Are you ready for a playoff? 2014

[TripletDaddy]

I dont think so given that they recently passed a measure to throw away AQ and non AQ designations. Not to mention the current bcs rules say that it doesnt matter what conference you are from if you finish 1 or 2 you are playing in the Nat Championship.

they have to get rid of AQ status if only 4 teams make it. By definition they are not AQ. That has nothing to do with mid majors being conference champs. As proposed, it is possible that more than one AQ conference would be excluded from a playoff. the term no longer makes sense.

im not following your second point as it relates to conference champs.

[TripletDaddy]

No way the Big East gets an auto. I also wonder if the powers that be will mandate a conference championship game in order to get an automatic bid. That would put pressure on the Big 12 to add BYU and somebody else and get back to playing a CCG. The auto bids will be reserved for PAC-12, Big Ten, SEC, ACC, and Big 12 (perhaps only if they play a CCG).

I dont disagree but as of right now, the big East is an AQ and does get an autobid into the BCS system, so i included them.

I previously raised the point you raise about the B12 being forced into a conf championship game out of fairness to the other schools that do that.

Finally, I don't get why all the other conferences simply don't force Notre Dame into joining a conference. They have rarely participated in the BCS system since its inception and they always lose in the few times they did go to the BCS. What money are the 6 conferences losing by threatening to exclude Notre Dame? Notre Dame hasnt been consistently good since the 80s and have been consistently mediocre for the past 15 years.

[Mormon Red Death]

im not following your second point as it relates to conference champs.

My second point is that the National championship right now doesn't take into account what conference you are from. I think the playoff (with Delaney's proposal) will have a similar feature in that as long as you won your conference you will get preference over an atlarge that didn't (provided you are 6 or higher).

[TripletDaddy]

My second point is that the National championship right now doesn't take into account what conference you are from. I think the playoff (with Delaney's proposal) will have a similar feature in that as long as you won your conference you will get preference over an atlarge that didn't (provided you are 6 or higher).

Ah. Understood. I disagree, but who knows at this point. You could very well be right.

[Mormon Red Death]

An argument for Delaney's plan and an argument for strength of schedule to be included in the rankings:

from Ted Miller's blog

Oregon coach Chip Kelly pointed out that if there was a final four in place last fall, then Stanford would have been in and his Ducks would have been out, despite their decisive win in Palo Alto. The biggest reason for that? Oregon lost to LSU in the season-opener, giving it one more defeat than Stanford. If the Ducks had played San Jose State, they almost certainly would have finished fourth.

[Scorcho]

Where is the Ute outrage at this proposal, given that both 2004 and 2008 teams would have been left out of this? Has the BCS already corrupted you?

(Admittedly, the 2008 team was beyond lucky, and would have been smoked by any of those 4 teams, but that 2004 team was pretty good.)

I understand why the 2004 and 2008 Utah Teams wouldn't have qualified for the Final Four (based on strength of schedule), but you can't deny that after the Sugar Bowl that Utah wasn't a top 4 team.

Which brings up the thought, instead of a predetermined Final Four, why not add another BCS Bowl (The Cotton Bowl) have 10 teams participate in the 5 BCS Bowls, and then simply choose the top 2 performers from the BCS Bowls to participate in the National Championship game? Often, we don't know how good Boise State, Utah, TCU, UConn, Hawaii etc. are until after their BCS Bowl games. Granted, my idea is unorthodox and less than perfect, but it would provide a little more interest in each of the BCS Games.

Just a thought

[Paperback Writer]

I understand why the 2004 and 2008 Utah Teams wouldn't have qualified for the Final Four (based on strength of schedule), but you can't deny that after the Sugar Bowl that Utah wasn't a top 4 team.

Which brings up the thought, instead of a predetermined Final Four, why not add another BCS Bowl (The Cotton Bowl) have 10 teams participate in the 5 BCS Bowls, and then simply choose the top 2 performers from the BCS Bowls to participate in the National Championship game? Often, we don't know how good Boise State, Utah, TCU, UConn, Hawaii etc. are until after their BCS Bowl games. Granted, my idea is unorthodox and less than perfect, but it would provide a little more interest in each of the BCS Games.

Just a thought

Alternatively, Boise St, Utah, TCU, UCONN, Hawaii, etc. can schedule a few tough OOC opponents to give a better indication of how good they are. Why change a playoff/post-season proposal just because some teams play in weak conferences? If a program plays in a weak conference, they need to play a quality OOC schedule or they go bowling instead of to the playoffs. This idea is not radical and programs used to do this more frequently when they anticipated their conference not being strong. For instance in 1981, Nebraska had Iowa, Florida St., Penn St., and Auburn on its OOC schedule. Bosie St. should have been playing a similar OOC schedule and I have no problem excluding such programs from a playoff if they do not.

[Scorcho]

Alternatively, Boise St, Utah, TCU, UCONN, Hawaii, etc. can schedule a few tough OOC opponents to give a better indication of how good they are. Why change a playoff/post-season proposal just because some teams play in weak conferences? If a program plays in a weak conference, they need to play a quality OOC schedule or they go bowling instead of to the playoffs. This idea is not radical and programs used to do this more frequently when they anticipated their conference not being strong. For instance in 1981, Nebraska had Iowa, Florida St., Penn St., and Auburn on its OOC schedule. Bosie St. should have been playing a similar OOC schedule and I have no problem excluding such programs from a playoff if they do not.

I do like that there will be an incentive for all schools to upgrade their OOC Schedule.

[Mormon Red Death]

interesting thought from a big 12 chat

Blake in Iowa City wrote: Here's an idea to fix the location for games in the playoff system, instead of playing at the higher ranked team's actual facility why not have it so that the teams with the higher ranking host the game at the same stadium that their conference championship game was (since those already are selected geographically). Then to a degree the games are home and to a degree neutral as well.

DU: Blake, I gotta hand it to you. This idea sounds sort of crazy, but I sort of love it. It could pose some logistical issues I suppose -- do you reserve these venues? -- but I doubt those kinds of things would be any more serious than playing at a campus site. The one problem that could arise is making teams travel to the same site two weeks in a row, or two games in a row, depending on when semifinal games are played.

That's not a big deal for, say, OU, Texas or TCU playing at Cowboys Stadium, assuming that would be the Big 12's site. Maybe the team could choose Arrowhead or Cowboys Stadium? That seems a little hokey.

But what about Arkansas playing in Atlanta? Or Nebraska playing in Indianapolis? What about West Virginia playing in Cowboys Stadium? Would fans be willing to travel to the same spot for two consecutive games? You could deal with attendance issues at that point.

That said, I don't hate the idea.

[dabrockster]

Nice article on the Playoff discussion..

The slippery folks who rule college football are toying with new ways to distract the mob. After years of unpardonably rooking fans, they hope to placate us by considering a four-team playoff for 2014. The system has been so corrupt for so long, we are supposed to be grateful for the smallest possible concession. But let’s be real: What they are proposing is just a blueprint for another sewer line.

This week, the superpower conferences held their annual spring meetings, and they were a peepshow into the inner workings of empire, from the Southeastern Conference to the Big Ten. We saw the forces that really control them: quaking fear, and jealousy. A four-team playoff is inadequate, and everyone knows it, and the only reason they’re considering it is so they can continue to direct the lion’s share of revenue to themselves, because they are afraid of open competition.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...P5U_story.html

[Mormon Red Death]

The B1G wants a compromise. The top 4 dont have to be all conference winners but the selection of the 4 needs to have selection committee and should take in to account schedule strength.

[Jacob]

Ugh.

Big Ten preferences for CFB: 1 status quo; 2 plus-one; 3 4 team playoff within the bowls. Big Ten acknowledges status quo won't fly.

[Paperback Writer]

The B1G wants a compromise. The top 4 dont have to be all conference winners but the selection of the 4 needs to have selection committee and should take in to account schedule strength.

I think the Big Ten is taking a reasonable approach. Ensure that conference champs are ranked in the top 6, take into account head-to-head play and SOS, and have a selection committee (like BBall). I think one of the Big Ten's concerns is that some SEC programs have not historically played tough OOC games (the same is true for some Big Ten programs - I'm looking at you Wisconsin). It becomes more important to the Big Ten when it starts playing more OOC games against the PAC-12. I'd like to see the SEC do something similar with the Big 12. Or better yet, the major conferences playing tougher OOC games against each other.

Unless there's a selection committee - it might be too easy for a team to play a weak OOC schedule to perserve a high ranking and then play a favorable conference schedule.

[Jacob]

I think the Big Ten is taking a reasonable approach. Ensure that conference champs are ranked in the top 6, take into account head-to-head play and SOS, and have a selection committee (like BBall). I think one of the Big Ten's concerns is that some SEC programs have not historically played tough OOC games (the same is true for some Big Ten programs - I'm looking at you Wisconsin). It becomes more important to the Big Ten when it starts playing more OOC games against the PAC-12. I'd like to see the SEC do something similar with the Big 12. Or better yet, the major conferences playing tougher OOC games against each other.

Unless there's a selection committee - it might be too easy for a team to play a weak OOC schedule to perserve a high ranking and then play a favorable conference schedule.

Selection committee is fine. But just make it the top 4. It's not that difficult.

[Paperback Writer]

Selection committee is fine. But just make it the top 4. It's not that difficult.

But it can be - it all depends on the metric for ranking the top 4. Just a couple of examples, take Stanford over Oregon last season even though Oregon beat Stanford and won the PAC-12? Stanford was #4 and Oregon was #5 in the BCS. Another example was in 2000 when Florida St. got the BCS champ game invite over Miami even though Miami defeated FSU and played a tougher schedule.

If you just take the top 4 with the BCS or some other type of ranking, you don't really need a selection committee.