(11-18-2013 11:09 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  A playoff is stupid.

FIFY.

(11-18-2013 11:02 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 10:31 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  Three assumptions are made. First, no more than 2 teams from one conference. Second, one spot is reserved for NonBCS team. Third, teams from the same conference would not be matched in the first round.

FIRST ROUND:
#1 Alabama versus #15 Fresno State

#2 Florida State versus #6 Auburn

#3 Ohio State versus #7 Clemson

#4 Baylor versus #5 Oregon

This is exactly why we don't need a playoff. Clemson got blown out against FSU. Auburn/Bama will already decide it on the field. And nobody honestly believes some mid majors can win three straight games against powerhouse schools. Keep it at 4 teams so that at least 90% of the time you never have more than 4 undefeated FBS schools in powerhouse conferences, or mid major schools that actually played tough OOC opponents.

I disagree. Your scenario means one and done for the season. There is no guarantee that a second game would happen. A lot of things can occur during the season. Injuries and position changes are part of the season. The point being is that you are trying to put yourself in the best playoff position during the regular season. Example is the NFL, NBA and MLB playoffs. Just because you win the regular season title does not ensure the team will win the Championship.

Example: http://www.profootballhof.com/history/st...ry_id=1940

(11-18-2013 01:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think one major point Frank is that the 1st round would likely be done prior to the 1st of the year. I don't think they want to extend the season to where the title game is being played 3rd week in January. I think they already aren't all that happy that the title game is some years like 13th of January. now imagine extending out another week. I don't think so.

The first round would actually be the Conference Championship games. You win and your in.

The thing is Frank, if you are buying the power of $$$, I think you would have to agree that TV isn't going to want something like this year where if Oregon had beaten Stanford a 2 vs 4 or 5 quarterfinal game- or on the other hand having a Michigan St/UCLA-Arizona St game with both being seeded 6/7. TV wants a natural buildup and if you have a 2 vs 4 game 1st round- that knocks out 1 really good team right away that should make the sf.

(11-18-2013 01:40 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 01:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think one major point Frank is that the 1st round would likely be done prior to the 1st of the year. I don't think they want to extend the season to where the title game is being played 3rd week in January. I think they already aren't all that happy that the title game is some years like 13th of January. now imagine extending out another week. I don't think so.

The first round would actually be the Conference Championship games. You win and your in.

TV has shown time and time again they want no part of this. Just look at the playoff we are getting next year. It's in no way conference champions only. Like 2 years ago, TV wanted Alabama over Wisconsin 100%.

(11-18-2013 01:40 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing is Frank, if you are buying the power of $$$, I think you would have to agree that TV isn't going to want something like this year where if Oregon had beaten Stanford a 2 vs 4 or 5 quarterfinal game- or on the other hand having a Michigan St/UCLA-Arizona St game with both being seeded 6/7. TV wants a natural buildup and if you have a 2 vs 4 game 1st round- that knocks out 1 really good team right away that should make the sf.

Well, it's a give and take. Are the TV networks bothered when the SEC Championship Game knocks out a team that would otherwise make the playoff (i.e. last year)? Heck no! Honestly, the only time that TV gets really queasy is when a no-name brand team gets through. Fresno State or Northern Illinois beating Alabama in the first round is where a TV disaster ensues. In fact, guaranteeing that a marketable team from either the Big Ten or Pac-12 advances from the Rose Bowl is a much more compelling hedge for TV interests. Even within the power conference ranks, who do you think the TV people want to see in a hypothetical playoff this year: the winner of Ohio State/Oregon or any game involving Baylor, regardless of whether Baylor is seeded higher? The seeding is very minor to TV interests compared to the brand names that are playing.

What TV interests *do* care about (and I've heard this directly from someone that would know) are elimination games. That's what made the "true" plus-one proposal (where the traditional bowls are played and then the #1 vs. #2 matchup determined after that) untenable. So, the TV people definitely want knockout games, but the fan bases and brand names involved are more critical than the seedings to them. They'll take USC/Ohio State/Florida/Texas ranked anywhere over a #1 Baylor. (That's not a knock against Baylor as a team - they can play with anyone this year. It's simply a reflection of the TV desirability.)

Think of it another way: are people bothered by a World Series that doesn't feature the top two teams because the best two teams happened to be in the AL that particular year? Same thing with the Super Bowl: what if the best two teams happened to be in the AFC that year? What if the two best teams in the NBA were in the Eastern Conference? Are they bothered when a team wins a weak division or conference while other teams that have better records are shut out because they're in stronger divisions or conferences? It happens ALL of the time! Furthermore, the TV interests wouldn't care if the Tampa Bay Rays won 120 games in the regular season - they'd still take the Yankees and Red Sox 100 times out of 100 over them. Same thing with the NBA TV partners wanting every Heat and Lakers game possible no matter how well the Spurs are doing. Even the NFL, which is the entity least impacted by market sizes and team brand names, still gets an extra boost when a marquee franchise like the Cowboys or Steelers are involved.

Believe me, if the TV people were running things, they'd gerrymander things in a way that would make any supposed Rose Bowl "preference" look like a speck of dust competitively. The point is that they don't care about seedings. Hardcore fans would pay attention, but the casual fans that make the TV people the most money want to see USC/Ohio State/Texas/Notre Dame/etc.

Conference play is one thing- but in a seeded playoff, I think they absolutely do care. I don't think they want to have Florida State this year for instance have to play a much harder 1st round opponent to just placate the Big Ten/Pac 12. They want FSU to get into the sf round and play a Oregon. The SF round would be sick.

I think they know that folks would be absolutely disgusted if we had a playoff scenario like you were saying..
just go last year
game 1- #2 Ohio St vs #7 Stanford
game 2- #3 Alabama vs #5 Oregon
game 3- #6 Kansas St vs #4 Florida
game 4- #13 Florida St vs #1 Notre Dame(presumably at the Orange Bowl- nice disadvantage for #1 school)
It works out a bit- but primarily due to dumb luck- and how bad FSU was last year. If you take the OSU probation into account- it's #26 Wisconsin vs #6 Stanford while you have #2 Alabama vs #4 Oregon and #5 Kansas St vs #3 Florida. Yeah, that's fair.
2 years ago:
game 1- #5 Oregon vs #10 Wisconsin
game 2- #1 LSU vs #6 Arkansas
game 3- #2 Oklahoma St vs #4 Stanford
game 4- #15 Clemson vs #3 Alabama

if you make it where conference teams can't see each other in the QF- #1 LSU vs #4 Stanford and #2 Oklahoma St vs #6 Arkansas. Not a chance that flies with TV folks at all.

(11-18-2013 11:26 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  4 teams is not a playoff. It's better than the current idiocy but it's not a playoff. 8 teams is a playoff.

The G5 would be left out of a 8 team playoff.

(11-18-2013 01:42 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 01:40 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 01:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think one major point Frank is that the 1st round would likely be done prior to the 1st of the year. I don't think they want to extend the season to where the title game is being played 3rd week in January. I think they already aren't all that happy that the title game is some years like 13th of January. now imagine extending out another week. I don't think so.

The first round would actually be the Conference Championship games. You win and your in.

TV has shown time and time again they want no part of this. Just look at the playoff we are getting next year. It's in no way conference champions only. Like 2 years ago, TV wanted Alabama over Wisconsin 100%.

This year the conference championship games look like

Alabama vs Missouri
Oregon vs Arizona State
Michigan State vs Ohio State
Bowling Green vs Northern Illinois
Fresno State vs Boise State
East Carolina vs North Texas

Then you could match

UCF vs ULL
Baylor vs Notre Dame


That is a 16 game playoff that the whole nation will/would be watching.

(11-18-2013 02:22 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Think of it another way: are people bothered by a World Series that doesn't feature the top two teams because the best two teams happened to be in the AL that particular year? Same thing with the Super Bowl: what if the best two teams happened to be in the AFC that year? What if the two best teams in the NBA were in the Eastern Conference? It happens ALL of the time! Furthermore, the TV interests wouldn't care if the Tampa Bay Rays won 120 games in the regular season - they'd still take the Yankees and Red Sox 100 times out of 100 over them. Same thing with the NBA TV partners wanting every Heat and Lakers game possible no matter how well the Spurs are doing. Even the NFL, which is the entity least impacted by market sizes and team brand names, still gets an extra boost when a marquee franchise like the Cowboys or Steelers are involved.

Believe me, if the TV people were running things, they'd gerrymander things in a way that would make any supposed Rose Bowl "preference" look like a speck of dust competitively. The point is that they don't care about seedings. Hardcore fans would pay attention, but the casual fans that make the TV people the most money want to see USC/Ohio State/Texas/Notre Dame/etc.

The thing is- the playoffs in those other sports are seeded. You don't see NBA Miami have to play Chicago in the 1st round when they are the 1st and 4th best records while New Jersey plays Atlanta when they are the 6th and 8th best records. It's 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, and 4/5. If anything- they moved to make it more fair a few years ago, when they made the best non division champion able to be more than a 4 seed in the playoffs. So if 2 teams from the same division have the 2 best records, they are seeded 1 and 2.

(11-18-2013 02:22 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Think of it another way: are people bothered by a World Series that doesn't feature the top two teams because the best two teams happened to be in the AL that particular year? Same thing with the Super Bowl: what if the best two teams happened to be in the AFC that year? What if the two best teams in the NBA were in the Eastern Conference? Are they bothered when a team wins a weak division or conference while other teams that have better records are shut out because they're in stronger divisions or conferences? It happens ALL of the time! Furthermore, the TV interests wouldn't care if the Tampa Bay Rays won 120 games in the regular season - they'd still take the Yankees and Red Sox 100 times out of 100 over them. Same thing with the NBA TV partners wanting every Heat and Lakers game possible no matter how well the Spurs are doing. Even the NFL, which is the entity least impacted by market sizes and team brand names, still gets an extra boost when a marquee franchise like the Cowboys or Steelers are involved.

Believe me, if the TV people were running things, they'd gerrymander things in a way that would make any supposed Rose Bowl "preference" look like a speck of dust competitively. The point is that they don't care about seedings. Hardcore fans would pay attention, but the casual fans that make the TV people the most money want to see USC/Ohio State/Texas/Notre Dame/etc.

You guys have had this argument before. I actually agree with you, but Stever and others get hung up on the seeded tournament thing.

Anyway, everything we've heard from when they were designing the playoff is that the system they came up with payed as well as a larger playoff. I really don't see the system going away before the end of the contract.

G5ers are deluding themselves if they think they'll get an AQ spot in a 8 team tournament by the way. That's only 3 at large spots, no way the P5 give one of those away.

(11-18-2013 02:26 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 01:42 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 01:40 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 01:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think one major point Frank is that the 1st round would likely be done prior to the 1st of the year. I don't think they want to extend the season to where the title game is being played 3rd week in January. I think they already aren't all that happy that the title game is some years like 13th of January. now imagine extending out another week. I don't think so.

The first round would actually be the Conference Championship games. You win and your in.

TV has shown time and time again they want no part of this. Just look at the playoff we are getting next year. It's in no way conference champions only. Like 2 years ago, TV wanted Alabama over Wisconsin 100%.

This year the conference championship games look like

Alabama vs Missouri
Oregon vs Arizona State
Michigan State vs Ohio State
Bowling Green vs Northern Illinois
Fresno State vs Boise State
East Carolina vs North Texas

Then you could match

UCF vs ULL
Baylor vs Notre Dame


That is a 16 game playoff that the whole nation will/would be watching.

sorry that's doa

Funny that a Rutgers poster says a G5 team should have no chance at a NCAA football championship. . . Hell! They are middle of the road in the AAC conference right now. Shouldn't ever have to worry about seeing Rutgers in a playoff when they move to the Big10

(11-18-2013 02:23 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Conference play is one thing- but in a seeded playoff, I think they absolutely do care. I don't think they want to have Florida State this year for instance have to play a much harder 1st round opponent to just placate the Big Ten/Pac 12. They want FSU to get into the sf round and play a Oregon. The SF round would be sick.

I think they know that folks would be absolutely disgusted if we had a playoff scenario like you were saying..
just go last year
game 1- #2 Ohio St vs #7 Stanford
game 2- #3 Alabama vs #5 Oregon
game 3- #6 Kansas St vs #4 Florida
game 4- #13 Florida St vs #1 Notre Dame(presumably at the Orange Bowl- nice disadvantage for #1 school)
It works out a bit- but primarily due to dumb luck- and how bad FSU was last year. If you take the OSU probation into account- it's #26 Wisconsin vs #6 Stanford while you have #2 Alabama vs #4 Oregon and #5 Kansas St vs #3 Florida. Yeah, that's fair.
2 years ago:
game 1- #5 Oregon vs #10 Wisconsin
game 2- #1 LSU vs #6 Arkansas
game 3- #2 Oklahoma St vs #4 Stanford
game 4- #15 Clemson vs #3 Alabama

if you make it where conference teams can't see each other in the QF- #1 LSU vs #4 Stanford and #2 Oklahoma St vs #6 Arkansas. Not a chance that flies with TV folks at all.

I just think you're overstating how much the TV people care about that. What they see is "Big Ten champ = lots of viewers" and "Oklahoma State and Kansas State = poor ratings". Also remember that my model includes the best Group of Five champ, meaning that Bama would have been playing Northern Illinois last year and LSU would have played TCU 2 years ago. That changes the matchups quite a bit. Frankly, the TV people wouldn't want those Group of Five teams at all, but they may need to be included for legal purposes.

So you're saying TV would be ok to have a setup where #2 team would have to beat #4 team to just make the SF while #5 team gets to play #10 team at the same time? bull crap. I think you are acting like TV people just don't give a rip about the rankings at all, and I think that's a load of crap.

Also, I think a lot of folks would have a major problem with the #2 team having a much harder test than the #1 or moreso the #3 team.

I think if the Rose was as sacred as you are saying, they would have written in the new rules that if B10/p12 make the sf, they must play in the Rose in the years that the Rose is hosting. That hasn't happened- because the other conferences wouldn't allow it to happen.

(11-18-2013 02:24 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 11:26 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  4 teams is not a playoff. It's better than the current idiocy but it's not a playoff. 8 teams is a playoff.

The G5 would be left out of a 8 team playoff.

Depends on how they do it. The G5 will definitely be left out of a 4-team playoff, but there would be a very small chance of getting in the top 8.

From the standpoint of a college football fan, I'd rather see 8.

(11-18-2013 02:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  So you're saying TV would be ok to have a setup where #2 team would have to beat #4 team to just make the SF while #5 team gets to play #10 team at the same time? bull crap. I think you are acting like TV people just don't give a rip about the rankings at all, and I think that's a load of crap.

Also, I think a lot of folks would have a major problem with the #2 team having a much harder test than the #1 or moreso the #3 team.

I think if the Rose was as sacred as you are saying, they would have written in the new rules that if B10/p12 make the sf, they must play in the Rose in the years that the Rose is hosting. That hasn't happened- because the other conferences wouldn't allow it to happen.

No, I don't think it's crap. It's the truth based on years and years of ratings data. Just look at who the TV people pick to show every week when they have the choice and what bowls do when they have the discretion to choose teams. It's not always about who the highest ranked or "most deserving" team. Whether fans would complain about it is an entirely different matter, but what they say they want to watch (i.e. whoever is the best in the rankings that week, upsets, upstarts, Cinderallas, etc.) has proven over and over again to be different from what they *do* actually watch in ratings data (i.e. power name brands from power conferences).

And once again, the 4-team playoff without auto-bids is a different exercise than an 8-team playoff with auto-bids. There is a flexibility to preserve traditional matchups with 8 teams that doesn't exist with 4 teams.

Regardless, we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this instead of going around in circles on it.

(11-18-2013 03:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  No, I don't think it's crap. It's the truth based on years and years of ratings data.

Are you so sure the Rose Bowl only does well on TV when it's a Pac-12 vs. Big Ten game?

The two BCS-era Rose Bowls that were not BCS title games and didn't have a Pac vs. B1G matchup (Washington State vs. Oklahoma, and Wisconsin vs. TCU) still had better TV ratings than every bowl game that year other than the BCS title game. The Rose Bowl in '03 was unhappy that the Orange had USC-Iowa while the Rose had Wazzu-OU, yet the Rose still had far better TV ratings that year.

One might argue that the Rose Bowl brand, plus the choice time slot, plus any attractive matchup, would get great TV ratings.

there was a 3rd with Michigan/Texas as well. 2004 season.

I just think the other conferences aren't going to give a tremendous amount of deference to the Rose Bowl/Big Ten/Pac 12. Not when it puts their teams at a competitive disadvantage, which your proposal absolutely does. Also, it puts Notre Dame at a competitive disadvantage. That's not flying. I just don't see the deference that was there 10-15 years ago any more.