(01-14-2015 11:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 11:36 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 11:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 10:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 10:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The "Plus Three" just refers to 3 additional games played after bowls (where we take the top 4 teams *after* the bowls are played): the 2 semifinal games and then the national championship game.

Ah, so. Had not heard that proposed before. If you had that this year, it's pretty clear that Ohio State, Oregon and TCU would make the field. But would Alabama get in because they ended the season ranked #4? Or would only bowl winners be eligible?

The idea is that the 4 highest-ranked bowl winners would advance. The bowl matchups would need to be adjusted to make it more equitable - i.e. Alabama would have been playing Michigan State in the Sugar Bowl instead of Ohio State. What was proposed in the old Plus One proposal was that a team's ranking was locked in going to the bowls. As a result, if the #1 through #4-ranked teams won their bowl games, then they would all automatically advance regardless of how the #5 team performed. The only way that the #5 team or lower could get into the playoff is if a top 4 team lost in front of them. That would give more weight to the final regular season rankings (along with avoiding the issue of a poll or committee having teams jump each other due to favorable or unfavorable bowl matchups).

So an 8-team playoff.

Well, it would be close but it would be taking the traditional bowl setup and creating matchups therein with an eye toward creating elimination games balanced with a mostly seeded aspect. So, let's take the 6 New Year's Six bowls with the following parameters:

Rose: Big Ten champ vs. Pac-12 champ
Sugar: SEC vs. at-large
Orange: ACC vs. at-large
Fiesta: Big 12 vs. at-large
Cotton: at-large vs. at-large
Peach: at-large vs. at-large

One at-large spot would be reserved for the best G5 spot just as today. If all of the 5 power conference champs are in the top 8, then you can slot the next 3 best at-large teams accordingly and you'd have a de facto 8-team playoff for that season. That's the "easy" scenario that would have occurred in the last 2 seasons. The trickier ones are when there are one or more P5 champs that are *not* in the top 8, such as 2012 when ACC champ FSU was #12 and Big Ten champ Wisconsin was unranked. In that 2012 scenario, you wouldn't have been able to have the #1 through #8 teams play each other head-to-head. Wisconsin would have played #6 Stanford (the Pac-12 champ) in the Rose Bowl. So, #6 Stanford would have been dependent upon other teams ranked higher than them to lose in order to advance to the semifinal round - the Rose Bowl wouldn't have been a "win and you're in" matchup in the way that a true 8-team playoff would be, but Stanford would still have a chance. In a way, it essentially defers the CFP rankings until after the bowl season (as opposed to after the conference championship games) except that you're guaranteed to hold your ranking as long as you win.

The huge disadvantage of this format is just that: we aren't guaranteed "win and you're in" elimination games every year, which have an entirely different appeal for fan and TV purposes. The main advantage of the format is that it provides the flexibility to provide auto-bids to all of the power conferences plus the G5 without allowing a lower-ranked team to "backdoor" into the playoff in a conference championship game upset and elevates the worth of all of the New Year's Six bowls (as opposed to the current focus on the 2 semifinal games). You'd potentially have all six bowl games have national title implications (and 4 at a minimum), which is sort of a throwback to the pre-BCS days when New Year's Day seemed to be wall-to-wall with high impact games.

Anyway, this is purely an idea that I had in the BCS days that I don't think will go anywhere now that we already have a 4-team playoff. Elimination games are simply much more efficient on-the-field and magnitudes more intoxicating for viewers and TV interests off-the-field. The 8-team playoff is the true next step.

Under this set up, we wouldn't have had an Oregon-Ohio State NCG, since one would have been eliminated in the Rose Bowl.
Wouldn't be fair to either conference, especially if both were rated in top 4

(01-14-2015 12:48 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Under this set up, we wouldn't have had an Oregon-Ohio State NCG, since one would have been eliminated in the Rose Bowl.
Wouldn't be fair to either conference, especially if both were rated in top 4

Well, it's the trade-off if the Big Ten and Pac-12 want to keep the traditional Rose Bowl. In the playoff negotiations, the two conferences pushed for mandating that their champs play in the Rose Bowl in a true Plus One system regardless of ranking, so (at least at the time) they considered it to be more important to keep the Rose Bowl matchup annually even if it ended up being a disadvantage on paper seeding-wise in many years. In contrast, the SEC wanted strict seeding above all else. (Of course, the SEC was looking at it the opposite way at the time, where they were perceiving that the Pac-12 champ could play an "easy" Big Ten champ and get an easier opponent in the Rose Bowl.)

Personally, I've said many times before here that I think the seeding issue is severely overrated - whether Ohio State plays Oregon in the first round or the final round doesn't outweigh the thought of having a true Rose Bowl every year again for me (particularly when the other bowls with playoff implications would still have reasonable matchups). The one thing that the bowls have going for them is tradition - without that tradition, a playoff game without both the Pac-12 and Big Ten champs that happens to be played in Pasadena isn't really the Rose Bowl.

(01-14-2015 01:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 12:48 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Under this set up, we wouldn't have had an Oregon-Ohio State NCG, since one would have been eliminated in the Rose Bowl.
Wouldn't be fair to either conference, especially if both were rated in top 4

Well, it's the trade-off if the Big Ten and Pac-12 want to keep the traditional Rose Bowl. In the playoff negotiations, the two conferences pushed for mandating that their champs play in the Rose Bowl in a true Plus One system regardless of ranking, so (at least at the time) they considered it to be more important to keep the Rose Bowl matchup annually even if it ended up being a disadvantage on paper seeding-wise in many years. In contrast, the SEC wanted strict seeding above all else. (Of course, the SEC was looking at it the opposite way at the time, where they were perceiving that the Pac-12 champ could play an "easy" Big Ten champ and get an easier opponent in the Rose Bowl.)

Personally, I've said many times before here that I think the seeding issue is severely overrated - whether Ohio State plays Oregon in the first round or the final round doesn't outweigh the thought of having a true Rose Bowl every year again for me (particularly when the other bowls with playoff implications would still have reasonable matchups). The one thing that the bowls have going for them is tradition - without that tradition, a playoff game without both the Pac-12 and Big Ten champs that happens to be played in Pasadena isn't really the Rose Bowl.

Of all the possible scenarios other than the current one, I'd guess this would have the best chance of actually happening. There are a lot more winners, and not many losers (in the sense of having your interests taken care of). It lets every conference keep its own CCG, which in the case of most P5s would be more meaningful than at present, or at least no less meaningful. It enhances the stature of the bowls. For the first time in a couple of decades there would be more than one meaningful New Years game - maybe as many as six. Pretty much any team with a realistic chance of winning would only be knocked out of contention by losing on the field instead of a conference room. And ESPN gets the college season extended by a week with a blockbuster ratings game.

About the only losers are the Presidents who don't want the season extended by another week, and fans who could be faced with the prospect of four consecutive neutral site elimination games. But those two constituencies might have the least power in the decision whether to do it. They aren't powerless, but they would have to overcome some mighty tempting financial carrots.

(01-14-2015 11:00 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The fact that a team can win a championship does not mean they should be in it. I loved the fact that Ohio State won this year. It was amazing. That said, if they had decided we were #5, I wouldn't have had room to complain because we lost to Virginia Tech and we had closer games than we should have with several teams.

I have no doubt that #5, #9, and maybe even occasionally #16 could win it all, but by putting all those in, the regular season excitement will drop back a lot for me. I'll keep the best regular season in all sports and a great bowl set-up rather than a bigger playoff.

of course a Buckeye fan like the current structure, its rigged and its rigged in your favor. It starts with non conference play which includes 1 home and home vs a weak P5 team and 3 home buy-out games which means every regular season OSU plays 7.5/12 games at home. OF COURSE you think the regular season is best in all of sports, you have every statistical advantage imaginable.

Can you name another sports league besides FBS where no team is given a direct path to a championship and all of the decisions are made by committees who take things like TV rating into considering which teams get to play for a championship? its an embarrassment.

If you want to make FBS a legitimate sports league you have to take away the off-field power and put it all on the field. And that starts with giving every conference champ a spot in a playoff. Now the regular season is exciting because EVERY game is huge- If you don't win your division you can't play for a conference championship, if you can't win your conference championship you don't get to play for a national championship.

It's time for you "P5" fans to put your money where your mouth is and demand that FBS be restructured so the best team is decided on the field. Until then, you can't call yourself a true champion in a blatantly rigged system.

I think it needs to be settled on field as well.

I have said it over and over but...

IF YOU ARE NOT A CONFERENCE CHAMP HOW IN THE HELL CAN YOU BE NATIONAL CHAMP???

Especially in football, where every game counts, period.

If you are, say, Alabama, and you can't beat Mizzou in the Conf Champ game, even if that loss knocks you back to #3... that should be it. You lose your right to claim a crown.

I am for either-

System A) 4 auto-bids going to the 4 conf champs with best strength of schedule... no other metrics needed

System B) 6 teams, 5 G5 winners and the top SOS P5 winner... top two SOS get a bye

System C) Top 8 Conf Champs, period. Yeah, #7 and #8 you're really reaching... but #1 and #2 probably deserve a near-bye in that case.

System C would generate NCAA Tourn. type interest- not just in the championship itself, but in the CONF CHAMP games, which function like Sweet 16 games.

And you give the plum bowl spot/payout to the two highest rated (however you want to decide it - because its not for a nat championship) non conf champs -

If you are going to insist on an at-large in System C (maybe 7 conf champs and 1 at-large)... then make 'em play for it like a play-in game. Screw you for not winning your conf. like you should have.

I still say TCU wins the CFP this year....great D, dominating Offense. None of those four teams could have beat them, IMO.

(01-13-2015 05:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't like that at all. It over-weights a bowl game that is a totally different setup than the regular season with the long preparation time and layoff and differing motivations. I would prefer the BCS to any of the "+" systems and I really didn't like the BCS except compared to what came before.

Bowl games will never go away. Far too much tradition, power and money tied up in them.

Thus, they either have to be integrated into the bracket somehow or they have to be played stand alone.


In my opinion, I just don't see how it matters if the final committee rankings come after conference championship week or come after bowl week.

You point out that preparation and circumstances for each are different. That is true, but it's still the same for all the teams - so it's still fair and even for them all.

(Maybe I should make it more explicit that in such a "plus 3" system, I'd want the *major* bowl games all to happen around New Year's Eve/Day - not spread out)

(01-14-2015 12:48 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Under this set up, we wouldn't have had an Oregon-Ohio State NCG, since one would have been eliminated in the Rose Bowl.
Wouldn't be fair to either conference, especially if both were rated in top 4

Two ways to counter this:

1) this was a very special year, where both the B1G and PAC champs were legitimate top two teams in the country. Most years that won't happen.

Thus, the (small) risk you speak of is worth it to save the historical/traditional Rose Bowl matchup between the two conferences.


2) The Rose Bowl loser is not automatically knocked out of the four team, post-bowl championship bracket.

Remember, the committee decides the best four and it could well have been that the Rose Bowl loser did enough in the game to impress the committee.

That may have not happened this year, if we had the same game as was just played in the Rose Bowl. But again, that's one year.

(01-15-2015 01:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 05:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't like that at all. It over-weights a bowl game that is a totally different setup than the regular season with the long preparation time and layoff and differing motivations. I would prefer the BCS to any of the "+" systems and I really didn't like the BCS except compared to what came before.

Bowl games will never go away. Far too much tradition, power and money tied up in them.

Thus, they either have to be integrated into the bracket somehow or they have to be played stand alone.


In my opinion, I just don't see how it matters if the final committee rankings come after conference championship week or come after bowl week.

You point out that preparation and circumstances for each are different. That is true, but it's still the same for all the teams - so it's still fair and even for them all.

(Maybe I should make it more explicit that in such a "plus 3" system, I'd want the *major* bowl games all to happen around New Year's Eve/Day - not spread out)

Agreed. When people point to bowl results as demonstrating differences in motivation, they are talking about bowl games which became de facto consolation games because they weren't either part of the single BCS championship game or one of the two CFP semifinals. Alabama - Oklahoma in 2013 is a good example of this. If winning your NY6 game was a prerequisite to earning a spot in a Plus Three, you shouldn't have less motivation than your opponent.

Using this year as an example and assuming the top ranked G5 would have a guaranteed spot in the Fiesta, Cotton or Peach:

Rose - Ohio St v Oregon (contractual)
Sugar - Alabama v TCU (contractual)
Orange - Florida St v Miss St (contractual)
Fiesta - Arizona v Boise
Cotton - Baylor v Michigan St
Peach - Ole Miss v Georgia Tech (sorry K-State, Boise took your spot)

Ohio St, TCU, Miss St, Boise, Mich St and GT probably would've won. So Ohio St is #1, TCU #2, Miss St #3 ... then choose #4 from Florida St, Baylor, Alabama and Oregon (all bowl game losers).


Seems very reasonable to me and it upholds the bowl game traditions.

(01-15-2015 01:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  Agreed. When people point to bowl results as demonstrating differences in motivation, they are talking about bowl games which became de facto consolation games because they weren't either part of the single BCS championship game or one of the two CFP semifinals. Alabama - Oklahoma in 2013 is a good example of this. If winning your NY6 game was a prerequisite to earning a spot in a Plus Three, you shouldn't have less motivation than your opponent.

Yes. Good post!

(01-14-2015 05:38 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 11:00 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The fact that a team can win a championship does not mean they should be in it. I loved the fact that Ohio State won this year. It was amazing. That said, if they had decided we were #5, I wouldn't have had room to complain because we lost to Virginia Tech and we had closer games than we should have with several teams.

I have no doubt that #5, #9, and maybe even occasionally #16 could win it all, but by putting all those in, the regular season excitement will drop back a lot for me. I'll keep the best regular season in all sports and a great bowl set-up rather than a bigger playoff.

of course a Buckeye fan like the current structure, its rigged and its rigged in your favor. It starts with non conference play which includes 1 home and home vs a weak P5 team and 3 home buy-out games which means every regular season OSU plays 7.5/12 games at home. OF COURSE you think the regular season is best in all of sports, you have every statistical advantage imaginable.

Can you name another sports league besides FBS where no team is given a direct path to a championship and all of the decisions are made by committees who take things like TV rating into considering which teams get to play for a championship? its an embarrassment.

If you want to make FBS a legitimate sports league you have to take away the off-field power and put it all on the field. And that starts with giving every conference champ a spot in a playoff. Now the regular season is exciting because EVERY game is huge- If you don't win your division you can't play for a conference championship, if you can't win your conference championship you don't get to play for a national championship.

It's time for you "P5" fans to put your money where your mouth is and demand that FBS be restructured so the best team is decided on the field. Until then, you can't call yourself a true champion in a blatantly rigged system.

Alternatively you could demand that your school leave FBS and join the FCS division where the championship structure is more to your liking. I don't see too many folks complaining about the over 100 year history of winning Mythical National Championships.

(01-15-2015 01:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Using this year as an example and assuming the top ranked G5 would have a guaranteed spot in the Fiesta, Cotton or Peach:

Rose - Ohio St v Oregon (contractual)
Sugar - Alabama v TCU (contractual)
Orange - Florida St v Miss St (contractual)
Fiesta - Arizona v Boise
Cotton - Baylor v Michigan St
Peach - Ole Miss v Georgia Tech (sorry K-State, Boise took your spot)

Ohio St, TCU, Miss St, Boise, Mich St and GT probably would've won. So Ohio St is #1, TCU #2, Miss St #3 ... then choose #4 from Florida St, Baylor, Alabama and Oregon (all bowl game losers).


Seems very reasonable to me and it upholds the bowl game traditions.

I saw it just a little different. Contractually, Alabama would have faced Baylor in the Sugar Bowl. As co-champion of the Big 12, the Bears would get that slot by the head to head tie breaker. Because Georgia Tech would get a de facto home game if they were sent to the Peach, I think TCU faces Ole Miss instead. That leaves Michigan State to face either Georgia Tech or Kansas State in the Cotton. I believe Tech gets the spot over the Wildcats based on their good showing against FSU.

Now you get different bowl game winners. Two of the matchups would be the same, so Ohio State and Boise are among the six winners. I believe Alabama, Florida State and TCU would be likely winners in their new matchups, and I can't pick a winner among Michigan State and either Georgia Tech and Kansas State. But if the Final Four were Ohio State, Alabama, TCU and Florida State after the bowls, I doubt there would be much griping about the legitimacy of that playoff. And if one of those four lost, I think fans would accept their conqueror as legitimate also.

(01-15-2015 01:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  I saw it just a little different. Contractually, Alabama would have faced Baylor in the Sugar Bowl. As co-champion of the Big 12, the Bears would get that slot by the head to head tie breaker. Because Georgia Tech would get a de facto home game if they were sent to the Peach, I think TCU faces Ole Miss instead. That leaves Michigan State to face either Georgia Tech or Kansas State in the Cotton. I believe Tech gets the spot over the Wildcats based on their good showing against FSU.

Now you get different bowl game winners. Two of the matchups would be the same, so Ohio State and Boise are among the six winners. I believe Alabama, Florida State and TCU would be likely winners in their new matchups, and I can't pick a winner among Michigan State and either Georgia Tech and Kansas State. But if the Final Four were Ohio State, Alabama, TCU and Florida State after the bowls, I doubt there would be much griping about the legitimacy of that playoff. And if one of those four lost, I think fans would accept their conqueror as legitimate also.

That scenario works just as well for me. Too bad the CFP wasn't worked out that way.

Every time a damn southern team goes to the Rose Bowl, it's like pissing on all the great history and traditions of college football.

(01-13-2015 01:08 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 12:58 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  No, Baylor would not have won.


But #6 TCU might have.

Maybe, maybe not.

But the big takeaway remains the big takeaway... everyone's going to have their opinions, but the only way to validate the opinions is to settle it all on the field.

OK, but if we had an 8 team playoff who's to say #9 wouldn't have won?

(01-15-2015 01:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 05:38 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 11:00 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The fact that a team can win a championship does not mean they should be in it. I loved the fact that Ohio State won this year. It was amazing. That said, if they had decided we were #5, I wouldn't have had room to complain because we lost to Virginia Tech and we had closer games than we should have with several teams.

I have no doubt that #5, #9, and maybe even occasionally #16 could win it all, but by putting all those in, the regular season excitement will drop back a lot for me. I'll keep the best regular season in all sports and a great bowl set-up rather than a bigger playoff.

of course a Buckeye fan like the current structure, its rigged and its rigged in your favor. It starts with non conference play which includes 1 home and home vs a weak P5 team and 3 home buy-out games which means every regular season OSU plays 7.5/12 games at home. OF COURSE you think the regular season is best in all of sports, you have every statistical advantage imaginable.

Can you name another sports league besides FBS where no team is given a direct path to a championship and all of the decisions are made by committees who take things like TV rating into considering which teams get to play for a championship? its an embarrassment.

If you want to make FBS a legitimate sports league you have to take away the off-field power and put it all on the field. And that starts with giving every conference champ a spot in a playoff. Now the regular season is exciting because EVERY game is huge- If you don't win your division you can't play for a conference championship, if you can't win your conference championship you don't get to play for a national championship.

It's time for you "P5" fans to put your money where your mouth is and demand that FBS be restructured so the best team is decided on the field. Until then, you can't call yourself a true champion in a blatantly rigged system.

Alternatively you could demand that your school leave FBS and join the FCS division where the championship structure is more to your liking. I don't see too many folks complaining about the over 100 year history of winning Mythical National Championships.

if you don't see it its because you're not looking. why do you think the BCS was created, and now the 4 team playoff, because the system before it was good? c'mon, don't be naive.

and to say that the answer for half the schools in the league, many of which have been at the highest level of D1 for 100+ years, is to drop down a level because FBS is corrupt instead of addressing the corruption is foolish and lazy.