2012.02.11
Far too many words about how Virginia Tech would have retroactively fit using a few current playoff proposals
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the Bowl Championship Series, in its current format, is on its last legs. When even Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, someone who has staunchly defended the system since its inception, starts to turn, it’s probably over.
It has led to no shortage of playoff proposals for when the BCS’s contract is up after the 2013-14 bowl season. All of them are in their infancy, merely at the proposal stage right now, so we’re miles away from having anything finalized. But it appears some kind of drastic change will happen in the BCS, and as a sportswriter who covers college football, I’m pretty sure I’m contractually obligated to look back and see how some of these proposals might have affected past postseasons.
Hokies athletic director Jim Weaver, as a I wrote yesterday, is in favor of a plus-one model that would seed the top four teams in a mini-bracket. This is the same format Virginia Tech head coach Frank Beamer prefers. It’s similar to the model Delany approves, only Weaver would prefer neutral sites for the semifinals, while the Big Ten proposal calls for on-site games at the higher-seeded team.
If the bracket was formed strictly by BCS rankings (and some would prefer a selection committee that can factor in things like strength of schedule), the Hokies would have made two BCS tournaments in the four-team model. Here’s a look:
1999-2000:
- 1. Florida State (11-0) vs. 4. Alabama (10-2)
- 2. Virginia Tech (11-0) vs. 3. Nebraska (11-1)
2006-2007:
- 1. Ohio State (11-1) vs. 4. Oklahoma (11-2)
- 2. LSU (11-2) vs. 3. Virginia Tech (11-2)
This is a season when a four-team playoff — or any kid of playoff — would have been preferable to simply elevating a two-loss LSU team to the championship game, even after it lost at home to Arkansas in triple overtime in the last week of the regular season. I still wouldn’t have given the Hokies much of a chance to advance, even at a neutral site. LSU beat them 48-7 in Baton Rouge in Week 2, when Tyrod Taylor got his first action. Taylor had a whole season to mature and I think the score would have been closer, but I don’t think Virginia Tech would have won.
—
Overall, that seems like a pretty plausible setup. It adds two games to the schedule and only one additional one for two teams. It puts two more teams in the national championship picture, which is usually about where the cutoff is for schools that have a legitimate gripe for being left out. And it keeps the bowl system generally intact, a major point of contention in this whole argument. Overall, if this was the system college football went to, I’d be satisfied.
Now, for an implausible plan. Here’s one proposed by Arizona State president Michael Crow. It’s an eight-team bracket that involves the eight highest-ranked conference champions, a interesting — but I’d argue flawed — way of setting up the postseason. There were no details as to how the teams would be paired, so I’ll just assume it would go by final BCS ranking.
Using that format, Virginia Tech would have been involved in five brackets since the 1998-99 season, the first year the BCS was used. Here’s what those brackets would have looked like:
1999-2000:
- 1. Florida State (11-0, ACC) vs. 8. Stanford (8-3, Pac-10)
- 2. Virginia Tech (11-0, Big East) vs. 7. Southern Miss (8-3, C-USA)*
- 3. Nebraska (11-1, Big 12) vs. 6. Marshall (12-0, MAC)
- 4. Alabama (10-2, SEC) vs. 5. Wisconsin (9-2, Big Ten)
* Best guess. BCS rankings only went to 15 that year. Southern Miss finished year ranked 14th in polls but wasn’t in final BCS rankings. Neither was Stanford, which won a mediocre Pac-10.
BCS rankings of teams involved: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, NR, NR
Those left out: 5. Tennessee, 6. Kansas State, 8. Michigan, 9. Michigan State, 10. Florida, 11 Penn State
How it plays out: The Hokies get the two seed and roll over a Southern Miss team that gets its No. 7 seeding because the Pac-10 was such a disaster. That would set up a second-round matchup with Nebraska, which hands a Chad Pennington-led Marshall team its first loss of the season. From there, I think it plays out as I said before, with the Hokies reaching the title game against Florida State.
2004-05:
- 1. Southern California (11-0, Pac-10) vs. 8. Pittsburgh (8-3, Big East)
- 2. Oklahoma (12-0, Big 12) vs. 7. Michigan (9-2, Big Ten)
- 3. Auburn (12-0, SEC) vs. 6. Boise State (11-0, WAC)
- 4. Utah (11-0, MWC) vs. 5. Virginia Tech (10-2, ACC)
BCS rankings of teams involved: 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13, 21
Those left out: 4. Texas, 5. California, 7. Georgia, 10. Louisville, 11. LSU, 12, Iowa
How it plays out: The is the most intriguing bracket of the bunch, with four unbeatens as the top four seeds. The Hokies, who surprised their way to the ACC title, make it as the fifth seed, matching up against Utes quarterback Alex Smith and coach Urban Meyer in the first round in what you’d expect to be a solid game. If Tech got past Utah (and I’d give it a chance), a rematch with USC would await in the second round. The Hokies played the Trojans tough in the opener, but that was a loaded USC team. If Tech got that far, I think the run ends there.
- 1. Ohio State (11-1, Big Ten) vs. 8. BYU (10-2, MWC)
- 2. LSU (11-2, SEC) vs. 7. Hawaii (12-0, WAC)
- 3. Virginia Tech (11-2, ACC) vs. 6. West Virginia (10-2, Big East)
- 4. Oklahoma (11-2, Big 12) vs. 5. Southern California (10-2, Pac-10)
BCS rankings of teams involved: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 17
Those left out: 5. Georgia, 6. Missouri, 8. Kansas, 11. Arizona State, 12. Florida
How it plays out: This would have been another great year for a playoff, with no clear-cut top team out there. The Hokies would get a first-round matchup with the Pat White/Steve Slaton-led Mountaineers, who blew their chance to play in the BCS title game that year with a loss to Pittsburgh in the season finale. This would have had a great subplot. Rich Rodriguez took the Michigan job on Dec. 16 that year. If a playoff was underway, would he still have been coaching the Mountaineers? And with that drama, you’d expect WVU to falter, but it still housed Oklahoma 48-28 in that year’s Fiesta Bowl, so this would be no first-round gimme for the Hokies. In fact, I ‘d pick the Mountaineers to win that hypothetical game.
- 1. Oklahoma (12-1, Big 12) vs. 8. Virginia Tech (9-4, ACC)
- 2. Florida (12-1, SEC) vs. 7. Cincinnati (11-2, Big East)
- 3. Southern California (11-1, Pac-10) vs. 6. Boise State (12-0, WAC)
- 4. Utah (12-0, MWC) vs. 5. Penn State (11-1, Big Ten)
BCS rankings of teams involved: 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 19
Those left out: 3. Texas, 4. Alabama, 7. Texas Tech, 10. Ohio State, 11. TCU
How it plays out: Strangely, the only Hokies team to win a BCS game under Beamer was one of its worst to make it to one. Tech lost four regular season games this year, some in ugly fashion, but still won a weak ACC. Since Utah and Boise State were good enough to get high seeds, that puts the Hokies at No. 8, going up against an Oklahoma team that featured Heisman Trophy winner Sam Bradford. Although the Sooners would get exposed by Florida in the national title game, I don’t think the Hokies were capable of doing that. One and done.
- 1. Auburn (13-0, SEC) vs. 8. Central Florida (10-3, C-USA)
- 2. Oregon (12-0, Pac-10) vs. 7. Virginia Tech (11-2, ACC)
- 3. TCU (12-0, MWC) vs. 6. Boise State (11-1, WAC)
- 4. Wisconsin (11-1, Big Ten) vs. 5. Oklahoma (11-2, Big 12)
BCS rankings of teams involved: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 25
Those left out: 4. Stanford, 6. Ohio State, 8. Arkansas, 9. Michigan State, 11. LSU, 12. Missouri
How it plays out: The last one puts the Hokies as a 7 seed with an unfavorable matchup against No. 2 Oregon, which featured a fast-pace offense led by LaMichael James and Darron Thomas. The Hokies were red-hot that year, having won 11 straight since the Boise State loss and James Madison debacle, but only two of those wins came against ranked teams, and neither were against competition even coming close to the Ducks. I think Oregon’s pace would have worn Tech down as it advanced to an intriguing matchup against either TCU or Boise State.
—
Some final thoughts on this second proposal:
* It has no chance of succeeding. For starters, going from no playoff to an eight-team one is a non-starter. With a system as entrenched as the BCS is, you have to make small changes over a period of time. That’s why a four-team playoff within the framework of the bowls is plausible in my opinion, and an eight-team one outside the framework of the bowls isn’t. Get it to four teams, then let the bracket creep take it to eight over time. That’s my preference.
* Another reason this model is doomed is because it only rewards conference champions. I realize that winning your conference should be the goal of every team, and there should be a reward for that, but all conferences are not created equal. Look at some of the championship-caliber teams in the years above that wouldn’t have gotten their shot. And that’s not even mentioning this year’s national champion, Alabama, which didn’t win its own division, let alone conference, but was still clearly a team deserving of playing for the national title. I realize the intent is to leave intriguing teams for the bowls, since this playoff would operate outside of that framework. But if you’re going to give eight teams a chance at the national title, just seed the top eight in the BCS.
* Going off that point, I don’t think any Virginia Tech fan would argue that the Hokies deserved a shot at the national title during their four-loss 2008 season. And if you look at the year-by-year matchups, the 7 and 8 seeds are usually pretty weak compared to the field. The intent seems to be to reward a Cinderella-type team from a small conference, but in actuality it just gives a mediocre champion from a lesser BCS conferences a shot they probably don’t deserve.
* That said, there are some interesting matchups that could take place under an eight-team model. And looking at 2007, when there was no dominant team, and 2004, when there were five unbeatens, it seems like the perfect setup. Teams grow during the course of the year. Virginia Tech in 2004 was a good example, shaking off early-season losses to USC and N.C. State to get to the Sugar Bowl, where it gave Auburn all it could handle. It’s no guarantee that the Hokies would have won any BCS bracket games that year, but it’s better to actually see the games played rather that say what-if.
Good article Andy. As long as we’re playing with hypotheticals the one I would have liked to see was the 2000 Tech team. Mike Vick’s last year and a one loss team (a game Vick did not start)
Comment by vtminer94 — February 11, 2012 @ 1:06 pm
Nice job Andy!! We can still look forward to hear; Wait to next year!!
Comment by Eagle — February 11, 2012 @ 2:00 pm
I think there should be an 8-bracket playoff, but not comprised of conference champions. I think it should be zero-loss teams and one-loss teams followed by two-loss teams of highest ranking.
The only problem is that the light scheduling that colleges already do will only get lighter. Less impetus for VT to go the Big-10 and schedule opponents when they can just as easily schedule FCS opponents. Solution to this: all FBS vs FCS games are played at FCS sites. These low-risk games need to have their results be more risky. If they lose, it has to be crippling in the standings, and if they win, it can’t vault them over another team who won that week over an FBS opponent.
Comment by scott — February 11, 2012 @ 2:22 pm
It would hurt a team more to lose to an FCS school at home than away because of the home field advantage that plays in the minds of voters.
Comment by Mike Eads — February 11, 2012 @ 4:01 pm
Tech will never win anything in football, lets not forget the chocking performace against Michigan.Beamer is too set in his ways and will never make the needed changes.
Comment by Drew — February 11, 2012 @ 4:14 pm
One thing that rankles me is how the BCS’ ranking seem to become the overriding factor by Week Nine. Why even have the media and coaches ranking in the first place if the BCS’ rankings becomes THE ranking?
And here’s what I think the suit at the BCS are so terrified of – if the plus-one model becomes an instant success, I believe it will be, then the BCS and the bowl games are doomed.
Yahoo! Sports’ writer, Dan Wetzel, makes a compelling case that it would wrest control of money and power AWAY from the CEO of bowls, and back into where it belongs, the university presidents and athletics directors.
That is where I feel Weaver is missing a chance to make his voice heard. Why is he advocating a neutral-site meetings for the playoff? Suppose the Hokies, by virtue of ranks and whatever rules to satisfy the condition of hosting a home field advantage, gets to host a round game in Blacksburg. Think about this for a moment. Suppose Tech gets paired up with someone, say, Georgia and they gets to face off in Blacksburg. Think about the economic impact it would have on the New River Valley with all the diehard Bulldogs fan flocking and filling up hotels, restaurants, and the likes.
Why should the tourism industry gets to pocket all the money by going to a neutral site game? If money’s the name of the game, then damn it, let the money come to Blacksburg.
It’s like the old saying, “It’s the economic, stupid.”
Comment by Trevor — February 11, 2012 @ 4:47 pm
Drew’s command of grammar and spelling is impressive. He should probably put down his mom’s computer and pick up a book.
Comment by Dexter — February 11, 2012 @ 11:17 pm
Trevor, you’re pretty much right, but as Andy stated above.. this is one of those things that is going to take time for change to occur. We’re talking about Entrenched people making tons of money… and we all know how hard it is to wrest money away from those that are used to making it. It’s not like a trailer park dweller winning the lottery!
A Neutral site location for these games would be a good place to start. in fact, they wouldn’t even need to change any of the bowl games. just rotate which bowls get the semi-finals and which gets the national champion. Eventually, BCS doesn’t renew with those bowl owners, and then they can do what they want.
Honestly though, I think I prefer a neutral site. As much as I’d love to watch everyone scramble if they were to have to play a nationally televised marquee matchup in Southwest VA, I think that its only fair to eliminate home-field advantage. if this were a best of 7 like in hockey or basketball, it would be easy enough to do, but I just can’t say its fair to have a home-field advantage.
Comment by scott — February 12, 2012 @ 2:18 am
” Tech will never win anything in football ” is a big statement to be making now, or any other time. ” Never win anything “, are you kidding us?
” Anything ” means that Tech will never win another game, winning any game is something, and it is certainly not “never win anything “.
That statement that ” Tech will never win anything in football ” is ridiculous. Winning even one game is something, and it is not ” nothing ” as the statement seems to imply.
The comment should be the poster for stupidity.
Comment by Frank — February 12, 2012 @ 7:54 am
Way to bring something to the table Drew. Sheeez
Comment by Scott — February 12, 2012 @ 7:58 am
Thanks Andy, great article! I appreciate the fact that you may be right, the Hokies may not have won any of those games, but at the same time, when you get on the field you never know what can happen! That is the beauty of a playoff-teams get a chance to win on the field. Do you think that the Giants are the best NFL team? They certainly peaked at the right time,but if the NFL were the BCS the Giants would have been sitting at home! I’m not a Giants fan, I’m just saying speculations don’t win championships.
Comment by ken86 — February 12, 2012 @ 8:32 am
Dang Drew….. I think winning 4 ACC Chamionships (in a conference that we were told we couldn’t compete in) and three Big East Championships is winning something. Add to that 2 divisional championships and every Commonwealth Cup for forever! Add to that 9 straight bowl appearences and wat is it now, 7 straight 10 win seasons? How many tems have done that lately? I love how people with absurd expectations can gloss over what we have done and state we have and won’t do anything. Dude, we already have!
Comment by Bill — February 13, 2012 @ 10:45 am
Come on Bill, get real! Any decent team in the country would have the same or more, accolades about their success based on the weak ACC and pansy OOC games. More dust gatering on the empty NC trophy case at VT.
Comment by Mike — February 19, 2012 @ 7:48 am
#13 Whoa dude…NC trophy case? Then you’re talkin’ like 100 teams with an empty trophy case. Our trophy is kinda full. How about yours? Grow up. Name your team and we’ll compare but I don’t think that’ll ever happen.
Comment by scott whitaker — February 19, 2012 @ 9:37 pm
#14 Typo “trophy case”.
Comment by scott whitaker — February 19, 2012 @ 9:37 pm
Yep, Scott, the trophy case is full of what? ACC trophies and 2ND PLACE trophies for the ones that count. Other than that just turkey scat.
Comment by Mike — February 20, 2012 @ 2:36 pm