re: Playoffs will have its own poll system ...

"Check out the big brain on Brad"

I'm pretty sure everyone in the SEC outside of some leftover butthurt fans in the LSU camp would rather conference champions not be a requirement.

I honestly think it is better for the sport, but others just want a second chance at getting to the playoff.

I also feel like there are enough worthy candidates in other conferences to not use the "eye test" to shut out other conferences for one conference to get multiple representatives.

quote:

---

I'm hearing the committee chairman will be Gene Stallings who will get 2 votes: 1 for him and 1 for Bear. He'll also have the option to veto any decisions made by the committee.

Roll Turd

---

"Mike & Mike" right now discussing playoff name - "College Football Playoff" - replacing BCS. Talking about other names thrown out. One of their favorites - "The Second SEC Tourney" ....

quote:

---

3. There will be no formula. This is key. They can consider all input and opinions, and this would include AP poll, which would not violate the AP lawsuit from 2004. They can consider 'computers' if they so desire.
4. There is no selection criteria or requirement, aside from simply being top 4. Major conference/minor conference...conference champion/non-conference champion...doesn't matter, again there is no formula nor requirements

---

I just don't like this. It sounds like a bunch of backroom political operatives making decisions without even feeling compelled to spell out the criteria they think should be consistently considered.

It is fine to have a panel IMO. They are just obligated to make public the criteria for their rankings... then programs can make scheduling choices with some hope of improving their chances of making the playoff.

quote:

---

They are just obligated to make public the criteria for their rankings.

---

If by this you mean official or required criteria, there isn't any. If you mean 'this is why I have these teams ranked top 10', much like a poster would here, that's a good idea. I guess you mean the latter due to " then programs can makes scheduling choices with some hope of improving their chances of making the playoff."

One could see how important OOC, winning conference, record over last few years, etc...is. The Presidential Council said one of their goals is transparency.

That would be a good ideal.

quote:

---

The Presidential Council said one of their goals is transparency.

---

yeah, which sounds great but when you look at what they will be doing seems like just propaganda

quote:

---

I am down with the top four conference champs. If my team can't win the conference I don't see why they get a pass to play in a small playoff relative to the size of the pool of teams.

The number 2 team in a conference came in second from the results of a playoff/tournament already.

---

This is just a dumb statement. So if a team wins the ACC with 3 losses then it should be in over a 1 or 2 loss SEC team.

quote:

---

Hell a couple years ago a 6 loss UCLA team played in the PAC12 title game.

Yeah, they definitely deserve a shot at the national title if they had won.

---

Hell, look at this year. A Wisconsin team that finished 8-6 on the year won the Big Ten... and only got a chance to play because the top one, no, the top TWO teams in the division were DQed.

But yeah, they should get in.

quote:

---

Getting a bye would be way too big an advantage. And I don't care about teams that aren't in AQ conferences. If they're in the top 4 they're in. If not, they don't deserve to be in.

---

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. First, a bye is not a significant advantage compared to not even being able to play. I'm sure every #5 team in the country would rather face the #4 team and then the #1 team off of a bye instead of not being in at all. It's an advantage for #1, #2, #5 and #6 and a disadvantage to #3 and #4. Net gain.

As for strictly top-4, you've just passed the buck a step. Instead of "why didn't we let #5 in?!" it's "why is #5 not #4?!" You'll get the same bullshite problem.

For reference:

1998: Tennessee was 12-0, #1, and undefeated. After them you had five one-loss and one two-loss teams, all from power conferences, ranked 2-7. The 2-loss team, 11-2 Texas A&M, was #6, and the champion of the Big XII. The #3 team? 11-1 Kansas State, which Texas A&M had just beaten in the conference championship game.

2002: #4, 10-2 Southern Cal is in the title game in your situation. #6, 10-2 Washington State, the Pac-10 champion who beat #4 USC in the regular season, is shut out, as is #5, 11-1 Iowa.

2004: #6, 11-0 Utah gets shut out of the BCS in favor of #4, 10-1 Texas. Saying "I don't care about non-AQ teams" is great and all, but that's not legitimate justification for leaving them out of the playoff. There's also #9, 11-0 Boise State.

2005: Both the SEC champion Georgia (10-2, #7) and 10-1 Oregon (#5) get left off for 9-2, non-conference-champ Ohio State. Granted, a strict top-6 entry wouldn't save Georgia, but it would give the committee enough leeway to take them if they had six spots and weren't obligated to go with a poll. Top-4, let alone strict top-4? Nope.

2006: 12-1 SEC champ Florida, 11-1 Michigan, 10-2 LSU, 10-2 Pac-10 champ Southern Cal, 11-1 Big East champ Louisville, 11-1 Wisconsin, and 12-0 Boise State. Pick 3 and only 3, and come up with ironclad reason for cutting the other 4 out of the playoff. (The 6-team playoff struggles with this as well, but to a lesser extent.)

2007: 11-1 Big Ten champ Ohio State, 11-2 SEC champ LSU, 11-2 ACC champ Virginia Tech, 11-2 Big XII champ Oklahoma, 10-2 Georgia, 11-2 Missouri, 10-2 Pac-10 champ Southern Cal, 11-1 Kansas, 10-2 Big East champ West Virginia, 12-0 Hawaii and 10-2 Arizona State. Pick 4 and only 4, and give ironclad reason for cutting the other 7 out of the playoff. (Again, 6-team struggles to a lesser extent.)

2008: 12-1 Big XII champ Oklahoma, 12-1 SEC champ Florida, 11-1 Texas, 12-1 Alabama, 11-1 Pac-10 champ Southern Cal, 12-0 Utah, 11-1 Texas Tech, 11-1 Big Ten champ Penn State, 12-0 Boise State. Pick 4 and only 4, etc.

2009: 13-0 Alabama, 13-0 Texas, 12-0 Cincinnati, 12-0 TCU, 12-0 Boise State, 12-1 Florida. Pick 4.

2010: 13-0 Auburn, 12-0 Oregon, 12-0 TCU, 11-1 Stanford, 11-1 Wisconsin, 11-1 Ohio State. Pick 4.

2012: 12-1 Alabama, 12-0 Notre Dame, 11-1 Florida, 11-1 Oregon, 11-1 Kansas State, and 11-2 Stanford (champ of the Pac-10, beat Oregon). Pick 4.

That's 10 of the 15 years of the BCS where a 4-team playoff would have had issues. A 6-team playoff only struggles with a couple of them.