(01-07-2014 01:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 12:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I understand the desire to upend the system entirely, but that's just not how college sports leaders roll. Once again, my simple playoff plan:

Rose Bowl: Big Ten champ vs. Pac-12 champ
Sugar Bowl: SEC champ vs. at-large
Orange Bowl: ACC champ vs. at-large
Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 champ vs. at-large

For political purposes, one at-large spot can be dedicated to the top G5 champ. The winners advance to the 4-team playoff. In terms of the schedule, the net effect of this is to add one more week (or maybe around 10 days) to what the CFP system is now. The bowls aren't destroyed, traditions are preserved (and yes stever20, I know you disagree with the notion of the Rose Bowl preserving the one traditional matchup that matters and using anything less than a purely seeded playoff despite the fact that seeding itself is highly subjective - your viewpoint is noted), and the TV people will pay more for January games. December playoff games would take elite teams away from the bowls, interfere with finals, and TV people won't pay as much for them - that's a LOT more change than what college sports people have been willing to engage in. It's a lot easier to add onto the end (further into January) than to start taking away from what's already in place (December playoff games taking away top teams from the bowls), especially when the TV money *very* clearly favors that course of action (and TV money is going to be the entire financial reason why the playoff would expand further in the first place).

I'd say Frank look at what Hancock said himself yesterday. Bracket integrity is #1. They're not going to gerrymander the matchups to protect the Rose Bowl(or any other bowl). It's not happening at 4 and it won't happen at 8.

Just look at last year. You had Big Ten champ #26. ACC Champ #12. Those 2 teams should CLEARLY be playing the top 2 teams(which were clear cut as well- Notre Dame and Alabama. But you would give us:
#26 Wisconsin vs #6 Stanford
#12 Florida St vs
#2 Alabama vs
#5 Kansas St vs
the other 3 opponents would be 1 Notre Dame(vs FSU), #3 Florida(vs #5 Kansas St- that's a joke), and #4 Oregon(vs #2 Alabama). I'm sorry, but there is no excuse at all that 3/5 and 2/4 should play while 26/6 play each other. NONE. At least the TV folks have gotten thru to the BCS folks that Bracket integrity matters.

No, bracket integrity matters the most to the SEC. That's the league that has harped on and on and on about it (and ironically would have disadvantageously ended up with an all-SEC semifinal this year if the committee stuck to that notion). The TV people aren't going to be bothered by a traditional Rose Bowl (which draws a bigger audience EVERY year than any other college football game besides the national championship game itself) just as they aren't bothered by the fact that crappy divisional champs in the NFL get preferential seeding over better wild card teams or the NBA's Eastern Conference will have 5 or 6 short bus teams in the playoffs this season whereas the Western Conference is loaded. Things like that happen in every single sport and TV really doesn't care about that.

What TV DOES care about is (1) there are elimination games as the primary matter and (2) the marketability of the teams playing as a secondary matter. A #7-ranked Ohio State is more valuable than a #6-ranked Baylor for TV purposes every day of the week no matter what the bracket might say, just as they'd take a Yankees or Red Sox team that barely nudged into the AL playoffs as a marginal wild card team than a 117-win Tampa Bay Rays team. If the Rose Bowl is an elimination game, it will draw MONSTER ratings regardless of where the Big Ten champ might be in a given year. That's what the TV people are paying for.

By the way, I concede that last year was basically the worst case scenario (largely driven by the fact that Ohio State, who was #3 in the AP poll, wasn't bowl eligible and couldn't go to the Rose Bowl). Of course, I would have had #16 Northern Illinois get a G5 champ slot, so that would have given #2 Alabama a dramatically easier opponent (as they would deserve) and then #1 Notre Dame could be slotted against #12 FSU. That dramatically changes the matchup disparities that you've harped on (and once again, this was in a year where the best team from the Big Ten was ineligible). Also, let's just look at this year as the complete opposite:

Rose Bowl: #4 MSU vs. #5 Stanford
Sugar Bowl: #2 Auburn vs. #7 Ohio State
Orange Bowl: #1 Florida State vs. #15 UCF (or #8 Missouri without G5 protection)
Fiesta Bowl: #6 Baylor vs. #3 Alabama

Look at that! Perfectly seeded while maintaining all of the tradition (which is the primary point of preserving the bowls in the first place, or else we might as well just get rid of them entirely).

Also, I know that SEC-types constantly worry about the Big Ten or Pac-12 getting an "easy" opponent in the Rose Bowl under this format, but the fact of the matter is that a top-ranked SEC team even more likely to get a much greater advantage (i.e. getting to play a lower-ranked G5 champ) here when looking at history.

The SEC had the upperhand in putting together the 4-team playoff format and, to be sure, I actually agreed with them. Unless you were going to let ALL of the power conferences into the playoff (which obviously isn't possible with 5 power conferences and only 4 spots), then there was little point in putting any restrictions on whether participants were conference champs and ensuring that there was "bracket integrity". The SEC was absolutely correct in pushing for that format since trying to put in some type of "best 4 conference champs" or "best 3 conference champs plus 1 at-large" rule was sort of like saying that you're a little bit pregnant: either go all-in or all-out. At 8 teams, though, it changes dramatically when you start incorporating the impact of the bowl tie-ins (which, whether we like them or not, are the mechanism through which the power conferences control the postseason) and auto-bids for all of the power conferences and possibly one for the G5. How much value is added from taking a Pac-12 team away from the Rose Bowl for seeding purposes in order to create whatever someone's personal opinion about bracket integrity might be? Not really that much compared to the value of the Rose Bowl itself. It's little different than the fact that Alabama didn't win its division, yet would get more favorable treatment in the new playoff world than the SEC Championship Game loser. Is that "fair"? Is that preserving bracket integrity?

Now, if you want to re-seed the semifinals to get back to the "bracket integrity" concept when you get to 4 teams, then that makes perfect sense to me, but the power conference champs *should* be getting to go to their "home bowls" in the first round regardless of where they might be seeded (just as NFL's divisional champs always get to play at home in the wild card round no matter how bad they might be). Those are the schools that actually did win their places on-the-field without any polls, computer rankings, formula, etc. They are the only ones that objectively got into the playoff - everyone else is subject to subjectivity and, thus, should be granted less of the benefit of the doubt.

(01-07-2014 11:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  1. They play other sports then. With home sites and a Saturday game, it doesn't have much of an impact.
2. TOTAL non-issue. They have played on that date for only a few years. Even if they had played on that date for a long time, it wouldn't be an issue.
3. It does impact the bowls.

I don't know what the schedules are for student athletes in non-revenue sports. Unless you are going to be Olympian level, you obviously have to prioritize finals no matter what your sports schedule is. I am sure those sports and programs understand that and give some leeway in terms of amount of practices and what not.

But on a playoff week? The weekend prior to Final exams? How do you put that on the plate of 80 kids per club? Not everybody is taking Ballroom Dancing 101 either. I don't know. I just think that's unfair.

As far as Army/Navy, they want that game to be relevant. Army can no longer compete at the top of FBS level. They want that game to be their Super Bowl, and that's really the only national exposure they get. Why minimize that? Why schedule it on any other Saturday? You clearly can't fit it in anywhere else with all the CCG's at the end of the year now. As an early window that Saturday (also moving the Heisman presentation back a full week), it is a slap in the face to those kids. I am not gonna lie and tell you I watch the game every year, but Army/Navy is good for college footbal and should be celebrated as a SB of sorts for the servicemen.

The only sensible solution is to play the Championship games Thanksgiving weekend (eliminate a bye week), and then have 4 playoff games first weekend of December. 12:30 ET, 4:00 ET, 7:30 ET, and 8:30 ET.

1st off- independent Notre Dame last year. Shouldn't have to be treated as a road team in 1st round...

2nd off- it was Bill Hancock who said Bracket Integrity. not Mike Slive.

Also- I'd contend this year is the fluke.

Look 2 years ago:
1 LSU vs 6 Arkansas
3 Oklahoma St vs 4 Stanford
5 Oregon vs 10 Wisconsin
11 Virginia Tech vs 2 Alabama

Why should 5/10 get to play each other while 3/4 play each other? Or 1/6 even.

Or 2008-
1 Oklahoma vs 6 Utah
2 Florida vs 4 Alabama
5 USC vs 8 Penn St
19 Va Tech vs 3 Texas

Why should 5/8 get to play each other while 2/4 have to play each other?

As I've said before look at the NCAA tournament. Just in the last few years they started seeding the tourney where in the final 4 if all advanced it'd be 2/3 and 1/4. And they put in rules this year to make it much more straight seeding and a lot fewer procedural bumps.

Also look at the 3 years I presented...

SEC games:
'12- 2 Alabama vs 5 Kansas St
'11 1 LSU vs 6 Arkansas
'08 2 Florida vs 4 Alabama

Wow that's just so easy for the SEC. NOT

And the Rose Bowl a couple years ago- when TCU beat Wisconsin- BEAT the next year when Oregon/Wisconsin played each other. The Rose Bowl is the attraction....

(01-07-2014 01:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  1st off- independent Notre Dame last year. Shouldn't have to be treated as a road team in 1st round...

2nd off- it was Bill Hancock who said Bracket Integrity. not Mike Slive.

Also- I'd contend this year is the fluke.

Look 2 years ago:
1 LSU vs 6 Arkansas
3 Oklahoma St vs 4 Stanford
5 Oregon vs 10 Wisconsin
11 Virginia Tech vs 2 Alabama

Why should 5/10 get to play each other while 3/4 play each other? Or 1/6 even.

Or 2008-
1 Oklahoma vs 6 Utah
2 Florida vs 4 Alabama
5 USC vs 8 Penn St
19 Va Tech vs 3 Texas

Why should 5/8 get to play each other while 2/4 have to play each other?

As I've said before look at the NCAA tournament. Just in the last few years they started seeding the tourney where in the final 4 if all advanced it'd be 2/3 and 1/4. And they put in rules this year to make it much more straight seeding and a lot fewer procedural bumps.

The issue is that you're looking at these rankings as somehow set in stone and intractable, yet that simply isn't the case in football (which has always been why there's been such a clamor for a playoff in the first place). The NCAA Tournament basketball committee has the benefit of a ton of data with the sheer volume of games and frequent intersectional matchups, so they have a lot more to base their seedings on (and even with all of that data, we still have only seen 4 #1 seeds make it to the Final Four in the same year once). Football has a lot fewer games generating much less data (and even the data available is much less reliable) and, just importantly, fewer and fewer intersectional games to draw any real comparisons from. 9-game conference schedules mean that the only real objective comparisons that you can make between teams are within their own conferences. Otherwise, everything else is based on the subjective eye test. Just look at the preponderance of lower-ranked teams that beat much more highly-ranked teams in bowls (Louisville last year over Florida, OU over Alabama, UCF over Baylor and Clemson over OSU this year) - these teams are MUCH more even than people are trying to make them out to be when looking at numerical rankings (and it's made worse by the echo chamber in the media whenever it deems a certain conference to be the best or worst in a given year).

So, I come from it with the view that the 8-team playoff field is essentially even in terms of quality (and, honestly, if you're a 1-loss team or a power conference champ, you pretty much HAVE to be a good team) just as being one of the top 8 seeds in the NCAA Tournament field means that you're a Final Four-worthy team, and, as a result, don't find much objection to preserving traditional bowl tie-ins in the first round. If you want to re-seed everyone in the semifinals where the tie-ins don't matter, I'm perfectly cool with that.

(01-07-2014 02:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  And the Rose Bowl a couple years ago- when TCU beat Wisconsin- BEAT the next year when Oregon/Wisconsin played each other. The Rose Bowl is the attraction....

No. According to the BCS, http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809856 , TCU-Wisconsin had an 11.3 rating and Oregon-Wisconsin an 11.8 rating. Also, TCU-Wisconsin was the last Rose Bowl game broadcast over the air, on ABC. Oregon-Wisconsin was on ESPN.

But there is a closer comparison that shows the same point.

Look at 2003. That was the year the Orange pissed off the Rose by manipulating the BCS selection rules (which were changed so that it couldn't happen again) to set up a USC-Iowa game in the Orange Bowl while the Rose had to replace Ohio State (who was in the BCS title game) with Oklahoma for an OU-Washington State game. Both games were on ABC. The Orange had the matchup that "on paper" should draw more casual viewers. But...

Rose Bowl, OU-WSU: 11.3 rating
Orange Bowl, Iowa-USC: 9.7 rating

(01-07-2014 02:03 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Also look at the 3 years I presented...

SEC games:
'12- 2 Alabama vs 5 Kansas St
'11 1 LSU vs 6 Arkansas
'08 2 Florida vs 4 Alabama

Wow that's just so easy for the SEC. NOT

Why would SEC play an At-Large SEC? Makes no sense... even for the purpose of selling tickets and shipping other At-Larges to more favorable locales.

I'm sorry, but when Bill Hancock said yesterday what he said about bracket integrity- that spoke volumes. TV doesn't want 2 top 4 teams playing in the QF's. Why would they want to waste that game? Ratings get better as the playoff goes along. And I'm sorry- but to say that the rankings are pretty much meaningless(which is exactly what you are trying to say)- is a cmoplete joke. You can't tell me that anyone with the slightest of a brain would know that FSU was #1 and Auburn #2 this year. Or last year Notre Dame #1 and Alabama #2. Or that Wisconsin was the worst team in the tournament and Stanford one of the 2-3 other worst teams. Folks would know that Wisconsin/Stanford was just gerrymandered crap- while 2 better teams had to play and knock one of those out. Folks don't want that.

(01-07-2014 02:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 02:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  And the Rose Bowl a couple years ago- when TCU beat Wisconsin- BEAT the next year when Oregon/Wisconsin played each other. The Rose Bowl is the attraction....

No. According to the BCS, http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809856 , TCU-Wisconsin had an 11.3 rating and Oregon-Wisconsin an 11.8 rating. Also, TCU-Wisconsin was the last Rose Bowl game broadcast over the air, on ABC. Oregon-Wisconsin was on ESPN.

But there is a closer comparison that shows the same point.

Look at 2003. That was the year the Orange pissed off the Rose by manipulating the BCS selection rules (which were changed so that it couldn't happen again) to set up a USC-Iowa game in the Orange Bowl while the Rose had to replace Ohio State (who was in the BCS title game) with Oklahoma for an OU-Washington State game. Both games were on ABC. The Orange had the matchup that "on paper" should draw more casual viewers. But...

Rose Bowl, OU-WSU: 11.3 rating
Orange Bowl, Iowa-USC: 9.7 rating

OK- that's fine. Look then last year. Stanford/Wisconsin 9.4. TCU/Wisconsin 2 years prior 11.3(and no, it was not the last Rose broadcast on ABC, it was the 1st one broadcast on ESPN).

(01-07-2014 02:33 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 02:03 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Also look at the 3 years I presented...

SEC games:
'12- 2 Alabama vs 5 Kansas St
'11 1 LSU vs 6 Arkansas
'08 2 Florida vs 4 Alabama

Wow that's just so easy for the SEC. NOT

Why would SEC play an At-Large SEC? Makes no sense... even for the purpose of selling tickets and shipping other At-Larges to more favorable locales.

If you did that with the Tank's proposal- the SEC would get even tougher games. 2 years ago- LSU instead of playing Arkansas would have had to play Stanford. So 1/4 play each other while 5 and 10 play each other. BRILLIANT..

(01-07-2014 02:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  If you did that with the Tank's proposal- the SEC would get even tougher games. 2 years ago- LSU instead of playing Arkansas would have had to play Stanford. So 1/4 play each other while 5 and 10 play each other. BRILLIANT..

Goes to show the meaning of rankings... who would LSU rather play? Arkansas or Stanford? Nobody wants to see a rival in the playoff. Too much to lose. I think you are making too much of this.

Of course Frank still hasn't adressed the more pressing issue of scheduling around the NFL playoffs. So his proposal is also a non-starter as far as I can see.

(01-07-2014 02:44 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 02:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  If you did that with the Tank's proposal- the SEC would get even tougher games. 2 years ago- LSU instead of playing Arkansas would have had to play Stanford. So 1/4 play each other while 5 and 10 play each other. BRILLIANT..

Goes to show the meaning of rankings... who would LSU rather play? Arkansas or Stanford? Nobody wants to see a rival in the playoff. Too much to lose. I think you are making too much of this.

Of course Big Ten fan would say this. Never should 1/4 play each other in a QF for gosh sakes. At least I'd be pretty certain based on what Hancock said yesterday that they never will play in a QF.

(01-07-2014 02:46 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Of course Big Ten fan would say this. Never should 1/4 play each other in a QF for gosh sakes. At least I'd be pretty certain based on what Hancock said yesterday that they never will play in a QF.

I am not a fan of Big 10 football though. No attachment to that conference as of yet and certainly not to the Rose Bowl. I didn't even watch the Rose Bowl this year. Great matchup, but no NC implications so no need to watch it.

But people are missing the point. The BCS bowls cannot exist simultaneously with an 8 team playoff. You cannot have three travel weekends to neutral sites. Nobody has the time or money for that. People are not making three Holiday trips back to back to back. That's where the discussion starts and ends. If you can't sell the place out at a reasonable price (note cheapest NCG tickets in history last night), you don't have a meaningful game for all intensive purposes (from an economic standpoint).

Or how about this? Make the Bowls an extension of the regular season. Then seed and play the semifinal games at home sites. This neutralizes any advantageous matchups that certain B1G or PAC schools had in round 1. But again, how do you schedule around Wild Card and Divisional weekend? Don't have an answer.

If the #4 team is knocked out, do you really think they give a rip that the 2nd round is at home sites? Big Ten/Pac 12 would have such a potential huge unfair advantage that it is total crap.

SEC/ACC/B12 will NEVER go along with that. Nor would TV. Rose Bowl did ok when TCU was in there. The Rose Bowl is the star- not the Big Ten/Pac 12.

(01-07-2014 03:02 PM)stever20 Wrote:  If the #4 team is knocked out, do you really think they give a rip that the 2nd round is at home sites? Big Ten/Pac 12 would have such a potential huge unfair advantage that it is total crap.

SEC/ACC/B12 will NEVER go along with that. Nor would TV. Rose Bowl did ok when TCU was in there. The Rose Bowl is the star- not the Big Ten/Pac 12.

The Big Ten and Pac-12 MADE the Rose Bowl the star. Sure, if you only get an anomaly like TCU every once in awhile, then it doesn't detract what makes the Rose Bowl special in the first place (although the Rose gritted its teeth in having to take TCU as opposed to an at-large Stanford, who it would have taken 100 times out of 100 if it wasn't contractually obligated to do otherwise). However, if you just have random teams playing in the Rose Bowl every year, then it's not really the Rose Bowl anymore and becomes just another neutral site game that happens to be played in Pasadena. That might not mean much to the other conferences that sold out their traditions years ago, but the irony is that the Big Ten and Pac-12 managed to keep a significantly higher level of brand equity long-term than all of the other leagues. Even if the Sugar Bowl might pay out the same amount on paper, it still pales in comparison to the Rose Parade exposure and everything else that comes with the Rose Bowl. Don't blame the Big Ten and Pac-12 that they actually have an asset (the Rose Bowl) that still matters and has value beyond a contract.

(01-07-2014 03:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 03:02 PM)stever20 Wrote:  If the #4 team is knocked out, do you really think they give a rip that the 2nd round is at home sites? Big Ten/Pac 12 would have such a potential huge unfair advantage that it is total crap.

SEC/ACC/B12 will NEVER go along with that. Nor would TV. Rose Bowl did ok when TCU was in there. The Rose Bowl is the star- not the Big Ten/Pac 12.

The Big Ten and Pac-12 MADE the Rose Bowl the star. Sure, if you only get an anomaly like TCU every once in awhile, then it doesn't detract what makes the Rose Bowl special in the first place (although the Rose gritted its teeth in having to take TCU as opposed to an at-large Stanford, who it would have taken 100 times out of 100 if it wasn't contractually obligated to do otherwise). However, if you just have random teams playing in the Rose Bowl every year, then it's not really the Rose Bowl anymore and becomes just another neutral site game that happens to be played in Pasadena. That might not mean much to the other conferences that sold out their traditions years ago, but the irony is that the Big Ten and Pac-12 managed to keep a significantly higher level of brand equity long-term than all of the other leagues. Even if the Sugar Bowl might pay out the same amount on paper, it still pales in comparison to the Rose Parade exposure and everything else that comes with the Rose Bowl. Don't blame the Big Ten and Pac-12 that they actually have an asset (the Rose Bowl) that still matters and has value beyond a contract.

The thing is- the Big Ten and Pac 12 don't have the control they had even 20 years ago. They aren't calling the shots now, and won't be going forward. Just look at the evolution of the playoff that we have starting next year. Big Ten and Pac 12 got NOTHING they wanted out of it. So why anyone would expect them to get something that would put the other 3 P5 conferences at a competitive disadvantage next time just blows my mind. That's the bottom line.

(01-07-2014 02:55 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  But people are missing the point. The BCS bowls cannot exist simultaneously with an 8 team playoff. You cannot have three travel weekends to neutral sites. Nobody has the time or money for that. People are not making three Holiday trips back to back to back. That's where the discussion starts and ends. If you can't sell the place out at a reasonable price (note cheapest NCG tickets in history last night), you don't have a meaningful game for all intensive purposes (from an economic standpoint).

The bowls would either be part of the playoff or they would be taken down a notch. When you add more teams to the playoff, the bowls become even more NIT-ish than they already are. There is no way around that.

I think you'd have to have the first round hosted by the higher-seeded teams in order to sell enough tickets. Maybe if you play the semifinals of an 8-team playoff at neutral sites, you could rotate the bowl games in there, or more likely sell them to highest bidders as with the title game.

As for the tickets to last night's game: Those were the cheapest scalpers' prices, no doubt due to both teams being 2,000 miles from Pasadena. Every ticket was sold initially at face value, and the price the scalpers get doesn't affect the amount of money that the BCS got from ticket sales.

(01-07-2014 03:02 PM)stever20 Wrote:  If the #4 team is knocked out, do you really think they give a rip that the 2nd round is at home sites? Big Ten/Pac 12 would have such a potential huge unfair advantage that it is total crap.

SEC/ACC/B12 will NEVER go along with that. Nor would TV. Rose Bowl did ok when TCU was in there. The Rose Bowl is the star- not the Big Ten/Pac 12.

The crap here is the "What happened last year will happen forever" short-term thinking. If the #4 team didn't win its conference and other teams that actually won their games on-the-field take up too many spots, then tough luck. It's amazing that we go through all of this conference realignment and emphasizing the importance of your league and then we're suddenly supposed to completely ignore whether someone actually won their league.

And you're so far off about TV - if it was their choice, there would be an 8-team playoff consisting of Ohio State, Florida, Texas, Alabama, Notre Dame, USC, Michigan and Florida State every year. The ranking/seeding number that happens to be in front of their name is meaningless to the TV people as long as it knows that they are playing elimination games in a playoff. If there are objective rules to get into the playoff, then people have shown to be fine with that. We see it in the NFL virtually every year where teams with better records get trumped by teams that won their divisions. What ought to be more bothersome is having so much competitively and financially determined by subjective factors by a handful of people in a smoke-filled room on a Sunday morning in December. Taking as much out of the hands of the committee where they need to decide as little as possible ought to be the long-term goal.

(01-07-2014 03:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 03:02 PM)stever20 Wrote:  If the #4 team is knocked out, do you really think they give a rip that the 2nd round is at home sites? Big Ten/Pac 12 would have such a potential huge unfair advantage that it is total crap.

SEC/ACC/B12 will NEVER go along with that. Nor would TV. Rose Bowl did ok when TCU was in there. The Rose Bowl is the star- not the Big Ten/Pac 12.

The crap here is the "What happened last year will happen forever" short-term thinking. If the #4 team didn't win its conference and other teams that actually won their games on-the-field take up too many spots, then tough luck. It's amazing that we go through all of this conference realignment and emphasizing the importance of your league and then we're suddenly supposed to completely ignore whether someone actually won their league.

And you're so far off about TV - if it was their choice, there would be an 8-team playoff consisting of Ohio State, Florida, Texas, Alabama, Notre Dame, USC, Michigan and Florida State every year. The ranking/seeding number that happens to be in front of their name is meaningless to the TV people as long as it knows that they are playing elimination games in a playoff. If there are objective rules to get into the playoff, then people have shown to be fine with that. We see it in the NFL virtually every year where teams with better records get trumped by teams that won their divisions. What ought to be more bothersome is having so much competitively and financially determined by subjective factors by a handful of people in a smoke-filled room on a Sunday morning in December. Taking as much out of the hands of the committee where they need to decide as little as possible ought to be the long-term goal.

There's a huge difference though..
NFL- NFC this year. What you are saying is Seattle should have to play San Francisco- because Philly(Big Ten rep) and New Orleans(Pac 12 rep) have to play each other in the Rose Bowl.

Bottom line- the P5 conferences outside the Big Ten and P12 control things now. NOT the Big Ten/Pac 12. It was clearly evident- and emphasized yesterday. Bracket Integrity. Rose Bowl next year won't be gerrymandered to protect the Rose Bowl. New sheriff in town- and it's not the Big Ten/Pac 12.