It needs to ALL be taken out of a hotel conference room, and instead, ALL settled on the field and on the scoreboard.

Yes, it's complicated to do that with 128 schools and an 18-week window. But it can be done. And should be. And I think will be. But we might take another 25 years before we get there.

No, Baylor would not have won.


But #6 TCU might have.

(01-13-2015 12:58 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  No, Baylor would not have won.


But #6 TCU might have.

Maybe, maybe not.

But the big takeaway remains the big takeaway... everyone's going to have their opinions, but the only way to validate the opinions is to settle it all on the field.

I've said it before, but the poster child for going to 6 or 8 is not TCU, but Ohio State. If not for a miracle comeback by Baylor, the four teams would have been Alabama, Oregon, FSU and TCU and the team that won it all, dominating the pre-bowl #1 and 2 teams in convincing fashion, would have been completely left out.

(01-13-2015 12:56 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  It needs to ALL be taken out of a hotel conference room, and instead, ALL settled on the field and on the scoreboard.

Yes, it's complicated to do that with 128 schools and an 18-week window. But it can be done. And should be. And I think will be. But we might take another 25 years before we get there.

Right now MSU is #5 and they lost to Oregon and OSU, lol.

Who's to say the #8 team might not have won? In any tournament, who wins is often determined by which team/player draws the most favorable matchups over the course of the event, or who gets hot at the right time.

Four teams is better than two, but only rarely will a field that small include all the teams capable of winning.

In my opinion, they need to take the bowls out of the playoff bracket.

It should go: regular season, conference championship week, bowl week and then select the best four to play in a bracket at neutral sites.

You would've had Ohio St and Oregon in the Rose Bowl (as it should be), Alabama and TCU in the Sugar bowl, etc. It would've been clear at that time that Ohio St and TCU both belonged in the four team playoff.

(01-13-2015 02:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  Who's to say the #8 team might not have won? In any tournament, who wins is often determined by which team/player draws the most favorable matchups over the course of the event, or who gets hot at the right time.

Four teams is better than two, but only rarely will a field that small include all the teams capable of winning.

If there is an 8-team playoff, the winner has to win 3 games in a row against very good opponents. There are probably more than 8 teams, in any year, that are capable of doing that, and conversely, any #1 team, no matter how good, might lose one of those 3 consecutive games against top opponents. Like the basketball tournament, there will be many years in which the best team and the team that wins the title are two different teams.

(01-13-2015 03:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  In my opinion, they need to take the bowls out of the playoff bracket.

It should go: regular season, conference championship week, bowl week and then select the best four to play in a bracket at neutral sites.

You would've had Ohio St and Oregon in the Rose Bowl (as it should be), Alabama and TCU in the Sugar bowl, etc. It would've been clear at that time that Ohio St and TCU both belonged in the four team playoff.

I personally really like the idea of the "Plus 3" quite a bit, just as I liked the idea of the true "Plus One" system (where we'd have the traditional bowl matchups and then take the two highest ranked bowl winners to play the national championship). The "Plus 3" is both a way to preserve traditional matchups like the Rose Bowl along with being easier for the powers that be to stomach some more access to the G5 compared to a dedicated spot in an 8-team playoff. (Taking 1 out of 12 CFP bowl slots is the status quo, whereas taking 1 spot in an 8-team playoff is a massive change.) However, the TV value of elimination games is probably too powerful - I think the proverbial cat is out of the bag on that one.

(01-13-2015 01:17 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I've said it before, but the poster child for going to 6 or 8 is not TCU, but Ohio State. If not for a miracle comeback by Baylor, the four teams would have been Alabama, Oregon, FSU and TCU and the team that won it all, dominating the pre-bowl #1 and 2 teams in convincing fashion, would have been completely left out.

And with a loss to lowly Va. Tech, it would have been of their own doing. They are fortunate that the selection committee puts more emphasis on late-season games.

can we all agree that after losing by 22pts Oregon, and heck every team in the PAC12, should never be allowed in the playoffs again?

(01-13-2015 03:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I personally really like the idea of the "Plus 3" quite a bit, just as I liked the idea of the true "Plus One" system (where we'd have the traditional bowl matchups and then take the two highest ranked bowl winners to play the national championship). The "Plus 3" is both a way to preserve traditional matchups like the Rose Bowl along with being easier for the powers that be to stomach some more access to the G5 compared to a dedicated spot in an 8-team playoff. (Taking 1 out of 12 CFP bowl slots is the status quo, whereas taking 1 spot in an 8-team playoff is a massive change.) However, the TV value of elimination games is probably too powerful - I think the proverbial cat is out of the bag on that one.

I don't see the G5 highest ranked getting an automatic spot if the current playoff structure moves to an eight team bracket (with 4 out of 6 CFP bowls hosting quarter-finals). Only if they're ranked in the committee's top 8 after conference championship week.

That said, I suppose going from the current CFP system to a true Plus 3 would hurt the G5 - since the bowl games would all revert to traditional tie-ins/contracts (leaving the G5 out) and then from there they'd have to make into the top 4 in the rankings after bowl week (probably never happen).

They'd have to work out some kind of consolation prize. Say the highest ranked G5 would get an automatic spot in either the Peach, Fiesta or Cotton bowl.

(01-13-2015 03:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  In my opinion, they need to take the bowls out of the playoff bracket.

It should go: regular season, conference championship week, bowl week and then select the best four to play in a bracket at neutral sites.

You would've had Ohio St and Oregon in the Rose Bowl (as it should be), Alabama and TCU in the Sugar bowl, etc. It would've been clear at that time that Ohio St and TCU both belonged in the four team playoff.

I don't like that at all. It over-weights a bowl game that is a totally different setup than the regular season with the long preparation time and layoff and differing motivations. I would prefer the BCS to any of the "+" systems and I really didn't like the BCS except compared to what came before.

(01-13-2015 03:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 03:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  In my opinion, they need to take the bowls out of the playoff bracket.

It should go: regular season, conference championship week, bowl week and then select the best four to play in a bracket at neutral sites.

You would've had Ohio St and Oregon in the Rose Bowl (as it should be), Alabama and TCU in the Sugar bowl, etc. It would've been clear at that time that Ohio St and TCU both belonged in the four team playoff.

I personally really like the idea of the "Plus 3" quite a bit, just as I liked the idea of the true "Plus One" system (where we'd have the traditional bowl matchups and then take the two highest ranked bowl winners to play the national championship). The "Plus 3" is both a way to preserve traditional matchups like the Rose Bowl along with being easier for the powers that be to stomach some more access to the G5 compared to a dedicated spot in an 8-team playoff. (Taking 1 out of 12 CFP bowl slots is the status quo, whereas taking 1 spot in an 8-team playoff is a massive change.) However, the TV value of elimination games is probably too powerful - I think the proverbial cat is out of the bag on that one.

Frank, I understand the "Plus One", but what exactly do you mean by a "Plus 3"? Is that just the P5 champs plus three at large, or is there some other scheme?

(01-14-2015 10:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 03:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 03:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  In my opinion, they need to take the bowls out of the playoff bracket.

It should go: regular season, conference championship week, bowl week and then select the best four to play in a bracket at neutral sites.

You would've had Ohio St and Oregon in the Rose Bowl (as it should be), Alabama and TCU in the Sugar bowl, etc. It would've been clear at that time that Ohio St and TCU both belonged in the four team playoff.

I personally really like the idea of the "Plus 3" quite a bit, just as I liked the idea of the true "Plus One" system (where we'd have the traditional bowl matchups and then take the two highest ranked bowl winners to play the national championship). The "Plus 3" is both a way to preserve traditional matchups like the Rose Bowl along with being easier for the powers that be to stomach some more access to the G5 compared to a dedicated spot in an 8-team playoff. (Taking 1 out of 12 CFP bowl slots is the status quo, whereas taking 1 spot in an 8-team playoff is a massive change.) However, the TV value of elimination games is probably too powerful - I think the proverbial cat is out of the bag on that one.

Frank, I understand the "Plus One", but what exactly do you mean by a "Plus 3"? Is that just the P5 champs plus three at large, or is there some other scheme?

The "Plus Three" just refers to 3 additional games played after bowls (where we take the top 4 teams *after* the bowls are played): the 2 semifinal games and then the national championship game.

(01-14-2015 10:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 10:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 03:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 03:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  In my opinion, they need to take the bowls out of the playoff bracket.

It should go: regular season, conference championship week, bowl week and then select the best four to play in a bracket at neutral sites.

You would've had Ohio St and Oregon in the Rose Bowl (as it should be), Alabama and TCU in the Sugar bowl, etc. It would've been clear at that time that Ohio St and TCU both belonged in the four team playoff.

I personally really like the idea of the "Plus 3" quite a bit, just as I liked the idea of the true "Plus One" system (where we'd have the traditional bowl matchups and then take the two highest ranked bowl winners to play the national championship). The "Plus 3" is both a way to preserve traditional matchups like the Rose Bowl along with being easier for the powers that be to stomach some more access to the G5 compared to a dedicated spot in an 8-team playoff. (Taking 1 out of 12 CFP bowl slots is the status quo, whereas taking 1 spot in an 8-team playoff is a massive change.) However, the TV value of elimination games is probably too powerful - I think the proverbial cat is out of the bag on that one.

Frank, I understand the "Plus One", but what exactly do you mean by a "Plus 3"? Is that just the P5 champs plus three at large, or is there some other scheme?

The "Plus Three" just refers to 3 additional games played after bowls (where we take the top 4 teams *after* the bowls are played): the 2 semifinal games and then the national championship game.

Ah, so. Had not heard that proposed before. If you had that this year, it's pretty clear that Ohio State, Oregon and TCU would make the field. But would Alabama get in because they ended the season ranked #4? Or would only bowl winners be eligible?

The fact that a team can win a championship does not mean they should be in it. I loved the fact that Ohio State won this year. It was amazing. That said, if they had decided we were #5, I wouldn't have had room to complain because we lost to Virginia Tech and we had closer games than we should have with several teams.

I have no doubt that #5, #9, and maybe even occasionally #16 could win it all, but by putting all those in, the regular season excitement will drop back a lot for me. I'll keep the best regular season in all sports and a great bowl set-up rather than a bigger playoff.

(01-14-2015 10:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 10:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 10:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 03:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 03:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  In my opinion, they need to take the bowls out of the playoff bracket.

It should go: regular season, conference championship week, bowl week and then select the best four to play in a bracket at neutral sites.

You would've had Ohio St and Oregon in the Rose Bowl (as it should be), Alabama and TCU in the Sugar bowl, etc. It would've been clear at that time that Ohio St and TCU both belonged in the four team playoff.

I personally really like the idea of the "Plus 3" quite a bit, just as I liked the idea of the true "Plus One" system (where we'd have the traditional bowl matchups and then take the two highest ranked bowl winners to play the national championship). The "Plus 3" is both a way to preserve traditional matchups like the Rose Bowl along with being easier for the powers that be to stomach some more access to the G5 compared to a dedicated spot in an 8-team playoff. (Taking 1 out of 12 CFP bowl slots is the status quo, whereas taking 1 spot in an 8-team playoff is a massive change.) However, the TV value of elimination games is probably too powerful - I think the proverbial cat is out of the bag on that one.

Frank, I understand the "Plus One", but what exactly do you mean by a "Plus 3"? Is that just the P5 champs plus three at large, or is there some other scheme?

The "Plus Three" just refers to 3 additional games played after bowls (where we take the top 4 teams *after* the bowls are played): the 2 semifinal games and then the national championship game.

Ah, so. Had not heard that proposed before. If you had that this year, it's pretty clear that Ohio State, Oregon and TCU would make the field. But would Alabama get in because they ended the season ranked #4? Or would only bowl winners be eligible?

The idea is that the 4 highest-ranked bowl winners would advance. The bowl matchups would need to be adjusted to make it more equitable - i.e. Alabama would have been playing Michigan State in the Sugar Bowl instead of Ohio State. What was proposed in the old Plus One proposal was that a team's ranking was locked in going to the bowls. As a result, if the #1 through #4-ranked teams won their bowl games, then they would all automatically advance regardless of how the #5 team performed. The only way that the #5 team or lower could get into the playoff is if a top 4 team lost in front of them. That would give more weight to the final regular season rankings (along with avoiding the issue of a poll or committee having teams jump each other due to favorable or unfavorable bowl matchups).

(01-14-2015 11:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 10:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 10:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 10:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 03:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I personally really like the idea of the "Plus 3" quite a bit, just as I liked the idea of the true "Plus One" system (where we'd have the traditional bowl matchups and then take the two highest ranked bowl winners to play the national championship). The "Plus 3" is both a way to preserve traditional matchups like the Rose Bowl along with being easier for the powers that be to stomach some more access to the G5 compared to a dedicated spot in an 8-team playoff. (Taking 1 out of 12 CFP bowl slots is the status quo, whereas taking 1 spot in an 8-team playoff is a massive change.) However, the TV value of elimination games is probably too powerful - I think the proverbial cat is out of the bag on that one.

Frank, I understand the "Plus One", but what exactly do you mean by a "Plus 3"? Is that just the P5 champs plus three at large, or is there some other scheme?

The "Plus Three" just refers to 3 additional games played after bowls (where we take the top 4 teams *after* the bowls are played): the 2 semifinal games and then the national championship game.

Ah, so. Had not heard that proposed before. If you had that this year, it's pretty clear that Ohio State, Oregon and TCU would make the field. But would Alabama get in because they ended the season ranked #4? Or would only bowl winners be eligible?

The idea is that the 4 highest-ranked bowl winners would advance. The bowl matchups would need to be adjusted to make it more equitable - i.e. Alabama would have been playing Michigan State in the Sugar Bowl instead of Ohio State. What was proposed in the old Plus One proposal was that a team's ranking was locked in going to the bowls. As a result, if the #1 through #4-ranked teams won their bowl games, then they would all automatically advance regardless of how the #5 team performed. The only way that the #5 team or lower could get into the playoff is if a top 4 team lost in front of them. That would give more weight to the final regular season rankings (along with avoiding the issue of a poll or committee having teams jump each other due to favorable or unfavorable bowl matchups).

So an 8-team playoff.

(01-14-2015 11:36 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 11:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 10:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 10:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 10:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  Frank, I understand the "Plus One", but what exactly do you mean by a "Plus 3"? Is that just the P5 champs plus three at large, or is there some other scheme?

The "Plus Three" just refers to 3 additional games played after bowls (where we take the top 4 teams *after* the bowls are played): the 2 semifinal games and then the national championship game.

Ah, so. Had not heard that proposed before. If you had that this year, it's pretty clear that Ohio State, Oregon and TCU would make the field. But would Alabama get in because they ended the season ranked #4? Or would only bowl winners be eligible?

The idea is that the 4 highest-ranked bowl winners would advance. The bowl matchups would need to be adjusted to make it more equitable - i.e. Alabama would have been playing Michigan State in the Sugar Bowl instead of Ohio State. What was proposed in the old Plus One proposal was that a team's ranking was locked in going to the bowls. As a result, if the #1 through #4-ranked teams won their bowl games, then they would all automatically advance regardless of how the #5 team performed. The only way that the #5 team or lower could get into the playoff is if a top 4 team lost in front of them. That would give more weight to the final regular season rankings (along with avoiding the issue of a poll or committee having teams jump each other due to favorable or unfavorable bowl matchups).

So an 8-team playoff.

Well, it would be close but it would be taking the traditional bowl setup and creating matchups therein with an eye toward creating elimination games balanced with a mostly seeded aspect. So, let's take the 6 New Year's Six bowls with the following parameters:

Rose: Big Ten champ vs. Pac-12 champ
Sugar: SEC vs. at-large
Orange: ACC vs. at-large
Fiesta: Big 12 vs. at-large
Cotton: at-large vs. at-large
Peach: at-large vs. at-large

One at-large spot would be reserved for the best G5 spot just as today. If all of the 5 power conference champs are in the top 8, then you can slot the next 3 best at-large teams accordingly and you'd have a de facto 8-team playoff for that season. That's the "easy" scenario that would have occurred in the last 2 seasons. The trickier ones are when there are one or more P5 champs that are *not* in the top 8, such as 2012 when ACC champ FSU was #12 and Big Ten champ Wisconsin was unranked. In that 2012 scenario, you wouldn't have been able to have the #1 through #8 teams play each other head-to-head. Wisconsin would have played #6 Stanford (the Pac-12 champ) in the Rose Bowl. So, #6 Stanford would have been dependent upon other teams ranked higher than them to lose in order to advance to the semifinal round - the Rose Bowl wouldn't have been a "win and you're in" matchup in the way that a true 8-team playoff would be, but Stanford would still have a chance. In a way, it essentially defers the CFP rankings until after the bowl season (as opposed to after the conference championship games) except that you're guaranteed to hold your ranking as long as you win.

The huge disadvantage of this format is just that: we aren't guaranteed "win and you're in" elimination games every year, which have an entirely different appeal for fan and TV purposes. The main advantage of the format is that it provides the flexibility to provide auto-bids to all of the power conferences plus the G5 without allowing a lower-ranked team to "backdoor" into the playoff in a conference championship game upset and elevates the worth of all of the New Year's Six bowls (as opposed to the current focus on the 2 semifinal games). You'd potentially have all six bowl games have national title implications (and 4 at a minimum), which is sort of a throwback to the pre-BCS days when New Year's Day seemed to be wall-to-wall with high impact games.

Anyway, this is purely an idea that I had in the BCS days that I don't think will go anywhere now that we already have a 4-team playoff. Elimination games are simply much more efficient on-the-field and magnitudes more intoxicating for viewers and TV interests off-the-field. The 8-team playoff is the true next step.