How a Four- Team Playoff Would Have Changed the BCS Era....

[Sabanball]

Some very interesting matchups, for both of our programs. If my math is correct, you guys would have 5 final 4 appearances and we would surprisingly have 4...

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/four-team-playoff-is-coming-what-would-it-have-looked-like-in-bcs-era.php

[8timechamps]

That would have been some awesome football!

That's my biggest reason for a playoff, it would make December really mean something for more than just two teams. Can you imagine the weekend slate of December football games? Just awesome!

[LakeRat]

Can't wait till we have the era where people are winning the National Championship with a 9-7 record!!

[StoopTroup]

We could have sand bagged the Baylor, tech and poke games and still played for the MNC & avoided having to endure all the moaning, whining and crying?

Something like that would allow a 7-6 Team to maybe even have a Heisman Winner?

[Mississippi Sooner]

That scenario would produce some great matchups, no doubt, but I'm taking all this with a grain of salt right now. When I hear someone say, "finally, we are going to have a playoff," I can't help but remember all the talking heads who were gushing that "finally, we are going to have a true national championship," when the BCS was first announced. While a four team playoff is preferable to two teams, if you use the polls as your barometer of who gets in, I don't see how you aren't still going to have teams on the bubble who get left out and wind up crying that the system is unfair.

[Sabanball]

Mississippi,

I agree, and frankly, I think the SEC-haters and those against rematches better be careful what they wish for....

[Jacie]

The BCS was a good (not great) idea. The reason I am against it now is because it has become (or maybe it always was) little more than a money grab for a handful of bowl officials. Teams that are invited to play in BCS games are hard pressed to break even, let alone earn cash for their school's athletic programs. Does that seem like a good system? The sooner the college football world takes back what was theirs to begin with the better. The bowl system used to be a reward for a decent season. Now bowl games exist solely to milk money from college football teams. If there is a playoff and the bowl eligibilty bar is raised to 7 wins/season, the bowl system will take a huge hit as the money teat it has suckled on for decades starts to run dry.

[OU_Sooners75]

Mississippi,

I agree, and frankly, I think the SEC-haters and those against rematches better be careful what they wish for....

Yeah, because God knows no team outside of the SEC can beat an SEC team! 2585

[LASooner]

With those matchups, would we have more championships, less championships or the same championships we currently have? I think we might not have won in 2000, but we might have won one of those other years.

[70sooner]

dunno how the guy figures it's often cold in Oklahoma in December. Just as often it's not that cold as it is cold, really. Would have been some great playoff games in Norman.

[8timechamps]

We could have sand bagged the Baylor, tech and poke games and still played for the MNC & avoided having to endure all the moaning, whining and crying?

Something like that would allow a 7-6 Team to maybe even have a Heisman Winner?

The "sandbagging" theory is false. No team in the country is going to sandbag games, period. Records will be important because teams will want the best seed possible. Most people that think playoffs are bad compare them to the NFL, when in reality, they would be nothing like the NFL. The only similarity is that the NFL used a playoff to crown a champion, otherwise, the model many propose for college football is nothing like the NFL.

Teams could "sandbag" now, if they found themselves in the right situation (having secured a lead in the conference, with a game or two to go until the CCG as an example). it just doesn't and won't happen.


Also, there is no way a 7-6 team is going to win a national title. Seriously, think about it. How many 5 or 6 loss teams are in the BCS top 10...top 15? None.

[usmc-sooner]

I think the BCS pretty much get's the two best teams together.

[prrriiide]

Something like that would allow a 7-6 Team to maybe even have a Heisman Winner?

*COUGH*PaulHornung*COUGH*

[Mississippi Sooner]

*COUGH*PaulHornung*COUGH*

Yeah, I think the Domers only won two games that year. That will NEVER happen again.

[jkjsooner]

Can't wait till we have the era where people are winning the National Championship with a 9-7 record!!

I think a majority of people would prefer a 4 team playoff to a 2 team playoff.

I'd hate to see it not happen just because you're scared of some sort of slippery slope. That's poor rationale for not making improvements.

If you don't think a 4 team playoff is better than a 2 team playoff then argue your case without resulting to ridiculous slippery slope arguments.

This is basically just a scare tactic to win your argument. You and I both know that it's never going to get to a point where a 56% win percentage team makes it to a playoff. That doesn't even happen in basketball.

College presidents worry about the academic and physical impact of playing extra games. Some day they'll agree to a 4 or 8 team playoff (with an outside shot that it could grow to 12 or 16) but if you're worried about a 32 or 64 team playoff then you're a fool.

[oudavid1]

Yeah, because God knows no team outside of the SEC can beat an SEC team! 2585

Yeah, but its been about 6 years.


I think the BCS pretty much get's the two best teams together.

and makes the regular season intense every saturday, even if only for a quarter or two(Ball State).

[Pricetag]

With those matchups, would we have more championships, less championships or the same championships we currently have? I think we might not have won in 2000, but we might have won one of those other years.
Yeah, with Josh's arm in the shape it was, 2000 would have been a tall order. It would have really been a three-game playoff for us, with the K-State rematch in the Big 12 Championship. Of course, if the defense played at the level it did in the Orange Bowl, we could have done it.

I think we would have had a great chance to win it in 2007, though.

[jkjsooner]

When I hear someone say, "finally, we are going to have a playoff," I can't help but remember all the talking heads who were gushing that "finally, we are going to have a true national championship," when the BCS was first announced.

That's not exactly what most people said. Most said it was a huge improvement over the Bowl Coalition which didn't have Big 10 / PAC 10 involvement and was an even bigger improvement over the system we had prior to the Bowl Coalition.

Most people still feel that these statements are true.

Many people also expressed reservations about the BCS because they felt that it would delay getting some sort of playoff.

[Mississippi Sooner]

That's not exactly what most people said. Most said it was a huge improvement over the Bowl Coalition which didn't have Big 10 / PAC 10 involvement and was an even bigger improvement over the system we had prior to the Bowl Coalition.

Most people still feel that these statements are true.

Many people also expressed reservations about the BCS because they felt that it would delay getting some sort of playoff.

I was mostly thinking of the talking heads on ABC & ESPN. In fact, I think it was on Monday Night Football that they pretty much went around the horn one night with each commentator gushing over how wonderful the BCS was going to be. It almost had a scripted feel and, in hindsight, it probably was.

[rekamrettuB]

This is basically just a scare tactic to win your argument. You and I both know that it's never going to get to a point where a 56% win percentage team makes it to a playoff. That doesn't even happen in basketball.

I think it has happened in basketball. If I remember correctly, a team with a losing record last year or the year before won their conference tourney and got in. Same thing can happen in football with a 12-16 (conference champs would have to be included in that scenario otherwise it doesn't get done). But look no further than UCLA this year...they beat Oregon and they would be in the 12-16 team playoff with a 7-6 record. Now would they win the tourney...probably not but the possibility is there.

[jkjsooner]

I think it has happened in basketball. If I remember correctly, a team with a losing record last year or the year before won their conference tourney and got in.

Okay, with the conference automatic qualifiers it can happen in basketball. You're not getting an at-large bid with that record though.

As for football, I'm not in favor of automatic qualifiers for conference winners. There's no way that could be done with a 4 team tournament so again you're bringing up scenarios that aren't under discussion. It's probably not feasible with an 8 team tournament.

Even if there was an automatic qualifier for conference champions, it would be very unlikely that a team 7-5 team would be the conference champion. UCLA came close under abnormal circumstances (USC being ineligible) and the probability of a UCLA happening is so low that I wouldn't consider it an issue.

But, anyway, as I said I'm not in favor of automatic qualifiers.

[8timechamps]

I think it has happened in basketball. If I remember correctly, a team with a losing record last year or the year before won their conference tourney and got in. Same thing can happen in football with a 12-16 (conference champs would have to be included in that scenario otherwise it doesn't get done). But look no further than UCLA this year...they beat Oregon and they would be in the 12-16 team playoff with a 7-6 record. Now would they win the tourney...probably not but the possibility is there.

Is it possible a team with 5 or 6 losses could theoretically win a 12-16 team playoff, I suppose. Just like it's possible the champion of the MEAC could theoretically win the NCAA tourney. But, it's probably more likely that I'll win the Power Ball.

Let's say a 16 team playoff is put in place. The top 10 BCS teams are automatically qualified. The remaining 6 spots are reserved for mid-major champions, independents and/or at-large teams. There is very little probability that a team with 5 or 6 losses is even in that discussion. Theoretically it's possible, but not probable.

Now, let's say that (for the sake of this example) Northern Illinois goes 7-6, and somehow wins the MAC and gets an invite to the playoffs (you can already see how silly that sound, because a 7-6 team stands almost no chance of winning their conference). They would be the 16th seed (15th at best). That means they would have to go on the road and play the #1 team in the country. Should they win that game (again, sounds so unbelievable), they must repeat that performance three more times to win a national title. Anyone that thinks that's a realistic scenario just doesn't watch college football.

[rekamrettuB]

Is it possible a team with 5 or 6 losses could theoretically win a 12-16 team playoff, I suppose. Just like it's possible the champion of the MEAC could theoretically win the NCAA tourney. But, it's probably more likely that I'll win the Power Ball.

Let's say a 16 team playoff is put in place. The top 10 BCS teams are automatically qualified. The remaining 6 spots are reserved for mid-major champions, independents and/or at-large teams. There is very little probability that a team with 5 or 6 losses is even in that discussion. Theoretically it's possible, but not probable.

Now, let's say that (for the sake of this example) Northern Illinois goes 7-6, and somehow wins the MAC and gets an invite to the playoffs (you can already see how silly that sound, because a 7-6 team stands almost no chance of winning their conference). They would be the 16th seed (15th at best). That means they would have to go on the road and play the #1 team in the country. Should they win that game (again, sounds so unbelievable), they must repeat that performance three more times to win a national title. Anyone that thinks that's a realistic scenario just doesn't watch college football.

Then why let them in? I understand in everyone's "perfect playoff" that the top 16 teams would meet each year but that's not going to happen with the conferences we now have. If the NCAA sanctions it, the only way they do it is all conference champions.

[TheUnnamedSooner]

Then why let them in? I understand in everyone's "perfect playoff" that the top 16 teams would meet each year but that's not going to happen with the conferences we now have. If the NCAA sanctions it, the only way they do it is all conference champions.

I tend to agree. My personal opinion is if you're going to go more than 4 teams, only let conference champions play. That way, conference play is like a playoff. If you can't win your conference, you shouldn't be able to compete for the championship, IMO.

[jkjsooner]

Then why let them in? I understand in everyone's "perfect playoff" that the top 16 teams would meet each year but that's not going to happen with the conferences we now have. If the NCAA sanctions it, the only way they do it is all conference champions.

I don't think they should nor do I think they will. Obviously with a 4 team tournament there is no way to have automatic qualifiers. With an 8 team tournament it's still very unlikely. We're not having anything more than 8 teams for a long time.

In the event we did go to 12 or 16 teams, there probably would be automatic qualifiers despite my objections. You hinted to one reason I object. A real national champion needs to have rules that treat all teams equally. Independents shouldn't be treated differently from conference members. Major conference member shouldn't be treated differently from minor conference members.

(Note: I'm in favor of an SOS component and you can argue that that treats major conference members differently than minor conference members. This is fine and is not the type of institutionalized inequality I'm referring to.)

Anyway, back on topic, with a 16 team tournament (again not happening any time soon) and with automatic qualifiers, you could still put stupulations on those AQ's. You could say they can't more than XXX losses or their BCS-like (whatever you would call it) ranking couldn't be lower than XXX. It's not like they couldn't institute a rule that would exclude a team like UCLA.

You guys argue against a four team playoff by making all sorts of assumptions:

1. It would grow to 16 or more teams.
2. There would be automatic qualifiers.
3. There would be no exclusion to the AQ rule.

Hell, if I'm able to assume all sorts of future changes I could make any idea seem stupid. Let's stick to the topic. Is a four team playoff better than a 2 team playoff?

[Sabanball]

I agree with those that have said that the BCS, though flawed as ANY system will be, has done a very good job of pitting the two best teams against one another in the championship game, so if it ain't broke why fix it? Then again, I only see a four team playoff FURTHER benefiting the SEC, in the long run.

Even if adopted, it will not settle the argument or stop the complaining.....

[8timechamps]

Then why let them in? I understand in everyone's "perfect playoff" that the top 16 teams would meet each year but that's not going to happen with the conferences we now have. If the NCAA sanctions it, the only way they do it is all conference champions.

I'm not necessarily pro-automatic conference champion bid, so I can see your point. What I want is a system that allows every team in the FBS a chance to play for a national title. A playoff would come closer to allowing that. Right now, there are 11 conferences in the FBS (D1):

ACC
Big XII
Big East
Big Ten
C-USA
Mid American
MWC
PAC 12
SEC
Sun Belt
WAC

Of those 11 conferences, only 6 teams receive an automatic bid, which leaves 5 conferences (and independents except Notre Dame in some cases) at the mercy of at-large bids. I wouldn't mind keeping a similar formula in place for the selection of a 16 team playoff. Take the 6 automatic qualifiers, then 10 at-large bids. It would cover any conference champion that deserved a shot at the title.

[8timechamps]

I agree with those that have said that the BCS, though flawed as ANY system will be, has done a very good job of pitting the two best teams against one another in the championship game, so if it ain't broke why fix it? Then again, I only see a four team playoff FURTHER benefiting the SEC, in the long run.

Even if adopted, it will not settle the argument or stop the complaining.....

Has it really done that much better a job than the old bowl system? The system is broke, that's the point.

[LASooner]

Yeah, with Josh's arm in the shape it was, 2000 would have been a tall order. It would have really been a three-game playoff for us, with the K-State rematch in the Big 12 Championship. Of course, if the defense played at the level it did in the Orange Bowl, we could have done it.

I think we would have had a great chance to win it in 2007, though.

That said, the ramifications of not winning in 2000, may or may not have affected recruiting that would cascade into those years where OU got back to the championship game. Would we have gotten to the NC game in 2004 without Adrian Peterson?

[Pricetag]

That said, the ramifications of not winning in 2000, may or may not have affected recruiting that would cascade into those years where OU got back to the championship game. Would we have gotten to the NC game in 2004 without Adrian Peterson?
Our running game wouldn't have been much of a threat in 2004 without AD, I don't think. Maybe we miss out on a few high school superstars, but get a few more of the class-of-'99-type guys who would have been seniors in 2005, so maybe that season isn't as much of a drop off. Who knows? It's fun to think about, but I'm dang glad we got that NC in 2000. It was truly special.

[MichiganSooner]

I like the idea of a 4 team tournament. As far as the Northern Illinois example given above, in a 16 team format...if they got in with their record by winning the MAC championship game, beat the #1 on their field and proceeded through the tournament, winning every game....they would deserve the dang trophy! Give it to em.

[jkjsooner]

I think you have to expand the tournament to at least 16 if you want all conferences to have an automatic bid. I think 16 is too large and I wouldn't settle for a system that gives preferential treatment to some conferences as it harms the legitimacy of the sytem.

If you did have a 16 team field, I see no reason for automatic conference bids. Most times a major conference winner will be in the top 16 and if they're not I see no reason why they should be included in the tournament.


I'm still in favor of a 4 or 8 team tournament with the selection and seeding based exclusively on power rankings.

I think if you have 4 or 8 and you do at least a half arse job in setting up the power rankings, you're not going to get a situation where a team who everyone thinks is the best is excluded. In this respect the need for humans to vote goes away. Maybe with 4 you would need a human component but not with 8.


Without a human component you put the smaller school on equal footing. There's no name recognition voting, etc. There's no initial poll bias influences the rankings throughout the season.