Fixed Playoffs (Sounds like issues with ticket prices for Championship)

[ScottIce]

We've beaten this stuff like a dead horse, but one more time here, this is what needs to happen.

8 Team Playoff
5 Conference Champions - Each conference can decide their own parameters for their Champion.
3 At Large Bids

Playoff Committee gets to decide the 3 At-Large Bids & Seeding 1-8.

(2019 Season Scheduling)
Conference Championships - December 7th
1st RD Playoffs - December 14th - On College Campuses (high seed hosts)
Semi-Finals - December 28th
Championship - SATURDAY, January 4th.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

How will that help ticket sales or prices for the championship game?

 

[saluno22]

We've beaten this stuff like a dead horse, but one more time here, this is what needs to happen.

8 Team Playoff
5 Conference Champions - Each conference can decide their own parameters for their Champion.
3 At Large Bids

Playoff Committee gets to decide the 3 At-Large Bids & Seeding 1-8.

(2019 Season Scheduling)
Conference Championships - December 7th
1st RD Playoffs - December 14th
Semi-Finals - December 28th
Championship - SATURDAY, January 4th.

I assume 1st Round is on campus sites. If that's the case, I think there should be seeding preference to conference champions. Reason being two-fold:
1. They have to play an extra game (more risk of loss and injury).
2. It motivates teams to stay more engaged later in the season when they have more on the line. Say you have two teams that are essentially locks for the playoff as at-large selections from the same conference. The team that doesn't play in the CCG then has an advantage come playoff time from #1 above.

Obviously there will be an odd conference champion out with 5 champions and 4 games.

I see go a step farther and integrate CCGs into the playoff and add a couple more games to essentially make it a 16-team playoff.

 

[litespeedhuskerfan]

Pac 12 didn't deserve to play for the title, and they didn't. I fail to see the issue here. Same for our conference.

 

[GeauxBigRed]

What, this year, has shown you that MORE team deserve a shot at the championship?

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

So you want to eliminate teams simply because they play in leagues with more good teams and reward teams that play in leagues with fewer good teams. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Harry Caray]

Pac 12 didn't deserve to play for the title, and they didn't. I fail to see the issue here. Same for our conference.

Georgia from the Big Bad SEC got rolled by Texas. When you have so many teams from so many different conferences, there's no objective way to do it other than giving each of the major conferences an automatic bid.

 

[NikkiSixx]

I would just call the SEC championship game the National Championship, and then everyone can stop squabbling.

 

[TheBeav815]

It will go to 8 teams within the next few years, and the first time an 8 seed jumps up and gets a 1 seed will be AWESOME.

There will be more intrigue in those middle games. The 3-6 game and the 4-5 game will be really fun, as will the second round. There's even enjoyment in watching a 1 or 2 seed stomp some loudmouth 7 or 8 who has been crowing to get in and didn't really deserve it.

You knew Clemson and Bama were going to handle business this year because ND wouldn't be able to score and OU wouldn't be able to play defense. And that's exactly what you got.

 

[ScottIce]

How will that help ticket sales or prices for the championship game?

Right, I think the shift to a 8 team playoff alone will create a buzz that will sell more seats.

The basis of my post wasn't to talk about the ticket issues they were having this year, but it was the reason I thought of re-posting this. The main thing in my post that would improve ticket sales IMO would be the movement of the game from Monday night, to Saturday night.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

I think the location is a big issue this year. If this game was in Atlanta or Miami, there is little to no ticket issues.

Secondly, getting large groups of fan bases to travel 2 weeks in a row is tough. Especially when talking about Tuscaloosa to Miami to Tuscaloosa to San Francisco. That’s a lot of miles and a lot of $$$. People will spend the money on the guaranteed game, its harder to spend the money on the maybe game.

 

[husker2612]

What, this year, has shown you that MORE team deserve a shot at the championship?

The 2 best teams in the country are playing for the title. No doubt. That is not always the case and hasn't been. This type of year is the first I can remember where there is a clear 1 and 2. Those 2 are far ahead of the rest of the pack. Most years are not like that. Even Bama is a step above of where they have been. I believe Saban and Dabo have said these are the best teams they have ever coached.

 

[saluno22]

So you want to eliminate teams simply because they play in leagues with more good teams and reward teams that play in leagues with fewer good teams. Makes perfect sense.

If this was directed at my post, sure if you want to look at it that way.

The 8-team playoff field with P5 AQs could still be four teams from Conference #1 and one team each from 4 other conferences. I'm saying reward teams that win conferences by giving them a home game in the first round.

Given the relatively few number of games played throughout the season, between conferences, and even within conferences (8 games in ACC and SEC, both 14-team conferences), it is difficult to judge conferences against each other either as a whole or team-by-team basis unless more games and/or variety of matchups are played. Personally, I think the various media networks influence public perception of the teams too much, but they need to get eyeballs on their channels and this shouldn't be a shock given population shifts in the last couple decades: the proximity to talent of ACC and SEC teams giving those teams a recruiting advantage, and those real advantages are then perpetuated into stronger perceived advantages with the promotion they receive to get more eyeball and sell more or more expensive ads.

Additionally, "leagues with more good teams" vs. "leagues with fewer good teams" is up for debate until games are actually played. As @Harry Caray pointed out, Georgia players, their fans, and many college football fans in general felt Georgia belonged in the playoff as one of the "best" teams, then got dominated for much of the game against a much lower-ranked Texas team. Seems like every few seasons there's a far-superior conference in comparing the top teams that then shits the bed come bowls: 2006 Big Ten, 2012 SEC other than Alabama, 2014 SEC, 2015 Big Ten and ACC outside of Clemson, and 2016 Big Ten all turned out to be overrated at the top going into bowls (or were essentially propped up by one team). How motivated a team is obviously is up for debate, as discussed in this derailed thread.

There are so few inter-conference games to evaluate the top teams head-to-head whether it be intentionally avoiding specific and/or strong teams, conferences structuring schedules with different motives (SEC/ACC lower loss risk, Big Ten better TV inventory), the finances of major college football (needing X home games to balance the AD budget), etc. Teams that emerge among groups of common opponents (conferences) are the most logical way to populate a generally-unrelated field of teams. There are still at large spots for the balance of the field for three non-P5 conference champions that are the "best" or "most deserving". That being said, I think if campus sites are used for the first round, the conference champions should host as they have been exposed to an additional game of risk for loss or injury and will have played more recently (and away from home) more often than not compared to their non-AQ opponent (outside of the 5th AQ and any CCG loser who is selected as an at large team).

First thing I think needs to happen is the P5 needs to break off if the G5 teams will never have a legitimate chance at reaching the field that provides an opportunity for the ultimate prize (currently the CFP Championship), which is unlikely unless there are legal challenges to the current or future systems. The threat of antitrust lawsuits may impact the expansion of the playoff and its selection criteria, and likely impacted the selection criteria in the current system to the degree by not providing exact specifics on what a team needs to do to make the CFP (or at least not saying exactly how much weight given metrics carry).

========

A few examples each season of good teams losing to perceived worse teams or in some cases just don't show up in bowls:

- 2018: #15 Texas over #5 Georgia, #10 Florida by 26 over #7 Michigan.
- 2017: #12 UCF (12-0) over #7 Auburn (10-3), who many thought should have been in the playoffs, like UGA this year. #4 Alabama by 18 over #1 Clemson.
- 2016: Big Ten's top 3 teams all lost. #5 Penn State and #6 Michigan both lost to significantly lower-ranked teams in bowls (#9 USC and #11 Florida State, respectively), while #3 Ohio State got boat raced by #2 Clemson. Also, #20 LSU over #13 Louisville, who was a playoff contender from the ACC behind Clemson most of the season. Unranked Miami by 17 over #16 West Virginia.
- 2015: #3 Michigan State and #5 Iowa blown out by #2 Alabama and #6 Stanford. #18 Houston over #9 Florida State, #17 Baylor over #10 North Carolina. #23 Tennessee by 39 over #13 Northwestern.
- 2014: Top SEC teams had a terrible bowl season. #9 Ole Miss blown out by #6 TCU, #7 Mississippi State lost by a couple scores to #12 Georgia Tech, #1 Alabama lost to #4 Ohio State (3rd-string QB and eventual national champion, lots of debate whether they should have been in the CFP field). Also, Undefeated #3 Florida State was blown out by #2 Oregon, and #20 Boise State over #10 Arizona.
- 2013: Unranked Texas Tech over #14 Arizona State, #15 UCF over #6 Baylor, #11 Oklahoma over #3 Alabama (knocked out of BCS MNC contention with a Game 2 loss to Auburn), #12 Clemson over #7 Ohio State.
- 2012: Unranked Baylor by 23 over #17 UCLA, #23 Texas over #13 Oregon State, #14 Clemson over #8 LSU, #21 Louisville over #3 Florida, #2 Alabama by 28 over #1 Notre Dame (#1 by default being the only undefeated team).
- 2011: #23 West Virginia by 37 over #15 Clemson, #2 Alabama by 21 over #1 LSU in a rematch.
- 2010: Unranked Iowa over #12 Missouri, Unranked Washington over #18 Nebraska, #16 Alabama by 42 over #9 Michigan State.
- 2009: #25 Wisconsin over #15 Miami, Unranked Florida State over #16 West Virginia, #5 Florida by 27 over #3 Cincinnati.
- 2008: Unranked Arizona over #16 BYU, Unranked LSU by 35 over #14 Georgia Tech, #25 Ole Miss over #7 Texas Tech (11-1, finished in a 3-way tie atop Big 12 South with #3 Texas and #1 Oklahoma), #19 Virginia Tech over #12 Cincinnati, #6 Utah over #4 Alabama (not many gave Utah much of a chance).
- 2007: #11 West Virginia by 20 over #3 Oklahoma.
- 2006: Unranked Georgia over #14 Virginia Tech, #8 USC over #3 Michigan (game against #1 Ohio State was billed as ostensibly the national title game, much like the SEC CCG has been on more recent years), #9 Boise State over #7 Oklahoma (not many gave Boise State a chance), #2 Florida by 27 over #1 Ohio State.
- 2005: Unranked Oklahoma over #6 Oregon, #10 LSU by 37 over #9 Miami, #21 Wisconsin over #7 Auburn.
- 2004: #23 Texas Tech over #4 California (10-1, took eventual MNC USC to the wire).
- 2003: #15 Washington State over #5 Texas, Unranked Clemson over #6 Tennessee.
- 2002: Uranked Wisconsin over #14 Colorado, #17 NC State by 22 over #11 Notre Dame, #19 Auburn over #10 Penn State, #5 USC by 21 over #3 Iowa.

 

[TheNewNU]

Pac 12 didn't deserve to play for the title, and they didn't. I fail to see the issue here. Same for our conference.

Many people could argue teams like Ohio State, Texas, Georgia, Florida and LSU would have given Clemson and Bama better games than Oklahoma and Notre Dame did. 4 teams is no playoff.

 

[saluno22]

I don't think this comparison has been made on this board (or I missed it), but Georgia this season is similar to Oklahoma in 2016, except Oklahoma went out and scheduled tough non-conference games: Opened the season against Houston in a neutral-site game (so they were getting a fully healthy Houston; this has been discussed in comparing FCS scheduling early in the season vs. late in the season like the SEC does), then two weeks later at Ohio State. (Georgia's losses were both to conference opponents.)

Oklahoma then ran the table to go from unranked to #7, but their scheduling essentially knocked them out of the playoffs that season. One example P5 ADs can point to for why you don't schedule multiple difficult non-conference games if you have playoff aspirations. Granted, there was no Big 12 title game that season (2017 the NCAA permitted them to hold one with just 10 teams).

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

If this was directed at my post, sure if you want to look at it that way.

The 8-team playoff field with P5 AQs could still be four teams from Conference #1 and one team each from 4 other conferences. I'm saying reward teams that win conferences by giving them a home game in the first round.

Given the relatively few number of games played throughout the season, between conferences, and even within conferences (8 games in ACC and SEC, both 14-team conferences), it is difficult to judge conferences against each other either as a whole or team-by-team basis unless more games and/or variety of matchups are played. Personally, I think the various media networks influence public perception of the teams too much, but they need to get eyeballs on their channels and this shouldn't be a shock given population shifts in the last couple decades: the proximity to talent of ACC and SEC teams giving those teams a recruiting advantage, and those real advantages are then perpetuated into stronger perceived advantages with the promotion they receive to get more eyeball and sell more or more expensive ads.

Additionally, "leagues with more good teams" vs. "leagues with fewer good teams" is up for debate until games are actually played. As @Harry Caray pointed out, Georgia players, their fans, and many college football fans in general felt Georgia belonged in the playoff as one of the "best" teams, then got dominated for much of the game against a much lower-ranked Texas team. Seems like every few seasons there's a far-superior conference in comparing the top teams that then shits the bed come bowls: 2006 Big Ten, 2012 SEC other than Alabama, 2014 SEC, 2015 Big Ten and ACC outside of Clemson, and 2016 Big Ten all turned out to be overrated at the top going into bowls (or were essentially propped up by one team). How motivated a team is obviously is up for debate, as discussed in this derailed thread.
https://nebraska.forums.rivals.com/threads/alright-who-are-your-top-10-teams.231144/

There are so few inter-conference games to evaluate the top teams head-to-head whether it be intentionally avoiding specific and/or strong teams, conferences structuring schedules with different motives (SEC/ACC lower loss risk, Big Ten better TV inventory), the finances of major college football (needing X home games to balance the AD budget), etc. Teams that emerge among groups of common opponents (conferences) are the most logical way to populate a generally-unrelated field of teams. There are still at large spots for the balance of the field for three non-P5 conference champions that are the "best" or "most deserving". That being said, I think if campus sites are used for the first round, the conference champions should host as they have been exposed to an additional game of risk for loss or injury and will have played more recently (and away from home) more often than not compared to their non-AQ opponent (outside of the 5th AQ and any CCG loser who is selected as an at large team).

First thing I think needs to happen is the P5 needs to break off if the G5 teams will never have a legitimate chance at reaching the field that provides an opportunity for the ultimate prize (currently the CFP Championship), which is unlikely unless there are legal challenges to the current or future systems. The threat of antitrust lawsuits may impact the expansion of the playoff and its selection criteria, and likely impacted the selection criteria in the current system to the degree by not providing exact specifics on what a team needs to do to make the CFP (or at least not saying exactly how much weight given metrics carry).

========

A few examples each season of good teams losing to perceived worse teams or in some cases just don't show up in bowls:

- 2018: #15 Texas over #5 Georgia, #10 Florida by 26 over #7 Michigan.
- 2017: #12 UCF (12-0) over #7 Auburn (10-3), who many thought should have been in the playoffs, like UGA this year. #4 Alabama by 18 over #1 Clemson.
- 2016: Big Ten's top 3 teams all lost. #5 Penn State and #6 Michigan both lost to significantly lower-ranked teams in bowls (#9 USC and #11 Florida State, respectively), while #3 Ohio State got boat raced by #2 Clemson. Also, #20 LSU over #13 Louisville, who was a playoff contender from the ACC behind Clemson most of the season. Unranked Miami by 17 over #16 West Virginia.
- 2015: #3 Michigan State and #5 Iowa blown out by #2 Alabama and #6 Stanford. #18 Houston over #9 Florida State, #17 Baylor over #10 North Carolina. #23 Tennessee by 39 over #13 Northwestern.
- 2014: Top SEC teams had a terrible bowl season. #9 Ole Miss blown out by #6 TCU, #7 Mississippi State lost by a couple scores to #12 Georgia Tech, #1 Alabama lost to #4 Ohio State (3rd-string QB and eventual national champion, lots of debate whether they should have been in the CFP field). Also, Undefeated #3 Florida State was blown out by #2 Oregon, and #20 Boise State over #10 Arizona.
- 2013: Unranked Texas Tech over #14 Arizona State, #15 UCF over #6 Baylor, #11 Oklahoma over #3 Alabama (knocked out of BCS MNC contention with a Game 2 loss to Auburn), #12 Clemson over #7 Ohio State.
- 2012: Unranked Baylor by 23 over #17 UCLA, #23 Texas over #13 Oregon State, #14 Clemson over #8 LSU, #21 Louisville over #3 Florida, #2 Alabama by 28 over #1 Notre Dame (#1 by default being the only undefeated team).
- 2011: #23 West Virginia by 37 over #15 Clemson, #2 Alabama by 21 over #1 LSU in a rematch.
- 2010: Unranked Iowa over #12 Missouri, Unranked Washington over #18 Nebraska, #16 Alabama by 42 over #9 Michigan State.
- 2009: #25 Wisconsin over #15 Miami, Unranked Florida State over #16 West Virginia, #5 Florida by 27 over #3 Cincinnati.
- 2008: Unranked Arizona over #16 BYU, Unranked LSU by 35 over #14 Georgia Tech, #25 Ole Miss over #7 Texas Tech (11-1, finished in a 3-way tie atop Big 12 South with #3 Texas and #1 Oklahoma), #19 Virginia Tech over #12 Cincinnati, #6 Utah over #4 Alabama (not many gave Utah much of a chance).
- 2007: #11 West Virginia by 20 over #3 Oklahoma.
- 2006: Unranked Georgia over #14 Virginia Tech, #8 USC over #3 Michigan (game against #1 Ohio State was billed as ostensibly the national title game, much like the SEC CCG has been on more recent years), #9 Boise State over #7 Oklahoma (not many gave Boise State a chance), #2 Florida by 27 over #1 Ohio State.
- 2005: Unranked Oklahoma over #6 Oregon, #10 LSU by 37 over #9 Miami, #21 Wisconsin over #7 Auburn.
- 2004: #23 Texas Tech over #4 California (10-1, took eventual MNC USC to the wire).
- 2003: #15 Washington State over #5 Texas, Unranked Clemson over #6 Tennessee.
- 2002: Uranked Wisconsin over #14 Colorado, #17 NC State by 22 over #11 Notre Dame, #19 Auburn over #10 Penn State, #5 USC by 21 over #3 Iowa.

Way too long didn’t read the whole thing. But using bowl game results as a way to prove Georgia did t belong is silly. I have said a million time, those games are glorified exhibition games. When Georgia played Alabama in the SEC title game, they executed much more crisply. I would bet the intensity of their practices that week was much higher than it was after a 25 day layoff and a meaningless, to them, bowl game against the Big 12 runner up.

 

[saluno22]

Way too long didn’t read the whole thing. But using bowl game results as a way to prove Georgia did t belong is silly. I have said a million time, those games are glorified exhibition games. When Georgia played Alabama in the SEC title game, they executed much more crisply. I would bet the intensity of their practices that week was much higher than it was after a 25 day layoff and a meaningless, to them, bowl game against the Big 12 runner up.

No doubt about it, I would have loved to see Georgia play motivated against Texas.

I use bowl results because, while essentially exhibitions, they are one of the few opportunities to compare the strengths of conferences head to head. My point being there are so few games played between conferences (particularly the elite between conferences) that the conference's "elite" (however that is determined by the conferences) should all have a spot in the playoff to get a better gauge on who is better when the field expands to 8. Otherwise it becomes who has the better propaganda machine (whether perceived or real).

 

[Harry Caray]

Way too long didn’t read the whole thing. But using bowl game results as a way to prove Georgia did t belong is silly. I have said a million time, those games are glorified exhibition games. When Georgia played Alabama in the SEC title game, they executed much more crisply. I would bet the intensity of their practices that week was much higher than it was after a 25 day layoff and a meaningless, to them, bowl game against the Big 12 runner up.

Texas had the same 25 day layoff, for a meaningless bowl game against the SEC runner-up.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Texas had the same 25 day layoff, for a meaningless bowl game against the SEC runner-up.

Texas was never 1 game away from playing for all the marbles. Texas is at a different place than Georgia as far as growth of a program. They needed this game to help propel them into next year. Georgia is already considered to be one of the elite teams going into 2019. Motivations are different, preparation is different.

Nebraska was more motivated to play at Ohio St than they were to play Purdue, Troy, etc... Had Nebraska executed the entire year like they did in that game, they probably win 3-4 more games. But unfortunately that didn't happen.

Some teams go into bowl games motivated to make a statement, others aren't. If you don't see that then that is on you.

 

[GeauxBigRed]

The 2 best teams in the country are playing for the title. No doubt. That is not always the case and hasn't been. This type of year is the first I can remember where there is a clear 1 and 2. Those 2 are far ahead of the rest of the pack. Most years are not like that. Even Bama is a step above of where they have been. I believe Saban and Dabo have said these are the best teams they have ever coached.

Wouldn’t a 8 team playoff benefit teams that stockpile pure talent like Alabama and Clemson even more? Even if a UCF, Wisconsin, Washington, Etc. Win their first game, adding more games will add to the chances of injuries and general wear and tear that a team like Alabama or Clemson will just replace with another 5 star where others couldn’t.

The thing about the bowl games is it’s a one on one, one chance to see who is the better team that night. That’s why we remember the Boise State Statue of Liberty play. I think the 4-team playoff already basically killed the NY6 bowl games and turned them from the “grand-daddy of them all” to a meaningless exhibition game. Imagine 5 or 10 years ago if people would say that Georgia didn’t care about playing in the Sugar Bowl or that Ohio State squeaked a win because they weren’t motivated to play in the Rose Bowl.

Not saying that a 8 team playoff isn’t going to be fun to watch, I just don’t think it’s the slam dunk obvious best choice for college football.

Just my opinion!

 

[jmliehr]

Texas had the same 25 day layoff, for a meaningless bowl game against the SEC runner-up.

Bowl games are always a crap shoot, if you recall in 2010 we went to Washington and smashed them 56-21 early in the year and then went into the Holiday Bowl and laid an egg 19-7.

 

[meo1960]

We've beaten this stuff like a dead horse, but one more time here, this is what needs to happen.

8 Team Playoff
5 Conference Champions - Each conference can decide their own parameters for their Champion.
3 At Large Bids

Playoff Committee gets to decide the 3 At-Large Bids & Seeding 1-8.

(2019 Season Scheduling)
Conference Championships - December 7th
1st RD Playoffs - December 14th - On College Campuses (high seed hosts)
Semi-Finals - December 28th
Championship - SATURDAY, January 4th.

As discussed by Damon on Sharp & Benning, expanding to 8 doesn't solve anything.
They need to level the playing field across conferences first. Who do you think would get the 3 at large bids?

They need to start with changing ESPN's name to the $EC network and modify(somehow), which games they cover. (All part of leveling the field). Listening to them slobber over the $EC every week is nauseating.

 

[Husker Sledge]

No doubt about it, I would have loved to see Georgia play motivated against Texas.

I use bowl results because, while essentially exhibitions, they are one of the few opportunities to compare the strengths of conferences head to head. My point being there are so few games played between conferences (particularly the elite between conferences) that the conference's "elite" (however that is determined by the conferences) should all have a spot in the playoff to get a better gauge on who is better when the field expands to 8. Otherwise it becomes who has the better propaganda machine (whether perceived or real).

Oh.......from what I saw Georgia looked pretty motivated. They just got their ass's kicked for 3 quarters. Hey, and I can't stand Texas!

 

[TripleOption67]

Another thing that the playoffs has done is those teams that don't make it have some of their star players sitting out so they don't get injured. This depletes the rosters somewhat. I. E. Michigan, Georgia. Not only are they let down from not making the playoffs, now they're short handed as well. And it showed on the field.

Expanding the playoffs that give conferences automatic qualifiers would also allow teams that have absolutely no right to be there. For example when Wisconsin won the Big Ten with a 7-5 record. Or when Stanford won Pac10 @ 8-4, KSU won Big12 with 3 losses. Really, you want to let those types of teams in? Ridiculous.

My opinion only, I'd rather go back to just playing the top 2 teams or go back to the old bowl system. Was a helluva lot more exciting to me than what's going on now.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Oh.......from what I saw Georgia looked pretty motivated. They just got their ass's kicked for 3 quarters. Hey, and I can't stand Texas!

You are talking about only the game. I'm talking about the whole 20whatever days leading up to it. When Texas players were looking to make a statement in the Sugar Bowl, Georgia players were talking about not being in the CFP. I don't think Texas had a player sit out of the bowl game so as not to potentially be injured, where Georgia had arguably the best DB in the country take the game off. Texas' players aren't slouches, they are on scholarship too. If you don't take the game prep seriously and with the same motivation you have all year long, you lose the game. It happens every year.

 

[saluno22]

Expanding the playoffs that give conferences automatic qualifiers would also allow teams that have absolutely no right to be there. For example when Wisconsin won the Big Ten with a 7-5 record. Or when Stanford won Pac10 @ 8-4, KSU won Big12 with 3 losses. Really, you want to let those types of teams in? Ridiculous.

Yep, they win their conference and qualify with a mediocre record, so be it. If that isn't acceptable, then the conferences should find another way to crown a champion. The CCGs are largely a money grab anyway, but with the size of conferences these days, you can't do anywhere close to a round robin in 3 or 4 of the P5 conferences. How many times has a CCG result knocked a team out of MNC consideration compared to vaulting the winner to the top of the polls?

There are still a handful of teams that would be in the playoff under "conventional" standards. Point being there should be an objective path for as many teams to qualify for the playoff as possible rather than comparing "best losses", strength of schedule when maybe marquee opponents are having a down year, etc.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

There are still a handful of teams that would be in the playoff under "conventional" standards. Point being there should be an objective path for as many teams to qualify for the playoff as possible rather than comparing "best losses", strength of schedule when maybe marquee opponents are having a down year, etc.

This is where you lose me.

If objectivity is that important, then you have to give every conference champ and the best independent a spot and have a 11 team tournament and draw for the spots on the bracket. No rankings, just conference champs.

If #20 Utah deserves a shot to get in the CFP then so does #19 Fresno St.

Why is it acceptable to use some sort of subjective criteria or vote for 3 of the spots?

 

[saluno22]

This is where you lose me.

If objectivity is that important, then you have to give every conference champ and the best independent a spot and have a 11 team tournament and draw for the spots on the bracket. No rankings, just conference champs.

If #20 Utah deserves a shot to get in the CFP then so does #19 Fresno St.

Why is it acceptable to use some sort of subjective criteria or vote for 3 of the spots?

That's why I said this in Post 13:
"First thing I think needs to happen is the P5 needs to break off if the G5 teams will never have a legitimate chance at reaching the field that provides an opportunity for the ultimate prize (currently the CFP Championship)"

I would be fine with what you propose as well (would need to work out hosting rights, also discussed in this thread is the number of trips and distance leading to poor ticket sales), but I don't think expansion will be beyond 8 the next time it happens, which is why I say AQs for P5 only.

 

[TripleOption67]

If you're going to allow crap teams in a playoff and then vote for teams that should be in ahead of those said crap teams you defeat the purpose of a playoff. The "best" teams should qualify, not the 4 or 5 best and a handful of automatic qualifiers who don't belong.

If you want to use conference champs then we need to go back to 10 team power conferences with complete round robin play. Also make teams play 2 "quality" non conference opponents from the other power conferences. Eliminate conference championship games. Puts teams a little closer to a common ground than where they're at now.

Since that will never happen there really is no good playoff format unless you take only the "best" teams. Even that's subjective.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

That's why I said this in Post 13:
"First thing I think needs to happen is the P5 needs to break off if the G5 teams will never have a legitimate chance at reaching the field that provides an opportunity for the ultimate prize (currently the CFP Championship)"

I would be fine with what you propose as well (would need to work out hosting rights, also discussed in this thread is the number of trips and distance leading to poor ticket sales), but I don't think expansion will be beyond 8 the next time it happens, which is why I say AQs for P5 only.

I am just not a fan of AQ in an 8 team playoff.

In the ncaa basketball tournament roughly 1/5 of the teams get a berth 68 out of 350. For football to get to that number it would have to expand to 24 team playoff.

With a limited amount of spots, it has to include the best teams. A team that has lost 3 or more games, by definition is not one of the best. Unless there are less than 7 teams with 2 or less losses.

Now if leagues could change from a 2 division format to a 1 division format with a long list of tiebreakers. Where the top 2 teams get to play in the CCG. I would be all in favor of AQ under those circumstances.

 

[saluno22]

I am just not a fan of AQ in an 8 team playoff.

In the ncaa basketball tournament roughly 1/5 of the teams get a berth 68 out of 350. For football to get to that number it would have to expand to 24 team playoff.

With a limited amount of spots, it has to include the best teams. A team that has lost 3 or more games, by definition is not one of the best. Unless there are less than 7 teams with 2 or less losses.

Now if leagues could change from a 2 division format to a 1 division format with a long list of tiebreakers. Where the top 2 teams get to play in the CCG. I would be all in favor of AQ under those circumstances.

Don't you love how FBS is a special little outlier where all of the corporate interests (bowls, regular season and postseason media rights holders, etc.) get to decide what is best for the sport? The scarcity of spots in the CFP field is a manufactured dilemma.

Current field sizes...
FBS: 130 teams, 4 playoff spots (3.1%)
FCS: 125 teams, 24 playoff spots (19.2%)
Div. II: 173 teams, 28 playoff spots (16.2%)
Div. III: 250 teams, 32 playoff spots (12.8%)

To even get close to the level of the lowest proportional field size among the other divisions (D3), the FBS CFP field would need to be at least 16 teams (12.3% of FBS teams).

I don't think it should be 64, but Mike Leach is entertaining.


I agree teams that lose 3 or more games aren't the "best" under the current system (2007 notwithstanding). But there are also too few games overall and especially too few games between power teams from different conferences. Not saying this also isn't the case in other college football divisions where they play fewer regular season games, however, they all have much larger playoff field sizes and, save for a few upsets here and there, the perceived best teams will eventually meet.

The problem with the single-division setup is there are simply too many teams in P5 conferences now (other than the Big 12 where a true round robin schedule can occur). With 14 teams in the Big Ten, ACC, and SEC, assuming 9 conference games, you still miss 4 teams each regular season. If the SEC and ACC stay at 8 games, that's 5 of 13 teams they are missing in a given season. If enough teams miss each other at the top of the standings, I assume the tiebreaker would be record vs. common opponents or wins against the highest teams in the standings that all tied teams played when there is a lack of head-to-head results. I imagine opponent strength imbalance with be an even bigger gripe because the comparisons are being made league-wide as opposed to just within a division (with the teams emerging from each division getting a shot at the conference title). Who you miss in a given conference season just got more important.

========

Here are the records and conference championship status of the teams that have won championships in each divisions over the last couple decades:

FBS MNC
2018: Alabama/Clemson (Winner will be 15-0; both CC)
2017: Alabama (13-1; Non-CC)
2016: Clemson (14-1; CC)
2015: Alabama (14-1; CC)
2014: Ohio State (14-1; CC)
2013: Florida State (14-0; CC)
2012: Alabama (13-1; CC)
2011: Alabama (12-1; Non-CC)
2010: Auburn (14-0; CC)
2009: Alabama (14-0; CC)
2008: Florida (13-1; CC)
2007: LSU (12-2; CC)
2006: Florida (13-1; CC)
2005: Texas (13-0; CC)
2004: USC (13-0; CC; 2 wins vacated)
2003 AP: USC (12-1; CC)
2003 Coaches: LSU (13-1; CC)
2002: Ohio State (14-0; co-CC with Iowa)
2001: Miami (12-0; CC)
2000: Oklahoma (13-0; CC)

Undefeated MNC: 9 times
1-loss MNC: 9 times (counting 2003 just once)
2-loss MNC: 1 time

Outright CC won MNC: 17 times
Co-CC won MNC: 1 time
Non-CC won MNC: 2 times

FCS Playoff Champion [FBS opponents in brackets]
2018: NDSU (would be 15-0; CC) or Eastern Washington (would be 13-2; CC [lost to Wazzu])
2017: NDSU (14-1; CC)
2016: James Madison (14-1; CC [lost to North Carolina])
2015: NDSU (13-2; co-CC with Illinois State)
2014: NDSU (15-1; co-CC with Illinois State [beat Iowa State])
2013: NDSU (15-0; CC [beat Kansas State])
2012: NDSU (14-1; CC [beat Colorado State])
2011: NDSU (14-1; co-CC with Northern Iowa [beat Minnesota])
2010: Eastern Washington (13-2; co-CC with Montana State [lost to Nevada])
2009: Villanova (14-1, co-CC with Richmond [beat Temple])
2008: Richmond (13-3, non-CC [finished 3rd in the CAA South][lost to Virginia])
2007: Appalachian State (13-2; co-CC with Wofford [beat Michigan])
2006: Appalachian State (14-1; CC [lost to NC State])
2005: Appalachian State (12-3; CC [lost to Kansas])
2004: James Madison (13-2; co-CC with William & Mary and Delaware [lost to West Virginia])
2003: Delaware (15-1; co-CC with UMass [beat Navy])
2002: Western Kentucky (12-3; co-CC with Western Illinois [lost to Kansas State])
2001: Montana (15-1; CC [lost to Hawaii])
2000: Georgia State (13-2; CC [lost to Georgia])

Undefeated Champion: 2 times
1-loss Champion: 9 times
2-loss Champion: 5 times
3-loss Champion: 3 times (all lost to an FBS team)

Outright CC won Playoff: 9 times
Co-CC won Playoff: 9 times
Non-CC won Playoff: 1 time
NOTE: The 2008 playoff champion finished THIRD in their division.

Div. II Playoff Champion
2018: Valdosta State (14-0; CC)
2017: Texas A&M–Commerce (14-1; non-CC)
2016: Northwest Missouri State (15-0; CC)
2015: Northwest Missouri State (15-0; CC)
2014: CSU–Pueblo (14-1; co-CC with Colorado Mines)
2013: Northwest Missouri State (15-0; CC)
2012: Valdosta State (12-2; non-CC)
2011: Pittsburg State (13-1; CC)
2010: Minnesota-Duluth (15-0; CC)
2009: Northwest Missouri State (14-1; CC)
2008: Minnesota-Duluth (15-0; CC)
2007: Valdosta State (13-1; non-CC)
2006: Grand Valley State (15-0; CC)
2005: Grand Valley State (14-0; CC)
2004: Valdosta State (13-1; CC)
2003: Grand Valley State (14-1; non-CC)
2002: Grand Valley State (14-0; CC)
2001: North Dakota (14-1; CC)
2000: Delta State (14-1; ??)

Undefeated Champion: 9 times
1-loss Champion: 9 times
2-loss Champion: 1 time

Outright CC won Playoff: 13 times
Co-CC won Playoff: 1 time
Non-CC won Playoff: 4 times
Uncertain CC status: 1 time (couldn't find 2000 data for Delta State's conference standing)

Div. III Playoff Champion
2018: Mary Hardin–Baylor (15-0; CC)
2017: Mount Union (15-0; CC)
2016: Mary Hardin–Baylor (15-0; CC)
2015: Mount Union (15-0; CC)
2014: Wisconsin-Whitewater (15-0; CC)
2013: Wisconsin-Whitewater (15-0; CC)
2012: Mount Union (15-0; CC)
2011: Wisconsin-Whitewater (15-0; CC)
2010: Wisconsin-Whitewater (15-0; CC)
2009: Wisconsin-Whitewater (15-0; CC)
2008: Mount Union (15-0; CC)
2007: Wisconsin-Whitewater (14-1; CC)
2006: Mount Union (15-0; CC)
2005: Mount Union (14-1; CC)
2004: Linfield (13-0; CC)
2003: Saint John's (MN) (14-0; CC)
2002: Mount Union (14-0; CC)
2001: Mount Union (14-0; CC)
2000: Mount Union (14-0; CC)

Undefeated Champion: 17 times
1-loss Champion: 2 times
2-loss Champion: 0 times

Outright CC won Playoff: 19 times
Co-CC won Playoff: 0 times
Non-CC won Playoff: 0 times

Crazy: In D3, the playoff champion was always an outright conference champion, and the playoff champion has been undefeated in 17 of the last 19 seasons.

 

[zrob]

I have always thought an 8 team playoff would be great but it certainly wasn't needed this year in my opinion. I'm with Wilbon and Kornheiser about this season being and Indictment on the idea of an 8 team playoff.
There hasn't even been a single great game in the "1st Round" of the playoffs yet.

 

[NorthWillRiseAgain]

It will go to 8 teams within the next few years, and the first time an 8 seed jumps up and gets a 1 seed will be AWESOME.

There will be more intrigue in those middle games. The 3-6 game and the 4-5 game will be really fun, as will the second round. There's even enjoyment in watching a 1 or 2 seed stomp some loudmouth 7 or 8 who has been crowing to get in and didn't really deserve it.

You knew Clemson and Bama were going to handle business this year because ND wouldn't be able to score and OU wouldn't be able to play defense. And that's exactly what you got.

I agree, the best part about the ncaa basketball tournament isn’t the final 4 if it’s not your team, it’s the road there.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

I agree, the best part about the ncaa basketball tournament isn’t the final 4 if it’s not your team, it’s the road there.

Those are two fundamentally different issues. The entertainment value of a tournament or football playoff is completely different than determining which teams should be there.

 

[52ctyRed]

4 team playoff. Must win your conference championship game to be considered. You lose you are out - Georgia and Alabama last year should not even be considered. You Lost. Take the 4 best/highest ranked P5 champions and let them play. Go to 8 and then you will need to start paying the players. Look at the number sitting out this year. What do the teams do that lose in the 1st round on Dec 14th do then?

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Don't you love how FBS is a special little outlier where all of the corporate interests (bowls, regular season and postseason media rights holders, etc.) get to decide what is best for the sport? The scarcity of spots in the CFP field is a manufactured dilemma.

Current field sizes...
FBS: 130 teams, 4 playoff spots (3.1%)
FCS: 125 teams, 24 playoff spots (19.2%)
Div. II: 173 teams, 28 playoff spots (16.2%)
Div. III: 250 teams, 32 playoff spots (12.8%)

To even get close to the level of the lowest proportional field size among the other divisions (D3), the FBS CFP field would need to be at least 16 teams (12.3% of FBS teams).

I don't think it should be 64, but Mike Leach is entertaining.

View embedded media

I agree teams that lose 3 or more games aren't the "best" under the current system (2007 notwithstanding). But there are also too few games overall and especially too few games between power teams from different conferences. Not saying this also isn't the case in other college football divisions where they play fewer regular season games, however, they all have much larger playoff field sizes and, save for a few upsets here and there, the perceived best teams will eventually meet.

The problem with the single-division setup is there are simply too many teams in P5 conferences now (other than the Big 12 where a true round robin schedule can occur). With 14 teams in the Big Ten, ACC, and SEC, assuming 9 conference games, you still miss 4 teams each regular season. If the SEC and ACC stay at 8 games, that's 5 of 13 teams they are missing in a given season. If enough teams miss each other at the top of the standings, I assume the tiebreaker would be record vs. common opponents or wins against the highest teams in the standings that all tied teams played when there is a lack of head-to-head results. I imagine opponent strength imbalance with be an even bigger gripe because the comparisons are being made league-wide as opposed to just within a division (with the teams emerging from each division getting a shot at the conference title). Who you miss in a given conference season just got more important.

========

Here are the records and conference championship status of the teams that have won championships in each divisions over the last couple decades:

FBS MNC
2018: Alabama/Clemson (Winner will be 15-0; both CC)
2017: Alabama (13-1; Non-CC)
2016: Clemson (14-1; CC)
2015: Alabama (14-1; CC)
2014: Ohio State (14-1; CC)
2013: Florida State (14-0; CC)
2012: Alabama (13-1; CC)
2011: Alabama (12-1; Non-CC)
2010: Auburn (14-0; CC)
2009: Alabama (14-0; CC)
2008: Florida (13-1; CC)
2007: LSU (12-2; CC)
2006: Florida (13-1; CC)
2005: Texas (13-0; CC)
2004: USC (13-0; CC; 2 wins vacated)
2003 AP: USC (12-1; CC)
2003 Coaches: LSU (13-1; CC)
2002: Ohio State (14-0; co-CC with Iowa)
2001: Miami (12-0; CC)
2000: Oklahoma (13-0; CC)

Undefeated MNC: 9 times
1-loss MNC: 9 times (counting 2003 just once)
2-loss MNC: 1 time

Outright CC won MNC: 17 times
Co-CC won MNC: 1 time
Non-CC won MNC: 2 times

FCS Playoff Champion [FBS opponents in brackets]
2018: NDSU (would be 15-0; CC) or Eastern Washington (would be 13-2; CC [lost to Wazzu])
2017: NDSU (14-1; CC)
2016: James Madison (14-1; CC [lost to North Carolina])
2015: NDSU (13-2; co-CC with Illinois State)
2014: NDSU (15-1; co-CC with Illinois State [beat Iowa State])
2013: NDSU (15-0; CC [beat Kansas State])
2012: NDSU (14-1; CC [beat Colorado State])
2011: NDSU (14-1; co-CC with Northern Iowa [beat Minnesota])
2010: Eastern Washington (13-2; co-CC with Montana State [lost to Nevada])
2009: Villanova (14-1, co-CC with Richmond [beat Temple])
2008: Richmond (13-3, non-CC [finished 3rd in the CAA South][lost to Virginia])
2007: Appalachian State (13-2; co-CC with Wofford [beat Michigan])
2006: Appalachian State (14-1; CC [lost to NC State])
2005: Appalachian State (12-3; CC [lost to Kansas])
2004: James Madison (13-2; co-CC with William & Mary and Delaware [lost to West Virginia])
2003: Delaware (15-1; co-CC with UMass [beat Navy])
2002: Western Kentucky (12-3; co-CC with Western Illinois [lost to Kansas State])
2001: Montana (15-1; CC [lost to Hawaii])
2000: Georgia State (13-2; CC [lost to Georgia])

Undefeated Champion: 2 times
1-loss Champion: 9 times
2-loss Champion: 5 times
3-loss Champion: 3 times (all lost to an FBS team)

Outright CC won Playoff: 9 times
Co-CC won Playoff: 9 times
Non-CC won Playoff: 1 time
NOTE: The 2008 playoff champion finished THIRD in their division.

Div. II Playoff Champion
2018: Valdosta State (14-0; CC)
2017: Texas A&M–Commerce (14-1; non-CC)
2016: Northwest Missouri State (15-0; CC)
2015: Northwest Missouri State (15-0; CC)
2014: CSU–Pueblo (14-1; co-CC with Colorado Mines)
2013: Northwest Missouri State (15-0; CC)
2012: Valdosta State (12-2; non-CC)
2011: Pittsburg State (13-1; CC)
2010: Minnesota-Duluth (15-0; CC)
2009: Northwest Missouri State (14-1; CC)
2008: Minnesota-Duluth (15-0; CC)
2007: Valdosta State (13-1; non-CC)
2006: Grand Valley State (15-0; CC)
2005: Grand Valley State (14-0; CC)
2004: Valdosta State (13-1; CC)
2003: Grand Valley State (14-1; non-CC)
2002: Grand Valley State (14-0; CC)
2001: North Dakota (14-1; CC)
2000: Delta State (14-1; ??)

Undefeated Champion: 9 times
1-loss Champion: 9 times
2-loss Champion: 1 time

Outright CC won Playoff: 13 times
Co-CC won Playoff: 1 time
Non-CC won Playoff: 4 times
Uncertain CC status: 1 time (couldn't find 2000 data for Delta State's conference standing)

Div. III Playoff Champion
2018: Mary Hardin–Baylor (15-0; CC)
2017: Mount Union (15-0; CC)
2016: Mary Hardin–Baylor (15-0; CC)
2015: Mount Union (15-0; CC)
2014: Wisconsin-Whitewater (15-0; CC)
2013: Wisconsin-Whitewater (15-0; CC)
2012: Mount Union (15-0; CC)
2011: Wisconsin-Whitewater (15-0; CC)
2010: Wisconsin-Whitewater (15-0; CC)
2009: Wisconsin-Whitewater (15-0; CC)
2008: Mount Union (15-0; CC)
2007: Wisconsin-Whitewater (14-1; CC)
2006: Mount Union (15-0; CC)
2005: Mount Union (14-1; CC)
2004: Linfield (13-0; CC)
2003: Saint John's (MN) (14-0; CC)
2002: Mount Union (14-0; CC)
2001: Mount Union (14-0; CC)
2000: Mount Union (14-0; CC)

Undefeated Champion: 17 times
1-loss Champion: 2 times
2-loss Champion: 0 times

Outright CC won Playoff: 19 times
Co-CC won Playoff: 0 times
Non-CC won Playoff: 0 times

Crazy: In D3, the playoff champion was always an outright conference champion, and the playoff champion has been undefeated in 17 of the last 19 seasons.

I am not sure the point of listing all the champions, this discussion isn't necessarily about winning titles, it is about determining which teams should be represented in a playoff. Which teams were selected to play in the tournament.

As far as the single division format, I would much rather have a rematch of Ohio St and Michigan than have a team 3 loss Northwestern in the playoff.

What difference does it make if they miss opponents? Scheduling will never be fair, it doesn't matter how you change it, someone will gripe. However, you could create a rotating schedule that would be fair enough and have enough of the best teams playing each other throughout the year to make a single division viable.

 

[saluno22]

I am not sure the point of listing all the champions, this discussion isn't necessarily about winning titles, it is about determining which teams should be represented in a playoff. Which teams were selected to play in the tournament.

I guess I never finished that thought. Mainly that in other levels of college football, it's not out of the ordinary for teams to lose multiple games and/or not win their conference but still qualify for and win the playoff. You don't hear many gripes from those levels that an undeserving team won because the fields are large enough to capture both "deserving" and "best" teams. Also, even when you let in conference champs that may not be the elite of the level, the playoff champion still typically ends up being one of the teams that had a great regular season. FBS just has to be different, and it's for monetary and protectionist reasons: the subset of stakeholders who make the important decisions and have the most to gain or lost individually (as opposed to the overarching organizational body).

What difference does it make if they miss opponents? Scheduling will never be fair, it doesn't matter how you change it, someone will gripe. However, you could create a rotating schedule that would be fair enough and have enough of the best teams playing each other throughout the year to make a single division viable.

I think year after year, the schedule rotations have shown to make or break a given team's championship aspirations. I think we'll agree on that. I just think the conferences are way too big to do a single-division arrangement. Being able to play a true round robin and griping about home vs. away advantages is lot more palatable than establishing rotating opponents years in advance and having ebbs and flows with given teams' strength. Or having randomized opponents and one year a team gets murderers' row and the next season one of the easiest possible schedules (look at 2016 vs. 2017 Wisconsin, where the former was a better team but with a worse record as a result of the conference schedule they were dealt).

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

I guess I never finished that thought. Mainly that in other levels of college football, it's not out of the ordinary for teams to lose multiple games and/or not win their conference but still qualify for and win the playoff. You don't hear many gripes from those levels that an undeserving team won because the fields are large enough to capture both "deserving" and "best" teams. Also, even when you let in conference champs that may not be the elite of the level, the playoff champion still typically ends up being one of the teams that had a great regular season. FBS just has to be different, and it's for monetary and protectionist reasons: the subset of stakeholders who make the important decisions and have the most to gain or lost individually (as opposed to the overarching organizational body).


I think year after year, the schedule rotations have shown to make or break a given team's championship aspirations. I think we'll agree on that. I just think the conferences are way too big to do a single-division arrangement. Being able to play a true round robin and griping about home vs. away advantages is lot more palatable than establishing rotating opponents years in advance and having ebbs and flows with given teams' strength. Or having randomized opponents and one year a team gets murderers' row and the next season one of the easiest possible schedules (look at 2016 vs. 2017 Wisconsin, where the former was a better team but with a worse record as a result of the conference schedule they were dealt).

If it was up to me and I had to make the decision and I had to defend an AQ. I could more confidently defend a second place 8-1 team in a 1 division format, that played a softer schedule, than a 4 loss division champ in a 2 division format.

 

[saluno22]

If it was up to me and I had to make the decision and I had to defend an AQ. I could more confidently defend a second place 8-1 team in a 1 division format, that played a softer schedule, than a 4 loss division champ in a 2 division format.

In the framework of playoff selection, I don't disagree. It'll matter how the conferences decide to schedule and crown their champion in that format, and it'll be open to internal and outside criticism (just like any system).

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

In the framework of playoff selection, I don't disagree. It'll matter how the conferences decide to schedule and crown their champion in that format, and it'll be open to internal and outside criticism (just like any system).

In reading some stuff online, it appears Delany is already thinking that the one division format is viable. I hope it happens. Then they could go to more equitable or random rotation.