Thought on the playoffs...

I don't see auto-bids occurring unless we move to at least 6 teams in the playoffs. I think it's more likely though that we would see 8 if the playoffs expand though and I think it would stop there.

Reasoning:

1. Giving at auto-bid to each major conference, although there will probably only be 4 of them, will direct a greater amount of attention on conference races and by extension division races.

2. There will be plenty of room for Notre Dame and deserving wildcards. Multiple teams from multiple regions will be able to engage a national audience.

3. Enough room to include an automatic bid for the top G5 team. This not only heightens the TV audience for G5 games to see who gets the coveted spot, but let's say this G5 team wins a 1st round game on occasion. Every now and then there will be deserving G5 teams and if they're competitive to any real degree then the value of G5 games on TV increases proportionately. It's much like what has been done to the top mid-majors in basketball. The non-power conferences can still get decent TV time because the quality of play is pretty good. Access to the postseason, the exposure, and the money that comes with it are key to that equation. In short, more viewers for G5 schools equals more money for the networks.

I don't know that it will work out this way, but it does make sense.

Where do you think the playoffs are going?

I'm not a fan of expansion. It's simply too many games. In my opinion it's nothing short of trying to change the outcome.

Truth be told the system is like musical chairs. If you add more games to the end you are simply playing the music longer, and for what ultimately?

In my humble opinion they demanded a playoff because football had become an SEC sport. None of the underlying problems were fixed with the playoff. Now the angry and butthurt team is #5 instead of #3. But, in the words of Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make?

The Playoff sucks. The only problem with the BCS was that It did not do the match ups beyond 1 and 2. If 3 played 4 and so forth. The BCS would have been a better system.

(05-15-2016 12:58 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Playoff sucks. The only problem with the BCS was that It did not do the match ups beyond 1 and 2. If 3 played 4 and so forth. The BCS would have been a better system.

I'm not going to say the playoff suck, but I don't think it has been a huge improvement over the BCS. With the previous system, there was at least a chance that with the right breaks a Boise St could make the final game. That will never happen the the Playoff without expansion.

And the only way I want expansion is if some games go away.

(05-16-2016 01:15 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 12:58 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Playoff sucks. The only problem with the BCS was that It did not do the match ups beyond 1 and 2. If 3 played 4 and so forth. The BCS would have been a better system.

I'm not going to say the playoff suck, but I don't think it has been a huge improvement over the BCS. With the previous system, there was at least a chance that with the right breaks a Boise St could make the final game. That will never happen the the Playoff without expansion.

And the only way I want expansion is if some games go away.

The BCS died so that the CFP could shift the focus of the debate to having an odd man out with the P5 system. Once we are a P4 the issue will be champs only. Guaranteed money sells the concept to college Presidents. The networks want a P4 consisting of the champions of 4 regional conferences because it maximizes the nations eyeballs as opposed to a single game between say Florida State and Auburn who are located less than 3 hours apart and only energize the 1 region. You may still wind up with Auburn and F.S.U. in the finals but if everyone has watched the 4 champs play in the semis they are more likely to tune in for the championship game.

The networks own the bowls (at least the vast majority of them) and they helped to move us to the CFP and then had a selection committee to do the dirty work of maximizing the eyeballs for the semi finals. T.C.U. and Baylor lost out to Ohio State because the Buckeyes had a national following. If Alabama had been in OSU's position against T.C.U. or Baylor they would have been left out for Alabama. Why? The same reason. The committee of so called distinguished people are just there to be the fall guy for obvious snubs which happen to drive advertising revenues. Four champs makes the public happy and negates the need of a committee, but it accomplishes the same thing that the networks wanted the committee for in the first place.

I think the playoff is a massive improvement over the old system...the further we get away from opinion polls, the better. Play it on the FIELD

The BCS was a necessary stepping stone but lasted too long. It took Alabama's 2011 mulligan to make everyone jump ship.

I think we could eventually expand to a 6 or 8 team playoff. The most important thing is to reward conference champs

I thought the BCS was fine. The playoffs with the selection committee just gives the disgruntled fan the names of the people they hate for leaving their school on the outside. I wouldn't want to go beyond 4 teams in the playoff as it would just diminish the value of the regular season.

(05-16-2016 03:46 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  I thought the BCS was fine. The playoffs with the selection committee just gives the disgruntled fan the names of the people they hate for leaving their school on the outside. I wouldn't want to go beyond 4 teams in the playoff as it would just diminish the value of the regular season.

If we move to a P4 there is no need to expand the playoffs. Expanding to semis within the conferences however would be a huge money maker in many many ways. Chief among the reasons is that it would keep far more fan bases energized right up to the final week or two and we could use places like Nashville, Kansas City, Jacksonville, New Orleans and Dallas as places to hold semis. Then we have the CCG in Atlanta.

The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

I think conferences will eventually get a semi-final game; at 16 4 pods, playing 3-2-2-2 and four champs, at 18, 3 champs + a wild card.

I think the playoffs will expand ($ talks) to eight. Eight, as others have said, keeps the narrative of "most important regular season in sports," going, and also allows for champions of P5/P4 + G5 champ (perhaps a play-in game for that after the conference championship?, especially if they stay at 10-12 teams and have no need of a semi due to the $10 million dollar cap), + 2/3 wild cards.

I also think that eventually, a permanent 13th game will be allowed with the requirement that schools that use it have a second bye week. This would also allow further expansion to occur so conferences could have 10 conference games if necessary, or for teams to 1) play a second OOC P4/5 team 2) get bowl eligible with a win against a G5 team. Coaches would like it.* (Bonus benefit: Oklahoma no longer would need to be in same conference as one of Texas and Oklahoma State. They would have the space in their schedule to have both rivals. Example: OK to SEC, Ok State to PAC, Texas to ACC.

Thus: 13 regular season games (or 14 now with the Hawaii exception) + 2 conference playoff games + 3 nat playoff games = a possibility of a 19-0 team.

Pros: More football! More teams involved! More money! *Bowl eligibility would have to be reevaluated, perhaps move to 7 wins (whether in regular season or in conference semis).

Cons: 19 games is alot on a college player - possibly/probably/definitely unrealistic. Scheduling - does this put the season into February? Lower value in regular season (for instance, Tennessee goes 12-1 losing to Alabama in regular season, loses to Alabama again in conference championship; now at 13-2, gets in as 8 seed and plays, yes Alabama again in quarterfinals. Of course you make it a rule that that can't happen, but then say Ohio State at the 2 seed has an advantage in playing the 8 seed. And no, you couldn't automatically make the G5 seed the 8 seed either.)

(05-16-2016 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 03:46 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  I thought the BCS was fine. The playoffs with the selection committee just gives the disgruntled fan the names of the people they hate for leaving their school on the outside. I wouldn't want to go beyond 4 teams in the playoff as it would just diminish the value of the regular season.

If we move to a P4 there is no need to expand the playoffs. Expanding to semis within the conferences however would be a huge money maker in many many ways. Chief among the reasons is that it would keep far more fan bases energized right up to the final week or two and we could use places like Nashville, Kansas City, Jacksonville, New Orleans and Dallas as places to hold semis. Then we have the CCG in Atlanta.

That's the thing. We really don't need a bunch of mega-conferences. What we need is many 10 team conferences without a championship game.

(05-16-2016 05:52 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 03:46 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  I thought the BCS was fine. The playoffs with the selection committee just gives the disgruntled fan the names of the people they hate for leaving their school on the outside. I wouldn't want to go beyond 4 teams in the playoff as it would just diminish the value of the regular season.

If we move to a P4 there is no need to expand the playoffs. Expanding to semis within the conferences however would be a huge money maker in many many ways. Chief among the reasons is that it would keep far more fan bases energized right up to the final week or two and we could use places like Nashville, Kansas City, Jacksonville, New Orleans and Dallas as places to hold semis. Then we have the CCG in Atlanta.

That's the thing. We really don't need a bunch of mega-conferences. What we need is many 10 team conferences without a championship game.

It was nice while it lasted but those days are gone, at least for the remainder of our lifetimes.

(05-16-2016 08:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 05:52 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 03:46 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  I thought the BCS was fine. The playoffs with the selection committee just gives the disgruntled fan the names of the people they hate for leaving their school on the outside. I wouldn't want to go beyond 4 teams in the playoff as it would just diminish the value of the regular season.

If we move to a P4 there is no need to expand the playoffs. Expanding to semis within the conferences however would be a huge money maker in many many ways. Chief among the reasons is that it would keep far more fan bases energized right up to the final week or two and we could use places like Nashville, Kansas City, Jacksonville, New Orleans and Dallas as places to hold semis. Then we have the CCG in Atlanta.

That's the thing. We really don't need a bunch of mega-conferences. What we need is many 10 team conferences without a championship game.

It was nice while it lasted but those days are gone, at least for the remainder of our lifetimes.

That may be true. But that's also what will kill college football. These mega-conferences aren't conferences at all. They are leagues.

(05-16-2016 05:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

flawlessly? It was flawed from the get-go

The representation of the major conferences was awful, because you can't fit 3+ teams into 2 slots

Deciding who the best 2 teams are is a failed process, because you never know who the best 2 teams are....it's relative, opinion-based

No one would have thought Ohio State was the best team in 2014...the BCS National Championship would have been FSU vs. Alabama. Both those teams lost in the semifinals

Football is best when it is actually PLAYED and decided on the field, none of this "Poll" crap. The best thing for college football has been a shift away from ancient opinion-based polls....

(05-17-2016 09:32 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 05:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

flawlessly? It was flawed from the get-go

The representation of the major conferences was awful, because you can't fit 3+ teams into 2 slots

Deciding who the best 2 teams are is a failed process, because you never know who the best 2 teams are....it's relative, opinion-based

No one would have thought Ohio State was the best team in 2014...the BCS National Championship would have been FSU vs. Alabama. Both those teams lost in the semifinals

Football is best when it is actually PLAYED and decided on the field, none of this "Poll" crap. The best thing for college football has been a shift away from ancient opinion-based polls....

k

(05-17-2016 09:32 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 05:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

flawlessly? It was flawed from the get-go

The representation of the major conferences was awful, because you can't fit 3+ teams into 2 slots

Deciding who the best 2 teams are is a failed process, because you never know who the best 2 teams are....it's relative, opinion-based

No one would have thought Ohio State was the best team in 2014...the BCS National Championship would have been FSU vs. Alabama. Both those teams lost in the semifinals

Football is best when it is actually PLAYED and decided on the field, none of this "Poll" crap. The best thing for college football has been a shift away from ancient opinion-based polls....

Actually I think the BCS would have picked the same 4 teams for a playoff as the committee did in each year. Not in the exact same order though. Your issue may be more about the number of teams included than the system used to pick them.

(05-17-2016 10:40 AM)reick Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 09:32 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 05:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

flawlessly? It was flawed from the get-go

The representation of the major conferences was awful, because you can't fit 3+ teams into 2 slots

Deciding who the best 2 teams are is a failed process, because you never know who the best 2 teams are....it's relative, opinion-based

No one would have thought Ohio State was the best team in 2014...the BCS National Championship would have been FSU vs. Alabama. Both those teams lost in the semifinals

Football is best when it is actually PLAYED and decided on the field, none of this "Poll" crap. The best thing for college football has been a shift away from ancient opinion-based polls....

Actually I think the BCS would have picked the same 4 teams for a playoff as the committee did in each year. Not in the exact same order though. Your issue may be more about the number of teams included than the system used to pick them.

It goes back to the musical chairs analogy. If you add another game you get another outcome. That doesn't make the previous outcome invalid.

If we add yet another game we are likely to get yet another outcome.

His argument is fundamentally flawed.

(05-17-2016 10:43 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 10:40 AM)reick Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 09:32 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 05:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

flawlessly? It was flawed from the get-go

The representation of the major conferences was awful, because you can't fit 3+ teams into 2 slots

Deciding who the best 2 teams are is a failed process, because you never know who the best 2 teams are....it's relative, opinion-based

No one would have thought Ohio State was the best team in 2014...the BCS National Championship would have been FSU vs. Alabama. Both those teams lost in the semifinals

Football is best when it is actually PLAYED and decided on the field, none of this "Poll" crap. The best thing for college football has been a shift away from ancient opinion-based polls....

Actually I think the BCS would have picked the same 4 teams for a playoff as the committee did in each year. Not in the exact same order though. Your issue may be more about the number of teams included than the system used to pick them.

It goes back to the musical chairs analogy. If you add another game you get another outcome. That doesn't make the previous outcome invalid.

If we add yet another game we are likely to get yet another outcome.

His argument is fundamentally flawed.

That's fair, but there is merit to the notion that all major conference champions should be included. Once you've done that then there's no guessing as to which champion is better than the others.

I don't want a huge playoff or anything like that, but I think it's a measurable improvement over the BCS system if for no more reason than it's hard to empirically state that one conference is better than another due to the lack of crossover games.

(05-17-2016 11:13 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 10:43 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 10:40 AM)reick Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 09:32 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 05:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

flawlessly? It was flawed from the get-go

The representation of the major conferences was awful, because you can't fit 3+ teams into 2 slots

Deciding who the best 2 teams are is a failed process, because you never know who the best 2 teams are....it's relative, opinion-based

No one would have thought Ohio State was the best team in 2014...the BCS National Championship would have been FSU vs. Alabama. Both those teams lost in the semifinals

Football is best when it is actually PLAYED and decided on the field, none of this "Poll" crap. The best thing for college football has been a shift away from ancient opinion-based polls....

Actually I think the BCS would have picked the same 4 teams for a playoff as the committee did in each year. Not in the exact same order though. Your issue may be more about the number of teams included than the system used to pick them.

It goes back to the musical chairs analogy. If you add another game you get another outcome. That doesn't make the previous outcome invalid.

If we add yet another game we are likely to get yet another outcome.

His argument is fundamentally flawed.

That's fair, but there is merit to the notion that all major conference champions should be included. Once you've done that then there's no guessing as to which champion is better than the others.

I don't want a huge playoff or anything like that, but I think it's a measurable improvement over the BCS system if for no more reason than it's hard to empirically state that one conference is better than another due to the lack of crossover games.

In theory I agree with you but in practice I don't.

There will inevitably come a year when a completely undeserving squad comes along to take their place in such a playoff.

What sounds great on paper does not always translate into fairness or equity in practice.

There are plenty of examples over the past few years where teams were placed in bowls they had no place really being in since they were conference champions.

I liked the BCS formula but not for picking 2 teams to play for the NC. I think Tide hit it right on the head, there weren't enough crossover games. While most years there was a clear #1, #2-5 was still muddy. With more crossover games I think the formula would've worked well. I would be ok with using it to pick the 4 teams for the CFP instead of the committee. Maybe let the committee use the BCS formula as one of their metrics?

I like the idea of the expanded conference championships. In a champs only model it expands the playoffs to at least 16 while still keeping the 4 team CFP model. I would like to see the top G5 champ included in some way. Take the top 4 ranked conference champs?

I think the new model actually makes it easier for a G5 champ to get a shot at the title. It's easier to make the top 4 than top 2. Assuming of course that the committee won't discriminate against a G5 champ.