Latest on BCS Championship Playoffs: Still Four Teams BUT

[arbitragegls]

it appears CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS GET FIRST PICK IF RANKED IN TOP SIX...if not the higher ranked teams not conference champions would go...so Alabama this year would still be in because there were not four conference winners in the top 6. If for example Clemson was in Top 6 and won the ACC it would have been chosen over Alabama in a four team playoff.

B1g Dleany is pushing this and appears to have backing. It could be interesting as a conference like the ACC could have more than one team if other conference winners were not rated highly in top 6. This could be a means of pushing ND into a conference...and the ACC would be the place for ND to go...not as difficult as B1g or Big 12 and certainly would not go BE with all that rift raft...right?
Here is quote:
"In the plan Delany discussed, a conference champion automatically would qualify for the playoff if ranked in the top six. If fewer than four conference champions were among the top six, the remaining spots would be filled by the highest-ranked teams".

 

[kirbivore]

so look at last year's final BCS standings the playoff would have been #1 LSU vs. #4 Stanford and #2 Alabama vs. #3 Oklahoma St.

 

[Moontan]

so look at last year's final BCS standings the playoff would have been #1 LSU vs. #4 Stanford and #2 Alabama vs. #3 Oklahoma St.

Sounds a lot better than a straight SEC re-match.

When it gets to 8 teams, including 5 ranked conference champions (in the top 10? 16? 20?) and the next 3 highest ranked teams it'll be as good as can be expected. We may never see that day.

 

[qdawgg]

If those 4 teams had played in a playoff, the tv rankings would have been through the roof and I doubt there would be much complaining, if any, about who didn't get in. I actually think that this set-up makes the most sense, you don't get any sub-par teams playing just because they won their conference championship.

 

[omniorange]

so look at last year's final BCS standings the playoff would have been #1 LSU vs. #4 Stanford and #2 Alabama vs. #3 Oklahoma St.

If the Delany proposal were in effect for last year it would have been

#1 LSU vs #5 Oregon
#2 Alabama vs #3 Okla St

Stanford shouldn't be in a playoff when Oregon beat them during the regular season especially with the Ducks also winning the Pac-12 championship game. It takes away from the conference championship games, imho.

The problem I see now with Delany's proposal is that if ND finishes #1, but four other conference champions finish between #2 through #6, then ND isn't in the playoff, which also wouldn't be right.

I'm back to my original compromise which is that you take the Top 3 conference champions and then either the fourth ranked conference champion or an at-large selection if they are 'x' spots ahead of the fourth ranked champion in the rankings. The value of 'x' still to be determined but it shouldn't be less than 3 and no more than 5, so I think 4 would be perfect.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[omniorange]

If those 4 teams had played in a playoff, the tv rankings would have been through the roof and I doubt there would be much complaining, if any, about who didn't get in. I actually think that this set-up makes the most sense, you don't get any sub-par teams playing just because they won their conference championship.

You mean like Oregon, who defeated Stanford during the regular season and played LSU during the regular season?

Cheers,
Neil

 

[kingottoiii]

If the Delany proposal were in effect for last year it would have been

#1 LSU vs #5 Oregon
#2 Alabama vs #3 Okla St

Stanford shouldn't be in a playoff when Oregon beat them during the regular season especially with the Ducks also winning the Pac-12 championship game. It takes away from the conference championship games, imho.

The problem I see now with Delany's proposal is that if ND finishes #1, but four other conference champions finish between #2 through #6, then ND isn't in the playoff, which also wouldn't be right.

I'm back to my original compromise which is that you take the Top 3 conference champions and then either the fourth ranked conference champion or an at-large selection if they are 'x' spots ahead of the fourth ranked champion in the rankings. The value of 'x' still to be determined but it shouldn't be less than 3 and no more than 5, so I think 4 would be perfect.

Cheers,
Neil

I like Top 3 BCS as three bids. Then for the 4th the highest ranked conference champ as long as that champ is Top 10. Otherwise it goes to the next best at large. There have been quite a few debates in the past as to who should be #2 and in the NCG. So not taking the #3 on a playoff IMO would hurt in determining who the NC was (like Michigan vs Florida a few years ago). The same can be said of #3 vs #4 but IMO if you are 4th you cannot complain as much as a #3.

 

[omniorange]

I like Top 3 BCS as three bids. Then for the 4th the highest ranked conference champ as long as that champ is Top 10. Otherwise it goes to the next best at large. There have been quite a few debates in the past as to who should be #2 and in the NCG. So not taking the #3 on a playoff IMO would hurt in determining who the NC was (like Michigan vs Florida a few years ago). The same can be said of #3 vs #4 but IMO if you are 4th you cannot complain as much as a #3.

My problem with that is 2006 and 2008.

In 2006 Michigan and LSU (as non-conference champs) ranked #3 and #4. That was the year people were trying to justify having Ohio State and Michigan #1 and #2 even though one of them was going to lose their season-ending game. As it later turned out, a good case could be made that both were overrated in the rankings, particularly Michigan.

In 2008 Texas and Alabama (as non-conference champs) ranked #3 and #4. Utah, at #6 and a conference champion, beat Alabama handily. Who's to say they wouldn't have beaten Texas as well.

A limited team playoff should reward conference champions (a real accomplishment) over perceived accomplishment (rankings) whenever possible and definitely the real accomplishment should trump the perceived accomplishment in any close calls, which is why in 2006, a #5 USC and #6 Louisville should go to a playoff over #3 Michigan and #4 LSU and in 2008 a #5 USC and a #6 Utah should go to a playoff over a #3 Texas and #4 Alabama.

The only time it makes sense for a ranked team to take the spot from a 4th conference champion was last year when comparing #2 Alabama with #10 Wisconsin.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Madbiker]

Any playoff model that screws Notre Dame is good with me.

 

[WoadBlue]

If the Delany proposal were in effect for last year it would have been

#1 LSU vs #5 Oregon
#2 Alabama vs #3 Okla St

Stanford shouldn't be in a playoff when Oregon beat them during the regular season especially with the Ducks also winning the Pac-12 championship game. It takes away from the conference championship games, imho.

The problem I see now with Delany's proposal is that if ND finishes #1, but four other conference champions finish between #2 through #6, then ND isn't in the playoff, which also wouldn't be right.

I'm back to my original compromise which is that you take the Top 3 conference champions and then either the fourth ranked conference champion or an at-large selection if they are 'x' spots ahead of the fourth ranked champion in the rankings. The value of 'x' still to be determined but it shouldn't be less than 3 and no more than 5, so I think 4 would be perfect.

Cheers,
Neil

Yours are two examples that show why a 4 team playoff cannot last long. It will prove as controversial as the 2-teams picked for a Final.

Here is my latest take: