pretty big I think:
No 1 and No 2 seeds will not face home-field disadvantage.

so like this year
1 Notre Dame, 2 Alabama, 3 Florida, 4 Oregon

would have been tough. I'd assume it'd be Oregon vs Notre Dame in the Sugar, with Alabama/Florida in the Rose.

also:
Bill Hancock confirms CBSSports.com Sunday report Rose and Sugar will always play on 2nd and 3rd TV windows (5 & 8 pm et) on jan 1

Since neither Florida or Oregon won their conferences, I doubt both would be in the playoff. Stanford or Kansas State would supplant one of them IMO...

Florida with all their top 12 wins- is a lock. It'd be between Oregon, Kansas St, and Stanford. I think KSU likely gets knocked out due to getting blown out by Baylor. Oregon/Stanford is interesting- but Stanford having 2 losses may be a killer.

Wasn't the playoff setup supposed to be 3 conference champions and one at large bid? That means there shouldn't be 2 at large bids...

(01-07-2013 10:44 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Wasn't the playoff setup supposed to be 3 conference champions and one at large bid? That means there shouldn't be 2 at large bids...

That was kicked around--they decided on a Selection Committee. Because no one argues about who the basketball committee includes and leaves out.

(01-07-2013 10:44 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Wasn't the playoff setup supposed to be 3 conference champions and one at large bid? That means there shouldn't be 2 at large bids...

nope. that was talked about, but they never did that.

It would certainly be interesting to see what a committee would have done.

Many people in 2011 supported a 11-2 PAC-12 Champ Oregon over a 11-1 Stanford in a hypothetical playoff, claiming "Oregon beat Stanford and only had an extra loss because of playing undefeated #1 LSU". In 2012, would 11-2 PAC-12 Champ Stanford have been given the same consideration over the 11-1 Ducks, given "Stanford beat Oregon and only had an extra loss because of playing undefeated #1 Notre Dame"?

And then there's 11-1 Big 12 Champ Kansas State. Sure, the loss to Baylor was bad, but isn't a Conference Championship supposed to be taken into account when compared to 11-1 non-conference champ Florida?

Given the "computers plus polls" formula, there's hardly any argument with how the BCS Top 4 were determined. The question becomes: what would the committee's Top 4 have been, given recent precedent and the alleged "consideration for conference champions"?

(01-07-2013 10:47 AM)TopayVT Wrote:  It would certainly be interesting to see what a committee would have done.

Many people in 2011 supported a 11-2 PAC-12 Champ Oregon over a 11-1 Stanford in a hypothetical playoff, claiming "Oregon beat Stanford and only had an extra loss because of playing undefeated #1 LSU". In 2012, would 11-2 PAC-12 Champ Stanford have been given the same consideration over the 11-1 Ducks, given "Stanford beat Oregon and only had an extra loss because of playing undefeated #1 Notre Dame"?

And then there's 11-1 Big 12 Champ Kansas State. Sure, the loss to Baylor was bad, but isn't a Conference Championship supposed to be taken into account when compared to 11-1 non-conference champ Florida?

Given the "computers plus polls" formula, there's hardly any argument with how the BCS Top 4 were determined. The question becomes: what would the committee's Top 4 have been, given recent precedent and the alleged "consideration for conference champions"?

The Oregon/Stanford one would be interesting. Easily could see Stanford there...

Florida had 4 top 12 wins. KSU had 2 wins over BCS top 25 and a much worse loss. It would have been Florida, and it wouldn't have been remotely close at all....

(01-07-2013 10:44 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Wasn't the playoff setup supposed to be 3 conference champions and one at large bid? That means there shouldn't be 2 at large bids...

Nope. Top 4 teams as ranked by the selection committee. The committee is supposed to stress conference championships, but in the end it will be who they like the best. The committee will be at least one rep from each conference, and then some additional "experts" to form a committee of 14-18 members in total. They will not only rank the teams 1-4, but also rank them for the at-large spots in the other access bowls.

Exactly why this playoff will expand in very short order. It almost has to.

This year would be tough. Beyond Alabama and ND, I think Kansas St. (XII champ) would have gotten the nod as well as UF.

(01-07-2013 10:51 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-07-2013 10:47 AM)TopayVT Wrote:  It would certainly be interesting to see what a committee would have done.

Many people in 2011 supported a 11-2 PAC-12 Champ Oregon over a 11-1 Stanford in a hypothetical playoff, claiming "Oregon beat Stanford and only had an extra loss because of playing undefeated #1 LSU". In 2012, would 11-2 PAC-12 Champ Stanford have been given the same consideration over the 11-1 Ducks, given "Stanford beat Oregon and only had an extra loss because of playing undefeated #1 Notre Dame"?

And then there's 11-1 Big 12 Champ Kansas State. Sure, the loss to Baylor was bad, but isn't a Conference Championship supposed to be taken into account when compared to 11-1 non-conference champ Florida?

Given the "computers plus polls" formula, there's hardly any argument with how the BCS Top 4 were determined. The question becomes: what would the committee's Top 4 have been, given recent precedent and the alleged "consideration for conference champions"?

The Oregon/Stanford one would be interesting. Easily could see Stanford there...

Florida had 4 top 12 wins. KSU had 2 wins over BCS top 25 and a much worse loss. It would have been Florida, and it wouldn't have been remotely close at all....

I agree with you - if I were on the committee, I would have placed Florida above K-State on my ballot (same 11-1 records, and K-State's conference championship is impressive, but the Gators' 4 top 12 wins and much better loss gives them a slight edge). But I'm sure there would have been some debating and finger-pointing, even if just to say "hey! let's expand this thing!"

(01-07-2013 10:56 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Exactly why this playoff will expand in very short order. It almost has to.

If the playoff is taking teams that didn't win their own conference over the conference champion, who beat the team selected during the season, they'll have to expand it to 8 in short order...

It's not decided on the field, if that's how they're going to do it, since opinions will still be the major determining factor. That's not an improvement. It's status quo...

(01-07-2013 11:09 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-07-2013 10:56 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Exactly why this playoff will expand in very short order. It almost has to.

If the playoff is taking teams that didn't win their own conference over the conference champion, who beat the team selected during the season, they'll have to expand it to 8 in short order...

It's not decided on the field, if that's how they're going to do it, since opinions will still be the major determining factor. That's not an improvement. It's status quo...

Well, when the CC beat the runner-up by one point, and the runner-up has a top 10 OOC win and the CC doesn't, it's justifiable. We want big OOC games instead of creampuffs, right? If we want them, there has to be some reward for winning them....

Most important, TPTB are fine with the status quo.

(01-07-2013 10:47 AM)TopayVT Wrote:  It would certainly be interesting to see what a committee would have done.

Many people in 2011 supported a 11-2 PAC-12 Champ Oregon over a 11-1 Stanford in a hypothetical playoff, claiming "Oregon beat Stanford and only had an extra loss because of playing undefeated #1 LSU". In 2012, would 11-2 PAC-12 Champ Stanford have been given the same consideration over the 11-1 Ducks, given "Stanford beat Oregon and only had an extra loss because of playing undefeated #1 Notre Dame"?

And then there's 11-1 Big 12 Champ Kansas State. Sure, the loss to Baylor was bad, but isn't a Conference Championship supposed to be taken into account when compared to 11-1 non-conference champ Florida?

Given the "computers plus polls" formula, there's hardly any argument with how the BCS Top 4 were determined. The question becomes: what would the committee's Top 4 have been, given recent precedent and the alleged "consideration for conference champions"?

SI has heard and answered. Although this was before the last week of the season. They made the assumption the favorites won the last week. Interesting they would have ignored KSU. Their top 8 included 5 SEC teams, 3 w/ 2 losses, Pac 12 champ w/ 2 losses, but not 1 loss KSU or 2 loss FSU ACC champ.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/fo...index.html

Seem to have the same late season bias as pollsters, looking too much at one game and not the body of work. But not as hung up on won/loss record as the pollsters.

(01-07-2013 11:18 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-07-2013 11:09 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-07-2013 10:56 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Exactly why this playoff will expand in very short order. It almost has to.

If the playoff is taking teams that didn't win their own conference over the conference champion, who beat the team selected during the season, they'll have to expand it to 8 in short order...

It's not decided on the field, if that's how they're going to do it, since opinions will still be the major determining factor. That's not an improvement. It's status quo...

Well, when the CC beat the runner-up by one point, and the runner-up has a top 10 OOC win and the CC doesn't, it's justifiable. We want big OOC games instead of creampuffs, right? If we want them, there has to be some reward for winning them....

Most important, TPTB are fine with the status quo.

I wouldn't mind so much if the top ranked wins were judged using end of season rankings. But it's based on how the team is ranked when they play, which isn't a true indication of the team's REAL ranking, which comes at the end of the season...

(01-07-2013 10:56 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Exactly why this playoff will expand in very short order. It almost has to.

Agree. It would have been nice to see Ohio State in the mix.