Football Final Four

Scott also said that he agreed with the Big Ten's proposed model of playing semi-final games on the campuses of the schools involved while playing the championship game itself at a neutral location. Scott also supports the idea that only conference champions should be eligible for playing in any sort of playoff format.

“So much of the passion of a move to a playoff is to see it earned on the field,” Scott said. “What more clear way to have intellectual consistency with the idea of a playoff than to earn it as a conference champion? It would de-emphasize the highly subjective polls that are based on a coach and media voting and a few computers.”

ND may have some soul-searching to do if Scott has his way.

Cheers,
Neil

I think this could either lead to the playoffs growing to 8 and then 16 or conferences splitting. Under this plan Alabama would've been screwed out of a chance to play for the NC.

Not a great plan IMO

(02-25-2012 05:36 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think this could either lead to the playoffs growing to 8 and then 16 or conferences splitting. Under this plan Alabama would've been screwed out of a chance to play for the NC.

Not a great plan IMO

Not saying it will happen. And I'm also not saying whether or not the plan is a "great" one for the fans or even individual power teams (like the Alabama example) or not. What this tells me is something I have said in the past...simply taking the Top 4 teams from the BCS poll or some other such mechanism may not be appealing to all of the power conferences who fear they could go long stretches without making even a Final Four format playoff in football.

Just saying that if this were to happen (Scott's vision of a Final Four in football), ND would have some hard decisions to make.

Cheers,
Neil

Much like we've discussed before on the Big East board, a 16 team playoff with all conference winners and the remaining teams based on performance (at large invites), you will have a clear NC. Alabama would have their shot, Texas/OU could both be in, Michigan/Ohio State, etc.

Why not? It is done this way in every sport and the other levels of football. Oops, I forgot, nobody wants to give up the bowl money and the power they hold over other conferences. With the way BSU and TCU have played the last ten years, it is possible one of them could have won it all and the B1G/SEC could never live with that! Besides, the SEC would have to give up the Florida plan (play no OOC games outside of Florida) or lose potential seeding at large...

I've always been in favor of a playoff, its just its going to be way down the road before we see one.

Great point about ND.

I expect a 4-school, "Plus 1" playoff as the first iteration -- baby steps.

If, in fact, the PAC-12 and B1G succeed in getting this "conference championship" stipulation included, I'm going to assume it'll be the top-4 conference champions, likely determined by some BCS ranking -- meaning the top 4 conference champions in the BCS poll will be in the "playoff". I'd also expect some sort of "Notre Dame" clause.

If this is how it plays out, every conference beyond the SEC, B1G, PAC-12, Big Texas XII, and ACC is relegated to "participating in some nice consolation bowl games" -- the ones played before New Years's Day.

The schools in the Big 5 that don't make the "playoff" will play in the more "prestigious" bowl games.

(02-25-2012 11:41 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  I expect a 4-school, "Plus 1" playoff as the first iteration -- baby steps.

If, in fact, the PAC-12 and B1G succeed in getting this "conference championship" stipulation included, I'm going to assume it'll be the top-4 conference champions, likely determined by some BCS ranking -- meaning the top 4 conference champions in the BCS poll will be in the "playoff". I'd also expect some sort of "Notre Dame" clause.

If this is how it plays out, every conference beyond the SEC, B1G, PAC-12, Big Texas XII, and ACC is relegated to "participating in some nice consolation bowl games" -- the ones played before New Years's Day.

The schools in the Big 5 that don't make the "playoff" will play in the more "prestigious" bowl games.

Right now, I don't believe the BiG has said they want to restrict it to conference champions. I think the BiG believes it will always get at least one team into the Final Four set-up.

Where the Pac-12 and the BiG apparently agree is that the semi-finals be held at the sites of the 1 and 2 seeds (however seeds are determined).

They are cutting the Bowls out of this altogether, surprising considering their champions have tie-ins to the most prestigious Bowl of them all.

Cheers,
Neil

I think the conference championship should be considered part of the "playoff" By expanding the conference championship to 2 rounds the money is kept in conference and you include some otherwise deserving teams. The winners would advance to a 2 round national championship series. The conferences would determine who the teams are.

Conferences with less than 12 teams would be paired with other conferences and/or independents so that all teams play the same number of games.

Mike Slive and the SEC won't go for it. The idea that the PAC10 champion is some how better than the #2 team from the SEC is foolish. Why should the SEC give any other conference an advantage?

Yeah, I really don't like this. Say Georgia would have beaten LSU in the SEC CG last year - Alabama would have been #1 and not playing for the national title.

I suspect the real motivation behind this is to increase the value of the conference championship games to TV and sponsors.

(02-26-2012 10:50 AM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  Yeah, I really don't like this. Say Georgia would have beaten LSU in the SEC CG last year - Alabama would have been #1 and not playing for the national title.

I suspect the real motivation behind this is to increase the value of the conference championship games to TV and sponsors.

According to Chuck Neinas, the goal is to:

1. Improve the game
2. Protect the players
3. Find something with public acceptance
4. Protect the regular season
5. Have a vibrant postseason
6. Have something fair and competitive

Should be interesting to see what they eventually propose to the presidents to vote on.

Cheers,
Neil

Hmmm 4 teams 5 Power Conferences

As much as the non AQ guys biotched they might be playing themselves outta any chance.

(02-26-2012 12:10 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Hmmm 4 teams 5 Power Conferences

As much as the non AQ guys biotched they might be playing themselves outta any chance.

Not sure it harm their chances since a shot at the national title extends down to at least 4th rather than just top 2. You've got an easier chance of being the 4th ranked conference champ than you do being #2 overall especially if there is an upset in a conference title game.

What might have brought out the 4 team playoff with only conference champions idea was this last year with LSU and Alabama from the SEC. Also he mentioned not having to address writers and coaches polls and computers. The SEC has a natural advantage in the writers polls as evidenced by mr morris in south carolina ap writer who stated earlier this year when most of the nation was voting syracuse number 1. He said at the beginning of the year Kentucky, Ohio St, North Carolina had more talent and he wouldn't put syracuse any higher then 4th. Thats why a playoff of some kind is needed to eliminate bias of some people.

(02-26-2012 09:08 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Mike Slive and the SEC won't go for it. The idea that the PAC10 champion is some how better than the #2 team from the SEC is foolish. Why should the SEC give any other conference an advantage?

Not always true my friend. The past few years, I totally agree. But what happened the past few years may not hold true in the future. I'd watch out for USC, whom is totally rebuilding and has a Top 5 preseason team this year.

(02-26-2012 10:50 AM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  Yeah, I really don't like this. Say Georgia would have beaten LSU in the SEC CG last year - Alabama would have been #1 and not playing for the national title.

I suspect the real motivation behind this is to increase the value of the conference championship games to TV and sponsors.

Then Alabama should have won its division.

(02-26-2012 08:45 PM)thekevo23 Wrote:  

(02-26-2012 10:50 AM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  Yeah, I really don't like this. Say Georgia would have beaten LSU in the SEC CG last year - Alabama would have been #1 and not playing for the national title.

I suspect the real motivation behind this is to increase the value of the conference championship games to TV and sponsors.

Then Alabama should have won its division.

Alabama had a tougher road than most other programs. Why should it matter that they didn't win the SEC CG last year. The beat the stuffing out of LSU in the BCS championship game.

(02-26-2012 08:45 PM)thekevo23 Wrote:  

(02-26-2012 10:50 AM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  Yeah, I really don't like this. Say Georgia would have beaten LSU in the SEC CG last year - Alabama would have been #1 and not playing for the national title.

I suspect the real motivation behind this is to increase the value of the conference championship games to TV and sponsors.

Then Alabama should have won its division.

Sometimes the top 2 teams in the Nation just happen to reside in the same division of a conference. Why punish the #2 team from that division over one game when they are better than the other teams in the nation. As evident in that 21-0 blowout win, Alabama was the best team in the country. And I'm sure a 4 team playoff would've also proved this as a fact. I'm a proponent of bringing in the top 4 from the BCS standings. If there are 2 teams from the same conference, or same division for that matter, so what.

(02-26-2012 07:15 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(02-26-2012 09:08 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Mike Slive and the SEC won't go for it. The idea that the PAC10 champion is some how better than the #2 team from the SEC is foolish. Why should the SEC give any other conference an advantage?

Not always true my friend. The past few years, I totally agree. But what happened the past few years may not hold true in the future. I'd watch out for USC, whom is totally rebuilding and has a Top 5 preseason team this year.

Is Lane Kiffen still coaching USC? because if he is. The next time he wins anything,will be the first.

(02-26-2012 08:54 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(02-26-2012 07:15 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(02-26-2012 09:08 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Mike Slive and the SEC won't go for it. The idea that the PAC10 champion is some how better than the #2 team from the SEC is foolish. Why should the SEC give any other conference an advantage?

Not always true my friend. The past few years, I totally agree. But what happened the past few years may not hold true in the future. I'd watch out for USC, whom is totally rebuilding and has a Top 5 preseason team this year.

Is Lane Kiffen still coaching USC? because if he is. The next time he wins anything,will be the first.

Yes, he's still the coach... And there's a first time for everything... right