Others have already built out what a 6-6 playoff would look like in the 7 years of the CFP but I thought I’d go back further and see what that looks like in the BCS era. Warming: it gets a little crazy!

1998:
8 Fla vs 9 Wisc / 1 Tenn*
3 Kan St vs 12 UVA / 5 UCLA*

6 TAMU* vs 11 Neb / 4 Ohio St*
7 Ariz vs 10 Tulane* / 2 FSU*

1999:
8 Mich vs 9 Mich St / 1 FSU*
5 Tenn vs 12 Marshall* / 4 Alabama*

6 Kan St vs 11 Penn St / 3 Nebraska*
7 Wisc* vs 10 Fla / 2 VT*

2000:
8 Neb vs 9 Kan St / 1 Okla*
5 VT vs 14 TCU* / 4 Wash*

6 Ore St vs 11 ND / 3 Miami*
7 Fla* vs 10 Ore / 2 FSU*

2001:
7 Texas vs 9 Stan / 1 Miami*
2 Neb vs 13 LSU* / 8 Illinois*

5 Fla vs 11 Okla / 4 Ore*
6 Tenn vs 10 M’land* / 3 Colo*

2002:
8 Kan St vs 9 ND / 1 Miami*
4 USC vs 14 FSU* / 6 Wash St*

5 Iowa vs 11 Mich / 3 UGA*
7 Okla* vs 10 Texas / 2 Ohio St*

2003:
8 Tenn vs 9 Miami* / 2 LSU*
1 Okla vs 12 UGA / 7 FSU*

5 Ohio St vs 11 Miami OH / 4 Mich*
6 Texas vs 10 Kan St* / 3 USC*

2004:
8 VT* vs 9 Boise* / 1 USC*
4 Texas vs 12 Iowa / 6 Utah*

5 Cal vs 11 LSU / 3 Auburn*
7 UGA vs 10 L’ville / 2 Okla*

2005:
8 Miami vs 9 Auburn / 1 USC*
4 Ohio St vs 14 TCU* / 7 UGA*

5 Ore vs 11 WVU* / 3 Penn St*
6 ND vs 10 VT / 2 Texas*

2006:
8 Boise St* vs 9 Auburn / 1 Ohio St*
3 Mich vs 12 Ark / 6 L’ville*

4 LSU vs 11 ND / 5 USC*
7 Wisc vs 10 Okla* / 2 Fla*

2007:
8 Kansas vs 9 WVU* / 1 Ohio St*
5 UGA vs 12 Fla / 4 Okla*

6 Mizz vs 11 Ariz St / 3 VT*
7 USC* vs 10 Hawaii / 2 LSU*

2008:
8 Penn St* vs 9 Boise St* / 1 Okla*
3 Texas vs 12 Cincy / 6 Utah*

4 Alabama vs 11 TCU / 5 USC*
7 TTU vs 10 Ohio St / 2 Fla*

2009:
8 Ohio St vs 9 GT / 1 Alabama*
5 Fla vs 12 LSU / 4 TCU*

6 Boise St* vs 11 VT / 3 Cincy*
7 Ore* vs 10 Iowa / 2 Texas*

2010:
8 Ark vs 9 Mich St / 1 Auburn*
4 Stan vs 13 VT* / 5 Wisc*

6 Ohio St vs 11 LSU / 3 TCU*
7 Okla* vs 10 Boise / 2 Ore*

2011:
7 Boise vs 8 Kan St / 1 LSU*
2 Alabama vs 18 TCU* / 10 Wisconsin*

4 Stan vs 15 Clem* / 5 Ore*
6 Ark vs 9 S Caro / 3 Okla St*

2012:
7 UGA vs 8 LSU / 2 Alabama*
1 ND vs 19 Boise* / 12 FSU*

3 Fla vs 15 NIU* / 6 Stan*
4 Ore vs 9 TAMU / 5 Kan St*

2013:
8 Mizz vs 9 S Caro / 1 FSU*
3 Alabama vs 15 UCF* / 5 Stan*

6 Baylor* vs 11 Okla / 4 Mich St*
7 Ohio St vs 10 Ore / 2 Auburn*

For 1998, why does #4 and #5 get the first-round bye and #3 does not?

There are some other examples of this.

(06-11-2021 03:52 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  For 1998, why does #4 and #5 get the first-round bye and #3 does not?

There are some other examples of this.

Top 4 Conference Champions get a bye under the proposed 12 team playoff, in this case, #3 was an at-large team.

Gracias

2004 is interesting that #12 Iowa gets in over #13 Michigan. Yes, Iowa and Michigan technically were co-champions but Michigan was cosidered the conference's official winner based on a head to head win against Iowa.

But the other odd thing was that Michigan was not 1 of the top 6 champions, coming in 7th i think. So Michigan does not get in even though it was technically Big Ten champion.

But you would have to believe if a committee was picking the 12th team in 2004, they would take Michigan over Iowa for the reasons stated above.

Its interesting, but in 2008 AND 2010, Oklahoma St. is the first team left out and Virginia Tech is the only champ of the current P5 left out.

(06-11-2021 09:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its interesting, but in 2008 AND 2010, Oklahoma St. is the first team left out and Virginia Tech is the only champ of the current P5 left out.

BCS rankings did not matter outside of the first handful of spots. I suspect that with playoffs on the line that schools ranked from 7 to 15 could have been jiggered around to achieve an outcome. In the ACC's weakest year in the last 50, 2006, Wake Forest was ranked 14th in the BCS at the end of the regular season and was the ACC Champion. I strongly suspect that given that the ACC would have not had a participant that year that WF would have ended up ranked ahead of three loss Arkansas and three loss West Va.

It will be exceedingly difficult not to place a single school from any P-5.

(06-11-2021 09:14 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 09:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its interesting, but in 2008 AND 2010, Oklahoma St. is the first team left out and Virginia Tech is the only champ of the current P5 left out.

BCS rankings did not matter outside of the first handful of spots. I suspect that with playoffs on the line that schools ranked from 7 to 15 could have been jiggered around to achieve an outcome.

Would we really see Big East (AAC) champ Cincinnati #3, MWC champ TCU #4 and WAC champ Boise St. #6 in 2009 if it really mattered? Note that in 2009, 8 conference champs would be in. Alabama was #1, Texas #2, Oregon #7, Ohio St. #8 and Georgia Tech #9.

To many rematches

(06-11-2021 09:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 09:14 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 09:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its interesting, but in 2008 AND 2010, Oklahoma St. is the first team left out and Virginia Tech is the only champ of the current P5 left out.

BCS rankings did not matter outside of the first handful of spots. I suspect that with playoffs on the line that schools ranked from 7 to 15 could have been jiggered around to achieve an outcome.

Would we really see Big East (AAC) champ Cincinnati #3, MWC champ TCU #4 and WAC champ Boise St. #6 in 2009 if it really mattered? Note that in 2009, 8 conference champs would be in. Alabama was #1, Texas #2, Oregon #7, Ohio St. #8 and Georgia Tech #9.

Yeah, I reckon if it was in the hands of the committee rather than partially decided by computer algorithm, TCU and Boise State would have been ranked lower than that. If the results made it too embarrassing for the committee to rank both of the PAC-12/BigTen old guard above them, they would have been intermixed to allow at least one of the "old guard" to get the first round bye.

I agree with the sentiment that if a committee would have been doing the rankings from 1998-2013 they would have no doubt gamed the rankings so that:

1. Non-BCS Conference Champs didn’t get byes and tended to be the visiting team in the opening round

2. Fringe BCS Conference Champs miraculously make it into the top 11-12 and make the field

3. If a BCS and non-BCS champ are neck and neck for the final AQ slot, the BCS Champ gets the nod


This is where I hate the committee. They aren’t making their rankings without bias—they make them to generate the highest possible advertising revenue and ratings. There is a glass ceiling in place for the outsiders. Back when it didn’t matter, so long as they weren’t in the top 2, you could have non-BCS champs ranked 6th (L’ville 2004), 8th (Boise 2006), 6th (L’ville 2008), 4th (TCU 2009), 6th (Boise 2009), and 3rd (TCU 2010). You’ve got multiple seasons where 2 and even 3 non-BCS schools make the field.

I don’t see this happening under the watch of a committee.

I think we ought to go back to the BCS methodology for the rankings, where the ability to tamper with the outcome is much harder.

I agree with the sentiment that if a committee would have been doing the rankings from 1998-2013 they would have no doubt gamed the rankings so that:

1. Non-BCS Conference Champs didn’t get byes and tended to be the visiting team in the opening round

2. Fringe BCS Conference Champs miraculously make it into the top 11-12 and make the field

3. If a BCS and non-BCS champ are neck and neck for the final AQ slot

A lot of problems from old years will be solved today through realignment and CCG, but still something should be added to avoid playing teams from same conference in 1st 2 rounds if it is reasonable to do so

For example in 2002 the matchups looked like this

2002:
8 Kan St vs 9 ND / 1 Miami*
4 USC vs 14 FSU* / 6 Wash St*

5 Iowa vs 11 Mich / 3 UGA*
7 Okla* vs 10 Texas / 2 Ohio St*

This can be changed to

2002:
7 okla* vs 11 Mich / 1 Miami*
5 Iowa vs 14 FSU* / 6 Wash St*

4 USC vs 10 Texas / 3 UGA*
8 Kan St vs 9 ND / 2 Ohio St*

(06-11-2021 09:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 09:14 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 09:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its interesting, but in 2008 AND 2010, Oklahoma St. is the first team left out and Virginia Tech is the only champ of the current P5 left out.

BCS rankings did not matter outside of the first handful of spots. I suspect that with playoffs on the line that schools ranked from 7 to 15 could have been jiggered around to achieve an outcome.

Would we really see Big East (AAC) champ Cincinnati #3, MWC champ TCU #4 and WAC champ Boise St. #6 in 2009 if it really mattered? Note that in 2009, 8 conference champs would be in. Alabama was #1, Texas #2, Oregon #7, Ohio St. #8 and Georgia Tech #9.

It's hard to say. 2009 was a reaction to what happened in 2008, when Utah finished as the only undefeated team, beat multiple ranked teams, including Bama in the Sugar Bowl (relatively handily), yet never even figured in the conversation for the MNC until after the bowl games had been played and there was a (brief) move on the part of (some) AP pollsters to elevate them to a split championship at that time. The systematic under-ranking of "non-AQ" teams had been going on since 1998 even with half of the BCS formula determined by the computers. So, in 2009 (and for a year or so after), the pollsters made a conscious effort not to systematically under-rate undefeated non-AQ teams which is why you see TCU, Cincy and Boise in the Top 4. Which under the proposed new system would mean a first round bye.

Would that happen now for current G5 teams? Probably not due to the fact that it's now a committee, which is inherently biased and which is stacked with P5 representatives. And because the systematic under-ranking of G5 teams started right back up once the CFP got implemented. You'd probably have to have another "Utah situation" (winning the Sugar Bowl) and "TCU situation" (winning the Rose Bowl) for it to change, which would take at least a year or so to have an effect.

So, if some G5 team comes close but just doesn't quite make a Top 4 in a given year, the resultant uproar might cause a change in the following year. I say "might" because it will always be in the interest of the P5 committee members to let a non-favored team to achieve something that doesn't really matter, that is, TCU and Boise making a Top 4 didn't matter because only the Top 2 mattered. If the Top 4 matter, then a non-favored school could expect to be able to make #5 or #6 bu not the Top 4 (see 2014).

(06-12-2021 08:40 AM)goofus Wrote:  A lot of problems from old years will be solved today through realignment and CCG, but still something should be added to avoid playing teams from same conference in 1st 2 rounds if it is reasonable to do so

For example in 2002 the matchups looked like this

2002:
8 Kan St vs 9 ND / 1 Miami*
4 USC vs 14 FSU* / 6 Wash St*

5 Iowa vs 11 Mich / 3 UGA*
7 Okla* vs 10 Texas / 2 Ohio St*

This can be changed to

2002:
7 okla* vs 11 Mich / 1 Miami*
5 Iowa vs 14 FSU* / 6 Wash St*

4 USC vs 10 Texas / 3 UGA*
8 Kan St vs 9 ND / 2 Ohio St*

Ya. Unless the rankings are purely systemic (algorithm-based), the committee might as well seed teams to create better matchups. Technically, the top 4 champs are "seeded" 1-4. So, the 2002 example could be massaged into:

2002:
8 Notre Dame (10-2) vs 9 Texas (10-2) / 1 Miami (12-0)* in ORANGE
5 Iowa (11-1) vs 12 Florida St (9-4)* / 4 Washington St (10-2)* in ROSE

6 USC (11-1) vs 11 Michigan (9-3) / 3 Georgia (12-1)* in SUGAR
7 Oklahoma (11-2)* vs 10 Kansas St (10-2) / 2 Ohio St (13-0)* in FIESTA

(06-12-2021 10:21 AM)Jared7 Wrote:  ... So, if some G5 team comes close but just doesn't quite make a Top 4 in a given year, the resultant uproar might cause a change in the following year. ...

Yes, the committee might sacrifice the interests of a P5 champion that many perceive as being undeserving of the #4 champion spot in order to protect the institution as a whole ... and, yes, that would likely have to be the year (or maybe two) following a controversy in which they acted as normal and got a lot of flack for doing so, in order for the "protect the reputation of the committee decision" to be a really live priority in their decision making, rather than just something that is paid lip service in the meeting.

Also, if, say, the Rose Bowl get the higher ranking of the Big Ten or PAC-12 champions if one or both receive the 2nd round bye, and if in that year the other of the traditional Rose Bowl contenders are #5 or #6 among conference champions, seeing them being seeded into the Rose Bowl bracket would not be a shock.

I just think there’s something dirty about twisting the seeding/bracket to try make things “better” for tv—that is to say, ESPN. It really just means they’re hosting a series of exhibitions and then crowning the last team standing champs.

It’s not really much better than the shady smoke filled room dealings in the poll era.

(06-12-2021 10:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I just think there’s something dirty about twisting the seeding/bracket to try make things “better” for tv—that is to say, ESPN. It really just means they’re hosting a series of exhibitions and then crowning the last team standing champs.

It’s not really much better than the shady smoke filled room dealings in the poll era.

Uhhh ... yes? Wasn't that the point of having an entirely committee based ranking system rather than having computer power rankings of some sort as part of the selection process?

Obviously whatever system they come up with will be imperfect, since no perfect system exists. But in this system, it seems likely that the strongest 6-8 teams in the country are going to get to participate, and the one that wins all of the games they are put into will be the champion.

And, after all, if they threw the six best teams from the year into a randomly drawn knockout with six other teams, the last team standing would have a reasonable claim to be regarded as the champion team of the year. A team that is the unquestionable superior team ought to win through anyway, and if there are multiple teams that with the right alignment could get through, well, that's why they play the games.

At the very least, more teams have the opportunity to win it on the field than under the current system, and it is mathematically impossible to avoid the participation of at least one non-P5 conference school, so on both of those measures it's a substantial improvement on the present imperfect system.

(06-12-2021 10:26 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 10:21 AM)Jared7 Wrote:  ... So, if some G5 team comes close but just doesn't quite make a Top 4 in a given year, the resultant uproar might cause a change in the following year. ...

Yes, the committee might sacrifice the interests of a P5 champion that many perceive as being undeserving of the #4 champion spot in order to protect the institution as a whole ... and, yes, that would likely have to be the year (or maybe two) following a controversy in which they acted as normal and got a lot of flack for doing so, in order for the "protect the reputation of the committee decision" to be a really live priority in their decision making, rather than just something that is paid lip service in the meeting.

Also, if, say, the Rose Bowl get the higher ranking of the Big Ten or PAC-12 champions if one or both receive the 2nd round bye, and if in that year the other of the traditional Rose Bowl contenders are #5 or #6 among conference champions, seeing them being seeded into the Rose Bowl bracket would not be a shock.

It's worth bearing this in mind:

A number of non-P5 teams have finished their seasons ranked in the top 4 through the years, including:

Army (1943-1946, 1948-1950, 1958, and 1959)

Boise St. (2009)

BYU (1984)

Houston (1976) (also, #5 in 1979)

Navy (1943, 1944, 1945, 1960, and 1963)

SMU (1947 and 1982) (also, #5 in 1981)

Tulsa (1942)

.

In addition, several non-P5 teams have finished the regular season at #5 or #6, including:

Army (1948)

Boise St. (2006)

BYU (1996)

Cincinnati (#6 in 2020)

Houston (#5 in 1979)

Navy (1954, 1957, and 1964)

SMU (#5 in 1981)

Tulane (1939)

.

This is not an exhaustive list. There are other a number of other examples.

And (using the legacy rankings) we finally have “justice” for unbeatens (and tenth ranked) Tulane and Hawaii!

Is this the new path to the playoff?

No. I have a feeling teams with resumes like that will be “unlucky #13” going forward! So close, you almost made it this time!