https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/ncaa-p...34385.html

Quote:NCAA president Mark Emmert said Wednesday that he’d like to increase the College Football Playoff field from four teams to eight in an effort to allow the champions of all five of the Power Five conferences to be represented.

Emmert was speaking at the Learfield Sports Intercollegiate Athletics Forum in New York.

“I’m kind of old school about that, I guess,” he said. “It would be really fun to have a model where those five champions all got a crack at moving forward. I don’t know what that looks like.”

It's interesting to hear this from the President of the NCAA. It suggests that there is some momentum for this concept behind the scenes.

Honestly, I don't think it means much of anything. The College Football Playoff is not an NCAA event and Mark Emmert's opinion on it means very little.

That said, I absolutely agree with him. I think the only way to FINALLY legitimize this entire process is to institute an 8-team playoff that grants automatic berths to the champions of the five major conferences, plus three at-large bids.

More than anything, we have to remove as much of the subjectivity as possible from the process. What we have now is superior to what we had for decades but if that is not damning by false praise I don't know what it is? Abject failure should not be the bar by which the new process is judged.

I just believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant and this entire process should be as open and transparent as possible. It should also be based on objective criteria, established and clearly explained well before the season begins; not the ever-changing whims and preferences of a committee who all have inherent allegiances, biases, preferences, etc., and who don't really have to explain their thought process.

I just don't think that when even fanatics like us are left guessing what matters and what does not, and who is going to get in and who is not, that's bad for the sport and is unsustainable for the long-haul.

This year the finalists were pretty cut-and-dried. There really shouldn't have been much controversy. However, even in this set up there was some controversy. That is not good going forward.

There are going to be years – probably as soon as next year or the year after – where there will be legitimate controversy over this. I understand there is a boneheaded school of thought out there that controversy is good for the sport. However, I am here to tell you that is just plain stupid thinking. It is never good for consumers to lack confidence in the legitimacy of a product, which is what happens in college football every single year.

College football isn't popular because of the asinine way in which it's postseason is run, it is popular in spite of that fact.

Go to eight teams, guarantee a berth to the champions of all the major conferences and have the stupid committee pick the final three teams. There will still be controversy but it won't be nearly as nasty or frankly, as well-founded as the controversies we regularly endure in the current system.

Also, move the title game to Saturday night at 7 PM EST. Playing the game on a Monday night at 9 o'clock just eliminates so many young people and so many casual fans. Make it equivalent to the Super Bowl – which is always played on a Sunday night at 6 PM EST. That is the perfect time to run a game like that and I think that is a major reason why the Super Bowl has become so omnipresent in our culture.

(12-09-2016 09:16 AM)orangefan Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/ncaa-p...34385.html

Quote:NCAA president Mark Emmert said Wednesday that he’d like to increase the College Football Playoff field from four teams to eight in an effort to allow the champions of all five of the Power Five conferences to be represented.

Emmert was speaking at the Learfield Sports Intercollegiate Athletics Forum in New York.

“I’m kind of old school about that, I guess,” he said. “It would be really fun to have a model where those five champions all got a crack at moving forward. I don’t know what that looks like.”

It's interesting to hear this from the President of the NCAA. It suggests that there is some momentum for this concept behind the scenes.

I agree. He tends to follow the party line. He is not someone to upset the status quo.

I like 6 or 8 if they go with conference champs get 5 auto bids. I would have the 1st round 2nd week of December at higher seed home. I would have the losers from the 1st round get kicked into the bowl system.

The important aspect about today's format is that we are arguing about teams 4, 5, and 6, instead of teams 2, 3, and 4 under the BCS formula. If you expand it to 8 teams, you will inevitably get arguments about 7, 8, 9 and 10 - just like in the NCAA tournament when you are having arguments about bubble teams that don't get in.

Four is just fine, and none of the power conferences are at a disadvantage when it comes to getting one of the four slots. A G5 with a strong OOC schedule and dominant conference showing would also have a strong shot at getting a spot, as long as the P5 champions have at least one loss, but none of the G5 champions had the resume to leapfrog any of the four in previous years. It is what it is.

Emmert's opinion is obviously more, but playoff teams are already approaching fifteen games per year. That is way too much.

(12-09-2016 09:37 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Honestly, I don't think it means much of anything. The College Football Playoff is not an NCAA event and Mark Emmert's opinion on it means very little.

Ding!

(12-09-2016 09:37 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Honestly, I don't think it means much of anything. The College Football Playoff is not an NCAA event and Mark Emmert's opinion on it means very little.

That said, I absolutely agree with him. I think the only way to FINALLY legitimize this entire process is to institute an 8-team playoff that grants automatic berths to the champions of the five major conferences, plus three at-large bids.

More than anything, we have to remove as much of the subjectivity as possible from the process. What we have now is superior to what we had for decades but if that is not damning by false praise I don't know what it is? Abject failure should not be the bar by which the new process is judged.

I just believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant and this entire process should be as open and transparent as possible. It should also be based on objective criteria, established and clearly explained well before the season begins; not the ever-changing whims and preferences of a committee who all have inherent allegiances, biases, preferences, etc., and who don't really have to explain their thought process.

I just don't think that when even fanatics like us are left guessing what matters and what does not, and who is going to get in and who is not, that's bad for the sport and is unsustainable for the long-haul.

This year the finalists were pretty cut-and-dried. There really shouldn't have been much controversy. However, even in this set up there was some controversy. That is not good going forward.

There are going to be years – probably as soon as next year or the year after – where there will be legitimate controversy over this. I understand there is a boneheaded school of thought out there that controversy is good for the sport. However, I am here to tell you that is just plain stupid thinking. It is never good for consumers to lack confidence in the legitimacy of a product, which is what happens in college football every single year.

College football isn't popular because of the asinine way in which it's postseason is run, it is popular in spite of that fact.

Go to eight teams, guarantee a berth to the champions of all the major conferences and have the stupid committee pick the final three teams. There will still be controversy but it won't be nearly as nasty or frankly, as well-founded as the controversies we regularly endure in the current system.

Also, move the title game to Saturday night at 7 PM EST. Playing the game on a Monday night at 9 o'clock just eliminates so many young people and so many casual fans. Make it equivalent to the Super Bowl – which is always played on a Sunday night at 6 PM EST. That is the perfect time to run a game like that and I think that is a major reason why the Super Bowl has become so omnipresent in our culture.

An alternative to going to 8 teams as a way of guaranteeing all P5 champs a berth is to simply invite only the six highest ranked (combining the AP and Coaches Polls) conference champions (or any independent ranked in the Top 4). Give the two highest ranked teams a bye to the semifinals. #3 plays #6, and #4 plays #5. No committees, no at large teams.

Will there ever be a team capable of winning such a tournament who doesn't get invited? Probably. Maybe even often. So what? They had their chance and blew it. A lot of basketball teams capable of winning fail to reach the Final Four. Nobody is suggesting we give them a second bite at the apple. Football runnerups shouldn't get one either.

Regardless what is decided, Emmert won't play a role in it. The NCAA willingly ceded its authority over the football postseason a long time ago.

(12-09-2016 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 09:37 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Honestly, I don't think it means much of anything. The College Football Playoff is not an NCAA event and Mark Emmert's opinion on it means very little.

Ding!

Disagree 100%

It may not be an NCAA event, but the NCAA eligibility, etc rules are followed, and the NCAA is run by the University Presidents. Emmert's opinion means a great deal to those who selected him in the first place.

(12-09-2016 11:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 09:37 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Honestly, I don't think it means much of anything. The College Football Playoff is not an NCAA event and Mark Emmert's opinion on it means very little.

That said, I absolutely agree with him. I think the only way to FINALLY legitimize this entire process is to institute an 8-team playoff that grants automatic berths to the champions of the five major conferences, plus three at-large bids.

More than anything, we have to remove as much of the subjectivity as possible from the process. What we have now is superior to what we had for decades but if that is not damning by false praise I don't know what it is? Abject failure should not be the bar by which the new process is judged.

I just believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant and this entire process should be as open and transparent as possible. It should also be based on objective criteria, established and clearly explained well before the season begins; not the ever-changing whims and preferences of a committee who all have inherent allegiances, biases, preferences, etc., and who don't really have to explain their thought process.

I just don't think that when even fanatics like us are left guessing what matters and what does not, and who is going to get in and who is not, that's bad for the sport and is unsustainable for the long-haul.

This year the finalists were pretty cut-and-dried. There really shouldn't have been much controversy. However, even in this set up there was some controversy. That is not good going forward.

There are going to be years – probably as soon as next year or the year after – where there will be legitimate controversy over this. I understand there is a boneheaded school of thought out there that controversy is good for the sport. However, I am here to tell you that is just plain stupid thinking. It is never good for consumers to lack confidence in the legitimacy of a product, which is what happens in college football every single year.

College football isn't popular because of the asinine way in which it's postseason is run, it is popular in spite of that fact.

Go to eight teams, guarantee a berth to the champions of all the major conferences and have the stupid committee pick the final three teams. There will still be controversy but it won't be nearly as nasty or frankly, as well-founded as the controversies we regularly endure in the current system.

Also, move the title game to Saturday night at 7 PM EST. Playing the game on a Monday night at 9 o'clock just eliminates so many young people and so many casual fans. Make it equivalent to the Super Bowl – which is always played on a Sunday night at 6 PM EST. That is the perfect time to run a game like that and I think that is a major reason why the Super Bowl has become so omnipresent in our culture.

An alternative to going to 8 teams as a way of guaranteeing all P5 champs a berth is to simply invite only the six highest ranked (combining the AP and Coaches Polls) conference champions (or any independent ranked in the Top 4). Give the two highest ranked teams a bye to the semifinals. #3 plays #6, and #4 plays #5. No committees, no at large teams.

Will there ever be a team capable of winning such a tournament who doesn't get invited? Probably. Maybe even often. So what? They had their chance and blew it. A lot of basketball teams capable of winning fail to reach the Final Four. Nobody is suggesting we give them a second bite at the apple. Football runnerups shouldn't get one either.

Regardless what is decided, Emmert won't play a role in it. The NCAA willingly ceded its authority over the football postseason a long time ago.

No, that would not work. That would be as bad as the current system. Remember, the primary goals are more transparency and less subjectivity. That is my entire motivation for this. I don't want the highest ranked anything determining anything and I certainly don't want public opinion polling determining champions.

I want a system that makes sense and is easy for everyone to understand before the first ball is kicked off. That would finally solve this problem once and for all and would FINALLY get to the core of what is wrong with the current system - waaaaaay too much subjectivity.

That is also why I don't want an 8-team tournament with the "best teams." Who's to say who the best teams are? That's the problem – we don't all agree on everything and we never will.

We are probably going to have to hold her nose and live with a committee of some sort choosing the at-large berths and the seeding. That's just the reality. However, they should not have nearly as much power as they currently do.

(12-09-2016 11:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 09:37 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Honestly, I don't think it means much of anything. The College Football Playoff is not an NCAA event and Mark Emmert's opinion on it means very little.

That said, I absolutely agree with him. I think the only way to FINALLY legitimize this entire process is to institute an 8-team playoff that grants automatic berths to the champions of the five major conferences, plus three at-large bids.

More than anything, we have to remove as much of the subjectivity as possible from the process. What we have now is superior to what we had for decades but if that is not damning by false praise I don't know what it is? Abject failure should not be the bar by which the new process is judged.

I just believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant and this entire process should be as open and transparent as possible. It should also be based on objective criteria, established and clearly explained well before the season begins; not the ever-changing whims and preferences of a committee who all have inherent allegiances, biases, preferences, etc., and who don't really have to explain their thought process.

I just don't think that when even fanatics like us are left guessing what matters and what does not, and who is going to get in and who is not, that's bad for the sport and is unsustainable for the long-haul.

This year the finalists were pretty cut-and-dried. There really shouldn't have been much controversy. However, even in this set up there was some controversy. That is not good going forward.

There are going to be years – probably as soon as next year or the year after – where there will be legitimate controversy over this. I understand there is a boneheaded school of thought out there that controversy is good for the sport. However, I am here to tell you that is just plain stupid thinking. It is never good for consumers to lack confidence in the legitimacy of a product, which is what happens in college football every single year.

College football isn't popular because of the asinine way in which it's postseason is run, it is popular in spite of that fact.

Go to eight teams, guarantee a berth to the champions of all the major conferences and have the stupid committee pick the final three teams. There will still be controversy but it won't be nearly as nasty or frankly, as well-founded as the controversies we regularly endure in the current system.

Also, move the title game to Saturday night at 7 PM EST. Playing the game on a Monday night at 9 o'clock just eliminates so many young people and so many casual fans. Make it equivalent to the Super Bowl – which is always played on a Sunday night at 6 PM EST. That is the perfect time to run a game like that and I think that is a major reason why the Super Bowl has become so omnipresent in our culture.

An alternative to going to 8 teams as a way of guaranteeing all P5 champs a berth is to simply invite only the six highest ranked (combining the AP and Coaches Polls) conference champions (or any independent ranked in the Top 4). Give the two highest ranked teams a bye to the semifinals. #3 plays #6, and #4 plays #5. No committees, no at large teams.

Will there ever be a team capable of winning such a tournament who doesn't get invited? Probably. Maybe even often. So what? They had their chance and blew it. A lot of basketball teams capable of winning fail to reach the Final Four. Nobody is suggesting we give them a second bite at the apple. Football runnerups shouldn't get one either.

Regardless what is decided, Emmert won't play a role in it. The NCAA willingly ceded its authority over the football postseason a long time ago.

With 8 you don't have to have the arbitrary choice of who gets the byes. 8 is the next stop. Don't know when it will happen. I originally thought 2020 after two 3 year cycles. But it may not be until 2026. Having the quarterfinals before Christmas has difficulties. Having home field in semi-finals in January has difficulties. Having 3 straight neutral site games has difficulties. Scheduling around the NFL in January has difficulties. Those are thorny problems they have to solve. I suspect they will end up doing 3 straight neutral site games and have semi-finals on Mondays with relatively light crowds.

(12-09-2016 09:37 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Go to eight teams, guarantee a berth to the champions of all the major conferences and have the stupid committee pick the final three teams. There will still be controversy but it won't be nearly as nasty or frankly, as well-founded as the controversies we regularly endure in the current system.

So champs are (1) Alabama, (2) Clemson, (4) Washington, (5) Penn State, and (7) Oklahoma. First two at-larges are (3) Ohio State and (6) Michigan. Should the last team in be (8) Wisconsin? Or if the committee knew they were picking the last spot, would/should they bump up Southern California? Would it be more fun to give Western Michigan a chance?

(12-09-2016 11:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  An alternative to going to 8 teams as a way of guaranteeing all P5 champs a berth is to simply invite only the six highest ranked (combining the AP and Coaches Polls) conference champions (or any independent ranked in the Top 4). Give the two highest ranked teams a bye to the semifinals. #3 plays #6, and #4 plays #5. No committees, no at large teams.

Will there ever be a team capable of winning such a tournament who doesn't get invited? Probably. Maybe even often. So what? They had their chance and blew it. A lot of basketball teams capable of winning fail to reach the Final Four. Nobody is suggesting we give them a second bite at the apple. Football runnerups shouldn't get one either.

Regardless what is decided, Emmert won't play a role in it. The NCAA willingly ceded its authority over the football postseason a long time ago.

Changes that could make the system work are P4 consolidation and then add semi-finals to the CONFERENCE championship process. This would allow a team like 2016 Ohio St. or 2011 Alabama to still have the opportunity to play for the conference championship and qualify for the CFP, despite not winning its division. But, it works better if conferences grow a little bigger, which would conveniently consolidate the P4.

So, B1G Championship Tournament =
Wisconsin v. Ohio St.
Penn St. v. Michigan

ACC =
Clemson v. FSU
Virginia Tech v. Louisville

SEC =
Alabama v. WVU
Florida v. Auburn

PAC =
Washington v. USC
Colorado v. Oklahoma


Then, the CFP matches B1G v. PAC champs in the Rose Bowl and SEC v. ACC champs in the Orange or Peach Bowl. CFP Bowl winners play for the National Championship.

(12-09-2016 11:42 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 11:23 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 09:37 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Honestly, I don't think it means much of anything. The College Football Playoff is not an NCAA event and Mark Emmert's opinion on it means very little.

That said, I absolutely agree with him. I think the only way to FINALLY legitimize this entire process is to institute an 8-team playoff that grants automatic berths to the champions of the five major conferences, plus three at-large bids.

More than anything, we have to remove as much of the subjectivity as possible from the process. What we have now is superior to what we had for decades but if that is not damning by false praise I don't know what it is? Abject failure should not be the bar by which the new process is judged.

I just believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant and this entire process should be as open and transparent as possible. It should also be based on objective criteria, established and clearly explained well before the season begins; not the ever-changing whims and preferences of a committee who all have inherent allegiances, biases, preferences, etc., and who don't really have to explain their thought process.

I just don't think that when even fanatics like us are left guessing what matters and what does not, and who is going to get in and who is not, that's bad for the sport and is unsustainable for the long-haul.

This year the finalists were pretty cut-and-dried. There really shouldn't have been much controversy. However, even in this set up there was some controversy. That is not good going forward.

There are going to be years – probably as soon as next year or the year after – where there will be legitimate controversy over this. I understand there is a boneheaded school of thought out there that controversy is good for the sport. However, I am here to tell you that is just plain stupid thinking. It is never good for consumers to lack confidence in the legitimacy of a product, which is what happens in college football every single year.

College football isn't popular because of the asinine way in which it's postseason is run, it is popular in spite of that fact.

Go to eight teams, guarantee a berth to the champions of all the major conferences and have the stupid committee pick the final three teams. There will still be controversy but it won't be nearly as nasty or frankly, as well-founded as the controversies we regularly endure in the current system.

Also, move the title game to Saturday night at 7 PM EST. Playing the game on a Monday night at 9 o'clock just eliminates so many young people and so many casual fans. Make it equivalent to the Super Bowl – which is always played on a Sunday night at 6 PM EST. That is the perfect time to run a game like that and I think that is a major reason why the Super Bowl has become so omnipresent in our culture.

An alternative to going to 8 teams as a way of guaranteeing all P5 champs a berth is to simply invite only the six highest ranked (combining the AP and Coaches Polls) conference champions (or any independent ranked in the Top 4). Give the two highest ranked teams a bye to the semifinals. #3 plays #6, and #4 plays #5. No committees, no at large teams.

Will there ever be a team capable of winning such a tournament who doesn't get invited? Probably. Maybe even often. So what? They had their chance and blew it. A lot of basketball teams capable of winning fail to reach the Final Four. Nobody is suggesting we give them a second bite at the apple. Football runnerups shouldn't get one either.

Regardless what is decided, Emmert won't play a role in it. The NCAA willingly ceded its authority over the football postseason a long time ago.

No, that would not work. That would be as bad as the current system. Remember, the primary goals are more transparency and less subjectivity. That is my entire motivation for this. I don't want the highest ranked anything determining anything and I certainly don't want public opinion polling determining champions.

I want a system that makes sense and is easy for everyone to understand before the first ball is kicked off. That would finally solve this problem once and for all and would FINALLY get to the core of what is wrong with the current system.

That is also why I don't want an 8-team tournament with the "best teams." Who's to say who the best teams are? That's the problem – we don't all agree on everything and we never will.

Agreed 100%.

Taking the "highest-ranked conference champions" brings back in subjectivity, which defeats the purpose of expanding the playoff. Also, in practicality, the P5 conferences are going to be either all-or-nothing: either they're going to get 100% guaranteed auto-bids (99% *chance* is NOT enough) or they're going to take the top 8 teams for the playoff without any regard to conference championships. They're definitely not going to allow a situation where a G5 conference champ can get in OVER them with a "highest-ranked conference champions" rule.

I also don't get some of the fascination with a 6-team playoff. I guess I see the argument from a pure competitiveness standpoint, but at least in my mind, the biggest (and maybe only) reason why we don't have an 8-team playoff is because it's adding another round to the season. If you're going to add another round of games, then there's little purpose of adding a full round for some teams but not some of the others. (There's little reason for a "half-measure", especially if the proposal is to remove a bunch of very high-ranking and high profile teams that would have gone to top level bowls in the current system but would instead go to playoff games outside of the bowls in a new system.)

An alternative to going to 8 teams as a way of guaranteeing all P5 champs a berth is to simply invite only the six highest ranked (combining the AP and Coaches Polls) conference champions (or any independent ranked in the Top 4). Give the two highest ranked teams a bye to the semifinals. #3 plays #6, and #4 plays #5. No committees, no at large teams.

Will there ever be a team capable of winning such a tournament who doesn't get invited? Probably. Maybe even often. So what? They had their chance and blew it. A lot of basketball teams capable of winning fail to reach the Final Four. Nobody is suggesting we give them a second bite at the apple. Football runnerups shouldn't get one either.

Regardless what is decided, Emmert won't play a role in it. The NCAA willingly ceded its authority over the football postseason a long time ago.
[/quote]

No, that would not work. That would be as bad as the current system. Remember, the primary goals are more transparency and less subjectivity. That is my entire motivation for this. I don't want the highest ranked anything determining anything and I certainly don't want public opinion polling determining champions.

I want a system that makes sense and is easy for everyone to understand before the first ball is kicked off. That would finally solve this problem once and for all and would FINALLY get to the core of what is wrong with the current system - waaaaaay too much subjectivity.

That is also why I don't want an 8-team tournament with the "best teams." Who's to say who the best teams are? That's the problem – we don't all agree on everything and we never will.

We are probably going to have to hold her nose and live with a committee of some sort choosing the at-large berths and the seeding. That's just the reality. However, they should not have nearly as much power as they currently do.
[/quote]

Doctor, I believe your response is self contradictory. You say you don't want the highest ranked anything determining anything, yet that's exactly what you propose. As long as there are at-large teams there will be a beauty contest to pick them. And by guaranteeing berths to the P5, you are saying all five of those champions will be more deserving than champions of other conferences. That in itself is a ranking system. And much of the time it will produce an acceptable result. But not always.

The only way to avoid using some method of ranking/seeding teams is to either go past 8 teams or reduce the number of eligible conferences to 8 and make all independents join a conference. Neither of those things is going to happen.

The reality of FBS football is that there aren't enough conference champions to fill an 8 team field without awful mismatches.

IMO, you don't get to have it both ways. Either the tournament should include only champions or all berths should be at-large, and we just accept that the choices will always be subjective. The only real differences between a poll and a committee are the sample size, and the fact that polls are transparent and committees are not.

Personally, I believe there is no way to create a fair playoff in college football, and we should just revert to the status quo before the Bowl Alliance. No playoff, just post-season exhibitions played for fun, and let fans argue about who is best to their heart's content. Multiple claimants to the title of Mythical National Champion? No problem. It worked fine for decades.

(12-09-2016 09:16 AM)orangefan Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/ncaa-p...34385.html

Quote:NCAA president Mark Emmert said Wednesday that he’d like to increase the College Football Playoff field from four teams to eight in an effort to allow the champions of all five of the Power Five conferences to be represented.

Emmert was speaking at the Learfield Sports Intercollegiate Athletics Forum in New York.

“I’m kind of old school about that, I guess,” he said. “It would be really fun to have a model where those five champions all got a crack at moving forward. I don’t know what that looks like.”

It's interesting to hear this from the President of the NCAA. It suggests that there is some momentum for this concept behind the scenes.

How about ALL 10 conferences represented and two at large. Four byes with first two rounds at home sites. That is the only solution that makes sense, otherwise leave at 4

(12-09-2016 12:21 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  How about ALL 10 conferences represented and two at large. Four byes with first two rounds at home sites. That is the only solution that makes sense, otherwise leave at 4

Some sort of separation is more likely.

Here is how it looks
AAC Temple 23
ACC Clemson 3
Big 12 Oklahoma 7
Big Ten Penn State 5
CUSA W Kentucky 35
MAC WMU 12
MWC San Diego State 34
PAC 12 Washington 4
SEC Alabama 1
Sun Belt App St UR

OSU 2
Michigan 6


BYES Alabama 1 OSU 2 Clemson 3 Washington 4 that host winners of the first week by seed, not bracket

Penn State 5 Hosts W Kentucky 35
Michigan 6 hosts San Diego State 34
Oklahoma 7 hosts Temple 23
WMU 12 hosts App St

(12-09-2016 11:36 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  Emmert's opinion means a great deal to those who selected him in the first place.

Spoken like a fan of the NCAA FCS playoff, who wishes FBS had the same.

It's not. And never will be.

Emmert may be well respected in general, but his opinion on this matter is utterly invalid and rejected.

(12-09-2016 12:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote:An alternative to going to 8 teams as a way of guaranteeing all P5 champs a berth is to simply invite only the six highest ranked (combining the AP and Coaches Polls) conference champions (or any independent ranked in the Top 4). Give the two highest ranked teams a bye to the semifinals. #3 plays #6, and #4 plays #5. No committees, no at large teams.

Will there ever be a team capable of winning such a tournament who doesn't get invited? Probably. Maybe even often. So what? They had their chance and blew it. A lot of basketball teams capable of winning fail to reach the Final Four. Nobody is suggesting we give them a second bite at the apple. Football runnerups shouldn't get one either.

Regardless what is decided, Emmert won't play a role in it. The NCAA willingly ceded its authority over the football postseason a long time ago.

No, that would not work. That would be as bad as the current system. Remember, the primary goals are more transparency and less subjectivity. That is my entire motivation for this. I don't want the highest ranked anything determining anything and I certainly don't want public opinion polling determining champions.

I want a system that makes sense and is easy for everyone to understand before the first ball is kicked off. That would finally solve this problem once and for all and would FINALLY get to the core of what is wrong with the current system - waaaaaay too much subjectivity.

That is also why I don't want an 8-team tournament with the "best teams." Who's to say who the best teams are? That's the problem – we don't all agree on everything and we never will.

We are probably going to have to hold her nose and live with a committee of some sort choosing the at-large berths and the seeding. That's just the reality. However, they should not have nearly as much power as they currently do.

Doctor, I believe your response is self contradictory. You say you don't want the highest ranked anything determining anything, yet that's exactly what you propose. As long as there are at-large teams there will be a beauty contest to pick them. And by guaranteeing berths to the P5, you are saying all five of those champions will be more deserving than champions of other conferences. That in itself is a ranking system. And much of the time it will produce an acceptable result. But not always.

The only way to avoid using some method of ranking/seeding teams is to either go past 8 teams or reduce the number of eligible conferences to 8 and make all independents join a conference. Neither of those things is going to happen.

The reality of FBS football is that there aren't enough conference champions to fill an 8 team field without awful mismatches.

IMO, you don't get to have it both ways. Either the tournament should include only champions or all berths should be at-large, and we just accept that the choices will always be subjective. The only real differences between a poll and a committee are the sample size, and the fact that polls are transparent and committees are not.

Personally, I believe there is no way to create a fair playoff in college football, and we should just revert to the status quo before the Bowl Alliance. No playoff, just post-season exhibitions played for fun, and let fans argue about who is best to their heart's content. Multiple claimants to the title of Mythical National Champion? No problem. It worked fine for decades.

I don't think we're under the illusion that this is a "fair" open access playoff or even anything close to the NCAA Tournament. In college football, the reality is that people have to work within the constraints that are realistically in place... and that means that the P5 conferences control the access and the TV networks are the ones driving the revenue that make a playoff expansion in the first place. The TV networks truly don't care if Western Michigan gets shut out of the playoff, which means that if the P5 propose a playoff where they all get auto-bids (while the G5 don't), then those TV networks will sign up for it immediately. By the same token, though, the TV networks do VERY MUCH care if Notre Dame gets structurally shut out of the playoff, which means that a playoff that consists solely of conference champs (whether we end up with only 4 power conferences or have a larger playoff) is also not in the cards.

Regardless, NO, there's not "an only way" to have an 8-team playoff as you've put it. If the P5 wants auto-bids for only themselves in order to get an 8-team playoff, then that's what's going to happen. The G5 conferences have ZERO leverage in this - the best that they can hope for is a "golden ticket" bid for the highest-ranked G5 champ. Frankly, the best thing for the G5 is that Notre Dame is independent, which means that the playoff can't ever be a P5 (or P4) champions-only affair while that's the case because the TV networks truly do value ND over the entire G5 plus 95% of the P5 schools, too.

(12-09-2016 11:09 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I like 6 or 8 if they go with conference champs get 5 auto bids. I would have the 1st round 2nd week of December at higher seed home. I would have the losers from the 1st round get kicked into the bowl system.

Agreed. Although I prefer to cap it at 6 schools and no autobids. Just put the 6 best teams in there. And yes by all means kick the schools defeated in the 1st round into the regular bowl system. Realistically you could setup the New Year's Six so it's like this:
Semifinal 1: #1 vs. winner of #3/#6 Game
Semifinal 2: #2 vs. winner of #4/#5 Game
Non-semifinal: #Whatever/P5 Champ/G5 Highest Ranked vs. loser of #3/#6 Game
Non-semifinal: #Whatever/P5 Champ/G5 Highest Ranked vs. loser of #4/5 Game
etc. etc. obviously the Rose Bowl when it's not a semifinal is a protected Big Ten vs. Pac-12 matchup and that can be worked into this.