(12-04-2014 03:56 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  10 Conferences = 10 conference champions.

Bottom 4 conference champs play a play-in game, 2 winners join top 6 conf champs for Round of 8.

Puts huge emphasis on winning conference championship which can be decided with ZERO influence from off the field entities. The way it should be.

Just stop. Face the facts- no playoff is going to ONLY be conference champions. PERIOD. You can whine all you want- but that battle was fought and lost. Sorry.

Yeah, any playoff proposal where the G5 winners are all given a slot is a non-starter.

But again, this is why the No AQ format works as a compromise so NOBODY has them.

It allows deserving G5 in while acknowledging FBS is not a group of equal franchises like the NFL and that the range of institutional commitment to football is HUGE between top and bottom (ie between Idaho and Alabama)

To the people complaining about it being too many games, and it being a strain on the players, FCS has been doing if for years and they are fine. 16 is perfect unless big conferences get greedy and want to expand it to 24 teams.

(12-04-2014 11:33 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 12:07 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  FCS has a 24 team playoff now with the top 8 seeds getting a first round bye. The maximum possible games for a FCS team this year is 16. I have yet to hear of a FCS player complaining about the number of games, and they don't have access to anywhere near the sports medical facilities that most FBS players do.

Thanks... hadn't been paying close attention to that.

Wow... so, even 16 teams wasn't enough... would love to go back and review the rationale that prompted that decision.

Fwiw, maybe not much... some know this, others might not... I'm an advocate of 11 games with the current 12th game and the current championship weekend Saturdays being incorporated into the playoff structure... 32 teams, 24 of them FBS con5 schools, getting a slot. (link)

Because FCS is a real NCAA sponsored championship, the NCAA requires there be at least as many at-large spots as AQ spots.

When FCS was at 16, there were 8 conferences that had auto-bids (IVY and SWAC have declined to participate). Then the Big South met minimum team requirements, and Northeast Conference began adding schollies, and both were granted auto-bids, so playoffs expanded to 20 (2 AQ, 2 At-larges). This left the non-schollie Pioneer as the only conference that wanted an autobid without one (the Pioneer champ and the Northeast Champ had previously held a post-season game between the two). The Pioneer petitioned and was granted an AQ. 24 berths is easier than 22, so 1AQ and 3 At-larges were added.




Note - to make it an official NCAA tourney/Championship, 20 would be the minimum - 10 AQ and 10 At-Large

(12-04-2014 02:31 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 02:10 PM)Tigeer Wrote:  Don't need sixteen, just eight. Sixteen would water down the regular season too much.

That's exactly what they said about any playoff. Now "suddenly" they realize that a playoff enhances virtually every regular season game.

That's because there are only four spots. Sixteen would be too many. Does an 8-3, I don't care who it is team, deserve a shot at a national title. My opinion is no.

(12-04-2014 09:24 AM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 09:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Do we reach a point where these kids are simply playing too many games?

If FCS, D2, and D3 can manage it while actually having to attend classes, I'm sure the FBS kids that may or may not go to real classes can manage.

[/thread]

You can have a 16 team college football playoff without having too many games.

My 16 team college football scheme.

1) 10 game regular season.
2) Conference championship game for all conferences.
3) Conference champions go to the playoff.
4) The rest of the slots are filled in by at large teams.
5) Every team that doesn't make the playoffs gets two postseason games with teams ranked near them in December.
6) Playoffs happen in January.

No team plays more than 15 games (and the teams that make the playoffs have a month off to help with the extra games).

(12-04-2014 04:02 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 03:56 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  10 Conferences = 10 conference champions.

Bottom 4 conference champs play a play-in game, 2 winners join top 6 conf champs for Round of 8.

Puts huge emphasis on winning conference championship which can be decided with ZERO influence from off the field entities. The way it should be.

Just stop. Face the facts- no playoff is going to ONLY be conference champions. PERIOD. You can whine all you want- but that battle was fought and lost. Sorry.

you're the one whining, I'm the one offering a sensible solution to a problem. There was no battle lost, nothing is over, the problem of inequality persists.

(12-04-2014 09:48 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 04:02 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 03:56 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  10 Conferences = 10 conference champions.

Bottom 4 conference champs play a play-in game, 2 winners join top 6 conf champs for Round of 8.

Puts huge emphasis on winning conference championship which can be decided with ZERO influence from off the field entities. The way it should be.

Just stop. Face the facts- no playoff is going to ONLY be conference champions. PERIOD. You can whine all you want- but that battle was fought and lost. Sorry.

you're the one whining, I'm the one offering a sensible solution to a problem. There was no battle lost, nothing is over, the problem of inequality persists.

You're offering a solution that, in my opinion, is brilliant.

Elite conferences still get to enjoy a deck that is stacked in their favor... if you're a top two seed, you're going to play a G5 champion that just had to win a play-in game... ride that gravy train to the next round.

On the other hand, even though the deck is still stacked against the G5 schools who'll undoubtedly have to make their way through a play-in game before taking down a #1 or #2 seed... there's still a path to it. Personally, that's all I want - for there to be an institutionalized opportunity for every team that takes the field at the beginning of the season. That has never been the case.

(12-04-2014 04:02 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 03:56 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  10 Conferences = 10 conference champions.

Bottom 4 conference champs play a play-in game, 2 winners join top 6 conf champs for Round of 8.

Puts huge emphasis on winning conference championship which can be decided with ZERO influence from off the field entities. The way it should be.

Just stop. Face the facts- no playoff is going to ONLY be conference champions. PERIOD. You can whine all you want- but that battle was fought and lost. Sorry.

While you are right, damn man...that was just harsh.

(12-04-2014 10:24 PM)49erlew Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 09:48 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 04:02 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 03:56 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  10 Conferences = 10 conference champions.

Bottom 4 conference champs play a play-in game, 2 winners join top 6 conf champs for Round of 8.

Puts huge emphasis on winning conference championship which can be decided with ZERO influence from off the field entities. The way it should be.

Just stop. Face the facts- no playoff is going to ONLY be conference champions. PERIOD. You can whine all you want- but that battle was fought and lost. Sorry.

you're the one whining, I'm the one offering a sensible solution to a problem. There was no battle lost, nothing is over, the problem of inequality persists.

You're offering a solution that, in my opinion, is brilliant.

Elite conferences still get to enjoy a deck that is stacked in their favor... if you're a top two seed, you're going to play a G5 champion that just had to win a play-in game... ride that gravy train to the next round.

On the other hand, even though the deck is still stacked against the G5 schools who'll undoubtedly have to make their way through a play-in game before taking down a #1 or #2 seed... there's still a path to it. Personally, that's all I want - for there to be an institutionalized opportunity for every team that takes the field at the beginning of the season. That has never been the case.

It's really not that brilliant. A one game proposition does not necessarily show the best team winning. The NBA knows this. Major League Baseball knows this, they have to win a series because everyone knows that winning a single game does not show that a team is better than the other. It just shows they were better on that day.

Now football is an extremely rough sport so we cant do a series between each team. So we have to make due. What that means is that the Committee is likely to Never give a guaranteed position in the Tournament in return for winning a particular game.

We have seen how teams havnt had to have stellar seasons to make it to their conference championship games. That means the chance exists that a situation could arise that no one wants.

Imagine the 8-4 Wisconsin Badgers that won the Big Ten Conference championship game getting a shot at being National Champion? While that type of system works for the NFL a la the New York Giants, I don't think folks want College Football to just be a lesser form of Professional Football.

It's not going to happen. Want me to tell you why? Because right now the committee can put as much or as little emphasis upon winning a Conference Championship game as they want. If their hands are tied with a put in place rule that Conference Championship game winners are the ones that get in then we are going to have some very ugly situations sometimes.

That changes though if we see Conference Championship games become Conference Tournaments.

Suddenly if what appears to be a mediocre team wins twice in a row in the Conference Tournament then they Do have more plausibility.

Point being? If you want Conference Championship Game winners to have autobids, then you better start becoming a big fan of the idea of Conference Tournaments.

It is never happening with how things are now.

12 Teams ..... Top 4 conferences based on Sagarin for conference gets to send their champion in as a AQ. (they get a bye)

The next three conference champions get in.

Then 5 at larges (maybe even guaranteeing the highest conference a second bid) *If you are undefeated you get a spot

Cede the 8 teams that don't get a bye.... top four get to host 1st round.

Then the second round is hosted by the ceded champions where top cede gets lowest remaining cede still alive ...etc etc.

Final two rounds in a neutral location.

That gives 2 G5 schools a shot. Gives all the P5 schools a spot. Then gives 5 more teams a spot.

(12-04-2014 11:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It's really not that brilliant. A one game proposition does not necessarily show the best team winning. The NBA knows this. Major League Baseball knows this, they have to win a series because everyone knows that winning a single game does not show that a team is better than the other. It just shows they were better on that day.

You can't compare the NBA (82 game regular season) and the MLB (162 game regular season) to college football (12 game regular season). That doesn't work, and you know that. Football is too physical a sport to play a series. Why didn't you reference the NFL? Because its nearly identical to my proposal.

If you're going to to cut 128 teams down to 1 you have to make some hard cuts. By making it a requirement that you win your conference to play for a national title you make the cuts FAIR- every team has to play every team in their Division and then defeat the other Division Champ in the Conf Champ game to EARN the right to play for a national championship. Its all decided ON THE FIELD.

This cuts out that nonsense from a couple of years ago when LSU beat Alabama in a 9-6 snooze fest but the powers that be declared Alabama worthy of playing LSU in the NCG over a 1 loss OK State. Completely unfair, Alabama had their chance and lost. Games matter. Deal with it.

(12-04-2014 11:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Imagine the 8-4 Wisconsin Badgers that won the Big Ten Conference championship game getting a shot at being National Champion? While that type of system works for the NFL a la the New York Giants, I don't think folks want College Football to just be a lesser form of Professional Football.

That's EXACTLY what we want to see! Everybody loves an underdog, screw this back room dealing, totally corrupt good old boy process of having dishonest humans with their own personal agendas picking teams they deem to be "worthy". It goes against every thing athletic competition stands for.

The whole system is corrupt, put all of the power back into the hands of the kids on field and set college football free. It will grow bigger than you could ever imagine, if you let it.

Top 8 teams. No AQ.

That's all you need.

There might be controversy over #9 vs #8 but honestly that's not much in the big picture.

That's about as fair a setup to determine the best team as is reasonably possible.

Regardless of how many teams you have, I think the playoff should be straight seeded. The one exception I would consider is not having 2 teams from the same conference play in the first round.

I like the current system, but wish it were just two teams, not four.

Kinda like I wish March Madness was two teams, not 65.

(12-04-2014 11:27 PM)nobledictator1278 Wrote:  12 Teams ..... Top 4 conferences based on Sagarin for conference gets to send their champion in as a AQ. (they get a bye)

The next three conference champions get in.

Then 5 at larges (maybe even guaranteeing the highest conference a second bid) *If you are undefeated you get a spot

Cede the 8 teams that don't get a bye.... top four get to host 1st round.

Then the second round is hosted by the ceded champions where top cede gets lowest remaining cede still alive ...etc etc.

Final two rounds in a neutral location.

That gives 2 G5 schools a shot. Gives all the P5 schools a spot. Then gives 5 more teams a spot.

I'm sorry, perimeterpost. I have to change my endorsement.

(12-04-2014 11:27 PM)nobledictator1278 Wrote:  12 Teams ..... Top 4 conferences based on Sagarin for conference gets to send their champion in as a AQ. (they get a bye)

The next three conference champions get in.

Then 5 at larges (maybe even guaranteeing the highest conference a second bid) *If you are undefeated you get a spot

Cede the 8 teams that don't get a bye.... top four get to host 1st round.

Then the second round is hosted by the ceded champions where top cede gets lowest remaining cede still alive ...etc etc.

Final two rounds in a neutral location.

That gives 2 G5 schools a shot. Gives all the P5 schools a spot. Then gives 5 more teams a spot.

Are those the four highest rated conference champions, or the champions of the four highest rated conferences? For example, if Florida State were the highest ranked team, but the ACC the fifth highest ranked conference, as was the case in 2013, would the Noles earn the bye, or would they have to play an extra game?

Many people make the argument that conferences shouldn't have to give up their lucrative CCG, which they don't have to share with anybody, to be part of a playoff in which they have to share financially with everybody. I think that's a valid argument. They invested a lot to build their conference brand.

If you allow the P5's to hold their championship game, and send their champion to a quarterfinal playoff round, you would need three other teams to round out the field. May I suggest that the six highest ranked non-P5 teams (including independents) playoff to produce those three teams? Using the Massey composite rankings to seed those teams, this year that playoff would look like this.

#6 BYU @ #1 Boise State
#5 Memphis @ #2 Marshall
#4 Notre Dame @ #3 Colorado State

Reseed all 8 teams after this round, and let the four highest seeds host the quarterfinal in Week 15.

I would even go further, and allow the P5's, if they so choose, to have a four game playoff to determine their champion, as long as they do it without extending the season. That could be accomplished by having the teams not in the conference playoff continue to play conference games while the top two in each division (or however the conference wishes to select the playoff teams) are playing each other in weeks 13 and 14.

This way, the conferences that already have a lucrative CCG could continue to have it (and even expand it), while all the rest whose CCGs are now watched mostly by family and friends could share instead in the revenue from a six team tourney that will usually have some brand names participating. It gives Notre Dame and BYU a path to the tournament without making them join a conference. Most of the time, the Final Four will come from the P5. But every FBS school can say it had a chance to earn its way in. And it doesn't extend the season.

(12-05-2014 12:20 PM)49erlew Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 11:27 PM)nobledictator1278 Wrote:  12 Teams ..... Top 4 conferences based on Sagarin for conference gets to send their champion in as a AQ. (they get a bye)

The next three conference champions get in.

Then 5 at larges (maybe even guaranteeing the highest conference a second bid) *If you are undefeated you get a spot

Cede the 8 teams that don't get a bye.... top four get to host 1st round.

Then the second round is hosted by the ceded champions where top cede gets lowest remaining cede still alive ...etc etc.

Final two rounds in a neutral location.

That gives 2 G5 schools a shot. Gives all the P5 schools a spot. Then gives 5 more teams a spot.

I'm sorry, perimeterpost. I have to change my endorsement.

There are 351 Div1 bball schools, EVERY SINGLE TEAM has a chance to win a national championship without any help from a "selection committee". Any format that does not give EVERY single football team a chance to win a championship without the blessings of old men in a private room is a non-starter.

You can't do that with a format that only gives the G5 2 spots that are "selected" by corrupt people with ulterior motives. EVERY team has to a have a direct path to earning a spot or the format is no good.

Take the power out of the hands of greedy old men and put in the hands of the student athletes where it belongs.