(12-13-2013 06:54 AM)army56mike Wrote:  I say give it 5 years and then the playoffs will expand to 8 teams. 10 more years and it will be at 16.

I think 12 is where it ends. That's every P5 is AQ. Add 3 AQ slots for the G5. Still leaves 4 "at large".

The G5 reorganize into 3 large AQ conferences with pods and a 4 game internal playoff. The final college playoff configuration is reached. The P-5 get twice as many teams into the play off than they do now. The G5 gets a shot---no law suits---no shouts of unfairness. The vast majority of the money stays with the P5 since they have the vast majority of the teams in the playoff (there is even a bigger disparity in per team money since the G5 conferences are so large).

Still you end up with a workable system where the P5 get virtually everything they want and the G5 get enough to survive long term. The G5 will still be at a disadvantage, but reorganizing into 3 large conferences with pods will allow some regionality to return to the schools, cut travel expenses, and still allow these large G5 conferences to have the big footprints that might be more appealing to networks. The college football audience for FBS increases because it becomes a truly big tent where everyone actually has a chance to win. That's the secret to the NFL's success by the way.

(12-12-2013 06:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 05:23 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  At least the 4 team is a starting platform and it was long and hard to get to that point. Once the 4 team playoffs settles in, it only a matter that is goes to 8 just for the reasons described above. What will happen is when 5 or 6 teams are 12-0 and get left out the pressure will become greater.

8 teams is a good equilibrium for FBS where the bowl system still is intact for the 2nd, 3rd or 4th place teams still have a postseason.

The first year the SEC and Big 10 both miss is when the networks, SEC and Big 10 insist on going to 8 ASAP.

We'll go to 8 rather quickly. There really are 4 power conferences in this country, the SEC, the B1G, the Big XII, and the Pac 12. If ANY of those conferences are excluded watch the calls to expand the playoffs to grow.

(12-13-2013 11:56 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 10:29 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 09:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 09:15 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 08:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  What???? 2 teams is a complete joke. You don't know who the 2 best teams are and it's simply arrogance to think you do based on such limited information. I mean, 4 OOC games, one of which is against FCS, 2 against mediocre or middling FBS schools and only 1 good FBS school. The rest of the year you're playing other conference teams which tells you nothing about how you compare with OOC teams. There's not enough information there. That should be obvious.

Computers.

Computers can't create information out of such limited data any more than people can. Nice try, though.

That is why they have 8 of them and removed the highest and lowest ranking.

And they are still worthless.

What computer fans fail to realize is that there is not enough of a sample size to compare teams between conferences.

Sure, FSU dominated the ACC, but playing Idaho, Bethune-Cookman, a Florida team that had just lost to an FCS team, and a bad Nevada team tells us nothing about how they compare to other leagues.

Yes, they beat a SEC team, but so did most of the SEC.

FSU may be the best team in the country, but there is no way to prove it based on computers.

There is also no way to prove it based on people. Unless you are watching 20+ games a week (at a minimum), you are in no position to judge anything. So you basically have people watching a team play once or twice in a season (and maybe seeing the teams they play no more than once) making decisions on who is better? Its pure silliness.

So nobody, either computers or people, are able to determine "who is best". And frankly, who is best doesn't matter because it subjective anyway. Its an opinion. Who had the best season is the only thing that can be somewhat quantified. And that is based purely on results. And people make computer programs that take ALL the game result data and figure that out.

I don't think computers are the end all be all. And I like the idea of using lots of the forumulas to average out outliers (should be using way more than 8), but regardless they are way better than inherently biased people (we all are, lets face it) who dont have near enough information to be making educated decisions on the subject.

(12-12-2013 04:54 PM)Wedge Wrote:  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college...l-playoff/

Quote:"If the playoffs were to start today, you'd have two SEC teams, an ACC team and a Big Ten team," Del Conte said. "The Pac-12 and the Big 12 are outside looking in.

How do we know this would be the case? Hasn't the selection committee been left loopholes? They aren't using any BCS formula, right?

I'll see how it plays out, but I tend to think they are going to error on the side of getting someone from each bigboy conference in the playoff as often as possible. I realize that still leaves somebody out, but I can't imagine we'll see two left out all that often.

All that being said, I agree with the general thread trend that 4 is just a start. And a good start. And that eventually it will go to 8. The money is there, it always has been. So its not a factor of having the money offered. The hinderance is, and always has been, how to work the bowls in to the equation. That good ol boy racket is hard to break and it runs way deeper than most of us fans want to believe. The "Death to the BCS" book was an eye-opener.

(12-13-2013 12:41 PM)The Eye Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 11:56 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 10:29 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 09:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 09:15 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Computers.

Computers can't create information out of such limited data any more than people can. Nice try, though.

That is why they have 8 of them and removed the highest and lowest ranking.

And they are still worthless.

What computer fans fail to realize is that there is not enough of a sample size to compare teams between conferences.

Sure, FSU dominated the ACC, but playing Idaho, Bethune-Cookman, a Florida team that had just lost to an FCS team, and a bad Nevada team tells us nothing about how they compare to other leagues.

Yes, they beat a SEC team, but so did most of the SEC.

FSU may be the best team in the country, but there is no way to prove it based on computers.

There is also no way to prove it based on people. Unless you are watching 20+ games a week (at a minimum), you are in no position to judge anything. So you basically have people watching a team play once or twice in a season (and maybe seeing the teams they play no more than once) making decisions on who is better? Its pure silliness.

So nobody, either computers or people, are able to determine "who is best". And frankly, who is best doesn't matter because it subjective anyway. Its an opinion. Who had the best season is the only thing that can be somewhat quantified. And that is based purely on results. And people make computer programs that take ALL the game result data and figure that out.

I don't think computers are the end all be all. And I like the idea of using lots of the forumulas to average out outliers (should be using way more than 8), but regardless they are way better than inherently biased people (we all are, lets face it) who dont have near enough information to be making educated decisions on the subject.

Which is why a 12-16 team playoff is the only way to determine a true national champ

(12-13-2013 12:52 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 12:41 PM)The Eye Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 11:56 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 10:29 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 09:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Computers can't create information out of such limited data any more than people can. Nice try, though.

That is why they have 8 of them and removed the highest and lowest ranking.

And they are still worthless.

What computer fans fail to realize is that there is not enough of a sample size to compare teams between conferences.

Sure, FSU dominated the ACC, but playing Idaho, Bethune-Cookman, a Florida team that had just lost to an FCS team, and a bad Nevada team tells us nothing about how they compare to other leagues.

Yes, they beat a SEC team, but so did most of the SEC.

FSU may be the best team in the country, but there is no way to prove it based on computers.

There is also no way to prove it based on people. Unless you are watching 20+ games a week (at a minimum), you are in no position to judge anything. So you basically have people watching a team play once or twice in a season (and maybe seeing the teams they play no more than once) making decisions on who is better? Its pure silliness.

So nobody, either computers or people, are able to determine "who is best". And frankly, who is best doesn't matter because it subjective anyway. Its an opinion. Who had the best season is the only thing that can be somewhat quantified. And that is based purely on results. And people make computer programs that take ALL the game result data and figure that out.

I don't think computers are the end all be all. And I like the idea of using lots of the forumulas to average out outliers (should be using way more than 8), but regardless they are way better than inherently biased people (we all are, lets face it) who dont have near enough information to be making educated decisions on the subject.

Which is why a 12-16 team playoff is the only way to determine a true national champ

How about 128 teams and just invite everybody?

(12-13-2013 12:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 06:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 05:23 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  At least the 4 team is a starting platform and it was long and hard to get to that point. Once the 4 team playoffs settles in, it only a matter that is goes to 8 just for the reasons described above. What will happen is when 5 or 6 teams are 12-0 and get left out the pressure will become greater.

8 teams is a good equilibrium for FBS where the bowl system still is intact for the 2nd, 3rd or 4th place teams still have a postseason.

The first year the SEC and Big 10 both miss is when the networks, SEC and Big 10 insist on going to 8 ASAP.

We'll go to 8 rather quickly. There really are 4 power conferences in this country, the SEC, the B1G, the Big XII, and the Pac 12. If ANY of those conferences are excluded watch the calls to expand the playoffs to grow.

Correction: Financially speaking, there are really two power conferences in this country: the SEC and Big 10. Everyone else is along for the ride. Competitively, that number shrinks to the SEC and only the SEC.

(12-13-2013 01:26 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 12:52 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 12:41 PM)The Eye Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 11:56 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 10:29 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  That is why they have 8 of them and removed the highest and lowest ranking.

And they are still worthless.

What computer fans fail to realize is that there is not enough of a sample size to compare teams between conferences.

Sure, FSU dominated the ACC, but playing Idaho, Bethune-Cookman, a Florida team that had just lost to an FCS team, and a bad Nevada team tells us nothing about how they compare to other leagues.

Yes, they beat a SEC team, but so did most of the SEC.

FSU may be the best team in the country, but there is no way to prove it based on computers.

There is also no way to prove it based on people. Unless you are watching 20+ games a week (at a minimum), you are in no position to judge anything. So you basically have people watching a team play once or twice in a season (and maybe seeing the teams they play no more than once) making decisions on who is better? Its pure silliness.

So nobody, either computers or people, are able to determine "who is best". And frankly, who is best doesn't matter because it subjective anyway. Its an opinion. Who had the best season is the only thing that can be somewhat quantified. And that is based purely on results. And people make computer programs that take ALL the game result data and figure that out.

I don't think computers are the end all be all. And I like the idea of using lots of the forumulas to average out outliers (should be using way more than 8), but regardless they are way better than inherently biased people (we all are, lets face it) who dont have near enough information to be making educated decisions on the subject.

Which is why a 12-16 team playoff is the only way to determine a true national champ

How about 128 teams and just invite everybody?

That would actually be better than the current system.

I don't think 8 is the next step. The next step is probably selecting the four after the bowls and when that happens you will see the SEC and Big XII divorce ending their contract bowl agreement.

(12-13-2013 05:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think 8 is the next step. The next step is probably selecting the four after the bowls and when that happens you will see the SEC and Big XII divorce ending their contract bowl agreement.

That's an interesting idea that probably needs to be explored. But as to the "Champs/Sugar Bowl" remaining between the Big 12 and SEC there are a number of contingencies that could kill that even before the aforementioned scenario comes into play.

(12-13-2013 12:46 PM)The Eye Wrote:  

(12-12-2013 04:54 PM)Wedge Wrote:  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college...l-playoff/

Quote:"If the playoffs were to start today, you'd have two SEC teams, an ACC team and a Big Ten team," Del Conte said. "The Pac-12 and the Big 12 are outside looking in.

How do we know this would be the case? Hasn't the selection committee been left loopholes? They aren't using any BCS formula, right?

I'll see how it plays out, but I tend to think they are going to error on the side of getting someone from each bigboy conference in the playoff as often as possible. I realize that still leaves somebody out, but I can't imagine we'll see two left out all that often.

All that being said, I agree with the general thread trend that 4 is just a start. And a good start. And that eventually it will go to 8. The money is there, it always has been. So its not a factor of having the money offered. The hinderance is, and always has been, how to work the bowls in to the equation. That good ol boy racket is hard to break and it runs way deeper than most of us fans want to believe. The "Death to the BCS" book was an eye-opener.

Yah, I don't think we know how it will play out as far as the selection committee. If Michigan State is clearly the 4th best team then why are they 4 point dogs in the Rose Bowl.

(12-13-2013 05:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think 8 is the next step. The next step is probably selecting the four after the bowls and when that happens you will see the SEC and Big XII divorce ending their contract bowl agreement.

I've thought about that scenario. The negative is that we obviously don't have the elimination games. The positive is that it gives at least an access slot for a Gang of Five school that the power conferences may not allow in a pure 8-team playoff and you can more easily utilize the bowl tie-ins (particularly the Rose Bowl matchup). I'd be cool with that scenario if only every extra game provides more information (especially intersectional ones). I'd agree that the you can't have both the Rose Bowl/Big Ten/Pac-12 locked in *and* the Sugar/SEC/Big 12 matchup with that scenario.

(12-13-2013 11:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 05:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think 8 is the next step. The next step is probably selecting the four after the bowls and when that happens you will see the SEC and Big XII divorce ending their contract bowl agreement.

I've thought about that scenario. The negative is that we obviously don't have the elimination games. The positive is that it gives at least an access slot for a Gang of Five school that the power conferences may not allow in a pure 8-team playoff and you can more easily utilize the bowl tie-ins (particularly the Rose Bowl matchup). I'd be cool with that scenario if only every extra game provides more information (especially intersectional ones). I'd agree that the you can't have both the Rose Bowl/Big Ten/Pac-12 locked in *and* the Sugar/SEC/Big 12 matchup with that scenario.

I would have preferred a plus one, but that doesn't seem to be the format that the Big 12 and SEC want, and Delaney and Scott folded like a lawnchair on it.

I really like 8. It provides enough room for access for underdog schools who aren't from power conferences.

I was recently listening to a sound byte about SEC bias and how Herbstreit and other analysts tried to explain away Florida losing to Louisville last year. The excuses people will come up with in college football are ridiculous. Still, the powers at be do not seem truly interested in fixing the system to make sure the right champion is crowned, or they wouldn't go to 4 teams before 8.

Everybody should be looking towards coming up with a system that provides the champion who was truly the best. I think that having to win elimination games makes it so as best as we can do. So let's move that way and do it right - not dip our toes in the water with the nonsense we're moving towards.

Why not 10? Top 2 in polls get a bye week or bottom 4 have play-in games

Sent from my LG-VM696 using Tapatalk 2

(12-14-2013 10:10 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  I really like 8. It provides enough room for access for underdog schools who aren't from power conferences.

I was recently listening to a sound byte about SEC bias and how Herbstreit and other analysts tried to explain away Florida losing to Louisville last year. The excuses people will come up with in college football are ridiculous. Still, the powers at be do not seem truly interested in fixing the system to make sure the right champion is crowned, or they wouldn't go to 4 teams before 8.

Everybody should be looking towards coming up with a system that provides the champion who was truly the best. I think that having to win elimination games makes it so as best as we can do. So let's move that way and do it right - not dip our toes in the water with the nonsense we're moving towards.

"We're going to make it more fair by using computers." "We're going to make it more fair by using polls (plural)." "We're going to make it more fair by using committees." "But, we aren't going to use conference champions who had to win it on the field because the best teams don't always win"? A nation that accepts that reasoning is totally warped and beyond repair. ..........And we wonder why those in government lie to us all the time? The crap excluder device is broken in the average American's brain. They really do think we will accept anything if TV tells us "that's the way it is" enough times!

Once you accept the premise that "the best teams don't always win" and you shift the goal from using champions to arbitrarily picked teams "that really should have won, but lost" your ability to reason is already damaged and deluded enough to accept anything Herbstreet might say about why a less than stellar Florida team on its way to total crappiness loses to Louisville. A winner is the one that actually won regardless of the circumstances surrounding the victory, and a loser is the one that lost. It doesn't get any damned simpler than that.

It's right out of the Wizard of Oz. "Pay not attention to that may behind the curtain!" because he works for the networks and fears the loss the advertising revenue if the wrong teams win. So just listen to him long enough and he will tell you how reality is wrong and what is best for him is right. And that is why we have computers, polls, and committees instead of champions.

In life you always get, and suffer through, what you tolerate. Shame on us for permitting this farce to continue.

Been saying it for awhile that an eight team tournament is inevitable. I havn't waivered a bit in that belief, if anything I have only grown stronger in that belief. I did not require certain persons with certain titles to tell me that it is inevitable because they are speaking upon the same rules and forces that are plain to see for anyone who wishes to see them with unbiased eye.

It is all about balance. There are many factors involved in this situation and they are not all about money but money, as always, plays a big part in it. Moving beyond eight teams will be very difficult to achieve due to other factors besides money. Those same deterrents do not exist as strongly between the jump from 4 teams to 8 teams.

The four team step is nothing more than a step that is meant to ease people from the old system into the new system. The four team tournament is NOT the final step. Remember one thing, people like this AD NEVER go and make such public statements without the statement being prepared in advance with an express purpose for the revelation within the statement.

The fact that two major conferences very likely would have been excluded in a four team tournament this year, that in itself is a Very Powerful Motivating Factor for continued expansion of the tournament in the future. It won't happen right away as that would be admitting that creating a four team tournament at the start was actually a mistake and an eight team tournament should have been enacted immediately. The Ego's have to protect themselves in that manner. The PAC was talked about as being one of the strongest if not THE strongest football conference this year across the board, yet....no PAC team would take part in a tournament this year? No one wants that to be the future reality we all agree upon.


I have seen some points made about Networks wanting to preserve "Supply and Demand" as a reason why the tournament may not be expanded. That is silly! They are in the business of BUYING these games. They absolutely want more of them, not less of them. Every single one of these games will sell better and be much more marketable than the old exhibition Bowl Games that they will be replacing.

The reason why they will not go further than eight though is because the Universities DO have to preserve some semblance of being academics first. So, when we have an eight team tournament, they will then switch their course and shoot down all the talk of expanding to 16 teams because they "do not wish to place athletics above academics". Sixteen teams means 17 games a year for the final two teams if they played a 12 game season and a conference championship. Let's not forget though the likelihood of the conference championships expanding to conference tournaments should we receive new rule making abilities for the major conferences next month. That means 18 games for the final two teams!

Eight will be the stopping point but some of the major conferences will hold that lofty goal in check until the Networks help those particular conferences with their own goal. Some of you will know exactly what I mean by this, some of you won't. I will just leave it at that.

As a fan of a G5, if I were elected the representative of the G5 to the CFP discussion, I honestly would not be demanding an access slot.

What I would campaign for is this.
1. Adopt the NCAA championship principle and no more than half the field would be by auto berth. If the P5 want auto berths, one of them doesn't get one. With the rider that a G5 ranked 8 or better under whatever criteria is guaranteed at-large selection.
2. If the pass on auto berths with that poison pill I'd ask for the following selection method. Establish a ranking system. All champs rated 8 or better are automatically in the field, the remaining slots determined by the selection committee and the committee will also be charged with seeding the teams.

(12-14-2013 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 10:10 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  I really like 8. It provides enough room for access for underdog schools who aren't from power conferences.

I was recently listening to a sound byte about SEC bias and how Herbstreit and other analysts tried to explain away Florida losing to Louisville last year. The excuses people will come up with in college football are ridiculous. Still, the powers at be do not seem truly interested in fixing the system to make sure the right champion is crowned, or they wouldn't go to 4 teams before 8.

Everybody should be looking towards coming up with a system that provides the champion who was truly the best. I think that having to win elimination games makes it so as best as we can do. So let's move that way and do it right - not dip our toes in the water with the nonsense we're moving towards.

"We're going to make it more fair by using computers." "We're going to make it more fair by using polls (plural)." "We're going to make it more fair by using committees." "But, we aren't going to use conference champions who had to win it on the field because the best teams don't always win"? A nation that accepts that reasoning is totally warped and beyond repair. ..........And we wonder why those in government lie to us all the time? The crap excluder device is broken in the average American's brain. They really do think we will accept anything if TV tells us "that's the way it is" enough times!

Once you accept the premise that "the best teams don't always win" and you shift the goal from using champions to arbitrarily picked teams "that really should have won, but lost" your ability to reason is already damaged and deluded enough to accept anything Herbstreet might say about why a less than stellar Florida team on its way to total crappiness loses to Louisville. A winner is the one that actually won regardless of the circumstances surrounding the victory, and a loser is the one that lost. It doesn't get any damned simpler than that.

It's right out of the Wizard of Oz. "Pay not attention to that may behind the curtain!" because he works for the networks and fears the loss the advertising revenue if the wrong teams win. So just listen to him long enough and he will tell you how reality is wrong and what is best for him is right. And that is why we have computers, polls, and committees instead of champions.

In life you always get, and suffer through, what you tolerate. Shame on us for permitting this farce to continue.

I 100% agree!

(12-14-2013 10:10 AM)ndlutz Wrote:  I really like 8. It provides enough room for access for underdog schools who aren't from power conferences.

I was recently listening to a sound byte about SEC bias and how Herbstreit and other analysts tried to explain away Florida losing to Louisville last year. The excuses people will come up with in college football are ridiculous. Still, the powers at be do not seem truly interested in fixing the system to make sure the right champion is crowned, or they wouldn't go to 4 teams before 8.

Everybody should be looking towards coming up with a system that provides the champion who was truly the best. I think that having to win elimination games makes it so as best as we can do. So let's move that way and do it right - not dip our toes in the water with the nonsense we're moving towards.

I got my undergraduate degree in Big Ten country and they used this type of pretzel logic all the time. When one of their teams would win a big OOC/bowl game, as occasionally happened, it was proof of the B1G's superior strength. Conversely, when a B1G team would lose a big OOC/bowl game, which happened more frequently, that too was proof of the B1G's strength.

You see, the reason why the B1G teams tended to lose those games wasn't because the other teams were better or anything crazy like that. It was because the B1G teams beat up on each other so badly during conference play that they were all too battered to compete when bowl season rolled around.

You would be amazed by how many otherwise reasonable and intelligent people bought into that line of complete nonsense.

Now we see it with the SEC. Every time one of their teams loses a big OOC/bowl game there is always an alibi to explain away the loss. Last year Louisville beat the living hell out of Florida in the Sugar Bowl and instead of saying, "Wow! This Louisville team is better than we realized," or "Wow! This Florida team is not nearly as good as we had thought they were going into this game;" instead we got, "Well, Florida was disappointed to be in that game and therefore didn't give its best effort," and "The dog ate their playbooks." They tried to use, "The sun was in their eyes and the wind was blowing against them the entire game," but were thwarted when someone pointed out that the game was played in the SuperDome.