AP: Consensus Reached On Playoff
Title says it all. No details as of yet, and still needs approval from university Presidents.
What happens if Anchorage, AK pools some money together and gets the national title game? I'm assuming there are some limitations on location. If not, we can all start donating for Ann Arbor 2020.
MGoBlog's next Kickstarter project?
On the subject of bidding out the NCG, it could be worse. At the very least Indianapolis/Detroit/Chicago remains a possibility.
I'd venture a guess Indy will host one within the first 5 years, the city has made a concerted effort to be more of a destination for sporting events and Indy was universally lauded as a Super Bowl host.
The key to this whole thing is going to be who comprises the selection committee and what their biases are. Since they're only going to "consider" conference championships and strength of schedule, that basically breaks down to they pick whoever the hell they want. We could see an all-SEC playoff one of these days, folks.
We already did, last year's NCG.
You would have to think there would be some cross-representation among the committee to prevent that sort of garbage. If it ever did happen, the outcry would be immense and we'd see some immediate changes.
There should have been an ironclad guarantee that the B1G champ get in if they're in the top 6. Delaney got absolutely nothing in this negotiation -- other than money, of course.
The last three weeks or more of the regular season will be utterly polluted with SEC politicking and propaganda.
CBS Sports has some other details here as well - http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/brett-mcmurphy/19392518/
"Sources said the emphasis on conference champions by the selection committee was enough for the Pac-12 and Big Ten, which preferred a two-team, plus-one model, to compromise its position and join the other leagues in supporting a four-team playoff."
If that is the case, then I suppose I would like to know what the weighted selection criteria would be and what the makeup of the committee might be. I don't know if this alleviates controversies - I definitely see teams going to the podium with how jilted they feel, but perhaps only those that could make a borderline case for being in one of the two semifinals.
Even so, I could live with a four-team playoff really - it still makes the regular season a large part of the equation ultimately. Still, I can't help but feel a bit underwhelmed considering all the time it took them to arrive at, well, this. It took them a long time to do not much really.
I do like the idea of winning your conference being a big part of this - in competitive conferences, you're talking about teams that would be more than likely in the top four seeds in many scenarios anyway. If stregth of schedule is also a criteria, I wonder if this provides impetus for teams that feel they might have a legitimate shot to challenge themselves a little bit. Of course, not knowing what the vital criteria would be and how they get weighted (or if they do), it's hard to say.
Regardless, I am pretty sure that, in the first several years, there might be modifications on the fly if something turns out be popularly decried, but probably in the area of the seeding and selection process.
Methinks strength of schedule will likely be a tie breaker for two teams with the same W-L records. I doubt that they take a 2 loss team over an undefeated team or even a team with one loss unless there is a huge disparity in strength of schedule. In other words, the risk of getting a loss pinned on you against a strong OOC opponent is not worth the gain.
You can just as easily predict that easy victories against soft OOC opponents will mean less to the selection committee than close losses to top ten OOC teams.
If anything, a playoff is probably a bigger incentive to schedule soft for major conference teams. An undefeated SEC/Big 10/etc team is almost certainly going to be in the playoff now. I can't think of a year with more than three unbeaten major conference teams, so schools are going to plan for an unbeaten season to guarantee a berth and schedule accordingly. If campus semifinal games were on the table, it might make a difference, but that isn't the case.
One loss is still a huge, huge deal, so why would teams risk it--especially when even the best might drop one on a random away game in November to Iowa State.
But that would go against decades of human nature that has shown the humans who do the polls respect better records over tougher schedules, and penalize you more for a loss than playing creampuffs. I think any committee is going to be made up of the same humans.
I have to laugh. We're adding two teams to the championship model and now that three games will be played instead of one all of a sudden "woooo it's a playoff! this is totally more legit even though it's run by the same people and barely includes more teams! having four teams means we're settling it on the field for real this time!"
If I were a playoff advocate I would consider this a joke of a proposal.
"selection committee."
Why? The whole world bitched about the polls. Then the whole world bitched about the computers. The whole hockey world bitches about a formula. What's wrong with a committee?
Since I started this thread, I figured I'd weigh in with some more expansive thoughts...
- This is a major step forward towards a full play-off largely because it's more inclusive. Other posters here have done extensive research showing that in most years it is fairly obvious who the top 4-6 teams are. Doesn't this also give us one of the most glorious things in sports: THE BUBBLE WATCH. Alabama is in. LSU is in. Oklahoma State is in. Does Arkansas make it over one of the two Pac-12 teams?
- One huge question for me: how transparent will this selection committee be? The NCAA Basketball committee operates like a shadowy cabal, hell-bent on explaining everything and nothing at the same time. We're being told "conference champions" will be weighted more and strength of schedule will also play a factor. How much of a factor? If you have to decide between a 1-loss Big 10 Champ and a 1-loss SEC runner-up, who played a tougher schedule, who gets in? Also, who the f ends up on this selection committee? Bobby Bowden? Mike Silve?
- Four, 16-team super conferences would actually be the ideal extension of this. The best 64 teams aligned in Division 1A, with a Division 1AA, and Division 1AAA (now FCS) comprising the three levels. Yes, this doesn't benefit the East Carolinas and Utah States of the world. I don't care. Because it would create a real 8-team playoff, and with Michigan-Ohio in the same division, The Game means more than the Rose Bowl, it means a spot in the tournament. Think those ACC Championship games in the mid-70s.
I've got more, but it'll take some time to process.
And now yourself: yes, this whole committee thing is a huge turnoff already. Lord only knows how slimy this group of flunkys will be.
If the committe ever includes Phillip Fulmer or Roon Zook we will all know the world is finally going to end.