(11-07-2016 04:42 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 04:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  why no more than 3 in the same conference. Sorry but if a conference has 4 top 10 teams, they deserve to have 4 teams in a 12 team playoff.

That would destroy college football's regular season. This is why the CFP is only at 4 teams.

That makes no sense to me. Right now----the regular season for 6 of the 10 FBS conferences is essentially meaningless. Make ALL the P5 champs AQ and the top G5 AQ for the playoff. Throw in 2 wildcards to give feasible access to Indys or deserving runner ups---and you have a perfect formula that INCREASES the importance of every conference race.

(11-07-2016 05:44 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The P5 will never agree to turn the CFBPO into the NCAAT

I'm all for expanding the playoff to 8 but still say no to autobids. The 8 best teams should play, not an 8-4 team that's in just because they lucked into their conferences championship. Save that crap for March Madness.

Sure. lol....Im fine with that if the committee is made up of 11 G5 members and 1 P5 member. Otherwise, its just the same rigged sham.

(11-07-2016 07:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 04:42 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 04:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  why no more than 3 in the same conference. Sorry but if a conference has 4 top 10 teams, they deserve to have 4 teams in a 12 team playoff.

That would destroy college football's regular season. This is why the CFP is only at 4 teams.

That makes no sense to me. Right now----the regular season for 6 of the 10 FBS conferences is essentially meaningless. Make ALL the P5 champs AQ and the top G5 AQ for the playoff. Throw in 2 wildcards to give feasible access to Indys or deserving runner ups---and you have a perfect formula that INCREASES the importance of every conference race.

I agree with you. I was replying to the comment about a system that allows 3 or more teams from the same conference. THAT would ruin the regular season, as divisional and conference races and win-or-stay-home type games could be rendered essentially meaningless, vis-a-vis the CFP.

Get the "best" and the "most-deserving" by allowing AQs with some wild cards.

(11-07-2016 07:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 03:40 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  5 Power 5 champs
1 G5 champ
2 wild cards

^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^

This is a playoff format that provides access to all. This is a format that doesn't cheapen the regular season because EVERY conference race is important. This is a format that is neither too big nor too small. This is a format that could literally last 100 years without significant change.

The only formula that "doesn't cheapen the regular season because EVERY conference race is important" would be a ten team playoff with the 10 conference champions. But that isn't happening --- even though it should. Any team that can't be bothered to win their conference doesn't deserve to be national championship either.

(11-07-2016 07:56 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 07:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 04:42 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 04:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  why no more than 3 in the same conference. Sorry but if a conference has 4 top 10 teams, they deserve to have 4 teams in a 12 team playoff.

That would destroy college football's regular season. This is why the CFP is only at 4 teams.

That makes no sense to me. Right now----the regular season for 6 of the 10 FBS conferences is essentially meaningless. Make ALL the P5 champs AQ and the top G5 AQ for the playoff. Throw in 2 wildcards to give feasible access to Indys or deserving runner ups---and you have a perfect formula that INCREASES the importance of every conference race.

I agree with you. I was replying to the comment about a system that allows 3 or more teams from the same conference. THAT would ruin the regular season, as divisional and conference races and win-or-stay-home type games could be rendered essentially meaningless, vis-a-vis the CFP.

that's the crap that the traditionalists have said all the time before the playoff- and it just didn't happen.

Quote:The NY6 bowls with autobids are not the playoffs. Those bowls made agreements with the conferences they wanted.

True, but it's the "earned" 6 big-tier bowls, just like you "earn" a spot in the playoffs. So you can "earn" a spot, with auto-bids, into the BIG payout NY6 bowls for 12 teams -- but not in a playoff for 12 teams? I don't see how one situation makes it more fair than the other. Teams would be equally striving to get into either of those Top 12 slot situations. Just two different ways things play out for said Top 12 Game Slot situations.

(11-07-2016 06:15 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 05:47 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  4 team playoff ensures at least one P5 team is left out, and we are still complaining about inclusivity?

I would be a proponent of 8 teams if they got rid of CCGs and just played out the 12 game season without an extra game and without declaring a pointless regular season champion. An 8 team playoff following CCGs is stupid because what's the point of winning a division and being penalized to win the CCG if the runner up in your division is already in the top 8? It would make sense for UL to play the extra game instead of Clemson if anything. It doesn't work.

Get rid of CCG's and play the 8 team playoff that weekend. Pretty simple.

Look at the Iowa MSU game last year as the template for a 4/5... and add three more similar games of equal stature that very day.

That's on the conferences and no one else. No one made it a rule that they had to expand to be more financially lucrative, try to improve their stock or pretend they're the SEC. These conferences would be best served fragmenting to roughly their traditional lineups, a la the WAC-16 split into the MWC.

If that's the mentality then the P4 may as well poach the Big 12, go to a P4. That's your eight team playoff with CCG as your official QF round. That also means anyone not making the realignment cut is relegated to a lower sub division. That's even worse, but that's what you'd be looking at.

Right now the Big 12 and the AAC is the glue holding the FBS as it is currently constituted. Big 12 dies and it's over for the G5 title hopes.

(11-07-2016 05:23 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 03:50 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 03:40 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  5 Power 5 champs
1 G5 champ
2 wild cards

that would be...

Seed the playoffs as:
1. Alabama (SEC Champ)
2. Clemson (ACC Champ)
3. Michigan (B1G Champ)
4. Washington (PAC 12 Champ)
5. West Virginia (Big XII Champ)
6. Western Michigan (MAC Champ)
7. Louisville
8. Ohio State

DEC 10:
Ohio State @ Alabama
Louisville @ Clemson
Western Michigan @ Michigan
West Virginia @ Washington

This looks awesome too!! How bout that game in Ann Arbor! Great games all around

This setup is not bad, but agree seeding should be based on rankings after all 8 teams are picked, and can be tweaked to avoid rematch.

1. BAMA
2. CLEM
3. MICH
4. WASH
5. LOU
6. WV
7. OHIO ST (drops from #6 to avoid rematch)
8. WMU

The most important aspect IMO is to emphasize CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS and get away from "poll-think" where you are relying on polls, even committee polls to decide seeding

As long as TOP 4 CONFERENCE CHAMPS are hosting the quarterfinals, I think you can be free with whoever the next 4 teams are...as long as you hold the requirement of at least including 1 G5

The biggest problem with college football IMO is the lack of clear defined rules as to what you have to do to make the playoff. Relying on the conference championship games to help provide the top 4 expands the playoff informally as well

(11-07-2016 03:33 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 03:14 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  On the flip side, about half of D-I has basically no access to the national title.

No access?

How do you come to this conclusion? There are no autobids for anyone therefore nobody is guranteed access nor denied it.

Do you disagree that if UH had run the table they'd be left out? I don't.

The current system rewards good teams who play and win against tough schedules and win their conference

How is that unfair especially given how disparate the level of talent and commitment is in CFB compared to pretty much every other sport?

Mountain, if every ooc was either a home/away or true neutral site, and if every team played no more than 6 home games... Then yeah, I'd agree that every team has a shot.

But when some teams are relegated to a G5 conference then penalized for playing in it... When the only realistic way for them to play even 4 P5 teams is to have 8 road and only 4 home games... No one should ever deny how much the current system is slanted in favor of the P5.


Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

Let's see... 10 conferences in FBS , so there would be 10 conference champions. Right ok
So my be the 10 champs would get a bye and the next highest teams in AP would play and so on in a real play off
Now think about this for a moment, if this were the case I can see where some power teams would want to join a G5 conference so they could win that con easy... Right ok
So now these power teams would want to do this as soon as possible becouse as a few years go bye the whole recruiting structure would change
This what I want to see happen