Under playoff format ACC participation dicey

[Orangeyes]

Given thier past history. They have only had one, one loss team since 2001.

Click

Teel's Take

Here is a list of the University Presidents meeting in Washington DC on Tuesday‎‎

 

[SU2NASA]

Given thier past history. They have only had one, one loss team since 2001.

Click

Teel's Take

Here is a list of the University Presidents meeting in Washington DC on Tuesday‎‎

Chaired by the ACC representative.

 

[TexanMark]

Way too much drama over this...the battle to be fought will be over $$$ distribution. Several big boy conferences will be be angry if their Conference Championship costs them a spot in the Top 4 so they will be more inclined to keep money payouts more predictable and not dependant on an individual conference team making the Top 4. I gotta think the income will be spread more and the 4 teams' conferences will not get the lions share. Look at how BB is distributed.

Edit: Looks like they are thinking how I thought. Also, it looks like the BE is going to get squeezed out of the Big Boy Table...they'll probably get more than the other midmajors but less than the Big 5. Thank you TGD!

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/767/ncaa-football-payouts-may-not-change-much

 

[SmilinBob]

The biggest problem is that if an ACC team other than FSU/VT/Miami and maybe Clemson has one loss and an SEC, Big 12 or Big 10 has one loss...we lose and will not be selected. This is where I have a big problem with this process because the bigger the schools name is, the better the chance they get into the top 4...a solid reputation always bumps them up. We are at the big boy table unlike the big east but we are going to be getting the last plate at the buffet and it's quite annoying that this is such a blue blood thing.

Now that being said, if the ACC can start to get some top teams consistently in the top 5 and multiple ones at that, that perception will start to change.

 

[texascpa]

The biggest problem is that if an ACC team other than FSU/VT/Miami and maybe Clemson has one loss and an SEC, Big 12 or Big 10 has one loss...we lose and will not be selected. This is where I have a big problem with this process because the bigger the schools name is, the better the chance they get into the top 4...a solid reputation always bumps them up. We are at the big boy table unlike the big east but we are going to be getting the last plate at the buffet and it's quite annoying that this is such a blue blood thing.

Now that being said, if the ACC can start to get some top teams consistently in the top 5 and multiple ones at that, that perception will start to change.

You're probably right, which means the selection committee will hear hear a lot of hootin' and hollerin' from media and fans when that occurs. It will be a couple years of that when they decide that an 8 team format will be better for everyone. I can guarantee that this 4 team format will not be long-lived.

 

[SmilinBob]

I hope it does expand as well...I imagine SU having an 12-1 record and Bama a 11-2 record, we have a SOS of 1 they have one of 49 and when asked to compare on who gets into the final 4 the annalists just say SEC...they don't parse into the details just answer, SEC.

 

[TexanMark]

Access looks more inclusive as I predicted.

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/62336/bcs-presidents-meeting-primer

 

[SU2NASA]

A 1-loss Big East team is pretty much screwed no matter what.

 

[BlazeOrange]

The biggest problem is that if an ACC team other than FSU/VT/Miami and maybe Clemson has one loss and an SEC, Big 12 or Big 10 has one loss...we lose and will not be selected. This is where I have a big problem with this process because the bigger the schools name is, the better the chance they get into the top 4...a solid reputation always bumps them up. We are at the big boy table unlike the big east but we are going to be getting the last plate at the buffet and it's quite annoying that this is such a blue blood thing.

Now that being said, if the ACC can start to get some top teams consistently in the top 5 and multiple ones at that, that perception will start to change.

I could accept the ACC champion losing out to other conference champions with the same record - might not always like or agree with it. With only four spots open and potentially more teams with the top record, it's reasonable. The problem, as noted in a later post, is when teams from percieved stronger conferences with worse records get picked ahead of the ACC champion. Even then, sometimes there might be a valid case for it, depending on who the losses were to and what significant victories each team can show. As long as it gets actual, open-minded consideration by the committee, that's all we can ask for.

 

[Moontan]

As long as it gets actual, open-minded consideration by the committee, that's all we can ask for.

That and an expansion to 8 teams.

 

[JrodCuse]

I think we can at least all agree it is a step in the right direction and better than the BCS we had.

 

[IthacaMatt]

You're probably right, which means the selection committee will hear hear a lot of hootin' and hollerin' from media and fans when that occurs. It will be a couple years of that when they decide that an 8 team format will be better for everyone. I can guarantee that this 4 team format will not be long-lived.

Eight has always seemed like the right number to me. That's enough spots for every team, pretty much, with a legitimate shot of winning the championship, no matter what conference they are in. Boise would have made the playoffs in past years, for example, if there were 8 teams.

 

[Orangeyes]

Eight has always seemed like the right number to me. That's enough spots for every team, pretty much, with a legitimate shot of winning the championship, no matter what conference they are in. Boise would have made the playoffs in past years, for example, if there were 8 teams.

Baby steps.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Baby steps.

I agree. But this is where I hope they end up, and incorporate more of the bowls into the playoff.

 

[texascpa]

I agree. But this is where I hope they end up, and incorporate more of the bowls into the playoff.

That's another point. How long will some of these bigger bowls go with knowing A) it's not their year in the rotation or B) they will never be part of the rotation. The Bowls will have some say, especially if tv viewership shifts due to this new structure.

 

[orangenirvana]

When are people going to understand that on-field performance (especially regarding conferences) goes in cycles?

People have such short freakin' memories. It wasn't long ago that Florida State and Miami dominated college football. Shortly after that, the Pac 10 and Big 12 were kings. There was a 10 year stretch not long ago where the SEC took a back seat to a few conferences. Now people expect the SEC to rule college football forever. It's ridiculous.

 

[TexanMark]

When are people going to understand that on-field performance (especially regarding conferences) goes in cycles?

People have such short freakin' memories. It wasn't long ago that Florida State and Miami dominated college football. Shortly after that, the Pac 10 and Big 12 were kings. There was a 10 year stretch not long ago where the SEC took a back seat to a few conferences. Now people expect the SEC to rule college football forever. It's ridiculous.

I'm 22 and have been watching college football for 3 years, I know what I'm talking about. I have smart people like Dennis Dodd telling me I'm correct.

 

[dollarbill44]

The biggest problem is that if an ACC team other than FSU/VT/Miami and maybe Clemson has one loss and an SEC, Big 12 or Big 10 has one loss...we lose and will not be selected. This is where I have a big problem with this process because the bigger the schools name is, the better the chance they get into the top 4...a solid reputation always bumps them up. We are at the big boy table unlike the big east but we are going to be getting the last plate at the buffet and it's quite annoying that this is such a blue blood thing.

Now that being said, if the ACC can start to get some top teams consistently in the top 5 and multiple ones at that, that perception will start to change.

For non-marquee teams to get consideration for a NC game, it is usually a 2-3 year process anyway. What I mean by that is it typically takes a solid 9 or 10 win season + a bowl win, with a lot of guys returning, to get the national attention, and then an undefeated season with a decent OOC schedule the following year to get into the title mix. I don't see it as being different under the 4 (8) team tourney scenario.

It was the same back in 1987. Had SU had a 9 win season and a bowl in '86, the '87 team wouldn't have had to slowly climb into the rankings early on. It took 4 weeks just to break into the rankings. If you start in the top 20, it's a lot easier to move up by winning early but you can't start out in the top 20 unless you have the formula I outlined above.

 

[PhatOrange]

It's not dicey at all if you just beat who's on your schedule.

 

[SmilinBob]

For non-marquee teams to get consideration for a NC game, it is usually a 2-3 year process anyway. What I mean by that is it typically takes a solid 9 or 10 win season + a bowl win, with a lot of guys returning, to get the national attention, and then an undefeated season with a decent OOC schedule the following year to get into the title mix. I don't see it as being different under the 4 (8) team tourney scenario.

It was the same back in 1987. Had SU had a 9 win season and a bowl in '86, the '87 team wouldn't have had to slowly climb into the rankings early on. It took 4 weeks just to break into the rankings. If you start in the top 20, it's a lot easier to move up by winning early but you can't start out in the top 20 unless you have the formula I outlined above.

That's why I always liked the win your conference you go...no stupid rigged/uneducated polls or perception.

 

[longtimefan]

For non-marquee teams to get consideration for a NC game, it is usually a 2-3 year process anyway. What I mean by that is it typically takes a solid 9 or 10 win season + a bowl win, with a lot of guys returning, to get the national attention, and then an undefeated season with a decent OOC schedule the following year to get into the title mix. I don't see it as being different under the 4 (8) team tourney scenario.

It was the same back in 1987. Had SU had a 9 win season and a bowl in '86, the '87 team wouldn't have had to slowly climb into the rankings early on. It took 4 weeks just to break into the rankings. If you start in the top 20, it's a lot easier to move up by winning early but you can't start out in the top 20 unless you have the formula I outlined above.

Which is the main reason there should be no polls until there is some indication as to who is good and who isn't. Like maybe on October 15.

 

[OrangePA]

A 1-loss Big East team is pretty much screwed no matter what.

I thought the piece indicated that small conf champs would have greater access to the bowls.

 

[SU2NASA]

I thought the piece indicated that small conf champs would have greater access to the bowls.

They can say that all they want, but when it comes to selecting teams for the non-semifinal (and not Orange Bowl or Champions Bowl) games, the bowls can select whoever they want. They can select whoever they damn well please. And how many of those bowls are going to want to select any team from the Sun Beast and what they bring versus a school from the Big Ten or SEC or...