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

CrimsonProf said:

Listening to the Pres of the CFA bowl this afternoon on Finebaum, he put great stock in the conference champion business.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I stated earlier what I heard the Western Kentucky's president say on a radio interview this morning. He was given the scenario of the top 3 playoff spots having already been locked up, and the final spot came down to a 12-0 Big East champion Cincinnati team, and an 11-1 Notre Dame.

He wouldn't answer.

TIDE-HSV said:

I've said this before, but, since you're repeating yourself )), I believe the conference champ bias was always built in, whether or not overtly stated. That being said, it's not a good thing that it was stated...

Click to expand...

Hey, in my defense I try to take a break from it for at least a few hours a day, but honestly it deserves to be said at least once a page. :cool2:

I think you are probably right on that the entire reason for the committee is to rig the results. But, earlier I outlined a scenario in which a committee could operate in a reasonable manner (working with the confines of a poll and computer results). Even then, they could have chosen Oklahoma St. over Alabama last year, or USC over Alabama in 2008. The key difference to me at least is they'd have to have some justification other than one team being a conference champion, and something to keep them in check.

By crossing that line, it has to push things even further. Sure, they could hide behind Oklahoma St. computer rankings, or simply say USC was playing better at the end of the year, but the fact that they don't even have to find any validity in how the team performed, or within the numbers is far worse. It means that it can then seep into other aspects. It's like telling someone they have to start smoking crack. May be crack addiction doesn't impact every aspect of their life... but may be it does.

Look guys we are focusing way too much on the SEC and its schedule. Every year the SEC has more teams in the top 20 than any other conference. The Big 10 is the most inbred conference around. Go ahead and compare the OOC schedule and bowl record for each conference over the last 5 Years. No comparison. The Big 10 is going to get hosed in this - not us.

My expectation is you will see the SEC go to 9 games and a formal OOC game between Big 12/ACC to balance the home/away conference schedule issue and a revenue sharing agreement between the conferences on the OOC game just to be sure the Big 10 and PAC 12 don't get some spot on in the SoS portion of the selection process.

We probably wont get 2 teams in the top 4 regularly but we never did to start with. I am not worried about this. I think it will only put us in a better position to show our dominance as a conference. Our conference bowl record has already demonstrated that. Just because its in a different format I don't suddenly expect the results to change on the field.

JDCrimson said:

We probably wont get 2 teams in the top 4 regularly but we never did to start with. I am not worried about this. I think it will only put us in a better position to show our dominance as a conference. Our conference bowl record has already demonstrated that. Just because its in a different format I don't suddenly expect the results to change on the field.

Click to expand...

This is my general feeling as well. From a purist's standpoint, this formula isn't a good one. But from a self-interest standpoint, I don't see anything to worry about. If Alabama wins the SEC championship with an undefeated record, they're in and probably the #1 seed 99.999% of the time. Lose one and win the SEC, and the percentage drops to 99.995%. Lose 2 and win the SEC and it's probably a longest of longshots. And that's the way it should be. If Alabama loses 1 and doesn't win the SEC, then all bets are off, and that's as it should be.

One thing I don't see happening, and I could be dead wrong, is a two loss champion getting in above a 1 loss team like an Alabama, provided Alabama's SOS is strong and we don't lose to someone like Ole Miss. I especially don't see a 3 loss conference champion ever making it in.

It's still 2 years away. We'll have to wait a long time to see how this plays out.

TIDE-HSV said:

Reference bolded part - I sincerely hope you're right. However, exactly that scenario is what so many of us fear and wouldn't find that extraordinary...

Click to expand...

And I do understand that fear.

I feel like even people like Delaney understand that a 3 loss team, even if they are a conference champion, does not deserve to be in any championship tournament. Especially one limited to 4 teams.

Would a 11-2 Big Ten champion Ohio State make it in over a 11-1 or 12-1 Alabama that did not win the SEC? That's the real worry I have. I do think that scenario might happen, though in a fairly rare scenario. But I understand that is what worries y'all, and frankly, despite my fairly positive outlook, it worries me too.

TideEngineer08 said:

And I do understand that fear.

I feel like even people like Delaney understand that a 3 loss team, even if they are a conference champion, does not deserve to be in any championship tournament. Especially one limited to 4 teams.

Would a 11-2 Big Ten champion Ohio State make it in over a 11-1 or 12-1 Alabama that did not win the SEC? That's the real worry I have. I do think that scenario might happen, though in a fairly rare scenario. But I understand that is what worries y'all, and frankly, despite my fairly positive outlook, it worries me too.

Click to expand...

How about an 11-1 Michigan State in 2010? Wouldn't that have been a joke?

ALA2262 said:

How about an 11-1 Michigan State in 2010? Wouldn't that have been a joke?

Click to expand...

Huge joke. I doubt they would have made it, because they lost badly to an average Iowa team.

My take on 2010 is, Auburn and Oregon obviously. Out of the Big Ten, with 3 11-1 teams sharing the conference championship, I think Michigan State is eliminated by virtue of their bad loss to Iowa (37-6). Ohio State lost to Wisconsin, and Wisconsin lost to Michigan State. That's a pickle to choose from, but one of them is getting in. I don't know what difference it makes, but Wisconsin lost to Michigan State at home, while Ohio State lost to Wisconsin on the road. I think Ohio State probably gets the nod, and probably not in small part due to their tradition. TCU is the 4th team. They were undefeated and ranked in the top 4 by most of the polls and the BCS, if I remember correctly.

But I don't think Michigan State makes it in. Had they gone undefeated, maybe so. But all of this is just speculation from my point of view. I do agree with everyone who has trepidation over the committee. The result they spit out could be horribly illogical.

College Football Going to a Seeded 4 Team Playoff fatigue. :cool2:

TideEngineer08 said:

Huge joke. I doubt they would have made it, because they lost badly to an average Iowa team.

My take on 2010 is, Auburn and Oregon obviously. Out of the Big Ten, with 3 11-1 teams sharing the conference championship, I think Michigan State is eliminated by virtue of their bad loss to Iowa (37-6). Ohio State lost to Wisconsin, and Wisconsin lost to Michigan State. That's a pickle to choose from, but one of them is getting in. I don't know what difference it makes, but Wisconsin lost to Michigan State at home, while Ohio State lost to Wisconsin on the road. I think Ohio State probably gets the nod, and probably not in small part due to their tradition. TCU is the 4th team. They were undefeated and ranked in the top 4 by most of the polls and the BCS, if I remember correctly.

But I don't think Michigan State makes it in. Had they gone undefeated, maybe so. But all of this is just speculation from my point of view. I do agree with everyone who has trepidation over the committee. The result they spit out could be horribly illogical.

Click to expand...

Oh, I know Michigan State would not have made it in. But just the fact they would have even been in the conversation is scary regarding the future.

Wow, great points are being brought up. Having the committee held openly accountable for fairness to get the best four teams is very important. Also if this Playoff is going to create more revenue, then how is it to be split-up? Just get us the match-up against any of them cause I love our chances with our Players of The University of Alabama being led by Coach Nick Saban and Staff. Roll Tide Roll!

2009 would have been interesting with 5 unbeaten teams.

BCS Standings after the regular season
RK TEAM RECORD
1 Alabama 13-0
2 Texas 13-0
3 Cincinnati 12-0
4 TCU 12-0
5 Florida 12-1
6 Boise State 13-0
7 Oregon 10-2
8 Ohio State 10-2
9 Georgia Tech 11-2
10 Iowa 10-2

I would assume it would be Bama, Texas, TCU and Cincy, being that they were all undefeated conf champs and were ranked 1-4....but what about Boise in that case? They were also undefeated conference champs, but ranked #6.

I think it will be very interesting when we find out exactly what the process will be. Will there still be a BCS poll? If so, in a case like 2009, would the committee be instructed to ignore the "subjective" ranking and focus on SOS to differentiate between the three undefeated "non-AQ" conf champs? Regardless of which one of those three is left out in that scenario, you can bet the howling would be heard from the moon.

The first time we get a scenario like that one (or a more likely one where there are about five 1-loss teams from power conferences and only one playoff spot left) that's when the 8-team playoff idea will suddenly start gaining lots of traction.

Cincy 2009 OOC
Southeast Missouri State
@Oregon State
Fresno State
@Miami (OH)

TCU 2009 OOC
@Virginia
Texas State
@Clemson
SMU

Boise St 2009 OOC
Oregon
Miami (OH)
@Bowling Green
UC Davis
@Tulsa

After looking at it, I guess Boise had the weakest conference schedule and while their OOC game with Oregon was nice, there isn't nearly enough in the OOC to make up the difference. They likely would be have been left out that year, which matches the poll results also.

In summary, I don't see anything that particularly troubles me about what I ASSUME the committee would have done in 2009, EXCEPT the fact that an undefeated conf champ getting left out is fuel on the fire for the "gotta have more brackets!" crowd.

BamaSully said:

2009 would have been interesting with 5 unbeaten teams.

Click to expand...

The more interesting and to be troubling aspect is that Florida was unbeaten in the regular season and was arguably the second best team. They blew out Cincy, it wasn't even close. If not for playing Alabama (the champion), it is entirely reasonable to assert they would have been undefeated.

The problem I have with this whole mess, is that Florida (who finished #2 in Sagarin for example) seems to be entirely excluded from the discussion. Yes, on the grounds of not being undefeated, but their SoS was far higher than any of the undefeated teams. A fair, logical committee has to at least discuss inclusion of Florida. With the conference champ criteria though? They are excluded even though logically, they have a very good case for being the true #2 team. This is now how you should go about choosing the top four...

KrAzY3 said:

The more interesting and to be troubling aspect is that Florida was unbeaten in the regular season and was arguably the second best team. They blew out Cincy, it wasn't even close. If not for playing Alabama (the champion), it is entirely reasonable to assert they would have been undefeated.

The problem I have with this whole mess, is that Florida (who finished #2 in Sagarin for example) seems to be entirely excluded from the discussion. Yes, on the grounds of not being undefeated, but their SoS was far higher than any of the undefeated teams. A fair, logical committee has to at least discuss inclusion of Florida. With the conference champ criteria though? They are excluded even though logically, they have a very good case for being the true #2 team. This is now how you should go about choosing the top four...

Click to expand...

Good point and I agree. See how quickly I skipped over them myself because there were 5 unbeatens? WOW. Its crazy. I think we can all agree the intended purpose to do exactly what I just did and overlook that SEC team that Delaney has "no regard for" since they didnt win their conference!

2008 would have been crazy.

BCS Standings
RK TEAM RECORD
1 Oklahoma 12-1
2 Florida 12-1
3 Texas 11-1
4 Alabama 12-1
5 USC 11-1
6 Utah 12-0
7 Texas Tech 11-1
8 Penn State 11-1
9 Boise State 12-0
10 Ohio State 10-2

The only unbeatens, Utah and Boise, would not have had a chance to get in being ranked 6 and 9....OR WOULD THEY? Damn I wish we knew more about the criteria already!!!

Top 4 all from 2 conferences! Surely USC would get in ahead of Bama and Texas since they aren't conf champs. Then if you overlook one non-champ from the BIG12 or SEC, you'd almost have to also omit the other one or you'd really open yourself up for intense criticism. In that case, does Utah jump in as the 4th team? Or could SOS truly be a big enough factor that it keeps them out in favor of B1G champ Penn State at #8?!?!?

Crazy.

You could potentially have #1, #2, #5, and #8!!! Of course there might not be a poll so that we technically would not know where those teams were ranked. Imagine the outrage from us and Oklahoma and Utah.

Based on what little we know now, does anyone think they would have allowed it to be the true top 4 of Florida, Bama, Oklahoma and Texas? I don't. I feel pretty confident that it is the desire of some of the PTB to absolutely PREVENT that.

Maybe Slive will surprise us all and not let that happen in the end.

KrAzY3 said:

The more interesting and to be troubling aspect is that Florida was unbeaten in the regular season and was arguably the second best team. They blew out Cincy, it wasn't even close. If not for playing Alabama (the champion), it is entirely reasonable to assert they would have been undefeated.

The problem I have with this whole mess, is that Florida (who finished #2 in Sagarin for example) seems to be entirely excluded from the discussion. Yes, on the grounds of not being undefeated, but their SoS was far higher than any of the undefeated teams. A fair, logical committee has to at least discuss inclusion of Florida. With the conference champ criteria though? They are excluded even though logically, they have a very good case for being the true #2 team. This is now how you should go about choosing the top four...

Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with Florida being left out, nor would have I have a problem with Alabama being left out in 2008. We argue over and over that "the regular season matters", well in this case it certainly does. You've got to consider that SEC championship game as part of the national championship process. You get your shot at #1 in that game. Lose, and all bets are off. I know Florida killed Cincinnati in the Sugar Bowl, but that was an exhibition game with Cincinnati's coach leaving for Notre Dame. Make the game count, eliminate Brian Kelly's departure and you might get a different result in that game.

TideEngineer08 said:

I don't have a problem with Florida being left out, nor would have I have a problem with Alabama being left out in 2008. We argue over and over that "the regular season matters", well in this case it certainly does. You've got to consider that SEC championship game as part of the national championship process. You get your shot at #1 in that game.

Click to expand...

This is twisted logic. The SECCG can not both be part of the regular season and part of a playoff. It's one or the other, not both. If it's not part of the championship process, it's not an elimination game! For instance in 2008, we are talking about a bunch of one loss teams! You say you have no problem with Alabama being left out, then explain to me why the SECCG, is an elimination games, yet all those other games were not? That's just plain illogical!

You seem to be able to avoid the simple logic here. I'm not saying I have a problem with excluding Florida or Alabama. I'm saying I have a problem with automatically excluding them! Your argument that the SECCG is both the regular season and an elimination game completely exposes the gaping wound they have dealt a process from the start. It can't be both! It's one or the other and by making it an elimination game, they've put the SEC in a 3 game playoff while others have a 2 game playoff. If you can't see how messed up that is, then I'd like some of what you're having.

The conference champion thing creeps in over and over and it's always bad. Also, since when should a team have to be #1 to make it into the top 4? What kind of backwards stupidity is that born of?

KrAzY3 said:

This is twisted logic. The SECCG can not both be part of the regular season and part of a playoff. It's one or the other, not both. If it's not part of the championship process, it's not an elimination game! For instance in 2008, we are talking about a bunch of one loss teams! You say you have no problem with Alabama being left out, then explain to me why the SECCG, is an elimination games, yet all those other games were not? That's just plain illogical!

You seem to be able to avoid the simple logic here. I'm not saying I have a problem with excluding Florida or Alabama. I'm saying I have a problem with automatically excluding them! Your argument that the SECCG is both the regular season and an elimination game completely exposes the gaping wound they have dealt a process from the start. It can't be both! It's one or the other and by making it an elimination game, they've put the SEC in a 3 game playoff while others have a 2 game playoff. If you can't see how messed up that is, then I'd like some of what you're having.

The conference champion thing creeps in over and over and it's always bad. Also, since when should a team have to be #1 to make it into the top 4? What kind of backwards stupidity is that born of?

Click to expand...

Look man I'm getting pretty damn tired of you insinuating I'm stupid or illogical.

The whole season, regular or post, is supposed to matter and be a part of the championship process. We are comparing 2009 Florida and Cincinnati right? Florida lost their last game to #2 and Cincinnati went undefeated. That, in my OPINION, moves Cincinnati ahead of them. Or at least I have no problem with that.

That's an OPINION on the matter. You seem to labor under the delusion that unless you change everyone's mind on this that the world is going to end, or that only your viewpoint is logical.