Picking the 4 teams for the semis

[dnemchik]

Yes this is a "what if" thread

If the semis started this year instead of next, what 4 teams should be picked ? AP rankings for post conference championships (Dec 08 rankings) is #1) Florida State #2) Auburn #3) Alabama #4) Michigan State. Is there any good argument to deviate from those 4 ?

And do you match
#1) Florida State vs #4) Michigan State
and
#2) Auburn vs #3) Alabama

Should the fact that Auburn + Alabama are both SE (+ have already played in the regular season) be a reason to not follow the usual #1 vs #4 and #2 vs #3 ?

 

[cane_man]

Maybe baylor over bama. But your seeding would be fine if not. Not really sure how this committee thing will work out, though. Keeping the bcs formula and putting in the top 4, 1v 4 and 2 v 3, seemed like a no brainer. The powers that be will thoroughly fuck this up, however. Intentional chaos and controversy gets more print than giving a shit about happy fans does.

 

[outofyourmind]

Already saw Auburn beat Alabama, so Alabama is out. What's the point?
If Michigan State was in the 4, then Ohio State would be out. Been there done that.
Both the last game of the year too.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Unless they make a rule two teams from the same conference can't get in then Alabama is in the mix. Trust me they say we are the luckiest team on earth but they are the Krammer of College Football and fall ass backwards into good situations.

Auburn would be left out but Alabama would not.

 

[potzer25]

The powers that be will thoroughly fuck this up, however.

+1

I can't see how this will NOT be more controversial than the current BCS forumula used to select #1 vs 2. Over the years there has been a small amount of controversy surrounding which team is #2 but not that much - at most it was probably 1 team that had a reasonable argument for consideration. When you increase the number to top 4, though, there will be more teams with a reasonable argument for being included...

 

[dnemchik]

I can't see how this will NOT be more controversial than the current BCS forumula used to select #1 vs 2.

In my opinion using the poll thats been established + (mostly) respected since the 1930s is the best + least controversial idea. The BCS formula has been worked and reworked every couple years because its been the controversial one. I cant imagine a better option than using the AP poll

 

[dnemchik]

Already saw Auburn beat Alabama, so Alabama is out. What's the point?

With the way that game ended, I think the majority of fans would love seeing a "round #2" between those 2. If you replayed that ending 100 times, what percentage of the possible outcomes end with a Auburn winning in regulation ? Its was a far far better chance that the field goal wins it for Alabama. And of course over 75% of the outcomes would lead to an overtime ending

I would love to see them go at it again this year

 

[dnemchik]

The powers that be will thoroughly fuck this up, however. Intentional chaos and controversy gets more print than giving a shit about happy fans does.

Im afraid of that also. I think that is the most likely scenerio for next year

 

[calsnowskier]

The 4-team playoff is a good start, but I think it needs to be 6 or 8 teams.

Take the champs form the 5 major conferences (ACC, SEC, B1G, Big 12, PAC12), than give 1 (or 3) at-large bids. Then there is only "argument" over 1 (or 3) of the picks.

This should make the power-brokers happy since they will have their conference will be guaranteed AT LEAST one entry; the independents happy since they will still have a chance to get in through the at-large bid; talk radio happy since they can bitch and moan about the 9th best team not getting in; and fans happy because they get a legit tourney.

 

[dnemchik]

Unless they make a rule two teams from the same conference can't get in......

I expect that to be the case

With the Big East belly up and 8 teams moving to other power conferences, that leaves 5 power conferences. Four of them have conference title games. So the Pac, SE, AC, + Big10 will all expect their champ to have a shot. This year the Dec 08 AP rankings were
#1) Florida State (AC title game champ)
#2) Auburn (SE title game champ)
#3) Alabama
#4) Michigan State (B10 title game champ)
#5) Stanford (Pac title game champ)

So maybe Alabama will be considered as having already had their chance. That would leave Stanford as next in line. I dont like the idea of giving the 4th playoff spot to Baylor because the Big 12 has repeatedly stated that theyre not interested in adding 2 more teams + having a title game. That definitely hurts the Big 12 champs chances of being chosen for the 4th spot

I understand that this years Baylor is a compelling team but that doesnt undo the choice that the Big 12 has made. The Big 12 has taken a specific stand not to consider a title game as important. Their decision has consequences. I think their champ needs to be in the top 4 of the AP to be considered for a playoff spot

 

[dnemchik]

; talk radio happy since they can bitch and moan about the 9th best team not getting in;

That is the one absolute certainty in this whole conversation

; and fans happy because they get a legit tourney.

Theres no question that BCS "rabbit out of a hat" picking the championship teams has resulted in a championship that isnt legitimate

But the real question is how many teams need to be included to have a legitimate champ

 

[calsnowskier]

That is the one absolute certainty in this whole conversation



Theres no question that BCS "rabbit out of a hat" picking the championship teams has resulted in a championship that isnt legitimate

But the real question is how many teams need to be included to have a legitimate champ

Well, a "Champ" is a completely arbitrary term. Pre-BCS, when the champ was simply declared, that was the definition. Therefore, that team was "Champ". During the BCS era, when two teams were declared eligible to play for it, the winner of that game was defined as the "Champ". In the new system, the winer of the four-game tourney will be declared "Champ".

Were the Giants better then the 18-1 Pats? It does not matter. They met the definition of "Champs" that year and the Pats did not.

 

[KansasSooner]

I expect that to be the case

With the Big East belly up and 8 teams moving to other power conferences, that leaves 5 power conferences. Four of them have conference title games. So the Pac, SE, AC, + Big10 will all expect their champ to have a shot. This year the Dec 08 AP rankings were
#1) Florida State (AC title game champ)
#2) Auburn (SE title game champ)
#3) Alabama
#4) Michigan State (B10 title game champ)
#5) Stanford (Pac title game champ)

So maybe Alabama will be considered as having already had their chance. That would leave Stanford as next in line. I dont like the idea of giving the 4th playoff spot to Baylor because the Big 12 has repeatedly stated that theyre not interested in adding 2 more teams + having a title game. That definitely hurts the Big 12 champs chances of being chosen for the 4th spot

I understand that this years Baylor is a compelling team but that doesnt undo the choice that the Big 12 has made. The Big 12 has taken a specific stand not to consider a title game as important. Their decision has consequences. I think their champ needs to be in the top 4 of the AP to be considered for a playoff spot

And I think you're wrong, the PAC-12 champ has two losses, in conference no less. Baylor only has one loss in conference after playing ALL the other teams in the Big 12. Therefore I would take Baylor over the PAC 12 champ.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Conference champs are not guaranteed only TOP 4 teams. My guess is the very first year you will see two teams from the same conference with best guess being the SEC or PAC.

 

[outofyourmind]

The committee needs to nip this more than 1 team from a conference crap in the bud, right off the bat. There will be to many teams that deserve consideration rather than some bullshit rematch. Auburn beat Alabama, period. If Alabama wanted in, they should have played better in that game. They didn't. Too bad.


You want determine who the best team in the nation is. By definition, if Auburn is in the playoff, then Alabama can't be the best team in the nation. Same goes for Ohio State and Michigan State.


Those games were a defacto playoff. Live with the results.
For the people who want rematches after the game has been decided in the regular season, then you will have to concede that a 2 or 3 loss team can get in, because although they lost the games on the field, they were really better than that, and just had an off day.


And in the end, if a Conference cant determine who their best team is, it's not the responsibility of the rest of the nation to help them find it. That's their fucking problem.

 

[MarkOU]

The committee needs to nip this more than 1 team from a conference crap in the bud, right off the bat. There will be to many teams that deserve consideration rather than some bullshit rematch. Auburn beat Alabama, period. If Alabama wanted in, they should have played better in that game. They didn't. Too bad.


You want determine who the best team in the nation is. By definition, if Auburn is in the playoff, then Alabama can't be the best team in the nation. Same goes for Ohio State and Michigan State.


Those games were a defacto playoff. Live with the results.
For the people who want rematches after the game has been decided in the regular season, then you will have to concede that a 2 or 3 loss team can get in, because although they lost the games on the field, they were really better than that, and just had an off day.


And in the end, if a Conference cant determine who their best team is, it's not the responsibility of the rest of the nation to help them find it. That's their fucking problem.

Win your conference, play for the national title. If you can't win your conference, there is a nice consolation bowl for ya.

 

[dnemchik]

And in the end, if a Conference cant determine who their best team is, it's not the responsibility of the rest of the nation to help them find it. That's their fucking problem.

Win your conference, play for the national title. If you can't win your conference, there is a nice consolation bowl for ya.

I agree
And so if the 4 team playoff was being decided this year, Alabama should be out and there should be a decision between Stanford + Baylor

And I think you're wrong, the PAC-12 champ has two losses, in conference no less. Baylor only has one loss in conference after playing ALL the other teams in the Big 12. Therefore I would take Baylor over the PAC 12 champ.

I can see 2 losses being an issue when youre only taking 4 out of 125 or so d1a teams. And yet Stanford is still AP ranked above Baylor.

In the end, if I were on the panel making that decision, the higher AP rank of Stanford + the disinterest of the Big 12 in doing whatever they need to do to get a conference title game would be the deciding factors

 

[GoldRusher]

there will be a strong effort to avoid rematches in the playoff by the committee. IMO Bama is outside looking in using the new system if things were to shake out like they did this year.