Couldn’t have been said more clearly.
CFB playoff- best articulated by Mike Leach
- Thread starter PSU95alum
- Start date
Couldn’t have been said more clearly.
I get it. Let's play 8 games then start a 64 team play off like March madness. If you are eliminated you can still practice and if you want to extra scrimmages with teams you are allowed.
Nah, will never work because it’s sensible and the influence of big $$$ corporations is not involved in it to the extent it is today.
It's mind boggling that 1a football is the ONLY major sport not actually settled on the field. I don't care what the traditionalist have to say anymore. They need to go to at least a 8-16 team playoff. It's beyond overdue at this point in time. All the lies about classes and whatever else is absolute BS. These guys are bought off to keep this antiquated POS system around. No other way to actually explain it.
My ideal system eight teams five power five conference championsthree at large first round at the home feield of the higher seed final four the way it is now
We already have the first round of the playoff set with all these championship games. It's not that complicated. then champs are seeded into an 8 team playoff with at larges.
Noone can really complain because you win your conference you get in.
LdN
I miss the old days of New Year's Day with the Sugar, Cotton, Rose and Orange Bowls and their conference tie ins. If this thing expands to 8, I'd like to see this group of bowl games be the quarterfinals. And have the B1G champ play the Pac 12 champ in the Rose Bowl, the Big XII champ in the Cotton Bowl (the SWC champ used to go), the SEC champ in the Sugar Bowl and the ACC champ in the Orange Bowl (in place of the Big VIII champ as it used to be).
I realize this eliminates some of the seeding and maybe "screws" the B1G and Pac 12, but it brings back some of the traditions.
Other than the power 5 champs, I'd include the highest ranked G5 school as well. Then two at large schools.
I realize this eliminates some of the seeding and maybe "screws" the B1G and Pac 12, but it brings back some of the traditions.
Other than the power 5 champs, I'd include the highest ranked G5 school as well. Then two at large schools.
I totally agree with your approach but want to be a little more specific. Instead of saying three at-large teams, let's just call them SEC teams 2-4.
So, if Iowa is 8-5 and wins the Big Ten over an 12-1 Penn State team, they are automatically in and Penn State is out? No complaints will happen because of that?
Well, I'd say there should be a criteria that needs met for a G5 school to be included (must be conference champ, ranked in the top X of non auto qualifiers??). But, there needs to be a way. Otherwise, it's still missing some element of being a true national champion (can't have UCF hanging banners every year the go unbeaten but aren't invited to the dance).
The problem is a lack of weeks to do a longer playoff. One reason for that is the increase from 11 to 12 games that happened 10-15 years ago.
But another is setting aside a week for the conference championship games that don't pare down the size of the field at all. It can change who is in the field, like last week when it caused Georgia to be booted and put someone else in. But the playoff field size remained the same, namely four. It takes 13 games (typically spread out over 14 weeks) to pare that field down to four. That's a problem if you want a bigger playoff.
So conference title games waste a week but OTOH they're part the reason conferences expanded so much. If you got rid of conference title games how is a conference going to determine a champ when teams only play 60-80% of the other members of the conference?
In the Big 12 everybody plays everybody else and yet the Big 12 still plays a conference championship game. Talk about pointless (other than the money it brings in of course).
But another is setting aside a week for the conference championship games that don't pare down the size of the field at all. It can change who is in the field, like last week when it caused Georgia to be booted and put someone else in. But the playoff field size remained the same, namely four. It takes 13 games (typically spread out over 14 weeks) to pare that field down to four. That's a problem if you want a bigger playoff.
So conference title games waste a week but OTOH they're part the reason conferences expanded so much. If you got rid of conference title games how is a conference going to determine a champ when teams only play 60-80% of the other members of the conference?
In the Big 12 everybody plays everybody else and yet the Big 12 still plays a conference championship game. Talk about pointless (other than the money it brings in of course).
As long as it's up front and honest, no. If we can't beat 8-5 Iowa in a CCG, I don't like our odds in playoff anyway.
LOL - that is a pipe dream to think there would be no complaints.
In the NCAA BB Tourney, everyone ends up pulling for the Cinderella team. Why would that be different in football?
For those that might say "someone will always moan about not getting in". To those people, I'd say this.
The 69th team in NCAA BB that didn't get into the tourney has absolute ZERO argument when it comes to being mentioned as THE BEST TEAM in college basketball. Simply put, a case can NEVER be made for the 69th team (the team left out) BEING THE BEST.
As the CFB playoff system is set up right now, in many years, an argument can be made that the 5th ranked team in CFB is the best team in football. It might not be the case this year, but it could very much happen.
If the playoff were expanded to 8 teams, the likelihood that the 9th ranked team could verbally lay claim to being the best in football is significantly reduced. If it were expanded to 16 teams, the chance the 17th ranked team could claim to be THE BEST is statistically irrelevant.
Let's start with 8. If the move to 16 seems necessary down the road, then examine it. But as it stands now, 4 is not enough.
The 69th team in NCAA BB that didn't get into the tourney has absolute ZERO argument when it comes to being mentioned as THE BEST TEAM in college basketball. Simply put, a case can NEVER be made for the 69th team (the team left out) BEING THE BEST.
As the CFB playoff system is set up right now, in many years, an argument can be made that the 5th ranked team in CFB is the best team in football. It might not be the case this year, but it could very much happen.
If the playoff were expanded to 8 teams, the likelihood that the 9th ranked team could verbally lay claim to being the best in football is significantly reduced. If it were expanded to 16 teams, the chance the 17th ranked team could claim to be THE BEST is statistically irrelevant.
Let's start with 8. If the move to 16 seems necessary down the road, then examine it. But as it stands now, 4 is not enough.
Meaning, if an 18-16 team upsets a 33-1 team, no one says the 33-1 team should keep on playing in the tourney. If the conference championship games are indeed a de facto first round playoff game and Iowa beats Penn State, Iowa is in and Penn State is out, and no one should be complaining about it.
And I think many fans (outside of Penn State) would love to see it happen.
Champions of the P5 and the G5 should be in. Then At Large teams can be determined by Play-In games. At Large Teams should be minimum runner-up or a Top Ten ranked team. Two teams per Conference Max.
Yes the G5 requirement puts some lesser teams in the ‘Dance’ but it can generate more teams to get it thru the NCAA and take control of the bowl process.
Yes the G5 requirement puts some lesser teams in the ‘Dance’ but it can generate more teams to get it thru the NCAA and take control of the bowl process.
If conference championship games are de facto first round playoff games then already have a larger playoff, albeit a crappy one where sometimes winners of first round games don't advance and sometimes losers of first round games do advance.
Exactly this!
It should be 16 teams, with the P5 conference championship games making up 10 of the teams. Then 6 more at-large teams play each other as well. You can't just add 3 more teams to the conference champ winners, because that would give the added 3 teams an advantage because they were simply chosen and didn't have to play their way in.
Yes, because having the NCAA in charge of the bowl process will make it better.
The issue with this is that the G5 is at a significant disadvantage with respect to the P5. Unlike pro sports, there is no equitable distribution of talent and skill to allow the G5 to be level with the P5. The Big Ten, SEC, et al are always going to get better recruits than the MAC, Sunbelt et al And the P5 will have better facilities. It's not like pro sports or even NCAA basketball where the disparity is not as great.
It's not fair, but it's the reality.
If you have the championship game consider that the first round of the playoffs. IF and only IF the winner is automatically selected for the playoffs.
What complaints could you have? It is the first round of a playoff. Should Penn State have played another 12-1 team instead? Would they have had a better result?
LdN
I think the P5 conferences would be against such a proposal. Three of the eight finalists every year would be from non-P5 conferences.
Or if you said that P5 conference teams could be in those other three then you have the loser of a P5 title game getting knocked out while a P5 team in the same conference that wasn't good enough to make the conference title game getting to play another P5 team not good enough to play in its title game or a non-P5 team to stay alive.
I am sorry but no. Why would it be fair for all of the Northern teams and western teams again have to play in SEC country. It isn't fair. For what? Because a game is called "The Sugar Bowl"? It doesn't even take place in the same damn stadium anymore. The Orange Bowl isn't even played in the Orange Bowl.
Listen, I love tradition, that is what makes college football. But these games lost tradition years ago. Holding on to them at the benefit of the SEC and the ACC and some old timers who want to hold on to a name makes no sense.
So wait, all group of 5 schools should be in? What about Notre Dame, will they have to play a play in game since they don't play a conference championship? So the champion of Conference USA, Sunbelt, MAC, Mountain West and American Athletic all get in? That seems a bit much.
I think this is a big one. If you ever had a decent sized playoff then you'd need seeding and home field advantage and that would involve the possibility of southern schools playing away games in Nov or Dec or Jan at northern schools. Weather could become a factor, like it sometimes is in the NFL. That would be only fair but OTOH I suspect southern schools would fight it like crazy.
The best case scenario would be to play a 12 game regular season against only conference opponents and get rid of the championship game. This would eliminate the conference championship week from the season. The conference champ is determined by results on the field like it used to be. It would also spare us from having to see Alabama play the Citadel late in the season.
In the case of the BIG, ACC, and SEC there would be one team from the conference not on the schedule every year. Rivalry games (OSU-UM, Auburn-Alabama, etc.) would never rotate off of the schedule. In the event that two teams go undefeated, and do not play each other, then you go to tiebreakers. The runner up would most likely get one of the at large bids.
The PAC12 and BIGXII would have to schedule inter-conference games against each other, G5 schools, or against independents like Notre Dame. The Notre Dame-USC and Notre Dame-Stanford rivalries can still be played. Utah-BYU would also still be played.
This would allow for a 16 team playoff. The conference champs of the P5 and G5 schools get automatic bids. This would put value back into conference championships because it's the only sure fired way to get in. The six at large schools could still be selected subjectively by a committee. Seeding would also be subjective with the only stipulation being conference champs get a higher seed than at large bids (think NFL division champs vs. wild cards).
For me, the best part about expanding to 8 or more, is that teams would be more willing to schedule better out of conference games during the regular season because you could still get in with 2 or even 3 losses if against the right team....a win for all of us fans.
Right.. conference champions and undefeated teams are left out.. we have our four team invitational and 50 exhibition games. What a great post-season.
16 team tournament based just on the college football rankings first round at the higher seed, you get:
16 WVU at 1 Bama
15 Texas and 2 Clemson
14 Kentucky at 3 Notre Dame
13 Washington State at 4 Oklahoma
12 Penn State at 5 Georgia
11 LSU at 6 Ohio State
10 Florida at 7 Michigan
9 Washington at 8 UCF
Who the heck would argue against a weekend of games like this starting the college football tournament in mid December?
If we can't win our own Championship game, why should we be in the playoffs.
What the hell is the point of a Championship game if it doesn't matter.
Understanding the unpopularity of my suggestions for a playoff format, I still think ALL FBS conference champions -- and ONLY conference champions -- should be in a playoff. I do not think there should be any eye test at all to get into the field. The only subjective opinions I think could be relevant are those needed to seed the teams.
Right now there are 10 conferences. The idea of independents being an 11th conference would make more sense if they all played each other ... but they don't. If they want a shot at a NC, they need to join a league ... even hallowed ND.
I put forth a plan a few posts back that employed all 10, but it was certainly not w/o flaws. But I do think a wiser, more logical head than mine could come up with a solid plan.
The main reason I think all 10 leagues should be included is that, as a Penn State fan for nearly 60 years now, I can remember when the sentiment was that the undefeated Nittany Lions weren't "worthy" of playing with the big boys. Heck, even a 27-0 total shutdown of Woody's Buckeyes didn't merit a bowl game. So I don't think it's fair to exclude a UCG or an App State or a Temple from the playoffs simply because they don't have the name recognition.
If there are 130 Div 1 FBS programs, then all 130 should have a fair chance to win the national title. As Penn State fans, we all know too well about being denied a fair chance.
Right now there are 10 conferences. The idea of independents being an 11th conference would make more sense if they all played each other ... but they don't. If they want a shot at a NC, they need to join a league ... even hallowed ND.
I put forth a plan a few posts back that employed all 10, but it was certainly not w/o flaws. But I do think a wiser, more logical head than mine could come up with a solid plan.
The main reason I think all 10 leagues should be included is that, as a Penn State fan for nearly 60 years now, I can remember when the sentiment was that the undefeated Nittany Lions weren't "worthy" of playing with the big boys. Heck, even a 27-0 total shutdown of Woody's Buckeyes didn't merit a bowl game. So I don't think it's fair to exclude a UCG or an App State or a Temple from the playoffs simply because they don't have the name recognition.
If there are 130 Div 1 FBS programs, then all 130 should have a fair chance to win the national title. As Penn State fans, we all know too well about being denied a fair chance.
I agree. I would love to see tough OOC games during the season. However, I'm not as optimistic as you that an 8 team playoff would guarantee better OOC games. If I'm in a conference with a really good team, and I know I'm probably not going to beat them during conference play, then my next best option to get into an 8 team playoff is to schedule cupcakes. This would pad the record and give me a better shot at one of the at large bids. The committee has shown that they reward record over strength-of-schedule (UGA vs. Oklahoma this year, PSU vs. Washington in 2016). I believe the best we can hope for is an expanded playoff that would feature really good OOC matchups.
Leave it alone. The best 4 teams are in the playoffs once again. Expanding the number just diminishes all the other bowl games, like the Rose, etc. I like having non CFP participants playing for something important in their final games. If the Big feels left out they should equalize their alignment and go back to an 8 game conference schedule.
Diminish the Bowls? The bowls have always been a joke. Why do people hang onto the notion of the bowls being some glamorous pageant? The majority are and have always been meaningless exhibitions?
Think of it this way. What other sports championships have their players, coaches, and fan bases wanting to change what they currently have to an FCS type ending to their season? None. Zero. Zilch!
