What would this year's final 4 match ups be?

[Schultzy]

Fla. State vs Bama and Auburn vs Ohio State? Where and when would they be playing?

Those would be some great semi finals but damn an Iron bowl II in Pasadena? That would be some serious culture shock for southern California. The backwoods bubba stories from that trip would be funny as hell and numerous but I digress.

Would Michigan State be in? Missouri over Bama? There's still going to be some arguing when the four team playoff comes around.

[Will James]

Final Four would be Florida State vs Michigan State in one bracket and Iron Bowl II in another.

Based on final BCS Standings

[TheRef]

Fla. State vs Bama and Auburn vs Ohio State? Where and when would they be playing?

Those would be some great semi finals but damn an Iron bowl II in Pasadena? That would be some serious culture shock for southern California. The backwoods bubba stories from that trip would be funny as hell and numerous but I digress.

Would Michigan State be in? Missouri over Bama? There's still going to be some arguing when the four team playoff comes around.

I think final four would be FSU vs. Stanford and Bama v. Auburn. Mizzou was already #5 and lost in the SECCG. Stanford won Pac-12 in style. Bama would move up to 3 by default so it's 1 v. 4 and 2 v. 3

[fishwater99]

I think final four would be FSU vs. Stanford and Bama v. Auburn. Mizzou was already #5 and lost in the SECCG. Stanford won Pac-12 in style. Bama would move up to 3 by default so it's 1 v. 4 and 2 v. 3

Its going to be interesting with the committee and all...

[TheRef]

Its going to be interesting with the committee and all...

I think Stanford would get in because of them initially having the higher ranking before last week's game. Same record but more quality wins in Stanford's favor.

[Quaoarsking]

The committee would not just go by BCS standings. They would also want to avoid Iron Bowl II in a semifinal, and they've made a big deal about how important SOS is.

My best guess is:

1 Auburn vs. 4 Baylor
2 Florida State vs. 3 Alabama

It's possible Michigan State gets Baylor's spot, but I don't think Stanford has a shot. If Arizona State had won the Pac-12 they would have been in the conversation, but I think Baylor's overall resume, and the fact that their NFL-quality RBs were hurt during their 1 loss but are now back at full strength, probably gets them the nod either way.

[Political Hack]

I think they'd make the SEC teams play each other if they allow a conference two teams. They don't have to pick someone just because they're #3.

I would like to see FSU, Auburn, Bama, and Stanford. I think that would be more appealing than Mich state.

[Schultzy]

I think they'd make the SEC teams play each other if they allow a conference two teams. They don't have to pick someone just because they're #3.

I would like to see FSU, Auburn, Bama, and Stanford. I think that would be more appealing than Mich state.

I'm thinking along these lines as well but one thing's for certain, going to four teams isn't going to solve it. They will go to 8 teams before it's over or six with byes for one and two.

I predict the wrangling over the three and four spots in this system will be worse than the mushroom clouds that go up every year for the field of 64.

[Maroonthirteen]

I predict the wrangling over the three and four spots in this system will be worse than the mushroom clouds that go up every year for the field of 64.

Damn right and there should be. Because watching that Big10 championship game, Ohio State and Mich State looked every bit as good or better than Auburn. Who knows if they really are until they play head up but OSU and MSU deserve a shot. As does Baylor.

[sleepy dawg]

Call me a cynic, but I don't think we'll ever see two SEC teams in the playoffs.

[engie]

Damn right and there should be. Because watching that Big10 championship game, Ohio State and Mich State looked every bit as good or better than Auburn. Who knows if they really are until they play head up but OSU and MSU deserve a shot. As does Baylor.

If Ohio St deserves a shot based on what you saw in that game -- Mizzou and Bama both damn sure deserve a shot...

[CadaverDawg]

It would be

1. FSU vs 4. Michigan State
2. Auburn vs 3. Bama

They wouldn't want an all SEC title game. Plus, I would like to see Auburn and Bama at a neutral site because I think Bama would win and we'd get the FSU vs Bama Title game that everybody wants to see. Keep the seedings the same as the current standings and you get the best matchup IMO. For all the bitching...the BCS seems to get it right a lot.

[engie]

Call me a cynic, but I don't think we'll ever see two SEC teams in the playoffs.

We would have had 2 this year -- and basically every year other than 2010, when Auburn was the only really highly-ranked SEC team.

They are NOT going to lock out the team that has won 3 of 4 national titles because they lost one fluke rivalry game at the last second to the SEC champion on the road...

We will get 2 more often than not.

[DanDority]

My question is, do you think the committee will put two SEC teams into the playoff? I can't see them doing it because the rest of the country has SEC fatigue and that is too bad. Even if the SEC has two of the best teams in the country. What are your thoughts?

[engie]

It would be

1. FSU vs 4. Michigan State
2. Auburn vs 3. Bama

They wouldn't want an all SEC title game. Plus, I would like to see Auburn and Bama at a neutral site because I think Bama would win and we'd get the FSU vs Bama Title game that everybody wants to see. Keep the seedings the same as the current standings and you get the best matchup IMO. For all the bitching...the BCS seems to get it right a lot.

What difference is an all-SEC title game -- and an all-SEC playoff game? One of the 3 biggest games will still have that "stigma". If they separate them -- there's a chance that they don't see that happen -- and if they do, it will be fairly-earned on the field against the other 2 best teams in the country. If they match them in the first round, it is guaranteed to happen. It's safe to say they avoid a greater number of SEC vs SEC games in the playoff by splitting them in the first round...

I'm not sure how they will do it -- as there is positives and negatives to each way. I lean towards breaking them up though...

[CadaverDawg]

My question is, do you think the committee will put two SEC teams into the playoff? I can't see them doing it because the rest of the country has SEC fatigue and that is too bad. Even if the SEC has two of the best teams in the country. What are your thoughts?

They will have to. Could you imagine if the playoff started this year and Bama was left out? We would have people lobbying for the return of the BCS if that happened. The goal is to get the best 4 teams in the playoff...if they are pushing for something other than that, then they never should have made it a human decision

[engie]

My question is, do you think the committee will put two SEC teams into the playoff? I can't see them doing it because the rest of the country has SEC fatigue and that is too bad. Even if the SEC has two of the best teams in the country. What are your thoughts?

When the SEC is two of the 4 best teams in the country -- they won't have a choice but to give them the opportunity to play in the game. "SEC fatigue" won't play a role in who 2 of the 4 best teams actually are -- and the first time they give the appearance of bias against the SEC, they are asking for the whole system to crumble...

[fishwater99]

My question is, do you think the committee will put two SEC teams into the playoff? I can't see them doing it because the rest of the country has SEC fatigue and that is too bad. Even if the SEC has two of the best teams in the country. What are your thoughts?

I don't see how they can leave out a Top 4 SEC team. We will always have one team in the playoff, and 2 most years...

[curmudgeon]

Stanford's 2 losses - including one to Utah - would knock them out.

Michigan State would get the nod for the 4 spot over Ohio State, Baylor and Stanford.

Oklahoma State beating Oklahoma would probably have pushed Bama out.

[DanDority]

Too bad the pokes chocked on Pistol Pete's six shooter.

[dawgs]

I'm thinking along these lines as well but one thing's for certain, going to four teams isn't going to solve it. They will go to 8 teams before it's over or six with byes for one and two.

I predict the wrangling over the three and four spots in this system will be worse than the mushroom clouds that go up every year for the field of 64.

i don't think there is that big of a mushroom cloud over the ncaa tourney. by the morning after the tourney announcement, no one cares about the snubs outside of the fans of the teams snubbed. they might get a minute or 2 of discussion on pti or the sports talk shows, but that's it.

and a 2013 playoff would be f$u, auburn, bama, and either michigan st or baylor. i do like the idea of a 6 team playoff with byes for the #1 and #2 seeds. it rewards a major conference team that goes undefeated with a bye 95% of the time with the bye.

[engie]

I think, ultimately, it's got to eventually be 8. 5 major conference champions and 3 at-larges.

Add 2 more teams and a championship game back to the Big12, and you've essentially got a 13 team playoff beginning on conference championship Saturday...

The difficult part of that becomes what to do with highly-ranked teams that lose their conference championship game. Do they still get one of the 8 spots? Maybe/Maybe not?

[Maroonthirteen]

If Ohio St deserves a shot based on what you saw in that game -- Mizzou and Bama both damn sure deserve a shot...

I agree.

My final four would be FSU, AU, Bama and MichSt. However, I am saying, just like the basketball tournament, football will have arguements for the final spot(s). A number of teams could argue that final spot this year. Although, I agree Bama looks the strongest of those not in the NC. This year calls for an eight team playoff...... FSU, AU, Bama, MichSt, OSU, Baylor, Missouri.

[Schultzy]

I think, ultimately, it's got to eventually be 8. 5 major conference champions and 3 at-larges.

Add 2 more teams and a championship game back to the Big12, and you've essentially got a 13 team playoff beginning on conference championship Saturday...

The difficult part of that becomes what to do with highly-ranked teams that lose their conference championship game. Do they still get one of the 8 spots? Maybe/Maybe not?

These are some things I hadn't thought about. The further you get into it the more questions that pop up and why I don't think the four team deal will last as long as the previous system did.

Once you get to six or eight in football the argument for seventh or ninth diminishes some. Definitely more than it does between two and three or even fourth.

[sleepy dawg]

A while back, curmudgeon posted that the committee will be looking at the "Championship Drive Rating" and "Football Power Index" ratings to help make their decision.
Why-the-SEC-Should-Hate-the-New-Playoff-System (http://www.elitedawgs.com/showthread.php?8704-Why-the-SEC-Should-Hate-the-New-Playoff-System&highlight=committee)

If his post is true, and the committee will be relying heavily on that information and giving a little extra credit to Conference Champs, then I believe it is likely the committee prevents the SEC from having two teams in the playoffs most years.

The BCS will be no more, so whoever the top 4 in the BCS are right now means nothing in determining who would've been this years teams. Here are the top 8 from each of the polls mentioned above:
Here are the top 8 from each poll:
1. Stanford
2. florida state
3. auburn
4. michigan state
5. alabama
6. ohio state
7. arizona state
8. missouri

1. fsu
2. oregon
3. bama
4. stanford
5. baylor
6. arizona state
7. ohio state
8. auburn


It is very east to see how they could validate only taking 1 SEC team with these rankings, in addtion to the fact they said they will put some emphasis on conference champions. I believe the top 4 will be something like this:
1. FSU (locked)
2. Stanford
3. Auburn
4. Michigan State

The 2nd most likely seeds would be swapping Michigan State with Alabama. However, if the committee could find a way this year not to have 2 SEC teams, it will be easier most other years. This year it's hard because many people think the best team in the country is still bama. If bama had won the SEC, I feel quite confident Missouri would not be in, Michigan State would.

In a year, I hope we can all look back at this post and laugh at how ridiculous it was, but I think the SEC is in for a royal ****ing.

[dawgs]

i have no idea why southerners are so paranoid. no one is coming after the sec. if the sec deserves to get 2 teams in, then we will. if they don't then we won't.

this year, stanford, oregon, and mizzou are out of any potential 4 team playoff discussion. why? because there are too many undefeated and 1 L major conf champs (f$u, auburn, baylor, mich st) and other highly rated 1 L teams (bama, ohio st). your 4 teams would come from those 6 teams this year.

for those worried about that drive index or whatever, it's going to be consider, but they aren't married to using any 1 rating. it'll be 1 of many ratings they consider along with the eye test, resume, other computer ratings, etc. stanford would NOT be a #2 seed or likely even make a 4 team playoff because they have 2 Ls to unranked teams, 1 not even bowl eligible.

[sleepy dawg]

I am paranoid because people are more involved again. People are biased, and will want to share the wealth.

I'll put it like this, next year, someone will come up with what the BCS would have been if it were still intact. If the top 4 includes 2 SEC teams, and those 2 SEC teams are not ranked 1 and 2. Then the playoffs will only include one of those SEC teams. I am almost always on the side of "everyone needs to calm down, this isn't as bad as it seems", but I do not believe everything will be fair.

I think the BCS does an amazing job of determining the most deserving teams when it gets to the end of the year. It has been quite a while since I didn't think the best 2 teams were in the championship game. Going forward, I believe we will continue to see the best 2 in the playoffs, but not the best 4.

[engie]

Any "index" that puts Stanford #1 is a joke -- and not worth mentioning further.

They are NOT going to leave out SEC teams ranked in the top 4. I don't care how you want to twist it or overcomplicate it. It's just not going to happen. I realize that those rankings aren't going to be the deciding factor for the committee -- but the fans and the committee will STILL be looking at those lists. They leave out an Alabama this year -- the whole system gets overturned.

We would have NEVER signed up for something with a good chance of getting screwed. Much less have been the ringleaders of the change.

We're going to get 2 into the playoff at least half the time.
We're going to have a team in the Orange Bowl more often than not.
The Cotton and Chick Fil-A will STILL prefer SEC teams when at all possible.

There will be an average of FOUR SEC teams represented in the "new" BCS... Sometimes 3 -- Sometimes 5. I have a hard time seeing a scenario where we only get 2 with the current strength of the conference. This is going to mean a RIDICULOUS amount of postseason revenue to the conference. Hell, we will already be making more from the Sugar Bowl by itself than we make from all bowls combined right now.

People are going to find out in the long run that the SEC made off like BANDITS in this restructuring...

[dawgs]

I am paranoid because people are more involved again. People are biased, and will want to share the wealth.


and because none of those committee members have a sec bias. only the pac 12, big 10, acc, big 12, and ND have reps in their corners on the committee. it's a big yankee/illuminati conspiracy to knock down the sec! the tv networks are behind it! oh wait, the sec brings in the most viewers? hmm, guess someone else will have to behind the great conspiracy now...

[Quaoarsking]

There's really no reason to believe the SEC will get slighted by this committee. The basketball committee doesn't slight the SEC, nor does it slight any other conference (before it fell apart, the Big East was easily the best conference and it would get 10-11 teams in). The baseball committee doesn't slight the SEC -- it routinely lets teams in that are below .500 in the SEC, as it should.

I just don't see any evidence to believe the committee would screw over SEC teams.