Wishful thinking: Where would the Hokies have been seeded if the BCS used a 16-team playoff all these years?

.....Advertisement.....

« Far too many words about how Virginia Tech would have retroactively fit using a few current playoff proposals | Taking stock of the Hokies’ roster: Quarterbacks »

2012.02.12

Wishful thinking: Where would the Hokies have been seeded if the BCS used a 16-team playoff all these years?

Yesterday I took a look at how Virginia Tech might have ended up if some of the current playoff proposals had been in place. Those scenarios were the plus-one model (a four-team playoff) and an eight-team bracket.

Well, there’s a better idea out there. If you’re not familiar with the book “Death to the BCS” by Dan Wetzel, Josh Peter and Jeff Passan, you should read it. It’s a remarkably well-researched book into the excesses and hypocrisy surrounding the current Bowl Championship Series setup.

Follow me on Twitter.

The book’s main contention is that college football is leaving hundreds of millions of dollars on the table by outsourcing its most valuable asset — its postseason — to independent bowl operators. It points out the ridiculousness of ticket guarantees and outlines how much bowls and their executives are making by hosting such events, money that could otherwise go directly to the schools.

In it, the authors outline a playoff model that, in all honesty, sounds just about perfect. It follows the models used in lower Divisions like I-AA, II and III, which have — gasp! — a large bracket, using home sites up through the semifinals. The FCS bracket is now 20 teams, Division II is 24 and Division III is 32. Because the bowls would still exist, their suggestion is a 16-team bracket for the FBS that includes the 11 conference champions and five at-large teams.

Presidents and athletic directors will cry about exams, although that’s never stopped other levels from staging playoffs like this (the championship games last year would have been right around the time of finals). It also solves a few issues, allowing access to teams from lesser FBS conferences while maintaining the importance of the regular season. With so few at-large spots available, winning your conference is paramount. You wouldn’t have a situation like this year, when the conference championship weekend meant relatively little.

Seeding is also important. With teams from the Sun Belt, MAC and Conference USA likely to be the lowest-seeded teams of the group, earning one of the top three spots guarantees an easier first-round matchup in the race to win four straight games. And, from a variety standpoint, the matchups are more random, a welcome change from what has become a tired postseason setup in which conferences are tied to bowl games, setting up similar games every year.

There are obviously issues. As mentioned before, exams would be a huge concern. Also, how would the bowl system continue to exist with this model? For a sport that has unflinchingly clung to an outdated model like the BCS for all these years, going to something this radically different seems like a pipe dream.

But, that won’t stop me from seeing how Virginia Tech would have been seeded in such a tournament in the BCS era. (Can you tell I’m going through football withdrawal right now?) As a college football fan and someone who has enjoyed mocking up brackets from a young age, looking at the setup is extremely intriguing. This tournament would own the month of December. OWN it. You can’t tell me TV ratings — and payouts — wouldn’t be huge. It’s be like March Madness for football. Think of the office pools. Who would be against that?

Anyway, if this system had been in place since the BCS started in 1998, Virginia Tech would have been involved seven times. Here’s a look at each instance:

1999-2000:

1. Florida State (11-0, ACC) vs. 16. Hawaii (9-4, WAC)
2. Virginia Tech (11-0, Big East) vs. 15. Boise State (10-3, Big West)
3. Nebraska (11-1, Big 12) vs. 14. Stanford (8-4, Pac-10)
4. Alabama (10-2, SEC) vs. 13. Utah (9-3, MWC)
5. Tennessee (9-2, At-large) vs. 12. Southern Miss (9-3, C-USA)
6. Kansas State (10-1, At-large) vs. 11. Marshall (12-0, MAC)
7. Wisconsin (9-2, Big Ten) vs. 10. Florida (9-3, At-large)
8. Michigan (9-2, At-large) vs. 9. Michigan State (9-2, At-large)

Thoughts: Virginia Tech would have been involved in any championship playoff regardless of the format this year. This setup would have matched them up against upstart Boise State, which was in its fourth year in Division I and won the Big West for the first time under head coach Dick Koetter. A second-round matchup against 7th-seeded Wisconsin and Heisman Trophy winner Ron Dayne might have been a second-round matchup (with a young Andy Bitter perhaps helping cover that game for The Badger Herald). Nebraska or one-loss Kansas State would have been a potential semifinal matchup. I still think the Hokies would get through everything to face Florida State in the title game. And remember, those first three games would have been in Blacksburg. Talk about a reward for finishing that high in the rankings.

2000-01:

1. Oklahoma (12-0, Big 12) vs. 16. Marshall (8-5, MAC)
2. Florida State (11-1, ACC) vs. 15. Louisville (9-3, C-USA)
3. Miami (10-1, Big East) vs. 14. Boise State (10-2, Big West)
4. Washington (10-1, Pac-10) vs. 13. Colorado State (10-2, MWC)
5. Virginia Tech (10-1, At-large) vs. 12. Purdue (8-4, Big Ten)
6. Oregon State (10-1, At-large) vs. 11. TCU (10-2, WAC)
7. Florida (10-1, SEC) vs. 10. Oregon (9-2, At-large)
8. Nebraska (9-2, At-large) vs. 9. Kansas State (10-3, At-large)

Thoughts: Ask a Virginia Tech fans which year was the biggest snub of the Hokies, and they’ll probably say 2000-01, when Notre Dame and Oregon State were chosen to play in the Fiesta Bowl over Tech, which was fifth in the final BCS rankings. Consider this hypothetical a small bit of revenge. If the at-large teams were based strictly on BCS ranking, Notre Dame, at No. 11, would have been left out while the Hokies, at No. 5, would get in (although I’m sure Notre Dame would receive sort of automatic in as an independent). A first-round matchup in Blacksburg would have been against Big Ten representative Purdue, which was led by Drew Brees. Win that and the Hokies would have had a trip to face a Washington team with quarterback Marques Tuiasosopo that had only lost once and knocked off Miami earlier in the year. Top-seeded Oklahoma and quarterback Josh Heupel would likely await in the semifinals. The Hokies might not have made it that far, but it would have been interesting to see how Michael Vick did in his final season in something with higher stakes than the Gator Bowl.

2004-05:

1. Southern California (12-0, Pac-10) vs. 16. North Texas (7-5, Sun Belt)
2. Oklahoma (12-0, Big 12) vs. 15. Toledo (9-4, MAC)
3. Auburn (12-0, SEC) vs. 14. Pittsburgh (8-4, Big East)
4. Texas (12-0, At-large) vs. 13. Michigan (9-2, Big Ten)
5. California (10-1, At-large) vs. 12. Iowa (9-2, At-large)
6. Utah (11-0, MWC) vs. 11. LSU (10-1, At-large)
7. Georgia (9-2, At-large) vs. 10. Louisville (10-1, C-USA)
8. Virginia Tech (10-2, ACC) vs. 9. Boise State (11-0, WAC)

Thoughts: No matter what playoff you use in 2004, it would have been great. This would have marked the second time Virginia Tech and Boise State met in the first round of the bracket. This was quarterback Jared Zabransky‘s sophomore season and the first time the Broncos ran the table in the regular season, doing so under head coach Dan Hawkins. Whoever won would get a well-rested Southern Cal in the second round in Los Angeles. Good luck with that.

2005-06:

Would not get in, despite being 10th in BCS. Florida State won the conference and would get the ACC’s auto bid. The at-large picks would be Ohio State (4th), Oregon (5th), Notre Dame (6th), Miami (8th) and Auburn (9th).

2006-07:

Wouldn’t have made it, despite being 15th in BCS. At-large bids go to Michigan (3rd), LSU (4th), Auburn (9th), Notre Dame (11th) and Arkansas (12th).

2007-08:

1. Ohio State (11-1, Big Ten) vs. 16. Central Michigan (8-5, MAC)
2. LSU (11-2, SEC) vs. 15. Florida Atlantic (7-5, Sun Belt)
3. Virginia Tech (11-2, ACC) vs. 14. Central Florida (10-3, C-USA)
4. Oklahoma (11-2, Big 12) vs. 13. BYU (10-2, MWC)
5. Georgia (10-2, At-large) vs. 12. Florida (9-3, At-large)
6. Missouri (11-2, At-large) vs. 11. Arizona State (10-2, At-large)
7.Southern California (10-2, Pac-10) vs. 10. Hawaii (12-0, WAC)
8. Kansas (11-1, At-large) vs. 9. West Virginia (10-2, Big East)

Thoughts: Here you can see the real reward of finishing high in the final rankings. The Hokies were third in the final BCS standings and would have gotten Conference USA champion Central Florida in the opening round. That Knights team had quarterback Kyle Israel and running back Kevin Smith, but Tech probably would have advanced pretty easily, setting up a likely second-round matchup with Missouri, which wouldn’t have gotten jobbed from a BCS bid for Kansas. (In this scenario, they both get a shot. What a novel concept.) If Tech won that (a big if that year), a third-round game would have probably been at LSU, although USC could have pulled the upset in a year without a dominant team.

2008-09:

1. Oklahoma (12-1, Big 12) vs. 16. Buffalo (8-5, MAC)
2. Florida (12-1, SEC) vs. 15. Troy (8-4, Sun Belt)
3. Texas (11-1, At-large) vs. 14. East Carolina (9-4, C-USA)
4. Alabama (12-1, At-large) vs. 13. Virginia Tech (9-4, ACC)
5. Southern California (11-1, Pac-10) vs. 12. Cincinnati (11-2, Big East)
6. Utah (12-0, MWC) vs. 11. TCU (10-2, At-large)
7. Texas Tech (11-1, At-large) vs. 10. Ohio State (10-2, At-large)
8. Penn State (11-1, Big Ten) vs. 9. Boise State (12-0, WAC)

Thoughts: The Hokies were ACC champs, but four regular season losses means they’re ranked low enough that they’d get a lousy seed (as they should). Tech’s first-round matchup would have been an Alabama team that was just getting back on the national scene under Nick Saban. The Crimson Tide didn’t show up for their Sugar Bowl loss to Utah that year after a disappointing SEC championship game finish. I’d imagine in a bracket like this, they would have been properly motivated to beat the Hokies in Tuscaloosa.

2009-10:

1. Alabama (13-0, SEC) vs. 16. Troy (9-3, Sun Belt)
2. Texas (13-0, Big 12) vs. 15. East Carolina (9-4, C-USA)
3. Cincinnati (12-0, Big East) vs. 14. Central Michigan (11-2, MAC)
4. TCU (12-0, MWC) vs. 13. Penn State (10-2, At-large)
5. Florida (12-1, At-large) vs. 12. LSU (9-3, At-large)
6. Boise State (13-0, WAC) vs. 11. Virginia Tech (9-3, At-large)
7. Oregon (10-2, Pac-10) vs. 10. Iowa (10-2, At-large)
8. Ohio State 910-2, Big Ten) vs. 9. Georgia Tech (11-2, ACC)

Thoughts: Another Boise State matchup. Think of how big this rivalry would have been if there was a playoff all these years? This one would have been in Boise on the blue turf. This was a loaded Broncos team that had quarterback Kellen Moore, defensive back Kyle Wilson and coach Chris Peterson. Boise finished 14-0 that year, so it probably would have won this matchup, advancing to play Cincinnati (or maybe Central Michigan if Brian Kelly leaving would have left the Bearcats in disarray). I can’t think of another situation in which Virginia Tech would ever travel to Boise, so this would have been a pretty cool matchup.

2010-11:

1. Auburn (13-0, SEC) vs. 16. Florida International (6-6, Sun Belt)
2. Oregon (12-0, Pac-10) vs. 15. Miami (9-4, MAC)
3. TCU (12-0, MWC) vs. 14. Central Florida (10-3, C-USA)
4. Stanford (11-1, Pac-10) vs. 13. Virginia Tech (11-2, ACC)
5. Wisconsin (11-1, Big Ten) vs. 12. Missouri (10-2, At-large)
6. Ohio State (11-1, At-large) vs. 11. LSU (10-2, At-large)
7. Oklahoma (11-2, Big 12) vs. 10. Boise State (11-1, WAC)
8. Arkansas (10-2, At-large) vs. 9. Michigan State (11-1, At-large)

Thoughts: The Hokies had won 11 straight, but the ACC justifiably didn’t get any respect in the polls, leaving Tech as 13 seed against … Andrew Luck and Stanford. Everybody knows how this one would have turned out. Just goes to show you how important doing well in the regular season is for getting an easier path in the postseason.

2011-12:

Virginia Tech, Michigan, South Carolina and Baylor, amazingly, would miss the cut. At-large teams would be Alabama (2nd), Stanford (4th), Arkansas (6th), Boise State (7th) and Kansas State (8th). In fact, the five at-large teams would have been higher seeds than eight of the conference champions (Wisconsin, Big Ten; Clemson, ACC; TCU, MWC; Southern Miss, C-USA; West Virginia, Big East; Northern Illinois, MAC; Arkansas State, Sun Belt; Louisiana Tech, WAC).That’s how screwy this season was.

—

Final thoughts: This is so cool that you know it won’t happen. There are all sorts of logistical hurdles to jump with this setup, but you can’t argue that college football wouldn’t rule December in this format. And with that comes a boatload of cash, which is what all these schools are chasing these days with conference realignment.

The best part is that in years when a team wasn’t quite good enough, it didn’t get a shot. There were all sorts of questions about Virginia Tech last year, ones that were justified based on the Clemson games. And those losses, including the one in the ACC title game, would have kept the Hokies out of the postseason bracket. Meanwhile, in 2000-01, when everyone agrees Tech had a pretty good team, it would get its shot.

Ideally, that’s what you want in a postseason. To give deserving BCS conference teams a chance while not excluding the “Cinderella” potential of teams from the lesser conferences. It’s an egalitarian approach. It’s the longest of long shots considering how opposed to radical change college football is, but one can dream.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted at 11:14 by Andy Bitter | Category: BCS, Uncategorized | 18 Comments

18 Comments »

In this 16 team playoff, the Hokies would never have a chance to win the championship since Beamer could NOT win 4 tuff games in a row. In fact, the Hokies probably stand NO chance in a +1 playoff since the Hokies wold need to beat 2 top teams to win the championship, an achievement the Beamer is not capable of doing.

Comment by other Tony — February 12, 2012 @ 12:40 pm
AB, What is your point in all of this? To see if VT could have hypothetically won a national championship in a playoff format…maybe you are going through football withdrawal, or maybe you have just been in Blacksburg too long, either way it is extremely wishful thinking doesn’t really make VT look better or worse…By the way, in the 2000-2001 model, the game against Purdue would have been no sure win, even with, dog fighting mogul, ex VT Hokie, Michael Vick at QB(See AMc’s Maurice DeShazo debate). Purdue lost to Washington by 10 in the Rose Bowl, the same Washington Team that beat Miami…so again, it seems like this was pointless…I wonder if every school in the country had someone do this? Do you think the playoff actually makes VT’s chances of winning a NC better? Tony from comment #1 makes a great point. They are better off to backdoor their way into a BCS NC game and only have to beat one good team, than win 3 games, are you serious…IN THIS CASE, I HOPE THEY CHANGE TO A 16 GAME TOURNAMENT, THUS ENSURING THAT THE TROPHY CASE WILL BE LEFT EMPTY. So why don’t you and AMc please lobby for this and maybe we will get it changed!

Comment by Stack Maroon — February 12, 2012 @ 2:27 pm
There’s no point, really. I just think it’s interesting.

And I’m not trying to make Tech look better or worse. I’m just fascinated by the possibilities a 16-team playoff presents. Who wouldn’t want to watch all these games? And isn’t that what college football wants at the end of the year — intrigue in its postseason?

And you’re right. I don’t know if Tech could have beaten a Drew Brees-led Purdue. But I would have rather seen it happen on the field instead of talking about it hypothetically.

Comment by Andy Bitter — February 12, 2012 @ 2:33 pm
That’s the difference with the SEC and other conferences. They might play a couple of cupcakes, but then they have to play inconference games. From top to bottom they have to compete week-in, week-out. That’s why they win so many championships. Another example was when Florda State was a independant, the schedule they had was brutal. Now since they got into the ACC they got soft and you can see the results. tech better hope that they go to +1 playoff. Noway they could play a tough schedule week after week with the dept they have now. Especially in the off. and def. line.

Comment by Eagle — February 12, 2012 @ 2:49 pm
Hokies don’t need a new system, we need new coaching. We need an offense in the top 25, not in the bottom 25 ! ! The Hokies need to not signal the offensive plays before they run them. Until we achieve these things, everything else is wasted.

Comment by Peppers Ferry — February 12, 2012 @ 4:42 pm
AB- nice work. One thing about America, you can always dream. Don’t stop with your thoughts. The job you are doing is 10+. Maybe one day the upper levels will get it right as far as what to do. Just don’t hold your breath. tech is a top 25 team year in, year out with the better teams playing each other. One of them has to lose.

Comment by Eagle — February 12, 2012 @ 7:13 pm
Andy I agree with you on this…who wouldn’t want to see these games, at least some of them. Combine the “any given Saturday” unknown with the excitement of a March Madness tournament and let’s see what happens! Of course, you’d have some bubble teams that didn’t get in the sweet sixteen and would have coaches whining that its certifiably insane that they didn’t get in etc…but I bet it would be fun to watch.

Comment by Huntersdad — February 12, 2012 @ 8:53 pm
Andy, that is pretty much what I argued about yesterday. Why should the bowl executives be one pocketing all the money when the AD and presidents should be funneling that back into their school?

The excuses about exams are just that, excuses. When they see how much projected dollars the playoffs would bring in from eyeballs on the TV and internet, I think we will see presidents and ADs jumping ship en masses.

However, as one reader pointed out, and I acknowledge, the system is pretty much entrenched.

Yet, let’s take a look at the B1G’s commish who, for years has been a diehard defender of the BCS, now is reversing his stance. Two big names that have long advocated for a plus-one playoff, Swofford and Slive, pretty much now have Delaney on board. It’s a matter of time before the PAC-12 commish join force.

It’s like my father-in-law’s favorite saying, “How do you kill a elephant? With one bite at a time.” The plus-one playoff is probably going to be the first domino to fall before it expands.

ESPN will be singing a different tune if they see their TV ratings skyrocketing with the plus-one model. CBS and Fox sports would be salivating at their mouth for the money it will bring in.

Come on, people, one more time, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Comment by Trevor — February 12, 2012 @ 8:56 pm
Andy – keep it up. You’re doing a great job in your new role and the coverage, across the board, is better and more balanced. Btw, anyone sports nerdy enough to read the article online shouldn’t be asking why you wrote it. It’s an interesting look…entertaining.

Comment by Jim — February 12, 2012 @ 9:29 pm
Gteat job, Andy! DI is crazy when you look at ALL the money going out the window to these Bowl Execs. Keep it with the schools. It makes NO sense not to have a PO system when the lower Divisions do. The argument of academics is a fraud since only the lower divisions truly count academics as their main focus. DIII is strictly academic driven and it had a 32 team system. LOL. Come on NCAA and the University Presidents, WAKE UP, unless you guys are getting some kick backs from the Bowl Execs? Only thing that makes sense for NOT following the lower division lead.
THANKS ANDY! Now, let’s hope someone will wake up. NOT!

Comment by Mikey — February 13, 2012 @ 1:13 am
Yipee!!! Conference champs in the national chase for no.1. Under the present sys. why have conferences anyway if there is no real reward for being the champ. As for talent wouldn’t it go where there might be a chance to really make a difference.

Comment by fauxplay — February 13, 2012 @ 6:33 am
What to do with the Bowls w this scenario? Leave them for the other teams that do not make it. The semifinals of this playoff can be held at the Orange, Sugar, and the BCS at the Rose. Let the Fiesta go to the other schools not making the cut — they don’t deserve inclusion after the illegal goings on there the last 5 years.

No, my Hokies would likely not with 4 straight tough games, but the true BEST team in NCAAF would be crowned each year, WITHOUT any complaints from anyone.

Like you said Andy, makes so much sense, it won’t happen.

Comment by Darren — February 13, 2012 @ 7:19 am
It pains me to say it, but having been a VT fan all my life and a college football fan for the same amount of time, VT has more than serious coaching issues. Sad to say, but it starts at the top with Beamer and the AD.

VT will never win a National Championship with present coaching mentality.

Comment by Benny — February 13, 2012 @ 8:08 am
Blah, blah, blah, blah
How naive and uninformed to think that there is a level playing field amoung the top 25 major football schools. Some accept partial qualifiers, some have better facilities, some are supported financially by their state coffers, some cheat, etc.

The bowl games do make money for themselves because they foot the bill and so does the city that host the game. It is business to fill the hotels and restaurants. If they could not make money and bring people to their cities why would they have them?

Frank Beamer not only built the program you bashers complain about but he has maintained it. Whether you like it or not he will go into the Football Hall of Fame as one of the best who did it the right way.
The empty trophy case is not a failure it is a constant reminder of the program’s goal. Even if you never make the goal you never stop trying. Never quit striving to be the best, is what separates you cry babies form the workers.

Comment by SPigninelli — February 13, 2012 @ 8:55 am
I guess it’s intresting to look at but until VT can win big games, this doesn’t mean a thing. In fact VT has faced some soft BCS teams like Kansas and Michigan etc and still can’t get it done. Just shows how bad the ACC is when VT is their consistent league champion.

Comment by Jeff H — February 13, 2012 @ 11:19 am
I really enjoy reading all these posts from people who know exactly what the Hokies need to be the best team in the country and win the NC. All the trash talk about Beamer from people who never played the game except maybe while sitting on the couch tuffing their face playing Xbox. Keep it coming guys you all crack me up every day with all of your (“football knowledge”) Until next time I hear from the guru’s on here, I say Go Hokies and Go Beamer keep doing what you’re doing because there are plenty of teams who wish they were as good as Va Tech.

Comment by Mike — February 13, 2012 @ 11:29 am
AB or anybody:

Has there been any info on why Frank did not accept his bowl bonus?

Comment by jj4vt — February 13, 2012 @ 12:49 pm
Nobody has said anything, Beamer included, but I think you can read between the lines and say he probably didn’t take it based on the outcome of the Sugar Bowl.

Comment by Andy Bitter — February 13, 2012 @ 1:04 pm