I think this is what we'd be looking at next year in the playoffs...
Sugar Bowl 1 Alabama vs 4 Ohio St
Rose Bowl 2 Oregon vs 3 Florida St
Orange Bowl 7 Miami or 9 Clemson vs 5 Missouri
access bowls:
would feature
6 Stanford
7 Miami/9 Clemson
8 Baylor/10 Texas Tech(automatic)
11 Auburn
12 UCLA
G5 Fresno or NIU
probably-
Fiesta Stanford vs Fresno
Chick-Fil-A Miami/Clemson vs UCLA
Cotton- Auburn vs Baylor
what's interesting is the other 2 years-
Year 2
Orange Alabama vs Ohio St
Cotton Oregon vs Florida St
Sugar Missouri vs Baylor/Texas Tech
Rose Big Ten team vs Stanford
other 2 games:
Chick-fil-A Miami/Clemson vs Auburn
Fiesta Miami/Clemson vs G5 Fresno or NIU
Year 3
Chick-fil-a Alabama vs Ohio St
Fiesta Oregon vs Florida St
Sugar Missouri vs Baylor/Texas Tech
Rose Big Ten team vs Stanford
Orange Miami/Clemson vs Auburn
other game
Miami/Clemson vs G5 Fresno/NIU
so really only difference is other 2 years- UCLA doesn't go.
I’m pretty sure that the football gods have already determined that the
Buckeye’s have to face the Hurricanes in the Orange Bowl, LSU in the
Sugar Bowl or UCLA in the Rose Bowl…. possibly during the same post-season.
I will say I think this year will hurt the arguement of Big Ten/Pac 12/Rose Bowl fans that any time Rose hosts sf they have to get Big Ten/Pac 12 as sf. Right now, Alabama clear cut #1 and Ohio St clear cut #4. I don't see folks pleased if Alabama had to play FSU in the sf and Oregon got to play Ohio St in the other sf.
(10-24-2013 10:31 AM)AngryAphid Wrote: [ -> ]I’m pretty sure that the football gods have already determined that the
Buckeye’s have to face the Hurricanes in the Orange Bowl, LSU in the
Sugar Bowl or UCLA in the Rose Bowl…. possibly during the same post-season.
Even in the playoffs, if the Rose is part of the playoffs, and of the four teams, they have both a P12 and a B10 team, they will be placed in the Rose Bowl.
(10-24-2013 10:38 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2013 10:31 AM)AngryAphid Wrote: [ -> ]I’m pretty sure that the football gods have already determined that the
Buckeye’s have to face the Hurricanes in the Orange Bowl, LSU in the
Sugar Bowl or UCLA in the Rose Bowl…. possibly during the same post-season.
Even in the playoffs, if the Rose is part of the playoffs, and of the four teams, they have both a P12 and a B10 team, they will be placed in the Rose Bowl.
nope. it's seeded. 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. So using this year, Sugar would have #1 Alabama vs #4 Ohio St and Rose would have #2 Oregon vs #3 Florida St.
(10-24-2013 10:38 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2013 10:31 AM)AngryAphid Wrote: [ -> ]I’m pretty sure that the football gods have already determined that the
Buckeye’s have to face the Hurricanes in the Orange Bowl, LSU in the
Sugar Bowl or UCLA in the Rose Bowl…. possibly during the same post-season.
Even in the playoffs, if the Rose is part of the playoffs, and of the four teams, they have both a P12 and a B10 team, they will be placed in the Rose Bowl.
Well, that's not actually a rule when it comes to the Rose Bowl being part of the playoffs. There's no obligation for the Big Ten and Pac-12 to be paired together. That being said, in practicality, I do think the humans in the committee room (with several people with Big Ten and Pac-12 ties) will provide a bit more leeway than stever20 suggests. If there are 4 undefeated power conference teams (which is going to be rare, anyway), I really don't think that having #1 vs. #3 and #2 vs. #4 is going to cause that much heartburn if it means maintaining the tradition of the bowls. Otherwise, the powers that be wouldn't have gone through this whole exercise of protecting the bowl system in the first place. Avoiding a #1 vs. #2 matchup in the semifinals is probably the bigger priority, but then the actual matchups once that's avoided may have different factors outside of a strict seeding (whether it's traditional bowl tie-ins, geography, avoiding a rematch of a regular season game that was already played, avoiding 2 teams from the same conference playing each other, etc.). I don't know why people seem to be so bothered by the use of a traditional bowl tie-in as a factor (there's quite a bit of Rose Bowl haterade out there unless you're a Big Ten or Pac-12 fan), yet it would seem that most people would support avoiding a rematch or intra-conference matchup in the semifinals even if it messes up the straight seeding.
Anyway, that's the entire idea of the committee: the powers that be *don't* want the playoff selection to just be determined by the horse race that we see in the polls every week or via computer rankings (or at least perceived to be determined that way). The top 4 seeds in the NCAA Tournament aren't always a #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3 seeding either (assuming that they all make it to the Final Four) because of all of the factors that are taken into account that I mentioned above. The committee could give any reasons at all for its pairings and they could very well be different than what the polls state.
(10-24-2013 10:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2013 10:38 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2013 10:31 AM)AngryAphid Wrote: [ -> ]I’m pretty sure that the football gods have already determined that the
Buckeye’s have to face the Hurricanes in the Orange Bowl, LSU in the
Sugar Bowl or UCLA in the Rose Bowl…. possibly during the same post-season.
Even in the playoffs, if the Rose is part of the playoffs, and of the four teams, they have both a P12 and a B10 team, they will be placed in the Rose Bowl.
Well, that's not actually a rule when it comes to the Rose Bowl being part of the playoffs. There's no obligation for the Big Ten and Pac-12 to be paired together. That being said, in practicality, I do think the humans in the committee room (with several people with Big Ten and Pac-12 ties) will provide a bit more leeway than stever20 suggests. If there are 4 undefeated power conference teams (which is going to be rare, anyway), I really don't think that having #1 vs. #3 and #2 vs. #4 is going to cause that much heartburn if it means maintaining the tradition of the bowls. Otherwise, the powers that be wouldn't have gone through this whole exercise of protecting the bowl system in the first place. Avoiding a #1 vs. #2 matchup in the semifinals is probably the bigger priority, but then the actual matchups once that's avoided may have different factors outside of a strict seeding (whether it's traditional bowl tie-ins, geography, avoiding a rematch of a regular season game that was already played, avoiding 2 teams from the same conference playing each other, etc.). I don't know why people seem to be so bothered by the use of a traditional bowl tie-in as a factor (there's quite a bit of Rose Bowl haterade out there unless you're a Big Ten or Pac-12 fan), yet it would seem that most people would support avoiding a rematch or intra-conference matchup in the semifinals even if it messes up the straight seeding.
Anyway, that's the entire idea of the committee: the powers that be *don't* want the playoff selection to just be determined by the horse race that we see in the polls every week or via computer rankings (or at least perceived to be determined that way). The top 4 seeds in the NCAA Tournament aren't always a #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3 seeding either (assuming that they all make it to the Final Four) because of all of the factors that are taken into account that I mentioned above. The committee could give any reasons at all for its pairings and they could very well be different than what the polls state.
um, look at this year. You're telling me there's not a difference between Oregon/Florida St and Ohio St. Bullcrap. There's a HUGE difference. There is no metric out there that puts Ohio St at anything but 4(hell, some would say they shouldn't be in period). And, it's tough for anyone with a straight face to say Alabama isn't #1. So to say that Alabama has to play Florida St(who some think is the #2 team right now) to protect the Rose Bowl? won't fly at all. There's several with Big Ten/Pac 12 ties- but there are also several with ACC/SEC ties as well. If they were so worried about the tradition of the bowls and protecting the Rose Bowl, why didn't they put that in writing? You said they would. The fact is they didn't. They know America would balk at a scenario where you could have 1 vs 2 playing in a sf.
Oh and as far as the basketball- yes, they now do seed it 1-4 and have it set up where if all make the final 4, it's 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. Last year would have been Louisville vs Gonzaga and Kansas vs Indiana. They changed it to do that about 4-5 years ago.
oh and one thing- you can't have a rematch if all 4 teams are undefeated.. And, you can't have an intra-conference matchup either if all 4 teams are undefeated- by definition now, each conference can have only 1 undefeated team.
(10-24-2013 11:19 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]oh and one thing- you can't have a rematch if all 4 teams are undefeated.. And, you can't have an intra-conference matchup either if all 4 teams are undefeated- by definition now, each conference can have only 1 undefeated team.
Its purely theoretical, but the AAC could have 2 unbeaten until they get Navy to go to 12.
(10-24-2013 11:21 AM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2013 11:19 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]oh and one thing- you can't have a rematch if all 4 teams are undefeated.. And, you can't have an intra-conference matchup either if all 4 teams are undefeated- by definition now, each conference can have only 1 undefeated team.
Its purely theoretical, but the AAC could have 2 unbeaten until they get Navy to go to 12.
lol true and I guess Sun Belt has 10. But, we're talking P5 conferences in general here.
I agree that if the new BCS cared about the Rosebowl matchup being protected it would have been in writing.
But I think the obsession with seedings is stupid. How many times were the Niners and Cowboys the best teams in football? Yet they always played in the NFC championship instead of the Superbowl, which was fine. This never ending quest for a "fair way to determine it on the field" is futile and stupid. Chasing a white rabbit.
(10-24-2013 11:06 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2013 10:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2013 10:38 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2013 10:31 AM)AngryAphid Wrote: [ -> ]I’m pretty sure that the football gods have already determined that the
Buckeye’s have to face the Hurricanes in the Orange Bowl, LSU in the
Sugar Bowl or UCLA in the Rose Bowl…. possibly during the same post-season.
Even in the playoffs, if the Rose is part of the playoffs, and of the four teams, they have both a P12 and a B10 team, they will be placed in the Rose Bowl.
Well, that's not actually a rule when it comes to the Rose Bowl being part of the playoffs. There's no obligation for the Big Ten and Pac-12 to be paired together. That being said, in practicality, I do think the humans in the committee room (with several people with Big Ten and Pac-12 ties) will provide a bit more leeway than stever20 suggests. If there are 4 undefeated power conference teams (which is going to be rare, anyway), I really don't think that having #1 vs. #3 and #2 vs. #4 is going to cause that much heartburn if it means maintaining the tradition of the bowls. Otherwise, the powers that be wouldn't have gone through this whole exercise of protecting the bowl system in the first place. Avoiding a #1 vs. #2 matchup in the semifinals is probably the bigger priority, but then the actual matchups once that's avoided may have different factors outside of a strict seeding (whether it's traditional bowl tie-ins, geography, avoiding a rematch of a regular season game that was already played, avoiding 2 teams from the same conference playing each other, etc.). I don't know why people seem to be so bothered by the use of a traditional bowl tie-in as a factor (there's quite a bit of Rose Bowl haterade out there unless you're a Big Ten or Pac-12 fan), yet it would seem that most people would support avoiding a rematch or intra-conference matchup in the semifinals even if it messes up the straight seeding.
Anyway, that's the entire idea of the committee: the powers that be *don't* want the playoff selection to just be determined by the horse race that we see in the polls every week or via computer rankings (or at least perceived to be determined that way). The top 4 seeds in the NCAA Tournament aren't always a #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3 seeding either (assuming that they all make it to the Final Four) because of all of the factors that are taken into account that I mentioned above. The committee could give any reasons at all for its pairings and they could very well be different than what the polls state.
um, look at this year. You're telling me there's not a difference between Oregon/Florida St and Ohio St. Bullcrap. There's a HUGE difference. There is no metric out there that puts Ohio St at anything but 4(hell, some would say they shouldn't be in period). And, it's tough for anyone with a straight face to say Alabama isn't #1. So to say that Alabama has to play Florida St(who some think is the #2 team right now) to protect the Rose Bowl? won't fly at all. There's several with Big Ten/Pac 12 ties- but there are also several with ACC/SEC ties as well. If they were so worried about the tradition of the bowls and protecting the Rose Bowl, why didn't they put that in writing? You said they would. The fact is they didn't. They know America would balk at a scenario where you could have 1 vs 2 playing in a sf.
Oh and as far as the basketball- yes, they now do seed it 1-4 and have it set up where if all make the final 4, it's 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. Last year would have been Louisville vs Gonzaga and Kansas vs Indiana. They changed it to do that about 4-5 years ago.
Let's cut it out with the hyperbole. We're hypothetically talking about 4 undefeated power conference teams in this scenario. You'd have much more of a case if the #4 team is a truly a "clear cut" #4 (where it has 2 losses while everyone above them is undefeated or has 1 loss). It seems that you personally don't like Ohio State (I don't know if it's just this season's team or in general) and believe that the Rose Bowl isn't worthy of any consideration whatsoever. You personally don't want to see anything that gives even a hint of a possibility that the Rose Bowl/Big Ten/Pac-12 received something other than whatever the straight seeding in your opinion should be applied. That's fine for your opinion, but you can't project that onto what the committee may ultimately consider in practicality.
What's clear is that there isn't any bright line for the committee in determining the rankings or seedings. Otherwise, they wouldn't have dealt with the committee at all and just had BCS-type rankings issued every week that everyone would follow. The primary reason for the committee to exist is to provide flexibility compared to what the rankings and data might state. Personally, I'd rather have just the BCS-type rankings for transparency - I don't want surprises in determining the semifinals. Yet, that's not the system that was ultimately used - the committee can come out with pairings using whatever justification that they want (including preserving bowl or geographic ties).
You want to say that it shouldn't be a consideration at all, which is all well and good. However, the reality is that it can absolutely be a consideration for the committee members (whether explicit or implicit).
They will monkey with the seedings somewhat I think. They'll try to avoid two teams from the same conference playing each other and they might factor in the Rose Bowl a little bit. I just don't think the Rose Bowl has a seat at the table really, and the Rose Bowl Committee has said as much. I think they will have a Pac12 or Big10 rep in the playoffs, but I'm not sure how much they will care about Pac12 v Big10.
(10-24-2013 10:42 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]nope. it's seeded. 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3.
But its not forced to follow any external standings, so all they would have to do is allocate OSU #3, and voila, it all lines up.
(10-24-2013 11:37 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2013 10:42 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]nope. it's seeded. 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3.
But its not forced to follow any external standings, so all they would have to do is allocate OSU #3, and voila, it all lines up.
But that's not "fair" because then Bama is playing Florida St instead of Ohio State. At least that's the theory that some people have.
Right now, there's no football person out there that really thinks Ohio St is anything but #4. no one. The committee's job is to pick the 4 top teams and seed them accordingly. If the committee seeded Ohio St anything but 4, it's a joke committee. I'm sorry but to just say like you are that you can lump any power conference undefeateds together and if 2 are Big Ten/Pac 12 they should automatically play each other- that's not fair to the other conferences. Fortuantely, the SEC had a lot of power when everything was forming and that I don't think will be the case.
If the Rose had that ability they would have had it written into the rules. Period. The fact is they didn't.
(10-24-2013 11:24 AM)CPslograd Wrote: [ -> ]I agree that if the new BCS cared about the Rosebowl matchup being protected it would have been in writing.
But I think the obsession with seedings is stupid. How many times were the Niners and Cowboys the best teams in football? Yet they always played in the NFC championship instead of the Superbowl, which was fine. This never ending quest for a "fair way to determine it on the field" is futile and stupid. Chasing a white rabbit.
That's a bit different because the NFL has seperate conferences. it's not like all 32 teams are in the same conference. But even there- the NFL has moved to make things more equitable- making it where the old rule that in the divisional round you can't play a division opponent is now gone. So it's always top team vs weakest WC winner and 2nd team vs stronger WC winner- regardless of division.
(10-24-2013 11:37 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2013 10:42 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]nope. it's seeded. 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3.
But its not forced to follow any external standings, so all they would have to do is allocate OSU #3, and voila, it all lines up.
They're charged to pick and seed the top 4 teams. Not to protect any Bowl game.
I think UCF will pass Fresno and NIU. Strength of schedule.
(10-24-2013 12:09 PM)curtis0620 Wrote: [ -> ]I think UCF will pass Fresno and NIU. Strength of schedule.
it's very possible.. Heck, if they had beaten South Carolina, they would have been very interesting right now. 2 top 20 wins and a win over Penn St that could look even better on Saturday if Penn St beats Ohio St.