Are you ready for a playoff? 2014

[Paperback Writer]

Well I couldn't disagree more with his first point. So the top four in a subjective ranking system should matter more than head-to-head and winning your conference?

I was already a pro-bowl guy, his top four would be disastrous. In his scenario last year the appropriate thing would have been for LSU to tank to Arkansas in the last week of the regular season and ensure 3 SEC teams got in. That makes sense.

He touches on that in his fourth point.

The best of a bad situation is to have that subjectivity hashed out in a cool, calm and studied environment and then make the selection process as transparent as possible.

As such, the sport would be best served if it created a single computer formula. People could decide how important strength of schedule (preferably giving extra credence to tough nonconference scheduling) or margin of victory or home-field/road-game criteria should be. They could program the formula accordingly and then test and tweak the next two seasons.

Most importantly, they could offer it up to everyone so that teams can plan ahead, know what they are up against and track the progress as the season goes along.
...
If they can't commit to math, a selection committee is the next best option. Five or seven people, analyzing set information and previously agreed-upon criteria will have to do. It basically is a computer formula with little human oversight.
...
Either way, there's going to be controversy.

I think the best four teams needs to have some limits. For example, a least two teams have to be conference champions and no more than two teams from the same conference. But if the four teams all have to be conference champions, then 2011 Alabama does not make the playoffs. As the author notes: Either way, there's going to be controversy

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

And potentially give up home field advantage in the semifinals? Think again.

Going into that game last year many of the pundits were saying LSU would not fall out of the top 2 even with a loss to Arkansas. They would have won the SEC the next weekend and been ranked 1 or 2. The SEC gets three teams in and LSU loses nothing.

[Pelado]

Going into that game last year many of the pundits were saying LSU would not fall out of the top 2 even with a loss to Arkansas. They would have won the SEC the next weekend and been ranked 1 or 2. The SEC gets three teams in and LSU loses nothing.

Thus "potentially" instead of "definitely" or some other similar modifier.

You think any coach is going to throw a game that might mean losing home field advantage in the playoffs? Pundits can talk all they want - their jobs aren't on the line.

[Mormon Red Death]

I think the 4 in the playoff have to be conference champs because the you several teams in the sec who haven't left the south in the regular season in 20+ years. We get that they make more money staying home we should however not incentivize the other conferences from doing the same.

A good compromise would be to have conf champs unless they are 10 or higher. Last year would have been oregon vs lsu and bama v okst




Sent from my SGH-T839 using Tapatalk 2

[Pelado]

I think the 4 in the playoff have to be conference champs because the you several teams in the sec who haven't left the south in the regular season in 20+ years. We get that they make more money staying home we should however not incentivize the other conferences from doing the same.

A good compromise would be to have conf champs unless they are 10 or higher. Last year would have been oregon vs lsu and bama v okst




Sent from my SGH-T839 using Tapatalk 2

I'm no shill for the SEC. I hated that the title game last year was an all-SEC affair. That said, Alabama and LSU had the best resumes last year.

I'd like the playoff to be big enough to include all conference champs plus at-large selections. If conference consolidation continues, that might be easier to do in the near future.

If it's only 4 teams in the playoff, then I'd prefer to see the "best" teams included and not just the "best" conference champions.

[Jacob]

He touches on that in his fourth point.

I think the best four teams needs to have some limits. For example, a least two teams have to be conference champions and no more than two teams from the same conference. But if the four teams all have to be conference champions, then 2011 Alabama does not make the playoffs. As the author notes: Either way, there's going to be controversy

I wouldn't have a problem with that. Perhaps it would encourage conferences to address the competitive imbalance within their own divisions and have a more meaningful conference championship game.

[Cougarmandias]

Extremely likely that there is at least one at-large spot and that BYU would get it in most years in which BYU is ranked in the top 4 according to BCS formulas or, in the case of a selection committee, both polls and their equivalent. But don't hold your breath waiting for BYU to get into the top 4.

Fan support won't be a problem. Play-offs generate excitement and interest. As excitement and interest increase, fans make more sacrifices of time and money. Almost all teams have way more fans than their stadium capacity, so its pretty sure that for each week of a play-off they can find a few 10ks of people who want to participate in what will probably become the biggest annual sporting event in America.

The play-off likely increases from four. Because ESPN and other networks will push for it and start waving huge bundles of cash around. Same reason we're going to a play-off in the first place, really.

[Paperback Writer]

I think the 4 in the playoff have to be conference champs because the you several teams in the sec who haven't left the south in the regular season in 20+ years. We get that they make more money staying home we should however not incentivize the other conferences from doing the same.

That's kind of an SEC myth that they never leave the South but mostly true for Florida and South Carolina. But that's not to say that the SEC doesn't play quality OOC games in the South. For consideration (SEC OOC games of note since 2000):

Georgia: Georgia Tech (annually), Boise St. (2005, 2011), Colorado (2006, 2010), OK St. (2007, 2009), ASU (2008-09), Clemson (2002-03)
Tennessee: Cincinnati (2011), Oregon (2010), UCLA (2008-09), Cal (2006-07), Notre Dame (2001, 2005), Miami (2002-03), Syracuse (2001)
Florida: Florida St. (annually), Miami (2002-03, 2008)
South Carolina: Clemson (annually), Boise St. (2001)
Alabama: Penn St. (2010-11), Virginia Tech (2009), Clemson (2008), Florida St. (2007), Oklahoma (2002-03), UCLA (2000-01)
Auburn: Clemson (2010-11), West Virginia (2008-09), Kansas St. (2007), Georgia Tech (2003, 2005), USC (2002-03), Syracuse (2001-02)
LSU: Oregon (2011), West Virginia (2010-11), N. Carolina (2010), Washington (2009), Texas (2002, 2007), Arizona (2003, 2006), ASU (2005)
Arkansas: Texas A&M (2009-11), Texas (2003, 2004, 2008), USC (2006), Boise St. (2000, 2002)

A good compromise would be to have conf champs unless they are 10 or higher. Last year would have been oregon vs lsu and bama v okst

Not quite. Wisconsin (Big Ten Champ) finished #10 in the BCS. According to your rules, Wisconsin makes the playoffs along with #1 LSU (SEC Champ), #3 Oklahoma St. (Big 12 Champ), and #5 Oregon (PAC-12 champ). Alabama at #2 does not. That's the situation I think needs to be avoided. Take the top two or three BCS champs and have an at-large. Interesting that if the top four BCS ranked teams are taken, then Oregon doesn't make the cut and #4 Stanford makes it. Which would be unjust to Oregon who defeated Stanford and won the PAC-12. The more I think of this, the more I think a committee is needed and have the criteria published. That way 2011 Oregon is not punished for playing LSU and rewarded for beating Stanford and winning the PAC-12.

[Paperback Writer]

I wouldn't have a problem with that. Perhaps it would encourage conferences to address the competitive imbalance within their own divisions and have a more meaningful conference championship game.

But the competitive imbalance tends to shift within conferences. Take the Big 12 for example. When it began play in 1996, the concern was that the north would dominate with Nebraska coming off back-to-back national championships and with Kansas St. and Colorado having strong programs. The best team in the South was Texas A&M. Both Oklahoma and Texas were rebuilding. A decade later, it was Oklahoma and Texas at the top of the college football world and Nebraska was rebuilding.

The Big Ten has tried to address this by putting Michigan and Ohio St. in different divisions. But in the first year of divisions, neither team made it to the Big Ten CCG. It's always hard to predict what will happen even with traditional powers. For instance, Penn St. is probably looking at some down years.

[Mormon Red Death]

That's kind of an SEC myth that they never leave the South but mostly true for Florida and South Carolina. But that's not to say that the SEC doesn't play quality OOC games in the South. For consideration (SEC OOC games of note since 2000):

Georgia: Georgia Tech (annually), Boise St. (2005, 2011), Colorado (2006, 2010), OK St. (2007, 2009), ASU (2008-09), Clemson (2002-03)
Tennessee: Cincinnati (2011), Oregon (2010), UCLA (2008-09), Cal (2006-07), Notre Dame (2001, 2005), Miami (2002-03), Syracuse (2001)
Florida: Florida St. (annually), Miami (2002-03, 2008)
South Carolina: Clemson (annually), Boise St. (2001)
Alabama: Penn St. (2010-11), Virginia Tech (2009), Clemson (2008), Florida St. (2007), Oklahoma (2002-03), UCLA (2000-01)
Auburn: Clemson (2010-11), West Virginia (2008-09), Kansas St. (2007), Georgia Tech (2003, 2005), USC (2002-03), Syracuse (2001-02)
LSU: Oregon (2011), West Virginia (2010-11), N. Carolina (2010), Washington (2009), Texas (2002, 2007), Arizona (2003, 2006), ASU (2005)
Arkansas: Texas A&M (2009-11), Texas (2003, 2004, 2008), USC (2006), Boise St. (2000, 2002)

Not quite. Wisconsin (Big Ten Champ) finished #10 in the BCS. According to your rules, Wisconsin makes the playoffs along with #1 LSU (SEC Champ), #3 Oklahoma St. (Big 12 Champ), and #5 Oregon (PAC-12 champ). Alabama at #2 does not. That's the situation I think needs to be avoided. Take the top two or three BCS champs and have an at-large. Interesting that if the top four BCS ranked teams are taken, then Oregon doesn't make the cut and #4 Stanford makes it. Which would be unjust to Oregon who defeated Stanford and won the PAC-12. The more I think of this, the more I think a committee is needed and have the criteria published. That way 2011 Oregon is not punished for playing LSU and rewarded for beating Stanford and winning the PAC-12.

I said unless they are 10 or higher. Thus wisconsin wouldn't have made the cut and bama would have taken their place.

Sent from my SGH-T839 using Tapatalk 2

[Paperback Writer]

I said unless they are 10 or higher. Thus wisconsin wouldn't have made the cut and bama would have taken their place.

So they have to be in the top 9? That seems a bit arbitrary. Drawing the line at the top 6 or top 8 seems to make more sense. Perhaps I just like even numbers. Even so, I still think there needs to be a committee with published guidelines because there was not a lot of difference between #9 South Carolina (.6553) and #10 Wisconsin (.6374). It could have easily been reversed and then #2 Alabama is out. A committee could take into consideration conference championships, head-to-head play, strength of schedule, etc.

There could easily be a year with undefeated #1 LSU and undefeated #2 Oklahoma with #3 Alabama (11-1 only loss to LSU) and #4 Texas (11-1 only loss to OU). Should #8 Michigan (10-3) Big Ten champ and #9 USC (10-3) PAC-12 champ be invited over Alabama and Texas? Suppose Alabama defeated Michigan and Texas defeated USC in OOC play. A committee could quickly recognize this and declare that LSU will host Texas and Oklahoma will host Alabama in the playoffs. Michigan and USC can play in the Rose Bowl.

[Mormon Red Death]

That's kind of an SEC myth that they never leave the South but mostly true for Florida and South Carolina. But that's not to say that the SEC doesn't play quality OOC games in the South. For consideration (SEC OOC games of note since 2000):

Georgia: Georgia Tech (annually), Boise St. (2005, 2011), Colorado (2006, 2010), OK St. (2007, 2009), ASU (2008-09), Clemson (2002-03)
Tennessee: Cincinnati (2011), Oregon (2010), UCLA (2008-09), Cal (2006-07), Notre Dame (2001, 2005), Miami (2002-03), Syracuse (2001)
Florida: Florida St. (annually), Miami (2002-03, 2008)
South Carolina: Clemson (annually), Boise St. (2001)
Alabama: Penn St. (2010-11), Virginia Tech (2009), Clemson (2008), Florida St. (2007), Oklahoma (2002-03), UCLA (2000-01)
Auburn: Clemson (2010-11), West Virginia (2008-09), Kansas St. (2007), Georgia Tech (2003, 2005), USC (2002-03), Syracuse (2001-02)
LSU: Oregon (2011), West Virginia (2010-11), N. Carolina (2010), Washington (2009), Texas (2002, 2007), Arizona (2003, 2006), ASU (2005)
Arkansas: Texas A&M (2009-11), Texas (2003, 2004, 2008), USC (2006), Boise St. (2000, 2002)

No offense to you but the problem with the SEC is that they play rarely outside their conference away from home. Since 1995 Here are all the regular season away OOC games out of the south.

Bama
2000 UCLA
2011 Penn st

Auburn
2001 Syracuse

Florida

Georgia
2008 Ariz st
2010 Colo

KY
1995 Indiana
1997 Indiana
2001 Indiana
2003 Indiana
2005 Indiana

LSU
1998 ND
2003 AZ
2005 AZ ST
2009 Wash

Miss
2002 Ttech
2004 Wyo
2006 Mizzou
2011 Fresno

Miss St
1995 Baylor
2000 Byu
2002 Oregon

Tenn
1997 UCLA
1998 Syracuse
2001 ND
2005 ND
2007 Cal
2008 UCLA

Vandy
1995 ND
1997 N. ILL
1998 TCU
2003 TCU
2004 MD
2006 Mich
2008 Miami OH
2010 UCONN

Ark
2003 TEX
2005 USC
2008 TEX

South Carolina


contrast those with oregon and Ohio st
Oregon
1998 Utep
1999 Mich st
2000 Wisc
2001 Utah st
2003 Miss st
2004 OK
2005 Houston
2007 Mich
2008 Purdue
2010 Tenn
2011 LSU

Ohio st
1995 BC
1999 Miami
2000 Arz
2001 UCLA
2006 Tex
2007 Wash
2008 USC
2011 Miami

So in short I don't respect the SEC. They don't leave the south they have puffed up schedules.

[dabrockster]

Decided to go back from 2002 and forward and see who were the top 4 teams prior to bowl season and see what games we could of had..

2002:
#1 Miami vs. #4 Georgia
#2 Ohio St. vs. #3 Iowa

2003:
#1 Oklahoma vs. #4 Michigan
#2USC vs. #3 LSU

2004:
#1 USC vs. #4 Cal
#2 Oklahoma vs. #3 LSU

2005:
#1 USC vs. #4 Ohio St.
#2 Texas vs. #3 Penn St.

2006:
#1 Ohio St. vs. #4 LSU
#2 Florida vs. #3 Michigan


2007:
#1 Ohio St. vs. #4 Oklahoma
#2 LSU vs. #3 Va Tech


2008:
#1 Oklahoma vs. #4 Alabama
#2 Florida vs. #3 Texas


2009 (TCU is the first to make it in the playoff):
#1 Alabama vs. #3 Cincy
#2 Texas vs. #4 TCU


2010:
#1 Auburn vs. #4 Stanford
#2 Oregon vs. #3 TCU


2011:
#1 LSU vs. #4 Stanford
#2 Alabama vs. #3 Okie St.



So there is some fun games to see but I am also seeing the bias that will still be in place. TCU was the only team to get into the playoff but did it twice.

[Maximus]

Decided to go back from 2002 and forward and see who were the top 4 teams prior to bowl season and see what games we could of had..

2002:
#1 Miami vs. #3 Iowa
#2 Ohio St. vs. #4 Georgia

2003:
#1 Oklahoma vs. #3 LSU
#2USC vs. #4 Michigan

2004:
#1 USC vs. #3 LSU
#2 Oklahoma vs. #4 Cal

2005:
#1 USC vs. #3 Penn St.
#2 Texas vs. #4 Ohio St.

2006 (Interesting final 4 since these team did play each other and would ahve to play again):
#1 Ohio St. vs. #3 Michigan
#2 Florida vs. #4 LSU

2007:
#1 Ohio St. vs. #3 Va Tech
#2 LSU vs. #4 Oklahoma

2008 (Again, a year these guys have met earlier and Utah going 13-0 is left out and end up ranked 4th after the bowl):
#1 Oklahoma vs. #3 Texas
#2 Florida vs. #4 Alabama

2009 (TCU is the first to make it in the playoff):
#1 Alabama vs. #3 Cincy
#2 Texas vs. #4 TCU

2010 (Oregon beat Stanford earlier that year):
#1 Auburn vs. #3 TCU
#2 Oregon vs. #4 Stanford

2011:
#1 LSU vs. #3 Okie St.
#2 Alabama vs. #4 Stanford



So there is some fun games to see but I am also seeing the bias that will still be in place. TCU was the only team to get into the playoff but did it twice. I think just taking the over Top 4 could be an issue based off of these possible placements.. No one wants to see these teams play again.. But it does lead to some good match-ups as well..

Wouldnt it be 1v4 and 2v3?

[dabrockster]

Wouldnt it be 1v4 and 2v3?

Ahhh shit.



Added note:
Fixed it (Brainfart)... I like some of those match up now....