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.

It's important because the two best teams are Alabama and Oklahoma so you don't want to see them match up in the semifinals. If they do, the championship game would be a blood bath.

(12-06-2015 10:09 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  It's important because the two best teams are Alabama and Oklahoma so you don't want to see them match up in the semifinals. If they do, the championship game would be a blood bath.

That makes no sense. Do you really think Oklahoma vs Clemson won't be a close game? Heck, Oklahoma almost just lost to TCU!

It's just silly.

(12-06-2015 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 10:09 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  It's important because the two best teams are Alabama and Oklahoma so you don't want to see them match up in the semifinals. If they do, the championship game would be a blood bath.

That makes no sense. Do you really think Oklahoma vs Clemson won't be a close game? Heck, Oklahoma almost just lost to TCU!

It's just silly.

Clemson is VERY overrated. The ACC sucks this year. Their biggest wins are FSU, ND, and UNC. UNC didn't play anyone all year until last night. Notre Dame had issues with BC and Wake. Florida State was their one good win.

Clemson destroyed Oklhoama last year 40-6 and they lost a lot of NFL talent off that defense.

not sure ow anybody thinks Okla is better on offense than Clemson

the SEC sucked this year. Florida was horrible , can't do anything on offense and still made the title game.

ALabama's highest ranked win was against Florida. lol their 2nd best win? Either a mediocre LSU team or medicore Miss State team. they lost on their home field to a mediocre Ole Miss team that can't run the ball. They almost lost to another mediocre team at home.

yet everybody acts like they are unbelieably good. i don't get it. what elite QB and offense has Bama faced this year. Their QB isn't that good.

(12-06-2015 10:16 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 10:09 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  It's important because the two best teams are Alabama and Oklahoma so you don't want to see them match up in the semifinals. If they do, the championship game would be a blood bath.

That makes no sense. Do you really think Oklahoma vs Clemson won't be a close game? Heck, Oklahoma almost just lost to TCU!

It's just silly.

Clemson is VERY overrated. The ACC sucks this year. Their biggest wins are FSU, ND, and UNC. UNC didn't play anyone all year until last night. Notre Dame had issues with BC and Wake. Florida State was their one good win.

FSU and Notre Dame are bot top-10 teams. UNC will be about #15. Nobody has more top wins than Clemson.

But again, it doesn't matter. Make Clemson #4 if you want. It's all the same.

different QB for Oklahoma. also cant use bowls to prove anything.

(12-06-2015 10:19 AM)stever20 Wrote:  different QB for Oklahoma. also cant use bowls to prove anything.

i can use it to make the point Oklahoma is beatable, and I believe Clemson has more talent and speed. Oklhoama looks good against teams like Okla Stat that are small in the trenches.

that was a bad team last year . If Stoudt carved them up, what is Watson going to do. their QB doesn't play defense.

go watch the Texas-Okla game, then most of the Tenn-Okla game and tell me Okla is better than Clemson, no question. lol

As a Clemson fan, I would prefer Michigan State in first game.

but it would be sweet beating both Okla and Bama to win the title.

(12-06-2015 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 10:16 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 10:09 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  It's important because the two best teams are Alabama and Oklahoma so you don't want to see them match up in the semifinals. If they do, the championship game would be a blood bath.

That makes no sense. Do you really think Oklahoma vs Clemson won't be a close game? Heck, Oklahoma almost just lost to TCU!

It's just silly.

Clemson is VERY overrated. The ACC sucks this year. Their biggest wins are FSU, ND, and UNC. UNC didn't play anyone all year until last night. Notre Dame had issues with BC and Wake. Florida State was their one good win.

FSU and Notre Dame are bot top-10 teams. UNC will be about #15. Nobody has more top wins than Clemson.

But again, it doesn't matter. Make Clemson #4 if you want. It's all the same.

100% correct. The OP's comments just smack of simple ACC hate. The fact is that Clemson beat 3 TOP 10 teams this year. I will say it again for the OP's benefit. Clemson beat 3 TOP 10 TEAMS. Yes, ND had trouble with BC, but the OP conveniently leaves out the fact that BC had the #1 defense in the country.

There is a reason why Clemson has been ranked #1 for all theses weeks in every poll.

(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.

I think with bAMA, if Clemson or any team gets up 14 on them early in the game, they really aren't built to come back and win. running your RB 50 times a game only really works when teams u play don't have much pulse on offense.

(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.

(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.

Bama OU is the best for the Cotton economically no doubt. Few hours drive. It just makes sense. That's the prime time matchup you want. MSU Bama doesn't make sense. The Cotton is traditionally Big 12 vs SEC. That's a classic Cotton Bowl matchup. Don't overthink it.

(12-06-2015 10:33 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 10:16 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 10:09 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  It's important because the two best teams are Alabama and Oklahoma so you don't want to see them match up in the semifinals. If they do, the championship game would be a blood bath.

That makes no sense. Do you really think Oklahoma vs Clemson won't be a close game? Heck, Oklahoma almost just lost to TCU!

It's just silly.

Clemson is VERY overrated. The ACC sucks this year. Their biggest wins are FSU, ND, and UNC. UNC didn't play anyone all year until last night. Notre Dame had issues with BC and Wake. Florida State was their one good win.

FSU and Notre Dame are bot top-10 teams. UNC will be about #15. Nobody has more top wins than Clemson.

But again, it doesn't matter. Make Clemson #4 if you want. It's all the same.

100% correct. The OP's comments just smack of simple ACC hate. The fact is that Clemson beat 3 TOP 10 teams this year. I will say it again for the OP's benefit. Clemson beat 3 TOP 10 TEAMS. Yes, ND had trouble with BC, but the OP conveniently leaves out the fact that BC had the #1 defense in the country.

There is a reason why Clemson has been ranked #1 for all theses weeks in every poll.

I don't disagree with you on Clemson being #1, but Michigan State has beat four Top 15 teams.

(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.

(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.

Now that argument, I can buy into. OK will hurt the positive economic impact of a Dallas game. That's not supposed to influence the committee, but since the CFP is mostly about $$$, can't expect it won't.

(12-06-2015 11:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

Now that argument, I can buy into. OK will hurt the positive economic impact of a Dallas game. That's not supposed to influence the committee, but since the CFP is mostly about $$$, can't expect it won't.

I also think that is the biggest impediment to expansion. If you go another round, first round games (which will essentially replace two of the NY6 games economically) will essentially be nothing but local fans, which kills one revenue source of the bowls (and in turn the playoff gravy train).

(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.