Slated to begin in 2014, pending committee approval

Sources told ESPN that under the recommended model, the four teams would be selected by a committee that would consider certain criteria such as conference championships and strength of schedule.The playoff would include two national semifinal games played within the existing BCS bowl games and a national championship game hosted by the highest bidding city.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8078786/commissioners-reach-consensus-four-team-college-football-playoff

Well, it's progress.

I don't like the committee part. Just take the top 4.

WebFire;1206731 wrote:I don't like the committee part. Just take the top 4.

You need a way to determine the top 4. The computers have done a poor job of this.

Al Bundy;1206739 wrote:You need a way to determine the top 4. The computers have done a poor job of this.

Yeah, the polls. They aren't that poor. You think a committee is going to be better?

I think many if not most will agree that it is a step in the right direction.

This settles absolutely nothing. There will be just as much screaming and yelling over who does as does not make the top 4.

Hopefully, they put in a rule that you have to win the conference to make the playoff. This playoff is a result of the debacle that occurred last year. If you don't limit it to conference champs only, you could run into the same problem that we had last year again.

Al Bundy;1206762 wrote:Hopefully, they put in a rule that you have to win the conference to make the playoff. This playoff is a result of the debacle that occurred last year. If you don't limit it to conference champs only, you could run into the same problem that we had last year again.

That's a horrible idea. People said (even on here) that they would not have been upset if those two met as the result of a "playoff" rather than just being the top 2 ranked teams in the BCS. There is not true disparity. Some conferences are better than others.

If you make a rule that you have to be a conference champ to get in...what happens when the top 2 ranked teams are from the same conference? You're going to take #1, #3, #4, and #5 for this? Ya...I'm sure that won't cause any controversy whatsoever... :rolleyes:

sherm03;1206767 wrote:That's a horrible idea. People said (even on here) that they would not have been upset if those two met as the result of a "playoff" rather than just being the top 2 ranked teams in the BCS. There is not true disparity. Some conferences are better than others.

If you make a rule that you have to be a conference champ to get in...what happens when the top 2 ranked teams are from the same conference? You're going to take #1, #3, #4, and #5 for this? Ya...I'm sure that won't cause any controversy whatsoever... :rolleyes:

If you have a committee made up of the 6 conferences, I highly doubt that they are going to pick 2 teams from the same conference as #1 and #2. Those teams keep playing each other and still get voted high in the polls. There were many cases last year in the coaches poll where coaches manipulated the system to favor their school and their conference. I think by keeping it to conference champs two major things are accomplished 1) the reguar season is extremely important 2) eliminate the chance of two teams from the same conference in the championship game (no one outside of the region of those schools wants to see that)

Definitely a giant leap in the right direction.

Al Bundy;1206784 wrote:If you have a committee made up of the 6 conferences, I highly doubt that they are going to pick 2 teams from the same conference as #1 and #2. Those teams keep playing each other and still get voted high in the polls. There were many cases last year in the coaches poll where coaches manipulated the system to favor their school and their conference. I think by keeping it to conference champs two major things are accomplished 1) the reguar season is extremely important 2) eliminate the chance of two teams from the same conference in the championship game (no one outside of the region of those schools wants to see that)

You're basically advocating them manipulating things just like they do now. If the top two teams are clearly heads and shoulders above the rest of the country...why should they not make it into this system? What if Ohio State is #1 through the entire season...goes undefeated throughout the regular season and plays the B1G Title game against a team that went undefeated throughout the regular season and was ranked #2. The #2 team wins a close game. You're telling me that the team that was #1 throughout the entire season doesn't get a chance to play in the mini-playoff?! I thought the whole reason people wanted this was to avoid controversy. Wouldn't you admit that the scenario I just posed would cause quite a bit of controversy?

This settles absolutely nothing. There will be just as much screaming and yelling over who does as does not make the top 4.

well you could say that about an 8 team playoff...or a 16 team playoff. There is always somebody who is just going to miss the cut and feel left out. That's not the point. Very simply put, if you didn't take care of business well enough, or you played too weak a schedule such that you cannot be rankled even #4, why should you have a shot at the NC title? I'd probably prefer 8 teams myself, but that adds extra layers to system. 4 is plenty...and certainly better than just 2.

If you make a rule that you have to be a conference champ to get in...what happens when the top 2 ranked teams are from the same conference? You're going to take #1, #3, #4, and #5 for this? Ya...I'm sure that won't cause any controversy whatsoever... :rolleyes:

It's only controversial for the QQ'ers who couldn't win their conference, and is just like the QQ'ers ranked #5 and are outside looking in. Take care of regular season business if you want to play for the title. Pretty simple really... Can't win your conference, can't be the national champ.

HitsRus;1206804 wrote: It's only controversial for the QQ'ers who couldn't win their conference, and is just like the QQ'ers ranked #5 and are outside looking in. Take care of regular season business if you want to play for the title. Pretty simple really... Can't win your conference, can't be the national champ.

Sorry...but I just can't agree with this line of thinking. I think it's just dumb. Everyone said they wanted a playoff so that the two best teams would play against each other in the championship game. But to completely ignore the possibility that the two best teams just may come from the same conference undermines the initial argument for the playoffs in the first place.

sherm03;1206798 wrote:You're basically advocating them manipulating things just like they do now. If the top two teams are clearly heads and shoulders above the rest of the country...why should they not make it into this system? What if Ohio State is #1 through the entire season...goes undefeated throughout the regular season and plays the B1G Title game against a team that went undefeated throughout the regular season and was ranked #2. The #2 team wins a close game. You're telling me that the team that was #1 throughout the entire season doesn't get a chance to play in the mini-playoff?! I thought the whole reason people wanted this was to avoid controversy. Wouldn't you admit that the scenario I just posed would cause quite a bit of controversy?

You are describing a playoff game between the teams. We don't let teams back into the playoffs because they played a close game. Could you imagine the NFL calling up the Steelers last year and saying "You almost beat the Broncos, so we will put you back in the playoffs." or the OHSSA calling up Big Red and saying "You almost beat Mooney, so we will give you another shot in the playoffs." These large college conferences choose to have playoffs within them because of the $$$$$. We shouldn't then give these teams a free pass for playing a close game. Under your scenario, the Big Ten championship game would be meaningless. If only one of the teams could advance in the tournament, it add much more to it.

Sorry...but I just can't agree with this line of thinking. I think it's just dumb. Everyone said they wanted a playoff so that the two best teams would play against each other in the championship game.

Everyone? Explain to me how and why you should be the National Champ if you are not even the champ in your own conference. The BCS national Championship is not a tournament setup like March madness, but a culmination of regular season record followed by a one (or if this is implemented...2)game playoff.

HitsRus;1206822 wrote:Everyone? Explain to me how and why you should be the National Champ if you are not even the champ in your own conference. The BCS national Championship is not a tournament setup like March madness, but a culmination of regular season record followed by a one (or if this is implemented...2)game playoff.

Because not all conferences are equal. Last year you didn't think Alabama would have been one of the 4 deserving playoff teams because they didn't win the conference?

Al Bundy;1206821 wrote:You are describing a playoff game between the teams. We don't let teams back into the playoffs because they played a close game. Could you imagine the NFL calling up the Steelers last year and saying "You almost beat the Broncos, so we will put you back in the playoffs." or the OHSSA calling up Big Red and saying "You almost beat Mooney, so we will give you another shot in the playoffs." These large college conferences choose to have playoffs within them because of the $$$$$. We shouldn't then give these teams a free pass for playing a close game. Under your scenario, the Big Ten championship game would be meaningless. If only one of the teams could advance in the tournament, it add much more to it.

No...conference championships are not a playoff. The situation you just described would be a team losing in the first round of the new system, and being allowed to play again.

HitsRus;1206822 wrote:Everyone? Explain to me how and why you should be the National Champ if you are not even the champ in your own conference. The BCS national Championship is not a tournament setup like March madness, but a culmination of regular season record followed by a one (or if this is implemented...2)game playoff.

Because the two shouldn't have anything to do with each other. In order to make the claim that you can't be National Champ unless you are also you're conference champ...you would have to assume that all conferences are equal. They aren't. Some conferences are better than others. In my situation I described above...I would take the OSU team that went all season at #1 and lost in the B1G Title game into the "playoff" instead of the ACC champion who has 2 losses. But with your line of thinking. That ACC champion has a better claim to a "playoff" spot than the OSU team simply because they won their conference.

Doesn't make much sense to me...

sherm03;1206840 wrote:No...conference championships are not a playoff. The situation you just described would be a team losing in the first round of the new system, and being allowed to play again.

The NCAA treats championships games as postseason games, not regular seasons. Teams with postseason bans are not permitted to play in the championship games.

Al Bundy;1206849 wrote:The NCAA treats championships games as postseason games, not regular seasons. Teams with postseason bans are not permitted to play in the championship games.

That does not mean they are "playoff" games. They are postseason...but not "playoff" game. You are interchanging two things that are not necessarily interchangeable.

Pretty hilarious that ND fans are all about it not being about conference championships. Make it conference champions and Notre Dame every year. Literally, put Notre Dame in at #4 every year regardless if they are good or not. They'll never win anything relevant and who doesn't love watching the largest most delusional fan base have their team get blown out year after year.

I agree with Sherm.

sleeper;1206871 wrote:Pretty hilarious that ND fans are all about it not being about conference championships. Make it conference champions and Notre Dame every year. Literally, put Notre Dame in at #4 every year regardless if they are good or not. They'll never win anything relevant and who doesn't love watching the largest most delusional fan base have their team get blown out year after year.

Why would me being a Notre Dame fan have anything to do with the thought that requiring that playoff teams must be conference champions? It's clear that since Jack Swarbrick was involved, there is a tie-in for Notre Dame. So whether or not that stipulation is there does not affect my team in the least, because there will be an exception made for ND if that stipulation is made.

All I am saying is that people wanted a playoff so that the best teams would be deciding it on the field for the championship. Now people are saying that what they really want is a playoff among just conference champions. It is possible that the best teams are in the same conference. Hell...it could be possible that the best four teams all play in the same conference. People wanted this change to eliminate controversy. Making the stipulation that you have to be a conference champion in order to make the playoffs does nothing to eliminate any type of controversy most years.

sherm03;1206890 wrote:Why would me being a Notre Dame fan have anything to do with the thought that requiring that playoff teams must be conference champions? It's clear that since Jack Swarbrick was involved, there is a tie-in for Notre Dame. So whether or not that stipulation is there does not affect my team in the least, because there will be an exception made for ND if that stipulation is made.

All I am saying is that people wanted a playoff so that the best teams would be deciding it on the field for the championship. Now people are saying that what they really want is a playoff among just conference champions. It is possible that the best teams are in the same conference. Hell...it could be possible that the best four teams all play in the same conference. People wanted this change to eliminate controversy. Making the stipulation that you have to be a conference champion in order to make the playoffs does nothing to eliminate any type of controversy most years.

How do you know that they are 2 best teams in the country? In 2006, everyone in the country thought that OSU and Michigan were the two best teams in the country, and they played an extremely close game. They very easily could have had them play again, but it was determined that it wasn't in the best interest of college football to have the same conference play in the title game. As it turned out, Florida was better that year, it was not show during the regular season since the teams normally have very few, if any, common opponents.

There is no tournment, postseason, playoff, etc. that rewards wildcards, at-large teams, etc. before placing all conference or division champs in their tournment. If the tournament were expanded I could see including wildcards, but if you only have 4 spots, you have to take care of champions first.

If you don't do conference champs, the human element takes over. You'll have ppl voting for all sec teams because they think they're better. Like last year when Arkansas was up to what, #3?? Gtfoh with that. The computers haven't gotten it right every time either, but the bias of human votes is way too easy to see. If they do allow 2 teams from a conference, they should play each other in round 1. Otherwise you'll have the same thing you had this year, nobody cared about the title game. Ratings sucked, money was lost.

I think they're taking a step in the right direction regardless though.