Blog Entry

Conference champs only in the postseason

Posted on: February 17, 2012 3:52 pm
Edited on: February 17, 2012 5:34 pm
  •  
 

Former SEC commissioner Roy Kramer advocated taking only conference champions for any kind of postseason structure starting in 2014.

Just for giggles I went back and used only conference champions (or BCS automatic qualifier in the case of ties) in figuring both the current 1 vs. 2 game and a Plus One. Three times in 14 years, the 1 vs. 2 BCS title game would have been different. In 10 of 14 years, at least one team in the top four would have had to be replaced. In 2011, there would have been two – Alabama and Stanford.

Here’s how BCS title games and a Plus One would have looked if only conference champions were allowed, 1998-2011:

 

1998 championship: No. 1 Tennessee vs. No. 2 Florida State (same)

1998 Plus One: No. 1 Tennessee vs. No. 5 UCLA; No. 2 Florida State vs. No. 4 Ohio State

Not included: No. 3 Kansas State.

 

1999 championship: No. 1 Florida State vs. No. 2 Virginia Tech (same)

1999 Plus One: No. 1 Florida State vs. No. 4 Alabama; No. 2 Virginia Tech vs. No. 3 Nebraska

 

2000 championship: No. 1 Oklahoma vs. No. 2 Florida State (same)

2000 Plus One: No. 1 Oklahoma vs. Washington; No. 2 Florida State vs. No. 3 Miami

 

2001 championship:  No. 1 Miami vs. No. 3 Colorado

2001 Plus One: No. 1 Miami vs. No. 8 Illinois; No. 3 Colorado vs. No. 4 Oregon

Not included: No. 2 Nebraska, No. 5 Florida, No. 6 Tennessee, No. 7 Texas

 

2002 championship: No. 1 Miami vs. No. 2 Ohio State (same)

2002 Plus One: No. 1 Miami vs. No. 6 Washington State;  No. 2 Ohio State vs. No. 3 Georgia

Not included: No. 4 USC, No. 5 Iowa

 

2003 championship: No. 2 LSU vs. No. 3 USC

2003 Plus One: No. 2 LSU vs. No. 7 Florida State; No. 3 USC vs. No. 4 Michigan

Not included: No. 1 Oklahoma, No. 5 Ohio State, No. 6 Texas

 

2004 championship: No. 1 USC vs. No. 2 Oklahoma (same)

2004 Plus One: No. 1 USC vs. No. 6 Utah;  No. 2 Oklahoma vs. No. 3 Auburn

Not included:  No. 4 Texas, No. 5 California

 

2005 championship:  No. 1 USC vs. No. 2 Texas (same)

2005 Plus One: No. 1 USC vs. No. 7 Georgia; No. 2 Texas vs. No. 3 Penn State

Not included: No. 4 Ohio State, No. 5 Oregon, No. 6 Notre Dame

 

2006 championship: No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 2 Florida (same)

2006 Plus One:  No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 6 Louisville; No. 2 Florida vs. No. 5 USC

Not included: No 3. Michigan, No. 4 LSU

 

2007 championship: No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 2 LSU (same)

2007 Plus One: No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 4 Oklahoma; No. 2 LSU vs. No. 3 Virginia Tech

 

2008 championship: No. 1 Oklahoma vs. No. 2 Florida (same)

2008 Plus One: No. 1 Oklahoma vs. No. 6 Utah; No. 2 Florida vs. No. 5 USC

Not included: No. 3 Texas, No. 4 Alabama

 

2009 championship:  No. 1 Alabama vs. No. 2 Texas (same)

2009 Plus One: No. 1 Alabama vs. No. 4 TCU; No. 2 Texas vs. No. 3 Cincinnati

 

2010 championship: No. 1 Auburn vs. No. 2 Oregon (same)

2010 Plus One: No. 1 Auburn vs. No. 5 Wisconsin; No. 2 Oregon vs. No. 3 TCU

Not included: No. 4 Stanford

 

 

2011 championship: No. 1 LSU vs. No. 3 Oklahoma State

2011 Plus One: No. 1 LSU vs. No. 10 Wisconsin; No. 3 Oklahoma State vs. No. 5 Oregon

Not included: No. 2 Alabama, No. 4 Stanford,  No. 6 Arkansas, No. 7 Boise State, N. 8 Kansas State, No. 9 South Carolina

 

  •  
Comments

Since: Nov 3, 2006
Posted on: February 27, 2012 10:45 am
 

Conference champs only in the postseason

Surprise, surprise, Texas has snuck in 4 times without winning their conference.  Alabama and Ohio State have both gotten in twice this way as well, with a passes also given to Michigan, USC, Notre Dame, Florida, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennesee et al.  If you wonder why the system is so hard to change, just look at who benefits financially from the current system.  The only way to justify anyone other than conference champs getting in 'fairly' is to go to an 8-team playoff.  If you are arguing for non-champs to get in, you are arguing for 8 teams.  Then you can take the 6 AQ champions plus two wild cards, just like the BCS has done in the past.  Otherwise, you take the top 4 AQ conference champs, with some provision to even up the playing field for non-AQs and independents.  This list actually proves the sanity of this approach, with the 'worst' champion listed the 2001 Illinois team (#8) who went into the postseason 10-1 with wins over Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Cal, ranked Louisville and Purdue, and only an away loss to a ranked Michigan team.



Since: Dec 1, 2009
Posted on: February 25, 2012 9:48 pm
 

Conference champs only in the postseason

OleMissRebels62, one man's "travesty" is another man's "fair deal." The point of this one proposal is that the regular season and conference championship games remain central to the experience. Your man Slive is already on the record as being, shall we say, unenthusiastic about this idea, preferring a status quo ante in which your SEC is as fat as (pardon the pun) a bunch of hogs. Well, as happy as he is now, he was equally unhappy only a few years ago when he proposed something very similar to this. Somedays you're the hammer and somedays you're the anvil. Right now, he's likely to be on the losing side of that debate. Deal. It'll get done. Then, regardless of what is agreed upon, the screaming will commence anew. That's life in the Big City. And in the holler. Somebody always thinks their brother got the bigger bowl of ice cream.



Since: Dec 1, 2009
Posted on: February 25, 2012 9:37 pm
 

Conference champs only in the postseason

Steelbucks67, I think that the author went back and edited it.



Since: Dec 1, 2009
Posted on: February 25, 2012 9:35 pm
 

Conference champs only in the postseason

Boyee2, dream on. Nobody wants to pay Nobody U. when they've only got a #8 ranking. This is a matter of negotiation--and the hands of the networks and the AQ conferences are better than the hands of the others, even Notre Dame. ND may well get in with a higher number than Tulane, but then again its clout may no longer be sufficient to get such special treatment. We'll see.

And if anybody feels left out, then let them play for something meaningful in the FCS or the NAIA.




Since: Dec 1, 2009
Posted on: February 25, 2012 9:29 pm
 

Conference champs only in the postseason

No, Kyle_51, under this scenario the only way that a non-AQ conference champion gets in is if they are top 4. (Certainly an incentive for the Irish to settle down, that.) Exactly where such cut-offs would fall is a matter for negotiation, but I doubt that there'd be much enthusiasm on the part of the network bidders for the chance that they'd be stuck with a #8 Tulane whose best opponent was an unranked Southern Mississippi. Some credibility is necessary in order to sell the games. Nor would the powerful schools and conferences go for that possibility. And it's their drawing powers that bring the bucks in, else the small fry would be clamoring to get into the FCS play-offs, so that they could be a "real" champion.



Since: Dec 4, 2010
Posted on: February 22, 2012 5:03 pm
 

Conference champs only in the postseason

If you can't win your conference, you have no excuse.

Quit whining you wimps!

 



Since: Jan 10, 2012
Posted on: February 19, 2012 9:26 am
 

Conference champs only in the postseason

If the purpose of the BCS is to have the two best teams play for the championship, you are not going to get that by having only conference champions play against each other. The NFL is proof of that. The two best teams did play against each other this year, and the best team won, Alabama. Now that it looks as if there is going to be some sort of play off system, people are going to find out that the winners of the BCS NC games are not going to change.  It wouldn't have mattered if there had been a play off system this year, the winner would still have been Alabama.

 



Since: Oct 8, 2009
Posted on: February 18, 2012 11:40 pm
 

Conference champs only in the postseason

mediocre teams from weak conferences
That's subjective.  The only way to determine a champion is to play the effin' game on the field, not have people in ties choose who plays from some office In Kansas City.

I get that the process has to work differently in college football than it does in the NFL since the sizes of their respective "universes" are so dissimilar.  Yet, people aren't bothered by the fact that the Super Bowl seldom pits the professional equivalent of #1 v. #2.  Does anyone see the 2010-2011 Packers or the 2011-2012 Giants as somehow any less a champ because neither were the top seed in their conference?  I'm sure with some thought someone could come up with a post-season that is more like the NFL's than it is different!  Why the insistence that National Championship Game opponents must have the best record in the regular season?  Let them determine that on the field.



andyham7
Since: Oct 29, 2011
Posted on: February 18, 2012 10:59 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



andyham7
Since: Oct 29, 2011
Posted on: February 18, 2012 10:42 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com