Arizona State coach Todd Graham thinks the four-team College Football Playoff is a step forward from the BCS, but he'd still like to see it tweaked.

Graham believes there should be an eight-team playoff, with the champions of the five major conferences receiving automatic berths plus three at-large bids.

That way, Graham said, teams could schedule strong non-conference games without worrying whether a loss might cost them a playoff spot. In addition, there'd be less concern that some conferences have nine-game conference schedules and others eight.


http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/co.../18875285/


Makes a lot of sense, and would maybe encourage more good OOC games.

(11-12-2014 04:49 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Arizona State coach Todd Graham thinks the four-team College Football Playoff is a step forward from the BCS, but he'd still like to see it tweaked.

Graham believes there should be an eight-team playoff, with the champions of the five major conferences receiving automatic berths plus three at-large bids.

That way, Graham said, teams could schedule strong non-conference games without worrying whether a loss might cost them a playoff spot. In addition, there'd be less concern that some conferences have nine-game conference schedules and others eight.


http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/co.../18875285/


Makes a lot of sense, and would maybe encourage more good OOC games.

Let me guess ....... Urban Meyer and Art Briles will be the next to endorse this particular idea.

If ASU (OSU) (Baylor) gets kept out, they'll have nothing to blame but their loss to UCLA (Virginia Tech) (West Virginia).

That's the 8-team playoff setup that I've always advocated. Unfortunately, as I've stated here before, the opinions of coaches are about as worthless as our own opinions here. They carry almost no weight in these discussions. The ADs have a little more influence, but even they are very limited. The only ones that matter are the 5 power conference commissioners (with extra weight given to the Big Ten and SEC) and their respective university presidents.

(11-12-2014 05:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's the 8-team playoff setup that I've always advocated. Unfortunately, as I've stated here before, the opinions of coaches are about as worthless as our own opinions here. They carry almost no weight in these discussions. The ADs have a little more influence, but even they are very limited. The only ones that matter are the 5 power conference commissioners (with extra weight given to the Big Ten and SEC) and their respective university presidents.

so we need back to back years with SEC not making it one year and the B1G the next.

(11-12-2014 05:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's the 8-team playoff setup that I've always advocated. Unfortunately, as I've stated here before, the opinions of coaches are about as worthless as our own opinions here. They carry almost no weight in these discussions. The ADs have a little more influence, but even they are very limited. The only ones that matter are the 5 power conference commissioners (with extra weight given to the Big Ten and SEC) and their respective university presidents.

It is all about degrees of separation. The Coaches are very close to their AD's and now Commissioners basically answer to Athletic Directors as much as they do to the Presidents. So the degree of separation between those commissioners and the coaches has lessened. That being said, we are going to strongly disagree if you think a coach would go out in public making a statement on such a firebrand subject if he hasn't had such conversations with his AD before.

Being that I am right here in Phoenix and heard Coach Graham saying this on the radio this morning, I can also tell you that Coach Graham is a pretty big deal in the community and at the school. He actually put up some of his own money into the new expansion of the Stadium. The only other coach that I know of that has done that recently is Peterson at TCU.

What that means is if Graham is talking about it, it is being talked about.

(11-12-2014 05:52 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 05:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's the 8-team playoff setup that I've always advocated. Unfortunately, as I've stated here before, the opinions of coaches are about as worthless as our own opinions here. They carry almost no weight in these discussions. The ADs have a little more influence, but even they are very limited. The only ones that matter are the 5 power conference commissioners (with extra weight given to the Big Ten and SEC) and their respective university presidents.

so we need back to back years with SEC not making it one year and the B1G the next.

The bigger deal for the Big Ten right now is their negotiations with ESPN for their upcoming tv contract. Would be nice if they could add another Elite football program to their line up in order to sell in their expanded marketplace.

If the Commissioners have secret aspirations of expanding the tournament in order to make their job easier then they absolutely should allow the SEC to not have a team in the tournament if the wins and losses all fall in a way that allows for such.

This is where the G5 has to rally together and do whatever is within their power to get 1 auto bid to the top G5 and 2 at larges instead of 3 at larges. Won't be easy but it's the only shot the G5 has of any kind of playoff inclusion.

(11-12-2014 05:52 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 05:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's the 8-team playoff setup that I've always advocated. Unfortunately, as I've stated here before, the opinions of coaches are about as worthless as our own opinions here. They carry almost no weight in these discussions. The ADs have a little more influence, but even they are very limited. The only ones that matter are the 5 power conference commissioners (with extra weight given to the Big Ten and SEC) and their respective university presidents.

so we need back to back years with SEC not making it one year and the B1G the next.

I've said for a while that when the SEC and B1G get left out, we quickly move to an 8 team playoff.

If it goes to 8, there should be a provision that says any undefeated team from any FBS conference is an auto-bid. I think at the very end of the year if Marshall runs the table and is undefeated, it is utter bollocks if they don't get into the playoff.

The playoff will definitely expand when the Big 10 doesn't make it in 3 years in a row. My guess is those three years will be 2014, 2015, and 2016.

(11-12-2014 07:07 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If it goes to 8, there should be a provision that says any undefeated team from any FBS conference is an auto-bid. I think at the very end of the year if Marshall runs the table and is undefeated, it is utter bollocks if they don't get into the playoff.

I really don't think that has to be provided in provision. I think that happens all on it's own.

If Marshall runs the table and doesn't get in it is because their schedule sucks. With a 4 team tournament, Marshall doesn't deserve to get in. In an 8 team tournament, then there are three at large positions for Marshall to get in on if they are deserving.

The problem for the likes of Marshall in the future will be that there will be a polarizing at the Mid Major level as well as some of the schools look to distance themselves from the rest.

The future 20 team AAC will be able to point to it's champion as being a stronger opponent even with a loss or two than any undefeated champion coming from one of the further diminished G5 conferences that will exist then.

For me, the conference champion provision is a dangerous one. When you look at Wisconsin winning the big ten championship with a record of 8-5, that would actually bring forward the fears of folks who worry about the regular season becoming less valuable. I think those people who think that is happening now, they are silly. If we have protected spots for conference champions then we could have a very ugly situation.

I would change my opinion on that IF we move to having conference tournaments instead of just conference championships. It is much less likely that a fluke happens in a conference championship if the team has to win twice in order to earn that championship.

That is why I think Conference Tournaments are a foregone conclusion. For that to happen we need another round of major realignment to happen. GoR's mean that a major conference has to dissolve. The Big 12 dissolving solves the situation better than any other conference.

Think dominos.

(11-12-2014 07:07 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If it goes to 8, there should be a provision that says any undefeated team from any FBS conference is an auto-bid. I think at the very end of the year if Marshall runs the table and is undefeated, it is utter bollocks if they don't get into the playoff.

And schedule away Div I-AA for their OOC. Thanks but no thanks. Minimum ranking for any conference champ, pure and simple. But it would have to be something really high, like top 16 or something. Otherwise, cut FBS in half and leave the G5 to lick their wounds in this dog eat dog business.

(11-12-2014 07:35 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 07:07 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If it goes to 8, there should be a provision that says any undefeated team from any FBS conference is an auto-bid. I think at the very end of the year if Marshall runs the table and is undefeated, it is utter bollocks if they don't get into the playoff.

And schedule away Div I-AA for their OOC. Thanks but no thanks. Minimum ranking for any conference champ, pure and simple. But it would have to be something really high, like top 16 or something.

Conference Tournaments helps twice over. It decreases the likelihood of fluke championships from happening. It also provides cover fire for when a fluke championship crowning happens. If a division champ beats two other division champs in a row, then that right there provides cover fire for defending the conference champ as being worthy of further postseason tournament play in the national tournament.

If the playoff expands past 4, there needs to be a provision to allow G5 schools a chance to get in -- highest rated G5 champion would be fair, even if it stipulates they must be ranked in the top 25.

(11-12-2014 07:45 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  If the playoff expands past 4, there needs to be a provision to allow G5 schools a chance to get in -- highest rated G5 champion would be fair, even if it stipulates they must be ranked in the top 25.

Top G5 champion has to included in the playoff as they are part of the current contract. They already treat the G5 as one conference from an financial standpoint anyway.

(11-12-2014 07:45 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  If the playoff expands past 4, there needs to be a provision to allow G5 schools a chance to get in -- highest rated G5 champion would be fair, even if it stipulates they must be ranked in the top 25.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-712283-post-113...id11367917

As a Cincy guy, you should want this future to happen that I illustrated in that post.

I have sympathy for Marshall's schedule strength. If you are a good G5, it is hard to get good games. Why? Because it is a lose-lose for the programs you play. If they win ... so what. They don't get much prestige. It isn't some huge recruiting help. And they won't get much credit in the rankings. But if you LOSE on the other hand, you'll get crushed in the rankings, it will be a recruiting help to the opponent, and it will hurt the image of the program.

Yes and no GTS. Many of these undefeated seasons are anomalies more so than regularities. What was the last one? Houston? Scheduling happens years in advance. I think the bigger problem for Marshall is that there isn't much of an upside to playing them. Even if you get a home, away, home agreement with them...going to Marshall for that one game provides pretty much zero benefit for the Major conference program. Other teams, such as UCF or Houston, they provide a strong location to present your Major conference program and they generally get better scheduling.

I don't see any reason why a G5 team that isn't in the top 8 should get an auto-bid into an 8-team playoff.

Nor do I see any reason why a P5 conference champion that isn't in the top 8 should get an auto-bid into an 8-team playoff.

Just take the best 8 teams. No auto bids for anyone.

Now, if the P5 conferences want auto bids for all of their champions regardless of ranking, then they're implicitly saying every conference should get a shot at the title regardless of their regular season performance. If that's the case then it's pretty hard to argue the top-ranked G5 champion shouldn't get an auto bid too.

(11-12-2014 08:40 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I don't see any reason why a G5 team that isn't in the top 8 should get an auto-bid into an 8-team playoff.

Nor do I see any reason why a P5 conference champion that isn't in the top 8 should get an auto-bid into an 8-team playoff.

Just take the best 8 teams. No auto bids for anyone.

Now, if the P5 conferences want auto bids for all of their champions regardless of ranking, then they're implicitly saying every conference should get a shot at the title regardless of their regular season performance. If that's the case then it's pretty hard to argue the top-ranked G5 champion shouldn't get an auto bid too.

The conferences will never allow it to be that pure.
Pure = Unpredictable

The conferences directly hire and control the Executive Director. They run the Committee because they pay the Director and he Directs the Committee, deciding upon these kinds of rules that you discuss.