113 replies to this topic

[Oriole85]

ESPN: Six bowls in playoff format

http://espn.go.com/c...mes-sources-say

Also, the highest-rated champion from the "Group of Five" conferences -- the Big East, Conference USA, Mountain West, Sun Belt and Mid-American -- will receive an automatic berth in one of the host bowls.

I think this is great, that was my concern of shutting out the mid-majors.

With the Group of Five earning an automatic bid, that will lock up seven of the 12 berths in the six access bowls along with the Rose (Pac-12 vs. Big Ten); Sugar (Big 12 vs. SEC) and Orange (ACC vs. Big Ten, SEC or Notre Dame). The other five berths will be filled with at-large teams chosen, based on their final rankings, by a yet-to-be-formed selection committee.

[BSLMikeLowe]

Curious about how the "rankings" will be determined here. Is it one or both of the human polls, or something like the current BCS rankings that also factors in computerized rankings? Also, what the criteria will be for selecting a lower ranked team for one of the access bowls simply because they are a more attractive opponent (i.e. sell tickets and get good TV ratings) than a higher ranked team.

Along those lines:

http://espn.go.com/c...-pre-bcs-system

The latest BCS standings have Florida State (9-1) ranked 10th, behind three two-loss teams. The average computer ranking, which accounts for one-third of the BCS formula, has Florida State 16th, including two computer polls that do not rank the Seminoles at all.

The reason for Florida State's limited appeal in the computer polls is a particularly soft strength of schedule, which includes two FCS teams and a weak ACC slate. Still, Clemson comes in two spots ahead of the Seminoles in the computer polls despite FSU having won the head-to-head matchup.

This is where I have a huge problem with the computers. Yes, FSU has a weak schedule, mainly because the ACC is weak overall. But they are also penalized for playing two FCS teams this season. But what the computers fail to take into account (because I guess they can't be programmed to) is that West Virginia backed out of a game this season with FSU because they needed an extra spot in their schedule to move to the Big XII, and all FSU could get on such short notice was an FCS team. That's hardly FSU's fault, and the human polls seem to have taken that into account. Same goes for how the computers have penalized Oregon for a crappy OOC schedule, yet they would have played K-State had they not backed out.

[Oriole85]

While I agree it's hardly FSU's fault, they have to penalized for playing weaker out-of-conference schedule, all things being equal. Oregon is undefeated and in a major conference, that's the difference I see. Life is unfair, what else can I s say?

[Oriole85]

ESPN: ESPN has deal to show Sugar Bowl

http://espn.go.com/c...r-deal-air-game

[Oriole85]

ESPN: ACC, Orange Bowl reach deal

http://espn.go.com/c...eal-sources-say

[Oriole85]

ESPN: ESPN Reaches 12-Year Agreement For New College Football Playoff

http://espnmediazone...otball-playoff/

[Oriole85]

CBS Sports: New playoff system helps, but won't eliminate end-of-season bowl arguments

http://www.cbssports...-bowl-arguments

What I've been saying about controversy continuing. One positive about this year (which isn't the case every year) is that the two teams are pretty consensus. I don't too many think these aren't the two most deserving teams. Now if you had four teams, that's opening up a can of worms because you have four teams that could make a case to be in the 3rd/4th teams.

[DJ MC]

The goal of a playoff system has never been to eliminate controversy, but to create a fairer way to determine a champion for the sport.

There will always be teams who get left out for one reason or another.

[You Play to Win the Game]

The goal of a playoff system has never been to eliminate controversy, but to create a fairer way to determine a champion for the sport.

There will always be teams who get left out for one reason or another.

Agreed. I think we can almost always say that the top 4 teams will give us the best and true champion left standing after the playoffs. Extend it to 8 or 16 and then you run the risk of a mediocre team getting hot and winning the title. No system is holistically fair, so it is what it is in that regard.

[Oriole85]

Agreed. I think we can almost always say that the top 4 teams will give us the best and true champion left standing after the playoffs. Extend it to 8 or 16 and then you run the risk of a mediocre team getting hot and winning the title. No system is holistically fair, so it is what it is in that regard.

No disagreement, you got controversy with basketball, and there's freakin 68 teams. I think some believe that by expanding it, the controversy will either go way or lessen and I'm just not sure the latter will be the case necessarily. I'd keep it at four in the near future myself, and it sounds like the NCAAs will as well based on the contract.

[You Play to Win the Game]

No disagreement, you got controversy with basketball, and there's freakin 68 teams. I think some believe that by expanding it, the controversy will either go way or lessen and I'm just not sure the latter will be the case necessarily. I'd keep it at four in the near future myself, and it sounds like the NCAAs will as well based on the contract.

Yeah, I agree. And I think the important thing for football in particular, is to maintain the uber importance of regular season games, while also providing a playoff to somewhat mitigate the controversy of deciding a champion.

It's interesting, there were some debates last week about the early season Duke match-ups (Duke vs. Louisville; Duke vs. Ohio State). On one hand, it's great to see those match-ups of two very good teams prior to conference play... on the other hand, the losing team really isn't dealt much of a blow at all (IE: It's sort of meaningless for the most part).

[Oriole85]

Yeah, I agree. And I think the important thing for football in particular, is to maintain the uber importance of regular season games, while also providing a playoff to somewhat mitigate the controversy of deciding a champion.

It's interesting, there were some debates last week about the early season Duke match-ups (Duke vs. Louisville; Duke vs. Ohio State). On one hand, it's great to see those match-ups of two very good teams prior to conference play... on the other hand, the losing team really isn't dealt much of a blow at all (IE: It's sort of meaningless for the most part).

I agree with everything you are saying here. As great as March Madness is and it's my favorite sports event, it comes with diminishing the regular season. Pre-conference play is pretty watered down to begin with, even conference play, teams like Duke/Kentucky are almost assured making the tournament, they'd have to really play down to their talent level as opposed to college football, where teams like USC/Alabama aren't assured of anything, one loss even in the new format and they could be out. This is also one of the reasons I am/was against the additional WC spot in baseball since I want the playoffs to be as exclusive as possible.

I'm probably in the minority on this and doubt it would ever happen, but going down to 40 teams wouldn't be such a bad idea, I'd have fewer automatic bids though. And as we've seen in recent years with George Mason, VCU, and Butler as well as early losses by Kansas and Duke, seeding doesn't matter as much as it once did IMO.

[DJ MC]

No disagreement, you got controversy with basketball, and there's freakin 68 teams. I think some believe that by expanding it, the controversy will either go way or lessen and I'm just not sure the latter will be the case necessarily. I'd keep it at four in the near future myself, and it sounds like the NCAAs will as well based on the contract.

I've always said that I want 16, because it is the most fair system (each conference champion plus five (now six) at-larges).

[DJ MC]

Yeah, I agree. And I think the important thing for football in particular, is to maintain the uber importance of regular season games, while also providing a playoff to somewhat mitigate the controversy of deciding a champion.

It's interesting, there were some debates last week about the early season Duke match-ups (Duke vs. Louisville; Duke vs. Ohio State). On one hand, it's great to see those match-ups of two very good teams prior to conference play... on the other hand, the losing team really isn't dealt much of a blow at all (IE: It's sort of meaningless for the most part).

That isn't a difference in playoff philosophy. That's a basic difference in the length of each sport's season.

College basketball teams can recover because they play 30 games. College football teams can't because they play 12.

[Oriole85]

I've always said that I want 16, because it is the most fair system (each conference champion plus five (now six) at-larges).

You be OK with an 18 game season (12 regular season, another if you play at Hawaii, conference championship game, then four playoff games) in some cases? I think you would need the conferences to meet some sort of basic threshold to qualify for an automatic spot. Don't think you want a 7-5 Sun Belt champion in there. Take it you wouldn't mind if the NFL expanded it's regular season to 18 games and not too concerned with player safety?

[You Play to Win the Game]

That isn't a difference in playoff philosophy. That's a basic difference in the length of each sport's season.

College basketball teams can recover because they play 30 games. College football teams can't because they play 12.

How much recovering do you need to do following a loss to a top 5 team in the country when 68 teams make the playoffs? That's my point. It really is meaningless, unless the recovery you're referencing is w/r/t regaining your top #1/#2 seed status...

[Oriole85]

That isn't a difference in playoff philosophy. That's a basic difference in the length of each sport's season.

College basketball teams can recover because they play 30 games. College football teams can't because they play 12.

I think you have a point. After all, one loss in baseball isn't going to be a lethal blow despite blow -- the Yankees could lose to the Astros in the middle of June and most likely it's not going have a big effect on their season. However, if you are taking away playoff spots, you are increasing the importance of the regular season regardless of how many games are played.

[Oriole85]

How much recovering do you need to do following a loss to a top 5 team in the country when 68 teams make the playoffs? That's my point. It really is meaningless, unless the recovery you're referencing is w/r/t regaining your top #1/#2 seed status...

It's preseason for the Dukes/Kentucky of the world, the real season isn't until March. Now for a team like Maryland, they'll need at this point, every win they can get and any out-of-conference losses need to be avoided. That said, with such a large sample size, they can probably afford one bad loss between now and conference play and still make the tournament if they have a decent conference record.

[Oriole85]

ESPN: Projecting a CFB playoff field (Insider)

http://insider.espn....ield-season-ncf

Projected 2012 Playoff, Bowl Matchups
If there were a playoff in place for the 2012 season, this is what the projected matchups for the "contract" and "access" bowls would look like, including the two national semifinal games.

• Rose Bowl (national semifinal)
1 Notre Dame vs. 4 Stanford
• Sugar Bowl (national semifinal)
2 Alabama vs. 3 Florida
• Orange Bowl
Florida State vs. Georgia
• Fiesta Bowl
Oregon vs. Wisconsin
• Cotton Bowl
Kansas State vs. Texas A&M
• Chick-fil-A Bowl
LSU vs. Northern Illinois

[DJ MC]

You be OK with an 18 game season (12 regular season, another if you play at Hawaii, conference championship game, then four playoff games) in some cases? I think you would need the conferences to meet some sort of basic threshold to qualify for an automatic spot. Don't think you want a 7-5 Sun Belt champion in there. Take it you wouldn't mind if the NFL expanded it's regular season to 18 games and not too concerned with player safety?

There is a basic threshold: Division I-A versus Division I-AA.

You're talking about a very rare case where a team would play 18 games. Only two teams would even play seventeen under a sixteen-team playoff, so your comparison to a controversial NFL topic doesn't work.