College Football Playoff 2014

Agree with both Mizzou and Swampboy on their points.  But I think the "that team travels well to bowl games, so more money" certainly applied to the bowl structure (and still does), but not to the top four CFP structure.

My take. The committee needs to get out of the business of providing a top 25 every week. In fact, having a top 25 at all. It only confused the issue. I have no problem with the four that got in. I do, however, have a problem with the fact that the committe seemed to start from scratch in the last poll. They somehow thought that TCU's resume was good enough to jump them to #3 in the last week before the decision. Then, they decided that FSU, Baylor, and OSU all had more impressive wins than TCU. Impressive enough to leap frog all three over them. Somehow, though, it seemed preconceived that FSU, with a win, was immune from this logic. I believe FSU was in simply because the committee didn't want to go that far out on a limb. If this decision had been made by the committee absent weekly rankings, I don't think there would be any controversy whatsoever. Withour the weekly rankings, the picks make plenty of sense.

 

Here's the question, though. Under last year's system, would FSU be playing for the NC? I can't see how they wouldn't.

Under the old system Florida State would be playing Alabama for the title. The only thing less flawed about the new system is four teams get in instead of two. How many years can six teams say they are deserving of competing for #1. Typically it's the third and sometimes fourth place teams who feel screwed.

 

In most years four teams would be enough. However, I'm still for eight teams with the five major conference winners and three wild cards. Yes #9 and 10 will howl they were screwed. The response: win your conference or play a tougher schedule. But with eight teams those mostly likely to deserve to play for #1 are in. 

Eight would be great!

 

Meanwhile, back on the farm, this has been the most exciting college football season I have ever experienced.  (and neither my two "alma maters" have football teams)

Which old system?  The one with just voters or the BCS?  Too bad no one had that BCS formula to try out and compare.

 

Everyone keeps talking about Ohio State vs Baylor/TCU - I think the conversation should have been about FSU - compare their results against common opponent OKST

 

While FSU is undefeated and that is very hard to do, it's not like the ACC is that strong... Even their crossover with Florida - I would have expected a bit wider margin even in a rivalry game.  Their other out of conference OKST, Citadel, & Notre Dame weren't exactly top level teams - only ND was ranked when FSU played them, but the wheels fell off that cart.

 

I think 8 is too many... for comparison - this year #7 was MissSt, #8 MichSt, #9 Ole Miss and #10 Arizona (side bar - MissSt *lost* to Ole Miss and that seems to be discounted, but surely would have been an issue with 8 teams)... Perhaps they should "change" things slight to indicate a possible top 4-6 teams especially in years where things are "so close". Gives some leeway to have have teams that are that close just play each other.  Just think we could have have #3 FSU vs. #6 TCU and #4 OSU v. #5 Baylor - let them decide it on the field. Army v. Navy, followed by play-in games!  Won't happen because of finals, but think of the possibilities.

 

 

 

I never accept the "can't do it due to finals" excuse. The other divisions of football have layers of playoffs in December. Other fall sports are also currently in the middle of playoffs. Basketball players miss three days of class for up to three weeks following missing multiple days of school for their conference tournament. Baseball season goes right through finals. So, I'm not buying finals get in the way of D1 football.

Once again, I must remind myself to keep my day job....thank the Lord for my day job.

 

I did not see Alabama losing at all, but they did.  Hats off to Ohio State and their 3rd string QB.  I'm very impressed with how their team played last night.  It is going to take a similar effort for Ohio State to beat Oregon.  

TCU and Michigan State made eloquent arguments for an 8-team playoff.

 

I'm sticking with my original strategy of saying I don't know who the best team is.  (But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . )

I couldn't help bu think last night that without the new playoff structure, neither Oregon or OSU would have had a chance to play for the NC. Yes, I know Oregon was #2, but, in reality, no way would the voters have allowed FSU to slip past #2 in the polls if it meant keeping a defending national champion who is the only undefeated team in the nation out of the NC game. It would have been Alabama and FSU. This works better, especially in a season when there is no notable difference between any of the top 6 or so teams. Now it's time to got o 6 or 8.

That premise will always apply to whose fans who will fill the stadium.  More fans more money for payout.  

 

FSU had a great record, but they did struggle this year, and last night exposed their issues.

So glad that they WILL not be playing for a championship this year.

 

JMO

Dad do you still hold this opinion? If you do that is fine. I would just like to know if OSU's performance changed your opinion? 

In general, I think the SEC failed to keep up with dramatic advances made elsewhere in college football offense. 

 

Believing "defense wins championships" is an immutable theological law let them continue thinking a run oriented offense with a QB who avoids turnovers would always be good enough.

 

Advances in offense elsewhere made all defenses less effective and SEC defenses less dominant.

 

As a result SEC teams are more likely to be involved in shootouts and ill-equipped to win them when they find themselves involved in them.

 

I fully expect the SEC to buy the knowledge they need, but it will take several years to create offenses that can keep up with the system Oregon has spent a decade or so perfecting.

 

The evolution of the sport and the rise and fall of conferences, systems, and strategies (with occasional successes for throwbacks like Georgia Tech's option) keeps college football fascinating to me.

---

with occasional successes for throwbacks like Georgia Tech's option

 

Back when a lot of teams ran the option I hating watching it. It was so repetitious, methodical and boring. Now that almost no one runs the option it's fun to watch GT run it so well. 

I think in the majority of years, there is one team that's a gimme and two or three others who have an argument for the second spot. I'm an SEC guy, but one problem you hit on is perception. It often happens with basketball as well. When one conference is perceived as superior, it greatly affects all the numbers - sos, computer ratings, poll position, etc. This year, for example, Ole Miss and Miss St. shot up the polls from nowhere based on early wins over their SEC brethren. Miss St wouldn't have shot up so far except for the perception that Texas A&M was a powerful team. Well, not so much. Unfortunately, whatever perception exists pre-season is too big a factor to overcome. I think, top-to-bottom, the SEC might actually be the best it's been in a long time, but without nearly the power in the top two or three spots. I think the real answer is to have the selection committee stop putting out those week-to-week rankings. It restricts their ability to make solid decisions come selection time.

 

I thought it a little funny that the supposedly weaker SEC East has been quite successful during the bowl season, while the West has sort of fallen on its face.

Agree in general, but there's so much more inter-conference play in basketball and fewer bullcrap games against bullcrap opponents.

 

I was among those that thought TCU got shafted for the almighty TV ratings but OSU sure proved they belonged in the playoff.  Yes, the playoff needs to expand, and the selection process needs to be less biased, but it is so good that the BCS is dead.

 

 

The weaker SEC East are unranked teams playing unranked teams. I've always found those games to be "flip a coin for who wins" games. It's a matter of who's more inspired to play in a "who's ever heard of this bowl" game. 

I personally would like to see an 8-team bracket with the Power 5 champs and three wild cards. No guarantees to Notre Dame! If you don't win your conference championship, there needs to be extenuiating circumstances to get you in. Waivers should be given to allow conference championship games for conferences with less than 12 teams.

 

Also, did anyone else seem to think this did, indeed, devalue the bowl concept a little? Not that I care. I mean, claiming to be the "Rose Bowl Champion" didn't seem to hold much importance compared to the fact that it was a National Semi-final.

Which is why I often find it misleading to put too much stock into the a lot of bowl games. It's why I think Boise often crops up and beats some good teams. They are quite motivated. I used to look (for gambling reasons) for matchups of teams that were extremely giddy to get the bowl bid vs. the team that lost a tough game late and is disappointed to be there. 90% of the time, the disappointed team just phones in their performance. Often, matchups can be misleading as well. Ole Miss was a real up-and-down team (beat Alabama, got blown out by Arkansas, but came back the next weekend to slap Miss. St. around). However, the Peach Bowl was, in reality, an 11-1 team who was at the top of the Big 12 against the SEC's 5th or 6th best team. LSU?NOtre Dame was two teams accustomed to being in a better bowl playing out their season, Auburn/Wisc the same. The only games from which you can really judge much concerning the SEC were Alabama/OSU and Georgia Tech/Miss. St. I think these games showed that the better teams from other conferences have caught the top of the SEC. Questin is: will next year's pre-season top-25 polls reflect this? At the top, probably. I expect OSU to be #1, but I also bet you Alabama will come in a not-quite-deserved #2 and the top 25 will start with no less than 9 SEC teams in the top-25 and very possibly 10. Of those, most will probably be 5-6 spots than they actually should be. Of those will be the normal over-rated Florida and you will see Georgia and Auburn ranked too high. In other words, same ole same ole. Not that I'm complaining.

Alabama will start ranked very high next year. They're supposed to be better next year than this year according to "the experts."

No dog in this fight but.....

 

Big 10 looks a lot better at the top with the Ohio State, Michigan State and Wisconsin wins over the top teams in the Big 12 and SEC in the last couple of days.  It is the first time in a long time I can remember the Big 10 having something to chirp about at this time of the year.

 

If Harbaugh can make Michigan relevant again and he probably will, then College Football will be as geographically balanced as it has been for a very long time.  Having the Midwest with top teams again will bring the game to another level and push the 8 team playoff format up the priority list. 

 

I think it will ultimately be 16 teams and absorb the bowl system.  15 Bowls will survive.  8 first round games, 4 second round and 2 semi and the final.  Ultimately I think the Rose becomes the Championship game with the Orange and Sugar as the Semi's.  Fiesta, Cotton, Outback and someone else are the quarters.  Pick 8 other of the rest and you nail it down.  Way more money to be made this way - especially for the power 5 that would grab no less than 12 and probably 14 or 15 in most years of these spots.

 

Timing is not an issue.  This year if you had games on Dec 18 & 19 and Dec 26 & 27 you stay away from finals - most are done by the 10th or 12th and wrap it up before spring semester starts.  BTW - all the teams that would have played on the 18&19 were still practicing for their bowls when the finals happened.  What is the real impact....none.  

 

The real issue I think is the power 5 just haven't figured out how to get the other 200 D1 schools to go along with letting them pull nearly 100% of the money out of College Football. 

13th ranked Georgia played 21st ranked Louisville

16th ranked Missouri played 25th ranked Minnesota

 

Real college football fans have heard of all the bowl games, or at least most of them. 

 

That would be like a college baseball fan not knowing 8 teams go to Omaha for the College World Series.  Or even knowing that the CWS is played in Omaha.

Bowl games should only be for teams that are.at least 8-4 or 9-3. Mediocre teams don't go to the CWS. A lot mediocre teams play in meaningless bowl games. There are 38 bowls. A team only has to go 3-6 in conference play and beat up on three non conference mid major powder puffs to be eligible. If a team plays Hawaii they can be 6-7 and bowl eligible.

It's not really feasible to have a system where you "change things" to accomodate years where more teams may be in the running. When would you make that decision? There are logistics to these things that require a lot more time than that would allow.

Why are they calling it a playoff and other schools continue to play bowl games, even after the playoff game.  Don't get it.

FSU 's schedule? Ga Tech which hammered MSU. Clemson which hammered Oklahoma. Notre Dame who also won their bowl game. It wasn't a brutal schedule but what was brutal about Ohio States schedule? And who did they lose to and where was that game played? The fact is they were undefeated. The reigning champion. And you think people should have left them out? Come on man. There is only one team right now given the games played that has a beef. TCU. 

 

Follow the money...

 

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/bl...bowl-money-goes-file

 

I kind of think TCU would beat Baylor 9 out of 10.  Problem was Baylor won their one game in the only game scheduled.

 

Also, thought the TCU coach showed a lot more class when they got snubbed.  Didn't they drop from #3 to #6 in one week after winning their game by 50 some points. They might end up being #2 in the final poll if the championship game isn't close.

 

 

Ohio state just proved itself by beating "the best team in the country and in the toughest conference" Alabama. I expected FSU to be blow out of the water they weren't playing Boston College. I think the pac 12 or big 12 is the toughest conference the sec records in bowls says it all. 3-5. Go Buckeyes!

I didn't say it'd be easy ;-)... The NCAA has a whole bunch of people that can figure out logistics (they get paid a lot of money to figure that out). The FCS (1-AA) can manage the logistics.

 

With regard to travel, etc. - You've seen the crowds at some of these lesser bowls right?  Friends, family, people from the neighborhood seem to be all that's in attendance. They cannot be making that much money *except* through ESPN and whatever really-long-name-sponsor that is attached to their minor bowl. After the last weekend of play (before Army/Navy game) when all the bowls announced - usurp that opportunity to make the weekend following as a "play-in" of sorts. You don't think the TCU's or Boise State's of the college scene wouldn't jump at the chance to have a 1 game play-in?  Someone would help figure out the logistics. After all I've read this year - I think I agree the Big 5 winners get a bid, followed by 1-3 wildcards.  If the #1 team isn't "unanimous" in the committee's eyes, then go with 8... Ditto for #2.  That way it's guaranteed to have at least 6 teams and up to 8.

 

While I agree that leaving out FSU would not have been "right" this year - their dismantling was not totally unexpected.  Ironically - if this had been under the previous system, I'm guessing Alabama would have been playing FSU in the Sugar Bowl for #1, while the Rose would have been Oregon v. Ohio State and we would be complaining now (or in 2 weeks) that we need a playoff system.

 

After the games I think the team that could have been screwed this year was Georgia Tech. Hindsight has OSU #3, TCU #4, FSU #5, with Baylor, MSU, and GTech in the mix. This may have been a year where 8 teams were appropos... As much as the UMiss and MissSt were great stories, their stock dropped quickly at the end of the year and I think their rankings were based more on their early season success.

For Rob Kremer - like to bet Oregon versus Ohio State? - Loser wears team logo avatar for a week.  I believe I won the bet the last time OSU and Oregon met.  

So, for those proposing an 8 team playoff...who would you have in that mix?   Would Michigan State have been part of your selection?  Their only two losses were to Ohio State and Oregon who will be playing in the national championship next week.  They could wind up to be the best 2 loss team in the county and not have been selected for the 8 team playoff.  My point is someone is always going to get the shaft whether it a 4 game or 8 game playoff. Life is never fair.  If you want to be one of those 4 teams, you have to beat one of the big boys and be somewhat lucky.  Sorry, JMO.

I say do away with the word playoff and keep playing bowl games. As an FSU fan I was highly disappointed anyways.

No doubt the last team left out is always going to feel like a victim and it always seems to be played up in the media that way unfortunately.  Baylor was a "victim" this year but for the second year in row proved they don't know how to play defense.

 

I'll be honest, and even Urban Meyer said this, he felt his team was one year away from playing like they are now - and nobody including the coach himself even "thunk" of it a couple of months ago.  The two best teams (at this time) are playing for the title and who didn't make the final four has no bearing on that.  The NCAA did a good job of getting the final two right.  Perhaps TCU may have faired better against Oregon but I get how nobody was going leave out an undefeated reigning national champion from the playoff. 

It's a bet you've never had a chance to lose based on history .... until this year.

What I like about an eight team playoff is all five major conference winners could be in. Then there's room for three teams who might have come in second but been better than another conference winner.

 

I believe this year will be determined to be unique. In most season fans would likely look at the #4 team and argue they don't fit with the other three. But as you say #5 would be crying they got screwed. Hell, #69 in basketball complains.

 

 

Fenway, 

 

My perspective is that the goal of the playoff is to identify an unambiguous national champion.  If you expand to eight teams, you will certainly leave out some teams that feel they are as good as some of the teams that get in.  However, what you will not have is a team on the outside that can make a plausible case that they might be the best team in the country.

 

I favor the smallest playoff bracket that includes everyone who might be the best team in the country.  I think eight is the right number.  

 

16 is too big--my Missouri Tigers will probably end up somewhere between 12 and 16 in the polls, and they no business being in a playoff after a loss to a bad team and blowout losses to two good teams.  16 would include teams of that caliber that don't belong.

 

4 is too small--TCU can somewhat plausibly claim no one proved themselves better against them on the field.  

 

8 seems just right.

You're insecurities toward the SEC are showing.  I'm not a big fan of conference bowl records determining what is the best conference, even after "my" SEC went 7-3 I believe last year.  Even this year, after all the garbage thrown their way, they finished 7-5.  You bring up the Big 12?  They were a wonderful 2-5 in bowl games.  I think the Big 10 stands at 5-5.

 

With that said, the Pac 12 was the best conference this year.  It's OK if the SEC isnt the top dog every year.

My main reactions to Ohio State's performance last night:

 

1. Wow!  What an assemblage of power, size, speed, and skill everywhere on the field in every phase of the game.  Ohio State is a truly impressive team that earned its championship by dismantling the top two seeds. 

 

2. How close did we come to not seeing this champion even get into the playoff?  How would TCU have fared? Expanding the playoff to eight teams would nearly eliminate the possibility of leaving out the best team.

 

3. The next time someone says an otherwise impressive team is unworthy of playoff consideration because of an early season non-conference loss to an undistinguished team, I will probably mention Ohio State's loss to Virginia Tech.

 

4. Didn't Urban Meyer say earlier in the year that his team was a year away from contending?  Does this mean they'll be better next year?

 

Indeed he did say that but things changed - like a light switch, the team blossomed and nobody saw it coming.  Ohio State appears to have overwhelming talent.  They've got a wide receiver who made one big long catch who is a high jump champion and sprinter and barely saw the ball last night.  Their third string QB reminds of Ben Rothlisberger.  Their stars on offense and defense are sophomores and freshmen.  To answer your question, they should be better next year.  The only thing that will hold them back is what holds most teams back - hubris and complacency.  Hopefully, Urban Meyer will have something to say about that.