easy solution going forward

mr.big

mr.big

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2001
Messages
31,604
Location
Copper Head Road
starting next year all of the Big 5 Power Conferences will have a Championship game,,the winners of those 5 games get an automatic bid just like in basketball,,then you take the highest 3 teams ranked in the Coaches Poll that isnt the Big 5 Power Conference Championship game winners and play those 4 games the Saturday after Conference Championship Games on the home field of the top 4 ranked teams in the Coaches poll,,then you have 4 teams left to play in the current Bowl Game Playoff around New Years,

seems pretty simple to me,,

this year you would have had


Clemson
Oklahoma
Georgia
Ohio State
USC
Alabama
Wisconsin
Auburn


and the first 4 games this w/e would be

Auburn @ Clemson
Wisc @ Oklahoma
Alabama @ Georgia
USC @ Ohio State

then the winners of those games would get the Playoff Bowl Games ......how could you go wrong with that???
 
ImThere

ImThere

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
11,454
Location
Lewisburg, Tn
Scioto":3dta82wt said:
makes sense.
And that’s why we know why it will never happen. To easy and it makes sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gator-n-buck

gator-n-buck

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
32,221
Location
Knox, TN / Palatka, FL
I'm guessing teams 9 and 10 would then feel like they got the shaft. There's no answer to make it perfect.
 
T

THEdonkey0515

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
5,413
Location
cumberland
gator-n-buck":385eh9lt said:
I'm guessing teams 9 and 10 would then feel like they got the shaft. There's no answer to make it perfect.
This^^^^

When they move it to 8 team.

They will be debating on ESPN, sports radio, & TNdeer everyday until it's over with weather they gave the 9th,10th & 11th ranked teams the shaft I promise.
 
S

Scioto

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
2,315
Location
Middle TN
What's wrong with debate? Nothing. Calls for expansion to an 8 team playoff is not to minimize the amount of debate. An expansion to 8 teams has the benefit of reducing the power of "THE Committee" in favor of affirming the relevance of the conference championships and conference championship games. The conferences created the CFP, but to actually promote the importance of the conferences (and every team in them), there needs to be expansion. Expansion elevates the importance of metrics over perception. It rewards the eligibility for the CCG and winning of the conference championship, not an easy task, while also rewarding multiple teams worthy of being in a playoff that, for example, lose a divisional tie-breaker and don't qualify for their conference championship despite finishing tied for first in their division (e.g., Alabama 2017, Ohio State 2015). It also virtually eliminates the risk of sectionalism, as all five conference champions guarantee that all regions/fans have a rooting interest in the playoffs, which not only maximizes profits to be shared among the conferences, but also ensures that the most important games in the college football season are watched by the entire country and not one or two regions.

I wouldn't require the top non-P5 get in, only that it have the opportunity. For example, this year it would have gotten to a debate between UCF or Auburn. Isn't it interesting those are the teams the Committee has facing off against each other in a bowl? Some years there might be a UCF or Houston determined worthy while others there might be a 10-2 non P5 who's considered the best of that group, but not really worthy over another non-champion of a P5 conference. The Committee's role would be to select the three at large contestants and to rank the top 8. As the OP suggests, the higher ranked host the lower ranked. Take a week, maybe two week break after the CCGs for final exams, rest up, etc. and then play the games. Followed by the semi-final bowl games as they are currently scheduled to take place.

I think most of the resistance has to do with ESPN being the broadcast partner and they (a) currently and until the CFP agreement runs out have agreed to carry the two semi-final and the championship game, and (b) can't or don't want to commit to carrying an additional 4 quarterfinal games. Everyone talks about the players. What about them. FCS, D2, D3 all play a 16 team playoff (D3 might be a 32). If an extra game is such a big deal, go back to playing 11 games in the regular season. We now know that up-scheduling and playing that tough non-conf foe really doesn't matter. Have all conferences play a mandated 9 game (or 8 game, whatever, just make it standard) season with 2 or 3 NCGs for 11 total, the CCG, and then the quarterfinal game.

Interestingly, there have been a total of 9 teams that have made the playoffs since it started in 2004. Only four have gone multiple times (Bama 4, Clemson 3, OU 2, OSU 2). There's a real concentration of power in the FBS game and I don't think that's healthy for the continued popularity of the game. Not just the recruiting benefits, but also the positive media exposure for the participating schools in terms of more student applicants, etc. is of high value. The conferences are going to mandate expansion to 8 teams. CCGs are expensive to put on and if there's really no benefit, only a downside (for this year Wisconsin is the best example), then those are going to stop and that's not good for the game.
 
S

Scioto

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
2,315
Location
Middle TN
In my version of an 8 team playoff, like the OP, the 5 P5 conf champions are in and the Committee picks the 3 at large, may or may not be a non-P5. No conference maximums (e.g., Bama, UGA, and Auburn could all get in). Unlike the OP, the P5 champions and the at-large are then ranked by the Committee. For example, this year OSU wouldn't be #4, they'd be #5 and playing a quarterfinal game in Tuscaloosa next Saturday. Of course there would be debate. That's not the issue. Penn State would be pissed off. That's ok. We can all agree on that.
 
mr.big

mr.big

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2001
Messages
31,604
Location
Copper Head Road
I would rather see a CC get spots 1-5 regardless of records or rankings,,just like the NFL Division Champs get home field over Wild Card teams with a better record,,IMO winning your Conference should carry some weight and if it actually did it might even up recruiting a little,,
 
S

Scioto

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
2,315
Location
Middle TN
mr.big":1wd8gbfe said:
I would rather see a CC get spots 1-5 regardless of records or rankings,,just like the NFL Division Champs get home field over Wild Card teams with a better record,,IMO winning your Conference should carry some weight and if it actually did it might even up recruiting a little,,

We both have the CC carrying some weight, you have it carrying even more. Right now, the CCs carry little weight, maybe none. And that’s not right or good for college football. I could get behind a proposal like yours. As I’ve said, right now the CCGs carry only a downside. Look at Auburn and Wisconsin this year.
 
BamaProud

BamaProud

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
18,533
Location
Shelby County, TN
You can't legitimately claim that Conference Championships carry no or very little weight in making the playoff. The fact remains that out of the 16 teams that have been selected for the playoff since its inception, 14 have won their CC. That is 88%. Over that same 4-year time period only 2 teams have made it in without a CC. (129 teams X 4-years) 99.61% of the teams that failed to win their CC were left out of the playoff.
 
Bone Collector

Bone Collector

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
18,436
Location
Murfreesboro, TN
I honestly thought this exact same thing last night going home from work. Exact plan to the T. If more than one person is coming to this conclusion, then it has to be the right answer.

It is the obvious next step IMO. However this is football and you honestly will have to draw the line somewhere, because once they expand to 8 folks will be calling for 12 or 16....
 
S

Scioto

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
2,315
Location
Middle TN
Bone Collector":1r9p73qp said:
I honestly thought this exact same thing last night going home from work. Exact plan to the T. If more than one person is coming to this conclusion, then it has to be the right answer.

It is the obvious next step IMO. However this is football and you honestly will have to draw the line somewhere, because once they expand to 8 folks will be calling for 12 or 16....

FCS, D2, D3 play a 16 team playoff. I think that's too many. I wonder how many of those conferences have CCGs? I know my alma mater, which has been in the D3 playoffs every year since 1992, is in a conference that doesn't have a CCG. It's old school 10 game reg schedule. Yes, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Eight seems reasonable. Many doubted the 4 team playoffs, especially having 5 "Power 5" conferences. At the start, everyone was thinking this will eventually expand, but the agreement is for 5 years. Well, we just finished year 4.
 
S

Scioto

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
2,315
Location
Middle TN
BamaProud":28imccja said:
You can't legitimately claim that Conference Championships carry no or very little weight in making the playoff. The fact remains that out of the 16 teams that have been selected for the playoff since its inception, 14 have won their CC. That is 88%. Over that same 4-year time period only 2 teams have made it in without a CC. (129 teams X 4-years) 99.61% of the teams that failed to win their CC were left out of the playoff.

You can make a calculation that says anything. For example, now 4 years of the CFP and in 2 of the 4 playoffs, or 50% of the time, a CCG winner hasn't gotten into the playoff. Alternatively, there have been 17 CCGs since 2014 (4 for three years and 5 this year with the Big 12 started their CCG). In those years, a CCG winner did not make the playoffs out of the 17 games a total of 5 times (PAC 12 champ in 2015; Big Ten champ (and Big 12 wouldn't have mattered) in 2016; and PAC 12 and Big Ten in 2017). So, of the 17 CCGs played 2014-2017, roughly 30% of the time winning doesn't matter, but more importantly losing the game 100% disqualifies the team from the playoffs. There's simply more downside than upside to playing in a CCG. If are to have them, and I think they are good for college football, then have winning be an automatic bid. It is in NCAA basketball.
 
S

Scioto

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
2,315
Location
Middle TN
Another thing that should also change is the composition of the Committee, but I wouldn't know how to do it. Journalists in there casting votes really bothers me. This year Gene Smith (OSU AD), the Clemson AD, and Frank Beamer had to be recused from the final 4 votes. Smith and the Clemson AD for obvious conflict of interest reasons, but also I think Beamer's son coaches for Georgia. So on a 13 member committee, 23% of the members couldn't vote on the most important vote - the top 4. And I doubt they can put forth any arguments (or information for it could be construed as persuasion) in the meetings about their teams. I don't know how far the conflict extends. For example, if Smith was on it last year, did he have to recuse when the Committee voted Washington in and not Penn State? Need to have all 13 members able to vote without a conflict on the final 4.
 
BamaProud

BamaProud

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
18,533
Location
Shelby County, TN
Scioto":2fh8d39a said:
You can make a calculation that says anything. For example, now 4 years of the CFP and in 2 of the 4 playoffs, or 50% of the time, a CCG winner hasn't gotten into the playoff. Alternatively, there have been 17 CCGs since 2014 (4 for three years and 5 this year with the Big 12 started their CCG). In those years, a CCG winner did not make the playoffs out of the 17 games a total of 5 times (PAC 12 champ in 2015; Big Ten champ (and Big 12 wouldn't have mattered) in 2016; and PAC 12 and Big Ten in 2017). So, of the 17 CCGs played 2014-2017, roughly 30% of the time winning doesn't matter, but more importantly losing the game 100% disqualifies the team from the playoffs. There's simply more downside than upside to playing in a CCG. If are to have them, and I think they are good for college football, then have winning be an automatic bid. It is in NCAA basketball.


That statistic is a non-starter in the discussion given the fact there are only 4 spots available in the playoff each year. It wold only be valid if the re were enough spots available for half the field(64.5 spots) With only 4 spots its statistically invalid.

I do agree that a n 8 team playoff would be optimal though. I'd say the power 5 champs and 3 wildcards ..,no matter if they non-CC's of power 5 conference, independents, or just good teams from non-power 5 conferences.
 
S

Scioto

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
2,315
Location
Middle TN
BamaProud":6zy7iruy said:
Scioto":6zy7iruy said:
You can make a calculation that says anything. For example, now 4 years of the CFP and in 2 of the 4 playoffs, or 50% of the time, a CCG winner hasn't gotten into the playoff. Alternatively, there have been 17 CCGs since 2014 (4 for three years and 5 this year with the Big 12 started their CCG). In those years, a CCG winner did not make the playoffs out of the 17 games a total of 5 times (PAC 12 champ in 2015; Big Ten champ (and Big 12 wouldn't have mattered) in 2016; and PAC 12 and Big Ten in 2017). So, of the 17 CCGs played 2014-2017, roughly 30% of the time winning doesn't matter, but more importantly losing the game 100% disqualifies the team from the playoffs. There's simply more downside than upside to playing in a CCG. If are to have them, and I think they are good for college football, then have winning be an automatic bid. It is in NCAA basketball.


That statistic is a non-starter in the discussion given the fact there are only 4 spots available in the playoff each year. It wold only be valid if the re were enough spots available for half the field(64.5 spots) With only 4 spots its statistically invalid.

I do agree that a n 8 team playoff would be optimal though. I'd say the power 5 champs and 3 wildcards ..,no matter if they non-CC's of power 5 conference, independents, or just good teams from non-power 5 conferences.

Hey what can i say? 70% of the time, the Committee gets it right every time. :lol:
 

Similar threads

mtn cur
Replies
11
Views
659
TreyB
TreyB
gator-n-buck
Replies
4
Views
810
gator-n-buck
gator-n-buck
RUGER
Replies
4
Views
226
Gravey
Gravey
O
Replies
5
Views
2K
Allen Sullivan
Allen Sullivan
gator-n-buck
Replies
9
Views
442
Grandslam11
Grandslam11

Latest posts

Top