Saw this link on another board.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:54 pm

http://projectplayoffs.com/

thoughts? very intriguing...

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:13 pm

I don’t like their idea of putting all the top teams of existing conferences (Ex: Texas, OU, A&M, Tech) into their own conference and then putting all the shit teams from the existing conferences (Ex: Baylor, TCU, SMU) in their own conference and then the winner of the shit conference getting an automatic bid when they really have MUCH lesser competition. It would be too easy for a school like TCU to dominate that conference they have proposed year in and year out.

Cross Traffic · Post by **Cross Traffic** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:34 pm

Where the hell is Boise State?!? Hawaii would get smoked by all those Pac-10 teams.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:32 am

IndyFrisco wrote:I don’t like their idea of putting all the top teams of existing conferences (Ex: Texas, OU, A&M, Tech) into their own conference and then putting all the shit teams from the existing conferences (Ex: Baylor, TCU, SMU) in their own conference and then the winner of the shit conference getting an automatic bid when they really have MUCH lesser competition. It would be too easy for a school like TCU to dominate that conference they have proposed year in and year out.

I dont think the shit teams from the conferences made the top division, if you look, only the top 64 teams made the top division so the schools Like Baylor and SMU would be trying to win the lower divisions title so they could move up to the higher division.

This all looks very familliar

Terry in Crapchester · Sun Jul 17, 2005 5:13 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds remarkably like something Schmick proposed when he first joined us. Perhaps Schmick copied it from this site (or a similar site) without giving them the credit.

IndyFrisco wrote:I don’t like their idea of putting all the top teams of existing conferences (Ex: Texas, OU, A&M, Tech) into their own conference and then putting all the shit teams from the existing conferences (Ex: Baylor, TCU, SMU) in their own conference and then the winner of the shit conference getting an automatic bid when they really have MUCH lesser competition. It would be too easy for a school like TCU to dominate that conference they have proposed year in and year out.

With all due respect, I read PSUFAN's link, and I saw nothing that would suggest such a possibility. As I understand it, geography would play an even more important role than current conference affiliation, and if that's the case, Baylor, TCU, and SMU likely would wind up in the same conference with Texas, A&M and Texas Tech.

Not to mention that this proposal would take only 64 Division 1-A teams. Nearly half of all Division 1-A teams would fail to make the cut. I don't think you have to worry about Baylor or SMU being included in this scenario anytime soon.

Having said all of that, my observations . . .

First, if you are going to go with a format such as this, imho, you would need to revise the list on an annual basis. Too many teams under the link's proposal got a free pass on the basis of geographic fortuity, tradition, or both. If you're going to go with this format, you have to throw out such things as conference affiliation and tradition and go with the top 64 Division 1-A teams. Using Sagarin's ratings, which they did, here's how I would see it shaping out for this year, if it were in effect:

Northeast Conference
Boston College #26 (automatic bid)
West Virginia #29
Navy #33
Maryland #47
UConn #48
Pittsburgh #55
Syracuse #62
Penn State #63

Atlantic Conference
Virginia Tech #7 (automatic bid)
Tennessee #15 (at-large bid)
Virginia #22
North Carolina #35
North Carolina State #40
Clemson #45
South Carolina #54
Wake Forest #65

Southeast Conference
Auburn #2 (automatic bid)
Miami #9 (at-large bid)
Georgia #11 (at-large bid)
Florida State #16
LSU #18
Georgia Tech #25
Florida #30
Alabama #59

Mideast Conference
Louisville #5 (automatic bid)
Michigan #19
Ohio State #21
Purdue #24
Notre Dame #31
Bowling Green #39
Cincinnati #65
Michigan State #66

Midwest Conference
Iowa #12 (automatic bid)
Wisconsin #27
Minnesota #38
Iowa State #52
Northwestern #56
Missouri #60
Nebraska #68
Northern Illinois #69

Southwest Conference
Oklahoma #3 (automatic bid)
Texas #8 (at-large bid)
Texas Tech #14 (at-large bid)
Texas A&M #23
Oklahoma State #28
UTEP #42
New Mexico #43
Arkansas #44

Mountain West Conference
Utah #4 (automatic bid)
Boise State #10 (at-large bid)
Arizona State #13 (at-large bid)
Colorado #32
BYU #41
Wyoming #49
Kansas #57
Kansas State #61

Pacific Conference
USC #1 (automatic bid)
California #6 (at-large bid)
Oregon State #17
Fresno State #20
UCLA #34
Stanford #46
Oregon #51
Washington State #53

If you had done a playoff last season according to this formula, I would have switched the seeding of #13 Arizona State and #14 Texas Tech so as to avoid a first-round matchup between conference opponents. The playoff brackets would have looked like this:

#1 USC vs.
#16 Boston College

#8 Texas vs.
#9 Miami

#4 Utah vs.
#13 Texas Tech

#5 Louisville vs.
#12 Iowa

#6 California vs.
#11 Georgia

#3 Oklahoma vs.
#14 Arizona State

#7 Virginia Tech vs.
#10 Boise State

#2 Auburn vs.
#15 Tennessee

The biggest strength of this system is that it would go much farther toward determining a true on-field national champion. But there are several disadvantages. The most obvious is that traditional rivalries run the risk of biting the dust. Another disadvantage is that if you're going to form conferences on a geographical basis, there's no way of balancing the conferences by strength, as the above example shows. Scheduling is also an issue. If this format is realigned on an annual basis, the earliest teams could firm up their schedules is February, and they couldn't have a firm schedule in place beyond the following season. In this day and age, that's certainly doable, but how will the fan bases react to it? Another concern: if realignment takes place every year, will teams that make the cut be required to play at least one game a year against a team that doesn't make the cut, in order to keep the group from becoming too insular?

OTOH, as I've mentioned before, the universities recognize that college hockey is a slightly different animal, and the conference alignments for college hockey reflect that fact. Similarly, college football is a different animal, so why shouldn't conference alignments in college football reflect that fact as well?

Never say never, but a lot of questions would have to be answered before this could become a reality.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:51 pm

projectplayoffs has a copyright of 2005, Im thinking Schmick is behind this cause he has been talking about this on WeareSc for about 4 years now

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:41 pm

SoCalTrjn wrote:projectplayoffs has a copyright of 2005, Im thinking Schmick is behind this cause he has been talking about this on WeareSc for about 4 years now

I think every college football message board in the country has been discussing this for about 4 years ;)

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 10:06 pm

I say you just use the BCS-point system to elect four teams for a play-off then use the four BCS bowls for the play-off. All the other bowls remain the same. Which BCS bowl gets the championship would rotate. Two years of semi-final games, a finals game, then one year hosting the 5th and 6th ranked teams. With a four-team playoff only two teams in the whole freaking country play an extra game, how can the NCAA be averse to that? BCS conferences would be pissed because automatic bids would go out the window, but screw 'em. I don't want conferences to be changed around to enable a play-off, I also don't want teams to be in/out because of what conference they are or aren't in.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 3:02 am

You should send them emails, your sigs are very persuasive.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:37 am

Kansas and Missouri not in the same conference would be a mistake. never has so much hate been generated with so little at stake....except pride.

where's Arizona? Colorado fans would commit suicide en masse rather than be in the same conference with CSU and old time WAC members. the Kansas schools and Mountain in the same phrase?

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:15 am

Terrys conferences has a few teams who are not in the top 64, those not in the top 64 play in the lower division and would have to earn their way in to the upper division.

I would rather see those kinds of games than Auburn at home vs the Citadel, let Auburn play Miami; Georgia; Florida State; LSU; Georgia Tech; Florida; Alabama and then 3 games vs teams like Virginia Tech; Tennessee and Michigan, then if theyre among the top 2 in their conference they go to the playoffs
Whats the problem with that?

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Jul 18, 2005 10:21 am

SoCalTrjn wrote:Terrys conferences has a few teams who are not in the top 64, those not in the top 64 play in the lower division and would have to earn their way in to the upper division.

I would rather see those kinds of games than Auburn at home vs the Citadel, let Auburn play Miami; Georgia; Florida State; LSU; Georgia Tech; Florida; Alabama and then 3 games vs teams like Virginia Tech; Tennessee and Michigan, then if theyre among the top 2 in their conference they go to the playoffs
Whats the problem with that?

Actually, I took the top 64 Division 1-A teams according to Sagarin. A few 1-AA teams were ranked ahead, which explains why the rankings dropped as low as 69.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:40 pm

I have liked the concept of having 8 12 team conferences. The winners of the Conference title games are seeded 1-8 in a playoff system. Teams seeded 9-16 can be teams who lose in the Conference Championship, or higher ranked teams who finish in 2nd place in the division of the Conference Champion(for example, Texas last season).

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:49 pm

8 12 team conferences is still too many teams. Are you going to have 11 game regular seasons? that will give teams unequal amounts of home and road games, you go to a 12 game season and now 4 rounds of playoffs gives you 16 games, thats too many.
What works about the 8 team conferences is everyone plays everyone in their conference plus 3 games vs teams from one of the other 7 elite conferences. 4 rounds of playoffs and youre at 14 games to the final 2 teams.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 10:15 pm

First off let's get our facts straight. This site picks the top 64 teams based on attendance, not Sagrin or any other ratings.

Here is a quote from the site:

Under this new plan, the top 64 schools in the country are selected based on average home attendance figures regardless of current division status. For this example, attendance figures for 2004 are used to realign teams...It is only fair that the fans are rewarded for supporting their school. The top 64 schools for the new Division 1 represent the colleges with the strongest followings. There is not a fairer method of selection.

So given that BYU, Kentucky, Stanford, Army, UConn, Kansas and others are in the top 64 while teams like Indiana, Northwestern, Washington State, Boise State and the past three MAC winners (who have shown they can beat Big11 teams) are all out.

All that aside though what this proposal really would mean is the death of most athletic programs outside of the top 64 teams. TV dollars would pour in for the top group and would basically go away for the lower division teams. The money these schools get for playing on TV pays for a ton of their other sports. Take away the money shared in the conference for TV revenue and you will see a ton of programs die.

Also, these guys have attempted to take this idea across every division not just D-1. I guess they have never been to a lower division game. The Ivy schools have no desire to play 11 games, nor will you see them realign. Same for many of the Division II schools I have officiated. They would collectively give these guys the finger.

Finally and maybe most importantly is state legislatures would get involved and prevent this from happening. Take Washington for example. No way are they going to allow UW to get more dollars from being in the top 64 and WSU to get less. We have already seen the legislatures step into college football (see UF dropping Miami and attempting to drop FSU) and they would do it again in a heartbeat here.

College football isn't broken, why mess with it. A 4 team playoff which I have been pushing for years and Danimal mentioned earlier is all that is needed.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:20 pm

teams outside the top 64 would have a chance to play their way in to the top 64 every season, and those in the top 64 are not guaranteed that they will alwys be there. One bad season could land a program in the lower division, any type of NCAA sanctions that would now result in a ban from bowl games should also be cause to drop a team to the lower division. There would also be TV contracts for the lower divisions and their playoffs and those teams would pool that money with those reaching the playoffs and advancing in each round getting a larger piece of the pie.

Of course you not supporting this program has nothing to do with you being a Rice alum/fan since Sagarin had rice ranked #107 does it?

I didnt see where they said it would affect division 2, they were just splitting 1 and 1aa up

If lack of big TV money or bowl games from the football program hurts the rest of the athletic programs why are the IVY league schools still able to field teams? why is Cal State Fullerton still among the nations best in baseball every year? or Long Beach St?
It was washington that would have been excluded from this because they were no where close to the top 64, politicians would understand that if a team isnt good enough to play in the upper division they dont belong upper division money. Ohios legislators arent complaining that the other Ohio schools arent in the big 10 with Ohio State

64 teams is more than enough for Division 1

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:40 pm

Did you read the site or my post? It sure looks like you didn't.

First off read the article and then my quote from the site. It is based on attendance not Sagrin or any other rating system.

Second there is this quote:

The divisions below Division 1 will also be comprised of eight conferences with eight teams each, except for the bottom conference, which will have slightly more because of uneven numbers. All totaled, there will be 11 divisions for this new system of college football, which will encompass all schools in Division I-A, I-AA, II, III, and NAIA.

Third I have no issues with RICE. I totally understand where they are and why they are there. The reasons I played for RICE are the same guys are playing for RICE today. No doubt our goals are different than those of Texas or OU.

Finally Washington State is not in the top 64 of attendance while Washington is. However given the fact you didn't understand any of this previously I see why you don't get this either.

College football isn't Pro football and this plan is just moving college football closer to the NFL.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:05 pm

Third I have no issues with RICE. I totally understand where they are and why they are there. The reasons I played for RICE are the same guys are playing for RICE today. No doubt our goals are different than those of Texas or OU.

big rack.

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm

Fuck the playoffs.

What would College Football be without the controversy?

Terry in Crapchester · Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:35 pm

Left Seater wrote:First off let's get our facts straight. This site picks the top 64 teams based on attendance, not Sagrin or any other ratings.

Here is a quote from the site:

Under this new plan, the top 64 schools in the country are selected based on average home attendance figures regardless of current division status. For this example, attendance figures for 2004 are used to realign teams...It is only fair that the fans are rewarded for supporting their school. The top 64 schools for the new Division 1 represent the colleges with the strongest followings. There is not a fairer method of selection.
So given that BYU, Kentucky, Stanford, Army, UConn, Kansas and others are in the top 64 while teams like Indiana, Northwestern, Washington State, Boise State and the past three MAC winners (who have shown they can beat Big11 teams) are all out.

All that aside though what this proposal really would mean is the death of most athletic programs outside of the top 64 teams. TV dollars would pour in for the top group and would basically go away for the lower division teams. The money these schools get for playing on TV pays for a ton of their other sports. Take away the money shared in the conference for TV revenue and you will see a ton of programs die.

My bad, Lefty, I was so focused on Schmick's original proposal (which was similar to this, although not based on attendance) that I overlooked the part on attendance.

Having said that, some of your examples are also erroneous. Stanford and Army did not make the cut for the Top 64, although San Diego State, Air Force and Hawaii all did.

If you're going to go to a proposal like this, I would prefer that the alignment be on the basis of on-field performance rather than attendance. On-field performance gets you closer to a true national champion, if that's the goal. OTOH, such a format based on on-field performance (which would entail annual revision of necessity) runs the risk of destroying many current rivalries that are the heart and soul of college football. Basing it on attendance at least allows some degree of continuity when it comes to scheduling.

Also, these guys have attempted to take this idea across every division not just D-1. I guess they have never been to a lower division game. The Ivy schools have no desire to play 11 games, nor will you see them realign. Same for many of the Division II schools I have officiated. They would collectively give these guys the finger.

True, but you could make a minor revision to it that wouldn't cause that to happen.

With Florida Atlantic and Florida International joining the Sun Belt Conference this year, there are now 119 teams in Division 1-A. Adding only nine teams to Division 1-A would raise the number to 128, and you could then restrict this proposal strictly to Division 1-A.

But you're right, Harvard and Yale would never leave the Ivy League for a chance to go to Division 1-A under such a proposal.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:09 pm

basing it on attendance is horrible, a couple years back Oregon was easily the second best team in the nation and may have played Miami much closer than Nebraska did, the Ducks play in a stdium that holds about 40,000 people. west coast teams will never have the attendance that east coast and southern teams will have. One major reason is that most the people who live on the west coast are people from the east coast who wanted to get away from most the east coast stuff. These people have no allegiance to west coast teams. Also people on the west coast normally consider themselves as professional sports fans and just wont support college sports, most went to colleges that dont even have football teams.
I dont thik Schmick considered that west coast teams have smaller attendance when he made up this proposal

Terry in Crapchester · Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:21 am

Attendance would only be used to divide teams into the 64-team divisions, not for purposes of determining playoff seedings. And there was also an alternate proposal to realign the divisions every 5 or 10 years.

Fwiw, here's the bottom 10% of Division 1 teams in terms of attendance, along with the top 10% of Division 2 teams in terms of attendance.

58. Air Force 38,043
59. UTEP 37,382
60. New Mexico 37,282
61. Syracuse 37,068
62. Hawaii 36,801
63. Oregon State 36,334
64. San Diego State 35,995
_________________________
65. Stanford 35,942
66. Washington State 34,883
67. Army 31,963
68. Navy 31,017
69. Rutgers 30,994
70. Wake Forest 30,763
71. East Carolina 30,684

From the standpoint of state legislatures, I can only see three potentially being alarmed: Washington, Oregon and Indiana.

Washington: Washington is in the top 64 in terms of attendance; Washington State is barely outside the top 64, could make it in on a future realignment.

Oregon: Both are in the top 64, Oregon is safe but Oregon State is very vulnerable in a future realignment.

Indiana: Purdue is in the top 64, Indiana is not, both teams would be likely to remain where they are (Indiana ranks 76 in terms of attendance).

Also, fwiw, Iowa State is somewhat vulnerable in a future realignment while Iowa is secure, but Iowa State ranks 52 in attendance, so a lot of schools would have to pass Iowa State before Iowa State would fall to Division 2.

There are a number of other states where state schools are split between Division 1 and Division 2, but the rest of those states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Tennessee, Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and California) aren't likely to generate much controversy in that regard.

Terry in Crapchester · Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:30 am

SoCalTrjn wrote:Also people on the west coast normally consider themselves as professional sports fans and just wont support college sports, most went to colleges that dont even have football teams.

That's the way it is in these parts as well. Most people who went to college here went to SUNY. Buffalo is the only SUNY school with a Division 1-A program, and they've only been 1-A for about 5 years or so.

The Buffalo Bills are unique among NFL teams in that they're one of the few NFL teams with a college-type fan following. I suspect this is the reason why.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:16 pm

Terry, I first found 2003 numbers so that is what I used. The difference from one year to the next is another problem for this proposal. One team who is usually above the 64 mark, but fell below the season they decided to put this in place will bitch and moan and likely go to court to be included.

Furthermore the division of teams along regional lines give some regions an unfair advantage. Look at the number or one representative regions in this playoff and others with three. Those teams playing in the stacked region will never go for it.

Terry in Crapchester · Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:52 pm

Left Seater wrote:Terry, I first found 2003 numbers so that is what I used. The difference from one year to the next is another problem for this proposal. One team who is usually above the 64 mark, but fell below the season they decided to put this in place will bitch and moan and likely go to court to be included.

I get what you're saying, although I'm not sure it's a foregone conclusion that teams will be itching to get into Division 1 all the time, particularly if it were subject to realignment on a periodic basis. Take Stanford, for example. Based on last season's attendance, Stanford missed out on the Top 64 by only 53 fans per game. But being in Division 2 might be a blessing, in that they'd be likely to reach the Division 2 playoffs, while Division 1 playoffs probably would be out of the question. A few seasons in the playoffs at Division 2 might benefit them at the expense of, oh, say, Washington or Oregon should they return to Division 1 under a future realignment. Not to mention that Stanford is a private school, and therefore, the California legislature wouldn't get involved.

Furthermore the division of teams along regional lines give some regions an unfair advantage. Look at the number or one representative regions in this playoff and others with three. Those teams playing in the stacked region will never go for it.

I think the realization that there would be a disparity between the conferences is the main reason why the proposal at that site is for a 16-team playoff.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:31 pm

if they base the top 64 on performance instead of attendance they wont have the problem, a team can't bitch if they didnt get it done on the field. they can go to alower division and try toplay their way back up to the top one

Terry in Crapchester · Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:54 pm

The biggest problem I see with going to performance is scheduling.

If it's based on performance, the divisions and conferences would have to be revised every year. That means that you couldn't really firm up your schedule beyond the next season, and it might result in an end to a lot of great rivalries.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:46 pm

if the last place team from each conference falls out of the top division every year, those fringe teams will be moving back and forth quite a bit.
I would gladly see old tird rivalries go away if what I got in return was a real champion who won it all in the playoffs every year

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:23 am

Left Seater wrote:Those teams playing in the stacked region will never go for it.

In all honesty, I don't see any school opposing this format to the extent ND would. In the last few seasons, ND's fan base has made it abundantly clear that they don't want ND joining a conference.

I actually take a somewhat dissenting view in that regard. It's quite clear to me that ND football is the dog and independence is the tail. Thus, while independence has been good to ND football over the course of its history, and ND should not abandon it lightly as a result, I'm not opposed to giving up independence if it's clearly warranted under the circumstances. If the other Division 1-A schools were to vote for this format, I think that would meet the above criteria.