College Playoff

[knapplc]

A few pages back, knap called a playoff a "round robin". As a point of clarification, it's not. It's a single-elimination tournament.

Carry on.

Well, I said the whole shebang was a "round-robin/seeded tournament system," meaning that you play the regular season to determine seeding for the post-season tournament.

I'll admit that wasn't terribly clear, and the term "round-robin" wasn't the best choice because college football's regular season isn't a round-robin format.

Sorry for the confusion. I tend to comment when I have no time to comment, and that leads to unclear statements.

 

[Saw31]

the whole shebang

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqmy5qrvaVQ"]William Hung - American Idol 'She Bangs' - YouTube[/ame]

 

[BB73]

For the presumably forthcoming 4-team playoff, I am in favor of taking only conference champions, and I'm definitely in favor of having the first round hosted at the sites of #1 and #2, which can eliminate a Sun-belt advantage that's existed in bowl games. It's a reward for the regular season, and a chance for many more hometown fans to attend a huge game than would be able to attend a 'neutral' bowl site.

I find it somewhat ironic that playoff proponents want to include teams that aren't conference champions. In reality, taking 4 conference champions makes the CCGs the first round of an 8-team playoff. If you can't win your CCG, which is a playoff game, GTFO of the Final Four playoff teams.

And if you didn't reach your CCG, too damn bad. Sorry, 2011 Bama, you'd be out. In the current climate of college football, all conferences except the SEC should support this format, since the SEC would be lobbying (with ESPN leading the cheers) for 2 teams in the final 4 every year if it wasn't restricted to conference champs.

I'm for taking the 4 highest-ranked conference champions after the CCGs are played. It's tantamount to an 8-team playoff, and I don't want to see it watered down any more than that.

What to do about ND and conferences with less than 12 teams and no CCG? As far as I'm concerned, make them join a 12+ team conference if they want a chance to play for the title.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BB73 speaks truthiness

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

BB73 speaks truthiness

Indeed, up until he said:

What to do about ND and conferences with less than 12 teams and no CCG? As far as I'm concerned, make them join a 12+ team conference if they want a chance to play for the title.

At which point, he should have simply said:

What to do about ND and conferences with less than 12 teams and no CCG? As far as I'm concerned, they can go fuck themselves.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I find it somewhat ironic that playoff proponents want to include teams that aren't conference champions. In reality, taking 4 conference champions makes the CCGs the first round of an 8-team playoff. If you can't win your CCG, which is a playoff game, GTFO out the Final Four playoff teams.

Unfortunately, CCGs can be jokes amongst themselves. Look at when Kansas State (6-2 conference record) played (and beat) Oklahoma (8-0 conference record) in the Big 12 CCG a while back. If you're willing to consider a 2-conference-loss team good enough for the "first round of an 8-team playoff", then why not just expand the field to 16, and take the top ranked teams regardless of whether or not they're a conference champion?

 

[Buckeye86]

Unfortunately, CCGs can be jokes amongst themselves. Look at when Kansas State (6-2 conference record) played (and beat) Oklahoma (8-0 conference record) in the Big 12 CCG a while back. If you're willing to consider a 2-conference-loss team good enough for the "first round of an 8-team playoff", then why not just expand the field to 16, and take the top ranked teams regardless of whether or not they're a conference champion?

What a hilarious reversal of the "prove it on the field in a tournament" line of reasoning.

 

[ArmyVet83]

For the presumably forthcoming 4-team playoff, I am in favor of taking only conference champions, and I'm definitely in favor of having the first round hosted at the sites of #1 and #2, which can eliminate a Sun-belt advantage that's existed in bowl games. It's a reward for the regular season, and a chance for many more hometown fans to attend a huge game than would be able to attend a 'neutral' bowl site.

I find it somewhat ironic that playoff proponents want to include teams that aren't conference champions. In reality, taking 4 conference champions makes the CCGs the first round of an 8-team playoff. If you can't win your CCG, which is a playoff game, GTFO out the Final Four playoff teams.

And if you didn't reach your CCG, too damn bad. Sorry, 2011 Bama, you'd be out. In the current climate of college football, all conferences except the SEC should support this format, since the SEC would be lobbying (with ESPN leading the cheers) for 2 teams in the final 4 every year if it wasn't restricted to conference champs.

I'm for taking the 4 highest-ranked conference champions after the CCGs are played. It's tantamount to an 8-team playoff, and I don't want to see it watered down any more than that.

What to do about ND and conferences with less than 12 teams and no CCG? As far as I'm concerned, make them join a 12+ team conference if they want a chance to play for the title.

This is beginning to sound like the establishment of 4 SUPER Conferences down the road. Forces teams like ND to choose and soon. IMO, it's beginning to look like an ACC, B1G, SEC and PAC super confrences with at least 16 teams per. Big East is losing steam as is the Big 12. Teams like Boise State, TCU, and Temple are getting while the getting is good which will leave other teams scrabbling to find a conference. Gotta a feeling things will be going down much sooner rather than later.

 

[matcar]

What a hilarious reversal of the "prove it on the field in a tournament" line of reasoning.

Exactly. If you are in favor of a playoff, then you have to allow for some "lesser" team winning. That's one of many things playoff enable.

 

[BB73]

Unfortunately, CCGs can be jokes amongst themselves. Look at when Kansas State (6-2 conference record) played (and beat) Oklahoma (8-0 conference record) in the Big 12 CCG a while back. If you're willing to consider a 2-conference-loss team good enough for the "first round of an 8-team playoff", then why not just expand the field to 16, and take the top ranked teams regardless of whether or not they're a conference champion?

The 16-team thing isn't happening any time soon, so you're really just beating a dead horse with it.

Conference championships matter. Making only conference champions eligible gets rid of the whole 'beauty pageant' aspect of the polls and the BCS. It reduces the influence of ESPN. It would allow September non-conference games between powerhouses without the fear of a loss damaging national championship hopes.

2003 Kansas State probably wouldn't make the 4 team playoff in my scanario, but they would have knocked Oklahoma out of it. But the proposed scenario makes that CCG much more meaningful than it was, since Oklahoma lost it and made the BCS Title game anyway that year. That's why that CCG was a joke, not because Kansas State wasn't a top-8 team going into the game.

 

[knapplc]

The 16-team thing isn't happening any time soon, so you're really just beating a dead horse with it.

I think it's only a matter of time, though. A four-team format is just the beginning. Once playoffs start, and the money starts to flow (or, rather, to shift its flow from one pocket to another), we'll have a larger and larger playoff every time the question comes up.

Conference championships matter. Making only conference champions eligible gets rid of the whole 'beauty pageant' aspect of the polls and the BCS. It reduces the influence of ESPN. It would allow September non-conference games between powerhouses without the fear of a loss damaging national championship hopes.

This is a good point. And anything that eliminates the influence of ESPN, et al, is good in my opinion.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

The 2007 Patsies have themselves to blame and nobody else for not winning that game. We're throwing out the concept of playoffs because the Pats pissed one down their leg?

1985 - who's your champion then, Syracuse or St. John's? Both beat Georgetown in the regular season.

Syracuse, obviously.

 

[buxfan4life]

Syracuse, obviously.

Nah, they would have been to high to play. :p

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

The 16-team thing isn't happening any time soon, so you're really just beating a dead horse with it.

Key words being "any time soon". It will happen eventually.

I think it's only a matter of time, though. A four-team format is just the beginning. Once playoffs start, and the money starts to flow (or, rather, to shift its flow from one pocket to another), we'll have a larger and larger playoff every time the question comes up.

^-- word --^

 

[Piney]

For the presumably forthcoming 4-team playoff, I am in favor of taking only conference champions, and I'm definitely in favor of having the first round hosted at the sites of #1 and #2, which can eliminate a Sun-belt advantage that's existed in bowl games. It's a reward for the regular season, and a chance for many more hometown fans to attend a huge game than would be able to attend a 'neutral' bowl site.

I find it somewhat ironic that playoff proponents want to include teams that aren't conference champions. In reality, taking 4 conference champions makes the CCGs the first round of an 8-team playoff. If you can't win your CCG, which is a playoff game, GTFO of the Final Four playoff teams.

And if you didn't reach your CCG, too damn bad. Sorry, 2011 Bama, you'd be out. In the current climate of college football, all conferences except the SEC should support this format, since the SEC would be lobbying (with ESPN leading the cheers) for 2 teams in the final 4 every year if it wasn't restricted to conference champs.

I'm for taking the 4 highest-ranked conference champions after the CCGs are played. It's tantamount to an 8-team playoff, and I don't want to see it watered down any more than that.

What to do about ND and conferences with less than 12 teams and no CCG? As far as I'm concerned, make them join a 12+ team conference if they want a chance to play for the title.

I think what they decide to do about Independent teams will be a HUGE indication of the future of college football.

They could go two routes, first they can do a compromise and put in a provision IF an Independent team finishes in the Top 5, and is higher ranked than any 4 conference champions, then the Independent team makes it. Or, to not single out Indpendents they could allow 1 wildcard team and 3 conference champions, unless 4 conference champions are ranked in the Top 5.

The second route is to make it conference champions PERIOD. If they do this, I wouldn't doubt Notre Dame secretly signed off on it as Swarbrick might WANT to join a conference, but needs political cover to do so. So gave a *wink*wink*nod*nod* to the plan but will come out publically against it, and then tell his alum that this forces Notre Dame to join a conference.

I think it's only a matter of time, though. A four-team format is just the beginning. Once playoffs start, and the money starts to flow (or, rather, to shift its flow from one pocket to another), we'll have a larger and larger playoff every time the question comes up.

While that might happen, it won't happen anytime soon. I am willing to bet all I own that this plan will have a LONG contract prohibiting expansion of the playoff past 4 teams for at least 10-15 years.

Now, in saying that, I can easily see in 15-20 years when DIFFERENT people are in charge, that a larger playoff might happen. Depending on how they structure this one it will either make it tougher or easier to expand.

What if they make it ironclad that 4 Conference Champions make it, what if this pushes everything to the formation of Super Conferences and there really are only 4 real conferences... is there even a need to go past 4?

Or if they only do the top 4 teams type thing and SEC starts putting 2-3 teams in on an annual basis, or maybe only 2 conferences end up in the top 4, then it might be an easy call to expand past 4.