(01-03-2014 12:59 AM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  If this were next year Oklahoma ranked 11th goes nowhere but Alabama as the third
ranked team goes to the final 4. They had a chance to get it right but didn't, UCF. Is another example.

The playoff is based on the regular season results. No one is saying that every team who could possibly win the playoff is invited. That would water down the regular season way too much. Oklahoma had a loss to so-so Texas team and was crushed by Baylor. Based on the overall regular season results, Baylor would have deserved into the playoff more than Oklahoma and Alabama probably more than either (depending on how much weight you put on conference championships, personally while I'm fine with independents in, I don't like conference runner-ups in at all).

Central Florida is a bit more complicated, but they had a loss to South Carolina and struggled mighty with several teams that were not very good. They would have been in a CFP bowl rightfully, but I don't think their accomplishments warranted being in the 4 team playoff.

Conference Champs + best G5 + two wild cards.

The field would be Stanford, FSU, Mich State, Baylor, Auburn, UCF and two wildcards... The two wildcards would be OSU and Alabama due to their 12-1 records.

Yes I completely understand that Oklahoma and Clemson proved on the field that they're better than Alabama and OSU, but can we really put two 10-2 teams into a playoff over two 12-1 teams that was at the top of the polls the entire season? Plus those two losses would prove that Bama and OSU wouldn't have made it far in the playoffs anyways.

1: FSU vs 8: Stanford............ Atlanta
2: Auburn vs: 7: UCF............. New Orleans
3: Mich State 6: Alabama........ Indy
4: Baylor v 5: Ohio State........ Dallas

In this bracket... FSU, Auburn, Mich State, and Baylor should win... 2nd round FSU and Auburn wins... I can see Mich State pulling off an upset against Auburn to get into the championship.

Oh hey... FSU vs Auburn anyways...

(01-04-2014 12:51 AM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 12:38 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  People need to stop thinking about the 5th seed...and they need to remember that we really just need to figure out who NEEDS a shot at the national title.

This season--only 13-0 FSU needs a shot at the national title. Everyone else is just lucky.

Auburn lost a game.
Michigan State lost a game.
Alabama lost a game.
Baylor lost a game.
Ohio State lost a game.
These five are lucky to be in the conversation.

Everybody else is out of the conversation.

Conference championships should be first consideration...which gives Auburn and Michigan State and Baylor the nod for the other spots.

Semi-finals
FSU vs. Baylor. FSU obviously wins.
MSU vs. Auburn. Toss-up.

That seems like a fair system to me. A few undeserving teams (MSU, Auburn, Baylor) got a shot at the title, but FSU got its much-needed shot (two-game playoff) to win it all.

Really, and what was the difference of the FSU-UM(FSU at home) and UL-UM scores. I know that the FSU-UM is a rivalry but to assume the outcome off that game as obvious, I , as a former FSU fan, do not agree.

You're right. Baylor absolutely could beat FSU in a playoff. My point was about fairness. Ole Miss (ranked below #40 post-season in 2008 beat national champs Florida in the swamp)…anything can happen.

Which is why 9-7 New York Giants were your Super Bowl champ a few years back. We want fairness but not complete access to our playoff.

(01-03-2014 12:59 AM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  If this were next year Oklahoma ranked 11th goes nowhere but Alabama as the third
ranked team goes to the final 4. They had a chance to get it right but didn't, UCF. Is another example.

The B12 needs to get with the times and have a CCG.... Moreover, it's holding back playoff progress with its round "robbing" mentality. CCGs have become somewhat elimination games. The B12 doesn't want to take the "same risk" like the other P5 conferences are taking—this isn’t fair. Consequently, I wouldn't have a problem with OU or any other B12 school getting left out of the playoffs until the conference is willing to take the same risk as the others and have a CCG. In fact, the B12 needs to be broken apart and assimilated into the other power conferences so that a real playoff system can be implemented……

(01-04-2014 10:25 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(01-03-2014 12:59 AM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  If this were next year Oklahoma ranked 11th goes nowhere but Alabama as the third
ranked team goes to the final 4. They had a chance to get it right but didn't, UCF. Is another example.

The B12 needs to get with the times and have a CCG.... Moreover, it's holding back playoff progress with its round "robbing" mentality. CCGs have become somewhat elimination games. The B12 doesn't want to take the "same risk" like the other P5 conferences are taking—this isn’t fair. Consequently, I wouldn't have a problem with OU or any other B12 school getting left out of the playoffs until the conference is willing to take the same risk as the others and have a CCG. In fact, the B12 needs to be broken apart and assimilated into the other power conferences so that a real playoff system can be implemented……

Exactly! And, we don't need any two schools from 1 conference playing in the final four. Each of the 4 remaining conferences would have a champion. All the committee needs to do is seed them. A true national champion may be fairly determined from such a scenario. Sure there may be a second or third place team from 1 conference that might be better than someone else's conference champion, but really folks that is not the point. The point is they weren't better than their own conference champion who should never be penalized by having to defeat the other team twice. It simply isn't fair, at all. Take Alabama and L.S.U. for example they each lost to each other once. L.S.U. won at Tuscaloosa and should never have had to face a team they would have a motivational issue with again, or if they did face them and lose there should have been a third game if you "really" want to find out who is better.

The fair thing is to win your conference, and then beat the other conference champions you face to win the National Title. The other champions may not be the best four teams, but they are the best four teams of the four conferences. Determining the best 4 teams has never been realistic as an objective. Alabama of this year proves the point. Determining the four champions would be accomplished on the field and out of the hands of biased polls (sports writers and coaches), biased computers (biased in their programming), and a biased selection committees where influence can be peddled.

The four team playoff should have been Stanford, Michigan State, Auburn, and Florida State. If the winner of Auburn / Florida State had to play Michigan State in another week we would have an on field national champion this year. And, it would be fairer than what is about to transpire whether my Tigers win or lose. Michigan State is only out of the picture because they had to stay in the shadow of Ohio State (overrated just like Alabama) until the very end and then they didn't have enough momentum or pull with the polls to overcome their ranking. And folks, that just isn't right, period. They earned their championship and in essence have already won their semi final game. But, by no on field fault of their own they are left out.

I know Frank disagrees with me on this but 4 champions is the only way to proceed in the future unless you really love rancor and injustice. JR

I think ideally you would have a 16 team playoff or maybe 32 teams but for 16+ to work a couple things would need to be mandatory that will never happen:

1) leagues no bigger than 10 members, no conference champ games
2) 11 game season

As for the reality, i don't think the big leagues and networks, big 10, pac 10, sec give one flip about the helping school's from the aac, mwc, etc ever making the playoffs nor do those leagues want to diminish their conference champ games or regular season. Thus, at most you will have an 8 team playoff but i'm not sure that ever happen. 6 is probably much more likely since you could reward two teams with a bye. I am a fan of conference only getting the bids but i probably would leave 1 open spot, 3 highest rated conference champs with 1 at large. If you lose your conference title game, i don't want to see you in the playoffs. Yet, before anything happens, i think another round of conference shifts needs to occur to get 4 clear paths to the playoffs. The simple move is to create a pac 20 that is basically football only league setup. Than you would have the big 10, sec, pac 20 and acc champs pretty much locked into the playoffs. The conference champ week-end would basically be the 1st round, so that's your 8 team playoff.

(01-04-2014 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 10:25 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(01-03-2014 12:59 AM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  If this were next year Oklahoma ranked 11th goes nowhere but Alabama as the third
ranked team goes to the final 4. They had a chance to get it right but didn't, UCF. Is another example.

The B12 needs to get with the times and have a CCG.... Moreover, it's holding back playoff progress with its round "robbing" mentality. CCGs have become somewhat elimination games. The B12 doesn't want to take the "same risk" like the other P5 conferences are taking—this isn’t fair. Consequently, I wouldn't have a problem with OU or any other B12 school getting left out of the playoffs until the conference is willing to take the same risk as the others and have a CCG. In fact, the B12 needs to be broken apart and assimilated into the other power conferences so that a real playoff system can be implemented……

Exactly! And, we don't need any two schools from 1 conference playing in the final four. Each of the 4 remaining conferences would have a champion. All the committee needs to do is seed them. A true national champion may be fairly determined from such a scenario. Sure there may be a second or third place team from 1 conference that might be better than someone else's conference champion, but really folks that is not the point. The point is they weren't better than their own conference champion who should never be penalized by having to defeat the other team twice. It simply isn't fair, at all. Take Alabama and L.S.U. for example they each lost to each other once. L.S.U. won at Tuscaloosa and should never have had to face a team they would have a motivational issue with again, or if they did face them and lose there should have been a third game if you "really" want to find out who is better.

The fair thing is to win your conference, and then beat the other conference champions you face to win the National Title. The other champions may not be the best four teams, but they are the best four teams of the four conferences. Determining the best 4 teams has never been realistic as an objective. Alabama of this year proves the point. Determining the four champions would be accomplished on the field and out of the hands of biased polls (sports writers and coaches), biased computers (biased in their programming), and a biased selection committees where influence can be peddled.

The four team playoff should have been Stanford, Michigan State, Auburn, and Florida State. If the winner of Auburn / Florida State had to play Michigan State in another week we would have an on field national champion this year. And, it would be fairer than what is about to transpire whether my Tigers win or lose. Michigan State is only out of the picture because they had to stay in the shadow of Ohio State (overrated just like Alabama) until the very end and then they didn't have enough momentum or pull with the polls to overcome their ranking. And folks, that just isn't right, period. They earned their championship and in essence have already won their semi final game. But, by no on field fault of their own they are left out.

I know Frank disagrees with me on this but 4 champions is the only way to proceed in the future unless you really love rancor and injustice. JR

The disappointing fact of the playoff situation JRsec is that what you’ve suggested would likely have been implemented by now if Scott and PAC 12 leadership had taken OU and OSU; thus killing the B12 as a power conference (according to Dodds). That single mistake of not calling UT’s bluff by taking two B12 cards (OU and OSU) and making the conference fold has allowed a playoff impediment to continue existing and complicating the implementation of a real playoff system….

(01-04-2014 12:38 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  People need to stop thinking about the 5th seed...and they need to remember that we really just need to figure out who NEEDS a shot at the national title.

This season--only 13-0 FSU needs a shot at the national title. Everyone else is just lucky.

Auburn lost a game.
Michigan State lost a game.
Alabama lost a game.
Baylor lost a game.
Ohio State lost a game.
These five are lucky to be in the conversation.

Everybody else is out of the conversation.

Conference championships should be first consideration...which gives Auburn and Michigan State and Baylor the nod for the other spots.

Semi-finals
FSU vs. Baylor. FSU obviously wins.
MSU vs. Auburn. Toss-up.

That seems like a fair system to me. A few undeserving teams (MSU, Auburn, Baylor) got a shot at the title, but FSU got its much-needed shot (two-game playoff) to win it all.

And why not UCF as a conference champ? What because they are in the AAC? We see how much that means. UCF made fools of Baylor.

(01-03-2014 12:59 AM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  If this were next year Oklahoma ranked 11th goes nowhere but Alabama as the third
ranked team goes to the final 4. They had a chance to get it right but didn't, UCF. Is another example.

Polls won't pick the final four next year. A committee will. Alabama lost one game to the team playing in the national CG. So they lost. OU won tHe Big XII and lost the Fiesta Bowl to Boise State. This is a stupid argument.... As far as UCF goes, I like them and hope they get the chance to play all the Big XII schools as a conference member, but they won't be 8-1 in the Big XII either.

(01-03-2014 08:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2014 07:27 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  "Every champ gets a bid" is dumb.

Who honestly believes Rice deserves a shot at the MNC because they won CUSA?

Take the top 8 teams. That is fair.

Which is just as dumb. The top 8 according to who? A biased rigged selection committee loaded down with P5 reps with no G5 members? That bias is obvious. UCF finished 11-1 and barely got to 15 after beating Penn State, playing #12 to within 3 points and knocking off #8. Then they solidly beat #6 in a BCS game they would not have made if they were in a non-AQ conferece. Its clear they were under rated and the non-AQ negative bias appears to be about 10 ranking positions.

Frankly, my preference is to make the regular season and a conference championship mean something. I'm good at 8 provided the P-5 champs each get automatically included, the top G5 champ gets in (eliminates bias since at least one is getting in regardless---look at it as treating the entire G5 as a single AQ conference), and 2 "at large" teams. That's reasonable and my feeling is the G5 champ will prove to be just about as successful as the typical non-SEC champ.

Good plan. G5 deserves a slot and G5 teams should be eligible for at-large bids too.

(01-04-2014 01:49 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 10:25 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(01-03-2014 12:59 AM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  If this were next year Oklahoma ranked 11th goes nowhere but Alabama as the third
ranked team goes to the final 4. They had a chance to get it right but didn't, UCF. Is another example.

The B12 needs to get with the times and have a CCG.... Moreover, it's holding back playoff progress with its round "robbing" mentality. CCGs have become somewhat elimination games. The B12 doesn't want to take the "same risk" like the other P5 conferences are taking—this isn’t fair. Consequently, I wouldn't have a problem with OU or any other B12 school getting left out of the playoffs until the conference is willing to take the same risk as the others and have a CCG. In fact, the B12 needs to be broken apart and assimilated into the other power conferences so that a real playoff system can be implemented……

Exactly! And, we don't need any two schools from 1 conference playing in the final four. Each of the 4 remaining conferences would have a champion. All the committee needs to do is seed them. A true national champion may be fairly determined from such a scenario. Sure there may be a second or third place team from 1 conference that might be better than someone else's conference champion, but really folks that is not the point. The point is they weren't better than their own conference champion who should never be penalized by having to defeat the other team twice. It simply isn't fair, at all. Take Alabama and L.S.U. for example they each lost to each other once. L.S.U. won at Tuscaloosa and should never have had to face a team they would have a motivational issue with again, or if they did face them and lose there should have been a third game if you "really" want to find out who is better.

The fair thing is to win your conference, and then beat the other conference champions you face to win the National Title. The other champions may not be the best four teams, but they are the best four teams of the four conferences. Determining the best 4 teams has never been realistic as an objective. Alabama of this year proves the point. Determining the four champions would be accomplished on the field and out of the hands of biased polls (sports writers and coaches), biased computers (biased in their programming), and a biased selection committees where influence can be peddled.

The four team playoff should have been Stanford, Michigan State, Auburn, and Florida State. If the winner of Auburn / Florida State had to play Michigan State in another week we would have an on field national champion this year. And, it would be fairer than what is about to transpire whether my Tigers win or lose. Michigan State is only out of the picture because they had to stay in the shadow of Ohio State (overrated just like Alabama) until the very end and then they didn't have enough momentum or pull with the polls to overcome their ranking. And folks, that just isn't right, period. They earned their championship and in essence have already won their semi final game. But, by no on field fault of their own they are left out.

I know Frank disagrees with me on this but 4 champions is the only way to proceed in the future unless you really love rancor and injustice. JR

The disappointing fact of the playoff situation JRsec is that what you’ve suggested would likely have been implemented by now if Scott and PAC 12 leadership had taken OU and OSU; thus killing the B12 as a power conference (according to Dodds). That single mistake of not calling UT’s bluff by taking two B12 cards (OU and OSU) and making the conference fold has allowed a playoff impediment to continue existing and complicating the implementation of a real playoff system….

It wasn't Scott that balked. He was ready to add OU/OSU/TTU and either Mizzou or KU (talks had commenced) but Dodds and ESPN blocked the move to preserve the B12 to feed content to the LHN. It was easy. ESPN told Scott it would not increase the PAC's tv payout if it added B12 schools unless UT was included. So adding 4 teams without UT would have significantly cut payouts to the existing PAC member.

Dodds also told Scott that UT would use the Texas Legislature to block Tech from leaving without UT, which was not an empty threat.

(01-04-2014 04:52 PM)FreshPrinceOfDarkness Wrote:  Dodds also told Scott that UT would use the Texas Legislature to block Tech from leaving without UT, which was not an empty threat.

Kinda ironic considering he didn't want us in the Big 12.

agreed the biggest failure of realignment was the pac 12 not taking in ou and ok state when they wanted to jump. I'M not sure if it was a money issue or some pac 12 school's not liking the divisional setup of a 14 team league. In any case, those were short term issues so who cares, they blew it.

USC, UCLA, CAL, Stan, Ariz, ASU, Utah

Wash, WSU, Oreg, OSU, Col, OU, Ok state

yeah the pacific nw school's won't like it but i'd tell them its a bridge till the pac 12 jumps to 16 with texas tech and X. In the 16 team lineup the old pac 8 gets a division. X could be texas, new mexico, houston, KU or even byu or hawaii football only.

As things stand today, neither taking the top 8 ranked teams nor allowing all FBS conf champs in will work. There is too much heterogeneity within FBS to allow all conferences equal access, and simply taking the top 8 introduces selection bias due to rankings having a speculative at best preseason starting point that makes SOS a mixture of qualitative and quantitative metrics.

If the desire is a playoff based champ, then you will HAVE to have the P5 break away. Now should one of the G5 be included in the split? IDK to be honest. But I can't help but see the irony in what's happening in CFB. The more the now G5 schools and fans come up with ideas to "fix" CFB, the more defined the line is between the "big" vs "little" schools. IMHO, the little guys got squeezed the moment the eastern indies ceased to exist, or more specifically when PSU joined the B1G. If I was a G5 school/fan, I would want to see BYU and ND remain independent. The harder you push indies to join conferences, the easier it is to close ranks amongst the haves. Having indies around help keep the system more open.

(01-05-2014 12:01 PM)C Marlow Wrote:  As things stand today, neither taking the top 8 ranked teams nor allowing all FBS conf champs in will work. There is too much heterogeneity within FBS to allow all conferences equal access, and simply taking the top 8 introduces selection bias due to rankings having a speculative at best preseason starting point that makes SOS a mixture of qualitative and quantitative metrics.

If the desire is a playoff based champ, then you will HAVE to have the P5 break away. Now should one of the G5 be included in the split? IDK to be honest. But I can't help but see the irony in what's happening in CFB. The more the now G5 schools and fans come up with ideas to "fix" CFB, the more defined the line is between the "big" vs "little" schools. IMHO, the little guys got squeezed the moment the eastern indies ceased to exist, or more specifically when PSU joined the B1G. If I was a G5 school/fan, I would want to see BYU and ND remain independent. The harder you push indies to join conferences, the easier it is to close ranks amongst the haves. Having indies around help keep the system more open.

Good take...BTW welcome to the board.

In a sense the the G5 schools who pushed for more inclusion 5-10 years ago and won temporarily might get the unintended result of less inclusion from the P5 backlash. I agree BYU and ND is the bridge between what we have and the possible breakaway.

Going forward, I think the magic number is around 80-84 teams. I might even look at 96 teams. If we ever go towards an 8 or 16 game playoff the regular season has to go back to 11 games. Call me a traditionalist but playing games after the first weekend in January would be ridiculous. I'm sure the basketball folks agree.

Anyone think a preseason scrimmage the weekend prior to opening weekend is a good idea?

(01-05-2014 12:01 PM)C Marlow Wrote:  As things stand today, neither taking the top 8 ranked teams nor allowing all FBS conf champs in will work. There is too much heterogeneity within FBS to allow all conferences equal access, and simply taking the top 8 introduces selection bias due to rankings having a speculative at best preseason starting point that makes SOS a mixture of qualitative and quantitative metrics.

If the desire is a playoff based champ, then you will HAVE to have the P5 break away. Now should one of the G5 be included in the split? IDK to be honest. But I can't help but see the irony in what's happening in CFB. The more the now G5 schools and fans come up with ideas to "fix" CFB, the more defined the line is between the "big" vs "little" schools. IMHO, the little guys got squeezed the moment the eastern indies ceased to exist, or more specifically when PSU joined the B1G. If I was a G5 school/fan, I would want to see BYU and ND remain independent. The harder you push indies to join conferences, the easier it is to close ranks amongst the haves. Having indies around help keep the system more open.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. Look, an 8 team playoff works just fine. Take the 5 P5 champs. That satisfies the folks that want to preserve the regular season and want conference championships to matter. Take the top rated G5 champ. That eliminates the anti-G5 bias of the starting ranks, eliminates the SOS issue of being in a G5 conference, and basically treats half of FBS as one giant AQ conference.

That leaves two "at large" slots. This guarantees that the #1 and #2 rated teams will ALWAYS get into the playoff and that a couple of very deserving teams from very powerful conferences will make it in. The SEC could get as many as 3 teams into the playoff. That's 3/4 of the current playoff. The P5 in general would typically get 7 teams into the playoff---that's nearly double the current amount.

I'd say that's a near perfect playoff. It leans heavily toward the regular season, preserves the value of conference championships, guarantees that #1 and #2 are always in the playoff, guarantees that every P5 conference is represented, provides guaranteed access to the P5 to overcome bias, allows for a couple of deserving non-champs (or indies) to make it in as a wild card, and doesn't significantly lengthen the season. Add in a handful of "BCS" contract bowls to fill out the TV package and fatten the right pockets and you are set.

You could even wait until after the first round of the playoffs are completed before filling the bowls---thus allowing the losers in the first round to be eligible for bowls.

(01-05-2014 01:41 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(01-05-2014 12:01 PM)C Marlow Wrote:  As things stand today, neither taking the top 8 ranked teams nor allowing all FBS conf champs in will work. There is too much heterogeneity within FBS to allow all conferences equal access, and simply taking the top 8 introduces selection bias due to rankings having a speculative at best preseason starting point that makes SOS a mixture of qualitative and quantitative metrics.

If the desire is a playoff based champ, then you will HAVE to have the P5 break away. Now should one of the G5 be included in the split? IDK to be honest. But I can't help but see the irony in what's happening in CFB. The more the now G5 schools and fans come up with ideas to "fix" CFB, the more defined the line is between the "big" vs "little" schools. IMHO, the little guys got squeezed the moment the eastern indies ceased to exist, or more specifically when PSU joined the B1G. If I was a G5 school/fan, I would want to see BYU and ND remain independent. The harder you push indies to join conferences, the easier it is to close ranks amongst the haves. Having indies around help keep the system more open.

Good take...BTW welcome to the board.

In a sense the the G5 schools who pushed for more inclusion 5-10 years ago and won temporarily might get the unintended result of less inclusion from the P5 backlash. I agree BYU and ND is the bridge between what we have and the possible breakaway.

Going forward, I think the magic number is around 80-84 teams. I might even look at 96 teams. If we ever go towards an 8 or 16 game playoff the regular season has to go back to 11 games. Call me a traditionalist but playing games after the first weekend in January would be ridiculous. I'm sure the basketball folks agree.

Anyone think a preseason scrimmage the weekend prior to opening weekend is a good idea?

An excellent, but frequently forgotten observation about the effect that football scheduling would have upon basketball. I think the only thing I would disagree with in your response T.M. is that I think the final pool for the upper tier will be smaller, but not by much. I think it will follow the investment line within the Athletic Departments and the drop off is significant past position 71 or 2. So I see a number in between 60 to 72 depending on what the agreed upon lines of demarcation are determined to be for inclusion. The minimum number of sports required to be played will be standardized, endowment levels set, facilities requirements set, number and amount of stipends to be paid set, number of scholarships increased, and we will find that a few of those in the top 72 presently will likely opt out, and a few outside of that number will step up. I do think in the end the number will be closer to 72 than it is to 60 and that the number won't be as round as I make it sound here, but other than that I agree with both your post and that of C. Marlow.

(01-03-2014 12:59 AM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  If this were next year Oklahoma ranked 11th goes nowhere but Alabama as the third
ranked team goes to the final 4. They had a chance to get it right but didn't, UCF. Is another example.

There's always going to be an argument as to why this team or that team shouldn't be there. Many people think the Pittsburgh Steelers should be in instead of the San Diego Chargers because they played better towards the end of the year. One could say that if they played the Colts instead of the Chiefs, then they could've won yesterday. Basically what i'm trying to say is that "what ifs" are really nice in the fantasy land of football talk and conversation, but it's up to those teams that are playing to take care of business when they need to. Oklahoma knew very well that getting blown out by Baylor would have consequences on their ranking. They also got hammered by Texas before that. You can't feel sorry for teams when they know what they have to do to get where they want to go. Alabama took care of business and lost a very unfortunate game at the end. But really, that game was more about OU being the "mad underdog" while Alabama didn't have much motivation to win. That's just what I think.

(01-03-2014 12:59 AM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  If this were next year Oklahoma ranked 11th goes nowhere but Alabama as the third
ranked team goes to the final 4. They had a chance to get it right but didn't, UCF. Is another example.

The error in this is that you are ignoring a 12 game schedule of games in favor of a single game. I personally give more credence to a 12 game body of work than a single game.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk 4

(01-05-2014 02:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2014 01:41 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(01-05-2014 12:01 PM)C Marlow Wrote:  As things stand today, neither taking the top 8 ranked teams nor allowing all FBS conf champs in will work. There is too much heterogeneity within FBS to allow all conferences equal access, and simply taking the top 8 introduces selection bias due to rankings having a speculative at best preseason starting point that makes SOS a mixture of qualitative and quantitative metrics.

If the desire is a playoff based champ, then you will HAVE to have the P5 break away. Now should one of the G5 be included in the split? IDK to be honest. But I can't help but see the irony in what's happening in CFB. The more the now G5 schools and fans come up with ideas to "fix" CFB, the more defined the line is between the "big" vs "little" schools. IMHO, the little guys got squeezed the moment the eastern indies ceased to exist, or more specifically when PSU joined the B1G. If I was a G5 school/fan, I would want to see BYU and ND remain independent. The harder you push indies to join conferences, the easier it is to close ranks amongst the haves. Having indies around help keep the system more open.

Good take...BTW welcome to the board.

In a sense the the G5 schools who pushed for more inclusion 5-10 years ago and won temporarily might get the unintended result of less inclusion from the P5 backlash. I agree BYU and ND is the bridge between what we have and the possible breakaway.

Going forward, I think the magic number is around 80-84 teams. I might even look at 96 teams. If we ever go towards an 8 or 16 game playoff the regular season has to go back to 11 games. Call me a traditionalist but playing games after the first weekend in January would be ridiculous. I'm sure the basketball folks agree.

Anyone think a preseason scrimmage the weekend prior to opening weekend is a good idea?

An excellent, but frequently forgotten observation about the effect that football scheduling would have upon basketball. I think the only thing I would disagree with in your response T.M. is that I think the final pool for the upper tier will be smaller, but not by much. I think it will follow the investment line within the Athletic Departments and the drop off is significant past position 71 or 2. So I see a number in between 60 to 72 depending on what the agreed upon lines of demarcation are determined to be for inclusion. The minimum number of sports required to be played will be standardized, endowment levels set, facilities requirements set, number and amount of stipends to be paid set, number of scholarships increased, and we will find that a few of those in the top 72 presently will likely opt out, and a few outside of that number will step up. I do think in the end the number will be closer to 72 than it is to 60 and that the number won't be as round as I make it sound here, but other than that I agree with both your post and that of C. Marlow.

JR I can't see it getting any smaller than it is now (current P5 + ND/BYU). If you make it so inclusive you risk regionalism of the sport more than it is now. Going bigger lessens the chance for a major lawsuit. The upper FCS schools can merge with the leftover G5's and form a new super (G5) division with inclusion to the NCAA Hoops tourney and the ability to play FB games against the P5. TV (capitalism) will pay out the Top 72-96 teams to their league's ability to garner ratings.