(07-25-2014 09:43 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  College football is a regional game. The only people that really care are in the south and Midwest. The big Metro audiences just want good football for the playoff. If that means 3 SEC teams, that will get their interest. Otherwise, regional balance will hardly draw more eyes to the TV sets.

Maybe for some casual fans. But I think many solid and fanatic CFB fans will be turned off by a regional playoff...Texas vs. LSU and Auburn vs. Florida. That doesn't grab most viewers in California, Chicago, NY... MLB baseball is a prime example...ratings were lower many times for regional series (with the exception probably being NY/Boston based series).

2006 is a GREAT example of why you don't want one conference having too many teams. OSU and Michigan...consensus No. 1 and No. 2 throughout November...got spanked in both their bowls. How do we KNOW that said conference is as great as we THINK they are?

(And to further make my point, what did VOTERS do to keep one conference from dominating the BCS championship game that year? Artificially moved Florida UP to make it happen. The committee will have the EXACT SAME mindset when picking between two close teams...)

The SEC will always get it in because the SEC can always get it up! But I will readily admit that getting two up would be quite a feat.

(07-26-2014 11:18 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 09:43 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  College football is a regional game. The only people that really care are in the south and Midwest. The big Metro audiences just want good football for the playoff. If that means 3 SEC teams, that will get their interest. Otherwise, regional balance will hardly draw more eyes to the TV sets.

Maybe for some casual fans. But I think many solid and fanatic CFB fans will be turned off by a regional playoff...Texas vs. LSU and Auburn vs. Florida. That doesn't grab most viewers in California, Chicago, NY... MLB baseball is a prime example...ratings were lower many times for regional series (with the exception probably being NY/Boston based series).

2006 is a GREAT example of why you don't want one conference having too many teams. OSU and Michigan...consensus No. 1 and No. 2 throughout November...got spanked in both their bowls. How do we KNOW that said conference is as great as we THINK they are?

(And to further make my point, what did VOTERS do to keep one conference from dominating the BCS championship game that year? Artificially moved Florida UP to make it happen. The committee will have the EXACT SAME mindset when picking between two close teams...)

Which is why all NCAA-sponsored championships provide automatic bids to all conference champions.

If a 16 teams football tournament was considered feasible (as it is in FCS and D2), you would be able to have 10 conference champions plus 6 at large.

If you are going to have only 4 schools in the tournament, though, giving preference to a conference champion ranked number 5 or 6 over a conference runner up ranked number 3 or 4 makes huge sense. The runner up had their chance to win their conference and failed. Some preference ought to be given to those earning on the field instead of in a popularity contest.

There is never going to be a playoff that gives AQ to the G5 champs.

The whole point of this is to avoid the basketball tournament set up where the 6-6 champ of the Who Cares League gets to go to the playoff while 11-1 Florida State has to stay at home.

The P5 have invested and created way too much money in FB for their teams to sit on the sideline.

This is the compromise so the P5 does not just leave the G5 and start their own playoff exclusively for them.

(07-27-2014 07:48 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 11:18 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 09:43 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  College football is a regional game. The only people that really care are in the south and Midwest. The big Metro audiences just want good football for the playoff. If that means 3 SEC teams, that will get their interest. Otherwise, regional balance will hardly draw more eyes to the TV sets.

Maybe for some casual fans. But I think many solid and fanatic CFB fans will be turned off by a regional playoff...Texas vs. LSU and Auburn vs. Florida. That doesn't grab most viewers in California, Chicago, NY... MLB baseball is a prime example...ratings were lower many times for regional series (with the exception probably being NY/Boston based series).

2006 is a GREAT example of why you don't want one conference having too many teams. OSU and Michigan...consensus No. 1 and No. 2 throughout November...got spanked in both their bowls. How do we KNOW that said conference is as great as we THINK they are?

(And to further make my point, what did VOTERS do to keep one conference from dominating the BCS championship game that year? Artificially moved Florida UP to make it happen. The committee will have the EXACT SAME mindset when picking between two close teams...)

Which is why all NCAA-sponsored championships provide automatic bids to all conference champions.

If a 16 teams football tournament was considered feasible (as it is in FCS and D2), you would be able to have 10 conference champions plus 6 at large.

If you are going to have only 4 schools in the tournament, though, giving preference to a conference champion ranked number 5 or 6 over a conference runner up ranked number 3 or 4 makes huge sense. The runner up had their chance to win their conference and failed. Some preference ought to be given to those earning on the field instead of in a popularity contest.

You're not quite correct. NCAA tournaments are limited to having 50% of their teams as autobids. Until the recent expansion of FCS, several conferences did not have automatic bids.

How about a compromise? Have an 8 team playoff where all conference champs ranked in the top15 get an auto bid & the rest filled with at large teams.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

(07-26-2014 12:25 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Or just take the Top 8 regardless of conference.

If that had been in place then just in the past few years Boise, Hawaii, Utah and TCU would have played in the playoff as non-power conference teams.

But the B1G and ACC would not like that because there would have been several times in the last few years where none of their teams got in even in an 8 team field

You need auto-bids for all P5 champs so that winning a conference matters.

I have ZERO sympathy for the 2nd best team in ANY conference... much less the 3rd or 4th best team! I just don't see a REAL need for more than 2 at-large bids.

I don't know that every major conference champ deserves to get in...nor NEEDS to. Nobody in the Big Ten thought 2012 Wisconsin deserved it...and I don't think too many people would have made a stink if 2011 Wisconsin (with its two regular season losses) would have been skipped either. But yes, there are quite a few champs that were legit (2010 Wisconsin, 2013 MSU, 2008 PSU) and deserving of a shot.

And if you go back to 2008 in the ACC, last year's FSU team was the only MUST PLAY team for the CFP. 2012 FSU had a small case and could have caused a bit of a stir...but 2008-2011 in the ACC--that's four straight years without a deserving champ.

Combine JUST those two conferences...and you're only DEMANDING 1 spot in 2008, 1 in 2010, and 2 in 2013. That's just 4 spots in 6 years for 2 conference champions. (And two other "questionable" entries...2011 Wiscy and 2012 FSU.)

We don't need to create drama where it's not there. Years like 2007 or 2008 will surely happen...but there are many years that won't be AS controversial.

(07-26-2014 09:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 09:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 09:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 09:22 AM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  These are just answers we really won't have until we see first hand how these rankings are done.

I think you are kidding yourself if you think Michigan in 2006, Texas in 2008, and Alabama in 2011 at least bare minimum don't get in the playoff.

the problem with retroactively assigning playoff seeds is the BCS poll was designed purley to match up number 1 and 2. The problem is the votes reflect that, where voters often moved teams to try to influence who would be number 2. If they were voting to assign the top 4 spots, it is very possible (and perhaps highly likely) that voters would have been far more hesitant to put two teams from the same conference in the top 4, where they all get playoff spots, versus now where voting a team 3 or 4 affects their bottom BCS ranking. For example, when you look at the rankings, you could clearly see (in 2006 and 2011 for example) where voters tried to game the system by voting the team who should be a concensus 2/3 down to 4 or 5, while voting up the team they wanted at 2 (sometimes they even voted them number 1) to try and help push their agenda. These things must be taken into consideration with a lot of the teams you listed above.

For the same reason you see so much movement the last week of the season, when voters know their vote will be both made public, and count for something, voting trends change. The same changes would be prevalent if they were voting for top 4 instead of top 2

Michigan, Texas, and Alabama all were at least a solid #3(in Bama's case #2)- even with what you are saying.

2006 for example- Louisville was the closest other champion- and they were a distant threat to Michigan. So even with the manipulation- Michigan was very close. Part of it was besides Michigan- there was only Wisconsin and Louisville that had only 1 loss. the final reg season poll had in the top 5 3 Big Ten and 2 SEC teams.

I also think folks are a LOT less hesitant to put a 2nd team in when it's a 4 team situation. I think a lot of folks that were against Alabama getting in a 2 team situation would have had a lot less trepidation with a 4 team situation. Oklahoma St not getting a chance is what made people so upset- nothing else. Also, the fact the other conference champ that would have gotten in was an Oregon team that got punked vs LSU earlier in the season was huge.

It's fine if you think that. And you used the word "think" a few times. And you'd be reason me to think this. The problem is you said it was "proof," and two separate people have shown it is not proof of that. It certainly provides valuable historical data to consider, but that's about it.

(07-27-2014 08:15 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  The whole point of this is to avoid the basketball tournament set up where the 6-6 champ of the Who Cares League gets to go to the playoff while 11-1 Florida State has to stay at home.

The irony of that statement is that is the opposite of the basketball set up.

Practically speaking, I do think the committee will be willing to send a 2nd team from the same conference, but since conference championships are a factor, it will be difficult. Last year, Alabama would have been though.

My biggest gibe by far with the rules as they've had them set-out is that they are straight up ranking 1-4 and doing 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 without any other considerations. The conference rematch at the very least should be a factor. It's silly to have 4 team playoff, where all 4 teams are great anyway and then have one of the semi-final bowls potentially be Alabama vs. Florida or USC vs. Oregon, or whatever. I'd also like them to give a little weight to the bowl traditional match-ups, but even if that's not in the cards, the rematches shouldn't be.

(07-27-2014 02:55 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 09:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 09:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 09:28 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 09:22 AM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  These are just answers we really won't have until we see first hand how these rankings are done.

I think you are kidding yourself if you think Michigan in 2006, Texas in 2008, and Alabama in 2011 at least bare minimum don't get in the playoff.

the problem with retroactively assigning playoff seeds is the BCS poll was designed purley to match up number 1 and 2. The problem is the votes reflect that, where voters often moved teams to try to influence who would be number 2. If they were voting to assign the top 4 spots, it is very possible (and perhaps highly likely) that voters would have been far more hesitant to put two teams from the same conference in the top 4, where they all get playoff spots, versus now where voting a team 3 or 4 affects their bottom BCS ranking. For example, when you look at the rankings, you could clearly see (in 2006 and 2011 for example) where voters tried to game the system by voting the team who should be a concensus 2/3 down to 4 or 5, while voting up the team they wanted at 2 (sometimes they even voted them number 1) to try and help push their agenda. These things must be taken into consideration with a lot of the teams you listed above.

For the same reason you see so much movement the last week of the season, when voters know their vote will be both made public, and count for something, voting trends change. The same changes would be prevalent if they were voting for top 4 instead of top 2

Michigan, Texas, and Alabama all were at least a solid #3(in Bama's case #2)- even with what you are saying.

2006 for example- Louisville was the closest other champion- and they were a distant threat to Michigan. So even with the manipulation- Michigan was very close. Part of it was besides Michigan- there was only Wisconsin and Louisville that had only 1 loss. the final reg season poll had in the top 5 3 Big Ten and 2 SEC teams.

I also think folks are a LOT less hesitant to put a 2nd team in when it's a 4 team situation. I think a lot of folks that were against Alabama getting in a 2 team situation would have had a lot less trepidation with a 4 team situation. Oklahoma St not getting a chance is what made people so upset- nothing else. Also, the fact the other conference champ that would have gotten in was an Oregon team that got punked vs LSU earlier in the season was huge.

It's fine if you think that. And you used the word "think" a few times. And you'd be reason me to think this. The problem is you said it was "proof," and two separate people have shown it is not proof of that. It certainly provides valuable historical data to consider, but that's about it.

The thing is years like 2006 where top 5 has 3 teams from 1 conference, and 2 teams from another conference- it's going to be almost impossible to not have 2 teams from one conference in. Very tough to see it accepted to take what would be at the best the #7 team instead of the #3 team(that a lot of folks was actually the #2 team).

2008 maybe even moreso quite frankly. Texas had beaten Oklahoma during the regular season but wasn't the champion because of a tiebreaker with the 3 way tie. Just don't see a committee not taking Texas in place of a #6 team, when Texas had beaten Oklahoma.

Or 2011 where the 4th best conference champ was #10.

The odds are at least 95% if not higher in all 3 of these years- Michigan, Texas, and Alabama are all in the playoffs.

(07-27-2014 07:09 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Practically speaking, I do think the committee will be willing to send a 2nd team from the same conference, but since conference championships are a factor, it will be difficult. Last year, Alabama would have been though.

My biggest gibe by far with the rules as they've had them set-out is that they are straight up ranking 1-4 and doing 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 without any other considerations. The conference rematch at the very least should be a factor. It's silly to have 4 team playoff, where all 4 teams are great anyway and then have one of the semi-final bowls potentially be Alabama vs. Florida or USC vs. Oregon, or whatever. I'd also like them to give a little weight to the bowl traditional match-ups, but even if that's not in the cards, the rematches shouldn't be.

I do agree that there shouldn't be sf rematches....

And like I've said before- you can't do the bowl traditional matchups. like last year if committee had put Stanford in over Alabama- no way in the world the semifinals should be Florida St/Auburn in Sugar and Mich St/Stanford in the Rose.

(07-27-2014 08:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 07:09 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Practically speaking, I do think the committee will be willing to send a 2nd team from the same conference, but since conference championships are a factor, it will be difficult. Last year, Alabama would have been though.

My biggest gibe by far with the rules as they've had them set-out is that they are straight up ranking 1-4 and doing 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 without any other considerations. The conference rematch at the very least should be a factor. It's silly to have 4 team playoff, where all 4 teams are great anyway and then have one of the semi-final bowls potentially be Alabama vs. Florida or USC vs. Oregon, or whatever. I'd also like them to give a little weight to the bowl traditional match-ups, but even if that's not in the cards, the rematches shouldn't be.

I do agree that there shouldn't be sf rematches....

And like I've said before- you can't do the bowl traditional matchups. like last year if committee had put Stanford in over Alabama- no way in the world the semifinals should be Florida St/Auburn in Sugar and Mich St/Stanford in the Rose.

Agreed. The company line with the CFP is that they will do a STRAIGHT top 4...alliances be danged! But, many have said that last year was 1. FSU, 2, Auburn, 3. Alabama, and 4. MSU. It seems far better to move MSU up to 4 to avoid that rematch in the semifinals...

Take 2009 for another example...1. Alabama, 2. Texas, 3. Cincinnati, 4. TCU. I would have no problem at all as a fan--if the Cotton Bowl was a possible semifinal site--moving TCU up so that Texas could play TCU in Dallas while Alabama played Cincy in the Orange Bowl.

There is just TOO little difference between the actual talent level of #3 and #4 for this to matter significantly.

(07-28-2014 12:27 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 08:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 07:09 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Practically speaking, I do think the committee will be willing to send a 2nd team from the same conference, but since conference championships are a factor, it will be difficult. Last year, Alabama would have been though.

My biggest gibe by far with the rules as they've had them set-out is that they are straight up ranking 1-4 and doing 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 without any other considerations. The conference rematch at the very least should be a factor. It's silly to have 4 team playoff, where all 4 teams are great anyway and then have one of the semi-final bowls potentially be Alabama vs. Florida or USC vs. Oregon, or whatever. I'd also like them to give a little weight to the bowl traditional match-ups, but even if that's not in the cards, the rematches shouldn't be.

I do agree that there shouldn't be sf rematches....

And like I've said before- you can't do the bowl traditional matchups. like last year if committee had put Stanford in over Alabama- no way in the world the semifinals should be Florida St/Auburn in Sugar and Mich St/Stanford in the Rose.

Agreed. The company line with the CFP is that they will do a STRAIGHT top 4...alliances be danged! But, many have said that last year was 1. FSU, 2, Auburn, 3. Alabama, and 4. MSU. It seems far better to move MSU up to 4 to avoid that rematch in the semifinals...

Take 2009 for another example...1. Alabama, 2. Texas, 3. Cincinnati, 4. TCU. I would have no problem at all as a fan--if the Cotton Bowl was a possible semifinal site--moving TCU up so that Texas could play TCU in Dallas while Alabama played Cincy in the Orange Bowl.

There is just TOO little difference between the actual talent level of #3 and #4 for this to matter significantly.

I would argue there is too little difference between #1 and #6 to matter significantly. So, if you are going to allow a team that essentially lost in the round of 8, or the round of 16, as Alabama did last year, then I have no problem with them having a rematch with Auburn in the semifinals. In fact, I would encourage it.

(07-28-2014 09:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-28-2014 12:27 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 08:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 07:09 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Practically speaking, I do think the committee will be willing to send a 2nd team from the same conference, but since conference championships are a factor, it will be difficult. Last year, Alabama would have been though.

My biggest gibe by far with the rules as they've had them set-out is that they are straight up ranking 1-4 and doing 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 without any other considerations. The conference rematch at the very least should be a factor. It's silly to have 4 team playoff, where all 4 teams are great anyway and then have one of the semi-final bowls potentially be Alabama vs. Florida or USC vs. Oregon, or whatever. I'd also like them to give a little weight to the bowl traditional match-ups, but even if that's not in the cards, the rematches shouldn't be.

I do agree that there shouldn't be sf rematches....

And like I've said before- you can't do the bowl traditional matchups. like last year if committee had put Stanford in over Alabama- no way in the world the semifinals should be Florida St/Auburn in Sugar and Mich St/Stanford in the Rose.

Agreed. The company line with the CFP is that they will do a STRAIGHT top 4...alliances be danged! But, many have said that last year was 1. FSU, 2, Auburn, 3. Alabama, and 4. MSU. It seems far better to move MSU up to 4 to avoid that rematch in the semifinals...

Take 2009 for another example...1. Alabama, 2. Texas, 3. Cincinnati, 4. TCU. I would have no problem at all as a fan--if the Cotton Bowl was a possible semifinal site--moving TCU up so that Texas could play TCU in Dallas while Alabama played Cincy in the Orange Bowl.

There is just TOO little difference between the actual talent level of #3 and #4 for this to matter significantly.

I would argue there is too little difference between #1 and #6 to matter significantly. So, if you are going to allow a team that essentially lost in the round of 8, or the round of 16, as Alabama did last year, then I have no problem with them having a rematch with Auburn in the semifinals. In fact, I would encourage it.

The concept is destructive to the game. Part of the allure of college football is that you get one shot at things a year. I firmly believe that Alabama should never have gotten another shot at L.S.U. in the championship game a few years ago. It made the regular season game (an annual huge event where ticket prices and interest soar) essentially meaningless. The only game bigger on Alabama's schedule than L.S.U. is Auburn. If Auburn wins they shouldn't have to nullify a lifetime moment and give the SOB's another shot the next week or the week after that.

The issues here aren't really being discussed and they are these:
Taking 4 conference champions and playing it off is really the only fair way. Saying that some conferences #2 is better than everyone in an another conference is subjective and gets network market interests into the picture. What the networks hate is the idea that two non national brands will make the semis and then the finals. Hence the P5. Then they aren't comfortable with a 4 champions model. What happens if Baylor (a really good and growing program with a smallish fan base) wins the Big 12 and someone like Northwestern has a miracle year to take the Big 10 after the Buckeyes stumble unexpectedly in the championship game, and Arizona State wins the PAC while South Carolina finally punches through in the SEC? I'll tell you what happens. ESPN & ABC (or the network winning the bid for the championship series) crap a brick over the potential of having their biggest event of the year screwed up by 4 champions that happen to turn out to be relatively small regional draws.
Their hedge is the damned committee who gets to select South Carolina as being from a tough conference, take Arizona State as the largest remaining state school among the 4 champions, drop Baylor because they are private and use no championship game as an excuse, utilize the polls where Alabama or a runner up like U.S.C. can get the necessary large population area name recognition votes to snub Northwestern as well all while Herbstreet lauds how the Buckeyes should have gotten in and Northwestern had a great year and all but they were really just a fluke. All of the sudden the Networks can wangle two national brands to save their big advertising bucks for the year. And that's what all of this is about!

The system will never be fair until it is all decided on the field and that's not going to happen until we have 4 conferences with 4 conference champions playing it off. My SEC brethren probably don't feel the way I do about it, but rematches destroy the meaning of the regular season and should never be permitted to happen. Let the conferences decide their champ and then pick the champion of champions and I'm fine with the outcome.

But to continue to argue over who should and shouldn't get two in is to miss the whole damned reason we are debating it in the first place.......guaranteed advertising revenue from a back door in clause for national brand runner ups.

(07-28-2014 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2014 09:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-28-2014 12:27 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 08:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 07:09 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Practically speaking, I do think the committee will be willing to send a 2nd team from the same conference, but since conference championships are a factor, it will be difficult. Last year, Alabama would have been though.

My biggest gibe by far with the rules as they've had them set-out is that they are straight up ranking 1-4 and doing 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 without any other considerations. The conference rematch at the very least should be a factor. It's silly to have 4 team playoff, where all 4 teams are great anyway and then have one of the semi-final bowls potentially be Alabama vs. Florida or USC vs. Oregon, or whatever. I'd also like them to give a little weight to the bowl traditional match-ups, but even if that's not in the cards, the rematches shouldn't be.

I do agree that there shouldn't be sf rematches....

And like I've said before- you can't do the bowl traditional matchups. like last year if committee had put Stanford in over Alabama- no way in the world the semifinals should be Florida St/Auburn in Sugar and Mich St/Stanford in the Rose.

Agreed. The company line with the CFP is that they will do a STRAIGHT top 4...alliances be danged! But, many have said that last year was 1. FSU, 2, Auburn, 3. Alabama, and 4. MSU. It seems far better to move MSU up to 4 to avoid that rematch in the semifinals...

Take 2009 for another example...1. Alabama, 2. Texas, 3. Cincinnati, 4. TCU. I would have no problem at all as a fan--if the Cotton Bowl was a possible semifinal site--moving TCU up so that Texas could play TCU in Dallas while Alabama played Cincy in the Orange Bowl.

There is just TOO little difference between the actual talent level of #3 and #4 for this to matter significantly.

I would argue there is too little difference between #1 and #6 to matter significantly. So, if you are going to allow a team that essentially lost in the round of 8, or the round of 16, as Alabama did last year, then I have no problem with them having a rematch with Auburn in the semifinals. In fact, I would encourage it.

The concept is destructive to the game. Part of the allure of college football is that you get one shot at things a year. I firmly believe that Alabama should never have gotten another shot at L.S.U. in the championship game a few years ago. It made the regular season game (an annual huge event where ticket prices and interest soar) essentially meaningless. The only game bigger on Alabama's schedule than L.S.U. is Auburn. If Auburn wins they shouldn't have to nullify a lifetime moment and give the SOB's another shot the next week or the week after that.

The issues here aren't really being discussed and they are these:
Taking 4 conference champions and playing it off is really the only fair way. Saying that some conferences #2 is better than everyone in an another conference is subjective and gets network market interests into the picture. What the networks hate is the idea that two non national brands will make the semis and then the finals. Hence the P5. Then they aren't comfortable with a 4 champions model. What happens if Baylor (a really good and growing program with a smallish fan base) wins the Big 12 and someone like Northwestern has a miracle year to take the Big 10 after the Buckeyes stumble unexpectedly in the championship game, and Arizona State wins the PAC while South Carolina finally punches through in the SEC? I'll tell you what happens. ESPN & ABC (or the network winning the bid for the championship series) crap a brick over the potential of having their biggest event of the year screwed up by 4 champions that happen to turn out to be relatively small regional draws.
Their hedge is the damned committee who gets to select South Carolina as being from a tough conference, take Arizona State as the largest remaining state school among the 4 champions, drop Baylor because they are private and use no championship game as an excuse, utilize the polls where Alabama or a runner up like U.S.C. can get the necessary large population area name recognition votes to snub Northwestern as well all while Herbstreet lauds how the Buckeyes should have gotten in and Northwestern had a great year and all but they were really just a fluke. All of the sudden the Networks can wangle two national brands to save their big advertising bucks for the year. And that's what all of this is about!

The system will never be fair until it is all decided on the field and that's not going to happen until we have 4 conferences with 4 conference champions playing it off. My SEC brethren probably don't feel the way I do about it, but rematches destroy the meaning of the regular season and should never be permitted to happen. Let the conferences decide their champ and then pick the champion of champions and I'm fine with the outcome.

But to continue to argue over who should and shouldn't get two in is to miss the whole damned reason we are debating it in the first place.......guaranteed advertising revenue from a back door in clause for national brand runner ups.

If it's for all the marbles it's going to get freakish ratings. Did the Super Bowl ever suffer due to the wrong brands being involved? No. It's not just the fans of the teams themselves that watch, it's the entire league.

If South Carolina wins the SEC and plays for it all you can bet that the other SEC teams will be tuning in to see how they do. Same will apply elsewhere.

(07-28-2014 11:30 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(07-28-2014 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2014 09:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-28-2014 12:27 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 08:28 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I do agree that there shouldn't be sf rematches....

And like I've said before- you can't do the bowl traditional matchups. like last year if committee had put Stanford in over Alabama- no way in the world the semifinals should be Florida St/Auburn in Sugar and Mich St/Stanford in the Rose.

Agreed. The company line with the CFP is that they will do a STRAIGHT top 4...alliances be danged! But, many have said that last year was 1. FSU, 2, Auburn, 3. Alabama, and 4. MSU. It seems far better to move MSU up to 4 to avoid that rematch in the semifinals...

Take 2009 for another example...1. Alabama, 2. Texas, 3. Cincinnati, 4. TCU. I would have no problem at all as a fan--if the Cotton Bowl was a possible semifinal site--moving TCU up so that Texas could play TCU in Dallas while Alabama played Cincy in the Orange Bowl.

There is just TOO little difference between the actual talent level of #3 and #4 for this to matter significantly.

I would argue there is too little difference between #1 and #6 to matter significantly. So, if you are going to allow a team that essentially lost in the round of 8, or the round of 16, as Alabama did last year, then I have no problem with them having a rematch with Auburn in the semifinals. In fact, I would encourage it.

The concept is destructive to the game. Part of the allure of college football is that you get one shot at things a year. I firmly believe that Alabama should never have gotten another shot at L.S.U. in the championship game a few years ago. It made the regular season game (an annual huge event where ticket prices and interest soar) essentially meaningless. The only game bigger on Alabama's schedule than L.S.U. is Auburn. If Auburn wins they shouldn't have to nullify a lifetime moment and give the SOB's another shot the next week or the week after that.

The issues here aren't really being discussed and they are these:
Taking 4 conference champions and playing it off is really the only fair way. Saying that some conferences #2 is better than everyone in an another conference is subjective and gets network market interests into the picture. What the networks hate is the idea that two non national brands will make the semis and then the finals. Hence the P5. Then they aren't comfortable with a 4 champions model. What happens if Baylor (a really good and growing program with a smallish fan base) wins the Big 12 and someone like Northwestern has a miracle year to take the Big 10 after the Buckeyes stumble unexpectedly in the championship game, and Arizona State wins the PAC while South Carolina finally punches through in the SEC? I'll tell you what happens. ESPN & ABC (or the network winning the bid for the championship series) crap a brick over the potential of having their biggest event of the year screwed up by 4 champions that happen to turn out to be relatively small regional draws.
Their hedge is the damned committee who gets to select South Carolina as being from a tough conference, take Arizona State as the largest remaining state school among the 4 champions, drop Baylor because they are private and use no championship game as an excuse, utilize the polls where Alabama or a runner up like U.S.C. can get the necessary large population area name recognition votes to snub Northwestern as well all while Herbstreet lauds how the Buckeyes should have gotten in and Northwestern had a great year and all but they were really just a fluke. All of the sudden the Networks can wangle two national brands to save their big advertising bucks for the year. And that's what all of this is about!

The system will never be fair until it is all decided on the field and that's not going to happen until we have 4 conferences with 4 conference champions playing it off. My SEC brethren probably don't feel the way I do about it, but rematches destroy the meaning of the regular season and should never be permitted to happen. Let the conferences decide their champ and then pick the champion of champions and I'm fine with the outcome.

But to continue to argue over who should and shouldn't get two in is to miss the whole damned reason we are debating it in the first place.......guaranteed advertising revenue from a back door in clause for national brand runner ups.

If it's for all the marbles it's going to get freakish ratings. Did the Super Bowl ever suffer due to the wrong brands being involved? No. It's not just the fans of the teams themselves that watch, it's the entire league.

If South Carolina wins the SEC and plays for it all you can bet that the other SEC teams will be tuning in to see how they do. Same will apply elsewhere.

Not really. I buy that South Carolina could get the backing of the Southeast (but even that support would not be at the Alabama or U.S.C. national draw levels), but what if they lost to Northwestern or Baylor in semis in that scenario? The NCAA Tourney proves that ratings wise the upsets are great until the elite eight and then it's the national brands that pull down the ratings. With football should Arizona State lose to Northwestern and South Carolina lose to Baylor in the semis in that scenario the national audience, while good, would likely not draw nearly the interest of a South Carolina vs U.S.C., or an Arizona State versus Alabama. The networks just simply don't want to take the risk of having 4 set opponents the selection of which they cannot influence.

(07-25-2014 09:57 AM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 09:39 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 09:34 AM)PiratePanther189 Wrote:  I'd like you to find a place where I said that.

you said there are just answers we won't have until we see first hand how these rankings are done.

I'm sorry- but those 3 teams in particular- there's no question at all that they would be in the playoffs. NONE. 2006 Michigan, 2008 Texas, and 2011 Alabama- we don't have to wait to see how it's done. Not at all.

I wasn't even speaking at what you said, because quite frankly I think your post is irrelevant. Who the hell cares about whether Michigan would be in the CFP if it was around in 2006? It's 2014. I don't care about 2006. Congratulations on having an opinion, we've all got some. Yours may not be wrong, but I don't care to take the time to analyze each possible qualifying team's SOS in 2006 to argue with you because - like I said - 2006 doesn't matter to me. Or 07,08,09,10,or 11.

I was speaking on waiting on just how this is going to go down instead of just listening to these people talk. Wait until they make 1 move and actually rank these teams once to start analyzing and acting like we know something. It's like in college when you really don't know how you're going to fare in a class until you take the professor's first test.

Excellent post, especially the underlined parts.

(07-28-2014 09:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would argue there is too little difference between #1 and #6 to matter significantly. So, if you are going to allow a team that essentially lost in the round of 8, or the round of 16, as Alabama did last year, then I have no problem with them having a rematch with Auburn in the semifinals. In fact, I would encourage it.

I would have to agree

(07-28-2014 11:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  My SEC brethren probably don't feel the way I do about it, but rematches destroy the meaning of the regular season and should never be permitted to happen. Let the conferences decide their champ and then pick the champion of champions and I'm fine with the outcome.

Do you mean rematches in general, or conference rematches? Otherwise what if Florida and Florida State are both conference champions, for example? Or Notre Dame and USC are both in?

(07-28-2014 11:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The NCAA Tourney proves that ratings wise the upsets are great until the elite eight and then it's the national brands that pull down the ratings.

Just a minor correction: Cinderellas do draw in the final four as well. Highest rated final of the last ten years had Butler in it. They have drawn pretty well over the years. However to your point, two cinderellas facing each other, not so much. In fact, those have bombed, in both sports.