Views
835
Comments
47
  • 06/04/2012, 09:38AM ET

The Best Compromise - NCAA Top 4 Selection

Grue (43-9-3) vs Golden Grillz (116-117-21)
6
Votes
4
Votes
6
Votes
4
Votes


Of all the proposals for the NCAA Final 4, the best compromise has yet to be proposed:

We've seen:
1. Top 4 Ranked
2. Top 4 Conference Champs in Top 6
3. Top 4 Conference Champs (no At Large)
4. Top 3 Conference Champs + 1 At Large/CC

Feel free to argue any of those or your own.

But the Ultimate Plan, the Grue Plan, is:

a. Take the 4 highest ranked Conference Champs in the top 5.
Exceptions:
b. If a Non-Conference champ is ranked in the top 2, (the Alabama Rule), they replace the lowest ranked CC in the playoff.
c. If fewer than 4 CC are in the top 5 in the final rankings, take the highest ranked at-large teams.

This proposal is statistically similar to the 3+1 plan. The odds of the two plans producing different results are slim.

To differ from the 3+1, the At-Large would have to be ranked 3rd or 4th with the other 4 spots of the top 5 held by Conference Champs.

1. CC
2. CC
3. ATL
4. CC
5. CC

My proposal & Top 6 would give 1-2-4-5.
The 3+1 would give 1-2-3-4.

Or 3 at-large would be ranked in the top 5.
1. CC
2. CC
3. ATL
4. ATL
5. ATL
6. CC
My proposal would give 1-2-3-4.
The 3+1 & Top 6 would give 1-2-3-6.


Your rules are very contradictory:

take the 4 highest Conference Champions

and then proceed to come up with exceptions on how to replace them with other teams based on rankings (Alabama rule).

What determines these four Conference Champions? SEC, Big 12...

All you're going to get from this is the death of at large schools like Boise State that have recently climbed to prominance. Sure you're going to say they can be ranked in the top 5 and make it in, but given their conference, strength of schedule, and what not... it isn't going to happen.

Plus, if you're going to favor certain conferences over the other, then why not make them their own division, because that's what this is...

I believe in the KISS approach... Keep It Simple Stupid... and follow the model from NCAA basketball... 1 bracket at least

11 Conferences... take a winner from each

5 At-large from the top 10 (Alabama clause)

1 vs 16, 2 v 15... 8v9 seeding based on rankings

Tourney goes on for 4 weeks... start it Dec. 10 (bowls started on 17th last year). First 2 weeks high seed hosts team, after that you give it to the bowl traditions (Rose, Sugar, Orange, etc.)


"Conf. commissioners, ND athletic director, and other college football officials agreed to eliminate 8-team and 16-team playoff proposals to determine the sport's future national champions."
http://tinyurl.com/8ytmwax

That 16-team is outside the box thinking. (I favor 8-team, myself). But it isn't going to happen.

The ADs and commissioners and NCAA are haggling over the 4-team selection process. The SEC/Big 12 and Other 4 have drawn lines in the sand on their respective proposals for 4-team selection.

We're stuck, for now, with 4 teams. 16? Incontheivable.

The 5-team, top 2 AtL selection, may actually bring the two sides together.

Conference Championship Nightmare scenario:
"Georgia Shocks LSU
AP - Sunday December 4, 2011

The Georgia Bulldogs shocked the world. After holding LSU to less than 12 yards of offense and seven first half punts, the Bulldogs survived a late second half rally to win the SEC Championship.

The Final BCS Standings Are:
1. Alabama
2. LSU
3. Oklahoma State"

A 2-loss team wins the SEC, despite having the top 2 (or 3) teams in the country. And the playoff ignores both of them. Won't ever happen.


You say I am going out of the box with 16 teams, and yet you're proposing a 5 or 6 team scenario...

Regardless of our solutions, it is going to come down to $. While at this time it is the big conferences that are dragging their feet... however if NCAA caters too much the big conferences what incentive is left for the little conferences?

While the little schools may not seem much of a deal by themselves in football regards. There are other sports in which they can make an impact (basketball in particular). This is where they can not be pissed off.

Take away their money in one sport, then risk losing it in another.

With all that said, there will be a 4 team setup. Is it going to be a joke like the current setup. YES

Does most people care? NO why not? Because teams are still going to be omitted from the playoffs that belong

The system is too flawed, and the bgi wigs are too narrow minded to bite the bullet and do something drastic that the fans would love.

The 16 team system is the best way to give this to all conferences, and at large teams.


The Conf. Commissioners and ADs already agreed to a 4-team scenario. This TD is about a compromise that will get the Conf. Commissioners and ADs to agree to team selection.

They have already unanimously agreed on a 16-team playoff proposal - they agreed it will never happen.

I am proposing a 4-team scenario.

Flawed or not, the only way to bring these sides together is to offer a solution that meets both their needs.

1. The SEC & Big 12 want the "Best teams"
- "People want to see the best four teams play in a playoff. The problem in college football is there's not equal parity in the leagues." Nick Saban

2. The Big Ten (and others) want CCs in the Top 6.
"If four conference champions are ranked in the top six you take the top four conference champions." Jim Delaney

The SEC doesn't want a second place SEC team left out because the leagues do not have parity. The Big 10 wants to have a top 6 CC included. But with a top 6 CC included, 2 higher ranked at-large teams are dropped. Including a potential #1 or #2 team.

My idea blends the two, removes both weaknesses.

This is about compromise to finally get a playoff. 4 will happen. 16 won't.


In essence you are supporting the "Best teams"... sure you put a lot of words in there to describe your compromise, but in reality you're trying to substitute the top 5 ranked teams for the conference Champs whenever they're ranked higher.

Write it how ever you want it really is that simple. Sure you wrote conference champs get in... unless there's a team ranked in the top 5...

or if fewer than 4 are in the top 5, then replace them with the top 5... how often can the conference champs make up 80% of the top 5... didn't happen last season

Rankings prior to bowl games:
1. LSU (SEC)
2. Alabama (SEC)
3. Ok ST (Big 12)
4. Stanford (Pac)
5. Oregon/USC (PAC)

only 3 conference champs

Your idea does nothing, but sound like it removes weakness. By chance do you also write used care deals? Your plan sounds about as likely to work as communism.

Yes the 16 team plan is not going to be implemented. Not because of it being the right thing to do competitively, but because the fat cats on top (SEC, PAC... Big...) don't want to share too much $. It is that simple.

Comment #1 has been removed
June 4, 2012  10:21 AM ET

Should be the top 4 conference champions. How can you, logically, ask for a shot at a 2-game playoff for a national title if you've lost the 8-game playoff for your local title?

Comment #3 has been removed
June 4, 2012  10:52 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

Should be the top 4 conference champions. How can you, logically, ask for a shot at a 2-game playoff for a national title if you've lost the 8-game playoff for your local title?

"Logic"? In CFB? Get outta here! ;-)

These different scenarios will all be entertaining to argue merit, but there is no perfect system and none will please everybody, so in the end, the $$ flow will determine the system employed. Shocking, I know.

Comment #5 has been removed
June 4, 2012  11:07 AM ET
QUOTE(#4):

"Logic"? In CFB? Get outta here! ;-)These different scenarios will all be entertaining to argue merit, but there is no perfect system and none will please everybody, so in the end, the $$ flow will determine the system employed. Shocking, I know.

This is why there really is 3 division I... SEC, Big whatever, Pac ##..., and then the mid majors, and then the Division 1A like Montana, Richmond, Alcorn State, Applachain...

June 4, 2012  11:22 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

This is why there really is 3 division I... SEC, Big whatever, Pac ##..., and then the mid majors, and then the Division 1A like Montana, Richmond, Alcorn State, Applachain...

You threw me for a bit of a loop there...since the title and intro specifically called out top 4 selection process.

June 4, 2012  11:33 AM ET
QUOTE(#7):

You threw me for a bit of a loop there...since the title and intro specifically called out top 4 selection process.

It also said "Compromise" so I was coming up with my best solution to the current 4 team proposal.

June 4, 2012  11:35 AM ET
QUOTE(#8):

It also said "Compromise" so I was coming up with my best solution to the current 4 team proposal.

It's fine to argue because i didn't specifically say "you must argue 4-team"... just surprised me.

June 4, 2012  11:37 AM ET
QUOTE(#9):

It's fine to argue because i didn't specifically say "you must argue 4-team"... just surprised me.

Sheesh! 7 & 9 sound contradictory again... while my title and intro specifically said 4 team, it didn't specifically say you have to pick a 4-team.

Comment #11 has been removed
June 4, 2012  11:47 AM ET
QUOTE(#10):

Sheesh! 7 & 9 sound contradictory again... while my title and intro specifically said 4 team, it didn't specifically say you have to pick a 4-team.

We'll get past this... unless you want to TD on the clarity of your title ;)

June 4, 2012  11:51 AM ET
QUOTE(#12):

We'll get past this... unless you want to TD on the clarity of your title ;)

haha.... noooo thanks.

June 4, 2012  12:00 PM ET
QUOTE(#11):

Should be 16 teams, not 4.

Just make it 120! Give bye weeks to the teams that recorded 7 losses and wear green jerseys when they play their home games. Then if there is still an uneven number of teams, just have 5 of them play on an octagon football field and settle it that way. If that doesn't do it, then I hope you can pay the NCAAF as much as people could pay Tim Donaghy...

June 4, 2012  12:01 PM ET
QUOTE(#5):

I say let Congress get involved.

BWAHHHAAAAAHAHAAAAA!


I ALREADY said logic wasn't allowed, why are you saying it again?

;-)

Comment #16 has been removed
June 4, 2012  12:07 PM ET
QUOTE(#10):

Sheesh! 7 & 9 sound contradictory again... while my title and intro specifically said 4 team, it didn't specifically say you have to pick a 4-team.

Just to throw another variable in there, is this supposed to be the one that's best for....who? the fans? the schools? the sport? ESPiN/the networks?

Comment #18 has been removed
Comment #19 has been removed
 
June 4, 2012  12:11 PM ET
QUOTE(#12):

We'll get past this... unless you want to TD on the clarity of your title ;)

Thanks for the TD, Grillz! I just wanted to get the "Grue Plan" out there. I hadn't heard it proposed before.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Leaderboard

  Fan W L T Win %
1 Darth Maim 76 21 7 76.4%
2 fvkasm2x 193 58 12 75.7%
3 7#bag _ Com 996 338 74 73.4%
4 HOOTZ 33 14 9 67.0%
5 Marlins Fan 156 78 31 64.7%
6 Argos. 184 101 29 63.2%
7 Goodell: Fannation Savior 643 429 71 59.4%
8 J-Business 78 66 19 53.7%
9 Highway... 175 848 64 19.0%

The Si.com Cover Hub Go to the Cover Hub

Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    D'Antoni's newest 'blunder'
    Views
    2657
    Comments
    866
  2. 2
    Bryant headed back to Germany
    Views
    2690
    Comments
    789
  3. 3
    Baseball's top 2015 free agent
    Views
    2351
    Comments
    527
  4. 4
    Shakeup looms for White Sox
    Views
    4564
    Comments
    328
  5. 5
    The NHL's model franchise?
    Views
    2199
    Comments
    139

Most Active Users

Comments + Blog Posts + Throwdowns

  1. 1
    Robataille
  2. 2
    ~Mother-Marge~
  3. 3
    TxHeat
  4. 4
    buddhaa.luck
  5. 5
    Deep Creek

Blogs