10-11 team playoff called "the tournament of champions" (11 teams most years - assuming that the g5 team will beat out the indy teams)
*To clarify, it's a 10-11 team playoff (10 when an indy team beats out a g5 champ, and 11 otherwise) because the winner of conference championship games advances, so I am counting the schools in those games. It's only a 6 team national playoff.*

The teams are as follows:
*ACC Champion (winner of ACCCG)
*B1G Champion (winner of B1GCG)
*Big XII Champion (picked by conference record with a predetermined tie breaker that is decided upon by the conference)
*Best g5 conference Champion/or Indy team if they have an equal or better winning percentage than the best g5 record (picked by committee)
*Pac 12 Champion (winner of PACCG)
*SEC Champion (winner of SECCG)

The committee decides the seeding.

The top two seeds get byes, and teams 3-6 play in the 3rd and 4th seed's stadium/location of choosing.

After two of those schools are eliminated, the remaining 4 schools play in a playoff as it exists right now.

This year's national playoff would have been:

Oregon v. the winner of FSU v. BSU

Alabama v. the winner of OSU v. TCU/Baylor


The full playoff would have been:

Oregon #2 v. Arizona #7

FSU #3 v. Georgia Tech #12

OSU #4 v. Wisconsin #11

Alabama #1 v. Mizzou #14

TCU #5 with a chance of a #5 Baylor if TCU lost in the last week

***BSU #22 v. Fresno State*** <-- unless BSU lost, then it would be the g5 CCG with the highest ranked winner.

I like a committee making selections. As an example if an 8-4 SEC East would beat an 11-1 or 12-0 West team, the West team still has the better resume.

for gosh sakes, a champions only model will NEVER happen. NEVER. Pie in the sky.

If you are going to do 11, the model suggests itself:
bye-ACC, B1G, Big 12, Pac 12, SEC champ
first round-3 to 4 wildcards, 2 to 3 of the G5 champs. 3 winners from the first round advance with the P5 champs. These 6 get seeded 1 to 6 with 1 playing 6, 2 playing 5 and 3 playing 4.

B1G-Pac 12 in Rose Bowl; SEC in Sugar, ACC in Orange, Big 12 in either Cotton or Sugar vs. SEC. 3 first round winners get paired based on seedings.

(01-05-2015 04:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  If you are going to do 11, the model suggests itself:
bye-ACC, B1G, Big 12, Pac 12, SEC champ
first round-3 to 4 wildcards, 2 to 3 of the G5 champs. 3 winners from the first round advance with the P5 champs. These 6 get seeded 1 to 6 with 1 playing 6, 2 playing 5 and 3 playing 4.

B1G-Pac 12 in Rose Bowl; SEC in Sugar, ACC in Orange, Big 12 in either Cotton or Sugar vs. SEC. 3 first round winners get paired based on seedings.

That's more than 11 teams...

ACC champ - 2 teams
B1G champ - 2 teams
Big XII champ - 1 team
Pac 12 champ - 2 teams
SEC champ - 2 teams
9 teams total so far

3-4 wild cards
12-13 teams so far

2-3 g5 champs
That's an additional 4-6 teams, bringing the total to 14-19 teams (presumably 17-18 teams).

B1G, SEC, and PAC get auto-bid.

ACC and B12 have play-in game for the fourth spot. This play-in game should take play in Christmas week.

All the New Year games or on the first week of the year reserves for BCS games which basically matchup between all the runner-ups team from the 5 power conferences and the best of G5 conferences. This will keep BCS games relevant not having to compete with playoff games on that week.

I'm not a fan of byes. I no longer agree with the conference champion models. If you win a P5 conference, there is a high probability you would make the playoff. There is still a possibility that an undeserving team could make the playoffs. Unlike the BB tourney, the CFP field isn't big enough to absorb a team like this.

Not all conferences have a CCG so selection should be made before the CCG. SOS should be calculated based on the entire regular season. Ohio State losing to VT would be a minus because VT went to a mediocre season. If VT went on to a great season, the loss would have less impact.

By automatically including conference champions, and to some degree byes, you are enticing conferences to rig <gasp> their CCG.

The best option for the G5 is not to include a bunch of qualifiers that the P5 doesn't have. IMO, the best option for the G5 is to expand the field to include a realistic representation of the best teams in college football.

(01-05-2015 10:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 04:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  If you are going to do 11, the model suggests itself:
bye-ACC, B1G, Big 12, Pac 12, SEC champ
first round-3 to 4 wildcards, 2 to 3 of the G5 champs. 3 winners from the first round advance with the P5 champs. These 6 get seeded 1 to 6 with 1 playing 6, 2 playing 5 and 3 playing 4.

B1G-Pac 12 in Rose Bowl; SEC in Sugar, ACC in Orange, Big 12 in either Cotton or Sugar vs. SEC. 3 first round winners get paired based on seedings.

That's more than 11 teams...

ACC champ - 2 teams
B1G champ - 2 teams
Big XII champ - 1 team
Pac 12 champ - 2 teams
SEC champ - 2 teams
9 teams total so far

3-4 wild cards
12-13 teams so far

2-3 g5 champs
That's an additional 4-6 teams, bringing the total to 14-19 teams (presumably 17-18 teams).

The P5 ccgs could be treated as eliminations or you could allow the losers to be one of the wildcards. If you treat them as eliminations, that effectively makes it a 15 team tournament. The winners of the G5 ccgs aren't guaranteed a slot.

The easiest way to do this is to let the bowls pick whoever they want. Then, after they are completed, take a beauty contest poll including bowl winners only. The top two teams play for the championship. Easy-peazy, and just as fair as what we have now.

(01-06-2015 10:53 AM)ken d Wrote:  The easiest way to do this is to let the bowls pick whoever they want. Then, after they are completed, take a beauty contest poll including bowl winners only. The top two teams play for the championship. Easy-peazy, and just as fair as what we have now.

I don't think that would have the same legitimacy. A tourney of division champs (which is essentially what this idea is) would be 100% legitimate in my mind. After all, if you can't win your division, and much less your conference, how can you claim to be a national champion? That was one of the problems with Alabama-LSU.

another idiot trying to fight the conference champions only battle that has long since been lost. The fact is ESPN wants NO part of conference champions only because they know it's very possible some years to have 2 of the P5 conferences with down champions, and want absolutely NO part of that at all.

(01-06-2015 01:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 10:53 AM)ken d Wrote:  The easiest way to do this is to let the bowls pick whoever they want. Then, after they are completed, take a beauty contest poll including bowl winners only. The top two teams play for the championship. Easy-peazy, and just as fair as what we have now.

I don't think that would have the same legitimacy. A tourney of division champs (which is essentially what this idea is) would be 100% legitimate in my mind. After all, if you can't win your division, and much less your conference, how can you claim to be a national champion? That was one of the problems with Alabama-LSU.

Since when have we cared about legitimacy? We don't have it now, we didn't have it with the BCS, or at any time before that. We're going to argue about it no matter what we do, so why not just take the path of least resistance? Let the ones paying the piper call the tune.

If you are not the best team in your conference, then you cannot claim to be the best team in the nation.

The day a non-champ makes the CFP over a champion will be the day that it loses ALL legitimacy.