|
Replies: 30
| visibility 1
|
All-In [30593]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 28685
Joined: 8/17/05
|
serious question about the playoffs
Dec 9, 2013, 10:18 AM
|
|
how is this thing gonna work? Is the committee just gonna decide who they feel the 4 most deserving are? Will rankings be used at all? Are there any automatics?
Is the BCS ranking system still going to exists?
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [14921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12314
Joined: 3/28/06
|
No one really knows how they're going to decide. Of course
Dec 9, 2013, 10:21 AM
|
|
no one really knows how the BCS computers work(ed) either so it's a lateral move at worst.
But the BCS ranking system is out.
That's why this whole playoff debate was so stupid to begin with. No one really knocked the BCS RANKING system, just the results of the "two best teams."
They didn't have to start from scratch--I think everyone could agree that a bunch of computers could pick the best 8 or 16 teams and let them finish it on the field, just not confidently let them pick the best two and play once for all the marbles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
i believe the 4 teams are selected & seeded by the committee
Dec 9, 2013, 10:23 AM
|
|
no bcs polling, no computers, no media although i don't think the committee can be immune.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25028]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42974
Joined: 7/31/10
|
So it's a 'corporate' decision... just like everything else.***
Dec 9, 2013, 10:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
'democratic' in some form, i think it gets 'truer' with more
Dec 9, 2013, 10:34 AM
|
|
teams involved.
baby steps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14241
Joined: 2/5/08
|
Yes.***
Dec 9, 2013, 10:27 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
Link?***
Dec 9, 2013, 10:36 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14241
Joined: 2/5/08
|
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=147726***
Dec 9, 2013, 11:06 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 10117
Joined: 11/1/11
|
I'll say this
Dec 9, 2013, 10:32 AM
|
|
If you're a "finess" team, hang it up. They're going to pick hard hitting, big, physical, fast teams modeled after their coveted SEC example. I can see it now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 89053
Joined: 3/27/01
|
I'd say that depends on the make-up of the committee....
Dec 9, 2013, 10:34 AM
|
|
but just like the current BCS, E$ecPN will try to manipulate them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re:
Dec 9, 2013, 12:12 PM
[ in reply to I'll say this ] |
|
"their coveted SEC model" Who is their? In the new committee scenario, there is representation from every conference, including the AD at Clemson
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 89053
Joined: 3/27/01
|
Until the play-off format is expanded to at least 16 teams..
Dec 9, 2013, 10:32 AM
|
|
I think most people will prefer the old BCS format to the new committee selected 4-team playoff format.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Really? I don't think so.
Dec 9, 2013, 10:34 AM
|
|
Just the fact that four teams have a shot at playing their way to a championship, instead of 2, should improve things for people who don't like the BCS (which is just about everybody).
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 89053
Joined: 3/27/01
|
I just think four is too few....
Dec 9, 2013, 10:38 AM
|
|
and there will always be controversy surrounding the teams who were and were not selected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I understand, but isn't 4 better than 2?
Dec 9, 2013, 10:41 AM
|
|
I personally think it strikes a good balance. If you expand it to 8 teams, you've got 2-loss teams with a shot at the championship. Further devalues the regular season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 89053
Joined: 3/27/01
|
I just think the conference bias will be worse....
Dec 9, 2013, 11:05 AM
|
|
particularly if there are no unbeaten AQ teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16654]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11665
Joined: 9/1/01
|
Really should have to win your conference to get in. That
Dec 9, 2013, 11:15 AM
|
|
would take most of the posturing out of it. This year the wrangling would only be over who of Stanford, Michigan State and Baylor would join FSU and Auburn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1950]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2548
Joined: 9/12/04
|
That would also solve the problem of teams being afraid
Dec 9, 2013, 11:26 AM
|
|
to schedule the big, marquee OOC matchups. Currently, there's no reason to risk getting a loss OOC. With winning your conference being all that matters, teams will be more inclined to play tough teams early to get ready for the conference slate...especially because there will be a big payday attached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1950]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2548
Joined: 9/12/04
|
wait why is mar-quee censored? that's dumb.***
Dec 9, 2013, 11:27 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4504]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9112
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 89053
Joined: 3/27/01
|
It's definitely a step in the right direction....
Dec 9, 2013, 11:35 AM
|
|
but they need to take it a few steps further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29050]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36110
Joined: 8/28/00
|
I'd be fine with 16 teams
Dec 9, 2013, 10:34 AM
[ in reply to Until the play-off format is expanded to at least 16 teams.. ] |
|
But honestly 8 is so very simple.
Conference champs of the 6 AQ conferences (maybe 5 soon), then some combination of best of the other conference champs and non conferenc champs from AQ conferences.
But, the key is Win your AQ conference = go to playoff. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [626]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1750
Joined: 9/2/03
|
Re: I'd be fine with 16 teams
Dec 9, 2013, 11:42 AM
|
|
YES, YES, YES. I have thought that all along. This way every D1A team has a shot at the title.
> But honestly 8 is so very simple.
>
> Conference champs of the 6 AQ conferences (maybe 5
> soon), then some combination of best of the other
> conference champs and non conferenc champs from AQ
> conferences.
>
> But, the key is Win your AQ conference = go to
> playoff. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [123]
TigerPulse: 22%
Posts: 306
Joined: 6/21/12
|
If this were 2014..on SI this morning...
Dec 9, 2013, 10:35 AM
|
|
If this were 2014 ...
Each week I've shown what the new big-six bowl lineup (including playoff matchups) would hypothetically look like if the new postseason format were already in place. For this exercise, I'll use the final BCS standings in place of the forthcoming selection committee's rankings.
Sugar: No. 1 Florida State (ACC champ) vs. No. 4 Michigan State (Big Ten champ)
Rose: No. 2 Auburn (SEC champ) vs. No. 3 Alabama (BCS at-large)
Fiesta: No. 5 Stanford (displaced Pac-12 champ) vs. No. 7 Ohio State (at-large)
Cotton: No. 6 Baylor (displaced Big 12 champ) vs. No. 15 UCF (Group of Five)
Chick-fil-A: No. 9 South Carolina (at-large) vs. No. 10 Oregon (at-large)
Orange: No. 12 Clemson (ACC replacement) vs. No. 8 Missouri (SEC/Big Ten/Notre Dame)
I've asked playoff officials several times and been assured that no, the committee will not fuddle with seeding to avoid a regular-season rematch in the semifinals. So if these rankings were in fact the real deal, Alabama and Auburn would stage Iron Bowl II ... in California.
Stanford, as the next highest-ranked team, would get geographic preference in Arizona. The Cardinal would play a de facto Rose Bowl matchup with the Buckeyes, whose fans always travel well there. Baylor would make sense in the Cotton Bowl, and South Carolina in the Chick-fil-A. Clemson and Missouri would fulfill the Orange Bowl's contractual obligations. Finally, following Northern Illinois' loss, UCF would finish as the highest-ranked Group of Five team. To avoid a South Carolina-UCF rematch, I had to send Oregon farther east than I'd prefer.
Note in this system that Oregon makes one of the big-six bowls but Oklahoma does not -- at least one notable departure from this year's lineup.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20131208/florida-state-auburn-final-bcs-overtime/#ixzz2mzY6SWXi
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30593]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 28685
Joined: 8/17/05
|
Yea... but that's the problem...
Dec 9, 2013, 10:42 AM
|
|
every projection us based on BCS standings. What if the left BAMA off for Stanford or Missouri.
Every projection uses BCS top 4, but I don't think that's how it will work
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30979]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34592
Joined: 6/22/03
|
it will be worse IMO.
Dec 9, 2013, 10:54 AM
|
|
There is a low possibility that 4 teams from now AQ conferences will go undefeated. It is impossible for 2 undefeated teams from any conference with a championship game. You WILL have 1 and 2 loss teams be chosen over other 1 and 2 loss teams. The conference prejudice will be worse.
Where will the committee get their information? The media. My opinion and lack of sympathy will not change. You want in, win all your games. Every one had a shot. If you lose then deal with the mercy of this committee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1950]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2548
Joined: 9/12/04
|
It needs to be an 8-team playoff...
Dec 9, 2013, 11:13 AM
|
|
The 5 major conference champions get a bid (with AAC no longer being a major conference), the highest rated champion (or Independent team) from a non-major conference gets a bid, and then there should be 2 at-large spots. The committee then can reseed the teams to make it more fair for the top teams.
This year, that would result in:
1 FSU (ACC) vs 8 UCF (higest rated of non-major conference)
2 Auburn (SEC) vs 7 Ohio State (at-large)
3 Alabama (at-large) vs 6 Baylor (Big 12)
4 Michigan State (Big 10) vs 5 Stanford (PAC 12)
I don't think anyone would complain about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16654]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11665
Joined: 9/1/01
|
At least 2 SEC teams required, and they can't play each
Dec 9, 2013, 11:12 AM
|
|
other in the first round. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7657]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4767
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: serious question about the playoffs
Dec 9, 2013, 11:44 AM
|
|
I honestly think that every conference champion should have a shot in a playoff system. All 10 conference champions, plus 6 at large selections based on record and to include the independents. Just my opinion. Not sure how it would be structured.
Some conferences are stacked and continue to be handed more and more money, which turns into better recruits and better facilities. This consistently helps them to remain where they are without giving those lesser stacked conferences a chance - ever.
Yes - I think Rice should have a chance to play for it all because they won their conference. So what if they had a weak schedule due to conference affiliation. And in the near future they might be pummeled consistently due to lack of top notch competition ... but 10-12 years from now, who knows?
Win your conference and earn a shot at winning it all. Imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16382]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12819
Joined: 11/14/09
|
My feeling is that were it in place this year, that a
Dec 9, 2013, 12:02 PM
|
|
committee would have likely placed 1-loss and top 6 ranked conference champions Michigan State and Baylor ahead of 1-loss non-champion Alabama. Stanford could edge out either Baylor or Michigan State here, but not likely with the 2 losses.
The BCS's biggest problem has really been getting a clear-cut #2 team. This year, 1 and 2 are obvious, so the onus of the 3 and 4 dissipates, opening the door some for a greater spread.
In year's past there's been a clear #1 going in most years. Some years #2 is also clear, but it also gets jumbled there (think OK State 2011). Teams 3 and 4 can stretch out to ranking #'s 6-7 as it just becomes much less clear in that area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I would like to see 8
Dec 9, 2013, 12:34 PM
|
|
6 Champs from power conferences
1 At large (highest rated) team from power conference that didn't win their conference
1 Highest ranked team not from a power conference.(Brings in the Cinderella element like March Madness)
Every FBS school has a chance to play to the Natty.
This will never happen because the power brokers from the big conferences know they have a monopoly. They dont want to level the playing field (even a little)or share any of the revenue with schools outside of the 6 power conferences. The new system virtully eliminates current non AQ schools.
At any rate, we are stuck with the 4 team playoff for the next 12 years because that is how long the contract is for...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 30
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
