It's official...4-team playoff approved

[Tatum]

I'm ok with a 4-team playoff...but not like this. At all. So basically...the B1G has conceded that they're ok with playing essentially two bowl games back-to-back in the SEC's backyard for 12 years, with the exception of the Fiesta and (Rose?), still warm-weather sites.

 

 

I'm not completely aware of all the details, what do you mean by this, in detail?

[VA Husker Fan]

Something I posted in another thread for those so worried that the SEC will dominate any playoff. In the 14 years of the BCS they weren't even the conference with the most years of multiple top 4 teams. And no conference ever had more than 2 in the top 4.

 

Here are the top 4 places in all final BCS standings. I know the BCS standings may not even exist when the playoff comes, but it's probably is as accurate as anything to retroactively say who would've been picked for a 4 team playoff. I used the current conference affiliations, and in parens put the one they were in at the time, though I'm not sure exactly when Miami and VT went to the ACC, and couldn't recall which conf TCU was in.

 

1998: SEC, ACC, Big 12, Big 10

1999: ACC, ACC (Big East), Big 10 (Big 12), SEC

2000: Big 12, ACC, ACC (Big East), Pac 10

2001: ACC (Big East), Big 10 (Big 12), Pac 10 (Big 12), Pac 10

2002: ACC (Big East), Big 10, SEC, Pac 12

2003: Big 12, SEC, Pac 12, Big 10

2004: Pac 12, Big 12, SEC, Big 12

2005: Pac 12, Big 12, Big 10, Big 10

2006: Big 10, SEC, Big 10, SEC

2007: Big 10, SEC, ACC, Big 12

2008: Big 12, SEC, Big 12, SEC

2009: SEC, Big 12, Big East, Big 12 (TCU)

2010: SEC, Pac 12, Big 12 (TCU), Pac 12

2011: SEC, SEC, Big 12, PAC 12

['SkersRule]

So is it possible to see 3-4 $EC schools in this four team playoff in one year?

 

Since they'll probably use the BCS standings, and if that many SEC schools are at the top then probably yes.

[Moiraine]

As far as having 3 teams from the same conference, they can easily put a rule in that if there are 3 in the top 4 of the poll, the #5 team gets in. And they did say two of the main points the selection team will consider are "head-to-head results and whether a team is a conference champion" so they are obviously keeping this in mind. If a team is top 4 and 3rd place in the SEC, they've already lost head to head games to at least one of the other teams.

[Notre Dame Joe]

Nice! Thanks for providing the scoop.

 

I'm not sure how this is different from a plus-one model.

 

The +1 would preserve the importance of all the bowls. This one says that 2 of them are transformed into playoff games. And now a selection committee will choose instead of the polls. Yeah, nothing got better today.

 

EDIT: There is no chance the committee will pick the 3rd best SEC team.

[zoogs]

As far as having 3 teams from the same conference, they can easily put a rule in that if there are 3 in the top 4 of the poll, the #5 team gets in.

Moiraine, how is that fair, to the #4 or #3 team left out?

 

I hate hate hate the idea of a selection committee. Which teams make the 4-team dance should be deterministic, not subjective, not arguable. Take the top 4 teams ranked by the BCS. If you don't get in, tough, and you can argue or decry the formula all you want, but at the end of the day those numbers are there, and anybody can point to them. "Those are the rules we agreed to, and here are your numbers. You missed the cut. Sorry buddy."

 

If this committee is what it sounds like, then when a team doesn't make it it's based on some arguments made by some guy behind closed doors somewhere.

 

--

Joe, I thought "two of the bowls becoming playoff games" was the +1. I gotta revisit the terminology...I guess +1 is taken to mean, "#1 and #2" at the end of all the bowls? In which case, I have to say I favor a 4-team playoff. But no damn selection committee, please.

[Moiraine]

As far as having 3 teams from the same conference, they can easily put a rule in that if there are 3 in the top 4 of the poll, the #5 team gets in.

Moiraine, how is that fair, to the #4 or #3 team left out?

 

It's "fair" because they've already lost to one of the other teams in the playoff and the #5 team might be an undefeated team like Oklahoma State last year. I put fair in quotes because there's no such thing as a perfect system. You mention a non subjective way to determine it. That doesn't exist. The BCS is pollsters and computers. I'm guessing (though I obviously don't know) that they'll use the BCS and have some stipulations like what I mentioned.

[VA Husker Fan]

As far as having 3 teams from the same conference, they can easily put a rule in that if there are 3 in the top 4 of the poll, the #5 team gets in.

Moiraine, how is that fair, to the #4 or #3 team left out?

 

It's "fair" because they've already lost to one of the other teams in the playoff and the #5 team might be an undefeated team like Oklahoma State last year. I put fair in quotes because there's no such thing as a perfect system. You mention a non subjective way to determine it. That doesn't exist. The BCS is pollsters and computers. I'm guessing (though I obviously don't know) that they'll use the BCS and have some stipulations like what I mentioned.

Uh, you remember that Okie State lost to Iowa State last year, right?

[Foppa]

As far as having 3 teams from the same conference, they can easily put a rule in that if there are 3 in the top 4 of the poll, the #5 team gets in.

Moiraine, how is that fair, to the #4 or #3 team left out?

 

I hate hate hate the idea of a selection committee. Which teams make the 4-team dance should be deterministic, not subjective, not arguable. Take the top 4 teams ranked by the BCS. If you don't get in, tough, and you can argue or decry the formula all you want, but at the end of the day those numbers are there, and anybody can point to them. "Those are the rules we agreed to, and here are your numbers. You missed the cut. Sorry buddy."

 

If this committee is what it sounds like, then when a team doesn't make it it's based on some arguments made by some guy behind closed doors somewhere.

 

--

Joe, I thought "two of the bowls becoming playoff games" was the +1. I gotta revisit the terminology...I guess +1 is taken to mean, "#1 and #2" at the end of all the bowls? In which case, I have to say I favor a 4-team playoff. But no damn selection committee, please.

 

I would think the selection committee would have to base at least half of their decision on the numbers put in front of them, whether it is BCS, computer, rankings, etc. But I'm not sure how it's going to be set up? Does anyone?

[Foppa]

I'm ok with a 4-team playoff...but not like this. At all. So basically...the B1G has conceded that they're ok with playing essentially two bowl games back-to-back in the SEC's backyard for 12 years, with the exception of the Fiesta and (Rose?), still warm-weather sites.

 

 

I'm not completely aware of all the details, what do you mean by this, in detail?

 

The semi-finals and finals will all be played in bowl games. Which means if NU makes a semi-final game, they will travel to say, Miami and the Orange Bowl, and play Florida. Then, if they advanced, they would play in the Sugar Bowl for the final, and play, say LSU. Granted, this is just a scenario, but it's not completely out of the question that Nebraska would then have to play not one, but two bowl games in the home state of the opponent. And Husker fans thought it was bad enough to do it once at the end of the year...

[Notre Dame Joe]

Pretty sure the Cotton Bowl in Jonestown will be in the mix for the semifinal bowls. Did they announce how that will be decided? Will the bowls rotate who gets to host a semi?

 

And does anyone know if the national title game has to be in a city that hosted an earlier bowl?

[Excel]

I'm ok with a 4-team playoff...but not like this. At all. So basically...the B1G has conceded that they're ok with playing essentially two bowl games back-to-back in the SEC's backyard for 12 years, with the exception of the Fiesta and (Rose?), still warm-weather sites.

 

 

I'm not completely aware of all the details, what do you mean by this, in detail?

 

The semi-finals and finals will all be played in bowl games. Which means if NU makes a semi-final game, they will travel to say, Miami and the Orange Bowl, and play Florida. Then, if they advanced, they would play in the Sugar Bowl for the final, and play, say LSU. Granted, this is just a scenario, but it's not completely out of the question that Nebraska would then have to play not one, but two bowl games in the home state of the opponent. And Husker fans thought it was bad enough to do it once at the end of the year...

 

To my understanding the Sugar Bowl cannot host the finals, that site would be determined by bids.

[exswoo]

You can't really look at the historical rankings to get a sense of how the rankings will play out though.

 

Since the selection committee won't be making the final decision until all the way at the end, I expect most people to just follow the AP and Sagarin rankings for most of the season with the occasional talking head coming up with different bracketology articles based on expected records at the end of the season - similar to college hoops

[exswoo]

Finals will be bid out, so it's possible for the championship to be in Indianapolis or some other city in B1G country

[zoogs]

As far as having 3 teams from the same conference, they can easily put a rule in that if there are 3 in the top 4 of the poll, the #5 team gets in.

Moiraine, how is that fair, to the #4 or #3 team left out?

 

It's "fair" because they've already lost to one of the other teams in the playoff and the #5 team might be an undefeated team like Oklahoma State last year. I put fair in quotes because there's no such thing as a perfect system. You mention a non subjective way to determine it. That doesn't exist. The BCS is pollsters and computers. I'm guessing (though I obviously don't know) that they'll use the BCS and have some stipulations like what I mentioned.

 

But if the #5 team were clearly lackluster in comparison to whatever team gets left out - which may be either #3 or #4...

 

You're right, though, there's no perfect way to do it. And the BCS does use poll #s, so it factors in the human component. However, the result is non-subjective. The BCS condenses everything it uses as factors into one output number. If there are imperfections in its weighting algorithms, that methodology can be released openly and subject to debate. However, the rules are set and clearly defined. If a team didn't make the cut, it can be clearly seen why.

 

If there is even a tiny bit of "purely subjective argument" introduced to a committee decision, then all this is thrown out the window and made worthless. If a team doesn't make the cut, why? Because an eloquent speaker made a passionate 15-minute case for another team? Because it was put up to a human vote and a few guys (whose sympathies might forever be questioned) overruled another?