Jump to content

6 undefeated teams left


MichaelWeston

Recommended Posts

[xml]1 LSU 5 0 1 #3 Oregon 40-27 NW State 49-3 at #25 Miss St 19-6 at #16 WV 47-21 Kentucky 35-7
2 Clemson 5 0 1 Troy 43-19 Wofford 35-27 #21 Auburn 38-24 #11 FSU 35-30 at #11 Vat Tech 23-3
3 Alabama 5 0 1 Kent State 48-7 at #23 Penn St 27-11 N Texas 41-0 #14 Arkansas 38-14 at #12 Florida 38-10
4 Oke 4 0 1 Tulsa 47-14 None at #5 FSU Missou 38-28 Ball St 62-6
5 Oke St 4 0 1 La Lafayette 61-34 Arizona 37-14 at Tulsa 59-33 at #8 Texas AnM 30-29 None
6 Wisconsin 5 0 1 UNLV 51-17 Oregon St 35-0 N Illinois 49-7 S Dakota 59-10 #8 Nebraska 48-17
7 Kansas St 4 0 1 E Kentucky 10-7 None Kent St 37-0 at Miami 28-24 #15 Baylor 36-35
8 Illinois 5 0 1 Ark St 33-15 SD State 56-3 #22 Az State 17-14 WM 23-20 Nwestern 38-35
9 Stanford 4 0 1 S Jose St 57-3 at Duke 44-14 at Arizona 37-10 None UCLA 45-19
10 Texas 4 0 1 Rice 34-9 BYU 17-16 at UCLA 49-20 None at Iowa St 37-14
11 Ga Tech 5 0 1 W Carolina 63-21 at Mid Tenn 49-21 Kansas 66-24 NC 35-28 at NC State 45-35
12 Boise St 4 0 1 at Ga 35-21 None at Toledo 40-15 Tulsa 41-21 Nevada 30-10
13 Houston 5 0 1 UCLA 38-34 at N Texas 48-23 at La Tech 35-34 Ga State 56-0 at UTEP 49-42
14 Michigan 5 0 1 W Michigan 34-10 ND 35-31 E Michigan 31-3 SD State 28-7 Minnesota 58-0
15 Texas Tech 4 0 1 Texas St 50-10 None at NM 59-13 Nevada 35-34 at Kansas 45-34
[/xml]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Undefeated doesn't mean shit. Teams with zero losses have been excluded from being "annointed" by the voters to play for a national championship, while teams who prove on the field that they're no better than 2nd best in their own conference have been tapped to go.

Division 1 is broken. When on-the-field results are ignored to determine which two teams get to play for an on-the-field championship, then there IS no championship. The post-season is nothing more than a series of meaningless exhibition games - the BCS "Championship" game included - and until they come up with a legitimate way of allowing teams to EARN their way into the post-season and to EARN a championship berth, it will continue to be meaningless.

Every other sport in the NCAA uses a playoff. Every other level of NCAA football except Division 1 uses a playoff. Use a playoff, dammit!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='AmishBengalFan' timestamp='1317675122' post='1039872']
Undefeated doesn't mean shit. Teams with zero losses have been excluded from being "annointed" by the voters to play for a national championship, while teams who prove on the field that they're no better than 2nd best in their own conference have been tapped to go.

Division 1 is broken. When on-the-field results are ignored to determine which two teams get to play for an on-the-field championship, then there IS no championship. The post-season is nothing more than a series of meaningless exhibition games - the BCS "Championship" game included - and until they come up with a legitimate way of allowing teams to EARN their way into the post-season and to EARN a championship berth, it will continue to be meaningless.

Every other sport in the NCAA uses a playoff. Every other level of NCAA football except Division 1 uses a playoff. Use a playoff, dammit!
[/quote]
x1 and while you are at it going to balanced schedules of 6 home and 6 away and get rid of the coaches poll.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concur on the schedule/poll comment. And lest folks think I'm just a bellyaching whiner, I actually have a proposed system that could theoretically work that involves an 8-team post season tournament:
1 - 5 teams earn automatic bids by winning their conference championship. The conferences in question are (a) the conference of the defending national champion; and (b ) the 4 other conferences whose members post the best winning percentage in non-conference games.
2 - 3 at-large bids are awarded to teams based on polls (just to get buy-in from those who LOVE polls).
3 - If there are any undefeated teams who do not earn a spot based on (1) and (2), the following will happen: (a) if there is exactly one such team, they replace the 3rd at large team; (b ) if there are more than one such team, the highest-polling of them replaces the 3rd at large team and the others are added to the tournament field, requiring play-in games to get the field down to 8 teams.
4 - Teams are seeded based on poll results, with any teams who earned a berth solely due to being unedefeated (see (3) above) being ranked lower than the teams earning berths due to (1) and (2).
5 - If any play-in games are required, they will be played by the lowest-ranked teams. Games will be on campus sites, with best hosting worst.
6 - After play-in games, if any, teams are paired in the first round based on seedings - best hosts worst - with the caveat that two teams from the same conference or who played during a non-conference regular season game CANNOT be paired. Games will be played on campus sites.
7 - Semi-finals played at predetermined neutral sites, best vs worst. Teams from same conference cannot play, but rematches of regular season opponents are allowed.
8 - Finals played at predetermined neutral site.
9 - Neutral sites for semi-finals and finals will rotate between the 5 major bowl venues: Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, and Cotton (yes, Cotton - I'm old school).

To accomodate the academic impact that the NCAA will whine about regarding the addition of 3 post-season games to their student-athlete's schedules, the regular season will be reduced from 12 games back down to 11, and all teams who lose in the quarterfinals (or play-in if any) will earn berths in one of the thousands of exhibition bowl games. Currently, bowl-bound teams play a total of 13 games. Under my proposal, the only teams who will play 14 will be the two who meet in the championship.... which is exactly the same situation that will occur if the BCS's proposed "Plus 1" format becomes reality.

I'll run the numbers for the 2010 season in a minute and post the list of teams who would've made this ABF Championship Playoff had it been in place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2010 ABF Championship Playoff field would have been determined as follows:

The 2009 national championship was won by Alabama, so the SEC would get an automatic berth for their 2010 champion.

The rankings for all Division I Conferences, based on non-conference W-L record, were:
0.854 SEC (41-7) - automatic berth
0.833 B12 (40-8) - berth
0.795 B10 (35-9) - berth
0.677 P10 (21-10) - berth
0.625 ACC (30-18) - berth
0.600 BE (24-16)
0.575 WAC (23-17)
0.459 MWC (17-20)
0.417 CUSA (20-28)
0.288 MAC (15-37)
0.111 SBC (4-32)

So the champions of the Big 12, Big Ten, Pac 10, and ACC would earn playoff berths, in addition to the SEC's automatic berth as title holders. These five schools were: SEC=Auburn, B12=Oklahoma, B10=Ohio State, P10=Oregon, ACC=Virginia Tech

Note, the ACC beat-out the BE for the final qualifiyng berth by a game. Had the BE registered one more victory over the ACC, they would've come in 5th and UCONN would've replaced Virginia Tech in the post-season field. The Boston College vs Syracuse game in the next-to-last week of the season was essentially a play-in game for these two conferences...talk about taking a relatively meaningless game and adding a WORLD of importance to it!

The end of season rankings were:
1 - Auburn (13-0)*
2 - Oregon (12-0)*
3 - TCU (12-0)
4 - Stanford (11-1)
5 - Wisconsin (11-1)
6 - Ohio State (11-1)*
7 - Oklahoma (11-2)*
8 - Arkansas (10-2)
9 - Michigan State (11-1)
10- Boise State (11-1)
13- Virginia Tech (11-2)*
* = Berths earned for conference championship

So your at-large teams are TCU, Stanford, and Wisconsin.

The playoff seeds would have been:
1 - Auburn (SEC)
2 - Oregon (P10)
3 - TCU (MWC)
4 - Stanford (P10)
5 - Wisconsin (B10)
6 - Ohio State (B10)
7 - Oklahoma (B12)
8 - Virginia Tech (ACC)

None of the teams met during the regular season, so the only pairing restriction is conference affiliation

Opening Round games (campus sites)
8/Virginia Tech at 1/Auburn
7/Oklahoma at 2/Oregon
6/Ohio State at 3/TCU
5/Wisconsin at 4/Stanford

From this point on, we're working on conjecture. Assuming that the team ranked highest in the final 2010 AP Poll wins each game:

Opening Round:
8/Virginia Tech at 1/Auburn = AUBURN
7/Oklahoma at 2/Oregon = OREGON
6/Ohio State at 3/TCU = TCU
5/Wisconsin at 4/Stanford = STANFORD

Wisconsin, Ohio State, Oklahoma and Virginia Tech go to consolation bowl games

Semi-Finals
SUGAR BOWL: 4/Stanford vs 1/Auburn = AUBURN
COTTON BOWL: 3/TCU vs 2/Oregon = TCU

Finals
FIESTA BOWL: 3/TCU vs 1/Auburn = AUBURN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to complely bury this sub-thread, the current 2011 playoff field would be:

B12: Oklahoma
SEC: LSU
B10: Wisconsin
ACC: Clemson
BE: West Virgina
Alabama (berth - At large #1)
Boise State (berth - At large #2)
Oklahoma State (berth - At large #3)

The seeds are:
1 - LSU (SEC)
2 - Alabama (SEC)
3 - Oklahoma (B12)
4 - Wisconsin (B10)
5 - Boise State (MWC)
6 - Oklahoma State (B12)
7 - Clemson (ACC)
8 - West Virgina (BE)

Opening Round Pairings are:
8/West Virginia at 1/LSU
7/Clemson at 2/Alabama
5/Boise State at 3/Oklahoma
6/Oklahoma State at 4/Wisconsin

(OkState cannot play OK in the opening round since they're both B12 schools)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
[xml]1 LSU 7 0
2 Clemson 7 0
3 Alabama 7 0
4 Oke 6 0
5 Oke St 6 0
6 Wisconsin 6 0
7 Kansas St 6 0
8 Arkansas 5 1
9 Oregon 5 1
10 S Meth 5 1
11 Stanford 6 0
12 Boise St 6 0
13 Houston 6 0
14 Michigan St 6 1
15 Illinois 6 1
16 WV 5 1
17 Penn St 6 1
18 Nebraska 5 1
19 LA Lafayette 6 1
20 Washington 5 1
21 Va Tech 6 1
22 Michigan 6 1
23 Ga Tech 6 1
24 SC 6 1
25 Rutgers 5 1
26 Cincinnati 5 1
27 USC 5 1
28 S Miss 5 1
[/xml]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1318913185' post='1047121']
[xml]1 LSU 7 0
2 Clemson 7 0
3 Alabama 7 0
4 Oke 6 0
5 Oke St 6 0
6 Wisconsin 6 0
7 Kansas St 6 0
8 Arkansas 5 1
9 Oregon 5 1
10 S Meth 5 1
11 Stanford 6 0
12 Boise St 6 0
13 Houston 6 0
14 Michigan St 6 1
15 Illinois 6 1
16 WV 5 1
17 Penn St 6 1
18 Nebraska 5 1
19 LA Lafayette 6 1
20 Washington 5 1
21 Va Tech 6 1
22 Michigan 6 1
23 Ga Tech 6 1
24 SC 6 1
25 Rutgers 5 1
26 Cincinnati 5 1
27 USC 5 1
28 S Miss 5 1
[/xml]
[/quote]
:24:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like your tourney but I would simply do the top 11 conference winners plus 5 at large limiting it to 3 at most per conference and seeding by ranking. I love your pairing restrictions of did you play in the reg season and are you in conference. Not sure it works but here goes.

Here are my pairings.

[xml]1 SEC LSU 16 WAC Nevada
2 at large Alabama 15 MAC Toledo
3 Big 12 Oklahoma 14 Sun Belt La LaFayette
4 at large Oke St 13 Con USA Houston
5 Moutain West Boise State 12 Big East WV
6 Big Ten Wisconsin 11 at large Kansas St
7 ACC Clemson 10 at large Oregon
8 Pac 12 Stanford 9 at large Arkansas
[/xml]

How the tourney would work
1 SEC LSU 16 WAC Nevada
8 Pac 12 Stanford 9 at large Arkansas

4 at large Oke St 13 Con USA Houston
5 Moutain West Boise State 12 Big East WV

6 Big Ten Wisconsin 11 at large Kansas St
3 Big 12 Oklahoma 14 Sun Belt La LaFayette

7 ACC Clemson 10 at large Oregon
2 at large Alabama 15 MAC Toledo

Oregon-Clemson, Stanford-Arkansas, Wisconsin-K State, Boise-Wisconsin all epic first round matchups.

[quote name='BigDawgBengal' timestamp='1318913578' post='1047122']
:24:
[/quote]

This is why this board sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did it based off quality wins. SMU has beaten a ranked team and lost to a ranked team. There is not a team behind them that has a good win and a "good" loss. Some with no good wins and some with good wins and a bad loss. SMU has one loss to a ranked team and beat a ranked team.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1318945059' post='1047201']
I did it based off quality wins. SMU has beaten a ranked team and lost to a ranked team. There is not a team behind them that has a good win and a "good" loss. Some with no good wins and some with good wins and a bad loss. SMU has one loss to a ranked team and beat a ranked team.
[/quote]
Quality wins? They have beaten UTEP (3-3), Northwestern State (FCS team), Memphis (1-6), TCU (4-2) only half decent win, and UCF (3-3). I dont really see any true quality wins that says they should be ranked 10th. The only decent team they played and you dont even have them in your rankings, they were beaten by 32 points.

They are not even ranked in the top 25 in the coaches poll or AP poll. So basically what you are saying is that the 120 coaches and 65 AP members are all way off base on SMU. I could understand having them in the bottom 20 but 10th is just crazy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine is done completely off of quality wins and losses. Nothing else factors in. Any team with a win against a top 25 team basically gets a plus. Any team with more than that gets another plus and so on. TCU was a top 24 team when they beat them so they get a plus. The rankings that you are talking about are done based off preconceived notions of teams and preseason rankings. This ranking ignores all that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1317917515' post='1041010']Need to have all 11 conferences int he tourney and here is why....Whats to stop the sun belt from playing only teams they can beat or the Big Ten from doing the same. What would happen is you would never see a quality out of conference game. I love everything else.[/quote]Actually, my proposal covers that. With conferences being ranked based on their out-of-conference results and with an 11-game schedule, every team in every conference must play at least 3 non-conference games. Sure, the NCAA could run with this and require that each team's non-conference schedule be against three different conferences, or we could just leave it alone and let the Big Ten beat-up on the MAC every year like they do (as the ACC/SEC does to CUSA and the Sun Belt annually). If the mid-major conferences want to go for that, their only legitimate shot at making the field is for one of their members to go undefeated. But even that would be an improvement, since non mid-major team gets a shot as shit EVEN IF they go undefeated. So even in a worst-case scenario, things are vastly improved IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1318953337' post='1047482']Mine is done completely off of quality wins and losses. Nothing else factors in. Any team with a win against a top 25 team basically gets a plus. Any team with more than that gets another plus and so on. TCU was a top 24 team when they beat them so they get a plus. The rankings that you are talking about are done based off preconceived notions of teams and preseason rankings. This ranking ignores all that.[/quote]

But the math is tainted, because the determination of "Top 25" is based on polls. I want a system where a team that starts the season 0-0 can win their way to a championship WITHOUT any outside help, and without having to run up the score to earn style points with voters. We it up to me, I would throw polling out the window altogether. As it is, only 2 spots are guaranteed to "at large" teams, and that's only to get buy-in from idiots who think that 'looking good' is more important than 'being good'. To round out the starting field of eight I would use a combination of a simple mathematical rating system (even the one used by OSHAA or Jeff Sagarin would work) and possibly expanding the # of champions from 5 to 6-7.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...