Why the Big 10 Playoff Proposal Helps BYU
by Zach Bloxham on Feb 7, 2012 8:04 AM PST
in BYU Football
Email
PrintThe Big Ten Conference, long an enemy of a college football playoff system, is reported to have a proposal on the table which would bring a Plus-1 format to the sport as early as 2014. Why is this a big deal? Why is this so surprising? Well, seeing the Big Ten go "pro-playoff" is akin to seeing Michele Bachmann voting for President Obama in the upcoming general election. If you told me this would transpire at the beginning of September, I would have had you fitted with a one-size fits all hat of the tinfoil variety. And this playoff plan, let me tell you, is great news for BYU and every other Non-AQ out there.
The hype and excitement that fills the air around the beginning of college football season is intoxicating. Each and every team in America feels that the path has been paved for their ascent to national prominence and the BCS National Title Game. That feeling, however, is marginalized in non-AQ land. Non-AQ's know that a perfect season won't net them a national title. At best, a BCS berth and victory will be the crowning achievement of said season. Sadly, the crown isn't fit for a King but a Prince. The college football aristocracy has made this much sure. Think about it, when you know your team's ceiling is #3 in final BCS poll, it becomes all that much easier to feel cynical about the whole process. Our friends in Boise know this feeling all too well over the last decade.
The Big Ten playoff proposal would take the Top 4 ranked teams in the final BCS poll and seed them, pitting #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3 at the home field of the higher seeds. The winners would then meet at a neutral site, much like the Super Bowl, to be determined prior to every season. The other bowls, one would think, would continue to persist, keeping the bowl structure intact while making the regular season similarly all-important.
This proposal will open the door for the non-AQ's of the world, and that distinction may very well disappear in the future, to play for a national title. The cynic might say: "The ceiling will simply be moved from #3 to #5." While this could be the case, one would have to think that an undefeated BYU, playing a terrific independent schedule, would be able to ascend to the #4 spot and have a shot at the Crystal Ball. As of now, those of us in Non-AQ land wallow in disenfranchisement. Seeing the Big Ten, and its power brok'n commish Jim Delaney, are wiling to move the needle on this issue makes me optimistic that the future of college football is as bright as ever. Even in non-AQ land.
12 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not so fast...
I think this proposal is great for college football, but doesn’t really affect non-power conferences. Since 1998, only twice has a non-BCS conference team finished in the top 4: TCU in 2009 and 2010. Boise State has come close several times. The bar is still incredibly high for non-BCS conference teams, and the three best mid-major powers over the existence of the BCS (TCU, Utah and Boise State) are now part of the club.
Not saying this doesn’t increase a non-AQ school’s chances of winning a national title, but it’s not by that much. And they would still need to be undefeated to do it.
Love this for the sport, but not sure it means much besides giving more access to big boys who didn’t go undefeated in the regular season.
Author - Vanquish The Foe
Big Difference
Between a 40% chance of playing for the National Championship as an undefeated non-BCS team and a 0% chance.
It probably also helps BYU that Boise, Utah, and TCU will all BE BCS teams, thus no longer crowding that specific pool of at-large candidates…
by eldermars@yahoo.com on Feb 7, 2012 9:22 AM PST reply actions
Chances...
The schools have a more than zero percent chance in the current system, but not much above that. I think the Cougars in 1984 (had the BCS existed then) could have done it. But you would need a once-in-30-years kind of season, with not even a pair of highly-regarded 1-loss teams. Would be nearly zero, but just north.
Not sure where 40% chance comes from. I think it’s more like 5-10%, which is a ton better I guess, but many dominoes have to fall to make it happen. Going undefeated is very difficult, and even then (as Boise State has shown), a weak conference schedule will keep you out of the top 4.
Author - Vanquish The Foe
Still, top 4 instead of top 2 does make a difference. Boise State would have been top 4 this year without the TCU loss.
But you are right, it doesn’t widen the likelihood too much — since humans make up 2/3 of the formula, the voters could move teams down to make sure those stupid teams with perceived-weaker schedules don’t get in.
Managing Editor - Vanquish The Foe
And...
It’s been shown that coaches vote for their conferences and teams they’ve played. The entire formula is mess.
Author - Vanquish The Foe
Yep. Another angle, though, is that widening it from 2 to 4, it might become more apparent when “voting down” of a non-AQ occurs to keep them out of top 4. In other words, it’s easier to argue someone out of a top-2 spot than a top-4 spot.
Managing Editor - Vanquish The Foe
Boise would've been in
This year, in the current system, if they didn’t lose that one to TCU. IMO, this isn’t much of a difference. Feels like something to appease the playoff voices that are growing and growing rapidly.
"Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken"
by MakJaeTDP on Feb 7, 2012 3:21 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
The system now is bad
Ghe system now had a team playing and winning title and not even winning their coherence. You also had a team that win their conference and conference title game but still ended up ranked behind a team in their own conference that they beat (Oregon 5 Stanford 4) so any change is good but no answer will end arguments. This year alone would have had Oregon conf champs on the outside looking in. Thy would have to have req to get in such as being a conf champ or undefeated indep. I like the idea bc I always want to see that one extra game to finally settle any argents. (not that it will)
by larry_funderburke on Feb 7, 2012 9:36 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Im not sure how this helps BYU...
other than give them an extra spot to gun for. What I do wonder is what does it do for BYU’s odds of getting better bowl tie-ins come 2014 when all the bowls will renegotiate their affiliations. I like the idea of BYU playing in bowls in warmer climates (San Diego, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc.) in the western US. Bowls fitting that category would include Rose, Fiesta, Holiday, Insight, Las Vegas, Poinsettia.
The Rose Bowl is out of the question. Not happening, ever. Especially with the move to the Plus one format.
The Fiesta Bowl is not likely, but I could see a scenario where BYU signs a tiered contract with a few bowls (maybe three) and based on record, or even finishing BCS standings, BYU would go to a particular bowl. This scenario doesnt fix the problem for the “no conference championship to play for” complainers, but it does mean that after one loss we are not “destined” for any one particular bowl.
The other bowls I listed would all take BYU, based on my estimation, of TV sets and seats filled.
Follow me on Twitter
Open bowl spots
I believe the real advantage in the short term is that the four team playoff format opens two bowl games that would have normally been filled by the top four teams. If the bowls stay intact, this means not only a better opportunity at previously unattainable big bowls, but also mid tier bowls as well.
History has shown that to obtain a top four BCS ranking as a non AQ you probably have shown sustained success in the top of the polls. So as this is a worthy goal, the more realistic target is to become a viable option for bowls like the Holiday Bowl, Alamo Bowl, or Sun bowl that have at least twice the payout as the old MWC bowls…especially if the NCAA adopts the seven win requirement.
by Drum and Feathers on Feb 9, 2012 5:31 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It does help...
It’s kind of a mute point to try and figure how this system would have helped teams in the past, because BYU hasn’t had a top 5 caliber team since 1996. If they had kept winning in 2008 and 2009, they would have gotten voted in the top 4 easily, but probably not top 2.
The way it does help immediately is that it makes independence more sensible. Notre Dame is guaranteed a BCS game with a top 8 ranking. If BYU could get a top a top 4 guarantee, that makes independence more doable.
by natewatson9 on Feb 7, 2012 6:09 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
