Over the past week or so I've read a few articles discussing the NCAA Division 1 football playoff proposal. There's only two sides to this argument, and both sides have their side to benefit their conference. Here are the proposed playoffs, with the conferences supporting it in parenthesis:
-Top 4 teams get in (SEC, Big 12)
-Top 3 Conference Champions + 1 Wild Card (Big 10, Pac 10, ACC, Big East)
Both sides have legitimate points, but both also have some flaws involved. On the SEC/Big 12 view, there's two issues:
1. Relying too much on rankings/outsiders views to determine the participants. While it's well known that the SEC is the top conference, they also have teams that feed on that reputation in their conference and don't beef up their OOC schedule. Alabama faced 2 whole teams that ended the season with a top 25 ranking - LSU and Arkansas. They did have Penn State on their schedule and it was scheduled years ago, but nevertheless their OOC was rather flat. Likewise with Arkansas. Many of these teams can build top 10 rankings by beating up FCS/low Non-AQ teams and having a nice 11-1, 10-2 type record. Often these pollsters can't see all of the games, but they can see that their only loss was to Alabama and will reward them, deserving or not.
2. This could possibly result in teams that have won their conference but lose an OOC be punished for making a tougher schedule. Case in point, let's take a look at last seasons hypothetical playoff under this system:
1. LSU (SEC Champ)
2. Alabama (at large)
3. Oklahoma State (Big 12 Champ)
4. Stanford (at large)
But wait, who's #5 on this list but Oregon, the Pac 12 Champ that also took Stanford to the woodshed. But, since they have 2 losses (both to top 15 teams, including the #1 team) they are given the shaft while Stanford gets rewarded for taking the easy way out.
This is where the 3+1 would've come in hand, as you could've substituted Stanford and Oregon and you wouldn't have heard a complaint from Stanfords side because if they wanted to make it in they could have just beaten Oregon. As you can see, some flaws in rankings could dramatically affect the way teams are seeded/ranked/involved.
On the Big 10/Pac 12 side, the flaws seem to be this:
1. Sometimes the Conference Champions aren't the Champions of a particularly strong conference. Sometimes the 3rd Conference Champion involved could be worse than the 2nd at large involved.
2. Conferences are looking out for themselves and don't want to please the fans by presenting the best of the best.
As you can see, both sides have some issues that need to be dealt with, but I think the Big 10/Pac 12 proposal is more desirable, and it's not because I live right in Big 10 country. This article justifies the 3+1 more than I can, so here you go: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...nd-one-playoff-model/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a0 .
In theory the SEC/Big 12 proposal seems like the right ones, but again teams can get overrated and this allows for more diversity from the fans. If 3 of the top 4 teams are SEC ones you aren't going to nearly get as many viewers, as evidenced by the ratings of this most recent national championship (lowest rated ever in BCS era). While that might not be in the interest of fairness, it's clear that fans don't want to see a regionalized playoff if they don't have to. Theoretically I think it could still be improved on that by making the top 2 teams at home sites because it rewards the top 2 for their top play, saves some $ on the fans for travel reasons, having a better chance of filling up the stadium, and bringing some diversity to the game. Who doesn't want to see an SEC team try to use their speed on a cold field in the Big 10 with no crowd advantage? I know I would.
If the NCAA is looking to cash in the most they'll go 3+1, even if the SEC doesn't want something to not go their way.
Thoughts?
-Top 4 teams get in (SEC, Big 12)
-Top 3 Conference Champions + 1 Wild Card (Big 10, Pac 10, ACC, Big East)
Both sides have legitimate points, but both also have some flaws involved. On the SEC/Big 12 view, there's two issues:
1. Relying too much on rankings/outsiders views to determine the participants. While it's well known that the SEC is the top conference, they also have teams that feed on that reputation in their conference and don't beef up their OOC schedule. Alabama faced 2 whole teams that ended the season with a top 25 ranking - LSU and Arkansas. They did have Penn State on their schedule and it was scheduled years ago, but nevertheless their OOC was rather flat. Likewise with Arkansas. Many of these teams can build top 10 rankings by beating up FCS/low Non-AQ teams and having a nice 11-1, 10-2 type record. Often these pollsters can't see all of the games, but they can see that their only loss was to Alabama and will reward them, deserving or not.
2. This could possibly result in teams that have won their conference but lose an OOC be punished for making a tougher schedule. Case in point, let's take a look at last seasons hypothetical playoff under this system:
1. LSU (SEC Champ)
2. Alabama (at large)
3. Oklahoma State (Big 12 Champ)
4. Stanford (at large)
But wait, who's #5 on this list but Oregon, the Pac 12 Champ that also took Stanford to the woodshed. But, since they have 2 losses (both to top 15 teams, including the #1 team) they are given the shaft while Stanford gets rewarded for taking the easy way out.
This is where the 3+1 would've come in hand, as you could've substituted Stanford and Oregon and you wouldn't have heard a complaint from Stanfords side because if they wanted to make it in they could have just beaten Oregon. As you can see, some flaws in rankings could dramatically affect the way teams are seeded/ranked/involved.
On the Big 10/Pac 12 side, the flaws seem to be this:
1. Sometimes the Conference Champions aren't the Champions of a particularly strong conference. Sometimes the 3rd Conference Champion involved could be worse than the 2nd at large involved.
2. Conferences are looking out for themselves and don't want to please the fans by presenting the best of the best.
As you can see, both sides have some issues that need to be dealt with, but I think the Big 10/Pac 12 proposal is more desirable, and it's not because I live right in Big 10 country. This article justifies the 3+1 more than I can, so here you go: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...nd-one-playoff-model/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a0 .
In theory the SEC/Big 12 proposal seems like the right ones, but again teams can get overrated and this allows for more diversity from the fans. If 3 of the top 4 teams are SEC ones you aren't going to nearly get as many viewers, as evidenced by the ratings of this most recent national championship (lowest rated ever in BCS era). While that might not be in the interest of fairness, it's clear that fans don't want to see a regionalized playoff if they don't have to. Theoretically I think it could still be improved on that by making the top 2 teams at home sites because it rewards the top 2 for their top play, saves some $ on the fans for travel reasons, having a better chance of filling up the stadium, and bringing some diversity to the game. Who doesn't want to see an SEC team try to use their speed on a cold field in the Big 10 with no crowd advantage? I know I would.
If the NCAA is looking to cash in the most they'll go 3+1, even if the SEC doesn't want something to not go their way.
Thoughts?
