8-team playoff (just for fun)

[SoonerMachine]

2014 8-team College Football Playoff:

Selection Committee Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - Alabama (12-1) - SEC
#2 - Oregon (12-1) - Pac-12
#3 - Florida State (13-0) - ACC
#4 - Ohio State (12-1) - Big Ten
#5 - Baylor (11-1) - Big 12
#20 - Boise State (11-2) - Mountain West

At-Large Teams

#6 - TCU (11-1) - Big 12
#7 - Mississippi State (10-2) - SEC

1st Round:

#1 Alabama hosts #20 Boise State

#2 Oregon hosts #5 Baylor

#3 Florida State hosts #4 Ohio State

At-Large Elimination Game:

#6 TCU hosts #7 Mississippi State

[Soonerjeepman]

2014 8-team College Football Playoff:

Selection Committee Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - Alabama (12-1) - SEC
#2 - Oregon (12-1) - Pac-12
#3 - Florida State (13-0) - ACC
#4 - Ohio State (12-1) - Big Ten
#5 - Baylor (11-1) - Big 12
#20 - Boise State (11-2) - Mountain West

At-Large Teams

#6 - TCU (11-1) - Big 12
#7 - Mississippi State (10-2) - SEC

1st Round:

#1 Alabama hosts #20 Boise State

#2 Oregon hosts #5 Baylor

#3 Florida State hosts #4 Ohio State

At-Large Elimination Game:

#6 TCU hosts #7 Mississippi State

Bama wins
Oregon wins
Ohio State wins
TCU (go with Big12, but this is a toss up)

Bama/ TCU = Bama
Oregon/ OSU = Oregon

Bama/Oregon = hmmm.....

[aero]

[QUOTE=SoonerMachine;4908409]2014 8-team College Football Playoff:

Selection Committee Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - Alabama (12-1) - SEC
#2 - Oregon (12-1) - Pac-12
#3 - Florida State (13-0) - ACC
#4 - Ohio State (12-1) - Big Ten
#5 - Baylor (11-1) - Big 12
#20 - Boise State (11-2) - Mountain West

At-Large Teams

#6 - TCU (11-1) - Big 12
#7 - Mississippi State (10-2) - SEC]

I like your bracket. Michigan St would be pissed but no matter how many you have - 2, 4, 8, or 16 - somebody is going to feel left out. I would include all the conf. champs like you did and rank them and then have the 2 at larges #7 and #8 in the bracket. That way you reward all of the conference champs. By having an at large elimination game the winner actually is better off than one of the conf. champs. So my bracket would look like this:

Round 1

Bama vs. Miss. St.
Oregon vs. TCU
FSU vs. Boise
Ohio St vs. Baylor

I would actually hate that bracket because it gives you a rematch with Bama-MissSt and FSU would get probably the easiest game of the bracket. But based on current rankings thats probably about right. Unless you wanted to rank Ohio St ahead of FSU which I wouldn't just because FSU did win its games. I think Ohio St would beat them but winning all your games has to count for a little.

[Eielson]

Boise State and Miss St. don't belong, so 8 still isn't a good idea...even this year of all years.

Bama obliterates Boise
Oregon beats Baylor
FSU beats Ohio State
TCU beats Miss St.

TCU beats Bama
FSU beats Oregon

FSU beats TCU

[SoonerMachine]

Thanks for the input. I didn't put in all the fine print, because the winner of the 'at-large elimination game' remains a road team in the 2nd round. Boise's in because they were the 6th highest rated conference champ (some years are better than others).

[SoonerForLife92]

Boise State and Miss St. don't belong, so 8 still isn't a good idea...even this year of all years.

Bama obliterates Boise
Oregon beats Baylor
FSU beats Ohio State
TCU beats Miss St.

TCU beats Bama
FSU beats Oregon

FSU beats TCU

This would be what I would like to see most if TCU could beat FSU.

but....

Bama smashes boise
Oregon beats Baylor
FSU barely beats Ohio State
TCU beats up on miss st

Bama beats TCU
FSU beats Oregon

Last one I have no idea. I'll go with FSU.

[Eielson]

This would be what I would like to see most if TCU could beat FSU.

I just feel like Alabama wouldn't have an answer for Boykin, and that TCU would have an answer for Cooper. They might not, though, as Shepard is the most similar comparison to Cooper, and Shepard went for over 200 yards. I still think they could beat Bama even if they gave up a couple of 50+ yarders to Cooper, as TCU would probably score around 40 on them.

[BoulderSooner79]

That's a weird system you got there. Giving the Mountain West champ an automatic bid is weird but giving them an automatic seed even weirder. Having the at large teams play each other and guaranteeing the winner a 2nd round slot is strange. But if it were true the Mountain West gets a bid, I think the seeding would just go by ranking and they would be the #8 seed. Likewise, the at large bids would just be seeded by their ranking which is already in order. Then it would be a standard bracket of

#1 vs #8 Bama crushes Boise
#2 vs #7 Oregon outscores Miss St.
#3 vs #6 FSU squeaks by TCU somehow
#4 vs #5 Baylor exposes tOSU

[8timechamps]

Keep it simple:

8 team playoff
automatic bid to champions of the power 5 conferences.
3 at large bid.


If a team like Boise (or Marshall for that matter) were to win their conference and be ranked high enough, then they could still earn a bid. Otherwise, the 3 at large bids go to the next best 3 teams (TCU or Baylor would receive the at large while the other would have the automatic, if it were this year).

Seeds would be determined by the committee, and they would also determine the 3 at large bids.

[SoonerMachine]

The reasoning behind 'top six conf. champs' over 'automatic bids' is it helps reduces the odds of multiple-loss conference champions from participating ('08 – Virginia Tech 9-4; '05 – Florida State 8-4)

The 6th conference champion slot also allows for the potential ‘Cinderella Team’ (’98 – Tulane 11-0; ’99 – Marshall 12-0; ’04 – Utah 11-0 & Boise State 11-0; ’06 – Boise State 12-0; ’08 – Utah 12-0; ’09 – Cincinnati 12-0, TCU 12-0, & Boise State 13-0; ’10 – TCU 12-0) which, admittedly, is just my personal twist/preference.

The inherit problem with 3 at-large bids is it allows a high potential for 3 teams coming from the same conference, which in my opinion, de-emphasizes the regular season and increases re-matches in the post-season. In a 3 at-large bid system you should, at the very least, put a rule in place that limits it to 2 teams per conference.

[rock on sooner]

Bama wins
Oregon wins
Ohio State wins
TCU (go with Big12, but this is a toss up)

Bama/ TCU = Bama
Oregon/ OSU = Oregon

Bama/Oregon = hmmm.....

Heh...Bama/Oregon over/under would be, oh, 125 1/2....

[aero]

The reasoning behind 'top six conf. champs' over 'automatic bids' is it helps reduces the odds of multiple-loss conference champions from participating ('08 – Virginia Tech 9-4; '05 – Florida State 8-4)

The 6th conference champion slot also allows for the potential ‘Cinderella Team’ (’98 – Tulane 11-0; ’99 – Marshall 12-0; ’04 – Utah 11-0 & Boise State 11-0; ’06 – Boise State 12-0; ’08 – Utah 12-0; ’09 – Cincinnati 12-0, TCU 12-0, & Boise State 13-0; ’10 – TCU 12-0) which, admittedly, is just my personal twist/preference.

The inherit problem with 3 at-large bids is it allows a high potential for 3 teams coming from the same conference, which in my opinion, de-emphasizes the regular season and increases re-matches in the post-season. In a 3 at-large bid system you should, at the very least, put a rule in place that limits it to 2 teams per conference.

Yes, at first I thought it was odd to include Boise but actually I think it would make sense. That way the non power 5 conferences still have a chance and shouldn't complain too much. Maybe take the highest rated conf. champ out of the non power 5 conferences. Plus 2 at larges. At larges would get the 7 and 8 seed even if they are better than the non power 5 conf. champ. Should be happy just to be there and if they don't like it then win your conference.

[SoonerForLife92]

I just feel like Alabama wouldn't have an answer for Boykin, and that TCU would have an answer for Cooper. They might not, though, as Shepard is the most similar comparison to Cooper, and Shepard went for over 200 yards. I still think they could beat Bama even if they gave up a couple of 50+ yarders to Cooper, as TCU would probably score around 40 on them.

I agree. TCU would definitely have the ability to beat them. I think TCU would have a good margin of victory against a team like miss st. I think it is complete crap neither TCU or Baylor got in. I think TCU is the better team (than baylor) but I am not an advocate for the "eye-test" that this idiotic committee likes to use. TCU did have a better out of conference schedule though. Their "eye-test" is based on non-factors like "game-control." What a load of crap. I'n in the minority on here but I now want FSU to win it all just to shut up the media and show how biased/ridiculous the committee is. I also hope Ohio State doesn't score a single point against bama.

Anyway i'm rambling... I think TCU could take 5/10 or maybe even more against bama. Sadly we will never see but... I just have a feeling Bama would win that game. I would have loved to have the opportunity to be proven wrong...

[jkjsooner]

2014 8-team College Football Playoff:

Selection Committee Rank | Champion | Conference

#1 - Alabama (12-1) - SEC
#2 - Oregon (12-1) - Pac-12
#3 - Florida State (13-0) - ACC
#4 - Ohio State (12-1) - Big Ten
#5 - Baylor (11-1) - Big 12
#20 - Boise State (11-2) - Mountain West

At-Large Teams

#6 - TCU (11-1) - Big 12
#7 - Mississippi State (10-2) - SEC

1st Round:

#1 Alabama hosts #20 Boise State

#2 Oregon hosts #5 Baylor

#3 Florida State hosts #4 Ohio State

At-Large Elimination Game:

#6 TCU hosts #7 Mississippi State

Why would you necessarily match the at-large teams against each other. That seems backwards as you could argue those are the #7 and #8 seeds. I'd rank them and match them according to the ranking.

[jkjsooner]

Keep it simple:

8 team playoff
automatic bid to champions of the power 5 conferences.
3 at large bid.


If a team like Boise (or Marshall for that matter) were to win their conference and be ranked high enough, then they could still earn a bid. Otherwise, the 3 at large bids go to the next best 3 teams (TCU or Baylor would receive the at large while the other would have the automatic, if it were this year).

Seeds would be determined by the committee, and they would also determine the 3 at large bids.

You're going to have congress breathing down your throat on anti-trust issues. Right now there is no explicit bias towards power conference teams. There is plenty of implicit bias but it isn't codified in the rules.

You're also going to have to throw Notre Dame some type of bone. They aren't going to be happy fighting for an at-large spot every year as if they are inferior to conference champions.

[SoonerMachine]

Why would you necessarily match the at-large teams against each other. That seems backwards as you could argue those are the #7 and #8 seeds. I'd rank them and match them according to the ranking.

My reasoning was because the at-large teams are usually 'second-chance teams' (very high rank, but didn't win their conference) I felt one should be eliminated in the first round and then go on the road for the 2nd round game. If they survive that, they deserve to play for the NC (unlike Alabama in 2011 or OU in 2003). It also helps cut down on rematches and give the top 2 teams an easier first round. You certainly could do it your way (put them at 7th and 8th), I just liked the survivor tension the game might generate.

Example of OU in 2003:

2003 (with this seeding, maybe we're a bit more focused on K-St.?)

BCS Rank | Champion | Conference

#2 - LSU (12-1) - SEC
#3 - USC (11-1) - Pac-10
#4 - Michigan (10-2) - Big Ten
#7 - Florida State (10-2) - ACC
#9 - Miami (10-2) - Big East
#10 - Kansas State (11-3) - Big 12

At-Large Teams

#1 - OU (12-1) - Big 12
#5 - Ohio State (10-2) - Big Ten

[jkjsooner]

My reasoning was because the at-large teams are usually 'second-chance teams' (very high rank, but didn't win their conference) I felt one should be eliminated in the first round and then go on the road for the 2nd round game.


You had 8 teams so all four games are first round games and all are elimination.

[SoonerMachine]

What I'm trying to do is limit only one 'second chance/at-large' team to move on to the second round. By facing each other, only one can advance (but remain a road team in the second round). If they're seeded at #7 and #8, not only can both teams advance, but the #1 and #2 seed will arguably have tougher games than the #3 and #4 seed. You could, however do it like this (but both at-large teams could still advance):

1st Round:

#1 Alabama hosts #20 Boise State

#2 Oregon hosts #7 Miss St.

#3 Florida State hosts #6 TCU

#4 tOSU hosts #5 Baylor

[BoulderSooner79]

At large teams should be seeded by ranking like any other team. If they happen to be lower ranked as they would in this case, they both would be underdogs. By playing each other, one is guaranteed to advance when normally, they would both likely lose to higher ranked teams. It also punishes higher ranked team by having to play each other in the first round. At large bids wouldn't necessarily be lower ranked. For example, had Mizzou upset Bama in the CCG, Bama would still be higher ranked than automatic bid Mizzou.

[SoonerMachine]

At large teams should be seeded by ranking like any other team. If they happen to be lower ranked as they would in this case, they both would be underdogs. By playing each other, one is guaranteed to advance when normally, they would both likely lose to higher ranked teams. It also punishes higher ranked team by having to play each other in the first round. At large bids wouldn't necessarily be lower ranked. For example, had Mizzou upset Bama in the CCG, Bama would still be higher ranked than automatic bid Mizzou.

With a committee as opposed to the BCS computer system (which kept OU #1 after losing to K-St.), I'm actually fine with what you propose. What do think about keeping the at-large teams as 'road teams' throughout the playoff (a slight form of punishment for being given a second chance)?

Thanks.

[BoulderSooner79]

With a committee as opposed to the BCS computer system (which kept OU #1 after losing to K-St.), I'm actually fine with what you propose. What do think about keeping the at-large teams as 'road teams' throughout the playoff (a slight form of punishment for being given a second chance)?

Thanks.

That would make sense as it's similar to the NFL wildcards. I think the committee may have done that this year. One could have argued that Oregon should be #1 and Bama #2, but that would have p.issed off both teams due to location. There is no home team per se, but I'm sure Bama at the Rose Bowl and Oregon at the Sugar would have felt like road games for both.