NCAA National Championship Football Playoffs
Once upon a time I used to create an NCAA National Championship Football playoff for either 16 or 32 teams and publish it in the local newspaper. I have railed against Bowl Championship Series since it was created. Since I was the sports editor at this bi-weekly, I would just up and create the brackets and playoffs (with better graphics, unfortunately). This year 32 teams would have just been more complex than I wanted to deal with. But this particular 16-team bracket is pretty damn good and a tough road for any team to win. They'll deserve it in the end.
For one, such a creation shows how easy this actually would be. Doing the picking and the set up was the hardest part. I explain the nuances, but basically all conference champions (and in most, but not all cases, the team who lost the CCG) are accounted for, with a three-team limit per conference. You get some possible stinkers, Nevada (12-1) and UConn (8-4), but every fairy tale needs a Cinderella.
The most striking thing this year - like most - is that winning one game is a pretty easy route to the title. Here you have to win four and they're all reasonably tough games. Plus I include a Christmas break between the second and third rounds. So, in this ideal world, we'd be talking about the semifinals and the four teams with a shot at earning the on-field title.
From my point of view, this type of playoff would put more of a premium on conference play rather than out of conference games. You certainly don't have to be undefeated if you win the conference title or if you're a major school and have a loss or two. Doing well in the conference counts. Thus, I think it would probably lead to the development of manageable conferences without great numbers current realignment suggests more and more. This would push more regional conferences and conserve costs.
I kept an eye out for good regional contests because I would think that this type of playoff should be fan friendly and available. As a matter of fact, with the bulk of these schools being public institutions using public funding, I would insist all televised games be on public TV as well, accessible to all. Not the present monopoly created by ESPN where 32 of the 25 bowl games are on cable, including some of the major BCS bowls and the MNC. Someone should sue the sonofabitches over that.The point of the NCAA doing this is so member schools - and all Football Bowl Division teams - get the lion's share of the profit. The TV networks just witness and telecast; not direct and control.
You might quibble with the seeding, with #17 who should have played just a little better, or the way I have drawn up the brackets with the logical rules I developed for this; you might even have some improvements. You might disagree that the NCAA and its member schools shouldn't get the benefit of the cream of the crop playing. But you gotta admit, this isn't that hard. Even 350 rabid monkeys on speed could have done this in 24 hours. Unfortunately, we have college presidents making decisions instead of rabid monkeys, and we're much poorer for it. Join us over the jump for a dip in the more practical side of modern college football, 2010 version.
Update: Standardized seeding bracket now included.
2010 general consensus seeding:
1. Auburn** 13-0 SEC
2. Oregon* 12-0 Pac10
3. TCU* 12-0 MTW
4. Wisconsin* 11-1 Big 10
5. Stanford 11-1 Pac10
6. Ohio State* 11-1 Big 10
7. Michigan St.* 11-1 Big 10
8. Oklahoma** 11-2 Big 12
9. Arkansas 10-2 SEC
10. Boise State 11-1 WAC
11. LSU 10-2 SEC
12. Nevada* 12-1 WAC
13. Virginia Tech** 11-2 ACC
14. Oklahoma State 10-2 Big 12
15. Nebraska 10-3 Big 12
16. UConn* 8-4 Big East
* Conference Champion
**Conference Title Game Champion
Seeding: I don't use the straight 1-8 against 16-9 normal match-up for seeding. One, that gives the top dogs a big edge; two, this is football, not basketball; closer match-ups make for better games (as a general rule). So, a reverse match-up (1-8 vs 9-16) scheme reduces the distance between the top and the bottom.
To facilitate drawing up the brackets, I created logical rules:
1. Take the seeds by fours, like basketball, to facilitate better brackets.
2. No more than three teams per conference. Conference champs (or title game champs) are in the bracket opposite from others from their conference. Therefore, they wouldn't meet unless they made the finals.
3. No replays of regular season/championship games, if possible, until finals.
4. All major conference champions/title game champs are represented. In this particular year, the Big East champ UConn's 8-4 is pretty pale and gives South Carolina (9-4) a real bone to pick; however, the three-team rule came into play. It came down to the number three team in the SEC, LSU or South Carolina, which had two more losses. Tough.
Not everything lines up perfectly, but you get the idea. Who do you think would make the semis and the finals?
2010 NCAA National Championship Football Brackets
2010 Left Bracket: 2010 Right Bracket:
1. Auburn 2. Oregon
10. Boise St. ______ ______ 12. Nevada
5. Stanford 7. Michigan St.
16. UConn ______ ______ 14. Oklahoma St.
13. Va. Tech ______ ______ 15. Nebraska
8. Oklahoma 6. Ohio State
11. LSU ______ ______ 9. Arkansas
4. Wisconsin 3. TCU
First Two Rounds, Saturday, Dec. 11 and Saturday, Dec. 18
Christmas Break
Semifinals Jan. 1
National Champion Saturday, Jan. 8
Addition:
I just want to add the traditional bracket with standard seeding. This year it is interesting unto itself.
Left Bracket Right Bracket
1. Auburn 2. Oregon
16. UConn 15. Nebraska
5. Stanford 6. Ohio State
12. Nevada 11, LSU
8. Oklahoma 7. Michigan St..
9. Boise St. 10. Arkansas
13, Va. Tech 14. Oklahoma St.
4. Wisconsin 3. TCU
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Question re reseeding
For your brackets, would you be open to an NHL-style reseeding after each round so that the highest remaining seed earns the right to play the lowest remaining seed?
It’s impractical for the NCAA basketball tournament, with the multiple games per team per weekend, but, on the face of it, I don’t see a particular problem with reseeding, with at least a week between games.
As far as who advances . . . you’re right, there are very few locks even in the first round. Stanford would be, and probably Oregon (and even that one I have to qualify with a “probably”). I do think Auburn has a much tougher draw than Oregon, with a PU/Stanford/Wisky trifecta as opposed to Nevada/MSU/TCU.
I’ll take a Stanford-Oregon rematch with those brackets.
Don't click here. I might be promoting myself with frequently-changing photos from my portfolio. Or I might be linking to my favorite photos of Mark Mangino. You never know.
I think it would make for poorer games, less prep.
If team A knows it has a direct opponent and then one of two possible opponents, they can take that into consideration and streamline what their doing. Some things take more repetition.
If you reshuffle, teams would not have the benefit of such depth in preparation; they gotta draw it up from scratch to get a game plan in a week’s time. I think such teams would make more mistakes, be less precise, and this would make for a sloppier game. We want the best performance from these teams, a high level game pushing each other higher to make plays. Remember, unlike the NHL, the majority of the teams have not seen these opponents before. And that would be generally true as well.
Also, where do you envision the games being played?
I don’t think it’s mentioned unless I glanced right past it.
LSU having to travel to Madison in mid-December is a far different game to handicap than one played on a neutral site. (I’ve seen playoff theoreticals use both home sites and neutral sites within their models.)
Don't click here. I might be promoting myself with frequently-changing photos from my portfolio. Or I might be linking to my favorite photos of Mark Mangino. You never know.
I think there would be several available sites as neutral sites.
I didn’t pick any of the existing bowls, but they can certainly be used. That was a level of complexity I didn’t want or need to go to. I do think a centrally located neutral site would be the most fan friendly. Part of college football is about spirit and culture and that takes fans and bands and pom girls and all the fun stuff as much as possible.
Those games would be fun to watch
it’s a shame that fans from some of those schools couldn’t afford/wouldn’t travel to the neutral sites (especially for the first round), thus making it much less profitable for the bowl people, ensuring a playoff system will never exist.
by PoolsideHorns on Dec 27, 2010 10:58 AM CST up reply actions
Fan money is just one of the variables.
And probably a much lesser one compared to broadcast dollars.
These 15 games would probably make more money than all the rest of the bowls combined.
Remember, this is for the NCAA…not the bowl people…in the playoff the bowls just get rental and percentage of in-stadium sales, not the lions share of the broadcast dollars.
If you should go 32, then you could have more regional complexion to the playoffs and have closer neutral (or even home sites, via flip, if the playoff schools wanted it). What I’m advocating is the involvement of the student bodies as well as the general fans. Larger schools like Texas, ‘Bama, tOSU, OU will have larger numbers of general fans but the smaller schools won’t.
Part of the first round and all the rest of the rounds are marquee match-ups. It will be a billion dollar market. Do you have 10 great match-ups in the 35 current bowl games? I don’t think so.
And before I monopolize the comments too much...
…my one quibble: I get what you’re doing with trying to avoid straightline 1/16, 2/15, etc. matchups, but I’m not sure I like the one-seed drawing a tough 10-seed off the bat, while the five seed is rewarded with clearly the weakest team in the bracket.
Don't click here. I might be promoting myself with frequently-changing photos from my portfolio. Or I might be linking to my favorite photos of Mark Mangino. You never know.
Yeah, that does get down to a judgment call.
The Stanford/UConn game is balanced on the other side with Nebraska/Ohio State. Someone was going to get lucky with UConn and Nevada. I can justify with ranking and scale of their conferences that they might not be as competitive as some. But, you know, its a game and once it starts damn near anything can happen. That’s why we like it.
You see the parameters; you can draw your own with ease.
The Stanford game also has a big travel consideration. The Fiesta Bowl might be a best option; not central but not a far drive for Stanford; UConn was probably going to fly regardless with weather conditions for driving cross country. Everyone wants the advantage, and you can’t make the brackets perfectly balanced; about like real life outside the lines. So you take as much into consideration as you can.
Straight line seeding...
…should be utilized, IMHO. I also support all games except the national championship game to be held on campus of the higher remaining seeds. I’d like the National Championship game to be held in either Glendale, AZ or the Rose Bowl every year.
Auburn and Oregon should get the patsies of 16 and 15 respectively. UConn having to travel to Auburn is not that big of a deal. Nebraska going to Oregon would be fine too. I am not even sure if either of these programs have ever met. That is exciting in its own right.
I love the scheduling concept and naturally, I freaking adore the fact that an actual national champion would be crowned every single year without controversy.
Boise State choked while Auburn enjoyed a comeback for the ages. I'll have another heaping helping of hypocrisy, please.
Agreed
While the seeding described above may make for closer games, the #1 seed will not be happy that the #5 seed get rewarded with an opening game against #16. Besides the #16 team in football playing #1 should be closer than a #1 and #16 seed in basketball, since that represents #1-4 playing #60-64, right?
"Only angry people win football games." --DKR
You're right about being closer, doc.
However, the scale in the football top 10 does drop off quickly. I really don’t care if the #1s and 2s don’t get the easier game…as I said, I want the better match-up, the closer game. The concept is earning it on the field, not waltzing through the first two rounds because of an easier trail. That is to say, that elevated ranking and/’or conference title, got you the seeding and a small advantage, but being aristocracy gets no reward. The current systems reward football aristocracy, the winners get the break. Just why in the hell should they?
So whatever happened to that In-N-Out Burger you were going to get over Xmas? :)
Don't click here. I might be promoting myself with frequently-changing photos from my portfolio. Or I might be linking to my favorite photos of Mark Mangino. You never know.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 27, 2010 12:30 PM CST up reply actions
That changes things considerably...
…as Hawaii apparently nudges out Nebraska.
Clearly a Texas-led conspiracy against the ’huskers.
If the world was a school, we'd be homecoming king...
I understand they tied, but I went to records.
I didn’t think the WAC had the strength for three teams, quite frankly. Nevada snuck in with the win over Boise. But you’re correct, if there had been a third team from the WAC, Nebraska would have been bumped.
I’m all in favor of conspiracies against the ’huskers but there is a certain early justice for them having to play tOSU.
Burger King solution
The 16 team playoff you propose requires 4 games to the championship. This is too much to ask of young student athletes. I think that 3 games to the championship is all we can ask. If I could have it my way, I would go with an 8 team playoff with match-ups based on straight up seedings. In my view, any team that cannot get into the top 8 of a BCS like ranking has not earned a shot at the championship. Same goes to a conference champion that could not crack the top 8. Looking at this years rankings, I like the match ups: AUB-OK, TCU-Ohio St on one side, and Oregon-Mich St, Wisc-Stan on the other side. Those are great games. I think the NCG would be AUB-Wisc. As to where they would be held and what would happen to the premier bowls, that I would leave to a messed up committee. Cheers.
The HS titlist (in most classes) in Texas play 16 games.
I include a break for both the players and coaches for that reason…plus it makes good media sense to break over the holidays and talk up the remain three games.
If you cut back, cut back on seasonal games…they went to 12 just for the money without much consideration for student athletes. If you play Hawaii you can play an extra game and if you make a CCG, you already play 15 games if you make it to a bowl. Most teams will have a bye week in the first week in December. So, a 16-team four-game playoff affects relatively few people – only eight possibly after the first round. 104 teams can have a bowl game of some sort.
This year there are 35 bowls that didn’t start until Dec. 18…those weeks of practice amount to a level of wear and tear, perhaps not as much as a game, but some approximation thereof.
Last, an eight game playoff probably won’t include all major conference champs. You have SEC, Big 12, MTW, and Big 10 on one side, Pac 10, Big 10, Big 10 and Pac 10 on the other. That’s three champs of their conferences (SEC, Big 12, PAC 10), one tri-champ (MTW), and all the Big 10 tri-champs. That’s not only much representation, and most are state schools with public dollars and that can be challenged in court if not the Congress.
If you want to have a real playoff on the field, it has to be representational to its body of competitors. Yes, there will virtually always be some weaker teams included and not perfect balance. But the BCS is a long stinking way from perfect as well. This is as much about equalizing money for all the schools as it is creating a real playoff for a champion.
If the elites are so damn strong, what do they care about having to face weaker schools? What’s wrong with competition? Are they afraid of the Boise syndrome coming back to bite their ass?
Why isn't 16 too much for the other divisions of the NCAA?
Don't click here. I might be promoting myself with frequently-changing photos from my portfolio. Or I might be linking to my favorite photos of Mark Mangino. You never know.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 27, 2010 12:19 PM CST up reply actions
I've got to agree with Cuernos, to a certain extent.
While I very much like Whills’ 16-team bracket playoff, at least half of those teams are not in the discussion for a “right” to play for a national title. Too many losses. & we’re only annually talking about 4-6 deserving teams, at most.
For those who argue that Texas HS 6-round playoffs, March Madness, D-II playoffs, etc…, I’ll respectfully add in that none of those other situations already has a historic bowl system in place. That’s what makes this whole thing unique. You’ve got to meld the bowl system, a highly-competitive one-loss-and-your-done regular season, and a national champion-determining playoff system. I love the bowls AND the dramatic season AND I now want a legit playoff for the top tier of teams that season (4-6 at most). Meld the three – and I’ll be happy. Disregard either, & someone gets left unhappy. Right now, the NCAA is ignoring the need for the playoff system and it’s hacking off the fans.

by 





























