Here's how I would do it.

8-team playoff. Five P5 conference champs get automatic bids, as does the highest ranked G5 champ. Then you have two at large bids.

So with this set of rankings we'd have

Auto bids
SEC: 1 Alabama
B1G: 5 Penn State
ACC: 2 Clemson
Pac-12: 4 Washington
Big XII: 7 Oklahoma
G5: 15 WMU

At-large
3 Ohio State
6 Michigan

You do it this way so that the regular season and conference championships still matter, but you provide a way for someone like Ohio State that might be the better team although they had 1 bad game to still have a shot.

(12-04-2016 09:52 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 10:46 PM)MUther Wrote:  I agree and disagree. All the teams have a loss. Should a team be punished because their loss is to a division foe instead of an OOC or cross divisional opponent that doesn't affect their division standings? I don't see how it matters. But I do think it's a lot easier to drop a game vs a divisional rival than an OOC opponent if you're a top 4 team in the country. I'm not a fan of either school but realistically they are the best teams available.

Yes, they should be punished.. if you're not the best team in your conference... you should NOT be eligible to be the best team in the nation.

I dont' care if you're 11-1 and the conference champion is 10-2... you blew it for your conference.

So if you get an at-large in the NCAA tournament and win the whole thing you are not the national champion. Good to know.

(12-05-2016 01:10 AM)techdawg28 Wrote:  Here's how I would do it.

8-team playoff. Five P5 conference champs get automatic bids, as does the highest ranked G5 champ. Then you have two at large bids.

So with this set of rankings we'd have

Auto bids
SEC: 1 Alabama
B1G: 5 Penn State
ACC: 2 Clemson
Pac-12: 4 Washington
Big XII: 7 Oklahoma
G5: 15 WMU

At-large
3 Ohio State
6 Michigan

You do it this way so that the regular season and conference championships still matter, but you provide a way for someone like Ohio State that might be the better team although they had 1 bad game to still have a shot.

In another system things would be different. As the system currently is they have it right this year, imo. I don't like the way it is, but I understand and agree with the reasoning within the current restrictions.

There is a major disconnect between conference champion and best team in the conference... Some of the time those teams are not the same. In this case I don't believe so. Ohio State has 1 loss in conference and lost the tie breaker (head to head) to send PSU to the title game. PSU won the conference but if that OSU PSU matchup would have been at Ohio State you can definantly make an argument that they would win that. In the end... A tie sent PSU to the title game and they won that game. PSU has 2 losses, OSU has 1. One of PSU's losses is to Michigan by 39 and the other to barely ranked Pitt. Ohio State has wins over Big12 champ Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nebraska... That's life. OSU has the better resume than PSU... Even if PSU is the conference champion. The Massey Composite polls agree with that as well.

Bad division champions upset good division champions all the time... It's one game. Anything can happen. In 2008 12-0 Ball State lost to 6-6 Buffalo in the MACC game. Was UB better 9 out of 10 times? Heck no! But they were conference champions.

I don't think an injustice was done to any team. You can't lose 2 games and be eligible for a national title... You can't lose by 39 and be eligible for a national title.

Putting the undefeated team at 1, and the 3 contenders with 1 loss behind them makes sense.

(12-05-2016 04:35 AM)MUther Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 09:52 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 10:46 PM)MUther Wrote:  I agree and disagree. All the teams have a loss. Should a team be punished because their loss is to a division foe instead of an OOC or cross divisional opponent that doesn't affect their division standings? I don't see how it matters. But I do think it's a lot easier to drop a game vs a divisional rival than an OOC opponent if you're a top 4 team in the country. I'm not a fan of either school but realistically they are the best teams available.

Yes, they should be punished.. if you're not the best team in your conference... you should NOT be eligible to be the best team in the nation.

I dont' care if you're 11-1 and the conference champion is 10-2... you blew it for your conference.

So if you get an at-large in the NCAA tournament and win the whole thing you are not the national champion. Good to know.

Basketball is entirely different kettle of fish, MU and to compare the two is disingenuous.

College football set up this craptastic "best 4" teams in the country, when you know and I know that's not what it is.

It's the "best 4 teams that can bring us the $$$".

(12-05-2016 09:22 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 04:35 AM)MUther Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 09:52 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 10:46 PM)MUther Wrote:  I agree and disagree. All the teams have a loss. Should a team be punished because their loss is to a division foe instead of an OOC or cross divisional opponent that doesn't affect their division standings? I don't see how it matters. But I do think it's a lot easier to drop a game vs a divisional rival than an OOC opponent if you're a top 4 team in the country. I'm not a fan of either school but realistically they are the best teams available.

Yes, they should be punished.. if you're not the best team in your conference... you should NOT be eligible to be the best team in the nation.

I dont' care if you're 11-1 and the conference champion is 10-2... you blew it for your conference.

So if you get an at-large in the NCAA tournament and win the whole thing you are not the national champion. Good to know.

Basketball is entirely different kettle of fish, MU and to compare the two is disingenuous.

College football set up this craptastic "best 4" teams in the country, when you know and I know that's not what it is.

It's the "best 4 teams that can bring us the $$$".

And you don't honestly think that Penn St is better than Ohio State because they beat them in one game this year. I still contend that under the current system, which I agree sucks, they got it right with the top 4 teams. And, again, I'm not a fan of any of them. I'm being objective.

Do you think WKU was better than Marshall in 2014? They beat us by 1 point in OT. We crushed many teams they lost to that year, we had our 1700 yard running back out with injury for that game, we won the conference championship vs Tech and dominated the MAC Champion NIU in a bowl by twice their score. This is a valid comparison. They were better for that game, but they were not the better team that year.

In 2015, had we beat WKU we would have been the east division champion with a loss to MTSU. But WKU would still have been the better team that year if we'd won.

(12-03-2016 09:54 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  Can't even win their division in their conference but can play for a "national" championship. It's a JOKE. I was the BCS's biggest opponent from its inception and while I predicted and cheered it's demise, it's obvious college football still has a long way to go until their is a valid national championship.

They're better be on eventually. I can't stand the way there (the committee) handled this situation. There decision to completely disregard the conference championship by saying Ohio State and Penn State weren't being considered head to head for entry, nevermind the fact they play in the same division, is a sham.

The fact that Penn State still has a team at all is an abomination.

(12-03-2016 10:57 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  Well, I have news for you. Here's the link to what the old BCS rankings would have been, and aside from #3 and #4 being flipped, it's virtually the exact same ranking, and with WMU at #11, they would have qualified for a BCS bowl under the rules at the end of the BCS.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday....ent=safari

Ohio State beat the Big 12 champion, the Big 10 champion (assuming Wisconsin holds), and the #4/5 team for what was a play-in rivalry game. No team has a better resume that the Buckeyes. If you take them out of the playoffs, then the next three in line that are currently out are Wisconsin, Michigan, and Oklahoma - and literally all three lost to Ohio State. So head to head is now not important?

I think CFP has it right that Ohio State is #2, it's not their fault that the Big Ten fell out in such a way that it didn't have its best time in the title game.

If a team can't win its conference then it doesn't deserve to play for a national championship. If they want teams like Ohio State in it then do away with conferences and have a committee determine yearly schedules and then pick the four best teams.

Better yet, remove most of the subjectivity. Take the ten conference champions. Rate the conferences from 1 to 10, the only subjective part. Give the champions of the top four rated conferences a first round bye. In the second round, give the team from the top rated conference a bye. Then have a final four. Screw the politics!

I don't appreciate the members ot the committee talking out of both sides of their mouth. Concerning OSU, on one hand they say earlier losses do not count as heavily, then they point out how important beating Okla was for the Buckeyes. Okla was a totally different team in Dec than when OSU played them in Sept., never mind the double talk.

(12-05-2016 01:10 AM)techdawg28 Wrote:  Here's how I would do it.

8-team playoff. Five P5 conference champs get automatic bids, as does the highest ranked G5 champ. Then you have two at large bids.

So with this set of rankings we'd have

Auto bids
SEC: 1 Alabama
B1G: 5 Penn State
ACC: 2 Clemson
Pac-12: 4 Washington
Big XII: 7 Oklahoma
G5: 15 WMU

At-large
3 Ohio State
6 Michigan

You do it this way so that the regular season and conference championships still matter, but you provide a way for someone like Ohio State that might be the better team although they had 1 bad game to still have a shot.

This is the best way to do it in my opinion. Right now, the semifinals are on Dec 31st. Most of the conference championship games were on Dec 3rd. Final exams are typically the week ending Friday the 9th or the 16th. It would be hard to fit in the quarterfinals in December.

Maybe Quarters on Dec 31st, Semis on Jan 9th, and championship two weeks (or maybe just 1.5 weeks?) later?

(12-08-2016 02:32 PM)jay2000 Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 01:10 AM)techdawg28 Wrote:  Here's how I would do it.

8-team playoff. Five P5 conference champs get automatic bids, as does the highest ranked G5 champ. Then you have two at large bids.

So with this set of rankings we'd have

Auto bids
SEC: 1 Alabama
B1G: 5 Penn State
ACC: 2 Clemson
Pac-12: 4 Washington
Big XII: 7 Oklahoma
G5: 15 WMU

At-large
3 Ohio State
6 Michigan

You do it this way so that the regular season and conference championships still matter, but you provide a way for someone like Ohio State that might be the better team although they had 1 bad game to still have a shot.

This is the best way to do it in my opinion. Right now, the semifinals are on Dec 31st. Most of the conference championship games were on Dec 3rd. Final exams are typically the week ending Friday the 9th or the 16th. It would be hard to fit in the quarterfinals in December.

Maybe Quarters on Dec 31st, Semis on Jan 9th, and championship two weeks (or maybe just 1.5 weeks?) later?

I'd prefer a 10-team playoff consisting of the ten conference champs. Earn it on the field, not in the minds of a selection committee. The only committee (or use a formula) necessary would be one to rate the ten conferences at the end of the regular season. Each conference champ would then receive a seed equivalent to its conference rating. This would prevent using overall record to allow a strong team from a weak conference getting the #1 seed by virtue of going undefeated against a weak schedule.

1st Round
Seeds #1–#4 — bye (should appease the P5 as this would usually be all P5 teams)
#5 hosts #10
#6 hosts #9
#7 hosts #8

2nd Round
#1 bye
#2 hosts lowest remaining seed
#3 hosts middle remaining seed
#4 hosts highest remaining seed

3rd and 4th Rounds
As they do the current four-team playoff

(12-08-2016 05:20 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 02:32 PM)jay2000 Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 01:10 AM)techdawg28 Wrote:  Here's how I would do it.

8-team playoff. Five P5 conference champs get automatic bids, as does the highest ranked G5 champ. Then you have two at large bids.

So with this set of rankings we'd have

Auto bids
SEC: 1 Alabama
B1G: 5 Penn State
ACC: 2 Clemson
Pac-12: 4 Washington
Big XII: 7 Oklahoma
G5: 15 WMU

At-large
3 Ohio State
6 Michigan

You do it this way so that the regular season and conference championships still matter, but you provide a way for someone like Ohio State that might be the better team although they had 1 bad game to still have a shot.

This is the best way to do it in my opinion. Right now, the semifinals are on Dec 31st. Most of the conference championship games were on Dec 3rd. Final exams are typically the week ending Friday the 9th or the 16th. It would be hard to fit in the quarterfinals in December.

Maybe Quarters on Dec 31st, Semis on Jan 9th, and championship two weeks (or maybe just 1.5 weeks?) later?

I'd prefer a 10-team playoff consisting of the ten conference champs. Earn it on the field, not in the minds of a selection committee. The only committee (or use a formula) necessary would be one to rate the ten conferences at the end of the regular season. Each conference champ would then receive a seed equivalent to its conference rating. This would prevent using overall record to allow a strong team from a weak conference getting the #1 seed by virtue of going undefeated against a weak schedule.

1st Round
Seeds #1–#4 — bye (should appease the P5 as this would usually be all P5 teams)
#5 hosts #10
#6 hosts #9
#7 hosts #8

2nd Round
#1 bye
#2 hosts lowest remaining seed
#3 hosts middle remaining seed
#4 hosts highest remaining seed

3rd and 4th Rounds
As they do the current four-team playoff

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think that would work, for a couple of reasons.

#1, non-conference games are now irrelevant. With at-large bids, they still mean something.

#2, I'm not a huge fan of byes, personally. I could maybe live with a 6-team playoff where #1 and #2 get a first-round bye, but in this situation where 4 teams get a first round but then just one of those gets a second round bye as well... it's just too complicated. Plus, with a double bye, although #1 would have plenty of rest time, they'd also go into a semi-final match having no momentum or rhythm against a team that could possibly have just won two games in a row against very good teams. A bye, but especially a double bye, can actually be harmful.

#3, although I agree winning your conference should mean something (a whole hell of a lot, in fact), I can also see the possibility that the conference champ may not always necessarily be the best team. Look at the Penn State-Ohio State situation. Ohio State's only loss is to the #5 team in the nation and it was very close. Penn State lost to #6 by a lot and also lost to #23. Or look at Ohio State-Michigan State last year. Ohio State's only loss was to #3. MSU lost to 5-7 team (who would have otherwise been 4-8). Both years, tOSU was clearly the best team, but the 1 game they lost kept them out of the B1G title game, but the team that beat them narrowly on a special teams play got to go despite losing to a worse team or teams. Keeping at least a couple of at-large bids means really great teams that didn't win their conference because their only loss was to another great team still have a shot. It also allows independents a chance to get in.

#4, a big part of college football is tradition, which is one of the reasons I like CFB much more than the NFL. The polls and rankings have been a very important part of the game for most of its history, but would be rendered meaningless without at-large bids. The NFL has power rankings, but nobody cares much about them because they don't mean anything.

#5, and finally, let's be honest. This will never happen for the simple fact that the powers that be will never adopt a system where the G5 are guaranteed as many teams as the P5. It would be cool if they did, because then we can tell recruits "you're just as likely to make the playoffs with us than with a P5 team, maybe even more likely due to an easier schedule," and we can over time get enough great recruits into G5 schools until eventually, the G5 and P5 are just as good as each other (I realize this is a pipe dream. I'm just saying, it'd be amazing).

(12-05-2016 08:15 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The fact that Penn State still has a team at all is an abomination.

F off. Nittany Lions fans and alumni have had to suffer enough. The fact they're back to the level they are after being corn-holed by the NCAA is remarkable.

The men whom caused and abetted the horrific wrongs to all those innocent boys are either jobless, incarcerated, or dead. The University, and its great loyal fan base, has paid its dues.

Stop hating and move on. They've had to.

(12-08-2016 11:52 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:20 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 02:32 PM)jay2000 Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 01:10 AM)techdawg28 Wrote:  Here's how I would do it.

8-team playoff. Five P5 conference champs get automatic bids, as does the highest ranked G5 champ. Then you have two at large bids.

So with this set of rankings we'd have

Auto bids
SEC: 1 Alabama
B1G: 5 Penn State
ACC: 2 Clemson
Pac-12: 4 Washington
Big XII: 7 Oklahoma
G5: 15 WMU

At-large
3 Ohio State
6 Michigan

You do it this way so that the regular season and conference championships still matter, but you provide a way for someone like Ohio State that might be the better team although they had 1 bad game to still have a shot.

This is the best way to do it in my opinion. Right now, the semifinals are on Dec 31st. Most of the conference championship games were on Dec 3rd. Final exams are typically the week ending Friday the 9th or the 16th. It would be hard to fit in the quarterfinals in December.

Maybe Quarters on Dec 31st, Semis on Jan 9th, and championship two weeks (or maybe just 1.5 weeks?) later?

I'd prefer a 10-team playoff consisting of the ten conference champs. Earn it on the field, not in the minds of a selection committee. The only committee (or use a formula) necessary would be one to rate the ten conferences at the end of the regular season. Each conference champ would then receive a seed equivalent to its conference rating. This would prevent using overall record to allow a strong team from a weak conference getting the #1 seed by virtue of going undefeated against a weak schedule.

1st Round
Seeds #1–#4 — bye (should appease the P5 as this would usually be all P5 teams)
#5 hosts #10
#6 hosts #9
#7 hosts #8

2nd Round
#1 bye
#2 hosts lowest remaining seed
#3 hosts middle remaining seed
#4 hosts highest remaining seed

3rd and 4th Rounds
As they do the current four-team playoff

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think that would work, for a couple of reasons.

#1, non-conference games are now irrelevant. With at-large bids, they still mean something.

#2, I'm not a huge fan of byes, personally. I could maybe live with a 6-team playoff where #1 and #2 get a first-round bye, but in this situation where 4 teams get a first round but then just one of those gets a second round bye as well... it's just too complicated. Plus, with a double bye, although #1 would have plenty of rest time, they'd also go into a semi-final match having no momentum or rhythm against a team that could possibly have just won two games in a row against very good teams. A bye, but especially a double bye, can actually be harmful.

#3, although I agree winning your conference should mean something (a whole hell of a lot, in fact), I can also see the possibility that the conference champ may not always necessarily be the best team. Look at the Penn State-Ohio State situation. Ohio State's only loss is to the #5 team in the nation and it was very close. Penn State lost to #6 by a lot and also lost to #23. Or look at Ohio State-Michigan State last year. Ohio State's only loss was to #3. MSU lost to 5-7 team (who would have otherwise been 4-8). Both years, tOSU was clearly the best team, but the 1 game they lost kept them out of the B1G title game, but the team that beat them narrowly on a special teams play got to go despite losing to a worse team or teams. Keeping at least a couple of at-large bids means really great teams that didn't win their conference because their only loss was to another great team still have a shot. It also allows independents a chance to get in.

#4, a big part of college football is tradition, which is one of the reasons I like CFB much more than the NFL. The polls and rankings have been a very important part of the game for most of its history, but would be rendered meaningless without at-large bids. The NFL has power rankings, but nobody cares much about them because they don't mean anything.

#5, and finally, let's be honest. This will never happen for the simple fact that the powers that be will never adopt a system where the G5 are guaranteed as many teams as the P5. It would be cool if they did, because then we can tell recruits "you're just as likely to make the playoffs with us than with a P5 team, maybe even more likely due to an easier schedule," and we can over time get enough great recruits into G5 schools until eventually, the G5 and P5 are just as good as each other (I realize this is a pipe dream. I'm just saying, it'd be amazing).

#1, Non-conference games are mostly meaningless now except for the elite teams. A key non-conference win for an elite team can all but lock up the playoff bid even if they don't win their conference (WTF?).

#2, byes for the big boys are the only way to get all of the G5 conference champs in the playoff. The double bye team shouldn't be too disadvantaged if the first and second round games are played right after the regular season (one before and one after finals). Then wait three weeks before having the final four. That would put the championship game during the NFL off week leading to the Superbowl.

#3, can't win your conference, end of discussion. Don't have a bad game. Bad games can keep the best team by far from winning the basketball tournament as well. **** happens.

#4, tradition is NEVER a reason to continue something that is now broken. Screw the popularity contests called polls.

#5, the byes should help to make it a reality.

I'd even be happy with a play-in scenario where the bottom four G5 champs play each other and then the winners play for the right to play the top G5 with the winner advancing to play with the P5 champs for the national title.

But I'd also be happy with a 16-team playoff with the ten champs and six at-large teams. Whichever one they accept is fine by me. Just include all G5 champs.

(12-11-2016 03:29 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 11:52 PM)techdawg28 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:20 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 02:32 PM)jay2000 Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 01:10 AM)techdawg28 Wrote:  Here's how I would do it.

8-team playoff. Five P5 conference champs get automatic bids, as does the highest ranked G5 champ. Then you have two at large bids.

So with this set of rankings we'd have

Auto bids
SEC: 1 Alabama
B1G: 5 Penn State
ACC: 2 Clemson
Pac-12: 4 Washington
Big XII: 7 Oklahoma
G5: 15 WMU

At-large
3 Ohio State
6 Michigan

You do it this way so that the regular season and conference championships still matter, but you provide a way for someone like Ohio State that might be the better team although they had 1 bad game to still have a shot.

This is the best way to do it in my opinion. Right now, the semifinals are on Dec 31st. Most of the conference championship games were on Dec 3rd. Final exams are typically the week ending Friday the 9th or the 16th. It would be hard to fit in the quarterfinals in December.

Maybe Quarters on Dec 31st, Semis on Jan 9th, and championship two weeks (or maybe just 1.5 weeks?) later?

I'd prefer a 10-team playoff consisting of the ten conference champs. Earn it on the field, not in the minds of a selection committee. The only committee (or use a formula) necessary would be one to rate the ten conferences at the end of the regular season. Each conference champ would then receive a seed equivalent to its conference rating. This would prevent using overall record to allow a strong team from a weak conference getting the #1 seed by virtue of going undefeated against a weak schedule.

1st Round
Seeds #1–#4 — bye (should appease the P5 as this would usually be all P5 teams)
#5 hosts #10
#6 hosts #9
#7 hosts #8

2nd Round
#1 bye
#2 hosts lowest remaining seed
#3 hosts middle remaining seed
#4 hosts highest remaining seed

3rd and 4th Rounds
As they do the current four-team playoff

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think that would work, for a couple of reasons.

#1, non-conference games are now irrelevant. With at-large bids, they still mean something.

#2, I'm not a huge fan of byes, personally. I could maybe live with a 6-team playoff where #1 and #2 get a first-round bye, but in this situation where 4 teams get a first round but then just one of those gets a second round bye as well... it's just too complicated. Plus, with a double bye, although #1 would have plenty of rest time, they'd also go into a semi-final match having no momentum or rhythm against a team that could possibly have just won two games in a row against very good teams. A bye, but especially a double bye, can actually be harmful.

#3, although I agree winning your conference should mean something (a whole hell of a lot, in fact), I can also see the possibility that the conference champ may not always necessarily be the best team. Look at the Penn State-Ohio State situation. Ohio State's only loss is to the #5 team in the nation and it was very close. Penn State lost to #6 by a lot and also lost to #23. Or look at Ohio State-Michigan State last year. Ohio State's only loss was to #3. MSU lost to 5-7 team (who would have otherwise been 4-8). Both years, tOSU was clearly the best team, but the 1 game they lost kept them out of the B1G title game, but the team that beat them narrowly on a special teams play got to go despite losing to a worse team or teams. Keeping at least a couple of at-large bids means really great teams that didn't win their conference because their only loss was to another great team still have a shot. It also allows independents a chance to get in.

#4, a big part of college football is tradition, which is one of the reasons I like CFB much more than the NFL. The polls and rankings have been a very important part of the game for most of its history, but would be rendered meaningless without at-large bids. The NFL has power rankings, but nobody cares much about them because they don't mean anything.

#5, and finally, let's be honest. This will never happen for the simple fact that the powers that be will never adopt a system where the G5 are guaranteed as many teams as the P5. It would be cool if they did, because then we can tell recruits "you're just as likely to make the playoffs with us than with a P5 team, maybe even more likely due to an easier schedule," and we can over time get enough great recruits into G5 schools until eventually, the G5 and P5 are just as good as each other (I realize this is a pipe dream. I'm just saying, it'd be amazing).

#3, can't win your conference, end of discussion. Don't have a bad game. Bad games can keep the best team by far from winning the basketball tournament as well. **** happens.

What I think. Sick of hearing this garbage about "but, but, we want the best teams in the playoffs!!!!" That's an excuse to get the same 5-10 teams teams in the playoff every year with maybe one extra lucky team.

If you don't win the important games, screw off. Doesn't matter if statistically you would beat soandso team 9 out of 10 times or you had a bad game that left you out of your conference championship. You lost the 1 of 10 and are done. Otherwise, do away with conference championships because they are meaningless.