Larry Scott talking Conference Champions Football Final Four

[texascpa]

what basis can the bigeast sue on??

they received BCS status because they had miami, vatech, bc, pitt, wv and Syracuse. they are all gone. they kept it because lville and cincy were valid replacements. lville is likely gone and i bet cincy is gone to.

whats left is not a BCS conference, and its barely in the Northeast, which was maybe a reason to keep it BCS.

its all gone.

its over.

the bigeast is dead.

Our opinion has no opinion on whatever BCS contracts are out there. I would think that the BE would have some sort of basis of lawsuit.

 

[Millhouse]

I think what Scott proposed is being misinterpreted on that front. He just said that each of the 4 should be conference champs, he didn't say the bids should be automatic. So my take is that he's proposing that the top 4 "rated" conference champs go to the final 4. If the SEC has a #1 and #2 too bad, only the conference champ of the 2 gets the bid. If teams #4 through #7, for example, are all 2nd-place finishers in various conferences, but #8 is a conference champ, then that's the team that gets the last spot.

I don't like it, but I think that's what Scott is proposing.

I totally love Larry Scott though. He may end up being the most influential person in college football since Amos Alonzo Stagg,

and if every conference has a championship game, a 4 team playoff is really an 8 team playoff. it's just that the first round of the 8 team playoff happens is all intraconference.

 

[Scooch]

and if every conference has a championship game, a 4 team playoff is really an 8 team playoff. it's just that the first round of the 8 team playoff happens is all intraconference.

Kinda true. Although we wouldn't necessarily know which of those conference championships constitute a "final 8" since 1-2 major conference champs would not be in the final 4, thus those conference championships would lead to nowhere.

I think it's all coming together though. First step is to expand to a final 4. A few years later that will become 8 in some manner.

 

[Scooch]

FWIW, a final four for this past season using Scott's method would have looked like this (assuming they went by BCS rankings):

(1) LSU vs. (4) Wisconsin
(2) Oklahoma State vs. (3) Oregon

So no 'Bama, Stanford, Arkansas, Boise State, Kansas State, or South Carolina included even though they all outranked at least one other participant, since they didn't win their conference.

This is why I don't like it. Passing over six teams to get to the 4th highest ranked conference champ, in this case Wisconsin, seems to be entirely against the spirit of a playoff.

I know some will argue that those six should have just won their conference, but that's simplistic IMHO if the goal is to make this a meaningful final 4.

 

[omniorange]

FWIW, a final four for this past season using Scott's method would have looked like this (assuming they went by BCS rankings):

(1) LSU vs. (4) Wisconsin
(2) Oklahoma State vs. (3) Oregon

So no 'Bama, Stanford, Arkansas, Boise State, Kansas State, or South Carolina included even though they all outranked at least one other participant, since they didn't win their conference.

This is why I don't like it. Passing over six teams to get to the 4th highest ranked conference champ, in this case Wisconsin, seems to be entirely against the spirit of a playoff.

I know some will argue that those six should have just won their conference, but that's simplistic IMHO if the goal is to make this a meaningful final 4.

Agreed. But no system is without it flaws. In taking the Top 4 BCS teams, Stanford gets taken over Oregon last year even though the Ducks beat Stanford last year but finished 5th because they played LSU OOC and Stanford didn't.

So I go back and forth between the two models.

Wasn't the NCAAs in its earlier form a champions only model? Until a true playoff system can be developed, I think that model may have merit despite its unfairness to teams who don't win their conferences.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[PhatOrange]

Agreed. But no system is without it flaws. In taking the Top 4 BCS teams, Stanford gets taken over Oregon last year even though the Ducks beat Stanford last year but finished 5th because they played LSU OOC and Stanford didn't.

So I go back and forth between the two models.

Wasn't the NCAAs in its earlier form a champions only model? Until a true playoff system can be developed, I think that model may have merit despite its unfairness to teams who don't win their conferences.

Cheers,
Neil

In that scenario you have got to take the team that won head to head. The more it's decided on the field the better.

 

[Millhouse]

FWIW, a final four for this past season using Scott's method would have looked like this (assuming they went by BCS rankings):

(1) LSU vs. (4) Wisconsin
(2) Oklahoma State vs. (3) Oregon

So no 'Bama, Stanford, Arkansas, Boise State, Kansas State, or South Carolina included even though they all outranked at least one other participant, since they didn't win their conference.

This is why I don't like it. Passing over six teams to get to the 4th highest ranked conference champ, in this case Wisconsin, seems to be entirely against the spirit of a playoff.

I know some will argue that those six should have just won their conference, but that's simplistic IMHO if the goal is to make this a meaningful final 4.

If you get to 8 you can have 2 wildcards. the further down you can push the subjective bubble argument the better

requiring conference champions disarms the "a playoff ruins the regular season" crowd

 

[KaiserUEO]

If you get to 8 you can have 2 wildcards. the further down you can push the subjective bubble argument the better

requiring conference champions disarms the "a playoff ruins the regular season" crowd

i think it will be 5 and 3.

and the 3 will be very competitive if ND doesnt join a conf. the only 3 mids we have had to concern ourselves with has been utah, tcu and boise. 2 of the 3 are now in real confs and i can see the bloom falling off the boise rose very soon.

in a perfect world, ND is in a conf the 3 wildcards are chosen from the power5 confs.

 

[Moontan]

i think it will be 5 and 3.

and the 3 will be very competitive if ND doesnt join a conf. the only 3 mids we have had to concern ourselves with has been utah, tcu and boise. 2 of the 3 are now in real confs and i can see the bloom falling off the boise rose very soon.

in a perfect world, ND is in a conf the 3 wildcards are chosen from the power5 confs.

If they do 5 & 3, then there's no reason to make a distinction between conferences. If a team from another conference makes it into the top-10 BCS ranking and has won its conference it will likely be part of the 5. I guess they could limit it to champions coming from the Power5, but there's really no reason to. Simply picking the 5 highest ranked conference champions and the next 3 highest ranked teams would work. This way, the SEC could even get 4 teams in... unlikely, but possible.