(11-18-2013 10:31 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Three assumptions are made. First, no more than 2 teams from one conference. Second, one spot is reserved for NonBCS team. Third, teams from the same conference would not be matched in the first round.

FIRST ROUND:
#1 Alabama versus #18 UCF

#2 Florida State versus #6 Auburn

#3 Ohio State versus #7 Clemson

#4 Baylor versus #5 Oregon

SECOND ROUND:
Alabama/UCF Winner versus Baylor/Oregon Winner
Florida State/Auburn Winner versus Ohio State/Clemson winner

BCS STANDINGS

As an aside, excluding Ohio State and Oregon, it is interesting to note 6 of the 8 teams are from the south.

(11-18-2013 10:31 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Three assumptions are made. First, no more than 2 teams from one conference. Second, one spot is reserved for NonBCS team. Third, teams from the same conference would not be matched in the first round.

FIRST ROUND:
#1 Alabama versus #15 Fresno State

#2 Florida State versus #6 Auburn

#3 Ohio State versus #7 Clemson

#4 Baylor versus #5 Oregon

(11-18-2013 11:02 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 10:31 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Three assumptions are made. First, no more than 2 teams from one conference. Second, one spot is reserved for NonBCS team. Third, teams from the same conference would not be matched in the first round.

FIRST ROUND:
#1 Alabama versus #15 Fresno State

#2 Florida State versus #6 Auburn

#3 Ohio State versus #7 Clemson

#4 Baylor versus #5 Oregon

This is exactly why we don't need a playoff. Clemson got blown out against FSU. Auburn/Bama will already decide it on the field. And nobody honestly believes some mid majors can win three straight games against powerhouse schools. Keep it at 4 teams so that at least 90% of the time you never have more than 4 undefeated FBS schools in powerhouse conferences, or mid major schools that actually played tough OOC opponents.

(11-18-2013 10:41 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Perhaps the NonBCS conferences could open up the 8-team playoff to include more than 1 NonBCS team with some kind of proposal, perhaps something like this.

For the #7 and #8 spots, a NonBCS team would play a "play-in" game against a BCS team. For example, #16 Northern Illinois would play #9 Stanford and #15 Fresno State would play #10 Oklahoma State.

This would expand the 8-team to give 8 BCS teams a shot at the national title, rather than 7. BCS would also make more money. And, for the NonBCS conferences, it would get 2 NonBCS teams into the National Playoff picture rather than just 1. This would be an enhanced recruiting enticement.

My guess is there is a tremendous amount of money being made off the 4 game national playoff and an 8/10 team National Playoff would double that humongous amount of money. So, I do think BCS will expand the 4 game playoff---AND THROUGH COOPERATION--the five NonBCS conferences should come up with some kind of strategy to participate in a bigger manner. If the NonBCS conferences are to find a way for an enhanced participation, it will be through gaining support among the sporting public who like to see fair play; pursuing the "best of the NonBCS rest" strategy will get you a cup of coffee and a nice seat in the end zone.

The more correct observation is that it may be extremely difficult just to get 1 NonBCS team included in the 4 or 8 game national playoff, as BCS will obviously, as they have some many times in the past, stack the deck against NonBCS teams. It may take COOPERATION among the 5 NonBCS teams just to get 1 NonBCS team automatically included in the national playoff.

(11-18-2013 11:22 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 11:02 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 10:31 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Three assumptions are made. First, no more than 2 teams from one conference. Second, one spot is reserved for NonBCS team. Third, teams from the same conference would not be matched in the first round.

FIRST ROUND:
#1 Alabama versus #15 Fresno State

#2 Florida State versus #6 Auburn

#3 Ohio State versus #7 Clemson

#4 Baylor versus #5 Oregon

This is exactly why we don't need a playoff. Clemson got blown out against FSU. Auburn/Bama will already decide it on the field. And nobody honestly believes some mid majors can win three straight games against powerhouse schools. Keep it at 4 teams so that at least 90% of the time you never have more than 4 undefeated FBS schools in powerhouse conferences, or mid major schools that actually played tough OOC opponents.

My guess is that no NonBCS team will ever appear in a 4 team national playoff, as the rules (Strength of Schedule) will forever keep NonBCS out. But an 8 team playoff perhaps opens a door for NonBCS teams....

(11-18-2013 11:22 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  My guess is that no NonBCS team will ever appear in a 4 team national playoff, as the rules (Strength of Schedule) will forever keep NonBCS out. But an 8 team playoff perhaps opens a door for NonBCS teams.

Participation and/or a broader participation in an 8 team playoff may enable NonBCS schools to recruit better against the BCS teams and become more competitive.

(11-18-2013 11:32 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 11:22 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  My guess is that no NonBCS team will ever appear in a 4 team national playoff, as the rules (Strength of Schedule) will forever keep NonBCS out. But an 8 team playoff perhaps opens a door for NonBCS teams.

Participation and/or a broader participation in an 8 team playoff may enable NonBCS schools to recruit better against the BCS teams and become more competitive.

Yeah but it's just not worth it when you are playing the Ball St's and the UNLV's of the world on a weekly basis, and then include those teams in an 8 team rotation. I believe in expanded bowl access, and I would do away with this contract nonsense. But the At-Large schools will still be decided by the committee, that much we know. If they want to maintain any credibility, they will have to take these mid-majors and pit them with the big dogs if the polls have them higher.

But with 4 teams, you will undoubtedly get the three top teams in the country, and rarely are there years where you have more than 3 teams in discussion for #1. Numbers 4, 5, and 6 are interesting, but they usually have losses, and that keeps up the heightened uncertainty and unpredictability of the college football season. You still want the national controversy, and it will be less controversial debating between 4/5 as opposed to 2/3, when the best teams possibly get left out. Some years you will have a quality mid major left out at 5, despite running the table. But they will be in a BCS bowl and they will still have to win that game to make a case for expansion. Not to mention those emerging programs probably end up getting scooped up by a major conference in a couple of years anyway. Boise St. is probably the only notable school worth discussing in the BCS era.

(11-18-2013 10:31 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Three assumptions are made. First, no more than 2 teams from one conference.

(11-18-2013 10:31 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Three assumptions are made. First, no more than 2 teams from one conference. Second, one spot is reserved for NonBCS team. Third, teams from the same conference would not be matched in the first round.

FIRST ROUND:
#1 Alabama versus #15 Fresno State

#2 Florida State versus #6 Auburn

#3 Ohio State versus #7 Clemson

#4 Baylor versus #5 Oregon

SECOND ROUND:
Alabama/Fresno State Winner versus Baylor/Oregon Winner
Florida State/Auburn Winner versus Ohio State/Clemson winner

BCS STANDINGS

As an aside, excluding Ohio State, Oregon, and Fresno State, it is interesting to note 5 of the 8 teams are from the south.

(11-18-2013 11:27 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 10:41 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Perhaps the NonBCS conferences could open up the 8-team playoff to include more than 1 NonBCS team with some kind of proposal, perhaps something like this.

For the #7 and #8 spots, a NonBCS team would play a "play-in" game against a BCS team. For example, #16 Northern Illinois would play #9 Stanford and #15 Fresno State would play #10 Oklahoma State.

This would expand the 8-team to give 8 BCS teams a shot at the national title, rather than 7. BCS would also make more money. And, for the NonBCS conferences, it would get 2 NonBCS teams into the National Playoff picture rather than just 1. This would be an enhanced recruiting enticement.

My guess is there is a tremendous amount of money being made off the 4 game national playoff and an 8/10 team National Playoff would double that humongous amount of money. So, I do think BCS will expand the 4 game playoff---AND THROUGH COOPERATION--the five NonBCS conferences should come up with some kind of strategy to participate in a bigger manner. If the NonBCS conferences are to find a way for an enhanced participation, it will be through gaining support among the sporting public who like to see fair play; pursuing the "best of the NonBCS rest" strategy will get you a cup of coffee and a nice seat in the end zone.

The more correct observation is that it may be extremely difficult just to get 1 NonBCS team included in the 4 or 8 game national playoff, as BCS will obviously, as they have some many times in the past, stack the deck against NonBCS teams. It may take COOPERATION among the 5 NonBCS teams just to get 1 NonBCS team automatically included in the national playoff.

If you want to sell an 8-team playoff to the powers that be, I still believe the road to this is to simply use the bowl structure with traditional tie-ins:

Rose: Big Ten vs. Pac-12
Sugar: SEC vs. at-large
Orange: ACC vs. at-large
Fiesta (or Cotton): Big 12 vs. at-large

One of the at-larges could be reserved for the top Group of Five champ (although as you've stated, that's going to take a lot of prodding). That would give us the following playoff:

Rose: #3 Ohio State vs. #5 Oregon
Sugar: #1 Alabama vs. #15 Fresno State
Orange: #2 Florida State vs. #6 Auburn*
Fiesta (or Cotton): #4 Baylor vs. #7 Clemson*

(* I definitely agree that you want to avoid rematches and intra-conference games in the first round.)

That looks like a sweet playoff to me with the tradition of the bowls maintained and, most importantly, you could conceivably see the power conferences sign up for this since such bowls allow them to maintain control (and the money that comes with it) over the overall system. Frankly, that would be more traditional than the new CFP system yet it would still expand the playoff access. Anyone can design a playoff system that he/she personally likes, but the challenge is to design a playoff system that the power conferences (most notably, the Big Ten and SEC) will actually agree to implement.

(11-18-2013 12:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 11:27 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 10:41 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Perhaps the NonBCS conferences could open up the 8-team playoff to include more than 1 NonBCS team with some kind of proposal, perhaps something like this.

For the #7 and #8 spots, a NonBCS team would play a "play-in" game against a BCS team. For example, #16 Northern Illinois would play #9 Stanford and #15 Fresno State would play #10 Oklahoma State.

This would expand the 8-team to give 8 BCS teams a shot at the national title, rather than 7. BCS would also make more money. And, for the NonBCS conferences, it would get 2 NonBCS teams into the National Playoff picture rather than just 1. This would be an enhanced recruiting enticement.

My guess is there is a tremendous amount of money being made off the 4 game national playoff and an 8/10 team National Playoff would double that humongous amount of money. So, I do think BCS will expand the 4 game playoff---AND THROUGH COOPERATION--the five NonBCS conferences should come up with some kind of strategy to participate in a bigger manner. If the NonBCS conferences are to find a way for an enhanced participation, it will be through gaining support among the sporting public who like to see fair play; pursuing the "best of the NonBCS rest" strategy will get you a cup of coffee and a nice seat in the end zone.

The more correct observation is that it may be extremely difficult just to get 1 NonBCS team included in the 4 or 8 game national playoff, as BCS will obviously, as they have some many times in the past, stack the deck against NonBCS teams. It may take COOPERATION among the 5 NonBCS teams just to get 1 NonBCS team automatically included in the national playoff.

If you want to sell an 8-team playoff to the powers that be, I still believe the road to this is to simply use the bowl structure with traditional tie-ins:

Rose: Big Ten vs. Pac-12
Sugar: SEC vs. at-large
Orange: ACC vs. at-large
Fiesta (or Cotton): Big 12 vs. at-large

One of the at-larges could be reserved for the top Group of Five champ (although as you've stated, that's going to take a lot of prodding). That would give us the following playoff:

Rose: #3 Ohio State vs. #5 Oregon
Sugar: #1 Alabama vs. #15 Fresno State
Orange: #2 Florida State vs. #6 Auburn*
Fiesta (or Cotton): #4 Baylor vs. #7 Clemson*

(* I definitely agree that you want to avoid rematches and intra-conference games in the first round.)

That looks like a sweet playoff to me with the tradition of the bowls maintained and, most importantly, you could conceivably see the power conferences sign up for this since such bowls allow them to maintain control (and the money that comes with it) over the overall system. Frankly, that would be more traditional than the new CFP system yet it would still expand the playoff access. Anyone can design a playoff system that he/she personally likes, but the challenge is to design a playoff system that the power conferences (most notably, the Big Ten and SEC) will actually agree to implement.

The SEC/Big 12/ACC will never agree to a system that could allow Big Ten/Pac 12 to have their winners who aren't as highly ranked play automatically in a QF. I mean let's take this year and Michigan St beats Ohio St and UCLA/Arizona St beats Oregon. Michigan St and UCLA would be ranked lower then Clemson, 2nd SEC team. Why should Florida St have to play instead of UCLA a SEC team that is much higher ranked? Why should Baylor have to play instead of Michigan St a much higher ranked Clemson team?

The other 3 conferences didn't protect the Rose Bowl now, they surely won't be protecting it down the road.

(11-18-2013 11:49 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  With 4 teams you don't undoubtedly get the best 3 teams in the country. You get the teams that people vote to be the top 3. A good MWC team or even MAC team could go undefeated with a good win or 2 OOC and not get in while various 1-loss teams or even 2-loss teams could get in from SEC or PAC or Big 10. And you really don't know who's better. Some people think they do, but they don't.

(11-18-2013 01:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think one major point Frank is that the 1st round would likely be done prior to the 1st of the year. I don't think they want to extend the season to where the title game is being played 3rd week in January. I think they already aren't all that happy that the title game is some years like 13th of January. now imagine extending out another week. I don't think so.