(12-01-2016 03:36 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Why do we need conference championship games? After an 8 or 9 game schedule a dominate team stands out. Why do they need to take on a less deserving team for the championship? Who would be a more deserving champ in the SEC this year, Florida or Alabama? Would VT be a more deserving ACC champ than Clemson? No. These games can only cost a deserving team a shot at the CFP & cause chaos. Look at the B1G, their best team isn't even playing for the championship. I would rather turn championship weekend into a play in weekend for the top 8 teams. These games would mean more than CCG & would be better content than these usually lopsided CCG's. These games would be more valuable to TV & likely bring in more $ to the conferences than their CCG. The winners move on to the CFP & the losers get put into the bowl pool.

CCG were conceived before the CFP as a money making venture for conferences and another data point when newspapers decided who was #1. The SEC just celebrated the Silver Anniversary of their CCG and it unfortunately feels obsolete.

That said, I don't think their is a reasonable argument for expansion because in no way does more teams provide adequately resolve who is the best team at the FBS. IMO, the best post season ever conceived was MLB's 154 game model. Play the season and the winners of the respective pennants played in the Fall Classic.

It was flawed only in that it didn't maximize entertainment value throughout the season. So the league divisions and eventually wild cards. That is what expanding the CFP would be IMO; a move to increase entertainment, not to actually find the true champion.

A 8 team playoff will only lead to conferences breaking apart. If anyone and everyone can get in. Then why be in these long distance conferences? If Arkansas can get paid about the same and be in the SWC. Then why wouldn't we? It's an easier path to a championship. If Arkansas was in the Big 12 currently. We would have the 3rd best recruiting class in the conference. Right now we are like 9th in the SEC.

(12-04-2016 07:46 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-01-2016 03:36 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Why do we need conference championship games? After an 8 or 9 game schedule a dominate team stands out. Why do they need to take on a less deserving team for the championship? Who would be a more deserving champ in the SEC this year, Florida or Alabama? Would VT be a more deserving ACC champ than Clemson? No. These games can only cost a deserving team a shot at the CFP & cause chaos. Look at the B1G, their best team isn't even playing for the championship. I would rather turn championship weekend into a play in weekend for the top 8 teams. These games would mean more than CCG & would be better content than these usually lopsided CCG's. These games would be more valuable to TV & likely bring in more $ to the conferences than their CCG. The winners move on to the CFP & the losers get put into the bowl pool.

CCG were conceived before the CFP as a money making venture for conferences and another data point when newspapers decided who was #1. The SEC just celebrated the Silver Anniversary of their CCG and it unfortunately feels obsolete.

That said, I don't think their is a reasonable argument for expansion because in no way does more teams provide adequately resolve who is the best team at the FBS. IMO, the best post season ever conceived was MLB's 154 game model. Play the season and the winners of the respective pennants played in the Fall Classic.

It was flawed only in that it didn't maximize entertainment value throughout the season. So the league divisions and eventually wild cards. That is what expanding the CFP would be IMO; a move to increase entertainment, not to actually find the true champion.

CCG are only about making $ & you could argue that this year has shown that they aren't worth very much. Why crown a champ after 1 game while ignoring the other 8-9 games that they already played? We didn't need Alabama to blow out Florida to know that they are the best in the SEC. VT already had a couple conference loses, Clemson was the most deserving in the ACC. The B1G would have been better off having a rematch between Ohio State & Penn State.

The limited number of games played in college football, especially OOC, makes it difficult to really know how the conferences stack up against each other. The main reason for expansion of the playoffs would be to remove a little more of the beauty pageant aspect of football. After 12 games enough cream usually rises to the top to make a good educated guess as to who the better teams are but with the various SOS & such still makes it difficult. We need to find a way to have the top teams in each conference to play each other before the playoffs. That was the thought behind my suggestion.

(12-05-2016 10:13 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  CCG are only about making $ & you could argue that this year has shown that they aren't worth very much. Why crown a champ after 1 game while ignoring the other 8-9 games that they already played? We didn't need Alabama to blow out Florida to know that they are the best in the SEC. VT already had a couple conference loses, Clemson was the most deserving in the ACC. The B1G would have been better off having a rematch between Ohio State & Penn State.

The limited number of games played in college football, especially OOC, makes it difficult to really know how the conferences stack up against each other. The main reason for expansion of the playoffs would be to remove a little more of the beauty pageant aspect of football. After 12 games enough cream usually rises to the top to make a good educated guess as to who the better teams are but with the various SOS & such still makes it difficult. We need to find a way to have the top teams in each conference to play each other before the playoffs. That was the thought behind my suggestion.

Don't get me wrong Len, I see you working. But what no one acknowledges is that a playoff are just as arbitrary a way to determine a champ as the polls. Your suggestion that Bama didn't need to play Florida is spot on. But you know in a 8 team field the Tide would be matched up with WMU. Why does that contest need to be played? Ultimately, there are too many teams in a sports with too few available games to really determine the best IMO.

(12-05-2016 06:27 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 10:13 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  CCG are only about making $ & you could argue that this year has shown that they aren't worth very much. Why crown a champ after 1 game while ignoring the other 8-9 games that they already played? We didn't need Alabama to blow out Florida to know that they are the best in the SEC. VT already had a couple conference loses, Clemson was the most deserving in the ACC. The B1G would have been better off having a rematch between Ohio State & Penn State.

The limited number of games played in college football, especially OOC, makes it difficult to really know how the conferences stack up against each other. The main reason for expansion of the playoffs would be to remove a little more of the beauty pageant aspect of football. After 12 games enough cream usually rises to the top to make a good educated guess as to who the better teams are but with the various SOS & such still makes it difficult. We need to find a way to have the top teams in each conference to play each other before the playoffs. That was the thought behind my suggestion.

Don't get me wrong Len, I see you working. But what no one acknowledges is that a playoff are just as arbitrary a way to determine a champ as the polls. Your suggestion that Bama didn't need to play Florida is spot on. But you know in a 8 team field the Tide would be matched up with WMU. Why does that contest need to be played? Ultimately, there are too many teams in a sports with too few available games to really determine the best IMO.

4 conferences, 4 conference champs playing it off, may not be the best way to determine a champion, but it is miles ahead of the rest of the plans.

(12-05-2016 07:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 06:27 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 10:13 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  CCG are only about making $ & you could argue that this year has shown that they aren't worth very much. Why crown a champ after 1 game while ignoring the other 8-9 games that they already played? We didn't need Alabama to blow out Florida to know that they are the best in the SEC. VT already had a couple conference loses, Clemson was the most deserving in the ACC. The B1G would have been better off having a rematch between Ohio State & Penn State.

The limited number of games played in college football, especially OOC, makes it difficult to really know how the conferences stack up against each other. The main reason for expansion of the playoffs would be to remove a little more of the beauty pageant aspect of football. After 12 games enough cream usually rises to the top to make a good educated guess as to who the better teams are but with the various SOS & such still makes it difficult. We need to find a way to have the top teams in each conference to play each other before the playoffs. That was the thought behind my suggestion.

Don't get me wrong Len, I see you working. But what no one acknowledges is that a playoff are just as arbitrary a way to determine a champ as the polls. Your suggestion that Bama didn't need to play Florida is spot on. But you know in a 8 team field the Tide would be matched up with WMU. Why does that contest need to be played? Ultimately, there are too many teams in a sports with too few available games to really determine the best IMO.

4 conferences, 4 conference champs playing it off, may not be the best way to determine a champion, but it is miles ahead of the rest of the plans.

I'm with you there JR especially if you add SF's to the CC. It would make it a cleaner process. I still like having the teams win it on the field instead of in the polls even if we can't undoubtedly pick the best 4. There isn't a perfect system. Even though I think it could be better, I agree with the decisions that the CFPC has made up to this point.

(12-04-2016 08:12 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-01-2016 01:44 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've mentioned it before and I do think it will eventually happen, but I want to break down in greater detail why this should work and why it makes other beneficial alterations more plausible as well.

1. 8 Teams gives a chance to every school that could conceivably argue it deserves a shot to make a national playoff.

How so? Because it gives you room to include the 5 conference champions plus a few really strong wildcard teams. Whether there remain 5 Power conferences or we eventually shrink down to 4, there will always be an argument that a conference title shouldn't trump the "eye test," the idea that certain teams from certain conferences are just as deserving if not more so than the actual winner of another league.

No matter how large the playoff grows, there will always be debate on who gets in and who is left out. That's the nature of the beast. It was true when there were only 2 teams in the BCS Championship and it's true now that 4 get a shot. The arguments are less compelling now that more teams get in, but I believe they are compelling enough to expand. With 8, there's no reason to ever expand the playoff again for the sake of access. 8 does the trick because while there are too many major college football programs to carefully and accurately compare resumes, the number 8 allows representatives from all regions and all conferences. It's a true national playoff with no room for complaints from those who cry favoritism.

Sure, there will still be debate about who the best 8 are. Again, it's the nature of the beast, but never again will anyone be able to argue that the process favors some leagues and not others. Never again will anyone be able to argue that a potentially deserving team was left out as was the case in the first two years with schools like TCU, Baylor, and Stanford.

I believe that in a vacuum, it is a better system. But what happens when the vacuum is removed? Is it still beneficial in other areas?

2. More money for 8 teams/7 games than 4 teams/3 games.

This is a no brainer. The CFP will be significantly more valuable with the inclusion of additional schools. I believe this path of revenue enhancement is better than others. I'll explain why as we continue.

3. 8 teams allows for a better balance between postseason and regular season.

What do I mean by that? Think about this. The postseason has become less intriguing over the years for a few reasons. There are a lot more bowls now and that makes the events less special. The over indulgence in bowl games has unfortunately altered how the selection process works. The leagues now have tie-ins with the same sites over and over. Invariably, the same teams seem to meet again and again. Finally, to put it bluntly, some of these locales are less than stellar tourist destinations. Put it all together and the bowl season just doesn't mean as much as it used to.

There are ways to solve this though. The first is obvious. By putting more teams into the playoff, there is inherently greater interest for more postseason games. Secondly, a new selection process for bowl games is in order. We also need the leagues to come together, kick out the bowl committees, and jointly own the games in order to maximize revenue and maximize the interest and uniqueness of match-ups. That's really another topic so I won't go too deeply into that right now.

The other way to solve this problem is, fortuitously, the same solution for other conundrums. Simply put, college football needs 10 game conference schedules. Think about it this way. More conference games removes most of the complaints from the expansion era as schools and rivals can play each other more often. In addition...5 home and 5 away...better competitive balance and more attractive home schedules for fans who are sick of watching cupcakes. Also, greater revenue for the conferences as they keep more of their money in house. For example, 10 league games will be worth more to the SEC than 8. More still, while some schools like to play OOC rivals and still need room on their schedules to do so, other schools will also like to have room to play a decent OOC opponent. There's bound to be one cupcake per school still as the guaranteed additional home game helps out revenue.

But let's think deeper about this. If the leagues play 10 conference games with the conference champ guaranteed a spot in the playoff and if the playoff includes 8 teams then there's no need to beef up your OOC resume. Why is that a good thing? Because we're at a point where expansion is about to have diminishing returns. We're at a point where leagues are also on the verge of growing too large so as to complicate the league politics. Outside of the Big 12, there isn't a league out there that needs to get bigger. So don't...

Instead, play more league games to increase revenue internally and make the conference championship a more balanced affair by playing more crossover games, increase revenue from the post season by growing the playoff and making other bowl games more unique and attractive...

The postseason becomes special again because it's basically the only time you play OOC foes. The match-ups are more unique because of league cooperation and therefore making a bowl becomes a true reward rather than just an add-on game for networks. Frankly, I'd rather play more conference games anyway and allow the post season to be the true measure of conference pride and strength. If everyone essentially plays all their OOC games at the same time of year then there's no special advantage by opening up with a less experienced team. Everybody's on the same level by that point.

4. The 8 team playoff gives greater flexibility as opposed to 4 team conference semi-finals.

I really don't mind the idea of conference semi-finals, but you really need 18 teams to pull it off. You need 3 solid divisions otherwise the match-ups are bound to include unworthy participants and unnecessary rematches. Think in terms of what the Big 12 is about to do...playing a CCG for the sake of doing it and guaranteeing a rematch perhaps even 1 or 2 weeks after the initial meeting.

What my argument really hinges on is the fact that, the more I think about it, 16 is probably the limit of expansion. Anything beyond that is really pushing the envelope on revenue. It would be much easier to expand revenue by re-imagining the post season rather than adding a couple of extra games to the regular season slate.

Frankly, I think the national playoff is a much more intriguing idea for TV than conference semi-finals. I think proportionally, more people will watch and the networks will pay more for that sort of inventory.

That and playing more regional games(more conference games) would be a better way to engage more fans and create more intrigue to the conference race as opposed to expanding ever larger and having a conference playoff.

-----------------------------------------

Well, that's basically every tenant of my argument. What do you think?

Champions only.
We must first reduce the P5 to a P4. The conference can orchestrate the semi finals between the three division winners and a wild card entry to produce a champion.
Ever expanding tournaments cheapen the regular season.

When only the champion of the ACC basketball tournament made it into the NCAA tournament, it made that tournament the premiere sports event in the country.

I am all for champions only in a P4 situation and I hope it gets there. I just wish the model would be 72 teams or even 80 teams. The NCAA is not like the NFL and if we cut out a lot of the teams I think they will see diminishing returns for a couple of reasons. First of all some fan bases will tune out if their teams are not included and will just become NFL fans. Secondly if we went to the extreme of cutting it down to 32 like some even suggest, some of the blue blood fan bases would get tired of 6-7 win seasons or even worse.

If we go to a P4 I like the idea of things being decided by conference playoffs football and basketball. Do away with the useless bowl system and let a similar number of teams compete for conference playoffs as they do in the NFL. The NFL lets 6/16 or 37.5% in the playoffs. So go to 6 in a 64 team P4 or even 8 if we got to 80. If they complain its too many games be creative leave the last week of the season a floating game where they start the conference playoffs, if teams don't make the playoffs they get a fun conference matchup game that week. If they have to pool the gate receipts that week and split them among conference members.

Same for basketball. I don't mind if they cut it off at 6 per league if there are 16 teams, wouldn't even mind double elimination for the conference playoffs for basketball and the Final Four which would be 4 P4 champions.

Even in today's climate for college football. I don't even mind champions only if they made it a 6 team playoff now with the 6th spot going to the highest rated G5 team, they could even do away with G5 conference championship games and let them replace that with a game between the highest 2 rated G5 teams. Or I wouldn't mind elimintating bowls now with this setup. Big 12 & PAC only have 4 teams play for conference champion, B1G, SEC & ACC have 6 teams play for conference championship. If this was the case 4 G5 teams could have a playoff for the 1 spot.

Post-season exhibition games known as bowl games are pointless.

To further my point about scrapping bowls now in favor of conference playoffs with approximately 37.5% of teams making each leagues playoff wouldn't the following conference playoffs listed below with only conference champions going to the CFP be a lot more fun than the bowl games which are played way after the season, sloppy football a lot of times and meaningless?

ACC: Clemson, Louisville, FSU, Va. Tech, NC & Miami or Pitt
B1G: PSU, OSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa & Nebraska
Big 12: OU, OSU, WVU & KSU
PAC: Washington, WSU, Colorado & USC
SEC: Bama, UF, AU, LSU, & 3 of A&M, UT, Ga. or UK
G5(for the 6th spot): Western Michigan, SDSU or BSU(MWC rep), Temple, Ark St. -(this could be reduce to 2 but why not let 4 conference champs play for the 6th spot in the playoffs, I would let BYU qualify through this but not ND. ND could join a P5 conference in a heartbeat BYU can't. If the ACC wants to give access to their league playoffs go ahead.

If we did this no polls or human choices need to be made, except possibly for seeding of conference champions which I could live with. Everybody plays their way in. The B1G conference playoffs would be off the charts this year. The ACC a really good one and the PAC could be interesting. Granted SEC & Big 12 are down overall, but who wants to watch the down teams this year in meaningless bowl games anyway?

So how long are these playoffs supposed to be? , and will the players be compensated?