Question for you all. Just something that I was thinking about today. As one of our kind posters here often updates, "Firing day is X days away." With that in mind, Does the new playoff format have an effect on the modern coaching search?
In the old BCS format, you needed to be one of the top 2 teams when it was all said and done. You needed the polls, and the computers to get in. With those factors involved, It made sense for a coach to leave a good to very good program that he built if a job at a great brand opened up. The top 2 typically was made up of the same programs from the same few conferences. You pretty much had to be at a traditional power to get in to the BCS championship game.
In comes the CFP, and you just need to be in the top 4 with a human committee voting rather than algorithms in a computer. You don't really need to be at a traditional power. Sure, being in the SEC helps bc of the SEC slurpfest that is college football, but on the whole it seems you don't need to be at a traditional power. You just need to be good. I ask because this new format makes it such that the Patterson's and Briles' of the world have legitimate shots at winning a championship without changing schools. We've always seen some surprise teams make it to 3rd, 4th, or 5th in the rankings, but it was hard to beat out the big names to get to 1 or 2 with the same record. **** we've seen 1 loss SEC teams jump undefeated non-power conference teams to get into the BCS game.
If this new system had been around earlier, Boise State might have a championship or 2 right now. Urban's Utah teams might have one. Outside of a payday, what is the incentive for a coach who has a non-traditional power humming right now to leave and bring back a historically successful program if he knows he just has to get into the playoffs (which I wouldn't be surprised to see expand to 8 btw)?
In the old BCS format, you needed to be one of the top 2 teams when it was all said and done. You needed the polls, and the computers to get in. With those factors involved, It made sense for a coach to leave a good to very good program that he built if a job at a great brand opened up. The top 2 typically was made up of the same programs from the same few conferences. You pretty much had to be at a traditional power to get in to the BCS championship game.
In comes the CFP, and you just need to be in the top 4 with a human committee voting rather than algorithms in a computer. You don't really need to be at a traditional power. Sure, being in the SEC helps bc of the SEC slurpfest that is college football, but on the whole it seems you don't need to be at a traditional power. You just need to be good. I ask because this new format makes it such that the Patterson's and Briles' of the world have legitimate shots at winning a championship without changing schools. We've always seen some surprise teams make it to 3rd, 4th, or 5th in the rankings, but it was hard to beat out the big names to get to 1 or 2 with the same record. **** we've seen 1 loss SEC teams jump undefeated non-power conference teams to get into the BCS game.
If this new system had been around earlier, Boise State might have a championship or 2 right now. Urban's Utah teams might have one. Outside of a payday, what is the incentive for a coach who has a non-traditional power humming right now to leave and bring back a historically successful program if he knows he just has to get into the playoffs (which I wouldn't be surprised to see expand to 8 btw)?