I prefer 16 teams, 10 conf champs plus 6 wild cards but I'd take this if they gave an automatic bid to the best team from the G5

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/co...6e6b196cda

No matter how much they expand by there will still only be one spot for the "g5". This is why I believe that there seemed to be a concerted effort to under rank the AAC this year(although once Navy lost suddenly all the talking heads raved about our strength). If the AAC kept getting the slot they knew there would've been an effort to give the American and auto bid. To all of those bleeding heart people that wanted to see Lil Ole WMU get the access bowl bid because of an over inflated record, The AAC is in a race to climb as close to the p5 as possible before the next wave of changes occur because the next few changes, I think may leave us stuck perception wise to the g5

(12-05-2016 08:03 AM)First Mate Wrote:  I prefer 16 teams, 10 conf champs plus 6 wild cards but I'd take this if they gave an automatic bid to the best team from the G5

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/co...6e6b196cda

I agree. All FBS conferences should be included. The P5 will still get multiple teams in.

First Round:

1-Alabama
16- App State

2-Clemson
15-WKU

3-OSU
14-SDSU

4-Wash.
13-Temple

5-Penn St.
12-W. Mich

6-Michigan
11-FSU

7-OU
10-Colorado

8-Wis
9-USC

(12-05-2016 08:35 AM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  No matter how much they expand by there will still only be one spot for the "g5". This is why I believe that there seemed to be a concerted effort to under rank the AAC this year(although once Navy lost suddenly all the talking heads raved about our strength). If the AAC kept getting the slot they knew there would've been an effort to give the American and auto bid. To all of those bleeding heart people that wanted to see Lil Ole WMU get the access bowl bid because of an over inflated record, The AAC is in a race to climb as close to the p5 as possible before the next wave of changes occur because the next few changes, I think may leave us stuck perception wise to the g5

I don't think this can end up being a negative for the AAC. If WMU gets blown out, the last 4 years looks like this: AAC win, Boise win, AAC win, non-AAC crushed. Makes a case that the AAC and Boise are a separate level from the rest of the G4. If the AAC were to add Boise, then it's tough to argue against the AAC getting an autobid in an 8 team playoff.

If WMU wins, then you have 4 straight years where the "G5" has won a major bowl game. You can't expand the playoff without including an autobid for the G5.

Inclusion is all we're looking for. Once AAC schools have a shot at a national championship, it evens the recruiting playing field. Sure the Alabama's, Michigan's, etc will be on another level, but we'd at least have a shot each year like the rest of the P5s.

(12-05-2016 08:03 AM)First Mate Wrote:  I prefer 16 teams, 10 conf champs plus 6 wild cards but I'd take this if they gave an automatic bid to the best team from the G5

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/co...6e6b196cda

I honestly think 16 is too much and would prefer 8. I do think it needs to be inclusively of at least 1 G5. Of course they would always be the 8 seed pitted against the strongest team so the odds would be stacked against them. But at least they would be included. The 16 with all 10 champs while inclusive would simple result in watching a lot of blow outs in my opinion.

(12-05-2016 08:03 AM)First Mate Wrote:  I prefer 16 teams, 10 conf champs plus 6 wild cards but I'd take this if they gave an automatic bid to the best team from the G5

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/co...6e6b196cda

This is what we'd have if the NCAA ran the playoffs like they do in every other college athletic post-season. FBS football postseason is run by ESPN. ESPN wants a reality show, not a true playoff. If two teams are even arguably close to one another, ESPN wants the one that will give the highest ratings in the postseason.

For this reason, even in our wildest dreams, the best we could hope for is a 12 team playoff with the "P6" getting autobids, "G4" getting one, and 5 wild cards. More likely it would be the "P5" getting autobids and the "G5" getting one. Then 6 wild cards.

The G5 would always get slotted last and play the lowest rated P5 champ, followed the next week by #1. It would suck, but it's a shot which is infinitely more than we get today.

8 team playoff

5 top teams (have to win conf champs); 2 wild card slots (top ranked teams & can also be G5); 1 spot for the G5 access

And then seeding is set accordingly (standard playoff)

(12-05-2016 09:48 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 08:35 AM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  No matter how much they expand by there will still only be one spot for the "g5". This is why I believe that there seemed to be a concerted effort to under rank the AAC this year(although once Navy lost suddenly all the talking heads raved about our strength). If the AAC kept getting the slot they knew there would've been an effort to give the American and auto bid. To all of those bleeding heart people that wanted to see Lil Ole WMU get the access bowl bid because of an over inflated record, The AAC is in a race to climb as close to the p5 as possible before the next wave of changes occur because the next few changes, I think may leave us stuck perception wise to the g5

I don't think this can end up being a negative for the AAC. If WMU gets blown out, the last 4 years looks like this: AAC win, Boise win, AAC win, non-AAC crushed. Makes a case that the AAC and Boise are a separate level from the rest of the G4. If the AAC were to add Boise, then it's tough to argue against the AAC getting an autobid in an 8 team playoff.

If WMU wins, then you have 4 straight years where the "G5" has won a major bowl game. You can't expand the playoff without including an autobid for the G5.

Inclusion is all we're looking for. Once AAC schools have a shot at a national championship, it evens the recruiting playing field. Sure the Alabama's, Michigan's, etc will be on another level, but we'd at least have a shot each year like the rest of the P5s.

I totally agree

(12-05-2016 09:55 AM)PT_american Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 08:03 AM)First Mate Wrote:  I prefer 16 teams, 10 conf champs plus 6 wild cards but I'd take this if they gave an automatic bid to the best team from the G5

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/co...6e6b196cda

I honestly think 16 is too much and would prefer 8. I do think it needs to be inclusively of at least 1 G5. Of course they would always be the 8 seed pitted against the strongest team so the odds would be stacked against them. But at least they would be included. The 16 with all 10 champs while inclusive would simple result in watching a lot of blow outs in my opinion.

I hear you but remember the first weekend of the NCAA tournament is the most watched of the year. Fans love to see the Cinderella. I think our teams would fair quite well.

(12-05-2016 10:58 AM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 09:48 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 08:35 AM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  No matter how much they expand by there will still only be one spot for the "g5". This is why I believe that there seemed to be a concerted effort to under rank the AAC this year(although once Navy lost suddenly all the talking heads raved about our strength). If the AAC kept getting the slot they knew there would've been an effort to give the American and auto bid. To all of those bleeding heart people that wanted to see Lil Ole WMU get the access bowl bid because of an over inflated record, The AAC is in a race to climb as close to the p5 as possible before the next wave of changes occur because the next few changes, I think may leave us stuck perception wise to the g5

I don't think this can end up being a negative for the AAC. If WMU gets blown out, the last 4 years looks like this: AAC win, Boise win, AAC win, non-AAC crushed. Makes a case that the AAC and Boise are a separate level from the rest of the G4. If the AAC were to add Boise, then it's tough to argue against the AAC getting an autobid in an 8 team playoff.

If WMU wins, then you have 4 straight years where the "G5" has won a major bowl game. You can't expand the playoff without including an autobid for the G5.

Inclusion is all we're looking for. Once AAC schools have a shot at a national championship, it evens the recruiting playing field. Sure the Alabama's, Michigan's, etc will be on another level, but we'd at least have a shot each year like the rest of the P5s.

I totally agree

I was against it but I think Boise St and the American have to both do what's in the best interest of both parties and create a conference that is undeniably the 6th strongest conference. I believe if we come together with boise and publicly state that 14 is our max number for teams and offer sdsu and byu, that may be enough pressure to force byu to come on board to create a legitimate p6 conference while forcing a new contract negotiation not a renegotiation

(12-05-2016 10:24 AM)Bear Wrote:  8 team playoff

5 top teams (have to win conf champs); 2 wild card slots (top ranked teams & can also be G5); 1 spot for the G5 access

And then seeding is set accordingly (standard playoff)

From a fan perspective I'd like to see this but I don't think a student athlete could handle that.

(12-05-2016 11:19 AM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 10:58 AM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 09:48 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 08:35 AM)Tigersmoke3 Wrote:  No matter how much they expand by there will still only be one spot for the "g5". This is why I believe that there seemed to be a concerted effort to under rank the AAC this year(although once Navy lost suddenly all the talking heads raved about our strength). If the AAC kept getting the slot they knew there would've been an effort to give the American and auto bid. To all of those bleeding heart people that wanted to see Lil Ole WMU get the access bowl bid because of an over inflated record, The AAC is in a race to climb as close to the p5 as possible before the next wave of changes occur because the next few changes, I think may leave us stuck perception wise to the g5

I don't think this can end up being a negative for the AAC. If WMU gets blown out, the last 4 years looks like this: AAC win, Boise win, AAC win, non-AAC crushed. Makes a case that the AAC and Boise are a separate level from the rest of the G4. If the AAC were to add Boise, then it's tough to argue against the AAC getting an autobid in an 8 team playoff.

If WMU wins, then you have 4 straight years where the "G5" has won a major bowl game. You can't expand the playoff without including an autobid for the G5.

Inclusion is all we're looking for. Once AAC schools have a shot at a national championship, it evens the recruiting playing field. Sure the Alabama's, Michigan's, etc will be on another level, but we'd at least have a shot each year like the rest of the P5s.

I totally agree

I was against it but I think Boise St and the American have to both do what's in the best interest of both parties and create a conference that is undeniably the 6th strongest conference. I believe if we come together with boise and publicly state that 14 is our max number for teams and offer sdsu and byu, that may be enough pressure to force byu to come on board to create a legitimate p6 conference while forcing a new contract negotiation not a renegotiation

I agree. I was against BSU, because of how they backed out on the AAC, but them and BYU makes hard case to argue against when it come to inclusion.

I think the talk of a playoff expansion is going nowhere though. Aside from ESPN being stuck with having to take Washington (instead of Michigan or another mega-program) they've got to be pretty happy with 3/4 being large national programs.

(12-05-2016 11:50 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 10:24 AM)Bear Wrote:  8 team playoff

5 top teams (have to win conf champs); 2 wild card slots (top ranked teams & can also be G5); 1 spot for the G5 access

And then seeding is set accordingly (standard playoff)

From a fan perspective I'd like to see this but I don't think a student athlete could handle that.

Why not?

They have been doing this for years in Division I-AA, so those excuses don't really add up. Moreover, they are doing it with way less resources i.e. charter flights, tutors, dedicated athletic facilities for training, etc...

URban Meyer was on this morning on ESPN saying how it would be "impossible" to have more than 4 teams...and of course neither Mike & Mike challenged him by pointing out the facts. I guess that makes you a trouble maker nowadays instead of a journalist pointing out facts.

He said it would disrupt recruiting, players preparing for the NFL draft, finals weeks etc..

Recruiting could be fixed by simply having an early signing day and pushing NSD until early March, where if anything else would provide schools with a better indicator whether kids are on track to qualify.

NFL draft: the expanded playoffs would only impact at most 8 or at most 16 teams. For the other 100 plus schools that don’t get into the playoffs…it’s business as usual in terms of draft preparation.

Impact on bowl games: incorporate them into semi-finals. As it is now, these once proud tradition bound bowls…are now an after thought. Think about all the Penn State fans complaining that there ‘relegated’ to the Rose Bowl. Adding these bowls into the playoff infrastructure would make them relevant again…otherwise they are just going to die off as overblown, expensive exhibition games where most participants and their fans are disappointed they didn’t get into the playoffs.


Final Exams: legit concern, but why isn’t it a problem for lower divisions?

For me 8 is the magic number, with 6 automatic conference bids that includes a certain threshold that has to be met. That is, no more 4 loss ACC or Big East champions we saw in the BCS in years past. That would leave 2 wild cards for people to argue about. This would guarantee that at least the best 4 teams get in…and gives a benefit of the doubt to borderline teams and fairness for the best G5 representative.

I liked the article. I think 8 is perfect. 16 seems like too much to me.

(12-05-2016 11:54 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  I think the talk of a playoff expansion is going nowhere though. Aside from ESPN being stuck with having to take Washington (instead of Michigan or another mega-program) they've got to be pretty happy with 3/4 being large national programs.

I'm sure ESPN would rather have Michigan...but Washington is not exactly a slouch and gives them regional Northwest eyeballs they used to get with Oregon. Plus UW has a good pedigree and large fanbase that is likely to travel. They would certainly rather have UW instead any G5 team except maybe BYU, which is national program.

I think they did a good job overall, if the metric was the best 4 teams. You could debate Michigan losing out to Washington and their poor SOS, but the lineup does make for some must watch TV.

I just wish that they would provide better guidelines on what constitute a playoff team so that we have more discreet indicators instead of the "eyeball test" we keep hearing about how Michigan looks like a playoff team.

(12-05-2016 01:21 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 11:54 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  I think the talk of a playoff expansion is going nowhere though. Aside from ESPN being stuck with having to take Washington (instead of Michigan or another mega-program) they've got to be pretty happy with 3/4 being large national programs.

I'm sure ESPN would rather have Michigan...but Washington is not exactly a slouch and gives them regional Northwest eyeballs they used to get with Oregon. Plus UW has a good pedigree and large fanbase that is likely to travel. They would certainly rather have UW instead any G5 team except maybe BYU, which is national program.

I think they did a good job overall, if the metric was the best 4 teams. You could debate Michigan losing out to Washington and their poor SOS, but the lineup does make for some must watch TV.

I just wish that they would provide better guidelines on what constitute a playoff team so that we have more discreet indicators instead of the "eyeball test" we keep hearing about how Michigan looks like a playoff team.

Point is, there's a lot of talk about a "need" to expand on the radio/tv shows, but I don't think ESPN shares that perspective. Particularly if it involves including any unwashed G5 programs :)

(12-05-2016 11:50 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 10:24 AM)Bear Wrote:  8 team playoff

5 top teams (have to win conf champs); 2 wild card slots (top ranked teams & can also be G5); 1 spot for the G5 access

And then seeding is set accordingly (standard playoff)

From a fan perspective I'd like to see this but I don't think a student athlete could handle that.

That's only ONE extra game. In fact, cancel the east-west shrine game...

(12-05-2016 01:12 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 11:50 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 10:24 AM)Bear Wrote:  8 team playoff

5 top teams (have to win conf champs); 2 wild card slots (top ranked teams & can also be G5); 1 spot for the G5 access

And then seeding is set accordingly (standard playoff)

From a fan perspective I'd like to see this but I don't think a student athlete could handle that.

Why not?

They have been doing this for years in Division I-AA, so those excuses don't really add up. Moreover, they are doing it with way less resources i.e. charter flights, tutors, dedicated athletic facilities for training, etc...

URban Meyer was on this morning on ESPN saying how it would be "impossible" to have more than 4 teams...and of course neither Mike & Mike challenged him by pointing out the facts. I guess that makes you a trouble maker nowadays instead of a journalist pointing out facts.

He said it would disrupt recruiting, players preparing for the NFL draft, finals weeks etc..

Recruiting could be fixed by simply having an early signing day and pushing NSD until early March, where if anything else would provide schools with a better indicator whether kids are on track to qualify.

NFL draft: the expanded playoffs would only impact at most 8 or at most 16 teams. For the other 100 plus schools that don’t get into the playoffs…it’s business as usual in terms of draft preparation.

Impact on bowl games: incorporate them into semi-finals. As it is now, these once proud tradition bound bowls…are now an after thought. Think about all the Penn State fans complaining that there ‘relegated’ to the Rose Bowl. Adding these bowls into the playoff infrastructure would make them relevant again…otherwise they are just going to die off as overblown, expensive exhibition games where most participants and their fans are disappointed they didn’t get into the playoffs.


Final Exams: legit concern, but why isn’t it a problem for lower divisions?

For me 8 is the magic number, with 6 automatic conference bids that includes a certain threshold that has to be met. That is, no more 4 loss ACC or Big East champions we saw in the BCS in years past. That would leave 2 wild cards for people to argue about. This would guarantee that at least the best 4 teams get in…and gives a benefit of the doubt to borderline teams and fairness for the best G5 representative.

^^This! Also, playoff happen after Finals anyways..

The argument against, was the same used against even having a 4 team playoff...

Its going to take a long time to break the bowl system's grip on college football. 8 is the number you push for now so that the bowls survive. I personally could not care less if there was never another bowl game played ever but they hold too much sway at the moment. So go to 8 as it is described and hopefully the NCAA takes the reigns at some point and stops giving away money for no reason.

(12-05-2016 02:30 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  Its going to take a long time to break the bowl system's grip on college football. 8 is the number you push for now so that the bowls survive. I personally could not care less if there was never another bowl game played ever but they hold too much sway at the moment. So go to 8 as it is described and hopefully the NCAA takes the reigns at some point and stops giving away money for no reason.

spot on

8 is the best compromise. a