There's quite an easy fix

8 teams, 5+1+2 format

Virtually no one is ever left out, everyone makes more money. Only real loser here is the bowl system but people are quickly losing interest in even that.

(12-30-2016 02:36 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 11:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  The simple answer, and IMO the best answer, is that it is unique because there are 128 teams and a 12 game schedule, in a sport where you can't play more than once a week over a four month stretch.

How many AD's would be willing to reduce the number of regular season games to accommodate a 16 team tournament?

How many coaches of legitimate contenders want to risk losing a top player to injury playing a team that doesn't belong in the tournament, but won its weak conference?

The ultimate answer to your questions is that college football is, indeed, unique.

More invalid excuses. FCS and DII do it.

Those weren't "excuses". They are reasons, to anybody who doesn't have a bias in favor of getting an autobid for a G5 team. I could live with an 8 team tourney as long as there aren't any autobids - just the top 8 teams.

The only reason we have a 4 team "playoff" (and I use that word loosely), and why before that we had a 2 team BCS "championship" (again, loosely), is that for some reasons Americans suffer from a character flaw that demands that there can only be one winner. I would be happiest if we went back to the bowl system in place before the Bowl Alliance.

(12-30-2016 03:38 PM)ken d Wrote:  The only reason we have a 4 team "playoff" (and I use that word loosely), and why before that we had a 2 team BCS "championship" (again, loosely), is that for some reasons Americans suffer from a character flaw that demands that there can only be one winner. I would be happiest if we went back to the bowl system in place before the Bowl Alliance.

The only reason we have the +1 model (the same model the BCS people said was logistically impossible, btw) is because they found a way the money gap could be widened while keeping the bowl games executives (who parade around as CEO's of non-profit organizations) rich.

There's no American flaw in wanting a champion. Every sports league in every country except NCAA football has one.

It's done at other levels, and in other sports. It's very possible. It's just that money and power are in the way.

(12-30-2016 02:36 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 11:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  The simple answer, and IMO the best answer, is that it is unique because there are 128 teams and a 12 game schedule, in a sport where you can't play more than once a week over a four month stretch.

How many AD's would be willing to reduce the number of regular season games to accommodate a 16 team tournament?

How many coaches of legitimate contenders want to risk losing a top player to injury playing a team that doesn't belong in the tournament, but won its weak conference?

The ultimate answer to your questions is that college football is, indeed, unique.

More invalid excuses. FCS and DII do it.

FCS and D-II are pretty much money-neutral no matter what format they adopt. It's not realistic to make analogies between those divisions and FBS without considering the revenue generated in (and spent by) FBS programs.

Sure you could theoretically have a 24-team playoff in FBS like they do in FCS, but it would only happen if someone puts ginormous piles of money on the table to make it happen.

Until that money appears, it's no more likely than a 96-team D-I basketball tournament. Remember that proposal? Quite a few basketball coaches wanted it. It hasn't happened because CBS and TBS told the NCAA they weren't interested in paying more for it. If CBS and TBS had been eager to pay for it, it would have happened already. Same goes for a supersized FBS playoff. Not gonna happen unless and until the money is offered.

For those who are unwilling to live with a system in which money drives the decisions, FCS and the other divisions are available.

(12-30-2016 03:38 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 02:36 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 11:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  The simple answer, and IMO the best answer, is that it is unique because there are 128 teams and a 12 game schedule, in a sport where you can't play more than once a week over a four month stretch.

How many AD's would be willing to reduce the number of regular season games to accommodate a 16 team tournament?

How many coaches of legitimate contenders want to risk losing a top player to injury playing a team that doesn't belong in the tournament, but won its weak conference?

The ultimate answer to your questions is that college football is, indeed, unique.

More invalid excuses. FCS and DII do it.

Those weren't "excuses". They are reasons, to anybody who doesn't have a bias in favor of getting an autobid for a G5 team. I could live with an 8 team tourney as long as there aren't any autobids - just the top 8 teams.

The only reason we have a 4 team "playoff" (and I use that word loosely), and why before that we had a 2 team BCS "championship" (again, loosely), is that for some reasons Americans suffer from a character flaw that demands that there can only be one winner. I would be happiest if we went back to the bowl system in place before the Bowl Alliance.

That would be fine as long as no one ever tried to proclaim themselves national champion and no sports service ever declared one

FCS and Division II presidents aren't under pressure about their commercialism in athletics and perception that money controls all their decisions.

(12-30-2016 06:59 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  There's actually a logical reason:
1) there's too few games
2) there's too big of a difference in the quality of the teams (there's 3 conferences that have no business being in the same division as the SEC and Big 10)

Combined, it means it is impossible to come up with a solution that allows everyone a chance without heavily incentivizing weak schedules. People want to see games like Ohio State-Oklahoma, LSU-Wisconsin, and Florida-Florida State, and they won't do anything to provide an incentive for schools to cancel those types of series.

Quality post.

There are just too few games relative to the number of FBS teams.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using CSNbbs mobile app

Historians, Why was the NCAA able to create a basketball tournament and mandate teams play in their tournament and only their tournament but not able to do the same for bowls and football?

This question is why I no longer follow college football. When UAB comes back next year, they have 0 chance of ever doing anything that'll grab the average college football fan's attention, even if they go 12-0, I.e. Boise State a few years ago. Then you have the fans saying "They don't play anybody" but then say, "There's no point in (insert P5 school here) playing them". It's hypocritical. The elitist fans of P5 schools, most of whom have never set foot in an academic building on that college's campus, are also a major reason I no longer follow the sport.

(12-30-2016 09:29 PM)Blazer4Life14 Wrote:  This question is why I no longer follow college football. When UAB comes back next year, they have 0 chance of ever doing anything that'll grab the average college football fan's attention, even if they go 12-0, I.e. Boise State a few years ago. Then you have the fans saying "They don't play anybody" but then say, "There's no point in (insert P5 school here) playing them". It's hypocritical. The elitist fans of P5 schools, most of whom have never set foot in an academic building on that college's campus, are also a major reason I no longer follow the sport.

I'm no longer a college football fan, I'm an Arkansas State University fan. The CFP is not of any interest to me. P5 games in general are of very limited interest to me.

(12-30-2016 10:15 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 09:29 PM)Blazer4Life14 Wrote:  This question is why I no longer follow college football. When UAB comes back next year, they have 0 chance of ever doing anything that'll grab the average college football fan's attention, even if they go 12-0, I.e. Boise State a few years ago. Then you have the fans saying "They don't play anybody" but then say, "There's no point in (insert P5 school here) playing them". It's hypocritical. The elitist fans of P5 schools, most of whom have never set foot in an academic building on that college's campus, are also a major reason I no longer follow the sport.

I'm no longer a college football fan, I'm an Arkansas State University fan. The CFP is not of any interest to me. P5 games in general are of very limited interest to me.

Same here, but substitute ECU for Arkansas State. Because of the system, I will watch the G5 reps. The only major bowl game I watched last year was Houston beating FSU.

(12-30-2016 08:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 06:59 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  There's actually a logical reason:
1) there's too few games
2) there's too big of a difference in the quality of the teams (there's 3 conferences that have no business being in the same division as the SEC and Big 10)

Combined, it means it is impossible to come up with a solution that allows everyone a chance without heavily incentivizing weak schedules. People want to see games like Ohio State-Oklahoma, LSU-Wisconsin, and Florida-Florida State, and they won't do anything to provide an incentive for schools to cancel those types of series.

Quality post.

There are just too few games relative to the number of FBS teams.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using CSNbbs mobile app

Not really, they are broken down into smaller groups called conferences. Pit the conference champs against each other. As I keep saying, it's not that difficult. Basketball may play 25 games but they've got 350 schools! Every other college and pro sport had a real playoff. Every one.

Oh please, you guys act like it's any different than it's ever been. It's actually better than it was. It's not like it went from being a 16-team, all inclusive (i.e. all conference champions) playoffs to the current format. It's always restricted access and usually at the discretion of the bowl organizing committees.

(12-31-2016 01:56 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Oh please, you guys act like it's any different than it's ever been. It's actually better than it was. It's not like it went from being a 16-team, all inclusive (i.e. all conference champions) playoffs to the current format. It's always restricted access and usually at the discretion of the bowl organizing committees.

Yes, as someone once said "the arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice". The BCS was better than the old poll and bowl system, and the CFP is better than the BCS.

(12-31-2016 01:48 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 08:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 06:59 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  There's actually a logical reason:
1) there's too few games
2) there's too big of a difference in the quality of the teams (there's 3 conferences that have no business being in the same division as the SEC and Big 10)

Combined, it means it is impossible to come up with a solution that allows everyone a chance without heavily incentivizing weak schedules. People want to see games like Ohio State-Oklahoma, LSU-Wisconsin, and Florida-Florida State, and they won't do anything to provide an incentive for schools to cancel those types of series.

Quality post.

There are just too few games relative to the number of FBS teams.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using CSNbbs mobile app

Not really, they are broken down into smaller groups called conferences. Pit the conference champs against each other. As I keep saying, it's not that difficult. Basketball may play 25 games but they've got 350 schools! Every other college and pro sport had a real playoff. Every one.

No, because the conferences are unbalanced. In all the pro sports, equal money basically means that all the divisions and conferences are in the long run even, even if for short spurts one might be better than the other. So it makes sense for the NFC East and AFC West champs to have auto-bids to the playoffs, etc.

But FBS football isn't that way. The MAC and Sun Belt are in no way comparable to the B1G and SEC, ever. Not in a single year or the long run. So it makes no sense for both of their champs to have auto-bids to a playoff, as there are always at least 3-4 teams in the SEC or B1G that are better than any Sun Belt team.

Now, the same is true in college basketball. The ACC and B1G are, for example, always and without fail better than the SWAC and MEAC. So why does the NCAA tournament work competitively even though the SWAC and MEAC champs get auto-bids? Because the tournament is large enough to accommodate not just the ACC and B1G champs, but also the 5 other teams from each conference that are better and more worthy than the MEAC champ AND have a reasonable chance to win the national title. So college basketball can afford the theoretical purity of "every team controls its own destiny" because the trade-off in competitive integrity is small.

But college football can't have a 64-team tournament, it would be impractical. So if it boils down to *either* the SEC #2 team or the MAC champ, it should be the former, not the latter.

That's the problem with a 16-team all-champs playoff. There will definitely be Power teams that (a) are better than the G5 champs, and (b) legit contenders for the title, that are left out. And leaving those teams out would be too high a competitive-validity price to pay in order to ensure "controls destiny" for G5 champs.

The real solution, therefore, is for the P5 to be in a separate, new NCAA division, and then you can have a rational playoff just among those 64 or so teams.

(12-31-2016 07:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 01:48 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 08:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-30-2016 06:59 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  There's actually a logical reason:
1) there's too few games
2) there's too big of a difference in the quality of the teams (there's 3 conferences that have no business being in the same division as the SEC and Big 10)

Combined, it means it is impossible to come up with a solution that allows everyone a chance without heavily incentivizing weak schedules. People want to see games like Ohio State-Oklahoma, LSU-Wisconsin, and Florida-Florida State, and they won't do anything to provide an incentive for schools to cancel those types of series.

Quality post.

There are just too few games relative to the number of FBS teams.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using CSNbbs mobile app

Not really, they are broken down into smaller groups called conferences. Pit the conference champs against each other. As I keep saying, it's not that difficult. Basketball may play 25 games but they've got 350 schools! Every other college and pro sport had a real playoff. Every one.

No, because the conferences are unbalanced. In all the pro sports, equal money basically means that all the divisions and conferences are in the long run even, even if for short spurts one might be better than the other. So it makes sense for the NFC East and AFC West champs to have auto-bids to the playoffs, etc.

But FBS football isn't that way. The MAC and Sun Belt are in no way comparable to the B1G and SEC, ever. Not in a single year or the long run. So it makes no sense for both of their champs to have auto-bids to a playoff, as there are always at least 3-4 teams in the SEC or B1G that are better than any Sun Belt team.

Now, the same is true in college basketball. The ACC and B1G are, for example, always and without fail better than the SWAC and MEAC. So why does the NCAA tournament work competitively even though the SWAC and MEAC champs get auto-bids? Because the tournament is large enough to accommodate not just the ACC and B1G champs, but also the 5 other teams from each conference that are better and more worthy than the MEAC champ AND have a reasonable chance to win the national title. So college basketball can afford the theoretical purity of "every team controls its own destiny" because the trade-off in competitive integrity is small.

But college football can't have a 64-team tournament, it would be impractical. So if it boils down to *either* the SEC #2 team or the MAC champ, it should be the former, not the latter.

That's the problem with a 16-team all-champs playoff. There will definitely be Power teams that (a) are better than the G5 champs, and (b) legit contenders for the title, that are left out. And leaving those teams out would be too high a competitive-validity price to pay in order to ensure "controls destiny" for G5 champs.

The real solution, therefore, is for the P5 to be in a separate, new NCAA division, and then you can have a rational playoff just among those 64 or so teams.

Why is that invalid? In the NFL you can win every game and your division and then lose to some wildcard with a crappy record. Isn't that too high of a "competitive-validity price" to pay?

Each team has a path. It is well-defined. Do it and you make the playoff. If you do not....the fact that you have a big ego and cash doesn't make it an injustice.

You are buying into to beauty contest thinking that some programs "deserve" a slot by existing and other programs just don't deserve a slot even with a perfect record. That is not sports, it's a fashion show, its ice dancing, its a bad reality show.

If there are "competitive-validity price" to pay....you pay them when SEEDING...not by barring entry. Like a real sport.

(12-31-2016 07:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's the problem with a 16-team all-champs playoff. There will definitely be Power teams that (a) are better than the G5 champs, and (b) legit contenders for the title, that are left out. And leaving those teams out would be too high a competitive-validity price to pay in order to ensure "controls destiny" for G5 champs.

The real solution, therefore, is for the P5 to be in a separate, new NCAA division, and then you can have a rational playoff just among those 64 or so teams.

I disagree.

A 16-school playoff with all conference champs is fine. Left out? Shoulda won your league. And if you've got 6 wildcards, that's a second chance for enough top schools IMO.

Let's be real, college football is giving the vast majority of people what they want.

(12-31-2016 01:56 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Oh please, you guys act like it's any different than it's ever been. It's actually better than it was. It's not like it went from being a 16-team, all inclusive (i.e. all conference champions) playoffs to the current format. It's always restricted access and usually at the discretion of the bowl organizing committees.

1975 Arkansas State went 11-0 and stayed home back before we had "too many bowls".
Now pre-BCS we did get BYU winning a national title but I would argue that they would have had their shot in the BCS era. That was a bizarre season. No one else was undefeated. You had one loss Washington who finished second in the Pac-10, one loss Cal State Fullerton who finished second in the Big West. One loss and one tie Florida who was on probation with a bowl ban.
Also pre-BCS you had #5 Miami vaulting to the title by beating #1 while #2 and #4 lost and #3 Auburn won a 9-7 snoozefest vs. #8 Michigan.

Until bowl proliferation and the BCS, the king-maker role was owned by the bowls.

We saw in the BCS an easing of the requirements to become a buster. Now we have the access, now the top 4.

The system is the most fair it has ever been for the schools outside of the highest resource group.

(12-31-2016 12:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Let's be real, college football is giving the vast majority of people what they want.

Let's be even more real...no they're not. At all.