I’m not impressed with a Plus 1 system. It will still result in a championship chosen by people who are not subjective in how they choose teams. Not only will schools outside of the Big 6 not get chosen for one of these four spots, but some school that isn’t as highly thought of, even from a great conference, will get passed over for a more established, and popular, team. This isn’t acceptable and the system needs to be changed. I recommend the top 16 by subjective methods. Here’s how it can works:
1.) FCS games don’t count. The argument for not having a playoff is that the regular season is the playoff. Really? So the Citadel can’t compete for an FBS title but can decide who wins? Absolutely not. Want to make the playoffs, at least schedule teams from your division.
2.) Choose teams by record. For purposes of my demonstration, teams with an FCS school, removed from their schedule are then seeded by that record. 12 wins is still 12 wins if it comes against at least semi-quality competition. No automatic qualifiers.
3.) First tiebreaker is opponent winning percentage. In essence this is strength of schedule but removes the need to run up the score. Under this system, a win’s a win. And if you face a lot of bad teams, you’d better schedule some great teams to offset.
4.) As much as it bothers me, the BCS is the last tiebreaker. It has to be good for something, so if two teams have the same strength of schedule and record, the BCS standings determine who goes next.
5.) Use current bowls. Teams that don’t make the playoffs can still participate in non playoff bowls. The bowls used for the 1st round would be the Fiesta, Orange, Cotton, Rose, Sugar, Capital One, Gator, and Outback Bowls. Round 2 would be Fiesta, Orange, Cotton, and Rose Bowls. Rounds 3 and 4 would be rotated among the top 4 bowls listed in order.
In all 21 teams were up for consideration. This was based on how many teams had at least 9 wins, after taking out FCS games of course. Other years 8 wins might get a team in, but in this case, there were 14 with at least 10 wins, and 7 with 9. So after that, we needed to eliminate those 7 down to 2. This was how they were seeded, opponent winning percentage in () if tied, then followed by BCS ranking if still tied:
1.) Louisiana State University
2.-6.) Oklahoma State University (56%), Southern Mississippi (51%), Boise State University (49%), Stanford (48%, 4), Houston (48%, 19)
7.)-12.) Virginia Tech (57%), Alabama (56%, 2), Michigan (56%, 13), Oregon (54%), Texas Christian (53%), Wisconsin (51%)
13.)-16.) Clemson (57%, 15), Georgia (57%, 16), South Carolina (56%), Kansas State (55%,8)
The teams eliminated were, to my surprise, Oklahoma (55%, 14), Arkansas (53%), Michigan State (52%), and Arkansas State. Strangely enough Oklahoma was the only one of these five that didn’t schedule an FCS school, but most of the teams they played were around .500. Michigan State had as many 10 win opponents as South Carolina, Clemson, Arkansas, and Georgia, and more than Kansas State, Oklahoma, and Arkansas State. The problem was that they had 2 opponents that lost 11 games, more than any other, and 2 9 loss teams, also more than any other. Arkansas was hurt by too many 6-6 teams , as well as 11 loss New Mexico, 10 loss Ole Miss, and 9 loss Troy.
Note the only conferences left out were the MAC, Sun Belt, and Big East.
So, the matchups would be:
1.) LSU
16.) Kansas State
6.) Houston
11.) TCU
8.) Alabama
9.) Michigan
4.) Boise State
13.) Clemson
5.) Stanford
12.) Wisconsin
3.) Southern Mississippi
14.) Georgia
7.) Virginia Tech
10.) Oregon
2.) Oklahoma State
15.) South Carolina
An argument could be made that teams are getting higher seeds while playing in weak conferences. Perhaps. But as they say, the cream rises to the top. If the “weaker” team got a higher seed than deserved, it will show as the games are played. The best team always wins. That’s the beauty of playoffs. The games are decided on the field. Not by reporters who are scoreboard watching. Not by coaches trying to pad their resumes. Certainly not by a computer that uses the results of a Division III matchup to help determine who it decides is the best.