regarding the fourth and final selection states there will be controversy on the fourth and final selection and he wouldn't want it any other way....as it sparks public attention to the weekly polls. My guess to he is stating this position now to fend off criticism to come....and, IMO, more criticism than even he envisioned. That criticism might turn BCS conference against BCS conference. A few controversies and, IMO, bingo, an eight team national playoff appears with the five BCS conference champs automatic qualifiers.

PLAYOFF COMMITEE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BILL HANCOCK ON 4TH TEAM SELECTION

Most folks around here think it will take 10 years or so to achieve an 8 team playoff. I have consistently held to the belief that it will take much less time than that and the major point of contention I have had to fuel that belief of mine is the massive controversy we will likely have every year when it comes to the selection of number 4 and number 5. Has it EVER been clear who would be 4 and who would be 5? I highly doubt it usually is obvious between the two position whom truly is the better team. Most times you would find 1 loss or maybe 2 loss teams at that spot. That makes both teams qualified to contend where as the 8th vs 9th ranked teams is more like 3 loss or maybe even 4 loss teams during some seasons.

It is much easier to say to a 9th ranked team that they don't deserve a shot than it will be to the 5th ranked team. Some of you will understand that immediately, some of you will understand that after going back and looking at top 25 rankings at the end of seasons in past years. Some of you will never understand and that is ok too.


What this piece shows us though is that folks like this Hancock guy are already on the defensive and know how big of an issue this will be for them. They are already facing pressure and we havnt even had one playoff yet. Anyone whom thinks they can hold off the inevitable for up to 10 years, such a person just doesn't fathom how crazy it is going to get this year as we close in on that playoff. The 4 vs 5 debate is going to get very nasty.

I agree with you entirely H one. Well said.

I have never understood the theory that controversy is good for the BCS. I know that people who directly profit from their corruption to try to spin it as all attention is good attention. And I might agree with Hancock if we were talking about the Division III playoffs or some other entity that has trouble gaining the media's attention. However, for an entity the size of the BCS that is a patently absurd position.

Getting the public's attention has never been an issue for major college football. What has been a MAJOR issue for major college football has been on how it has determined it's champion and slotted teams in major bowl games. This four team playoff does not solve those issues any better than the old BCS did and there's just no question that is going to prove problematic almost immediately. And when it does, you can bet that the dimwitted media and some easily influenced fans will say on cue, "Hey, at least it gets people talking about the new playoff system." As if that somehow justifies the obviously broken system and excuses the blatant corruption/incompetency of the people running it.

It does not.

The four major professional sports and men's college basketball all get plenty of media attention for their postseason tournaments which are decided transparently and on the field rather than behind closed doors as part of some sort of almost comically blatant back room dealing.

Imagine if the NFL magically "selected" the 11–5 New York Giants over the 13–3 Atlanta Falcons to play in the NFC playoffs because the G-Men "travel better" than their southern counterparts or because they command a larger television audience. Does anyone really think the public would go for that new "system?"

So, then why do we tolerate it at the collegiate level? Why is the corruption so readily accepted like it's something that has to happen? We could end this BS anytime we wanted. All we would have to do is stand up en masse and tell the thieves running this OBVIOUSLY CORRUPT SYSTEM that it's over and it's time they run their playoff just like everyone else does in American sports. Why is that out of the question? Only because we allow it to remain out of the question.

(07-22-2014 09:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Most folks around here think it will take 10 years or so to achieve an 8 team playoff. I have consistently held to the belief that it will take much less time than that and the major point of contention I have had to fuel that belief of mine is the massive controversy we will likely have every year when it comes to the selection of number 4 and number 5. Has it EVER been clear who would be 4 and who would be 5? I highly doubt it usually is obvious between the two position whom truly is the better team. Most times you would find 1 loss or maybe 2 loss teams at that spot. That makes both teams qualified to contend where as the 8th vs 9th ranked teams is more like 3 loss or maybe even 4 loss teams during some seasons.

It is much easier to say to a 9th ranked team that they don't deserve a shot than it will be to the 5th ranked team. Some of you will understand that immediately, some of you will understand that after going back and looking at top 25 rankings at the end of seasons in past years. Some of you will never understand and that is ok too.


What this piece shows us though is that folks like this Hancock guy are already on the defensive and know how big of an issue this will be for them. They are already facing pressure and we havnt even had one playoff yet. Anyone whom thinks they can hold off the inevitable for up to 10 years, such a person just doesn't fathom how crazy it is going to get this year as we close in on that playoff. The 4 vs 5 debate is going to get very nasty.

I think there were only 1 or 2 years in the BCS era when the 9th place team even had a remote argument to be in the top 2 and not much more often in the top 4. 9 may complain they are better than 8, but have had plenty of chances to prove they were better than 9 and failed. Noone but their fans will care too much.

u right doctor, then why have a playoff, it solved nothing
however NFL is just as corrupt, u don't realize it
If system is broke with bowls or Playoffs
why juperdize the players

The thing people forget is that with the huge number of teams and regional nature of college sports, is that the second that every conference can feel confident in getting teams in, the less people will care about the national races. Think about college basketball. Before March Madness it's a very regional sport. Most people watch few games outside their region during the season compared to football where the top national teams get tremendous ratings throughout the year. I don't care about a #1 vs. #2 game in basketball game before March unless it involves a Big Ten team because it really feels pointless. Some of that is just because basketball isn't as big, but not all of it. You go to an 8 game playoff with all major conferences automatically in, and there's a lot less reason to care about the SEC races if you live in the Midwest, or the ACC race if you live in California, etc.

I believe that we will see the Major bowls become four team tournament's before we see an expansion of the playoff.

The whole thing will be a catastrophe. You can't make everybody happy.

(07-22-2014 09:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Most folks around here think it will take 10 years or so to achieve an 8 team playoff. I have consistently held to the belief that it will take much less time than that and the major point of contention I have had to fuel that belief of mine is the massive controversy we will likely have every year when it comes to the selection of number 4 and number 5. Has it EVER been clear who would be 4 and who would be 5? I highly doubt it usually is obvious between the two position whom truly is the better team. Most times you would find 1 loss or maybe 2 loss teams at that spot. That makes both teams qualified to contend where as the 8th vs 9th ranked teams is more like 3 loss or maybe even 4 loss teams during some seasons.

It is much easier to say to a 9th ranked team that they don't deserve a shot than it will be to the 5th ranked team. Some of you will understand that immediately, some of you will understand that after going back and looking at top 25 rankings at the end of seasons in past years. Some of you will never understand and that is ok too.


What this piece shows us though is that folks like this Hancock guy are already on the defensive and know how big of an issue this will be for them. They are already facing pressure and we havnt even had one playoff yet. Anyone whom thinks they can hold off the inevitable for up to 10 years, such a person just doesn't fathom how crazy it is going to get this year as we close in on that playoff. The 4 vs 5 debate is going to get very nasty.

I agree.

My problem with four teams in a playoff is this. You have five conferences in play for four spots. What happens in years when conferences like the SEC have two teams in the top four?

Or what would happen in this situation?

1. 13-0 Alabama
2. 13-0 USC
3. 11-1 Ohio State
4. 11-2 LSU
5. 11-1 Baylor
6. 11-2 Clemson
7. 9-3 Stanford
8. 9-3 Auburn
9. 13-0 UCF
10. 9-4 Oregon

The first problem here is that not everyone plays the same amount of games. Teams that go to conference championships have an extra game and even if we don't say it counts it will to human voters.

The second problem is what if out of all those teams LSU played the most tough schedule in the country and beat Oregon while Ohio State had a fairly easy schedule? And what if Baylor has a better record than LSU and a pretty decent schedule?

If you go look at the rankings from previous years you notice you don't see a drop off until you get to the 9th-10th team.

Eight team playoff, second round is four, then you have your championship. Round 1 would start on a Tuesday at a campus location. Round 2 would start on a Saturday at a neutral site. And round 3 would start the following Saturday at the championship location.

The problem is not trying to make everyone happy. Because the top ranked team in the country usually can demolish the 25th ranked team. The problem is that the top eight teams usually all have a fair shot at beating each other and usually have similar records.

1 Florida (48) 13-1 1606
2 Utah (16) 13-0 1519
3 USC (1) 12-1 1481
4 Texas 12-1 1478
5 Oklahoma 12-2 1391
6 Alabama 12-2 1264
7 TCU 11-2 1193
8 Penn State 11-2 1153
9 Ohio State 10-3 1013
10 Oregon 10-3 997

From ESPN rankings in 2008.

Do you think that Oregon could have beaten Florida that year? Heck no, Florida would have blown Oregon out. Could USC have beaten Florida? Yes. Could Alabama have beaten USC? Yes.

Keep in mind that this was the year Utah beat Alabama. TCU beat Boise and Boise beat Oregon.

It just goes to show you that the top eight teams are the ones that really stand out from the rest.

(07-22-2014 10:51 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  The problem is not trying to make everyone happy. Because the top ranked team in the country usually can demolish the 25th ranked team. The problem is that the top eight teams usually all have a fair shot at beating each other and usually have similar records.

1 OU 12-1
2 Florida 12-1
3 Texas 11-1
4 Alabama 12-1
5 USC 11-1
6 Utah 11-0
7 TTech 11-1
8 Penn State 11-1
9 Boise State 12-0


It just goes to show you that the top eight teams are the ones that really stand out from the rest.

I fixed it for you, Trojan. You must use the "end of regular season" rankings, not the post-bowl. That's when the decisions will be made.

2008 is NOT the norm though. In the whole BCS era, 2008 was the one year where there were 8 (even 9) teams that were deserving. Usually, it's 3 or 4 or 5 teams that deserve a title shot.

(07-22-2014 11:42 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 10:51 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  The problem is not trying to make everyone happy. Because the top ranked team in the country usually can demolish the 25th ranked team. The problem is that the top eight teams usually all have a fair shot at beating each other and usually have similar records.

1 OU 12-1
2 Florida 12-1
3 Texas 11-1
4 Alabama 12-1
5 USC 11-1
6 Utah 11-0
7 TTech 11-1
8 Penn State 11-1
9 Boise State 12-0


It just goes to show you that the top eight teams are the ones that really stand out from the rest.

I fixed it for you, Trojan. You must use the "end of regular season" rankings, not the post-bowl. That's when the decisions will be made.

2008 is NOT the norm though. In the whole BCS era, 2008 was the one year where there were 8 (even 9) teams that were deserving. Usually, it's 3 or 4 or 5 teams that deserve a title shot.

With all due respect, so what?

The system is made or broken in those weird and rare years.

(07-22-2014 11:42 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 10:51 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  The problem is not trying to make everyone happy. Because the top ranked team in the country usually can demolish the 25th ranked team. The problem is that the top eight teams usually all have a fair shot at beating each other and usually have similar records.

1 OU 12-1
2 Florida 12-1
3 Texas 11-1
4 Alabama 12-1
5 USC 11-1
6 Utah 11-0
7 TTech 11-1
8 Penn State 11-1
9 Boise State 12-0


It just goes to show you that the top eight teams are the ones that really stand out from the rest.

I fixed it for you, Trojan. You must use the "end of regular season" rankings, not the post-bowl. That's when the decisions will be made.

2008 is NOT the norm though. In the whole BCS era, 2008 was the one year where there were 8 (even 9) teams that were deserving. Usually, it's 3 or 4 or 5 teams that deserve a title shot.

2008 and maybe 2007 (when no one was really deserving) were the 2 exceptional years I had in mind where 9 was close to #2.

(07-22-2014 11:42 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 10:51 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  The problem is not trying to make everyone happy. Because the top ranked team in the country usually can demolish the 25th ranked team. The problem is that the top eight teams usually all have a fair shot at beating each other and usually have similar records.

1 OU 12-1
2 Florida 12-1
3 Texas 11-1
4 Alabama 12-1
5 USC 11-1
6 Utah 11-0
7 TTech 11-1
8 Penn State 11-1
9 Boise State 12-0
http://www.footballfoundation.org/Portal....07.08.pdf

It just goes to show you that the top eight teams are the ones that really stand out from the rest.

I fixed it for you, Trojan. You must use the "end of regular season" rankings, not the post-bowl. That's when the decisions will be made.

2008 is NOT the norm though. In the whole BCS era, 2008 was the one year where there were 8 (even 9) teams that were deserving. Usually, it's 3 or 4 or 5 teams that deserve a title shot.

Let's look at 2008 like a playoff committee.

SOS... http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt08.htm
The only two conferences in that year to stage a CCG? The Big 12 and SEC. Whose winners got in? The Big 12 and SEC. Those CCG put OU and Florida as the top two SOS (7th and 4th in the nation, respectively).

The Big 12 South's tie=breaker omitted Texas and TTech that year, but despite their non-winning of a conf champ, in 2008 you could compare them with USC and PSU because although they didn't win a conf champ, they played an equal number of games.

Utah's SOS was just one spot lower than PSU's, despite PSU's better conference affiliation in the year. Utah also had a better record vs. top 10 teams (1-0 reg. vs. 0-0 PSU) and vs. top 30 teams (2-0 reg. vs. 2-1 PSU). While it's hard to figure out what the committee would do today with a non-Power5 undefeated vs. a Power 5 conference champ...

...I believe conference championships will rule the day.

I think the committee looks at 2008's mess and says...

1. OU
2. Florida
3. USC
4. PSU

5. Texas
6. Alabama
7. Utah
8. TTech
9. Boise State

Here is a coherent argument why the selection committee WOULD take a #3 USC or #4 PSU over #5-#9 above. (Short answer: Money. Long answer: http://nittanylionsden.com/2013-articles...ayoff.html)

Also, if the Big 12 is allowed to have a CCG with 10 teams (Please!) and if the other conferences are allowed to get rid of divisions and pit their two best teams in the CCG (here's a hypothetical http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...c-proposed) ... then most of your problems will be solved with this inequality of schedules issues. (Most... :)

(07-22-2014 09:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Most folks around here think it will take 10 years or so to achieve an 8 team playoff. I have consistently held to the belief that it will take much less time than that and the major point of contention I have had to fuel that belief of mine is the massive controversy we will likely have every year when it comes to the selection of number 4 and number 5. Has it EVER been clear who would be 4 and who would be 5? I highly doubt it usually is obvious between the two position whom truly is the better team. Most times you would find 1 loss or maybe 2 loss teams at that spot. That makes both teams qualified to contend where as the 8th vs 9th ranked teams is more like 3 loss or maybe even 4 loss teams during some seasons.

It is much easier to say to a 9th ranked team that they don't deserve a shot than it will be to the 5th ranked team. Some of you will understand that immediately, some of you will understand that after going back and looking at top 25 rankings at the end of seasons in past years. Some of you will never understand and that is ok too.


What this piece shows us though is that folks like this Hancock guy are already on the defensive and know how big of an issue this will be for them. They are already facing pressure and we havnt even had one playoff yet. Anyone whom thinks they can hold off the inevitable for up to 10 years, such a person just doesn't fathom how crazy it is going to get this year as we close in on that playoff. The 4 vs 5 debate is going to get very nasty.

I think you are on the right track. My reasoning is a little different. I think the issue will be "keeping the regular season relevant". Every season at least one P5 champ will not be in the playoff. If the SEC gets two teams in--then two P5 champs are on the side lines. Effectively, this practice will relegate the entire season's conference race in 1 or more power conferences as irrelevant. How long do you think that's going to fly with conference commissioners? Food for thought---By the CFP's third year it's very possible that a majority of P5 conferences will have been left out at least once. By year 3 I suspect an undefeated G5 will also have been left out. The easy fix---8 team playoff with with a slot reserved for each P5 champ, a slot for the top rated G5 champ, and two wildcard slots. By year 3, I have a feeling a consensus will begin building for something like that.

(07-22-2014 11:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 11:42 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 10:51 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  The problem is not trying to make everyone happy. Because the top ranked team in the country usually can demolish the 25th ranked team. The problem is that the top eight teams usually all have a fair shot at beating each other and usually have similar records.

1 OU 12-1
2 Florida 12-1
3 Texas 11-1
4 Alabama 12-1
5 USC 11-1
6 Utah 11-0
7 TTech 11-1
8 Penn State 11-1
9 Boise State 12-0


It just goes to show you that the top eight teams are the ones that really stand out from the rest.

I fixed it for you, Trojan. You must use the "end of regular season" rankings, not the post-bowl. That's when the decisions will be made.

2008 is NOT the norm though. In the whole BCS era, 2008 was the one year where there were 8 (even 9) teams that were deserving. Usually, it's 3 or 4 or 5 teams that deserve a title shot.

With all due respect, so what?

The system is made or broken in those weird and rare years.

No, it's not. If there is one year out of 20 with 8 or 9 deserving teams, few people (outside of those with an axe to grind) will fault the system for how it deals with such an unusually difficult situation as choosing 4 teams out of 8 or 9 that are very close.

What makes or breaks the selection process for a 4-team playoff is whether it does a credible, legitimate job of choosing the "last team in" out of 2 or 3 candidates, between #4 and 5, or between #4, 5, and 6, or even the "last two in" between #3-6. That is going to be the issue in most years. If there is widespread unhappiness with how that recurring issue is resolved, then the question is whether the solution will be an 8-team playoff or a "better" way of choosing the 4 playoff teams.

(07-22-2014 09:27 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  regarding the fourth and final selection states there will be controversy on the fourth and final selection and he wouldn't want it any other way....as it sparks public attention to the weekly polls. My guess to he is stating this position now to fend off criticism to come....and, IMO, more criticism than even he envisioned. That criticism might turn BCS conference against BCS conference. A few controversies and, IMO, bingo, an eight team national playoff appears with the five BCS conference champs automatic qualifiers.

PLAYOFF COMMITEE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BILL HANCOCK ON 4TH TEAM SELECTION

There always will be controversy. There is controversy over who is # 68 or what ever it is in BB. there will be controversy at #4 and #8, and #16.

Here's a novel idea-

stop giving power to people not on the field. 10 conferences, 10 conference champs. Bottom 4 champs play play-in game, join top 6 champs for 8 team playoff. Everything decided on the field, all 128 teams have a shot at glory. Over, done.