I've seen the reports saying the "highest-rated" G5 champion will go to an Access Bowl.

I have also seen reports that the playoff selection committee will not only seed the playoff, but also arrange the other bowl matchups. They will NOT adhere to any BCS-style ranking formula for seeding purposes or determining at-large teams. Instead, the determinations will apparently be made by committee vote.

(By the way, I am sure some will keep publishing an unofficial BCS poll to see how and when the committee differs from the old system).

So what the hell does "highest rated G5 champion" mean? Are they using the polls or a BCS-style formula for us? Or will the committee debate the 5 champions and determine which is most deserving based on strength of schedule and the other factors they are looking at in terms of seeding the playoff, etc?

I mean, if Northern Illinois is 12th in the polls and UCF is 16th, would they ever choose UCF based on SOS? Clearly, the intent is to throw a bone to the "best" G5 team of the year to keep us quiet. Sure would be controversial to pick UCF in that instance.

The committee will use its own rankings for everything. It's probable that the committee will giving ranking throughout the season (although not necessarily every week) so teams will know where they stand. This will probably influence the AP and Coaches Poll (I don't expect the Harris Poll to survive this year) ranking, but there will be some differences.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the Selection Committee intends to release regular "rankings." And I know it has been said that they will not use the polls as a guideline, so it is entirely possible that they could select a team lower in the traditional polls than another team.

It has been described this week as being similar to the NCAA BB Selection Committee, which never releases rankings. They simply meet at the appropriate time for a few days and do the seeding.

This goes for the playoff teams, as well as the major bowl slots not tied into a contract with a conference. I think message board posters have called it the highest ranked G5 champ, but in reality, it will be the champ that the Selection Committee picks, by whatever method they wind up using.

To further confuse matters, Aresco has used the phrase "highest ranked division champ" when saying which division winner will host the AAC Championship Game, starting in 2015. That method has not been finalized and/or published yet, either, but I would imagine it would utilize the AP and/or Coaches poll rankings. However, I also think a poll would only be utilized if both division champs had identical conference records, and had not played each other head to head. Just a guess.

(10-10-2013 07:36 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I could be wrong, but I don't think the Selection Committee intends to release regular "rankings." And I know it has been said that they will not use the polls as a guideline, so it is entirely possible that they could select a team lower in the traditional polls than another team.

It has been described this week as being similar to the NCAA BB Selection Committee, which never releases rankings. They simply meet at the appropriate time for a few days and do the seeding.

This goes for the playoff teams, as well as the major bowl slots not tied into a contract with a conference. I think message board posters have called it the highest ranked G5 champ, but in reality, it will be the champ that the Selection Committee picks, by whatever method they wind up using.

To further confuse matters, Aresco has used the phrase "highest ranked division champ" when saying which division winner will host the AAC Championship Game, starting in 2015. That method has not been finalized and/or published yet, either, but I would imagine it would utilize the AP and/or Coaches poll rankings. However, I also think a poll would only be utilized if both division champs had identical conference records, and had not played each other head to head. Just a guess.

It's not just message board fodder about "the highest rated G5 champ." That phrase was used in lots of articles about the playoff set up.

Also, the committee does intend to meet 3-5 times during the football season, and does intend to release rankings after each meeting.

I smell an annual rigging coming up which will result in more unhappy fans and arguments.

The rankings will be doubly important to those not in power leagues as revenue will be distributed based on conference strength. The real question is will an undefeated team from one of the lower leagues be rated higher than a one loss team from the upper tier?

If you use the Massey Composite and project 2014 lineups, the rankings as of today would be:

AAC 79.55
MWC 83.66
MAC 85.13
CUSA 94.17
SBC 101

CUSA and SBC will probably be a little lower with ODU and GA Southern included.

(10-10-2013 03:05 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  I have also seen reports that the playoff selection committee will not only seed the playoff, but also arrange the other bowl matchups.

Can't answer your other question about how the G5 team will be chosen, but I don't think this last part is correct. Remember the "other" bowl are now contract bowls, tied to conferences. How can the playoff selection committee arrange those, when they are already arranged via contract?

It does seem to be unfair from the start.

People can claim that they're not going to influenced by the AP and coaches' polls in theory, but they undoubtedly will be influenced heavily by them in practicality. The "big games" that get the most coverage and scrutiny are invariably the ones involving the schools that are highest in the polls. Also, there's going to be a CYA aspect here. If the committee ends up simply affirming the AP poll rankings, not too many people are going to complain. Any deviations from the AP poll rankings are going to need to have some very concrete reasons or else we'll end up the same complaints about the pre-2006 BCS system (where the public *claimed* that they wanted more reliance on computers instead of human polls, but then threw a gasket when teams got into the national championship game that didn't align with such human polls). The committee doesn't want to announce the game pairings and then have people asking, "WTF?!" People hate the *idea* of polls (as it goes against the notion of "playing it on the field"), but they generally like the *outcome* of polls compared to virtually every other ranking system out there.

All of this would go away if they just did a 16 team playoff...and they would have more money than they could imagine.
10 Conference Champs and 6 At-Large bids (we know the SEC will get their share).
What is so freakin' difficult about this scenario?

Oh yeaaah, I forgot, it is not about money right now, it is about POWER.

If you start giving paydays for tournament wins to the likes of the MWV, the AAC or the MAC then they might start getting richer and more difficult to beat.

It is not hard to imagine a scenario where a Northern Illinois upsets a Michigan or Ohio State;
Or a UCF beats Florida State or Georgia Tech, Or Houston beats an Oklahoma school.
Or Boise (which has done it before) knocks off a USC or UCLA in the playoffs.

A God forbid if ECU played Nevada for a True National Championship. In a playoff format, however improbable, it is not impossible. The P5 would not want ONE team from a G5 conference to make a NCG let alone TWO. the deck would STILL be stacked in favor of the P5 leagues as they would never let an at-large bid go to a G5 team. So you have 5 G5 teams and 11 P5 teams. But in any given year I can see a Fresno, or Houston, or Boise, or Cinci, or Ball State or UCF advancing deep. And the public would love it. David kicking Goliath's ass. And they are only David by the amount of money they can spend on their programs and how large their stadium is. The Goliaths will make their own division in CFB before they ever let this play out.

(10-10-2013 09:41 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 03:05 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  I have also seen reports that the playoff selection committee will not only seed the playoff, but also arrange the other bowl matchups.

Can't answer your other question about how the G5 team will be chosen, but I don't think this last part is correct. Remember the "other" bowl are now contract bowls, tied to conferences. How can the playoff selection committee arrange those, when they are already arranged via contract?

I think he is referring to the Orange Bowl opponent, G5 representative, and the G5 opponent (as well as the playoff matchups). Frankly, Im a little unclear as to how the contract matchups work when the Sugar Bowl, Orange, or Cotton Bowls are serving as the semi-finals.

(10-10-2013 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  People can claim that they're not going to influenced by the AP and coaches' polls in theory, but they undoubtedly will be influenced heavily by them in practicality. The "big games" that get the most coverage and scrutiny are invariably the ones involving the schools that are highest in the polls. Also, there's going to be a CYA aspect here. If the committee ends up simply affirming the AP poll rankings, not too many people are going to complain. Any deviations from the AP poll rankings are going to need to have some very concrete reasons or else we'll end up the same complaints about the pre-2006 BCS system (where the public *claimed* that they wanted more reliance on computers instead of human polls, but then threw a gasket when teams got into the national championship game that didn't align with such human polls). The committee doesn't want to announce the game pairings and then have people asking, "WTF?!" People hate the *idea* of polls (as it goes against the notion of "playing it on the field"), but they generally like the *outcome* of polls compared to virtually every other ranking system out there.

Interesting you say AP poll.

The basketball selection committee gives a lot of deference to the coaches poll. One year, New Mexico was 70 in the RPI but Top 25 in the coaches poll. They got an at-large bid. To that point, it was unheard of for any team outside the Top 64 in the RPI to get an at-large bid.

Of course, the coaches poll and not the AP was included in the BCS formula, although that had more to do with the AP not wanting to be a part of the story it covered.

There are problems with the coaches poll of course. While coaches see a lot of teams on film, they are really focused solely on their opponents. Moreover, they don't watch many games live other than their own.

(10-10-2013 09:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 09:41 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 03:05 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  I have also seen reports that the playoff selection committee will not only seed the playoff, but also arrange the other bowl matchups.

Can't answer your other question about how the G5 team will be chosen, but I don't think this last part is correct. Remember the "other" bowl are now contract bowls, tied to conferences. How can the playoff selection committee arrange those, when they are already arranged via contract?

I think he is referring to the Orange Bowl opponent, G5 representative, and the G5 opponent (as well as the playoff matchups). Frankly, Im a little unclear as to how the contract matchups work when the Sugar Bowl, Orange, or Cotton Bowls are serving as the semi-finals.

When a Contract Bowl (Rose, Sugar and Orange) is serving as a semifinal, its respective Power 5 champ tie-in is guaranteed a spot in one of the Access Bowls (Cotton, Peach and Fiesta) if it is not a top 4 semifinalist. For example, if a Big Ten champ is not in the top 4 playoff but the Rose Bowl is hosting a semifinal, that Big Ten champ is guaranteed a spot in an Access Bowl.

When a Contract Bowl is *not* serving as a semifinal, it will take teams its respective conference tie-ins no matter what. For an extreme example, if the SEC fills all 4 spots in the 4-team playoff, the Sugar Bowl will take SEC #5 in that situation.

So, the committee's filling in of slots really depends a lot on who the top 4 is in a given year and which particular Contract Bowls are serving as semifinals (as it looks like the Rose and Sugar are always going to be hosting semifinals together in the same year). The number of truly open access slots is going to be variable from year-to-year with the various contract tie-ins and which conferences have top 4 playoff teams.

A 16 team playoff would be the best thing that could ever happen to D1 football.

(10-10-2013 10:02 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  There are problems with the coaches poll of course. While coaches see a lot of teams on film, they are really focused solely on their opponents. Moreover, they don't watch many games live other than their own.

They are also biased, and tend to vote according to what is best for their school and conference.

(10-10-2013 10:02 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  People can claim that they're not going to influenced by the AP and coaches' polls in theory, but they undoubtedly will be influenced heavily by them in practicality. The "big games" that get the most coverage and scrutiny are invariably the ones involving the schools that are highest in the polls. Also, there's going to be a CYA aspect here. If the committee ends up simply affirming the AP poll rankings, not too many people are going to complain. Any deviations from the AP poll rankings are going to need to have some very concrete reasons or else we'll end up the same complaints about the pre-2006 BCS system (where the public *claimed* that they wanted more reliance on computers instead of human polls, but then threw a gasket when teams got into the national championship game that didn't align with such human polls). The committee doesn't want to announce the game pairings and then have people asking, "WTF?!" People hate the *idea* of polls (as it goes against the notion of "playing it on the field"), but they generally like the *outcome* of polls compared to virtually every other ranking system out there.

Interesting you say AP poll.

The basketball selection committee gives a lot of deference to the coaches poll. One year, New Mexico was 70 in the RPI but Top 25 in the coaches poll. They got an at-large bid. To that point, it was unheard of for any team outside the Top 64 in the RPI to get an at-large bid.

Of course, the coaches poll and not the AP was included in the BCS formula, although that had more to do with the AP not wanting to be a part of the story it covered.

There are problems with the coaches poll of course. While coaches see a lot of teams on film, they are really focused solely on their opponents. Moreover, they don't watch many games live other than their own.

Interesting point. You may be right that the coaches' poll will get more deference from the types of people on the committee. Personally, I trust the AP poll more, but I can see where you're coming from and how it has applied to the NCAA Tournament in the past. I can see the committee members taking the advice of the coaches that they've hired (or whatever student assistant fills out the coaches' ballots) over the reporters.

(10-10-2013 10:05 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  A 16 team playoff would be the best thing that could ever happen to D1 football.

I hope for 8, but no more...#16 would rarely if ever win the championship. Top 8 keeps the regular season very important and takes all teams that really have a shot at winning it all.

(10-10-2013 10:22 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 10:05 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  A 16 team playoff would be the best thing that could ever happen to D1 football.

I hope for 8, but no more...#16 would rarely if ever win the championship. Top 8 keeps the regular season very important and takes all teams that really have a shot at winning it all.

Same could be said for number 64 in be all but look how well that's worked out.

(10-10-2013 10:22 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 10:05 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  A 16 team playoff would be the best thing that could ever happen to D1 football.

I hope for 8, but no more...#16 would rarely if ever win the championship. Top 8 keeps the regular season very important and takes all teams that really have a shot at winning it all.

I concur. I think 8 is a good number and it would also keeps some of the major bowl going.

(10-10-2013 10:29 AM)dezagcoog Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 10:22 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 10:05 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  A 16 team playoff would be the best thing that could ever happen to D1 football.

I hope for 8, but no more...#16 would rarely if ever win the championship. Top 8 keeps the regular season very important and takes all teams that really have a shot at winning it all.

Same could be said for number 64 in be all but look how well that's worked out.

Anyone can design a playoff system that they personally like. The only thing that matters, though, is designing a playoff system that the SEC and Big Ten like. The Power 5 isn't even giving G5 seats on the playoff committee outside of the retired Air Force superintendent (which is more about deference to the federal government as opposed to G5 interests), much less actual playoff bids that are worth tens of millions of dollars. That's pretty instructive.

So, any viable case for a new playoff system has to show why the SEC and Big Ten (and the rest of the P5) is actually going to be better for *them* in terms of both money and maintaining their power. A lot of fans focus on the money part and argue that bigger is always better (which could be true in theory), but fail to address the power part that's even more important to those conferences.