Crimson Red Sports

Next year the playoff starts.  First question should a team be considered if they don't have a conference championship game?  Second, should they do away with bowl tie end to get the best match ups possible?  Your thoughts.

I think that often, the 2nd best team in the SEC is better than the champs in most conferences. IMO, it should not come down to just conference championships. I don't care what anybody says, in 2011 Alabama & LSU were the 2 best teams in the country. Realistically, last year, Alabama and Georgia were probably the 2 best teams at the end of the year.

Also, I'm not a fan of the selection committee. The BCS, even though not perfect, has worked pretty well. I think it is the best system for the 4 team playoff.

Bowl tie-ends result in too many crappy games. Also, the Big Ten needs to stop hiding behind the Rose Bowl and have their champ play at other bowls, like the Sugar, Orange, etc.

 >:(

Until they establish the super conferences and have a conference playoff in each conference and then let that decide who plays in the playoffs, I don't think it will be much difference in the way the NC is established now.

The bowl games are there only to generate extra monies for the Universities so I don't see much emhasis put on them, just the playoffs.

I'm curious what's going to happen when a team that would be 3-4 without a conference championship game loses to a 1 or 2 in the conference championship.  Georgia losing to Alabama last year, for example.  Would Georgia have made the 4-team playoff or would Oregon and Kansas St have jumped them because Georgia lost while Oregon and K St were sitting at home?

Good question.

Point of clarification: I think it's "tie-in" like the conference is tied into the bowl.

I think a system that considers, but does not prioritize conference championships, is less likely to produce a suicidal result. By suicidal result, I'm thinking of a system that puts a #12 Louisville conference champ in the final four while excluding a one loss SEC team whose only loss is to an undefeated #1 ranked SEC team. A system that requires a conf. championship to make the top 4 will eventually produce a suicidal result: It will be so blatantly unfair that the system will lack enough credibility to survive.

The only really cherished bowl tie-in situation is the PAC12-Big10 thing with the Rose Bowl. If the loser of the semis is allowed to take a bowl bid, that rose bowl system might survive. Otherwise, though the Big10 is likely to be left out of the top four regularly enough to sustain the Rode Bowl tradition, I suspect that the PAC10 leaders will have bigger fish to fry than the Rose Bowl. I think the tie-ins die a not so slow and unpleasant death.

I don't think conference championships will be in consideration.  My understanding is that the committee will choose what they believe to be the four best teams, and then the bowls will follow the normal tie-in process.  So for example if Ohio St were in the four-team playoff this year the number two team in Big 10 would go to the Rose Bowl.  If two SEC teams are in the playoff then the number three SEC team goes to the top SEC bowl game.  I could be wrong, but I think that is how it's going to work.

^THIS^

Agree with Jamos that the bowl tie-ins remain otherwise unchanged.  One thing that might change is the BCS bowl seat for the non-power conference teams, that bogus rule that got N. Illinois in last year, and probably Fresno State or N. Ill. this year.  Just because you have a better ranking than the top BigEast/AAC team doesn't mean you belong in a BCS Bowl game.

You are correct. It is tie-ins.

I understand tie-ins can still work with the playoffs, but are tie-in really beneficial to getting the best match ups in bowl games?

I don't like bowl tie-ins. I want to see the best game possible out of all bowls. You can not do that with tie-ins.

Requiring a Conference Championship Game (CCG) is a slippery slope. I am in favor of the CCG and think the winners of these games should get credit. However, it will be difficult to require a CCG and then pick the second best team in a conference that did not play or win their CCG. With or without the CCG I want to see the best four teams in the playoff.

I like the championship games too.  However, if there are 4 super conferences and those champions are put into the 4-team playoff I strongly suspect that at least one, possibly two teams that are legitimately better would be left out.  I actually like the idea of having a combination of the current BCS system and the selection committee deciding the 4 best teams, even if that means that one particular conference has two teams in the playoff. 

These bowls are also driven by money.  Many would love to have an SEC team because they know the fans will follow.  When the fans follow they spend money.

Right.  And I think that might have been the final straw for the BCS -- BCS Bowls spending tons of money and getting Northern Illinois v. FSU, or even worse, Boise State v. TCU. 

Which is why I think once the playoffs start we might actually get some better bowl games too.  With so many bowls, there will be several run-of-the mill games, but New Years Day and later should be good.