1, Nobody outside the South wants 2 SEC teams to be selected.
2. Winners of 4 P5 conferences should be selected
3. Making it 4 of 5 keeps pressure on the P5 schools to toughen their OOC schedules.

(07-28-2014 11:39 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 09:57 AM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 09:39 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 09:34 AM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  I'd like you to find a place where I said that.

you said there are just answers we won't have until we see first hand how these rankings are done.

I'm sorry- but those 3 teams in particular- there's no question at all that they would be in the playoffs. NONE. 2006 Michigan, 2008 Texas, and 2011 Alabama- we don't have to wait to see how it's done. Not at all.

I wasn't even speaking at what you said, because quite frankly I think your post is irrelevant. Who the hell cares about whether Michigan would be in the CFP if it was around in 2006? It's 2014. I don't care about 2006. Congratulations on having an opinion, we've all got some. Yours may not be wrong, but I don't care to take the time to analyze each possible qualifying team's SOS in 2006 to argue with you because - like I said - 2006 doesn't matter to me. Or 07,08,09,10,or 11.

I was speaking on waiting on just how this is going to go down instead of just listening to these people talk. Wait until they make 1 move and actually rank these teams once to start analyzing and acting like we know something. It's like in college when you really don't know how you're going to fare in a class until you take the professor's first test.

Excellent post, especially the underlined parts.

The thing is- you can look at a year like a 2006 and draw some pretty easy conclusions. Obviously we don't know for sure- but if final standings are like they were in 2006- it's going to be hard to have 4 conference champions in the playoff. Very hard. That's the thing

(07-28-2014 12:03 PM)westwolf Wrote:  1, Nobody outside the South wants 2 SEC teams to be selected.
2. Winners of 4 P5 conferences should be selected
3. Making it 4 of 5 keeps pressure on the P5 schools to toughen their OOC schedules.

Here's the rub. In 2006 and 2008- another conference outside the SEC would have gotten a 2nd team in.

And, I'm sorry- but in a year like 2011- most people would not want to see Wisconsin in the playoff instead of Alabama.

(07-28-2014 12:08 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-28-2014 12:03 PM)westwolf Wrote:  1, Nobody outside the South wants 2 SEC teams to be selected.
2. Winners of 4 P5 conferences should be selected
3. Making it 4 of 5 keeps pressure on the P5 schools to toughen their OOC schedules.

Here's the rub. In 2006 and 2008- another conference outside the SEC would have gotten a 2nd team in.

And, I'm sorry- but in a year like 2011- most people would not want to see Wisconsin in the playoff instead of Alabama.

Ultimately, that's how the selections have always been made. By who "wants to see them in a playoff". If you really want to see somebody get picked, you will always be able to find good reasons why they should get picked. Usually, the people with the most expertise in determining who people want to see are the networks. So why not let them decide? After all, the only reason these games are played at all is to entertain us.

The problem is- the timing for folks that wanted conference champs only could not have been worse when the system was created. No way would ESPN accept a system where #2 Alabama would have been left out the previous season. Life is about timing, and for those that want conference champs only- it could not have been worse timing.

(07-28-2014 11:58 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-28-2014 09:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would argue there is too little difference between #1 and #6 to matter significantly. So, if you are going to allow a team that essentially lost in the round of 8, or the round of 16, as Alabama did last year, then I have no problem with them having a rematch with Auburn in the semifinals. In fact, I would encourage it.

I would have to agree

(07-28-2014 11:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  My SEC brethren probably don't feel the way I do about it, but rematches destroy the meaning of the regular season and should never be permitted to happen. Let the conferences decide their champ and then pick the champion of champions and I'm fine with the outcome.

Do you mean rematches in general, or conference rematches? Otherwise what if Florida and Florida State are both conference champions, for example? Or Notre Dame and USC are both in?

(07-28-2014 11:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The NCAA Tourney proves that ratings wise the upsets are great until the elite eight and then it's the national brands that pull down the ratings.

Just a minor correction: Cinderellas do draw in the final four as well. Highest rated final of the last ten years had Butler in it. They have drawn pretty well over the years. However to your point, two cinderellas facing each other, not so much. In fact, those have bombed, in both sports.

Rematches: I'm referring specifically to conference rematches. While it might not be preferable to rematch Florida vs Florida State if it needs to be done because they are both conference champions I'm okay with it. But schools in your conference that you play annually as you do with division mates I am not in favor of a rematch at all. A division champion shouldn't have to defend their title over again to a school they defeated to take their crown. And since most conferences now have a CCG if a rematch occurs there at least it is not a divisional rematch but rather a freak of scheduling and the CCG determines the Conference champion so that becomes moot as well.

As for Cinderellas there may be exceptions but it seems to me I remember how V.C.U. ratings dropped off the longer their run went. I would be interested to see some actual numbers on this matter. Butler may be the exception rather than the rule. And note, I'm not saying that underdogs don't play well in the first couple of rounds, I'm saying that their following tends to drop the ratings once they get to the elite eight and beyond.

I'm also saying that college football doesn't need a selection committee period. And for the reasons stated above among others.

(07-28-2014 12:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As for Cinderellas there may be exceptions but it seems to me I remember how V.C.U. ratings dropped off the longer their run went. I would be interested to see some actual numbers on this matter. Butler may be the exception rather than the rule. .

Wish I could help you with that. The only year I have detailed data for is 2013. That year did have a Cinderella in Wichita State. Here are their ratings


They went up each round, but the sample size is way too small to make heads nor tails of it.

(07-28-2014 12:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  If you really want to see somebody get picked, you will always be able to find good reasons why they should get picked. Usually, the people with the most expertise in determining who people want to see are the networks. So why not let them decide? After all, the only reason these games are played at all is to entertain us.

If they divided the CFP money equally and didn't give a huge bonus for putting a team into the playoffs, I wouldn't care which teams they picked. As you say, it's just entertainment anyway. However, as it stands there are potentially hundreds of millions of dollars riding on which teams get selected. IMO, if it boils down to a beauty contest, that would be UNACCEPTABLE!

It's not a huge bonus for putting a team into the playoffs.

Playoff teams get $6 million for their conferences
access bowls get $4 million for their conferences

So $2 million is not a huge gap at all.

The ACC's gap is more because of the Orange Bowl. ESPN valued that as $55 million vs Rose/Sugar at $80 million.