 8-team playoff. Aresco didn’t stop there. Insisted AAC should also be receiving more TV money. Good interview.
You are trying too hard to play devils advocate because you want every conference champ as equal or nothing. Obviously any evaluation process will “play favorites” when it comes to the criteria one believes is most important. It would be like me saying to you “if you want all conference champions, you can’t have non-champions then.” It’s not an argument, it’s just making statements as if they are facts with no argument backing them.
I’m not in favor of ANY sort of AQ for a playoff in football. The hard part is getting the power brokers to agree to a fair and unbiased selection metbod.
