It's Official: College Football Going to a Seeded 4 Team Playoff

KrAzY3 said:

That would be ok if not for the fact that a lower ranked USC team now gets a 25% bonus over Alabama because despite no conference championship game, and one less win, they won their conference.

Click to expand...

Only in that scenario, USC would have won their conference via a conference championship game. The Pac-12 now has a title game. But, I do see what you're saying. That could happen with the Big-12 conference winner, as they no longer have a title game.

We_are_Bama said:

Only in that scenario, USC would have won their conference via a conference championship game. The Pac-12 now has a title game. But, I do see what you're saying. That could happen with the Big-12 conference winner, as they no longer have a title game.

Click to expand...

Right, just like talking about Utah and TCU is in a different context in the present as it was in the past.

My concern really isn't conference championship or not though, at least in terms of this particular aspect. It is simply with the notion that this committee is bound to enforce, that a conference logically can't have two of the top four programs. It isn't who jumps Alabama, as much as Alabama would be penalized solely because they happened to be in a conference with the #1 team. Any other conference and it's all but certain that they are undefeated and go into any playoff, or the BCS as the #1 seed. Instead, they would be out entirely. That's just not acceptable.

Sarcasm on:

Turning this over to a committee is the best way to decide. Letting a group of sage, knowledgable individuals pick the teams for a playoff in a will ensure that the top four get in every time. I completely trust the members of the committee to have a laser like focus on the data and never:

1. Play favorites either regionally or lobby for or against an individual team. Someone like Phat Phil or Roy Boy Kramer would be shining examples of eligible individuals who would NEVER show any favoritism.
2. Never consider horse trading (I'll vote for your favorite team if you vote for mine).
3. Never EVER consider the financial implications of their choice (If we choose USC and ND here, we'll increase the TV audience for the semi final games).

Sarcasm off now.

They are going to need a transparent way of choosing the top four based on some formula or other. Otherwise, there will always be cries of politicalization and bias in the selection process. The committee works for basketball only because they have so many slots, anyone with a ghost of a chance of winning the championship is included. That will not be the case with a four team playoff.

Can anyone imagine college basketball with only a 4 team playoff? (I remember 8) Nope, no one today can and if college football stays alive another hundred years folks then won't know how to imagine college football with just a 4 team playoff either. I think basketball has just about pretty much maxed out but what would be the magic number for football?

The 4 team playoff will not satisfy the little guys at all and you can bet they will turn to politics to do something about it! Eventually the old guard making the decisions now will retire or die out and the playoff for the everyone deserves a chance generation will be in charge! I can see all of the conference champions getting an invite and a fairly sizable amount of at large teams. That would be 11 conference champions from what I can count now although conference consolidation could lower that number down the road . I would imagine to make it even for a playoff the magic number with that 11 in mind would be 24, leaving 13 for at large schools.

Don't know about anyone else, but I'm already tired of hearing about whether the new system is fair for Boise St.

lincoln osiris said:

Don't know about anyone else, but I'm already tired of hearing about whether the new system is fair for Boise St.

Click to expand...

You and me both buddy! But the genie has been let out of the bottle, Pandora's box has been opened! How long it will take to include the Boise's of the world is anyone's guess but it is only a matter of time before its a reality.

Taking the conference championship requirement out of the equation does nothing to help. The committee will have the ability to justify why another SEC team shouldn't be allowed to play. I think the only way you could have that happen is if the two teams didn't meet in the regular season. So maybe 2 one loss teams, one of which didn't get to play in the SECG because they lost head to head in the season to whoever represented their division. This entire thing is to keep last year or two SEC teams from ever meeting in the championship game again. I think we would have to be at 8 teams for thay to ever happen.

How often has two SEC teams been worth of NC consideration besides last year?

In 2009, perhaps. But we did beat the hell out of Florida in the SEC title game.

In 2008, maybe... but quite honestly I'm not sure how well we would have done against an Oklahoma that year. And Florida already beat us fairly soundly in that 4th quarter of the SEC title game. We were close that year, but not quite worthy. And if Andre Smith still gets suspended, I don't like our chances at all.

But beyond that year, I struggle to remember when the SEC produced 2 legit NC contenders in the same season. Oh Georgia likes to crow about 2007, but they lost twice and one was to Tennessee which knocked them out of the SEC title game. They would have competed well with anyone in that postseason, but again... legit gripe? I don't think so.

And I'm honestly struggling to remember anything else. Maybe sometime in the 70s or 80s... I know Alabama was in contention in 1980 when Georgia won it all. But I don't think we had a legit gripe. We lost twice...

TideEngineer08 said:

How often has two SEC teams been worth of NC consideration besides last year?

Click to expand...

For the record Florida beat the hell out of Cincy, a team that would have been in this new four team playoff. Remember, this is about the top four teams, not how much better one team is over another.

That is irrelevant. It isn't about how this would impact Alabama last year, or how often it would impact the SEC, those are just examples. This is about a process that is corrupted from the start. If you, from day one, design it not to pick the top four teams, it has no integrity! This argument doesn't just pertain to the SEC, it pertains to the Big 12, the Big 10 and any other conference that might have two of the top four on a given year. If this process does not even attempt to choose the top 4 objectively, then it's a farce and we all have a right to be unhappy about it. If all we do is view it in regards to how it impacts the SEC, we're no better than the people that tried to make a system to prevent the SEC from getting multiple teams into the four team playoff. I've said it before, I don't want an undeserving Alabama team going. I want to have faith in the process and there's no way to have faith in this process...

TideEngineer08 said:

How often has two SEC teams been worth of NC consideration besides last year?

Click to expand...

Good post. As I posted in another thread, the SEC was pretty down from the mid-80s until the early 2000's when Saban, Meyer & Richt showed up.

The SEC was always the deepest conference, but the top end teams were a step below the the top teams from other conferences during that span. The Bama teams under Stallings are pretty much the only exception. Both UT and UF got pushed around pretty bad when they faced nothern teams.

KrAzY3 said:

For the record Florida beat the hell out of Cincy, a team that would have been in this new four team playoff. Remember, this is about the top four teams, not how much better one team is over another.

That is irrelevant. It isn't about how this would impact Alabama last year, or how often it would impact the SEC, those are just examples. This is about a process that is corrupted from the start. If you, from day one, design it not to pick the top four teams, it has no integrity! This argument doesn't just pertain to the SEC, it pertains to the Big 12, the Big 10 and any other conference that might have two of the top four on a given year. If this process does not even attempt to choose the top 4 objectively, then it's a farce and we all have a right to be unhappy about it. If all we do is view it in regards to how it impacts the SEC, we're no better than the people that tried to make a system to prevent the SEC from getting multiple teams into the four team playoff. I've said it before, I don't want an undeserving Alabama team going. I want to have faith in the process and there's no way to have faith in this process...

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Krazy, but the system is already corrupt. It's incredibly corrupt right now. You're focused on bias, and bias was certainly a major factor before 1998. The BCS minimized it with its formulas, but it didn't eliminate it.

But corruption? Good Lord these bowl games are cess pools of corruption. I understand that doesn't necessarily mean much as far as crowning a national champion.

I'm just not having a huge issue with this deal as long as the SEC's best team has a chance to get in. Beyond that, it's nothing more than luck. We relied on an incredibly biased polling system before 1998 and did just fine. In fact, a 4 team playoff, even one chosen by a committee, likely would have benefited a few Alabama teams that got jobbed over the years.

TideEngineer08 said:

I'm sorry, Krazy, but the system is already corrupt. It's incredibly corrupt right now. You're focused on bias, and bias was certainly a major factor before 1998. The BCS minimized it with its formulas, but it didn't eliminate it.

Click to expand...

I've been in the extreme minority as a BCS supporter. Ironically, I've seen some people I'm pretty sure were pro-playoff and anti-BCS supporting the results of the BCS lately, in defense of their arguments. It's an odd sort of thing to witness as they use the BCS as proof for their arguments without conceding that may be the BCS was best.

The system was corrupt. Absolutely, but as Jeff pointed out in the other thread, the BCS actually was fairly unbiased. It worked, and it worked fairly well. It wasn't perfect, nothing will be. But, even in past corrupt systems, they didn't have a stated bias. They didn't come out and go, our goal is to not pick the #1 team. The problem is, this committee has stated criteria that is not in favor of the top four teams. I don't see how you, and others can be so accepting of a process that announces it's intentions to do something other than choose the top teams! Why on earth should we be tolerant of that?

This will be the first time, in the history of college football, in nearly 100 years of deciding a national champion, that we have a process whose stated goal is something other than to base it on who the best teams are.

KrAzY3 said:

This will be the first time, in the history of college football, in nearly 100 years of deciding a national champion, that we have a process whose stated goal is something other than to base it on who the best teams are.

Click to expand...

Prior to 1998, I don't remember college football having a process that even had a stated goal. A few polls voted on who they thought were the best.

There was the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance, neither of which had much of a mission and neither could deliver upon that mission anyway. So the BCS had the first stated mission of declaring a universal national champion. But it did not and could not deliver often enough. Otherwise we wouldn't be where we are at today.

And quite frankly, we don't have a clear picture of just what exactly, this new system is going to use for its criteria. But you are actually incorrect in your assertion, at least as far as what we do know. They have stated they want the 4 best teams. You certainly disagree that they will be able to deliver that based on what little information we've gotten about their criteria. But their stated goal is 4 best teams.

I do have my doubts, as I've stated before, to be fair.

KrAzY3 said:

The problem is, this committee has stated criteria that is not in favor of the top four teams.

Click to expand...

Did they really come out and say that? I haven't read the entire thread yet - could you point me to where they discussed this?

I agree if it's not the Top 4 teams in the playoffs..Regardless if you win a conference championship or not..Is complete & total BS..That's why they should use a computer formula like they do in the BCS..And keep the human bias out of the situation..It's the only truly fair way too determine who makes the 4 team playoff..I don't understand the need of a selection committie to determan who make the 4 team playoff..Other than too give the SEC the shaft..It will come back & bite the Big 10 on the backside when they get left out of the playoff one year..Then they will wanna change the system all over again..And I agree with ya about the BCS..It works..I wish they would leave it as it is now..

KrAzY3 said:

I've been in the extreme minority as a BCS supporter. Ironically, I've seen some people I'm pretty sure were pro-playoff and anti-BCS supporting the results of the BCS lately, in defense of their arguments. It's an odd sort of thing to witness as they use the BCS as proof for their arguments without conceding that may be the BCS was best.

The system was corrupt. Absolutely, but as Jeff pointed out in the other thread, the BCS actually was fairly unbiased. It worked, and it worked fairly well. It wasn't perfect, nothing will be. But, even in past corrupt systems, they didn't have a stated bias. They didn't come out and go, our goal is to not pick the #1 team. The problem is, this committee has stated criteria that is not in favor of the top four teams. I don't see how you, and others can be so accepting of a process that announces it's intentions to do something other than choose the top teams! Why on earth should we be tolerant of that?

This will be the first time, in the history of college football, in nearly 100 years of deciding a national champion, that we have a process whose stated goal is something other than to base it on who the best teams are.

Click to expand...

TideEngineer08 said:

I do have my doubts, as I've stated before, to be fair.

Click to expand...

I think the problem is the selection committee - if we could get that minimized I think things would actually be ok.

The selection committee will open the whole process up to litigation or legislative pressure by the likes of Utah and Boise State. The BCS was sort of protected from this since it was a fixed formula.

I see the seeding process as also being a potential problem unless there are fixed rules put in place. If two teams are from the same conference, they shouldn't face each other in the first round - that's what the old playoff system did wildcard teams when only 4 or 5 teams from each conference made it in.

TideEngineer08 said:

Prior to 1998, I don't remember college football having a process that even had a stated goal. A few polls voted on who they thought were the best.

Click to expand...

Exactly... the polls voted for who they thought were the best teams. Did you ever see a poll say here are the best teams that won their conference? Or, here are the best teams weighted according to conference champions? No, you did not. They, in their own backwards way, attempted to choose the best. As had every other system I am aware of. I do not know of any of note that used conference champions as criteria because it would obviously corrupt their results and even if already corrupted, they wouldn't want to admit to corrupting their results.

JeffAtlanta said:

Did they really come out and say that? I haven't read the entire thread yet - could you point me to where they discussed this?

Click to expand...

I could point you to numerous quotes, but the key is that conference champions are part of the criteria. Now, how is that stating a goal other than to choose the top teams? It is simple, logically, winning a conference can at best set you apart from other teams in that conference. Winning the Big East for example, has no bearing in relation to an SEC team. Conference champions are the result of an incredibly biased process, the bias being it only pertains to teams in that conference and even then it might arbitrarily pick one team over another.

To consider conference champions as part of your criteria, is a stated bias. There is no other way to interpret it. Furthermore, to let it play a role in your selections, is an admission that you are not seeking to choose the top four teams. What does being conference champion really tell us about Alabama and Oklahoma St. last year, or Alabama and USC in 2008? It tells us nothing! It's just a way to not choose a deserving team. Being a conference champion or not, is no way to tell if a team is a top four team or not. It's an open admission they do not wish to choose the top four teams. Or! They simply would choose the top four teams without need for that criteria!

I never wanted this playoff, but I will propose how a committee could be relatively fair and handle things in a manner in which I think we could all stomach.

You take the Coaches or the Harris, which ever has the least ties to the committee and you use that as part one of your criteria. Then, you take the computers just as you have them and you use that as part two. Then, the committee has to work within the framework that provides. You can not move a team up, or down from their highest/lowest poll rank, or computer average. For instance, they could on that basis choose between Alabama and Oklahoma St. at #2 or #3 and at least we'd be able to see the basis for their action. However, they could not move Alabama to 4th for example. It would also force the committee into rational choices. For instance, Kansas St. was 4th in the computers. No way they'd choose them over Stanford who was 4th in the polls, so we get a rational result.

In 2010, Auburn would be #1 and Oregon #2. TCU would be locked in at #3 (in the polls and computers), and they would have to choose between Wisconsin (the likely choice) and Oklahoma at #4.

In 2008, the #1 seed would be between Florida and Oklahoma. The #2 and #3 seed between Texas and Florida (not sure which poll they'd use). and #4 seed between Alabama, USC (tied with Alabama in Coaches poll) and Texas Tech (the computers really liked the Big 12 that year).

If you did something like that, I would understand a committee's role. But, to give them biased criteria and no limitations on what they can do? The results would be predictably horrible, unless they actually ignore the criteria and turn out to be objective despite attempts to make them subjective.

JeffAtlanta said:

I think the problem is the selection committee - if we could get that minimized I think things would actually be ok.

The selection committee will open the whole process up to litigation or legislative pressure by the likes of Utah and Boise State. The BCS was sort of protected from this since it was a fixed formula.

I see the seeding process as also being a potential problem unless there are fixed rules put in place. If two teams are from the same conference, they shouldn't face each other in the first round - that's what the old playoff system did wildcard teams when only 4 or 5 teams from each conference made it in.

Click to expand...

My problem is the committee as well. Otherwise, there is a lot to like. If you are someone who believes that there never has been a worthy 3rd or 4th team, or that it has been very rare, then you're not going to like any playoff. I'm on not one of those people, so a 4 team playoff is better than anything we've had before. But the committee has the potential to sink the whole thing.

KrAzY3 said:

Exactly... the polls voted for who they thought were the best teams. Did you ever see a poll say here are the best teams that won their conference? Or, here are the best teams weighted according to conference champions? No, you did not. They, in their own backwards way, attempted to choose the best. As had every other system I am aware of. I do not know of any of note that used conference champions as criteria because it would obviously corrupt their results and even if already corrupted, they wouldn't want to admit to corrupting their results.

Click to expand...

And that system failed. At this point, you're overplaying the conference champion angle. We're going to need a lot more information than what we've gotten so far in order to understand what exactly the criteria will be.

TideEngineer08 said:

And that system failed. At this point, you're overplaying the conference champion angle. We're going to need a lot more information than what we've gotten so far in order to understand what exactly the criteria will be.

Click to expand...

Exactly what system are you saying failed? I'm talking about every system, and there are many of them which still exist and will continue to exist so I'm not sure how you can claim failure on their part.

I don't have to overplay corruption. You can't just be a little corrupted. You are corrupted or you're not, and it's corrupted. I don't need more information. You don't need more than proof of one bribe from a politician to know he's corrupted, you can't overplay it. It's proof enough in and of itself. It exists, we know that and that's all I need to know. The only way I'm overplaying it, is if it turns out to not actually exist in the criteria. I have no reason to believe that they're lying about it though, hence it's corrupted and that's that.