Let's assume the following if the playoff were in place this year. Michigan St beats Ohio St. Oklahoma St beats Oklahoma and FSU beats Duke. You're going to have one undefeated in the playoff (FSU) and the only other undefeated (NIU) doesn't even get a sniff.

You will then have five one-loss teams (Mizzou or Auburn, Bama, Oklahoma St, Baylor, Michigan St) for three playoff spots and Ohio St stands a better chance than Michigan St to get one of those three spots even though they just lost to them. A selection committee is going to be able to effectively differentiate between these five potential teams to make a good decision? It doesn't matter what they do it is set up for criticism and I believe failure.

How long is it going to take for an uproar of three, four, five or even more coaches to call the process f'd up and call for an eight team playoff? The idiots that run college football have done more to undermine the sport than any group has impacted any other sport in American history. The irony is I believe you're going to see more bitching and moaning over the playoff selection process than you did the BCS.

There is only one way to to hold a playoff system and it's either with 12 teams (four with byes) or a 16-team system that includes all 10 conference champions with six at large. While someone will always be unhappy, there is much less room to debate who belongs if it's expanded to the appropriate amount. The appropriate amount? Glad you asked...

In the NFL, 40% of teams get in, which I think is way too high and why the NFL playoffs are so watered down. But even if you had a 16-team playoff in college it will still only represent about 13% of teams. That, IMO, is close to the right ratio. If you can't at least get into the top 12-15 conversation you probably don't have a right to complain about not making a playoff as an at-large.

Which is why I've always said have a 16 team tournament. ACC, B1G, B12, Pac, SEC champs get auto bids. If AAC, CUSA, MAC, MW, SB champs or ND are in the BCS top 25, they get auto bids. Top 8 in BCS get auto bids. The rest of the at larges come from a selection committee, but the pool is only the BCS top 16. Based on projected champs and current BCS standings (I know next week is CCG week and they'll change a lot), this is what we'd have:

ACC-FSU
B1G-OSU
B12-OkSt
PAC-Stanford
SEC-Auburn

Go5 champs in top25:
NIU (MAC)
UCF (AAC)
Fresno (MW)

BCS Top 4:
Alabama

That leaves 7 spots to be decided from this pool of 8:
Missouri
South Carolina
Baylor
Michigan St
Arizona St
Oregon
Clemson
LSU

Let's just say for argument's sake that Arizona St gets left home. Now you seed them by BCS ranking

1FSU
16Fresno St

8South Carolina
9Baylor

5Missouri
12Clemson

4Alabama
13NIU



3Auburn
14LSU

6Oklahoma St
11Oregon

7Stanford
10Michigan St

2OSU
15UCF

Tell me that isn't fair for everyone and would be superb to watch.

It won't stay at 4 for long, maybe even just a season or two. How fast it expands and how incrementally is anyone's guess.

I doubt it more than doubles, initially anyhow, may only go to six(2 byes) at first, but the first time the G5 has any shot at representation would be eight teams.

I'd like to see eight teams, all G5 champions, highest ranked P5 champion and two at large, within 5-7 years, but I hope to see the 10 champions 6 at large model eventually.

The 10 Champions plus 6 at large teams is the only fair way to do it.

If they only guarantee one Go5 team in, then what happens when there are 2 or three undefeated teams from different conferences? Cant have a playoff to get into the playoffs. The risk of injury and lack of rest would be unfair to the G5 team... especially if you're going to be playing an Alabama or Ohio State the next week.

Eventually all conference champions will be included. The heat was getting close towards the end of the BCS, and so long as there are schools out there that aren't at the same table financially while playing at the same level, there will be eventual antitrust lawsuits.

I agree. All conference champions plus at large. Then it becomes incredible!

Why have at-large teams at all? If you don't win your conference, you're done. Independents are out, too, since the conferences provide the means of qualifying for the "playoff." All conferences composed of Division I-A teams get equal access to the "playoff," of course, and we won't need "BCS rankings" because we won't have at-large berths. Will this approach shake up conference alignments? I hope so!

(12-02-2013 07:51 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  Why have at-large teams at all? If you don't win your conference, you're done. Independents are out, too, since the conferences provide the means of qualifying for the "playoff." All conferences composed of Division I-A teams get equal access to the "playoff," of course, and we won't need "BCS rankings" because we won't have at-large berths. Will this approach shake up conference alignments? I hope so!

This would be optimal but it will never happen. Almost nobody would want a playoff where the SBC champion is in and a second place SEC team is not.

My playoff would consist of the 10 conference champions plus the second best team record-wise (could be from the same division as the conference champion) from the six highest ranked conferences as ranked by a panel similar to the new playoff panel. The conference rankings would be done the week before conference championship games. Ties would be broken by the following rules: 1) head-to-head record; 2) record among common conference opponents in descending order of finish regardless of division; 3) overall record; 4) point differential in conference games; 5) point differential in all games; 6) coin toss.

This would provide two teams from the top six conferences and one from the other four. Independents would need to join a conference for consideration. I'm talking to you Notre Dame.

It will have to go to 16 with a non A for It to be legit. The 4 team format is a SEC pacifier, and further screws any non A team from having 2 teams in BIG bowls.

Eight will be the most for a long long time
5 - Power Five Champions
1 - Highest ranked Group Five Champ
2 - Highest ranked at-large teams

Once every single game of the 4 team playoff sells out and ticket demand is high you can guarantee they will increase. Maybe even by 2015.

I like the idea of a 16 team playoff with 10 automatic bids and 6 at-larges, but it will never happen because it is too flaud. The problem is that if every conference gets an automatic bid then bigger teams are going to want to downgrade to smaller conferences. Nothing is stopping a middle of the road SEC team in 8-4 Texas A&M from coming down to dominate in C-USA. Without regulation, this playoff dream will never happen.

(12-02-2013 07:51 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  Why have at-large teams at all? If you don't win your conference, you're done. Independents are out, too, since the conferences provide the means of qualifying for the "playoff." All conferences composed of Division I-A teams get equal access to the "playoff," of course, and we won't need "BCS rankings" because we won't have at-large berths. Will this approach shake up conference alignments? I hope so!

Because let's be honest here. SEC getting one is not equitable. Auburn, or Alabama or Missouri? I'm pretty sure all three of those have had seasons worthy of a playoff.

And frankly, a playoff without the best of the rest wouldn't be nearly as good or fun. Equal access is never going to happen. It's not realistic. The best we can hope for is a playoff that includes the G5. What I did here was trying to look at this logically and from a realistic point of view. Conference champs only isn't realistic, because it limits the power of the P5. Not even remotely possible.

(12-02-2013 09:58 PM)Surbadger Wrote:  I like the idea of a 16 team playoff with 10 automatic bids and 6 at-larges, but it will never happen because it is too flaud. The problem is that if every conference gets an automatic bid then bigger teams are going to want to downgrade to smaller conferences. Nothing is stopping a middle of the road SEC team in 8-4 Texas A&M from coming down to dominate in C-USA. Without regulation, this playoff dream will never happen.

That's absurd. So, Ole Miss is going to forego $30 million per year in TV revenues for a $1 million TV revenue stream and a lesser cut of the playoff revenue just so they can have better access to it?

Come on. I don't really think you thought that through.

(12-02-2013 09:44 PM)EPJr Wrote:  Eight will be the most for a long long time
5 - Power Five Champions
1 - Highest ranked Group Five Champ
2 - Highest ranked at-large teams

Probably something like this. May never see 16 in my life. Hope I'm wrong.

(12-02-2013 10:04 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 09:58 PM)Surbadger Wrote:  I like the idea of a 16 team playoff with 10 automatic bids and 6 at-larges, but it will never happen because it is too flaud. The problem is that if every conference gets an automatic bid then bigger teams are going to want to downgrade to smaller conferences. Nothing is stopping a middle of the road SEC team in 8-4 Texas A&M from coming down to dominate in C-USA. Without regulation, this playoff dream will never happen.

That's absurd. So, Ole Miss is going to forego $30 million per year in TV revenues for a $1 million TV revenue stream and a lesser cut of the playoff revenue just so they can have better access to it?

Come on. I don't really think you thought that through.

You have a valid point, but the teams that have no hope in the bigger conferences will take advantages of the system. Not many but enough to make the system flawed.

(12-02-2013 10:21 PM)Surbadger Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 10:04 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 09:58 PM)Surbadger Wrote:  I like the idea of a 16 team playoff with 10 automatic bids and 6 at-larges, but it will never happen because it is too flaud. The problem is that if every conference gets an automatic bid then bigger teams are going to want to downgrade to smaller conferences. Nothing is stopping a middle of the road SEC team in 8-4 Texas A&M from coming down to dominate in C-USA. Without regulation, this playoff dream will never happen.

That's absurd. So, Ole Miss is going to forego $30 million per year in TV revenues for a $1 million TV revenue stream and a lesser cut of the playoff revenue just so they can have better access to it?

Come on. I don't really think you thought that through.

You have a valid point, but the teams that have no hope in the bigger conferences will take advantages of the system. Not many but enough to make the system flawed.

Then why is Georgetown, Villanova, DePaul, Marquette, Temple, etc in the same basketball conference? Wouldn't the same logic apply? Same with the old CAA, A10, and the other strong non football conferences.

(12-02-2013 07:51 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  Why have at-large teams at all? If you don't win your conference, you're done. Independents are out, too, since the conferences provide the means of qualifying for the "playoff." All conferences composed of Division I-A teams get equal access to the "playoff," of course, and we won't need "BCS rankings" because we won't have at-large berths. Will this approach shake up conference alignments? I hope so!

Not a chance it would ever happen and it's a terrible system, suppose the #1 team in week six, loses to the #2 team in the country, who just happens to be in the same conference. The #1 team has their star QB go down in the first quarter and they end up ultimately losing by 1 on a FG as time expires, they get their QB back the next week and wins out in convincing fashion. Are you really going to say that team at 11-1 doesn't deserve to be in?

This thing will expand soon and will likely eventually get to 16, but I'd be surprised ifits not at 8 by the end of the decade.

(12-02-2013 10:01 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 07:51 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  Why have at-large teams at all? If you don't win your conference, you're done. Independents are out, too, since the conferences provide the means of qualifying for the "playoff." All conferences composed of Division I-A teams get equal access to the "playoff," of course, and we won't need "BCS rankings" because we won't have at-large berths. Will this approach shake up conference alignments? I hope so!

Because let's be honest here. SEC getting one is not equitable. Auburn, or Alabama or Missouri? I'm pretty sure all three of those have had seasons worthy of a playoff.

And frankly, a playoff without the best of the rest wouldn't be nearly as good or fun. Equal access is never going to happen. It's not realistic. The best we can hope for is a playoff that includes the G5. What I did here was trying to look at this logically and from a realistic point of view. Conference champs only isn't realistic, because it limits the power of the P5. Not even remotely possible.

No. "Equitable" means equal access for ALL D-1A schools, not raining benefits on a second-place SEC school at the expense of a non-P5 school. Somehow equal access HAS to happen. There is no legitimacy in determining a Division I-A champion if all Division I-A schools do not have equal opportunity to compete for the title. An equal playing field is sports at its best. An equal playing field makes possible pure and honorable competition. The tainted, imbalanced, exploitative crap that the "P5" conferences and their funding partners have managed to sell to the masses is not honorable competition. Should we spot P5 schools 10 points at the beginning of each game? Should we let P5 schools field an extra player? Hell, no! What kind of a sports fan would accept the legitimacy of a college football game that starts with such an imbalance? With such an uneven playing field? Would that be fair? Would that be honorable? No! Yet most of the same sports fans are happy to turn a blind eye to that very same garbage when P5 schools decide that they should get a leg up on non-P5 schools in a playoff scenario--and that's a scenario that is put in place before a single regular season game is played!!!

Why MUST it be the case that the SEC (for example) gets two teams in the playoffs? Who decided this? Someone from a P5 conference, ESPN, or such who decided that would help them make more money off the backs of student athletes? Someone who thinks profit trumps pure competition? Someone who thinks it is "fun" for haves and have-nots to exist within Division 1-A? That college sports is somehow better with haves and have-nots? That the purity of sport is enhanced by an uneven playing field? If the second-place SEC team is not up to winning the SEC, should we coddle them or give them reason to improve the next year? The SEC wants to have its cake (maximized TV revenue) and eat it (an easier path to a title), too. I say the SEC can lie in the bed it made.

It's not possible to expect better, you say? Then you give up too easily and you accept an inferior version of sport. Sports is about fighting hard and pushing through as well as an even playing field. The most "fun" stories out there are those about overcoming adversity and striving for greatness! But, hey, if fans aren't going to demand better than what the P5 conferences are selling, then I suppose there isn't much else we can do but meekly comply with P5 conference directives. Let us all accept the word of the P5 overlords, who are wiser than we and who are the masters of integrity.

(I am sorry to rant in response to your post, Three. This is a sore subject for me, and you just happen to be the messenger at the moment.)

(12-02-2013 10:50 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 07:51 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  Why have at-large teams at all? If you don't win your conference, you're done. Independents are out, too, since the conferences provide the means of qualifying for the "playoff." All conferences composed of Division I-A teams get equal access to the "playoff," of course, and we won't need "BCS rankings" because we won't have at-large berths. Will this approach shake up conference alignments? I hope so!

Not a chance it would ever happen and it's a terrible system, suppose the #1 team in week six, loses to the #2 team in the country, who just happens to be in the same conference. The #1 team has their star QB go down in the first quarter and they end up ultimately losing by 1 on a FG as time expires, they get their QB back the next week and wins out in convincing fashion. Are you really going to say that team at 11-1 doesn't deserve to be in? ...

Yes, I really am going to say that. Win on the field, not by manipulating polls and stealing access from non-P5 schools.