1) Conference championship games become more important in this schedule. They'll act as essentially "quarterfinals." I guess that conferences who don't have games should still qualify, but then you lead to weirdnesses like 2002, with Washington State representing the Pac-10 instead of USC. And then you don't get issues like 2001, with Nebraska getting in despite losing their conference championship, or 2011, with Alabama getting in without playing in one. (Also, why is Illinois in 2001? I think I did something wrong there.)
2) When I was thinking this up, I was expecting the Rose Bowl to be a semi-final about 2/3 of the time, not in 12 out of 14 seasons. (Making the semis essentially the Rose Bowl and one floating Bowl Game.) You could change it so that it gets a semifinal only when both its champions are in the Final Four, which would be about half of the time. But, then, it would still lose one of its champions for those other 5 out of 14 years. The idea is that this benefit is offset by the fact that the Rose Bowl never hosts the National Championship, and the fact that the other bowls still get to play, they're just not part of the plus-one.
3) I was surprised that Boise State never gets a shot at the Championship. However, it pleases me that TCU and Utah do get their chances.
4) This system might work best if you get rid of voting all together, and instead create some kind of RPI system for football. Therefore, you would simplify the system by basically saying that you're looking for the four conference champions with the highest RPI.
No comments:
Post a Comment