Two slots earned
Oklahoma, Georgia.
Big 10 Champ, win and in.
Clemson win and in.
Miami wins they will put in Alabama.
Oklahoma, Georgia.
Big 10 Champ, win and in.
Clemson win and in.
Miami wins they will put in Alabama.
NHR: College Football Playoff
- Thread starter wvkeeper(HN)
- Start date
If Clemson and Ohio State wins this will be the match ups.
1 Clemson v. 4 Ohio State
2 Oklahoma v. 3 Georgia
If Ohio State loses
1 Clemson v. 4 Wisconsin
2v3 same
If Clemson loses and OSU wins
1 Georgia v. 4 Ohio State
2 Oklahoma v. 3 Alabama
If Clemson loses and Ohio State loses
1 Georgia v. 4 Wisconsin
2v3 the same
1 Clemson v. 4 Ohio State
2 Oklahoma v. 3 Georgia
If Ohio State loses
1 Clemson v. 4 Wisconsin
2v3 same
If Clemson loses and OSU wins
1 Georgia v. 4 Ohio State
2 Oklahoma v. 3 Alabama
If Clemson loses and Ohio State loses
1 Georgia v. 4 Wisconsin
2v3 the same
Moral of the story: Just like a presidential campaign, you can't lose big in Iowa and have a chance to win it all! Roll TIDE!
I don't blame him. He needs to try and help the playoff committee sell that notion.
I think it's fine tOSU was left out. I would like the old BCS formula to remain a component of the overall selection process, to help limit biases
Just go to 14 teams all conf champs then a few at large spots and have a legit playoff
The expansion to 8 teams will come when the tv contract needs renewed in 2020... All 5 P5 champs will get a spot, the best G5 team and two at-large teams.
This year it would look something like...
1. Clemson
8. UCF
4. Alabama
5. Ohio State
3. Georgia
6. USC
2. Oklahoma
7. Auburn
This year it would look something like...
1. Clemson
8. UCF
4. Alabama
5. Ohio State
3. Georgia
6. USC
2. Oklahoma
7. Auburn
And ruin what makes FBS football so special. Just scrap the regular season and have one huge playoff of all 130 teams. Watch regular season ratings and attendance continue to plummet if you water down the regular season into shit with an expanded playoff.
Win a shitty conference and get in? Yeah, that's fair. In your plan, FAU would get in. FAU played four OOC games. They got blown out by a middle-of-the-pack AAC team (Navy). They lost by 17 to a second place Big 10 team. They lost to a middle-of-the-pack MAC team. But, hey, they beat an FCS school and won a shitty conference, so lets put them in ahead of a 10-2 Miami, a 10-2 Washington, TCU, Notre Dame, etc.
Would you like to see just how many of the biggest regular season games would mean absolutely nothing since each team would get in either way?
Terrible idea.
Put the best teams in. People would never want to see FAU in instead of let's say Wisconsin or Penn State or Auburn. Going to put them in over TCU or Notre Dame?
No, with your plan, those teams wouldn't have gotten in, yet FAU would. See how absurd that is?
So how does putting in the conference champs plus 6 at large devalue the regular season, rifle? Every game counts because you have to win a championship to gain a guaranteed spot. To,be an at large you better win at least 10 of those regular season games, so how don't they mean anything?
The current system is designed to make sure the current top 20 teams will always remain the top 20 teams and, more specifically, guarantee the current top 8 remain the top 8. If every game counts then why is the only undefeated team not in the playoff?
The current system is designed to make sure the current top 20 teams will always remain the top 20 teams and, more specifically, guarantee the current top 8 remain the top 8. If every game counts then why is the only undefeated team not in the playoff?
And here's what's absurd, you don't want to devalue the playoff with crap teams? Well, so far there have been 9 playoff games and only 3 have been decided by single digits. The games among the supposed best teams have generally ended in blowouts. The 6 that were not less than 10 points - margins of 39, 38, 31, 22, 21 and 17, all non competitive.
To me, the chance of a G5 upset is more compelling than watching Michigan State get beat 38-0.
To me, the chance of a G5 upset is more compelling than watching Michigan State get beat 38-0.
Sucks for them maybe they should have won their conf. Or won another game here or there. The conflict champ idea absolutely does NOT devalue the regular season. It gives teams outside the top ten a chance to compete for a national championship. No one would expect FAU to beat Clemson but they would at least get a shot and if you make first two rounds on campus then the host team gets some extra revenue
College football has the most meaningful regular season of any sport. Period. The old system of zero teams in the "playoffs" (everybody just go to whatever bowl and the team with the best record against the best schedule is the national champion) was best. Two was the worst. Destroyed historic bowl link (SEC-Sugar, Big 10-Rose, etc.), destroyed New Year's Day, and, as a side note, goofily included one mid-major with an auto bid, while excluding the other four. Four is better, but still bad, because some years, like this one, there are just not four teams that deserve to be in. Eight, as long as it is the 5 P5 champions, the best champion of the G5, and two "wild cards" would be a little better, as it would make winning the conference very important and preserve the regular season. Any more than that will kill the regular season.
You guys are crazy. People want to see good matchups. FAU would be damn near last place in the SEC or other big conferences. They have no following.
People want to see good teams go at it. Yes, you get the Boise every now and again and fine put them in if they deserve it.
There is a reason SEC, Big 10 teams, etc. are on national tv every week and CUSA teams are not.
Sorry, might hurt, but it is true. Letting every conference in a 16 team field would ruin college football.
People want to see good teams go at it. Yes, you get the Boise every now and again and fine put them in if they deserve it.
There is a reason SEC, Big 10 teams, etc. are on national tv every week and CUSA teams are not.
Sorry, might hurt, but it is true. Letting every conference in a 16 team field would ruin college football.
It won't be 16 teams any time in the near future... I would be willing to bet that it will go to 8, with the 5 P5 champs getting auto bids, and stay that way for a long time. Why?...
1. The P5 leagues run shit and they want their champs to have a spot at the table.
2. 8 teams allows you to keep the "Bowl games" and their corporate sponsor dollars.
3. ESPN/Fox/ABC can all have a piece of the playoff pie with 7 games on the table and thus will throw a bunch of money into those TV deals.
4. Adding one round, (one extra game) would not necessitate giving up a regular season game.
5. The G5 will be pacified by getting their highest ranked team in the field as an 8 seed every year.
1. The P5 leagues run shit and they want their champs to have a spot at the table.
2. 8 teams allows you to keep the "Bowl games" and their corporate sponsor dollars.
3. ESPN/Fox/ABC can all have a piece of the playoff pie with 7 games on the table and thus will throw a bunch of money into those TV deals.
4. Adding one round, (one extra game) would not necessitate giving up a regular season game.
5. The G5 will be pacified by getting their highest ranked team in the field as an 8 seed every year.
Guys, this isn't a theory, an argument, a difference of opinion, etc. It is basic fvcking math, and the fact that a banker doesn't understand that reinforces my stance to keep the majority of your money out of traditional banks.
When there are a limited number of teams (120 FBS) and the number of regular season games remain the same (12), an expansion of the playoffs means that teams with more losses will be allowed in. If teams are able to lose more games in the regular season and still play for the national championship, it devalues those games.
For basics, just look at the old system where only two teams play for the national championship. In most seasons, if you lose more than one game, you don't get a chance.
With a four team playoff, you can lose two games and still get in some seasons.
With an eight team playoff, you can easily lose two games and possibly three games and still get in.
With a sixteen team playoff, you can easily lose three games, sometimes four, and even five game (hi, Akron) and still get in (I'll prove this to you even with this season in which there were a lot more 0-1 loss teams than usual).
You realize this is math, right?
There are two severe flaws with this statement. Every game doesn't count, and it isn't even close. In your system, an 8-5 Akron could have gotten in had they topped Toledo in the MAC championship. So, tell me how "every game counts because you have to win a championship" to a team that lost by 52 points to Penn State, lost by 37 points to Iowa State, lost by 27 points to Toledo (in the regular season), lost to Troy, and lost to little Miami.
"Every game counts." Hardly. You just allowed a team from a bad conference with five losses to be in the playoffs with your system.
Let's play this game again. Boise State went 10-3. They lost to a 9-3 Pac 12 team. They got crushed by a team that went 3-5 in the ACC. They lost to a 9-4 Fresno team. Every game counts? Hardly. Every game they played against a P5 opponent - a good one or an average one - showed they don't deserve to be in. Lets say Fresno had topped Boise last week. Now, your system has Fresno getting in. Fresno lost by more than 30 points to both of the P5 teams they played. Oh, they also lost to a sub .500 UNLV. Every game counts? Pffft!
Let's play this game again. Remember what FAU did in their regular season? They got crushed by an average Navy. They got crushed by a great Wisconsin. They lost to an average Buffalo. Every game counts? But pretend UNT beat them last week. Now your system allows in a team that lost by 22 to SMU, lost by 17 to Iowa, and lost by 38 to FAU in the regular season into the playoffs.
Do you not see how the more you expand the playoffs, the less the regular season means?
The second flaw in your statement is that you must win a championship to get in. First, I showed how winning a championship in about half of the conferences in meaningless. Now, we can talk about how not winning a championship is perfectly fine for a huge chunk of the teams you want to let into your playoffs.
You are allowing six at-large teams into the playoffs. Want to know who those six teams would be? Wisconsin, Alabama, Auburn, Penn State, Miami, and Washington. How many of those teams won conference championships? I'll help if you don't have a calculator handy: zero.
This statement just proves my point. In your system, you stated that to be an at-large, you must win at least 10 games. In the current system (four team playoff), three of the four teams have won 12 games and the fourth has won 11 games. In your system, the next two teams up (Stanford and Notre Dame) each have won 9 games . . . and in your system, you are allowing in the strong possibility that an 8 win Akron, an 8 win Appalachian State, etc. get in. So, no, your system doesn't call for at least 10 wins to get in.
Need me to explain how expanding the playoffs devalues the regular season games or can you figure this one out on your own?
This shows a severe lack of intellect. There have been "9 playoff games" in YOUR proposed system. In the current system, the majority of those games haven't been a de facto playoff game. MAC championship? It wasn't a playoff game regardless of what happens. The AAC? Same. The C-USA championship? Same. The Mountain West? Same. The Pac 12? Same. Only in YOUR system would those games be playoff games. In the current system - the one I am arguing for - those games meant nothing in terms of the playoffs.
Now, you're just arguing against yourself, and it is embarrassing to watch. It is further proof that your system is bogus.
Well, Michigan State would be nowhere close to getting into the playoffs in your system. The teams that would get in - Alabama, Wisconsin, Auburn, Penn State, Miami, Washington - all could compete with the very best team in a game. They just didn't earn that right due their hiccups in the regular season, because you know, the regular season is extremely important in the current system. In your system, the regular season would be far less important which is why all of those teams would still get in.
I think we can all agree that those six teams can compete with the top couple of teams in a single game. So, you find it more compelling to see an FAU/Akron/Toledo/Troy/Boise/North Texas/Fresno compete against Clemson instead of an Auburn or a Washington? That's foolish.
Here is how your system would turn out this season. In parentheses is how your system could have also worked out based on the result of a conference championship game a few days ago:
1) Clemson vs. 16) Troy (Appalachian State)
2) Oklahoma vs. 15) FAU (North Texas)
3) Georgia vs. 14) Toledo (Akron)
4) Alabama vs. 13) Boise (Fresno)
Compelling? Come on.
Now, let's look at all of the regular season games/conference championship games that would mean nothing other than a possible home field advantage in your system:
Clemson vs. Miami
Clemson vs. Auburn
Oklahoma vs. Ohio State
Oklahoma vs. TCU (they played twice, so as long as TCU won one, they would get in)
Georgia vs. Auburn
Georgia vs. Auburn (again)
Alabama vs. Auburn
Penn State vs. Ohio State
And then there were a ton of games all of the other teams could have lost, and it wouldn't have meant anything.
Four weeks ago, Central Florida could have lost to UConn by 50 points AND Temple by 50 points just three weeks ago. Guess what? They would still make it in your system.
FAU could have lost by 50 to Charlotte two weeks ago AND lost to Louisiana Tech by 50 four weeks ago and still would have made your playoffs.
Akron could have lost to Kent by 50 two weeks ago and would still make your system.
The expanded playoffs is bad enough in that it greatly diminishes the importance of the regular season. Giving automatic bids for teams winning pathetic conferences (look at the scenarios I just presented which would have happened in your system) is as unfair a system as could purposely be developed.
Frankly, Banker, your system goes against many of your political arguments. Want to revisit MLB payrolls again? Hint, like every year, my argument was shown to be right again.
Work in what way? In both of those things, the regular season is far less important than the regular season in FBS. That's the entire point. The regular season in FBS is far more exciting than in high school and the NFL.
You're too stupid to understand this, but you just contradicted yourself.
It gives teams outside of the top ten - those who showed they weren't good enough in the regular season to be ranked in the top ten - a chance to compete for a national championship. That is called devaluing the regular season. I can't dumb it down anymore than I just did.
Nobody would expect Coastal Carolina to beat Clemson, but we should probably give them a shot, too. Coastal won their last game, so clearly they are on fire. Why are we not giving them a shot? Why? Because they didn't earn it during the regular season. Likewise, an 8-5 Akron, a 10-3 FAU, etc. also didn't earn that chance.
Based on what? The goal of the national championship is to find the most deserving team while also keeping what makes FBS so special and exciting each week.
In this "sweet spot" scenario, Wisconsin and Ohio State (and then 10-3 Auburn) would get in. Is there anyone who thinks Wisconsin may be the best team in the country? Of course not. Their best wins were against 8-4 (and unranked) Michigan and 7-5 (and unranked) Iowa. Their one game against a top team (Ohio State) was a loss.
If you're going to punish G5 teams for not beating anyone of note and losing the chance(s) you have against top teams, you must also punish the P5 teams that have the same resume. No way Wisconsin deserves to get in.
Does Ohio State deserve to get in? While they have one great wins (Penn State) and two good wins (Michigan State and Wisconsin), they also have a 15 point home loss to an elite team and a 30+ blowout loss to an average team (Iowa). They don't deserve to get in.
Why are you willing to greatly diminish what makes FBS special just to be able to watch undeserving teams compete for something they didn't earn?
I'm 100% with you on this. I'd go 110% if that was a thing.
Much like you I'm wary of college football's regular season turning into college basketball if the postseason tournament is expanded too much. I hate the idea of 16 but admit eight intrigues me.
And, you're right - Wisconsin's resume is weak. So is Alabama's, though. And if you think about it, who has Georgia beaten outside of splitting with Auburn? Notre Dame? The SEC East was hot garbage and UGA managed to avoid both Bama and LSU in the regular season.
Seems to me every year we have one or two really deserving teams and a handful of others that all have similar resumes. Only including four in the tournament seems arbitrary and awkward. Honestly I'd rather go back to two if eight isn't a possibility.
I would be all for an 8 team playoff IF they guaranteed a spot for a G5 team.....which I highly doubt they would. If we took the NCAA model outside in the private sector, it would stink a$S of collusion.......a whole other discussion. Anyway, I would be for it, because it would change the norm, as Smock put it" for us fans of G5 teams. Putting up with the shit we have had to with the creativity of Legg would be a one and done because we would be forced (in theory) to get better and stay on the cutting edge.
Alabama lost to a team that went on to be #2 in the country on the road in perhaps the best rivalry in college football outside of Army vs Navy. Both Auburn and Alabama are in the same conference which has been the best conference consistently for a decade.
Alabama had a legitimate argument. Ohio State did not.
Hell, we could split hairs all day long. Clemson got a 1 seed and lost to freakin' Syracuse. That should not happen even if their QB did get knocked out.
While I think Clemson is the best team in the country right now, in the old days Clemson would have been eliminated with that loss because that is a bad loss.
Not to change the subject, but that is why MU is stagnant right now. The school goes 7-5 and tanks down the stretch but the school is happy because they go to some bowl. Put a playoff spot on the line most of the G5's are going to be scrambling to be good..
I don't disagree with your argument here, but the playoffs are never going back to picking 2 teams and the fact that two P5 leagues got left out this year will lead to a format where all 5 big conference champs get in the playoffs (which necessitates going to 8 teams).
Also, as a football fan, I would argue that if Auburn at 10-3 is the worst team to make the playoffs. That is a pretty good playoff... Auburn could beat any of those teams in the top 8 on any given Saturday.
Would going to 8 teams devalue the regular season? Probably some, but only for teams who lock up a spot in a P5 conference championship game early or are in the top 3 with a week to go (meaning they probably wouldnt fall out of the top 8 with a loss).
I hope they figure out that balance sometime soon. The point of having conferences and championships for those conferences is to figure out the best teams in that league. If a team beats all other teams in that league then who cares if they dont play each other again in a bowl game? We wonder more about if an underdog from another conference could step up and knock these others off every year so if they win the conference they should be allowed that opportunity. If that is watering down football then what do you call the current set up where 2 teams with a .500 or below average play each other in front of an empty stadium? If expanding the playoffs did nothing else then i hope it at least gets rid of all of these meaningless bowl games. It goes against us when we do it but maybe we would put more value in playing teams with a pulse and actually winning instead of using the dumb excuse that "well we made it to a bowl game" as if almost everyone doesnt already go to a bowl game
Sorry i didn't refresh the thread since earlier today and more or less said the same thing as you did. It took me a while to read through most of rhinos responses when i had time to open this back up haha
I don't get the argument supporting the G-5 having a guaranteed spot in the playoff, even if it ever does expand to 8 teams.
Without a doubt UCF had the most impressive record of all the G-5's and yet Sagarin has them with the 83rd ranked strength of schedule. Would it be fair to put UCF in the playoff instead of say 9-3 Notre Dame playing the 2nd ranked strength of schedule ? That would be punishing a team that plays a strong schedule and rewarding ones that have weak schedules.
The only fair way to do it is let the P-5's have it the way it is now and give the G-5's their own championship playoff.
Some may say that is a throw back to the old 1-A 1-AA days, but when you think about it, that's where we already are with the P-5 G-5 setup we already have.
Last edited:
What will happen and what should happen aren't always the same. That doesn't mean we should support what shouldn't happen just because it will happen.
As could Penn State, Miami, USC, Washington, etc. Having all of those teams in a playoff wouldn't make for bad football games. But it would greatly diminish the importance of the regular season, which isn't a fair trade, if you truly care about keeping FBS the most exciting regular season in all of sports.
That's false. It would greatly diminish the regular season at all parts. Under the old system, if a team loses in week 1, they would have a tough chance to make it to the national title game; possible, but they would need some help. In an eight team playoff, a team could lose in week 1, week 5, and week 10 and still get in. In other words, none of those weeks is nearly as important as all of the other weeks in the previous system since a loss doesn't disqualify you.
Nice spin job throwing in Akron and UNT for emphasis on how right you are even though neither would be in. Why don't you stick to what it would really be?
Yes, FAU is 10-3. Of course they started 1-3 with a new staff and have won 9 in a row, 8 of those 9 were blowouts. UCF is 12-0, the only undefeated in the country. Toledo is 11-2. Boise is 10-3. Troy is 10-2.
Like it or not, there are 130 teams that play on the FBS level of football. It is divided into 10 conferences. If LSU thinks it isn't fair that FAU can make the playoff while playing in CUSA they are more than welcome to quit the SEC and join CUSA to make their path easier. If UCLA is upset, they can join the Mountain West. I'm sure Fresno will trade them places.
Also, the G5 schools have represented themselves quite well in the access bowls and old BCS bowls. That's another reason the P5 doesn't want them in. G5 wins, and they would happen, would erode the monopoly over time by spreading the cash and creating new "cool" programs with recruits.
And this is not counter to my economic and political views. I believe in a free market and there is nothing free market about college football as it currently exists.
Yes, FAU is 10-3. Of course they started 1-3 with a new staff and have won 9 in a row, 8 of those 9 were blowouts. UCF is 12-0, the only undefeated in the country. Toledo is 11-2. Boise is 10-3. Troy is 10-2.
Like it or not, there are 130 teams that play on the FBS level of football. It is divided into 10 conferences. If LSU thinks it isn't fair that FAU can make the playoff while playing in CUSA they are more than welcome to quit the SEC and join CUSA to make their path easier. If UCLA is upset, they can join the Mountain West. I'm sure Fresno will trade them places.
Also, the G5 schools have represented themselves quite well in the access bowls and old BCS bowls. That's another reason the P5 doesn't want them in. G5 wins, and they would happen, would erode the monopoly over time by spreading the cash and creating new "cool" programs with recruits.
And this is not counter to my economic and political views. I believe in a free market and there is nothing free market about college football as it currently exists.
It would help g5 schools gain some recruits they wouldn't normally get for sure. If a kid sees a program or 2 from g5 going to the playoff regularly they might take a chance on a "smaller" school instead of signing in a p5 that might not get to thw playoffs. I know this could play into some peoples theory of watering down the regular season but if things leveled out over time we could see more exciting games across the board. We currently get stuck with blowout games like Alabama vs mercer or clemson vs kent state anyways and not saying those teams will ever reach those levels. Just saying if a few high ranked recruits decided to go with a g5 instead of a p5 then over many years it could end up proving to make all of the fbs more competitive that way while also allowing us to see a team actually play their way into a championship.
The point, which was too difficult for you to understand, was that your system would allow an 8-5 (their record if they had won last week) Akron into the tournament or a North Texas had they topped FAU. Again, either of those things could have easily happened a couple of days ago, and your system would put 8-5 Akron into this playoff. Brilliant!
It isn't much better allowing in the teams that would be in it this year, as I'll show below.
More realistically, it is because 2 of those 3 losses were teams they had to play that actually had a pulse.
They lost by 23 to an average Navy. They lost by 17 to a good Wisconsin. They lost by 3 to a subpar Buffalo. And you want to ruin the regular season so that teams like FAU/Akron/UNT/Toledo can get in a tournament over a far more deserving TCU/Stanford/Notre Dame/thirty other teams. Brilliant.
No. If FAU thinks it is unfair that a 10-3 Auburn can get in instead of them, then maybe they should try beating teams with a pulse instead of getting crushed by them. Maybe they should schedule harder teams . . . well, probably not, as they showed three times that they can't play with teams with a pulse, let alone elite teams that a playoff should consist of.
They played one P5 school and lost by 17 to a 2nd place Big 10 team.
They played one P5 school and lost by 22 to the 2nd place ACC team.
They played two P5s. They lost to a 4th place Pac 12 team in Washington State by 3 and lost to a 10th place ACC team in UVA by 19.
They beat a 4th place SEC team by 3 and then lost to a 4-8 Sun Belt team and Boise.
So, the teams that you think should get in went 1-4 against P5 schools. None of those losses were close. Your schools were blown out by some bad P5 schools, average P5 schools, and good P5 schools. At least they are consistent in getting their asses kicked by P5 schools across the board.
Sure it is.
Pretend Jerome Blackman goes to Crenshaw High in LA. Pretend Tyler Whiteman goes to Vineyard Vines Prep in Virginia. Pretend a college's entrance requirement is only that an applicant finishes in the top 10% of his high school class.
Blackman scores an 800 on his SATs and has a GPA of 2.8. He finishes in the top 10% of his class. Whiteman scores a 1500 on his SATs and has a GPA of 3.9. He finishes in the top 15% of his prep school but not in the top 10%.
What you are advocating is that Blackman should be given entrance to the university ahead of Whiteman, and we both know you don't agree with that. Your argument is that if Whiteman doesn't like it, he should transfer to Crenshaw High.
Dan Wetzel with an interesting take (https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-make-college-football-playoff-even-better-032144320.html):
For the second consecutive year the Big Ten staged a championship game where the winner didn’t win much. Neither Penn State last year nor Ohio State this season advanced to the College Football Playoff. It was the same with USC in the Pac-12. A year ago, Alabama could have lost the SEC title game and still made the playoff. This year the Tide didn’t even have to play and they got in.
The debate over who should be in and who should be out can’t ever really be solved. Nor, perhaps, should it be. The committee did the best it could when faced with an impossible situation. The playoff, even at just four teams, is a significant improvement over the old BCS – that double header on New Year’s Day is proof of that.
It could be better, though, and not so much by expanding, as being overhauled and modernized. It starts by eliminating the conference championship games which were born as a money grab but are now inefficient, too often meaningless and actually stand in the way of a bigger money grab of a bigger playoff. By doing so, the number of games played wouldn’t be increased, a nod to player safety. Actually, fewer teams would play an extra game.
Yet more games would matter. And they would matter more.
It’s true. While it may sound like an eight-team playoff devalues the season compared to a four-team playoff, if you’re eliminating the conference title game round, that isn’t the case.
Here’s the simple framework:
The first weekend of December is no longer reserved for conference championship games. They are the first round of an eight-team playoff, where the higher-seeded team gets to host. The champions of the five major conferences would be granted automatic bids. If you win your league, you are in.
How each conference determines that is up to them. The Big 12 already plays a round robin so the conference title game is useless. The other leagues could base it on league record with various tie breakers. This would wisely lead to the end of the division system which makes neither competitive, nor intellectual, sense. A more balanced scheduling system would improve the entire season. So would knowing that playing (and losing) tough non-conference games won’t kill you (as it did to USC) because you can still win your league.
There would be three at-large bids allowed, with one twist. If a non-Power Five club goes unbeaten and the committee ranks it in say, the top 10 or 15 (some number) then that team gets in automatically. Is UCF one of the eight best teams? We don’t really know, but it’s close and allowing an underdog into the tournament is good for the sport. Playoffs are businesses and a Cinderella is good for ratings and interest. Besides, if UCF proves to be a weak No. 8 seed, that is just a benefit the No. 1 seed earned. This year, Clemson’s reward is Alabama on a neutral field that is closer to Alabama. Gee, thanks.
Would expanding the playoff water down the regular season?
No. First off, it would make every Power Five conference race matter (or even, this year, the American Athletic Conference title game, where the country would have been riveted to see whether UCF would go unbeaten and steal a bid from a power program). Instead, each year at least one major conference comes up empty. This year it was two. The Pac-12 season was essentially valueless for the last month of the season once teams hit a second regular-season loss. How about all those games that would now count for something?
Second, not winning your conference still would be incredibly risky. UCF grabbing a bid may have meant that, say, Miami would have been out based on its loss to Pitt (depending on how the ACC picked its champion). So the regular season would have meant more because Miami wouldn’t have been bailed out with a ACC title game appearance. Meanwhile, Ohio State would have known it was eliminated at the end of the regular season instead of going through Saturday’s title game without realizing it had been eliminated at the end of the regular season.
Here’s what this year’s playoff would look like (using committee rankings from Nov. 28, pre-conference title games) and giving UCF the No. 8 spot.
No. 8 UCF at No. 1 Clemson
No. 7 USC at No. 2 Auburn
No. 6 Georgia at No. 3 Oklahoma
No. 5 Alabama at No. 4 Wisconsin
Five of the top six teams played last weekend anyway in elimination games. So no change for them. Alabama was essentially given a bye into the semifinals under the current system, which is absurd. This way the Tide has to earn it. USC and UCF both played for conference titles, but this way both teams would have been in meaningful playoff games.
And consider Oklahoma. Why have the Sooners play a postseason game against No. 11 TCU, which it already defeated, when it could instead host No. 6 Georgia? No one would ever conceive such a system, let alone choose it. This is far more logical.
And, yes, OU would’ve hosted Georgia last weekend. Like, in Norman. The reason the playoff is at four and not eight is because the bowl lobby was able to control the creation process. It’s dumb and operates on the border of cronyism and corruption. This way at least round one will be played on the great campuses and stadiums of college football. It’s one of the best parts of the game, yet the sport abandons its roots for its most important contests. No fan has ever watched kickoff in Bryant-Denny or the Horseshoe or Death Valley and said, “Man, I wish this was being played in whatever-they-call-that-orange-stadium-the-Dolphins-play-in-these-days.” The bowls can still have the semifinals, although they should lose that, too.
This way the economic engine of a postseason is enjoyed by campus communities rather than big NFL cities and stadiums. Travel would be easier for home fans. Gaining a top-four seed is a huge advantage that would further strengthen the regular season.
It would also be awesome. Seriously, Alabama in Camp Randall?
Four playoff games should generate far more television money than the current crop of conference title games. There would be better access, yet little to no loss of regular-season urgency. The system would flow better and make sense. There would be no additional games for players. And we’d get campus venues.
It’s not playoff expansion. It’s postseason reform. And it’s better.
Or you can keep staging the Big Ten title game and pretending it matters. If you’re into that kind of thing.
For the second consecutive year the Big Ten staged a championship game where the winner didn’t win much. Neither Penn State last year nor Ohio State this season advanced to the College Football Playoff. It was the same with USC in the Pac-12. A year ago, Alabama could have lost the SEC title game and still made the playoff. This year the Tide didn’t even have to play and they got in.
The debate over who should be in and who should be out can’t ever really be solved. Nor, perhaps, should it be. The committee did the best it could when faced with an impossible situation. The playoff, even at just four teams, is a significant improvement over the old BCS – that double header on New Year’s Day is proof of that.
It could be better, though, and not so much by expanding, as being overhauled and modernized. It starts by eliminating the conference championship games which were born as a money grab but are now inefficient, too often meaningless and actually stand in the way of a bigger money grab of a bigger playoff. By doing so, the number of games played wouldn’t be increased, a nod to player safety. Actually, fewer teams would play an extra game.
Yet more games would matter. And they would matter more.
It’s true. While it may sound like an eight-team playoff devalues the season compared to a four-team playoff, if you’re eliminating the conference title game round, that isn’t the case.
Here’s the simple framework:
The first weekend of December is no longer reserved for conference championship games. They are the first round of an eight-team playoff, where the higher-seeded team gets to host. The champions of the five major conferences would be granted automatic bids. If you win your league, you are in.
How each conference determines that is up to them. The Big 12 already plays a round robin so the conference title game is useless. The other leagues could base it on league record with various tie breakers. This would wisely lead to the end of the division system which makes neither competitive, nor intellectual, sense. A more balanced scheduling system would improve the entire season. So would knowing that playing (and losing) tough non-conference games won’t kill you (as it did to USC) because you can still win your league.
There would be three at-large bids allowed, with one twist. If a non-Power Five club goes unbeaten and the committee ranks it in say, the top 10 or 15 (some number) then that team gets in automatically. Is UCF one of the eight best teams? We don’t really know, but it’s close and allowing an underdog into the tournament is good for the sport. Playoffs are businesses and a Cinderella is good for ratings and interest. Besides, if UCF proves to be a weak No. 8 seed, that is just a benefit the No. 1 seed earned. This year, Clemson’s reward is Alabama on a neutral field that is closer to Alabama. Gee, thanks.
Would expanding the playoff water down the regular season?
No. First off, it would make every Power Five conference race matter (or even, this year, the American Athletic Conference title game, where the country would have been riveted to see whether UCF would go unbeaten and steal a bid from a power program). Instead, each year at least one major conference comes up empty. This year it was two. The Pac-12 season was essentially valueless for the last month of the season once teams hit a second regular-season loss. How about all those games that would now count for something?
Second, not winning your conference still would be incredibly risky. UCF grabbing a bid may have meant that, say, Miami would have been out based on its loss to Pitt (depending on how the ACC picked its champion). So the regular season would have meant more because Miami wouldn’t have been bailed out with a ACC title game appearance. Meanwhile, Ohio State would have known it was eliminated at the end of the regular season instead of going through Saturday’s title game without realizing it had been eliminated at the end of the regular season.
Here’s what this year’s playoff would look like (using committee rankings from Nov. 28, pre-conference title games) and giving UCF the No. 8 spot.
No. 8 UCF at No. 1 Clemson
No. 7 USC at No. 2 Auburn
No. 6 Georgia at No. 3 Oklahoma
No. 5 Alabama at No. 4 Wisconsin
Five of the top six teams played last weekend anyway in elimination games. So no change for them. Alabama was essentially given a bye into the semifinals under the current system, which is absurd. This way the Tide has to earn it. USC and UCF both played for conference titles, but this way both teams would have been in meaningful playoff games.
And consider Oklahoma. Why have the Sooners play a postseason game against No. 11 TCU, which it already defeated, when it could instead host No. 6 Georgia? No one would ever conceive such a system, let alone choose it. This is far more logical.
And, yes, OU would’ve hosted Georgia last weekend. Like, in Norman. The reason the playoff is at four and not eight is because the bowl lobby was able to control the creation process. It’s dumb and operates on the border of cronyism and corruption. This way at least round one will be played on the great campuses and stadiums of college football. It’s one of the best parts of the game, yet the sport abandons its roots for its most important contests. No fan has ever watched kickoff in Bryant-Denny or the Horseshoe or Death Valley and said, “Man, I wish this was being played in whatever-they-call-that-orange-stadium-the-Dolphins-play-in-these-days.” The bowls can still have the semifinals, although they should lose that, too.
This way the economic engine of a postseason is enjoyed by campus communities rather than big NFL cities and stadiums. Travel would be easier for home fans. Gaining a top-four seed is a huge advantage that would further strengthen the regular season.
It would also be awesome. Seriously, Alabama in Camp Randall?
Four playoff games should generate far more television money than the current crop of conference title games. There would be better access, yet little to no loss of regular-season urgency. The system would flow better and make sense. There would be no additional games for players. And we’d get campus venues.
It’s not playoff expansion. It’s postseason reform. And it’s better.
Or you can keep staging the Big Ten title game and pretending it matters. If you’re into that kind of thing.
Dan Wetzel with an interesting take (https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-make-college-football-playoff-even-better-032144320.html):
For the second consecutive year the Big Ten staged a championship game where the winner didn’t win much. Neither Penn State last year nor Ohio State this season advanced to the College Football Playoff. It was the same with USC in the Pac-12. A year ago, Alabama could have lost the SEC title game and still made the playoff. This year the Tide didn’t even have to play and they got in.
The debate over who should be in and who should be out can’t ever really be solved. Nor, perhaps, should it be. The committee did the best it could when faced with an impossible situation. The playoff, even at just four teams, is a significant improvement over the old BCS – that double header on New Year’s Day is proof of that.
It could be better, though, and not so much by expanding, as being overhauled and modernized. It starts by eliminating the conference championship games which were born as a money grab but are now inefficient, too often meaningless and actually stand in the way of a bigger money grab of a bigger playoff. By doing so, the number of games played wouldn’t be increased, a nod to player safety. Actually, fewer teams would play an extra game.
Yet more games would matter. And they would matter more.
It’s true. While it may sound like an eight-team playoff devalues the season compared to a four-team playoff, if you’re eliminating the conference title game round, that isn’t the case.
Here’s the simple framework:
The first weekend of December is no longer reserved for conference championship games. They are the first round of an eight-team playoff, where the higher-seeded team gets to host. The champions of the five major conferences would be granted automatic bids. If you win your league, you are in.
How each conference determines that is up to them. The Big 12 already plays a round robin so the conference title game is useless. The other leagues could base it on league record with various tie breakers. This would wisely lead to the end of the division system which makes neither competitive, nor intellectual, sense. A more balanced scheduling system would improve the entire season. So would knowing that playing (and losing) tough non-conference games won’t kill you (as it did to USC) because you can still win your league.
There would be three at-large bids allowed, with one twist. If a non-Power Five club goes unbeaten and the committee ranks it in say, the top 10 or 15 (some number) then that team gets in automatically. Is UCF one of the eight best teams? We don’t really know, but it’s close and allowing an underdog into the tournament is good for the sport. Playoffs are businesses and a Cinderella is good for ratings and interest. Besides, if UCF proves to be a weak No. 8 seed, that is just a benefit the No. 1 seed earned. This year, Clemson’s reward is Alabama on a neutral field that is closer to Alabama. Gee, thanks.
Would expanding the playoff water down the regular season?
No. First off, it would make every Power Five conference race matter (or even, this year, the American Athletic Conference title game, where the country would have been riveted to see whether UCF would go unbeaten and steal a bid from a power program). Instead, each year at least one major conference comes up empty. This year it was two. The Pac-12 season was essentially valueless for the last month of the season once teams hit a second regular-season loss. How about all those games that would now count for something?
Second, not winning your conference still would be incredibly risky. UCF grabbing a bid may have meant that, say, Miami would have been out based on its loss to Pitt (depending on how the ACC picked its champion). So the regular season would have meant more because Miami wouldn’t have been bailed out with a ACC title game appearance. Meanwhile, Ohio State would have known it was eliminated at the end of the regular season instead of going through Saturday’s title game without realizing it had been eliminated at the end of the regular season.
Here’s what this year’s playoff would look like (using committee rankings from Nov. 28, pre-conference title games) and giving UCF the No. 8 spot.
No. 8 UCF at No. 1 Clemson
No. 7 USC at No. 2 Auburn
No. 6 Georgia at No. 3 Oklahoma
No. 5 Alabama at No. 4 Wisconsin
Five of the top six teams played last weekend anyway in elimination games. So no change for them. Alabama was essentially given a bye into the semifinals under the current system, which is absurd. This way the Tide has to earn it. USC and UCF both played for conference titles, but this way both teams would have been in meaningful playoff games.
And consider Oklahoma. Why have the Sooners play a postseason game against No. 11 TCU, which it already defeated, when it could instead host No. 6 Georgia? No one would ever conceive such a system, let alone choose it. This is far more logical.
And, yes, OU would’ve hosted Georgia last weekend. Like, in Norman. The reason the playoff is at four and not eight is because the bowl lobby was able to control the creation process. It’s dumb and operates on the border of cronyism and corruption. This way at least round one will be played on the great campuses and stadiums of college football. It’s one of the best parts of the game, yet the sport abandons its roots for its most important contests. No fan has ever watched kickoff in Bryant-Denny or the Horseshoe or Death Valley and said, “Man, I wish this was being played in whatever-they-call-that-orange-stadium-the-Dolphins-play-in-these-days.” The bowls can still have the semifinals, although they should lose that, too.
This way the economic engine of a postseason is enjoyed by campus communities rather than big NFL cities and stadiums. Travel would be easier for home fans. Gaining a top-four seed is a huge advantage that would further strengthen the regular season.
It would also be awesome. Seriously, Alabama in Camp Randall?
Four playoff games should generate far more television money than the current crop of conference title games. There would be better access, yet little to no loss of regular-season urgency. The system would flow better and make sense. There would be no additional games for players. And we’d get campus venues.
It’s not playoff expansion. It’s postseason reform. And it’s better.
Or you can keep staging the Big Ten title game and pretending it matters. If you’re into that kind of thing.
I like you long body of work......But I can HERD (as in Marshall)...all the whining because you have 3 SEC teams in the Playoffs....
Zilla22
This year is a perfect example why the playoff will not be perfect until the P5 is made up of 4 16 team conferences. 9 games conference schedules and only the conference Champion makes the playoffs.
Similar threads
