now that the committee has shown that the value of winning a conference is somewhat ambiguous, would it had been more satisfying if the top teams would have spent the last weekend playing in the first round of a 8-team playoff instead of playing in their CCG?

so you could even get rid of divisions and just declare conference champions based on overall confernce records.

yes, that means Florida and VT would not have had their shot to win their conference and a big bowl, but you could argue they did not deserve that shot anyway.

Just have the winners of your New years Day bowls advance to the playoffs

(12-05-2016 09:17 AM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  Just have the winners of your New years Day bowls advance to the playoffs

That's another approach but that would add another game to playoff teams schedule.

If you instead replace the CCG with the first round of playoffs, then there is no extra game that needs to bevplayed.

My first rule of any proposal in the sports business: if it takes away a single cent of revenue from the parties that matter, then that proposal is DOA.

This isn't an "either/or" proposition for an 8-team playoff. We might debate here about how the format of that 8-team playoff would work (e.g. if 1st round should be at home sites in mid-December or the bowls circa New Year's Eve/Day), but the one thing that we should all be certain of is that the only way that it gets formulated at all is if *everything* else stays the same. There will NOT be a reduction in the regular season (as the P5 conferences have too much TV and ticket revenue wrapped up even with a crappy non-conference game). There will also definitely NOT be an elimination of conference championship games where P5 conferences have even more TV revenue at stake... and the value of those CCGs would actually skyrocket in an 8-team playoff with auto-bids. Plus, the conferences have 100% control over the revenue of CCGs as opposed to needing to share playoff revenue. The P5 certainly aren't of the mind to give up any money that they can completely control.

This is akin to proposals for pro sports leagues to reduce the number of regular season games or playoff teams. Even things that people agree on should be reduced, like the number of NFL preseason games, still can't get completed because that means they have to figure out a way to extend the regular season further in order to compensate teams from the lost revenue of that preseason game (where tickets still cost the exact same amount as a regular season game) plus the added expense of paying players for an additonal regular season game (which they don't get paid for if it's a preseason game).

If we want a realistic playoff proposal, it's going to have to be MORE: more money and more games ON TOP of the existing system (as opposed to any replacement of it). We might not love it as fans (although I would actually LOVE the conference championship games if the P5 received auto-bids), but taking away a single cent of revenue from the P5 will crush any proposal. Any expansion of the playoff would need to keep everything else about the regular season and CCGs as-is for there to be even a hint of a realistic discussion.

(12-05-2016 09:13 AM)goofus Wrote:  now that the committee has shown that the value of winning a conference is somewhat ambiguous, would it had been more satisfying if the top teams would have spent the last weekend playing in the first round of a 8-team playoff instead of playing in their CCG?

so you could even get rid of divisions and just declare conference champions based on overall confernce records.

yes, that means Florida and VT would not have had their shot to win their conference and a big bowl, but you could argue they did not deserve that shot anyway.

Yes. You could even make it a play in weekend instead of the first round. This way the losers could go back into the bowl pool. Let the top 4 teams host to relieve the travel burden on fans & teams.

(12-05-2016 10:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My first rule of any proposal in the sports business: if it takes away a single cent of revenue from the parties that matter, then that proposal is DOA.

This isn't an "either/or" proposition for an 8-team playoff. We might debate here about how the format of that 8-team playoff would work (e.g. if 1st round should be at home sites in mid-December or the bowls circa New Year's Eve/Day), but the one thing that we should all be certain of is that the only way that it gets formulated at all is if *everything* else stays the same. There will NOT be a reduction in the regular season (as the P5 conferences have too much TV and ticket revenue wrapped up even with a crappy non-conference game). There will also definitely NOT be an elimination of conference championship games where P5 conferences have even more TV revenue at stake... and the value of those CCGs would actually skyrocket in an 8-team playoff with auto-bids. Plus, the conferences have 100% control over the revenue of CCGs as opposed to needing to share playoff revenue. The P5 certainly aren't of the mind to give up any money that they can completely control.

This is akin to proposals for pro sports leagues to reduce the number of regular season games or playoff teams. Even things that people agree on should be reduced, like the number of NFL preseason games, still can't get completed because that means they have to figure out a way to extend the regular season further in order to compensate teams from the lost revenue of that preseason game (where tickets still cost the exact same amount as a regular season game) plus the added expense of paying players for an additonal regular season game (which they don't get paid for if it's a preseason game).

If we want a realistic playoff proposal, it's going to have to be MORE: more money and more games ON TOP of the existing system (as opposed to any replacement of it). We might not love it as fans (although I would actually LOVE the conference championship games if the P5 received auto-bids), but taking away a single cent of revenue from the P5 will crush any proposal. Any expansion of the playoff would need to keep everything else about the regular season and CCGs as-is for there to be even a hint of a realistic discussion.

But the conferences need to scrap the divisions, play more conference games, and ensure #1 plays #2 in each conference game instead of some random East-West matchup.

I would prefer a 4 team playoff with no ccgs, but they arent going anywhere.

(12-05-2016 10:49 AM)Scoochpooch Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 10:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  My first rule of any proposal in the sports business: if it takes away a single cent of revenue from the parties that matter, then that proposal is DOA.

This isn't an "either/or" proposition for an 8-team playoff. We might debate here about how the format of that 8-team playoff would work (e.g. if 1st round should be at home sites in mid-December or the bowls circa New Year's Eve/Day), but the one thing that we should all be certain of is that the only way that it gets formulated at all is if *everything* else stays the same. There will NOT be a reduction in the regular season (as the P5 conferences have too much TV and ticket revenue wrapped up even with a crappy non-conference game). There will also definitely NOT be an elimination of conference championship games where P5 conferences have even more TV revenue at stake... and the value of those CCGs would actually skyrocket in an 8-team playoff with auto-bids. Plus, the conferences have 100% control over the revenue of CCGs as opposed to needing to share playoff revenue. The P5 certainly aren't of the mind to give up any money that they can completely control.

This is akin to proposals for pro sports leagues to reduce the number of regular season games or playoff teams. Even things that people agree on should be reduced, like the number of NFL preseason games, still can't get completed because that means they have to figure out a way to extend the regular season further in order to compensate teams from the lost revenue of that preseason game (where tickets still cost the exact same amount as a regular season game) plus the added expense of paying players for an additonal regular season game (which they don't get paid for if it's a preseason game).

If we want a realistic playoff proposal, it's going to have to be MORE: more money and more games ON TOP of the existing system (as opposed to any replacement of it). We might not love it as fans (although I would actually LOVE the conference championship games if the P5 received auto-bids), but taking away a single cent of revenue from the P5 will crush any proposal. Any expansion of the playoff would need to keep everything else about the regular season and CCGs as-is for there to be even a hint of a realistic discussion.

But the conferences need to scrap the divisions, play more conference games, and ensure #1 plays #2 in each conference game instead of some random East-West matchup.

Another way to do it is to add a SF to the CCG. This expands the conference championship without doing away with them & helps ensure that the best conference teams have a shot at the championship. This would make the CCG more valuable & lead to a champs only CFP 4 team format.

(12-05-2016 10:49 AM)Scoochpooch Wrote:  But the conferences need to scrap the divisions, play more conference games, and ensure #1 plays #2 in each conference game instead of some random East-West matchup.

Why?

Divisions aren't random. They're used in the NFL and MLB quite effectively, and to the extent that the punditry (or in the case of college football, a bunch of committee members sitting in a room in Dallas) *thinks* that Team A Division winner isn't as "deserving" as Team B Division Winner, the point is that the playoff spot is still determined by Team A actually beating Team B *on-the-field*.

Frankly, I'm more bothered by a deserving team getting shut out of the playoff as opposed to a supposedly non-deserving team getting into the playoff due to a CCG upset. If that supposedly non-deserving team won what everyone agreed to be a high stakes conference championship game, then no one can really complain because it was actually determined *on-the-field*. No BS eye tests. No statistical formulas. No worries about whether your non-conference game against Notre Dame that you scheduled 10 years ago looked really week in 2016 even though it would have been a mega-win in 2015.

Subjective opinions are perfectly fine for determining at-large bids, but there should still be a completely objective on-the-field component to get into the playoff where schools don't need to worry about impressing a bunch of guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas every week with style points and other associated crap.

(12-05-2016 10:09 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 09:17 AM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  Just have the winners of your New years Day bowls advance to the playoffs

That's another approach but that would add another game to playoff teams schedule.

If you instead replace the CCG with the first round of playoffs, then there is no extra game that needs to bevplayed.

The Conference Championship Games would serve as the first round of the playoffs.

1st round - Conference Championship Games - December 2nd/3rd.

2nd round - Seed the Conference Champs and the best of the rest - 16 teams in total. Eight Bowls will host these games played on December 17th/18th of each year.

Alamo Bowl
Arizona Bowl
Belk Bowl
Citrus Bowl

Holiday Bowl
Orange Bowl
Sun Bowl
Taxslayer Bowl

3rd round - Quarter finals - 4 Games on New Year's Day

Cotton Bowl
Outback Bowl
Rose Bowl
Sugar Bowl

4th round - Semifinal - 2 games on January 14th/15th

Fiesta Bowl
Peach Bowl)

5th round - National Championship Game - January 21st (Tampa, Florida)
Note: The NFL AFC and NFC Championships are on January 22nd


CFP This year:

ACC Champ - Clemson
AAC Champ - Temple
Big 12 Champ - Oklahoma
Big Ten Champ - Penn State

CUSA Champ - Western Kentucky
MAC Champ - Western Michigan
MWC Champ - San Diego State
PAC 12 Champ - Washington

SEC Champ - Alabama
SBC Champ - Appalachian State


Then Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Southern California, Colorado, and Florida State.

The 2nd round this year:

Alabama vs Appalachian State
Clemson vs Western Kentucky
Penn State vs San Diego State
Washington vs Western Michigan

Oklahoma vs Temple
Ohio State vs Florida State
Wisconsin vs Colorado
Michigan vs Southern California

This would make everybody happy including the bowls.

(12-05-2016 11:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 10:49 AM)Scoochpooch Wrote:  But the conferences need to scrap the divisions, play more conference games, and ensure #1 plays #2 in each conference game instead of some random East-West matchup.

Why?

Divisions aren't random. They're used in the NFL and MLB quite effectively, and to the extent that the punditry (or in the case of college football, a bunch of committee members sitting in a room in Dallas) *thinks* that Team A Division winner isn't as "deserving" as Team B Division Winner, the point is that the playoff spot is still determined by Team A actually beating Team B *on-the-field*.

Frankly, I'm more bothered by a deserving team getting shut out of the playoff as opposed to a supposedly non-deserving team getting into the playoff due to a CCG upset. If that supposedly non-deserving team won what everyone agreed to be a high stakes conference championship game, then no one can really complain because it was actually determined *on-the-field*. No BS eye tests. No statistical formulas. No worries about whether your non-conference game against Notre Dame that you scheduled 10 years ago looked really week in 2016 even though it would have been a mega-win in 2015.

Subjective opinions are perfectly fine for determining at-large bids, but there should still be a completely objective on-the-field component to get into the playoff where schools don't need to worry about impressing a bunch of guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas every week with style points and other associated crap.

I'm no more bothered by an upset in the conference CCG than I am an upset in the NCG. Why are some adamantly opposed to letting the national championship participants be decided on the field---while they are perfectly willing to accept the on the field results of a single NCG as the preferred manner to determine the real national champion? I agree with you idea that subjective opinion should be reserved for a pair of wild cards and the G5 representative. The majority of the playoff field should be determined by objective results on the field. Either you won your conference or you didn't. Winners get automatic bids.

(12-05-2016 11:20 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 11:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 10:49 AM)Scoochpooch Wrote:  But the conferences need to scrap the divisions, play more conference games, and ensure #1 plays #2 in each conference game instead of some random East-West matchup.

Why?

Divisions aren't random. They're used in the NFL and MLB quite effectively, and to the extent that the punditry (or in the case of college football, a bunch of committee members sitting in a room in Dallas) *thinks* that Team A Division winner isn't as "deserving" as Team B Division Winner, the point is that the playoff spot is still determined by Team A actually beating Team B *on-the-field*.

Frankly, I'm more bothered by a deserving team getting shut out of the playoff as opposed to a supposedly non-deserving team getting into the playoff due to a CCG upset. If that supposedly non-deserving team won what everyone agreed to be a high stakes conference championship game, then no one can really complain because it was actually determined *on-the-field*. No BS eye tests. No statistical formulas. No worries about whether your non-conference game against Notre Dame that you scheduled 10 years ago looked really week in 2016 even though it would have been a mega-win in 2015.

Subjective opinions are perfectly fine for determining at-large bids, but there should still be a completely objective on-the-field component to get into the playoff where schools don't need to worry about impressing a bunch of guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas every week with style points and other associated crap.

I'm no more bothered by an upset in the conference CCG than I am an upset in the NCG. Why are some adamantly opposed to letting the national championship participants be decided on the field---while they are perfectly willing to accept the on the field results of a single NCG as the preferred manner to determine the real national champion?

Agreed. It's disingenuous. The conference championship game is simply another de facto playoff game in this scenario. As this year has shown with Ohio State getting in, the CCGs would actually be more important in an 8-team playoff with P5 auto-bids than they are in the 4-team playoff system. (To be clear, I think Ohio State should have gotten into the playoff over Penn State based on the criteria established for this current system. In that sense, I'm the equivalent of a lower court judge that is abiding by a Supreme Court ruling that I personally disagree with.) It still boggles my mind it seems that more people whine about a weaker division winner upsetting a supposedly better team than the fact that the national championship of this sport is determined by a bunch of guys sitting in a room in Dallas. (Yes, I will keep saying "a bunch of guys sitting in a room in Dallas" until I'm blue in the face. I had more faith in both the BCS system with a formula component and the "wisdom of crowds" in the AP poll.)

(12-05-2016 10:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There will NOT be a reduction in the regular season (as the P5 conferences have too much TV and ticket revenue wrapped up even with a crappy non-conference game). There will also definitely NOT be an elimination of conference championship games where P5 conferences have even more TV revenue at stake... and the value of those CCGs would actually skyrocket in an 8-team playoff with auto-bids. Plus, the conferences have 100% control over the revenue of CCGs as opposed to needing to share playoff revenue. The P5 certainly aren't of the mind to give up any money that they can completely control.

...

If we want a realistic playoff proposal, it's going to have to be MORE: more money and more games ON TOP of the existing system

...

Any expansion of the playoff would need to keep everything else about the regular season and CCGs as-is for there to be even a hint of a realistic discussion.

This should be required reading before anyone is allowed to propose a new post-season structure for FBS.

(12-05-2016 11:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I'm more bothered by a deserving team getting shut out of the playoff as opposed to a supposedly non-deserving team getting into the playoff due to a CCG upset.

...

there should still be a completely objective on-the-field component to get into the playoff

These don't sync.

To give an auto to every P5 CCG participant would require at least 10 slots, and we know that's not going to happen. So only giving autos to the five P5 CCG winners means you're risking a #22 VA Tech or a #17 Florida getting into the CFP, at the expense of a much higher ranked team.

Unless you say something like "the top ranked team from each P5 conf gets an auto", I don't think it will fly when you only have 8 slots.

(12-05-2016 11:20 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Why are some adamantly opposed to letting the national championship participants be decided on the field---while they are perfectly willing to accept the on the field results of a single NCG as the preferred manner to determine the real national champion?

It's actually not that hard or illogical: people only accept on-field, head-to-head results at face value when the teams are generally agreed to be evenly matched.

If you have #3 Clemson vs #4 VA Tech in the ACC CCG, and the winner gets an auto: fine.
But if you have #3 Clemson screw up against #22 VA Tech, then people won't accept that. It will, correctly IMO, be seen as a fluke that takes away a slot from a higher ranked team.

Also explains why the NC result is generally accepted: the teams should be pretty even at that point.

(12-05-2016 10:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There will also definitely NOT be an elimination of conference championship games where P5 conferences have even more TV revenue at stake... and the value of those CCGs would actually skyrocket in an 8-team playoff with auto-bids.

The dollar value of those CCGs would increase, and the entertainment value would increase even more. The end of PSU-Wisc and Clemson-VT would have been even more compelling if those games were "win and you're in" for all four teams.

(12-05-2016 11:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I will keep saying "a bunch of guys sitting in a room in Dallas" until I'm blue in the face. I had more faith in both the BCS system with a formula component and the "wisdom of crowds" in the AP poll.

BCS had computers, so it is automatically less credible.

AP I also discredit, because professional writers only really have one duty: to write things that sell. And so just like we discredit ESPN producers for making their talkers slant towards promoting the matchups they want, I discredit the AP poll for the same reason.

(12-05-2016 11:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 11:20 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 11:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ...Frankly, I'm more bothered by a deserving team getting shut out of the playoff as opposed to a supposedly non-deserving team getting into the playoff due to a CCG upset. If that supposedly non-deserving team won what everyone agreed to be a high stakes conference championship game, then no one can really complain because it was actually determined *on-the-field*. No BS eye tests. No statistical formulas. No worries about whether your non-conference game against Notre Dame that you scheduled 10 years ago looked really week in 2016 even though it would have been a mega-win in 2015.

Subjective opinions are perfectly fine for determining at-large bids, but there should still be a completely objective on-the-field component to get into the playoff where schools don't need to worry about impressing a bunch of guys sitting in a conference room in Dallas every week with style points and other associated crap.

I'm no more bothered by an upset in the conference CCG than I am an upset in the NCG. Why are some adamantly opposed to letting the national championship participants be decided on the field---while they are perfectly willing to accept the on the field results of a single NCG as the preferred manner to determine the real national champion?

Agreed. It's disingenuous. The conference championship game is simply another de facto playoff game in this scenario. As this year has shown with Ohio State getting in, the CCGs would actually be more important in an 8-team playoff with P5 auto-bids than they are in the 4-team playoff system. (To be clear, I think Ohio State should have gotten into the playoff over Penn State based on the criteria established for this current system. In that sense, I'm the equivalent of a lower court judge that is abiding by a Supreme Court ruling that I personally disagree with.) It still boggles my mind it seems that more people whine about a weaker division winner upsetting a supposedly better team than the fact that the national championship of this sport is determined by a bunch of guys sitting in a room in Dallas. (Yes, I will keep saying "a bunch of guys sitting in a room in Dallas" until I'm blue in the face. I had more faith in both the BCS system with a formula component and the "wisdom of crowds" in the AP poll.)

THESE GUYS ARE ALL OVER IT! Either you win it on the field - in which case Penn State should be representing the Big Ten in the playoffs - or you base playoff berths on opinion - in which case, why even play the games? You knew you thought Ohio State was the best team in the Big Ten before the season even began!

And don't even get me started on "best" vs. "most-deserving"... How can you say Ohio State is clearly better than Penn State when OSU never played Pitt and PSU never played Oklahoma? They played each other - why not just use that game to decide???

(12-05-2016 11:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-05-2016 10:49 AM)Scoochpooch Wrote:  But the conferences need to scrap the divisions, play more conference games, and ensure #1 plays #2 in each conference game instead of some random East-West matchup.

Why?

Divisions aren't random. They're used in the NFL and MLB quite effectively, and to the extent that the punditry (or in the case of college football, a bunch of committee members sitting in a room in Dallas) *thinks* that Team A Division winner isn't as "deserving" as Team B Division Winner, the point is that the playoff spot is still determined by Team A actually beating Team B *on-the-field*.

Frank, I think the advantage of scrapping divisions is not in determining conference champs but in cycling through the conference faster. Unless you can play a full round-robin (which the ACC, Big Ten and SEC cannot), no grouping will ever REALLY eliminate the effect of schedule inequalities. In the NFL, not only do they play everyone in their division, but they play them all home-and-home so even home field advantage is taken out of it! College football simply cannot do all that equalizing.

(12-05-2016 11:39 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  BCS had computers, so it is automatically less credible.

Whoa there. If someone can program a computer to predict outcomes of games far more accurately than humans can, how would that be less credible? The problem with the BCS computer programs was the fact that the BCS committee regulated them to the point that they weren't as effective anymore... I guess they didn't want to accept that Virginia Tech was one of the two best teams in 1999, so they said no more using margin of victory... which handcuffed the software big time.

(12-05-2016 11:48 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  you base playoff berths on opinion - in which case, why even play the games?

That's absurd.

The committee watch the games. They form their opinion based on the games.

(12-05-2016 11:48 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Unless you can play a full round-robin (which the ACC, Big Ten and SEC cannot), no grouping will ever REALLY eliminate the effect of schedule inequalities.

And so your answer is to scrap any semblance to round-robin entirely??

Absolutely not. The reason divisions exist in the first place is to approximate the full round-robin that conferences used for years. You cut the conf in half, each half plays a round-robin against itself, and the winners of each half meet. You can't approximate a full round-robin better than that.

(12-05-2016 11:51 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If someone can program a computer to predict outcomes of games far more accurately than humans can, how would that be less credible?

Because you can't. Far too many variables.

(12-05-2016 11:07 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Another way to do it is to add a SF to the CCG. This expands the conference championship without doing away with them & helps ensure that the best conference teams have a shot at the championship. This would make the CCG more valuable & lead to a champs only CFP 4 team format.

This is the answer, with some conference realignment and the P4 separation.

Some P4 conferences expand, taking mostly from the B12. Each P4 holds a 4-team conference championship tournament.

The 4-team CFP simply takes the four P4 conference champions. You could even align B1G v. PAC in the Rose Bowl and SEC v. ACC in the Sugar or Orange Bowl. (similarities with AFC and NFC alignment).

The *conferences* gain substantially by adding an extra round of elimination games within the conference championship structure. $$$$!

The CFP still gets the "top 4" and elevates the Rose and Sugar/Orange bowls.