Just listened to Dan Wetzel's podcast and he had Clay on. Wetzel--who is far from a traditionalist--allowed Clay to float his 8-team proposal.

His first point is a non-starter, if you ask me. He says that CCGs are meaningless, so conferences should ditch them. I guess his reasoning was that two top teams could come from one division (like LSU/Bama 2011), so why should one be excluded? And that many times the CCG doesn't even feature the two top teams from a league. And that what does a CC really MEAN in the end anyway? He proposes that weekend #1 (this weekend) should feature four regional games with 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6, 4 vs. 5.

He says that conferences are so big that the two divisions barely play each other. Instead, just use the records at the end of the season and let the CFP committee figure out who is/isn't deserving of a top 8 spot.

Then, after that, use the system that has been established--two bowls for semis (round 2) and one CFP champ game site (round 3).

His idea teased out...
1. Alabama vs. 8. Michigan State (Atlanta)
2. Oregon vs. 7. Arizona (Levi's Stadium)
3. TCU vs. 6. Baylor (Jerry's World)
4. FSU vs. 5. OSU (Indianapolis...final remaining site)

A foolish proposal by Mr. Travis based on ignorant (or uninformed) assumptions.

No, he's right about the divisions. You could have top two teams in one or even three way ties in the same division. The CCG doesn't decide anything. The logical thing is to host the first round at regional sites this weekend. Nobody is going to be invested in Bama/Mizzou this weekend aside from die hard CF fans. It is a waste of a defacto QF for one club. In terms of BCS bowls qualifications, take the next highest team ranked in terms of AQ and Go5 access.

Once again Clay Travis shows his limited problem solving skills. After the Oregon vs Arizona PAC Championship, one of them is going to drop. Even if they didn't, having a rematch game right after their Championship game?

Pure Genius....

He doesn't propose a rematch. He proposes dropping the CCGs entirely. It's just random that AZ/OU and Baylor/TCU are matched up due to this week's CFP rankings.

He's a busy guy...fighting all of those crazy SEC fans every day...so he doesn't have a lot of time to come up with a solid proposal that actually makes sense.

I'm so sick of the "outrage" over the new system...over the old system...over everything. This new system is infinitely better than the BCS. Which was infinitely better than the original bowl structure.

I was watching an old PSU/UGA championship game from the '82 season. The entire telecast was advertised as the "national championship game" which--with #1 vs. #2--it indeed WAS. Then, after PSU won, the conversation during the post-game celebration was whether 11-0-1 SMU would be voted ahead of PSU. That's crazy. Pollsters making a final decision at the end of the year. At least this system identifies four great teams and then those teams PLAY IT OUT!

Perfect. No. But CFB is too wacky to make a real "perfect" system, if you ask me.

My problem with his position is that he completely blows off the financial considerations, blithely stating that his proposal would generate 'as much if not more money' than CCG. That misses the point completely since CCG generate revenue for the conference while his proposal, likely run through ESPN, would be a negotiation with the rest of the P5 conferences.

I'm sure there would be some metric that would divvy up the money based on number of teams, thus switching a guaranteed revenue source for an intermittent one all for the 'good of college football'. To say nothing of the fact that expanding to 8 will open the door for G5 teams to try and get access as well as a piece of the financial pie, something the P5 feels they have already conceding enough on.

An 8-team playoff which does not guarantee a spot for the best "G5" team sucks. Surely the best team out of a pool of over 60 teams deserves a chance in an 8-team playoff every year. Of course, the greedy, hypocritical "Privileged 5" is afraid to give them that chance.

The problem with an 8 team playoff is travel... for the fans mostly. One week is not much of a notice and then how do you distribute tickets etc.

I don't see why a Go5 team cannot finish in that slot scheduling some P5 teams. It was done routinely with the UC's, TCU's, and Boise's of the world. Frankly, you don't even have to take the top 8 teams in the poll. With 8 teams, there is enough leeway for a minimum ranking of sorts.

Actually, I could actually get behind taking the highest ranked team from each P5 conference and a Go5 club in this 8 team scenario. This guarantees geographic dispersion for neutral site games. Then take the two highest remaining clubs to round it out.

(12-04-2014 10:59 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  The problem with an 8 team playoff is travel... for the fans mostly. One week is not much of a notice and then how do you distribute tickets etc.

True, but you can also revert to home sites if the travel is that bad.

(12-04-2014 11:03 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I don't see why a Go5 team cannot finish in that slot scheduling some P5 teams. It was done routinely with the UC's, TCU's, and Boise's of the world. Frankly, you don't even have to take the top 8 teams in the poll. With 8 teams, there is enough leeway for a minimum ranking of sorts.

Actually, I could actually get behind taking the highest ranked team from each P5 conference and a Go5 club in this 8 team scenario. This guarantees geographic dispersion for neutral site games. Then take the two highest remaining clubs to round it out.

(12-04-2014 10:59 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  The problem with an 8 team playoff is travel... for the fans mostly. One week is not much of a notice and then how do you distribute tickets etc.

True, but you can also revert to home sites if the travel is that bad.

P5 vs. G5 games I feel are going to go the way of the dodo bird. They don't offer any benefit to a P5 team and it is clear that if you watch ESPN and listen to general fan chatter that the demand is for more P5 vs. P5 match-ups. Since such contests aren't going to be as disastrous to lose going forward, the Boise St and TCU window used during the BCS era will be closing relatively soon.

And while you could have games at the highest rated home team, such a move would put conferences in direct conflict with the bowl system. Regardless of one's opinion of their existence, you have to acknowledge that they and their respective Chamber of Commerce wield a significant amount of financial clout to block such games from being held in team stadiums.

(12-04-2014 09:36 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  He doesn't propose a rematch. He proposes dropping the CCGs entirely. It's just random that AZ/OU and Baylor/TCU are matched up due to this week's CFP rankings.

He's a busy guy...fighting all of those crazy SEC fans every day...so he doesn't have a lot of time to come up with a solid proposal that actually makes sense.

I'm so sick of the "outrage" over the new system...over the old system...over everything. This new system is infinitely better than the BCS. Which was infinitely better than the original bowl structure.

I was watching an old PSU/UGA championship game from the '82 season. The entire telecast was advertised as the "national championship game" which--with #1 vs. #2--it indeed WAS. Then, after PSU won, the conversation during the post-game celebration was whether 11-0-1 SMU would be voted ahead of PSU. That's crazy. Pollsters making a final decision at the end of the year. At least this system identifies four great teams and then those teams PLAY IT OUT!

Perfect. No. But CFB is too wacky to make a real "perfect" system, if you ask me.

If his idea means that the conferences do away with their conference championships then I give him even less credit than before. That would never happen, if they do anything then they will expand their conference postseasons, not do away with them.

And one other point that makes no sense at all in his proposal...and an issue that circles back to LAST pre-season.

If you drop the "divisions" requirement for CCGs (or for Travis's CFP entrance), then you can have a situation of unbalanced, unfair schedules.

If you simply take straight up records, then MSU 11-1 vs. OSU 11-1 is your Big Ten title game this year. But what if one team dodges all the top 30 teams from conference (like Iowa dodged MSU and OSU from the Big Ten this year)...and has a better record than someone who DREW those teams?

With these large conferences like the Big Ten and SEC and ACC, this is BOUND to happen. I don't have any great examples off the top of my head...but I believe LSU's "protected" rivals are generally more difficult games than anyone else's in the SEC. If someone from the East with a weak schedule gets in over them because you A) either take the top 2 teams and put them in a CCG (which Clay is NOT suggesting) or B) choose among the team/s at the top and put them in your 8-team CFP (which he IS suggesting), how is THAT fair?

Is this Travis guy really a heavy SEC backer? Is he now pushing the no division thing? Pretty interesting as the polarization between the SEC West and East divisions continues to broaden. I am sure the SEC would have loved to not have seen itself cannibalized in the way that it was. They would have rather had one of the West teams be in the SEC Conference championship game instead of Missouri.

(12-05-2014 12:18 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Is this Travis guy really a heavy SEC backer? Is he now pushing the no division thing? Pretty interesting as the polarization between the SEC West and East divisions continues to broaden. I am sure the SEC would have loved to not have seen itself cannibalized in the way that it was. They would have rather had one of the West teams be in the SEC Conference championship game instead of Missouri.

If that's the case the he and the SEC offices clearly have a short memory as the first 15 years of the CCG it was obviously that the SEC East was going to win the game. The dominance of one division over the other is cyclical. If the SEC really was interested in what you stated then they would ball up and get back down to 10 teams.

(12-04-2014 07:31 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Just listened to Dan Wetzel's podcast and he had Clay on. Wetzel--who is far from a traditionalist--allowed Clay to float his 8-team proposal.

His first point is a non-starter, if you ask me. He says that CCGs are meaningless, so conferences should ditch them. I guess his reasoning was that two top teams could come from one division (like LSU/Bama 2011), so why should one be excluded? And that many times the CCG doesn't even feature the two top teams from a league. And that what does a CC really MEAN in the end anyway? He proposes that weekend #1 (this weekend) should feature four regional games with 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6, 4 vs. 5.

He says that conferences are so big that the two divisions barely play each other. Instead, just use the records at the end of the season and let the CFP committee figure out who is/isn't deserving of a top 8 spot.

Then, after that, use the system that has been established--two bowls for semis (round 2) and one CFP champ game site (round 3).

His idea teased out...
1. Alabama vs. 8. Michigan State (Atlanta)
2. Oregon vs. 7. Arizona (Levi's Stadium)
3. TCU vs. 6. Baylor (Jerry's World)
4. FSU vs. 5. OSU (Indianapolis...final remaining site)

Whoa! Wait-a-minute! Clay Travis only put ONE SEC TEAM in an 8-team playoff?

(12-04-2014 11:59 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  And one other point that makes no sense at all in his proposal...and an issue that circles back to LAST pre-season.

If you drop the "divisions" requirement for CCGs (or for Travis's CFP entrance), then you can have a situation of unbalanced, unfair schedules.

If you simply take straight up records, then MSU 11-1 vs. OSU 11-1 is your Big Ten title game this year. But what if one team dodges all the top 30 teams from conference (like Iowa dodged MSU and OSU from the Big Ten this year)...and has a better record than someone who DREW those teams?

With these large conferences like the Big Ten and SEC and ACC, this is BOUND to happen. I don't have any great examples off the top of my head...but I believe LSU's "protected" rivals are generally more difficult games than anyone else's in the SEC. If someone from the East with a weak schedule gets in over them because you A) either take the top 2 teams and put them in a CCG (which Clay is NOT suggesting) or B) choose among the team/s at the top and put them in your 8-team CFP (which he IS suggesting), how is THAT fair?

Base the first tie breaker on common opponent. Then look at SoS in conference play and if that's a push, go to some other metric like OOC or point diff. That would be mathematically acceptable and equitable IMO.

They are not going anywhere, but I think he makes good points about the championship game and its effect on a playoff. What happens with a championship game is that either it doesn't involve the two best teams in a conference (hello, Missouri), or that it does involve the two best teams, but the best is knocked out (as can happen with FSU, Oregon, Alabama this weekend) tainting the top team in the conference.

I think they complicate things because they are a sort of playoff before the playoff, so you get the upset results that characterize a playoff. If the only way to make the playoff is to win a championship game (making it like another round of the playoff) that makes sense. But if the goal is to find the 4 or 8 best teams and have them square off against each other, they make things more complicated, not less.

I still can't figure out why people care about this guy. He is the biggest ******* in sports media.

(12-04-2014 10:46 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  An 8-team playoff which does not guarantee a spot for the best "G5" team sucks. Surely the best team out of a pool of over 60 teams deserves a chance in an 8-team playoff every year. Of course, the greedy, hypocritical "Privileged 5" is afraid to give them that chance.

And what if the best team outside the P5 conferences is an FCS school rather than a G5 school? Should it be a "G5" slot or a "Non-P5" slot? Would the G5 conferences support a bid for The Bison, or are they too greedy and hypocritical to give them that chance?