4 Team Playoff Officially Approved

Submitted by Son of Lloyd Brady on

In this format the #1 seed plays the #4, #2 plays #3, winners advance to championship game

Link: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8099187/ncaa-presidents-approve-four-team-college-football-playoff-beginning-2014

EDIT: As stated in the article, the playoffs are not set to begin until 2014, so this season and next will still use the current BCS system.

HELLE

June 26th, 2012 at 11:56 PM ^

I don't understand how this is difficult to fit into the academic calender. Play the games as followed:

1st Round: Christmas
2nd Round: New Years Day
Championship: Jan. 8th

The AD's, Presidents and BCS love to use that argument. They will magically figure it out once the money starts rolling in.

jonokuips

June 26th, 2012 at 9:18 PM ^

pumped for the BCS to go to a four team playoff.

as Lebron said "bout damn time". never thought I'd quote that dbag, but what can ya do.

The one thing though that I don't like about the playoff is that it's still somewhat determined by who the committee selects. What if the selection is just as close/difficult between the 4 and 5 "seeds" as it has been to figure out 2 or 3? somebody is always going to be unhappy. Another thing, championship game going to the highest bidding city? Me no likey.

M-Dog

June 27th, 2012 at 1:32 AM ^

I like that the championship game goes to the highest bidder because it gives us the chance that there will be championship games in the Big Ten footprint.  We're already locked out of that happening for the semi's, at least we have a chance for the championship.

Of course, it will be a blue moon when a Big Ten team gets picked for the final four and wins its semi despite never having home field advantage and gets to a championship game that happens to be in the Big Ten footprint. . . but I'm saying there's a chance.   

LSAClassOf2000

June 26th, 2012 at 10:22 PM ^

I will go on record as saying that I actually don't mind this setup, although I will always find it amazing that it took the conferences this long to agree on something which seems, at least on paper, ridiculously simple and indeed, something that was one of the first ideas to be presented anyway, I believe. To me, it makes all the sabre-rattling that followed seem like it was for show on some levels. No matter now, I suppose. 

One thing I am interested in is how the criteria will be weighted - they mention wins and losses, strength  of schedule, head-to-head results and conference championship. It seems like that places some impetus on, say,  Notre Dame (and other independents), as some have mentioned, to consider joining a conference,  lest they have to string  together some 12-0 showings under Kelly. 

The nature and qualifications of the selection committee will make or break controversies, it seems, but ultimately the goal seems to be managing them, not eliminating them, which is probably fine. Part of me wonders if the traditional non-AQ conferences are a little scared of being relegated to obscurity though, but then, as we have seen, you simply move to the conference with the better TV deal. 

At the end of the day, this does make some sense - they are students first and foremost and there is no need to turn this into the month-long weekend-capping affair that is  the NFL postseason, and really, this is probably a step up from the current system and it seems like all the contracts surrounding it will allow for learning to take places and formats to be adjusted, if needed. That is certainly something better than what existed. 

 

Vasav

June 27th, 2012 at 12:59 AM ^

I'm a little surprised by how many folks want an 8-16 team playoff. Even if it was bowl propoganda, college football really does have the best regular season in sports. Playoffs do ruin that - including the BCS. When an NFL team loses their first game, you always think "wait 'til next week." When it's college football? Depression sets in.

As for the new format, I don't think it's bad - preserves the Rose Bowl's importance, so the game is either a national semi-final or the traditional B1G-Pac12 matchup. I'd have preferred home games with a neutral site title on Jan 1st for numerous reasons. But the biggest unknown to me is still the selection criteria - we've heard whispers, but a committee is no better than a poll to me. Last year a committee would have put Stanford in ahead an Oregon team that beat them by 20 points in Palo Alto and won the conference. Why do I say that? Because the committee members are probably poll voters who ranked Stanford 4 and Oregon 5. While OK St-Alabama was the bigger debate and the bigger impetus for a playoff (for obvious reasons), the example that should have come to mind was Stanford-Oregon, at least when talking about selection criteria.

And I can already see the next time a controversey happens like Stanford-Oregon, or OU-UT 2007, or 'Bama-OK St for the #4 spot, people will be clamoring for more spots in a play-off. NO! Playing in a playoff means you've had a regular season worthy of consideration for a national title. If you've lost one game (yes, even the pokes who I defended loudly last year) and there's another undefeated team, you've got no argument. In modern history there've never been more than 6 undefeated teams in a given season. Any playoff that's >6 is no longer just about picking a national champion based on excellent regular season. It's about the play-off itself, a second season.

In 2025, the changes that should be made will involve how tough it is for fans to travel to two neutral site locations, and get tickets to a national title game on a week's notice. Hopefully they'll keep the three "contract" bowls as National Championship sites only, with home games for the semis in late November/early December. But if the conversation is about how to expand the field to little sister's of the poor, then remember how real "playoff-creep" is.

M-Dog

June 27th, 2012 at 1:11 AM ^

Because they want to keep the semi's within the current Bowl system, the Big Ten is the only conference that will never get home field advantage.  The SEC, Pac12, Big12, even the ACC will always have a shot at a home field advantage by being seeded number 1 or 2.

So at least they could throw the Big Ten a small bone:

Stipulate that if the Big Ten is the 1 or 2 seed (which would put them in the Rose Bowl as the "home team"), they would not have to play a Pac12 team there.  If a Pac12 team is the 3/4 seed, they would switch sites with the other 3/4 seed.

This would not happen very often, but it is a way to slightly make up for the fact that the Big Ten never has home field advantage by ensuring at least that they don't have home field disadvantage despite being a 1/2 seed. 

I don't mind being the "home team" and playing LSU in the Rose Bowl.  But I do mind being the "home team" and being rewarded for it by having to play USC in their backyard in the Rose Bowl.

If they are going to whimp out about having the semi's at campus sites, at least throw us this bone.

 

justingoblue

June 27th, 2012 at 1:32 AM ^

And I would go along with that for everyone. LSU is a 3/4? Tough shit, you can't play in the Sugar Bowl; same goes for USC and the Rose. I can't think of a single sport that allows a lower seeded team home advantage over a higher seed, I'd be interested to see if there is one in the world.

I'd go even further and give the Big Ten a new bowl in Indianapolis* that takes a 1/2 seeded Big Ten team and allow the Pac to host in the Rose, SEC in the Sugar, ACC in the Orange and BXII in the Fiesta.

*You could make this bowl equivalent to the SEC v. BXII game, and make it a second place game with the ACC or something, but stipulate that they have the top bowl team if it's selected as the top or second seed by the committee.

Picktown GoBlue

June 27th, 2012 at 9:53 AM ^

I can't think of a single sport that allows a lower seeded team home advantage over a higher seed, I'd be interested to see if there is one in the world.

NIT, if your school is being used for the NCAA March Madness (See what happened to Dayton this past year). 

Not really an entire sport, or an institutional setup, but it certainly happens.  And UD folks did not feel that it was very fair, either.

Kaminski16

June 27th, 2012 at 9:22 AM ^

This is a long thread and I don’t have a whole lot of time this morning, so I apologize if this has been previously covered.

I love the notion of a playoff, even if it would be infinitely better if played on campus, which is obviously out of the question considering the nature of the current BCS bowls. However, I hope that this does not destroy the Rose Bowl’s legacy at Michigan. For years, getting to Pasadena was the benchmark for Michigan teams – the thought of that disappearing hurts, even if a playoff is better for the game.  

MGoStrength

June 27th, 2012 at 10:48 AM ^

As a Michigan fan I could really care less about knowing 100% who is the best team in college football is and I don't really care about who is most deserving to be in the National Championship game.  In fact I kind of enjoy the fun discussions that no one can prove of who is better and/or more deservingl  I really only care about one thing...Michigan getting there. It doesn't bother me if they share a natl title because at least they shared it. 

All this does to me is decrease the chances we ever win it.  It's another game we have to win against a top-4 team.  So instead winning one game now we need to win two.  And lets face it, in the old(er) formats if we went undefeated we'd probably get in.  We're not Boise or even PSU for that matter.  We don't typically get left out.  So all we had to do was win one game or even before the BCS beat the Pac10 champ.  Now we have to win two games.  I find that frustrating. 

But, it sure helps the SEC who may have 2 or even 3 teams up there.  I guess it's time to finally start beating them...although we haven't had as much trouble as other B1G teams.  I just wish all the games weren't played in CA, FL, & TX...would it kill someone to have a semifinal in the Midwest???

uminks

June 27th, 2012 at 12:38 PM ^

It is extremely difficult to run a season undefeated. If we lose a game or two during the regular season and can make it into the playoff bowl system, then our chances of winning a national championship are better than the zero chance we would have with one or two loses.

uminks

June 27th, 2012 at 12:32 PM ^

I would prefer a playoff between the following BCS bowl winners, Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, then have a semifinal playoff between the 4 winning teams, then a championship game! But a 4 team system is better than no playoff!