Moving on to the Selection Committee...

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Next year they will have to pick 4 teams. Do they take 4 conference champions? Do they take two from the same conference? Do they take ND/BYU and 3 at large teams? What if there are 6 or 7 teams with one loss or less? It could get more confusing than the BCS/SEC championship.

 

[babuka]

Which is why it has to go to 8 and have automatic qualifiers. It never needs to go past 8 though. ACC, B1G, PAC-12, SEC,BIG-12 conference champions automatically get it. The last 3 can be selected by the committee or some of the lesser conferences can have a play in game. I care less about the last 3 teams. What's important is that you can get in by winning your conference and not by popularity.

The selection committee can seed the teams. So I am sure the SEC bias will get them numerous one seeds (which means you get to play weakest team in tourney.). Also in 8 team playoff the first game is at highest seeds field, like the NFL.

 

[Dustman]

SEC west champ, SEC east champ, at-large SEC team and rotate one team from former AQ. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

I agree that we need 8, but this is what we are stuck with for the foreseeable future. A lot of pressure on the selection committee to not place bias in the selection like the BS did the past many years.

 

[awbuzz]

8 at the minimum preferably 16. That way no one has any reason to whine if they do not get in.

 

[UgaBlows]

SEC west champ, SEC east champ, at-large SEC team and rotate one team from former AQ. I hope I'm wrong.

This will probably happen

 

[Animal02]

Undefeated conference champions from the SEC, PAC, B12, B10, ACC in that order. After that, one loss teams in the same order. After that....high ranking SEC teams

 

[Animal02]

Good article on the end of the BCS
http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/07/bcs-farewell/

 

[KlausMikaelsonTheOriginal]

I think that most of you guys have got it wrong.

The perfect number is 6 Teams for the CFB-Playoffs.

The Top-2 seeds get those seeds based on SoS or W-L record vs. the toughest schedule kinda like a CFB version of what basketball uses to give out #1 seeds for the NCAA tourney, it would be possible for those 2 teams to be from the same conference or the Top-2 seeds could be independents (BYU & ND) from no conference for example.

After the Top-2 seeds are chosen the next 2 seeds are chosen based on the Conference Champs of the next 2 toughest conferences, it could be the Champs of the numbers 1 & 2 conferences if the top-2 seeds are filled by Independents or they could be the Champs of the 3rd &4th toughest conferences if the first 2 seeds are populated by the champs of the Top-2 conferences or they could be filled by the champs of the 2nd and 3rd toughest conferences if the top-2 seeds came from the same conference, the same would happen if you had one independent team and one conf. champ as the top 2 seeds.

The last 2 seeds the 5th and 6th seeded teams would be at-large based on W-L record vs. the toughest schedule.

The ideology behind doing it this way is to give incentives for Conf. comissioners and ADs to increase the number of conference games to 9 or 10 conference games and to limit the numbers of crappy games scheduled vs. FCS teams.

If SoS factors heavily in everything associated with the new playoff system, then that will limit the Media lovefest with the SEC and it will give conferences like the ACC to schedule their way into the Nat'l discussion if they choose to do so.

If you guarantee conference champs slots in the new playoff system, then weak conferences have no incentive to increase the numbers of conf. games played and then the ADs will simply use the OOC games for scheduling cupcakes.

Under this system no more than 4 of the 6 playoff slots can go to Conference champs, so the ADs and conference commissioners will have to WORK at toughening up their schedule each yr, to give their programs a chance at the playoff system.

Under my proposed system going 11-1 vs. a weak schedule is not likely to get you a top-6 seed.

No automatic qualifiers, the 6 seeds go to the teams with the best W-L records vs. tough schedules.

With the current system IMO, there is too much of an incentive for schools to water down the schedule to try and get a top-4 seed, under my system even with 2 extra teams, there is an incentive to play better teams in the reg. season which is great for all CFB fans.

Teams that are serious about having a shot at the playoffs under my system won't have 4 cupcakes for their OoC games.

Once all the teams are chosen, the 1 and 2 teams get a bye and then the 3 seed plays the 6 seed and then the 4 seed plays the 5 seed, and then based on the winners of those games the #1 seed gets the highest seed and the #2 seed get the lowest seed left.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Not in favor of any byes. Too little margin of difference between the top 4,6, and even 8 teams to grant any a bye.

 

[KlausMikaelsonTheOriginal]

Not in favor of any byes. Too little margin of difference between the top 4,6, and even 8 teams to grant any a bye.

That's what creates that extra incentive for teams to schedule-up and then hope it pays off with a bye if they have the proper W-L record, rather than loading up on cupcakes and then trying to back-door their way into the playoffs.

Without the bye, the regular season loses value because shady ADs will simply load the schedule up with cupcakes.

For example, were it not for Mich. St.; tOSU would have cupcaked their way into the BCS #1 vs. #2 game, rather than "hoping" that things work themselves out you can out-smart the ADs and take away their incentive to load the schedule up with cupcakes.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

The selection committee can / will / should factor "strength of schedule" into the selections. Keep in mind too that scheduling often occurs far out from the date of competition. It's difficult to say how good a team will be 5-8 years from now but that is often how far in advance match ups are made.

Deciding who gets a bye creates too many unnecessary problems and increases the likelihood if dissatisfaction with the process IMO.

 

[KlausMikaelsonTheOriginal]

The selection committee can / will / should factor "strength of schedule" into the selections. Keep in mind too that scheduling often occurs far out from the date of competition. It's difficult to say how good a team will be 5-8 years from now but that is often how far in advance match ups are made.

Deciding who gets a bye creates too many unnecessary problems and increases the likelihood if dissatisfaction with the process IMO.

If you don't want to be worried about that happening 5-8 years down the road then never schedule FCS teams like ND, USC, UCLA, Stanford and a few other programs do.

Every suggestion you have made allows shady ADs and shady HCs to load up the schedule with cupcakes, with ticket prices always increasing and never decreasing something has to be done to "force" ADs to schedule tougher OoC games.

This also prevents "name brand" schools like Bama from unfairly getting the nod over up & comers that are more deserving for that one year in question.

For example, a few years back, Bama didn't win its conference and ended up playing for the BCS Title with the same exact final record as Okie St., but Okie St. had played a tougher SoS over the course of that season, but was shut out of the MNC game because of Bama's "name recognition".

My goal is to create a more fair system, so that the most deserving team gets what they deserve based on what happens on the field and not because one team has a bigger name in the media than another team.

All it takes is one team to lose a playoff spot because they scheduled cupcakes, and then the ripple down effect will spread among ADs and then you'll see better OoC games scheduled.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

SOS = SEC. They think their schedule is so tough they can schedule 4 patsies. If they give byes, I could see two SEC teams getting byes in certain years. You are back to the BS era, where someone decides who the top two are.

 

[KlausMikaelsonTheOriginal]

SOS = SEC. They think their schedule is so tough they can schedule 4 patsies. If they give byes, I could see two SEC teams getting byes in certain years. You are back to the BS era, where someone decides who the top two are.

Nope, not the case, the truth is is that more of the top teams from the Pac-12 have had tougher SoS's than a lot of the SEC teams in recent years.

If the SEC wanted to schedule 4 patsies then the ACC could trump them by going to a 9 or 10 game conference schedule, and that bye that you talked about would disappear into thin air.

My system creates a strong incentive to "schedule up", none of the other playoff scenarios create that, and when that happens, those schools and conferences that already have "name recognition" (read SEC), already have huge advantage.

I'm trying to eliminate the advantages that the SEC and tOSU type teams have at this point.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The only good thing to come out of a 4 team playoff is that it is much harder to have a team miss a chance at a Natty because it was too hard to decide the top 2 best teams. A team that places 5th and left out is less of a travesty than a team who places 3 and left out by the BCS standard. Just look no further than Michigan State who's only loss was 17 - 13 at ND. The zebras handed that one to the Irish and that's coming from a ND fan. Just look at this and tell me if you were a Spartan fan you wouldn't feel cheated out of a title shot.

 

[Animal02]

The only good thing to come out of a 4 team playoff is that it is much harder to have a team miss a chance at a Natty because it was too hard to decide the top 2 best teams. A team that places 5th and left out is less of a travesty than a team who places 3 and left out by the BCS standard. Just look no further than Michigan State who's only loss was 17 - 13 at ND. The zebras handed that one to the Irish and that's coming from a ND fan. Just look at this and tell me if you were a Spartan fan you wouldn't feel cheated out of a title shot.

It is also BS that MSU with one loss ended up 3rd behind the 2 loss Auburn

 

[dressedcheeseside]

It is also BS that MSU with one loss ended up 3rd behind the 2 loss Auburn

Well one of those was the natty game.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Auburn was 12-1 going into the Championship Game, just like Michigan State.

Here's the thing, you can't look at the game like ND-Mich St. and say if, then. If Michigan State won that game, no one knows how the rest of the season would have played out. Maybe there would have been more pressure on MSU, and they would have lost to someone else. Maybe the target would have been bigger, and an opponent would have played harder. There's no way of knowing how beating ND would have affected the remainder of their schedule.

That being said, I think Michigan State had every bit of as good an argument to be playing FSU as Auburn did.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Auburn was 12-1 going into the Championship Game, just like Michigan State.

Here's the thing, you can't look at the game like ND-Mich St. and say if, then. If Michigan State won that game, no one knows how the rest of the season would have played out. Maybe there would have been more pressure on MSU, and they would have lost to someone else. Maybe the target would have been bigger, and an opponent would have played harder. There's no way of knowing how beating ND would have affected the remainder of their schedule.

That being said, I think Michigan State had every bit of as good an argument to be playing FSU as Auburn did.

My point is that even with the ND loss, MSU would not have been left out of a 4 team playoff and would have had a chance to prove itself.