(12-06-2015 12:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:36 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 08:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  In a four-team tournament, unless there is home field advantage involved, seeding is meaningless, because the teams are so close in quality it's not clear who the better teams are.

I mean, if you are Clemson, what's a tougher game for you, Alabama or Oklahoma? Oklahoma or Michigan State? You can easily make arguments for any of them.

It only doesn't matter if everything goes chalk: and even then it does. It
may not matter as much to the bottom seed, because you likely have to play the top two seeds to win, but it very much matters to the top two seeds, both in far they make it, and their "Reward" for being the top team. They should not have to face the two other best teams. If you should be the number 2 team, and instead you are ranked fourth, and lose the first round, you can have a legitimate gripe that you were not given your proper chance to make the championship game. Also there is a chance the number 4 seed is a matchup problem from the number one seed, such as Ohio State vs. Alabama last year, and as the team who earned the number 2 seed, you may get to miss out on playing them (the same is true for the number one seed possibly avoiding the number 2 seed). Same reason the NCAA tournament began seeding the number one seeds.

Seeding matters in every tournament because most of the time, they don't go chalk. And the higher the seed you are, the better you are to be rewarded for upsets. When seeding is not done properly, it takes away that... let's call it a "championship advantage" so to speak. So it does matter. I would agree it matters more the larger the bracket, but it still matters.

In a big-field event like the NCAA tournament, where there are obvious huge differences in quality between the Kentuckys and Dukes and the winners of the SWAC and MEAC conferences, seedings are a big deal and thus well-worth arguing over.

But if the entire tournament is a Final Four, then there is no meaningful difference in quality. You're talking about the four best teams! They are all A or A+ level.

As for matchups, I agree they do matter. Maybe last year Alabama would have beaten anyone but Ohio State, and maybe Ohio State would have beaten anyone but FSU, such that if the semis were Alabama-Oregon and Ohio State-FSU, Alabama wins the national title.

Problem with that, though, is that there is no correlation between seeding and matchup. If you are #1 Alabama, and you will beat two teams and lose to the third, the one matchup problem could just as easily be the #2 seed as the #3 seed or the #4 seed. You never know who it's going to be.

And, you're not going to rejigger the seeds. For example, let's say that when making the seeds last year, the committee actually foresaw that Ohio State was the biggest matchup problem for #1 Alabama. Did that mean they were going to artificially make Ohio State the #3 seed over a more-deserving FSU to give Alabama a break in the first playoff game? Obviously, they did not.

So the matchup issue is both unknowable and moot anyway.

Seedings really don't matter here.

What the committee didn't want last year was a Florida State / Alabama match up. The reason was ratings. The game was considered to be too regional to draw attention with the numbers that an East coast team against a West coast team would draw. Alabama didn't want to play Oregon out West, and the networks didn't want Florida State and Alabama playing in the East. Oregon preferred not to come East. Alabama / Ohio State gave them a game that the nation would turn into watch because two rabid fan bases were involved as well as the North / South thing. They were hoping for an offensive shootout between Oregon and F.S.U.. The problem was on one side was lighting it up.

So in effect the same thing did happen last year. But, they just needed a different rationalization to pull it off than the one they will use this year.

You say seeding doesn't matter. It does. It's just that it does not to anybody other than the networks.

Yeah, corruption is king and a I"m little pissed off seeing Jeff Long BS about what is happening.

(12-06-2015 01:00 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Yeah, corruption is king and a I"m little pissed off seeing Jeff Long BS about what is happening.

Dude if you are focusing on Jeff Long who is simply a mouthpiece then your aim on this matter is way too low! The corruption is at the top, not the bottom or middle.

(12-06-2015 11:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 10:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 08:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  In a four-team tournament, unless there is home field advantage involved, seeding is meaningless, because the teams are so close in quality it's not clear who the better teams are.

I mean, if you are Clemson, what's a tougher game for you, Alabama or Oklahoma? Oklahoma or Michigan State? You can easily make arguments for any of them.

Seeding matters in tournaments with BIG fields, because with big fields, there is a big difference in quality. E.g., in the NCAA tournament, a #1 seed gets to play #32, then #16. A #12 seed has to play a #5 seed, and then if they win, a #4 seed. That's a massive difference in quality, the #1 seed has a far better chance of advancing to the Sweet 16 because they face much easier competition. So it does make sense to argue about seeding.

But if the NCAA basketball tournament was just four teams, if you are Michigan State, does it matter if you play Duke in the national semifinal or Kentucky? Both are big challenges, amount to the same thing.

So for the CFP, seeding is irrelevant. Not worth discussing. The only thing that matters is whether you are in the top four or not.

Well, there you've said it yourself. The issue is nobody wants to play Oklahoma in Dallas because it is essentially a home field advantage for the Sooners. Therefore the playoff committee will work around that so the seeding to the committee will matter.

How is it going to be an advantage? Does Oklahoma get an extra allotment of playoff game tickets?

The last two years we saw OK and Ohio St beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, allegedly SEC territory. Before that Bama beat LSU there.

There is no advantage. A big part of home field is the other team has to travel quickly. But all these teama have weeks to travel and adjust.

While what you say is logical, the Oklahoma home field in Dallas argument is a shill for another matter. Dallas wants fans that will buy 3 or 4 day hotel packages to come to the game. They don't want a bunch of Okies that will drive home in a couple of hours. So the Oklahoma home field argument is what ESPN will push for the Dallas Chamber of Commerce. And that crap is as old and antiquated as the whole bowl industry, since bowls were essentially invented to benefit municipalities, their local businesses, and their sales tax base.

So you can word it another way if you would like, but seeding will be manipulated to engage the highest percentage of the viewing market (ESPN), and to appease the bowl ownership and their politicians and patrons (Dallas and others).

Just don't expect anyone to be honest about the reasons that they claim on any of this. Big business doesn't like stories that point to their ulterior motives. So, Oklahoma doesn't need a home field advantage plays just fine whether it is logical or not. And it sure doesn't hurt that they quit teaching logic in high school because that way we have far greater numbers of gullible people.

I agree with what you say about the seeding process. I would go a step further. That is how the process should work.

The premise in the OP is correct. There isn't enough difference among the four teams to justify ranking them in any order. All you can say about the four participants (both last year and this year) is that they are among the 6-8 best teams in the country. Anything beyond that is just arbitrary. They should be placed in the semifinal sites (and the other 4 NY6 sites) in any way that makes sense from an entertainment standpoint.

I would pair the other bowls this way:

Rose........Stanford - Ohio State
Fiesta.......Iowa - Houston
Sugar.......Ole Miss - Oklahoma St
Peach.......Florida State - Notre Dame

The seedings don't matter. Clemson was given the advantage of being closer to the Orange Bowl than their opponent as that would be the case against either MSU or OU, less so against Alabama. Oklahoma would have had a de facto home game at the Cotton Bowl so they were moved to have a rematch against Clemson and thus Alabama and Michigan State both have to travel to the Cotton Bowl where neither of them have large followings locally.

It is also a match up of styles. Clemson and Oklahoma have a similar style and look while Alabama and Michigan State have a similar style and look. That means there is better odds of both games having their own personality as to how they unfold where as any other match ups could lead to two very similar games. This seeding makes sense.

It just so happens that they can explain this reality off by saying that MSU's win and resume lead them to be placed over Oklahoma, which it actually does. MSU has more big wins where as Oklahoma has wins over strong teams that didn't have their 1st string QB. Now we will see if that matters because they have to go against Clemson whom has the best QB in the country.

(12-06-2015 01:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 10:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 10:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 08:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  In a four-team tournament, unless there is home field advantage involved, seeding is meaningless, because the teams are so close in quality it's not clear who the better teams are.

I mean, if you are Clemson, what's a tougher game for you, Alabama or Oklahoma? Oklahoma or Michigan State? You can easily make arguments for any of them.

Seeding matters in tournaments with BIG fields, because with big fields, there is a big difference in quality. E.g., in the NCAA tournament, a #1 seed gets to play #32, then #16. A #12 seed has to play a #5 seed, and then if they win, a #4 seed. That's a massive difference in quality, the #1 seed has a far better chance of advancing to the Sweet 16 because they face much easier competition. So it does make sense to argue about seeding.

But if the NCAA basketball tournament was just four teams, if you are Michigan State, does it matter if you play Duke in the national semifinal or Kentucky? Both are big challenges, amount to the same thing.

So for the CFP, seeding is irrelevant. Not worth discussing. The only thing that matters is whether you are in the top four or not.

Well, there you've said it yourself. The issue is nobody wants to play Oklahoma in Dallas because it is essentially a home field advantage for the Sooners. Therefore the playoff committee will work around that so the seeding to the committee will matter.

How is it going to be an advantage? Does Oklahoma get an extra allotment of playoff game tickets?

The last two years we saw OK and Ohio St beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, allegedly SEC territory. Before that Bama beat LSU there.

There is no advantage. A big part of home field is the other team has to travel quickly. But all these teama have weeks to travel and adjust.

While what you say is logical, the Oklahoma home field in Dallas argument is a shill for another matter. Dallas wants fans that will buy 3 or 4 day hotel packages to come to the game. They don't want a bunch of Okies that will drive home in a couple of hours. So the Oklahoma home field argument is what ESPN will push for the Dallas Chamber of Commerce. And that crap is as old and antiquated as the whole bowl industry, since bowls were essentially invented to benefit municipalities, their local businesses, and their sales tax base.

So you can word it another way if you would like, but seeding will be manipulated to engage the highest percentage of the viewing market (ESPN), and to appease the bowl ownership and their politicians and patrons (Dallas and others).

Just don't expect anyone to be honest about the reasons that they claim on any of this. Big business doesn't like stories that point to their ulterior motives. So, Oklahoma doesn't need a home field advantage plays just fine whether it is logical or not. And it sure doesn't hurt that they quit teaching logic in high school because that way we have far greater numbers of gullible people.

I agree with what you say about the seeding process. I would go a step further. That is how the process should work.

The premise in the OP is correct. There isn't enough difference among the four teams to justify ranking them in any order. All you can say about the four participants (both last year and this year) is that they are among the 6-8 best teams in the country. Anything beyond that is just arbitrary. They should be placed in the semifinal sites (and the other 4 NY6 sites) in any way that makes sense from an entertainment standpoint.

I would pair the other bowls this way:

Rose........Stanford - Ohio State
Fiesta.......Iowa - Houston
Sugar.......Ole Miss - Oklahoma St
Peach.......Florida State - Notre Dame

Think Tostitos is going to be happy with settling for Iowa/Houston? They will get a brand like ND or FSU in there. The committee has to distribute the brands evenly in this thing.

It won't be Iowa vs Houston. Fiesta chooses before the Peach and they will take Notre Dame. Iowa vs Notre Dame will cause Fiesta Bowl tickets to sell out and sell high.

Fiesta doesn't make the choice. It's chosen for them by the committee. Houston though will likely be in the Peach because the Fiesta had Boise last year.

(12-06-2015 02:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Fiesta doesn't make the choice. It's chosen for them by the committee. Houston though will likely be in the Peach because the Fiesta had Boise last year.

Right, because the Committee is going to show favor to the Bowl that isn't part of the upper tier. Ok. Whomever chooses it, The Fiesta gets consideration over The Peach, period.

(12-06-2015 02:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 02:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Fiesta doesn't make the choice. It's chosen for them by the committee. Houston though will likely be in the Peach because the Fiesta had Boise last year.

Right, because the Committee is going to show favor to the Bowl that isn't part of the upper tier. Ok. Whomever chooses it, The Fiesta gets consideration over The Peach, period.

The Fiesta isn't upper tier anymore. Within the NY6 it is lower-tier, an Access Bowl like the Cotton and Peach, not a Contract Bowl. So there's no reason to think the Fiesta will get consideration over the Peach.

Houston may very well end up in the Peach. I think an FSU - Houston game in the Peach is most likely. But that won't be because of any tier difference between them. More likely that just because the Fiesta got the G5 team last year, the Peach will get it this year.

(12-06-2015 02:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 02:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 02:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Fiesta doesn't make the choice. It's chosen for them by the committee. Houston though will likely be in the Peach because the Fiesta had Boise last year.

Right, because the Committee is going to show favor to the Bowl that isn't part of the upper tier. Ok. Whomever chooses it, The Fiesta gets consideration over The Peach, period.

The Fiesta isn't upper tier anymore. Within the NY6 it is lower-tier, an Access Bowl like the Cotton and Peach, not a Contract Bowl. So there's no reason to think the Fiesta will get consideration over the Peach.

Is that why the Fiesta is hosting the Championship Game this year? Because they aren't upper tier? Ok.

(12-06-2015 02:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 02:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Fiesta doesn't make the choice. It's chosen for them by the committee. Houston though will likely be in the Peach because the Fiesta had Boise last year.

Right, because the Committee is going to show favor to the Bowl that isn't part of the upper tier. Ok. Whomever chooses it, The Fiesta gets consideration over The Peach, period.

Fiesta and Peach are the exact same tier of games. Peach hosts the title game in 2 years.

(12-06-2015 02:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 02:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 02:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 02:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Fiesta doesn't make the choice. It's chosen for them by the committee. Houston though will likely be in the Peach because the Fiesta had Boise last year.

Right, because the Committee is going to show favor to the Bowl that isn't part of the upper tier. Ok. Whomever chooses it, The Fiesta gets consideration over The Peach, period.

The Fiesta isn't upper tier anymore. Within the NY6 it is lower-tier, an Access Bowl like the Cotton and Peach, not a Contract Bowl. So there's no reason to think the Fiesta will get consideration over the Peach.

Is that why the Fiesta is hosting the Championship Game this year? Because they aren't upper tier? Ok.

Dallas hosted the title game last year, but the Cotton Bowl isn't upper tier either. What city hosts the title game is a different animal from the bowl.

The two tiers are Contract (Rose, Sugar, and Orange) and Access (Fiesta, Cotton, and Peach). And the names of the bowls alone tells you which is upper.

I agree with the OP. Certain years it COULD mean a difference when there's a huge standout at #1 or big drop-off after #3 and a conf-champ at #4 is understood as not being quite as good as #5, but they put them in at #4 because #5 didn't win a conf-championship, etc.

This year, the seedings don't really matter much. OKLAHOMA & MSU were TIED at #3/#4 in the ranking votes of the CFP... so they just did what would make the better matchups to watch by the viewers, is all.

I don't see how contract bowls are an upper tier to access bowls either. If there is a tier, the Rose Bowl is the biggest most years no matter where it falls in the rotation, because they get the richest schools and the best TV slot.