4 Team Playoff Officially Approved

Submitted by Son of Lloyd Brady on June 26th, 2012 at 6:25 PM

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.

Comments

bigmc6000

June 26th, 2012 at 10:12 PM ^

If the only topic is the BCS I think it's more than a bit confusing when they just say it's going to start in 2014 when the actual games won't be played until 2015.  Generally speaking, yes, this season is the 2012 season and that's the end of the it but when the topic of conversation is the BCS I think it's worth throwing the dash on there since none of the games happen in that year.

 

turtleboy

June 26th, 2012 at 6:56 PM ^

Until now all you had to do was be undefeated. The incentive for schools wasnt to actually beat anybody, so much as just don't lose. Now that strength of schedule, and head to head are being taken into account I wonder if this will change the criteria used to rank teams too, or will rankings stay as "who didn't lose this week? Okay, they're #1 by default, then"

JohnnyV123

June 26th, 2012 at 7:01 PM ^

Can't we at least celebrate for a split second that this is a better version than the BCS?

Yes, it's not going to be perfect but it might work out okay enough.

WolvinLA2

June 26th, 2012 at 7:09 PM ^

Why - so our game with USC would have been a semifinal rather than the Rose Bowl?  Would that have made it any better?

Or more realistically, so we get beat up on by Florida in a semi final rather than USC in the Rose Bowl?  Unless you think we would have beaten Florida that year, but I seriously don't.

WolvinLA2

June 26th, 2012 at 7:55 PM ^

Yes, I did.  But that's not the point.  The point is we have the benefit of hindsight right now, and I know how good we were in 2006 and how good Florida was in 2006 (and USC).  We lost kinda bad, and Florida smoked OSU.  

Could we have beaten them?  It's always possible.  But that's like saying I'd like to play that 2007 Rose Bowl over again.  I suppose a different result could happen, but I have no reason to believe it wouldn't look just like it did. 

cozy200

June 26th, 2012 at 7:09 PM ^

Jesus imagine the vetting process of the selection commitee. You think VPs go through an argeous process... Shiat. Not an enviable position.

magnus_caerulus (not verified)

June 26th, 2012 at 10:41 PM ^

They will have to annually keep a schedule like this year and win, which is gonna be pretty damn tough to do. They might have backed themselves into a big time corner. Its awfully tough to see them in a NC any time soon. They are such knot heads for not join the BIG the hundreds times we offered. They are the girl you chased in HS and then years later when you are successful and looking good are beggin for a second chance.

M-Dog

June 27th, 2012 at 12:48 AM ^

Spare me the tears.  A one-loss Notre Dame is going to get picked in the top four every time, even at the expense ot a one-loss team from the B1G or Pac 12, and even if their strength of schedule is weak.  Not fair, but that's how it is, even with an "impartial" selection committee.

 

 

jerasaurus

June 26th, 2012 at 7:18 PM ^

Any idea how much time there will be between the semifinals and championship game? 

I know there's the potential for a lot of travel between game sites, so 1 week doesn't seem like enough.  But waiting 2 weeks for the Super Bowl is brutal.

 

the Glove

June 26th, 2012 at 7:41 PM ^

So after skimming over the comments am I the only one that is excited there is a new 4 team playoff? Cuz I'm sure as heck not feeling the excitement here. I mean come on now, this is the end of 143 years of waiting for a playoff structure and the death of the bcs formula. If you think about it, everyone here was dying for a plus 1 system just a few years ago. With that system you still depended on the polls to determine if there would be another game. Meow at least it's guaranteed.

Picktown GoBlue

June 27th, 2012 at 2:02 AM ^

It's something, it's likely better than the current BCS system or any of the previous BCS iterations, and it's a step.  But it still leaves a lot to be desired, including way too long of a break between the conf championship and the semifinal game plus the lack of campus sites for semi's.  But maybe we'll get there when we go to 8 or 16 in the next 4 to 6 years.

caguab

June 26th, 2012 at 7:46 PM ^

What if int he future we only have four major conferences? Then wouldn't it be likely that each conference champion gets a spot in the four-team playoff?

WolvinLA2

June 26th, 2012 at 7:52 PM ^

The problem then would be that any team not in one of those conferences wouldn't have a shot at all.  Any D1-A team should have a shot.  What if a team like TCU or somebody who isn't a big name now hires a great coach, builds a great team, and schedules tough teams and beats them?  They at least need to have a shot.

Marc 71

June 26th, 2012 at 8:13 PM ^

HUGE factor is the seletion method.  Isn't a mathematical formula (like what the BCS used) better than 4 guys trying to pick the 4 best teams?  Realistically, what human has absolutely no agenda?  Or can be entirely unbiased?

WolvinLA2

June 26th, 2012 at 8:29 PM ^

I think it should be humans who incorporate the computers into their decision.  Take last year, for example.  The top 4 was LSU, Bama, OKSt. and Stanford.  Oregon, who won the Pac-12 and beat Stanford, was #5, the major difference between Oregon and Stanford was that Oregon played LSU out of conference by Stanford didn't.  The humans would see that and put Oregon in over Stanford, which is deserved.  I'm sure the humans would throw the #7 or #8 team in there for no good reason, but they could see discrepancies like the one last year.

NateVolk

June 26th, 2012 at 8:17 PM ^

This had nothing to do with them coming around to 4 or 8 or 16 as "best". The schools from the big conferences and especially the coaches love old scattered meaning less bowl system because it's great for job security and maintaining their power.

The new TV contract instigated this playoff expansion and it will instigate the next one.

The conferences "loyalty" to bowls? That's all a smokescreen to keep alive the vestiges of the fat cat post season system that has frankly raped schools financially for decades. But again coaches love it because they can sell a good season going to a lame bowl game and AD's love it because they normally get a bonus when the team appears in one.

Same with the inane worries about kids missing class. They think we're stupid? Most of this would take place in winter break and besides kids are already practicing during break for the silly bowl games anyways. 

As far as the new 4-team system, to paraphrase the great Martin Luther King, Jr. from his 1965 Oberlin College Commencement address:

We aren't where we are going to be, but thank god we aren't where were.

Phil Brickma

June 26th, 2012 at 8:31 PM ^

Seriously. Why all the hate on a four-team playoff? I don't mind four teams because it's football, and they can't get too carried away by expansion. I could never see them going past eight teams. By locking in to a 12-year TV contract, they can cement the four-team model.

I'm all for it.

wolverine1987

June 26th, 2012 at 8:37 PM ^

the fact that they are going to rotate the semi-final games among SIX different bowls? If you are going to keep the bowls, why elevate the f-ing Gator or Pawn Stars Bowl or something to the level of national semi-final?? Stupid. there has been far too much dilution of bowls as it is.

graybeaver

June 26th, 2012 at 8:55 PM ^

As far as I'm concerned this new format will cause even more controversy. Typically with the current BCS system in place there are only one or two teams with a legitimate gripe that they were over looked for a title shot. Good luck with making everyone happy by selecting four teams for a playoff. There will be at least a minimum of eight teams every year that feel they were screwed instead of one or two. I don't think a playoff works unless you have more teams involved. College football is unique from the NFL and that's why it's so popular.

Lionsfan

June 26th, 2012 at 9:50 PM ^

Eh I think you're making something out of nothing. A lot of the time, everyone will just tell the number 7 team to STFU. Looking back at the last few years there's not really that much controversy either. Going back to 2006:

2011: This past year. LSU, Bama, and Okie State. The only issue is with the PAC-12 and Stanford vs Oregon. The next grouping was 10-2 Arkansas (lost to Bama/LSU), 11-1 Boise, and 10-2 Kansas State. None of those guys had a legitimate claim

2010: Auburn, Oregon, and TCU are all undefeated. For the 4th spot it's a tossup between 11-1 Stanford, Wisconsin, and OSU (and I guess MSU too, but there's no way they're getting in without a perfect season). Next group is Big 12 champ Oklahoma at 11-2, but they have losses to Missouri and Texas A&M, so they're out. Arkansas has 2 losses to Auburn and Alabama

2009: The almost-perfect scenario. Alabama, TCU, Texas, and Cincinnati are all undefeated. So is Boise State, but they're kinda out anyways (for the first time ever, the Big East trumps something else when Big East>WAC)

2008: Big test here. Oklahoma and Florida are 12-1, so they're 1-2. Texas and Alabama are 11-1 and 12-1 respectively, but both lost their conferences to the aforementioned teams. So out of the two, one will get in. But what about undefeated Utah? Of the other ranked teams Penn State is really the only one that has an issue. Texas Tech lost their conference, Boise is WAC, and OSU has 2 losses

2007: OSU, LSU, VT, and Oklahoma are 1-4. The next groupings: Georgia, Missouri, USC, and Kansas, are all runner up's in their conference/divisions.

And finally 2006: Going in, OSU and Florida are 1-2. Sitting at 11-1 is Michigan, Louisville, and Wisconsin. We lost to the No. 1 team, so our loss is stronger than Wisconsin's (to us), or Louisville (Rutgers). Then there's conference Champs USC and Oklahoma and conference runner up LSU (10-2). Not trying to be a homer, but I feel like we would get the No. 3 spot. USC lost to unranked Oregon State and UCLA, and Oklahoma had 2 losses to 18th Oregon and 7th Texas. Throwing out bowl results we were a penalty away from a perfect season, so I think we would be plugged in over USC and Oklahoma. From there it's a fight between LSU, Oklahoma, and USC for the 4th spot. Wisconsin and Louisville would be arguing, but there's no way 3 Big Ten teams would be in, and PAC/SEC/Big 12>Big East

Lionsfan

June 27th, 2012 at 11:47 AM ^

I guess we'll just have to disagree on it then. I think there's only one or two teams that would have a claim to being left out, except in a few clusterfuck years which will pop up every now and again. At a max per year, we're really only looking at 1 or 2 teams that could have a claim, and most of the time, those teams are conference champs with 2 losses (Boise aside)

UPMichigan

June 26th, 2012 at 9:04 PM ^

I thought 8 teams would be a good playoff system..

Pac 10 vs. Big 10 in Rose Bowl
SEC vs. Big 12 in Sugar Bowl
ACC vs. Big East in Orange Bowl
Notre Dame or At Large Team vs. non-AQ conference champ or At Large Team in Fiesta Bowl

Have all these teams seeded 1-4 after all these games are played and go from there. But, I have to admit, any system is going to have it's flaws some years. Even this 4-team system.

CoachBP623

June 26th, 2012 at 11:35 PM ^

I agree with you on the 8 team playoff. However until they could orchestrate one within the confines of the academic calendar then we are stuck with 4. I will take this over the current system every day of the week. Oh how I wish we could have had this in 97 so we could have pounded Nebraska like we did last year.