The Athletic - College football leaders ready to discuss eight-team Playoff

[Surlybastard 65]

23 minutes ago, kopp0e said:

We can't name 68 teams that deserve a shot at the #MarchMadness tournament either, it doesn't detract from the nation paying attention to the "Cinderalla story" in games...
 

The same could be the case in a 16 or 24 team playoff... As is, fans of B1G/ PAC, & G5 schools that have both been shut out 2 years in a row would agree on this issue... #JanuaryJubilee

Having a G5 team in there every other year would bring in national interest. We've seen non P5 teams beat top 10 P5 teams in bowls on a few occasions now. We just haven't seen them against the best P5 teams without the excuse of 'well they were bummed out having to play the mid major team in a bowl game rather than play for the title' which is always thrown out there when those teams lose. It needs to go to 8 teams. Having one loss P5 champs left out based on what some idiots in a room think is a travesty to the whole point of trying to name a national champion in the first place.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Surlybastard

[Richard Kimball 1,494]

Here's how I think it should be done. 

There are five P5s, five G5s and the independents.

Have the G5 figure out a way to have their champions figured out by the end of the regular season. The G5 champions and top independent play each other in three games the same week as the P5 conference champions. You HAVE to win that game to advance. If you don't win conference championship, you don't advance.

Took a quick look, and the P5 teams to advance would be (this year) Oklahoma, Ohio State, Clemson, Alabama, and Washington.

The probable G5/Independents that would get in would be Notre Dame, UCF and Fresno State. (That's assuming they won their conference championship week game.)

At the start of the season, every team knows exactly what they have to do to get in the playoffs, and every team has a path. No beauty contest. 

Another upside to this is that there's no reason for teams to avoid tough OOC games. If UT and Michigan want to play, it doesn't affect their conference standings. 

[Richard Kimball 1,494]

56 minutes ago, TheLadiesChoice said:

Why should the G5 and Independents have to play more games than the P5s?  With Independents, yes, they could have a play each other during CCG week (Notre Dame vs BYU, but Army  has come out of nowhere recently and UMass may do the same in the future) to put them on equal footing as having a 13th data point, but it wouldn't be fair to make them play 1 or 2 extra games just to make the CFP.   

I hear where you're coming from. On one hand, it's hard to argue with you, but currently, the sixty someodd teams in the G5 have absolutely no shot at getting in the playoffs. The reason it won't happen is because the P5 prefers it that way, and they call the shots. 

[TXSooner518 2,438]

9 hours ago, Richard Kimball said:

I hear where you're coming from. On one hand, it's hard to argue with you, but currently, the sixty someodd teams in the G5 have absolutely no shot at getting in the playoffs. The reason it won't happen is because the P5 prefers it that way, and they call the shots. 

It's just a bad idea, man.  So Alabama has to play UGA to get in, the loser is literally eliminated, even if they are 12-1 and lose by 1 point and 4 8-4 teams are in the playoffs, and meanwhile the winner of N. Illinois/Fresno gets in?  Why?  

Also the plan of "only conference title winners" getting in just kills any good OOC games. Why would I care about OU-Ohio State, or you care about Texas-LSU, when the winner and loser are literally completely meaningless in every way?  Awful.

I think the plan of the 5 P5 champions, the top G5 team assuming it meets certain qualification requirements, and 2 wild cards, with first round at home sites is pretty perfect in allowing everyone a seat at the table, incentivizing tough OOC games that have high stakes, and preserving/enhancing the value and excitement of the regular season. I would hope that the P5 conferences can come up with a good way to name a champion that eliminates things like CCGs between the #1 and #6 team in a conference, but that's ultimately on them.

[Guest]

Having 8 teams addresses ‘Conference champions only’

[Richard Kimball 1,494]

12 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

It's just a bad idea, man.  So Alabama has to play UGA to get in, the loser is literally eliminated, even if they are 12-1 and lose by 1 point and 4 8-4 teams are in the playoffs, and meanwhile the winner of N. Illinois/Fresno gets in?  Why?  

Also the plan of "only conference title winners" getting in just kills any good OOC games. Why would I care about OU-Ohio State, or you care about Texas-LSU, when the winner and loser are literally completely meaningless in every way?  Awful.

I think the plan of the 5 P5 champions, the top G5 team assuming it meets certain qualification requirements, and 2 wild cards, with first round at home sites is pretty perfect in allowing everyone a seat at the table, incentivizing tough OOC games that have high stakes, and preserving/enhancing the value and excitement of the regular season. I would hope that the P5 conferences can come up with a good way to name a champion that eliminates things like CCGs between the #1 and #6 team in a conference, but that's ultimately on them.

Yeah, the loser is eliminated because the conference championships would be playoff games. As to non conference being rendered inconsequential, you could make that argument, but in high school football, it's been that way for years, and if Lake Travis plays South Lake Carroll in a non-con, it's going to be a big deal. 

What I don't get is why people think a team (Georgia) that loses in the conference championship, or another team (Alabama) that doesn't win their half of their conference should get a mulligan. 

[BluTechsan 393]

If CCGs are done away with to make room on the calendar for the 1st round, then additional tie breakers might be needed to determine conference champions - and thus the incentive/need to have a decent OOC schedule

[TXSooner518 2,438]

20 minutes ago, Richard Kimball said:

Yeah, the loser is eliminated because the conference championships would be playoff games. As to non conference being rendered inconsequential, you could make that argument, but in high school football, it's been that way for years, and if Lake Travis plays South Lake Carroll in a non-con, it's going to be a big deal. 

What I don't get is why people think a team (Georgia) that loses in the conference championship, or another team (Alabama) that doesn't win their half of their conference should get a mulligan. 

OK, but the first round of playoffs doesn't match 2 of the 5 or 6 best teams in a 16 team playoff. The Saints aren't going to play the Rams in the wild-card round. 

Why do NFL teams that don't win their division get to win the Super Bowl?  

[Richard Kimball 1,494]

13 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

OK, but the first round of playoffs doesn't match 2 of the 5 or 6 best teams in a 16 team playoff. The Saints aren't going to play the Rams in the wild-card round. 

Why do NFL teams that don't win their division get to win the Super Bowl?  

That's a valid point. 

I guess the thing about the NFL is all the tiebreakers are known before the season starts. Also, the NFL doesn't allow teams to game the system by selecting their non-divisional opponents, although it would be hilarious to see Green Bay play the Edmonton Eskimos  to get a tiebreaker over the Bears. 

The primary absurdity is that over half the college football teams have no chance of making the playoffs, no matter what they do, and the "chosen ones" get extra chances. 

A lot of systems could work, but the current system of deciding what the requirements are to make the playoffs are determined AFTER the games are played is inherently corrupt. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Richard Kimball

[TXSooner518 2,438]

12 minutes ago, TheLadiesChoice said:

The NFL has a level playing field and seeding is decided by W-L records and fixed criteria, not by arbitrary, ambiguous and shifting criterion that can be manipulated in favor of specific programs.  

Fan interest is waning as a result of this bullshit and turning over the selection process to a "committee' is basically giving the keys to the chicken coop over to the big bad wolf.  But if you are a Sooner or BAMA or Buckeye or Clemson Tiger fan, you aren't really complaining and are fine with it the way it is because it's rigged in your favor.  

Saying "Bama vs UGA is a first round game and so is Fresno State vs Northern Illinois" is more arbitrary than anything the current system does.  Also, fan interest is not waning due to the committee or anything related to this. Doing what was suggested above, completely neutering OOC matchups and saying Fresno - Northern Illinois is equal to Alabama - Georgia will kill way more fan interest.  Fan interest/attendance is waning largely due to the abundance of other entertainment options, the reduction of Americans' attention span, quality of television experience at home, rising attendance costs, etc., not because people are outraged they don't get to see UCF's backup QB lose to Alabama 49-10.

[Richard Kimball 1,494]

3 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Saying "Bama vs UGA is a first round game and so is Fresno State vs Northern Illinois" is more arbitrary than anything the current system does.  Also, fan interest is not waning due to the committee or anything related to this. Doing what was suggested above, completely neutering OOC matchups and saying Fresno - Northern Illinois is equal to Alabama - Georgia will kill way more fan interest.  Fan interest/attendance is waning largely due to the abundance of other entertainment options, the reduction of Americans' attention span, quality of television experience at home, rising attendance costs, etc., not because people are outraged they don't get to see UCF's backup QB lose to Alabama 49-10.

Just want to start off by saying good discussion. You and Ladiesman make some good points. 

In the NFL, back in the nineties, the Cowboys played the 49ers in the NFC championship several times. In each of those games, the winner went on to destroy the AFC opponent in the Super Bowl. Everyone knew they were the two best teams in pro football, but they met before the actual title game. I'm open to just about any system, as long as there is a clear path (and honestly, Rice ain't ever making the playoffs) but a path where IF Rice met a certain criteria, laid out BEFORE the first kickoff of the season, they would be included in the playoffs. 

[rickyspub 801]

1 minute ago, TheLadiesChoice said:

Cinderellla stories like UCF and what Boise State did last decade and what BYU did in the 80s are what renew interest in the sport, not following the same repeated script and narrative that is forced upon us about Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio State, etc  

Would like to see your evidence for this.

[Richard Kimball 1,494]

4 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

Would like to see your evidence for this.

They're still talking about the Boise State hook and ladder play against Oklahoma. Nobody's talking about the Alabama-LSU rematch a few years ago, other than as an example of what is wrong with college football. That game was worse than Rocky II.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Richard Kimball

[TXSooner518 2,438]

2 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

Would like to see your evidence for this.

There's none. Top 10 rated college football games this year:

1. Alabama - Georgia
2. Michigan - tOSU
3. Alabama - LSU
4. OU - Texas II
5. Penn State - tOSU
6. Auburn - Alabama
7. tOSU - Northwestern
8. Notre Dame - USC
9. tOSU - TCU
10. Michigan - Notre Dame

8 of the 10 games are 2 bluebloods playing, the other 2 were tOSU playing a prime time game, one vs a Top 15 OOC opponent, and the other for a conference championship.

I think saying the top G5 team gets in as long as they meet certain criteria (whether it be a certain ranking and/or minimum number of P5/FBS games) gives everyone a clear path in. If you want to say every conference champ gets in, we can go to 16, with first two rounds at home sites, 10 conference champs plus 6 at-large. That creates a lot more logistical issues than the clean 8 team model, but is leagues better than having 6 G5/indy teams play in 3 games (decided by who?) and those 3 teams join the P5 champions.  

[Valmy77 13,226]

8 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

Would like to see your evidence for this.

He literally just gave you examples in the post you responded to. What exactly do you need for evidence?

[rickyspub 801]

1 minute ago, Richard Kimball said:

They're still talking about the Boise State hook and ladder play against Oklahoma. Nobody's talking about the Alabama-LSU rematch a few years ago, other than as an example of what is wrong with college football. That game was worse than Rocky II.

Who's still talking about it? Bama and SEC fans are certainly talking about how much they have dominated the MNC over the past decade, if not any particular game. I imagine most have forgotten that Auburn lost to UCF in a meaningless bowl game last season. Who outside of UT and Boise State fans talk about some bowl game upset with OU? I am UT fan and I hadn't thought about it until LadiesChoice mentioned it.

Just now, Valmy77 said:

He literally just gave you examples in the post you responded to. What exactly do you need for evidence?

I would imagine we would have seen a noticeable uptick in TV viewers and overall fan attendance in the seasons following those events...otherwise is just some blowhard bullshit.

[Valmy77 13,226]

Just now, TXSooner518 said:

There's none. Top 10 rated college football games this year:

1. Alabama - Georgia
2. Michigan - tOSU
3. Alabama - LSU
4. OU - Texas II
5. Penn State - tOSU
6. Auburn - Alabama
7. tOSU - Northwestern
8. Notre Dame - USC
9. tOSU - TCU
10. Michigan - Notre Dame

8 of the 10 games are 2 bluebloods playing, the other 2 were tOSU playing a prime time game, one vs a Top 15 OOC opponent, and the other for a conference championship.

I think saying the top G5 team gets in as long as they meet certain criteria (whether it be a certain ranking and/or minimum number of P5/FBS games) gives everyone a clear path in. If you want to say every conference champ gets in, we can go to 16, with first two rounds at home sites, 10 conference champs plus 6 at-large. That creates a lot more logistical issues than the clean 8 team model, but is leagues better than having 6 G5/indy teams play in 3 games (decided by who?) and those 3 teams join the P5 champions.  

Yeah ok how many elite G5 vs. P5 games were there? There were none. So it is not really a fair comparison.

I am of two minds about the 'every champ gets in' deal:

First I am not crazy about a 16 team playoff. That is where we can have three loss non-Champs win it all and nobody wants that. And the Sunbelt Champ seems underwhelming.

But if we go with a 8 team playoff where an undefeated G5 can make it at the exlusion of any other sort of G5 that would discourage the G5 from playing elite P5 opponents and I am not crazy about that either.

But I guess no system is perfect.

[Valmy77 13,226]

10 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

otherwise is just some blowhard bullshit.

Ah. Well BYU became a big deal back after they barely beat that 6-5 MIchigan team to win the national championship. Ty Detmer came along, they upset Miami in the year the Canes beat us 46-3, other exciting stuff happened...and then BYU just sort of faded back into the pack at some point. I suspect this was after Lavell Edwards retired.

That Boise State game is widely considered one of the greatest ever played. Then they beat Oregon and LeGarrette Blount punched that guy. I mean all that lives in the lore of College Football. Top P5 teams match up every single season.

So there is that. But I don't have any ratings data from the 1984 Holday Bowl or BYU games that followed. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Valmy77

[TXSooner518 2,438]

1 minute ago, Valmy77 said:

Yeah ok how many elite G5 vs. P5 games were there? There were none. So it is not really a fair comparison.

I am of two minds about the 'every champ gets in' deal:

First I am not crazy about a 16 team playoff. That is where we can have three loss non-Champs win it all and nobody wants that. And the Sunbelt Champ seems underwhelming.

But if we go with a 8 team playoff where an undefeated G5 can make it at the exlusion of any other sort of G5 that would discourage the G5 from playing elite P5 opponents and I am not crazy about that either.

But I guess no system is perfect.

Army - Oklahoma.  Oh, that was on PPV and not even broadcast.  
Unbeaten UCF played ACC Coastal champion Pittsburgh.
2017 10 win conference champ Florida Atlantic with Lane Kiffin played Oklahoma in the season opener
Boise State played at Oklahoma State
Cincinnati played at UCLA in Chip Kelly's opener
BYU played at Wisconsin

What games would you have called an elite G5-P5 game then?

And I agree, the qualifications have to be better than LEAST LOSSES. Some sort of scheduling guideline/computer ranking/evaluation of team strength. I would also be OK saying P5 teams must play 10 games vs P5 opponents. If you want 8 conf games, you play 2 P5s OOC. 
 

[rickyspub 801]

1 minute ago, TheLadiesChoice said:

Boise State sold out their stadium for years as a result and BYU built a national brand and turned into a major program with sellouts never before seen in that part of the country as a result with high tv ratings for games because of the changes they brought that revolutionized how the game is played.   UCF draws higher ratings.   There's a ton of evidence out there and one of the most talked about topics the past year is how UCF is getting the shaft by the P5 cartel (aka CFP Committee).    Attendence is declining because the repeating, rigged, narrative and artificially made exclusion of them is turning off their fans to the sport, they know the script every year, its like discovering masturbation as a 13 year old and getting sick of it in your 30s.  

So basically you are saying that if a team wins a big game they will get fans in the seats...well, duh. What about all the other G5/Independent programs? Did Idaho see a huge uptick in fan support after the BYU win? What you are talking about is ultimately noise. 

[Valmy77 13,226]

Are those good examples? The ones against OU are the only ones that sort of qualify. FAU is not really on the radar. That Army team has some sizzle about it, it is too bad we didn't get to see it.

[TXSooner518 2,438]

3 minutes ago, TheLadiesChoice said:

Boise State sold out their stadium for years as a result and BYU built a national brand and turned into a major program with sellouts never before seen in that part of the country as a result with high tv ratings for games because of the changes they brought that revolutionized how the game is played.   UCF draws higher ratings.   There's a ton of evidence out there and one of the most talked about topics the past year is how UCF is getting the shaft by the P5 cartel (aka CFP Committee).    Attendence is declining because the repeating, rigged, narrative and artificially made exclusion of them is turning off their fans to the sport, they know the script every year, its like discovering masturbation as a 13 year old and getting sick of it in your 30s.  

You are literally completely making up things to match your narrative, plus using some things that are irrelevant. Boise State was already selling out before Oklahoma. I'm sure that Fiesta Bowl increased interest in Boise State, but where is any evidence it increased interest in college football as a whole? I gave you the real reason why attendance is decreasing, not some idiotic thought that the playoff system is rigged.  Bowl game viewership went UP last year, not down. The CFP selection show last year had the highest ratings it has ever had.

The 3 CFP games last year were all well over 20M viewers. MIA-WISC had 11.7M, PSU-WASH had 10.2.  UCF-Auburn had the lowest ratings of all the NY6 bowls, with 8.4M.  It had a 4.6 rating, compared to 5.2 for ND-LSU that was happening at the same time.  More people wanted to watch multiple loss non-contenders Notre Dame and LSU than undefeated UCF, even with them playing an SEC blueblood.  Your narrative is false.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2018/01/college-football-bowl-ratings-increase/

(Fun nugget for y'all, the Belk Bowl decreased in viewership 40% in 2017, despite the inclusion of the Fighting Texas Aggies.)

[Valmy77 13,226]

Just now, rickyspub said:

So basically you are saying that if a team wins a big game they will get fans in the seats...well, duh. What about all the other G5/Independent programs? Did Idaho see a huge uptick in fan support after the BYU win? What you are talking about is ultimately noise. 

I am not sure I get your point here. I mean several of the current P5 were at one point minor G5-type programs who got a following because they won some games. That seems like pretty sustainable noise.

[TXSooner518 2,438]

5 minutes ago, TheLadiesChoice said:

Good examples except BYU isn't a G5.  

They are independent, and would be included in the G5 grouping that was proposed, that I am responding to. They are a non-P5 team with probably one of the top 5 non-P5 fanbases playing at a P5 power, but not a Top 10 rated game.

[Valmy77 13,226]

1 minute ago, TXSooner518 said:

UCF-Auburn had the lowest ratings of all the NY6 bowls, with 8.4M.  It had a 4.6 rating, compared to 5.2 for ND-LSU that was happening at the same time. 

Fair enough. 

[rickyspub 801]

3 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

I am not sure I get your point here. I mean several of the current P5 were at one point minor G5-type programs who got a following because they won some games. That seems like pretty sustainable noise.

The point is the idea that BYU or BSU somehow increased overall interest in college football with their Cinderella seasons. I don't see any proof. When Texas came back and was relevant, we moved the needle in a big way. Our national title is still one of the most watched college football games. Bama regularly tops the charts on viewership. UCF's games barely register along with BYU and BSU games. If UCF getting a chance to make the playoffs and it increases there attendance, so what? How has that in any appreciable way increased overall interest in college football? It is less than a rounding error.

[Valmy77 13,226]

Just now, rickyspub said:

The point is the idea that BYU or BSU somehow increased overall interest in college football with their Cinderella seasons. I don't see any proof. When Texas came back and was relevant, we moved the needle in a big way. Our national title is still one of the most watched college football games. Bama regularly tops the charts on viewership. UCF's games barely register along with BYU and BSU games. If UCF getting a chance to make the playoffs and it increases there attendance, so what? How has that in any appreciable way increased overall interest in college football? It is less than a rounding error.

UCF is different from the other two since they are a giant state school with an enrollment that is the largest in the country. A degree mill with that sort of power could be a P5 school if, you know, there weren't so many other Florida football factories already.

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

I think its safe to say that, by winning, any program elevates the interest in that program.   I would doubt, nor have I been able to see anything in the ratings to suggest it, that Cinderellas increase viewership over all.   Big brands with a lot of wins competing against each other in close games at the best times drives the biggest viewership.   If you watch the viewership numbers of routs of these big brand brawls, you'll see it drop considerably as the game goes on, elevating if it is close.   So its less that Boise State upset Oklahoma in that it was two teams, who had a lot of wins that season and consistently within the past few years, playing in a tight game that was won in an exciting fashion.   

One thing that college football has that the NFL lacks is that upsets happen a lot due to inaccurate ratings and that there are so many players of so many levels and so many different developmental styles.  Due to this, Cinderellas are a product of the system, not the engine that drives it.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Hurtlocker
spellz bad

[BurntOrange&White 39,931]

5 conference champions auto invite

1 top ranked g5 invite

2 at large bids invite

 

 

The first round is 2 weeks after CCG which would be this weekend

 

The next round would be New Year’s Day

 

 

The championship 1.5-2 weeks after.

 

 

Wouldn’t need to cancel CCG

 

 

 

Ez now let’s move on

 

[bejezuz 329]

I'm not a fan of two at-large bids without rules.  I'd say that a rule that no conference be allowed more than two teams (one at-large) would be sufficient to fix it, but it'd guarantee the SEC an at-large bid and nearly guarantee the Big 10 the other every year.   

How the heck would the Big 12 ever be able to get two teams into the playoffs if the SEC West champ only has to play half the teams in the East with no CG? 

[TXSooner518 2,438]

 

15 minutes ago, SmartAss said:

They are a P5 and a major program by every metric (even more so then half of all the P5) and are being excluded solely because of conference affiliation and that the conferences don't want to split the pie with them.  They also have a top 30  fan base with a national brand and an exclusive deal with ESPN.  

They aren't a P5. They played less than half their games this year against P5 teams, and still went only 6-6. Name a P5 that plays less than half its games against P5 teams, I'll wait.

6 minutes ago, SmartAss said:

BYU still draws higher ratings then much of the P5 programs out there.  The game against Wisconsin outdrew most or all of the Big 12 that day.  

BYU - Wisky drew 2.91M viewers. Other games that day:

USC - Texas drew 2.95M, started after 8ET, and was a second-half rout.
OU - Iowa State drew 3.34M and was an 11AM kick.
TCU - tOSU drew 7.2M.

Boise - Okla State drew 1.4M despite the wave of college football fandom that erupted after the 2006 Fiesta Bowl, and the burning desire to see the G5-P5 games.

BTW, BYU-Boise drew 400K viewers (LOL) and BYU-Wash was the 2nd highest watched BYU game of the season with 1.3M. BYU-Arizona also had 1.3M, and no other BYU game had more than 700K viewers. So, the reader can decide what drew the views for BYU-Wisky.

[TXSooner518 2,438]

3 minutes ago, bejezuz said:

I'm not a fan of two at-large bids without rules.  I'd say that a rule that no conference be allowed more than two teams (one at-large) would be sufficient to fix it, but it'd guarantee the SEC an at-large bid and nearly guarantee the Big 10 the other every year.   

How the heck would the Big 12 ever be able to get two teams into the playoffs if the SEC West champ only has to play half the teams in the East with no CG? 

The B12 would get two teams into the playoffs by killing the CCG, and having a 12-0 team and an 11-1 team. Arbitrarily limiting it just seems so petty, spiteful, and pointless. The SEC wouldn't have gotten 2 at-larges this year.

2017 - Alabama obv gets one. The other is probably Wisconsin and not Auburn, but it wouldn't be some amazing shame if Bama, UGA, and Auburn all made it if there was no SEC title game.

2016 - SEC wouldn't have gotten any at-large bids. My best guess is Penn State and USC, maybe Michigan.

2015 - SEC again gets 0 at-large bids. Contenders are Iowa, Ohio State, Notre Dame.

2014 - TCU gets one, assuming Baylor is the champion. Miss State/Sparty are contending for the other.

So for the 4 previous years, the SEC would have gotten between 1 and 3 total at-large bids, counting this year they would have 2 to 4 for a 5 year period. Hardly some crazy dominance.

[Valmy77 13,226]

10 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Boise - Okla State drew 1.4M despite the wave of college football fandom that erupted after the 2006 Fiesta Bowl, and the burning desire to see the G5-P5 games.

Hey they might be the most popular and beloved team in the entire state of Idaho. Unfortunately that is only 1.7 million people.

[Huckleberry 32,859]

It's just a bad idea, man.  So Alabama has to play UGA to get in, the loser is literally eliminated, even if they are 12-1 and lose by 1 point and 4 8-4 teams are in the playoffs, and meanwhile the winner of N. Illinois/Fresno gets in?  Why?

Because a championship system that leaves open the possibility that a team may play in the league, go undefeated for the entire season, and not be the champion is not a real playoff.

Either split into separate divisions or put all conference champions in the playoffs.

[bejezuz 329]

24 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

So for the 4 previous years, the SEC would have gotten between 1 and 3 total at-large bids, counting this year they would have 2 to 4 for a 5 year period. Hardly some crazy dominance.

Yet the three preceding years (2013, 2012, 2011), the SEC had 3 teams ranked within the top 6  of the AP poll after Week 13.  The only time the Big 12 would have gotten a second team in under this format is 2014.  

[S11 16]

I like the basic idea of autobids for the P5 champs and top ranked G5.

only recommendation I have is eliminate it if they lose 3+ games.  No need kicking a one loss team to the curb because 3 and 4 loss teams get fluke wins in a year where their division iso weak.   This year you could have had UGA and michigan kicked out because Pitt and NW won title games despite two or three more losses.

The entire season matters and while conference titles are a good tiebreaker you shouldn’t get rewarded for losing over 1/4th of your regular season games.

Edited December 14, 2018 by S11

[Chuckie Finster 22,694]

11 minutes ago, S11 said:

I like the basic idea of autobids for the P5 champs and top ranked G5.

only recommendation I have is eliminate it if they lose 3+ games.  No need kicking a one loss team to the curb because 3 and 4 loss teams get fluke wins in a year where their division iso weak.   This year you could have had UGA and michigan kicked out because Pitt and NW won title games despite two or three more losses.

 The entire season matters and while conference titles are a good tiebreaker you shouldn’t get rewarded for losing over 1/4th of your regular season games.

Why do college football fans keep wanting to make this so goddamn complicated?  Win your conference.  Fucking period. 

Nobody gives a rats ass when the NL is demonstrably worse than the AL, or the AFC blows chunks compared to the NFC... so why do we need these provisions in college football?  If you're truly a shitty team, then Alabama gets rewarded by playing you in the first round.  And if you make the playoffs and happen to beat the three teams ahead of you, you fucking earned that trophy. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Chuckie Finster

[TXSooner518 2,438]

12 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Because a championship system that leaves open the possibility that a team may play in the league, go undefeated for the entire season, and not be the champion is not a real playoff.

Either split into separate divisions or put all conference champions in the playoffs.

 

This idea doesn't require the system described though. Your proposal of all champions plus 6 at-large is much better than saying the winners of:
OU-Texas
Alabama-Georgia
Northwestern-tOSU
Washington-Utah
Clemson-Pitt
Notre Dame - Northern Illinois
Fresno State - UAB and
UCF - App State

get in, since the teams at the bottom had an easier path to this "title game" so why get rewarded with an easier title game as well.

5 minutes ago, bejezuz said:

Yet the three preceding years (2013, 2012, 2011), the SEC had 3 teams ranked within the top 6  of the AP poll after Week 13.  The only time the Big 12 would have gotten a second team in under this format is 2014.  

Well it's going to be easier for a 14 team league to have 2 of the 8 best teams in the country than a 10 team league to do so. Flip side is it's easier to win a 10 team league. b12 would be guaranteed at least 10% of its teams make the playoffs each year where only 7% of the SEC teams are guaranteed to.

2 minutes ago, S11 said:

I like the basic idea of autobids for the P5 champs and top ranked G5.

only recommendation I have is eliminate it if they lose 3+ games.  No need kicking a one loss team to the curb because 3 and 4 loss teams get fluke wins in a year where their division is weak.   This year you could have had UGA and michigan kicked out because Pitt and NW won title games despite two or three more losses.

The entire season matters and while conference titles are a good tiebreaker you shouldn’t get rewarded for loz

Having any qualifications just be based on pure wins and losses will suck and will encourage garbage scheduling. Nope.

The P5 will work itself out in how they decide a champion.  For example this year, the B1G would lose tOSU's playoff spot if Northwestern won the CCG.  The B1G would obviously rather have the stronger team in there, so conferences would naturally find ways to ensure the strongest possible playoff rep as champion.

In your scenario, NW would have knocked tOSU out not UGA/UMich, and if Pitt went, Clemson would be at the mercy of the selectors. Clemson, Georgia, and Michigan all had a guaranteed playoff spot and lost it. You takes your chances in that spot.

[S11 16]

Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

Why do college football fans keep wanting to make this so goddamn complicated?  Win your conference.  Fucking period. 

Nobody gives a rats ass when the NL is demonstrably worse than the AL, or the AFC blows chunks compared to the NFC... so why do we need these provisions in college football?  If you're truly a shitty team, then Alabama gets rewarded by playing you in the first round.  And if you make the playoffs and happen to beat the three teams ahead of you, you fucking earned it.

Because I don’t want a 4 loss “champion” like 2008 Va Tech getting in over a 2008 Texas, 2008 Bama, or 2008 Tech style runner up that won all but one game.  One would be left out in favor of a team that at best won 67% of its regular season.  Those other games matter too.

[S11 16]

2 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

This idea doesn't require the system described though. Your proposal of all champions plus 6 at-large is much better than saying the winners of:
OU-Texas
Alabama-Georgia
Northwestern-tOSU
Washington-Utah
Clemson-Pitt
Notre Dame - Northern Illinois
Fresno State - UAB and
UCF - App State

get in, since the teams at the bottom had an easier path to this "title game" so why get rewarded with an easier title game as well.

Well it's going to be easier for a 14 team league to have 2 of the 8 best teams in the country than a 10 team league to do so. Flip side is it's easier to win a 10 team league. b12 would be guaranteed at least 10% of its teams make the playoffs each year where only 7% of the SEC teams are guaranteed to.

Having any qualifications just be based on pure wins and losses will suck and will encourage garbage scheduling. Nope.

The P5 will work itself out in how they decide a champion.  For example this year, the B1G would lose tOSU's playoff spot if Northwestern won the CCG.  The B1G would obviously rather have the stronger team in there, so conferences would naturally find ways to ensure the strongest possible playoff rep as champion.

In your scenario, NW would have knocked tOSU out not UGA/UMich, and if Pitt went, Clemson would be at the mercy of the selectors. Clemson, Georgia, and Michigan all had a guaranteed playoff spot and lost it. You takes your chances in that spot.

In my scenario both Pitt and NW win and you are left with kicking out two of tOSU, Michigan, Clemson, and UGA.   When there is a delta of 2-3 losses I think that’s a bridge too far.

 

usually it will end up with the same field but it prevents a team who sucked for 25+% of their season from sneaking in. 

[Chuckie Finster 22,694]

7 minutes ago, S11 said:

Because I don’t want a 4 loss “champion” like 2008 Va Tech getting in over a 2008 Texas, 2008 Bama, or 2008 Tech style runner up that won all but one game.  One would be left out in favor of a team that at best won 67% of its regular season.  Those other games matter too.

1. Florida*

2. Oklahoma*

3. Texas

4. Alabama

5. USC*

6. Penn State*

7. Utah

8. Virginia Tech*

*Conference Champs

That would have been the playoff, given the 5 Conference Champs (I know the Big East was a thing back then but am ignoring for simplicity) + 3 at-large, ranked by Week 15 AP rankings.  When even in your apocalyptic scenario, the only thing that changes is that the #8 team is replaced by the #21 team that won their conference, I'd say your system is pretty solid.  The top 7 teams all get a shot at the championship, and Virginia Tech gets to show the world that maybe the ACC was stronger than the pollsters realized all season.

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Chuckie Finster

[Tex Long 4,394]

See? It don't make a shit how you pick a subset for a tourney, someone "deserving" gonna get left out and y'all be whining like [REDACTED] little [REDACTED]-eating. [REDACTED]-sucking [REDACTED]s.

If you don't want any Po 5's in play, then split 'em off and let 'em have their own show.

[Phoenix 65]

6 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

1. Florida*

2. Oklahoma*

3. Texas

4. Alabama

5. USC*

6. Penn State*

7. Utah

8. Virginia Tech*

*Conference Champs

That would have been the playoff, given the 5 Conference Champs (I know the Big East was a thing back then but am ignoring for simplicity) + 3 at-large, ranked by Week 15 AP rankings.  When even in your apocalyptic scenario, the only thing that changes is that the #8 team is replaced by the #21 team that won their conference, I'd say your system is pretty solid.  The top 7 teams all get a shot at the championship, and Virginia Tech gets to show the world that maybe the ACC was stronger than the pollsters realized all season.

 

11-1 Texas Tech definitely deserves to go over a 4 loss Virginia Tech. Winning your shitty conference doesn't entitle you to shit.

[Chuckie Finster 22,694]

13 minutes ago, S11 said:

Because I don’t want a 4 loss “champion” like 2008 Va Tech getting in over a 2008 Texas, 2008 Bama, or 2008 Tech style runner up that won all but one game.  One would be left out in favor of a team that at best won 67% of its regular season.  Those other games matter too.

The Denver Nuggets went 46-36 last year and missed the playoffs.  The Miami Heat went 44-38 and were the #6 seed in the East.  Occasionally you're going to have instances where things aren't "fair" between conferences, but that doesn't mean you need to institute arbitrary guidelines to govern postseason entry.

[S11 16]

16 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

The Denver Nuggets went 46-36 last year and missed the playoffs.  The Miami Heat went 44-38 and were the #6 seed in the East.  Occasionally you're going to have instances where things aren't "fair" between conferences, but that doesn't mean you need to institute arbitrary guidelines to govern postseason entry.

In the NBA example you cite it’s a difference of 2.4% of the season.

In the example I cite it’s losing 18% more games.

The 2008 scenario is the equivalent of an NBA team losing 18 more games than the team they got in over.

a simple fix in the rules to avoid such a situation makes sense.

Edited December 14, 2018 by S11

[Hamttx 419]

I take it that many of you are unfamiliar with the former Chief of the Sugar Bowl committee Paul Hoolahan? Nor is it a coincidence that this playoff conversation is now coming to light since his recent retirement. A retirement that has created a vacuum in the hierarchy of the big money of college football regarding the bowl games.

As the Chief of the Sugar Bowl, Hoolahan single handedly steered college football into believing the Bowls were integral to the sport. When the truth was they never were. And expanding the playoffs will show that to be true. And why under his watch we never were able to properly expand.

Believe what you want. But, it has never been about the logistics, or amount of games, or even player safety. It was about protecting their investment in television and having marquee teams in which to select from. And of course controlling the system to get those teams.

Expansion would force the Rose, Orange, etc to take whatever team makes it. That could possibly force a UConn like situation from years back that killed their numbers. And why the Big East had to die. Along with its automatic bid to teams that no Bowl game wanted.

The arbitrary method of determining a champion should have died years ago. And would have if not for Hoolahan.

[gmr548 16,580]

11-1 Texas Tech definitely deserves to go over a 4 loss Virginia Tech. Winning your shitty conference doesn't entitle you to shit.

11-1 Texas Tech should have considered not getting completely fucking destroyed in their loss. Maybe they'd be ranked high enough to get one of the two available at large slots then.

The argument that leaving the third best at large team out makes it a bad system is a dumb one. We're talking about a team that isn't the best in its conference, and is below two others in the pecking order of non champions.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[S11 16]

13 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

11-1 Texas Tech should have considered not getting completely fucking destroyed in their loss. Maybe they'd be ranked high enough to get one of the two available at large slots then.

The argument that leaving the third best at large team out makes it a bad system is a dumb one. We're talking about a team that isn't the best in its conference, and is below two others in the pecking order of non champions.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

 

1- Nobody is arguing it’s a bad system- just that making one tweak to the rules would get a better slate of teams.

2- The argument is also that in a season with a deep field of teams with zero or one loss it makes little sense to give a golden ticket to a team who lost four or five times simply because they lucked into a weak division and pulled one upset.

Personally I would take all the 2008 one loss P5 champs (4 teams), all three 2008 one loss runner ups, and both 2008 undefeated Utah and Boise from that year before I’d even consider a 4 loss squad champ or not.  

 

That’s nine teams.  You’re already leaving out someone (probably tech due to 40 point loss) so why screw over a second team that has at least a decent argument like one loss UT/Bama who narrowly lost to good teams once or an unbeaten G5 team like Boise that beat Oregon that year?

Edited December 14, 2018 by S11

[Phoenix 65]

28 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

11-1 Texas Tech should have considered not getting completely fucking destroyed in their loss. Maybe they'd be ranked high enough to get one of the two available at large slots then.

The argument that leaving the third best at large team out makes it a bad system is a dumb one. We're talking about a team that isn't the best in its conference, and is below two others in the pecking order of non champions.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

So your argument is that an 11-1 P5 team, with its only loss to a top 5 team, does not deserve to get in versus a different P5 team that has 4 losses against much worse competition. But, because of where the 4 loss team is located on the map, in a region with a bunch of shitty football teams, they deserve to get in.

Just want to make sure we are on the same page here.

[TXSooner518 2,438]

So your argument is that an 11-1 P5 team, with its only loss to a top 5 team, does not deserve to get in versus a different P5 team that has 4 losses against much worse competition. But, because of where the 4 loss team is located on the map, in a region with a bunch of shitty football teams, they deserve to get in.
Just want to make sure we are on the same page here.

If you are talking future seasons and not 08, the team with 4 losses is likely to have had tougher competition than the one with 1, all else being equal. For example imagine if Clemson this year was actually the 20th best team instead of the 2nd. They would still be 13-0 or 12-1. If they couldn’t win this year’s junk ACC they wouldn’t be more worthy than a hypothetical 10-3 B12 champ Texas.

Again, conferences should figure out better ways to name champions than horrendously unbalanced divisions.