We all have our individual preferences for how a more inclusive playoff should be structured. At the end of the day, the only people whose opinion will matter are the FBS presidents and the media companies who will provide the bulk of the money to be distributed. That being said, this is my opinion.
As I have said elsewhere, the only way I believe the decision makers will agree to expand the playoff is by extending the season at the beginning - that is, what is now called Week Zero. That means it will never, IMO, go beyond 8 teams in size.
In my scenario, the 12 teams would be chosen for the NY6 bowls as follows.
1. Any conference champion or independent ranked in the Top 12 automatically qualifies for the playoff. In the unlikely event there are more than 8 who meet this criterion, the 8 highest ranked are selected.
2. If there are fewer than 8 AQ schools, the remaining playoff spots go to the highest ranked teams regardless of conference affiliation.
3. The remaining four NY6 spots are filled as follows. Any champion of a conference that has a tie in with the Rose, Sugar or Orange Bowls that has not qualified for the playoff is guaranteed an NY6 slot. If no G5 school has qualified for the playoff, the highest ranked G5 conference champion is guaranteed a spot. The remaining spots are filled by the highest ranked teams still available.
4. The rankings used to determine which teams qualify would be a combination of human polls and computer rankings. Six such rankings would be selected, and each team's highest and lowest ranking among these six would be discarded and the remaining four ranks averaged.
5. A pairings committee will determine which teams play in which bowls, taking geography and tradition into account along with the rankings.
The four quarterfinal games will be played at neutral sites. The winners will advance to either the Peach Bowl or the Cotton Bowl for the semifinals. The losers will be assigned to the Rose, Sugar, Orange or Fiesta based first on contractual tie-ins, if any, and then at the discretion of the Pairings Committee in consultation with the Bowls and the media partners. The championship game will rotate among these four sites.
That's my scenario. What do you think are the chances that the presidents, conferences, bowls and media partners could agree to it?
(10-03-2018 08:42 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]We all have our individual preferences for how a more inclusive playoff should be structured. At the end of the day, the only people whose opinion will matter are the FBS presidents and the media companies who will provide the bulk of the money to be distributed. That being said, this is my opinion.
As I have said elsewhere, the only way I believe the decision makers will agree to expand the playoff is by extending the season at the beginning - that is, what is now called Week Zero. That means it will never, IMO, go beyond 8 teams in size.
In my scenario, the 12 teams would be chosen for the NY6 bowls as follows.
1. Any conference champion or independent ranked in the Top 12 automatically qualifies for the playoff. In the unlikely event there are more than 8 who meet this criterion, the 8 highest ranked are selected.
2. If there are fewer than 8 AQ schools, the remaining playoff spots go to the highest ranked teams regardless of conference affiliation.
3. The remaining four NY6 spots are filled as follows. Any champion of a conference that has a tie in with the Rose, Sugar or Orange Bowls that has not qualified for the playoff is guaranteed an NY6 slot. If no G5 school has qualified for the playoff, the highest ranked G5 conference champion is guaranteed a spot. The remaining spots are filled by the highest ranked teams still available.
4. The rankings used to determine which teams qualify would be a combination of human polls and computer rankings. Six such rankings would be selected, and each team's highest and lowest ranking among these six would be discarded and the remaining four ranks averaged.
5. A pairings committee will determine which teams play in which bowls, taking geography and tradition into account along with the rankings.
The four quarterfinal games will be played at neutral sites. The winners will advance to either the Peach Bowl or the Cotton Bowl for the semifinals. The losers will be assigned to the Rose, Sugar, Orange or Fiesta based first on contractual tie-ins, if any, and then at the discretion of the Pairings Committee in consultation with the Bowls and the media partners. The championship game will rotate among these four sites.
That's my scenario. What do you think are the chances that the presidents, conferences, bowls and media partners could agree to it?
The big flaw I see here are that the 8 highest-ranked conference champs get in. What if there are 8 conference champs ranked in the top 12, but a team that isn't a champ is ranked #1? They would miss the playoffs in your scenario, likely in favor of a #10 ranked G5 champ. Any system that leaves #1 out is doomed, IMO.
Also, while I like the way you try to accommodate the existing bowl arrangements by giving contract conferences an NY6 slot if their champ makes the playoffs, because 8 of the 12 slots are spoken for by the playoffs, this will basically cut back on the number of A5 teams in NY6 bowls. Conferences like the SEC and B1G have gotten used to putting 3 teams in the NY6 bowls, and that is a big appeal of the current arrangement for them. I don't see them surrendering that so that G5 champs can get in.
(10-03-2018 08:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (10-03-2018 08:42 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]We all have our individual preferences for how a more inclusive playoff should be structured. At the end of the day, the only people whose opinion will matter are the FBS presidents and the media companies who will provide the bulk of the money to be distributed. That being said, this is my opinion.
As I have said elsewhere, the only way I believe the decision makers will agree to expand the playoff is by extending the season at the beginning - that is, what is now called Week Zero. That means it will never, IMO, go beyond 8 teams in size.
In my scenario, the 12 teams would be chosen for the NY6 bowls as follows.
1. Any conference champion or independent ranked in the Top 12 automatically qualifies for the playoff. In the unlikely event there are more than 8 who meet this criterion, the 8 highest ranked are selected.
2. If there are fewer than 8 AQ schools, the remaining playoff spots go to the highest ranked teams regardless of conference affiliation.
3. The remaining four NY6 spots are filled as follows. Any champion of a conference that has a tie in with the Rose, Sugar or Orange Bowls that has not qualified for the playoff is guaranteed an NY6 slot. If no G5 school has qualified for the playoff, the highest ranked G5 conference champion is guaranteed a spot. The remaining spots are filled by the highest ranked teams still available.
4. The rankings used to determine which teams qualify would be a combination of human polls and computer rankings. Six such rankings would be selected, and each team's highest and lowest ranking among these six would be discarded and the remaining four ranks averaged.
5. A pairings committee will determine which teams play in which bowls, taking geography and tradition into account along with the rankings.
The four quarterfinal games will be played at neutral sites. The winners will advance to either the Peach Bowl or the Cotton Bowl for the semifinals. The losers will be assigned to the Rose, Sugar, Orange or Fiesta based first on contractual tie-ins, if any, and then at the discretion of the Pairings Committee in consultation with the Bowls and the media partners. The championship game will rotate among these four sites.
That's my scenario. What do you think are the chances that the presidents, conferences, bowls and media partners could agree to it?
The big flaw I see here are that the 8 highest-ranked conference champs get in. What if there are 8 conference champs ranked in the top 12, but a team that isn't a champ is ranked #1? They would miss the playoffs in your scenario, likely in favor of a #10 ranked G5 champ. Any system that leaves #1 out is doomed, IMO.
Also, while I like the way you try to accommodate the existing bowl arrangements by giving contract conferences an NY6 slot if their champ makes the playoffs, because 8 of the 12 slots are spoken for by the playoffs, this will basically cut back on the number of A5 teams in NY6 bowls. Conferences like the SEC and B1G have gotten used to putting 3 teams in the NY6 bowls, and that is a big appeal of the current arrangement for them. I don't see them surrendering that so that G5 champs can get in.
I'll address the second one first. The only situation in which the A5 conferences get fewer teams in the NY6 than they do now is if there are 2 or more non A5 champions ranked in the Top 8. That's going to be extremely rare, IMO. And if it happens, don't those schools deserve to be in there?
As for your first objection, has such a situation ever happened, or come close to happening? About the only way it is possible is if a team that didn't win its division is ranked #1, or goes into its CCG (in essence, the Sweet Sixteen round) ranked #1 and loses, but is still ranked #1 after that loss, ahead of the team that just beat them, and ahead of all the other A5 champions as well.
My feeling is that in either case the #1 team somehow played its way out of contention during the regular season (including CCG's) and blew its chance for the playoff (but not an NY6 bid). I can live with that.
+3 Looks like a good plan to me.
Bring back the BCS polls and take the top 8. Disband the committee.
(10-03-2018 09:35 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (10-03-2018 08:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (10-03-2018 08:42 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]We all have our individual preferences for how a more inclusive playoff should be structured. At the end of the day, the only people whose opinion will matter are the FBS presidents and the media companies who will provide the bulk of the money to be distributed. That being said, this is my opinion.
As I have said elsewhere, the only way I believe the decision makers will agree to expand the playoff is by extending the season at the beginning - that is, what is now called Week Zero. That means it will never, IMO, go beyond 8 teams in size.
In my scenario, the 12 teams would be chosen for the NY6 bowls as follows.
1. Any conference champion or independent ranked in the Top 12 automatically qualifies for the playoff. In the unlikely event there are more than 8 who meet this criterion, the 8 highest ranked are selected.
2. If there are fewer than 8 AQ schools, the remaining playoff spots go to the highest ranked teams regardless of conference affiliation.
3. The remaining four NY6 spots are filled as follows. Any champion of a conference that has a tie in with the Rose, Sugar or Orange Bowls that has not qualified for the playoff is guaranteed an NY6 slot. If no G5 school has qualified for the playoff, the highest ranked G5 conference champion is guaranteed a spot. The remaining spots are filled by the highest ranked teams still available.
4. The rankings used to determine which teams qualify would be a combination of human polls and computer rankings. Six such rankings would be selected, and each team's highest and lowest ranking among these six would be discarded and the remaining four ranks averaged.
5. A pairings committee will determine which teams play in which bowls, taking geography and tradition into account along with the rankings.
The four quarterfinal games will be played at neutral sites. The winners will advance to either the Peach Bowl or the Cotton Bowl for the semifinals. The losers will be assigned to the Rose, Sugar, Orange or Fiesta based first on contractual tie-ins, if any, and then at the discretion of the Pairings Committee in consultation with the Bowls and the media partners. The championship game will rotate among these four sites.
That's my scenario. What do you think are the chances that the presidents, conferences, bowls and media partners could agree to it?
The big flaw I see here are that the 8 highest-ranked conference champs get in. What if there are 8 conference champs ranked in the top 12, but a team that isn't a champ is ranked #1? They would miss the playoffs in your scenario, likely in favor of a #10 ranked G5 champ. Any system that leaves #1 out is doomed, IMO.
Also, while I like the way you try to accommodate the existing bowl arrangements by giving contract conferences an NY6 slot if their champ makes the playoffs, because 8 of the 12 slots are spoken for by the playoffs, this will basically cut back on the number of A5 teams in NY6 bowls. Conferences like the SEC and B1G have gotten used to putting 3 teams in the NY6 bowls, and that is a big appeal of the current arrangement for them. I don't see them surrendering that so that G5 champs can get in.
I'll address the second one first. The only situation in which the A5 conferences get fewer teams in the NY6 than they do now is if there are 2 or more non A5 champions ranked in the Top 8. That's going to be extremely rare, IMO. And if it happens, don't those schools deserve to be in there?
As for your first objection, has such a situation ever happened, or come close to happening? About the only way it is possible is if a team that didn't win its division is ranked #1, or goes into its CCG (in essence, the Sweet Sixteen round) ranked #1 and loses, but is still ranked #1 after that loss, ahead of the team that just beat them, and ahead of all the other A5 champions as well.
My feeling is that in either case the #1 team somehow played its way out of contention during the regular season (including CCG's) and blew its chance for the playoff (but not an NY6 bid). I can live with that.
Your objections to both of my points hinge in part on their rarity. I agree they are very unlikely to happen. But, I've seen many, many things happen in my life that were very unlikely to happen. Just when you think something can't happen, it does.
Also, it's not just #1 being left out. You could very well be leaving #2, or #3, or #4 out as well. That's exactly what prompted change in the NCAA tournament - in 1974 a #3 Maryland team that was clearly a top national title contender was left out because they lost their conference tournament to the #1 team.
To me, the validity of a playoff isn't defined by how many opportunities it provides for lower-ranked teams but by the odds that the truly "best" team is left out. Right now, the CFP-defined top 4 always get in. In your scenario, we expand the playoff to 8 but allow for top-4 teams to be left out. To me, that is a step backwards.
16 team playoff starting week after CCG's.
11 conf champions
5 at large
1st round - 2nd week Dec
qtr.'s - 3rd week Dec
week off
semi's - NYE (just like now)
finals - 1st Mon in Jan (like now)
spread the games out among-
Pasadena (Rose Bowl)
Tempe, AZ (Cards stadium)
Dallas (Jerry World)
NOLA (Superdome)
Atlanta (Mercedes dome)
Houston (NRG)
Indy (Lucas Oil)
Miami (Dolphins stadium)
Jax (Gator Bowl)
Detroit (Ford Field)
Minneapolis (Vikings stadium)
there's probably a few other cities who'd be in the mix, but it spreads it around the country like the NCAA tournament so a team like Ohio St/ Michigan or a west coast team could play relatively close to home in rounds 1 & 2 if seeded high enough. Teams that don't make it can play in the lesser bowl games
The only way it expands is if the P5 finds it advantageous.
So you need more money and an automatic bid for the P5. Just need the Big 10 to get left out and they will get on board. More money is a given.
They will not approve it if there is any chance of more than one G5 getting in.
(10-03-2018 08:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (10-03-2018 08:42 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]We all have our individual preferences for how a more inclusive playoff should be structured. At the end of the day, the only people whose opinion will matter are the FBS presidents and the media companies who will provide the bulk of the money to be distributed. That being said, this is my opinion.
As I have said elsewhere, the only way I believe the decision makers will agree to expand the playoff is by extending the season at the beginning - that is, what is now called Week Zero. That means it will never, IMO, go beyond 8 teams in size.
In my scenario, the 12 teams would be chosen for the NY6 bowls as follows.
1. Any conference champion or independent ranked in the Top 12 automatically qualifies for the playoff. In the unlikely event there are more than 8 who meet this criterion, the 8 highest ranked are selected.
2. If there are fewer than 8 AQ schools, the remaining playoff spots go to the highest ranked teams regardless of conference affiliation.
3. The remaining four NY6 spots are filled as follows. Any champion of a conference that has a tie in with the Rose, Sugar or Orange Bowls that has not qualified for the playoff is guaranteed an NY6 slot. If no G5 school has qualified for the playoff, the highest ranked G5 conference champion is guaranteed a spot. The remaining spots are filled by the highest ranked teams still available.
4. The rankings used to determine which teams qualify would be a combination of human polls and computer rankings. Six such rankings would be selected, and each team's highest and lowest ranking among these six would be discarded and the remaining four ranks averaged.
5. A pairings committee will determine which teams play in which bowls, taking geography and tradition into account along with the rankings.
The four quarterfinal games will be played at neutral sites. The winners will advance to either the Peach Bowl or the Cotton Bowl for the semifinals. The losers will be assigned to the Rose, Sugar, Orange or Fiesta based first on contractual tie-ins, if any, and then at the discretion of the Pairings Committee in consultation with the Bowls and the media partners. The championship game will rotate among these four sites.
That's my scenario. What do you think are the chances that the presidents, conferences, bowls and media partners could agree to it?
The big flaw I see here are that the 8 highest-ranked conference champs get in. What if there are 8 conference champs ranked in the top 12, but a team that isn't a champ is ranked #1? They would miss the playoffs in your scenario, likely in favor of a #10 ranked G5 champ. Any system that leaves #1 out is doomed, IMO.
Also, while I like the way you try to accommodate the existing bowl arrangements by giving contract conferences an NY6 slot if their champ makes the playoffs, because 8 of the 12 slots are spoken for by the playoffs, this will basically cut back on the number of A5 teams in NY6 bowls. Conferences like the SEC and B1G have gotten used to putting 3 teams in the NY6 bowls, and that is a big appeal of the current arrangement for them. I don't see them surrendering that so that G5 champs can get in.
While I agree---its very difficult to envision a scenario where #1 after the CCG's is a non-champ. That said, I could easily see a non-champ in the top 4 as its already happened several times just in the short CFP era. I like a lot of the plan, but my preference is to go back to rewarding championships by giving the P5 champs autobids (thats also the best way to get the P5 to buy in to the plan). Id also give the top G5 champ an AQ slot (now you have real access for the 50% of FBS thats currently shadow banned from the playoff).
Let the on the field results drive the playoff field as much as possible. Im fine with letting a ranking system select the remaining 2 best teams (making it absolutely impossible for either the #1 or #2 ranked team in the nation to ever miss the playoff). My preference has always been that the selection process be driven by actual on the field results as much as possible while only resorting to opinion based selection methods once the key champions have already been seeded (much like March Madness--but on a much smaller scale).
Perhaps an Alabama who lost in OT to Auburn at Jordan-Hare. Auburn loses 2 or 3 non-conference games but goes undefeated in conference sending the Tigers to the SEC title game. Also, there are no undefeated power schools.
(10-03-2018 10:05 AM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]Bring back the BCS polls and take the top 8. Disband the committee.
^This
BCS/CFP-inspired Eight Team Playoff
BCS Inspiration:
Teams are ranked using the BCS hybrid system of polls and computers. There are 6 auto-bids to 4 bowl games.
CFP Inspiration:
Set up a selection committee to account for "mistakes" by the BCS. Can also arrange matchups to best fit bowls to their traditional conferences.
New Rules:
While the committee may not select which teams are in the top eight, they are free to rearrange their order to their liking. Additionally, of the 4 bowl champions they can select the top two to compete in the National Title Game. BCS ranking of the bowl champions is assumed to play into this decision.
In the old BCS AQ conferences were explicitly defined. In the new system the top six conference champions as ranked by BCS will be given auto-bids. The remaining two bids will be given to the top two teams as ranked by BCS that have not already received an auto-bid.
(10-03-2018 08:42 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]We all have our individual preferences for how a more inclusive playoff should be structured. At the end of the day, the only people whose opinion will matter are the FBS presidents and the media companies who will provide the bulk of the money to be distributed. That being said, this is my opinion.
As I have said elsewhere, the only way I believe the decision makers will agree to expand the playoff is by extending the season at the beginning - that is, what is now called Week Zero. That means it will never, IMO, go beyond 8 teams in size.
In my scenario, the 12 teams would be chosen for the NY6 bowls as follows.
1. Any conference champion or independent ranked in the Top 12 automatically qualifies for the playoff. In the unlikely event there are more than 8 who meet this criterion, the 8 highest ranked are selected.
2. If there are fewer than 8 AQ schools, the remaining playoff spots go to the highest ranked teams regardless of conference affiliation.
3. The remaining four NY6 spots are filled as follows. Any champion of a conference that has a tie in with the Rose, Sugar or Orange Bowls that has not qualified for the playoff is guaranteed an NY6 slot. If no G5 school has qualified for the playoff, the highest ranked G5 conference champion is guaranteed a spot. The remaining spots are filled by the highest ranked teams still available.
4. The rankings used to determine which teams qualify would be a combination of human polls and computer rankings. Six such rankings would be selected, and each team's highest and lowest ranking among these six would be discarded and the remaining four ranks averaged.
5. A pairings committee will determine which teams play in which bowls, taking geography and tradition into account along with the rankings.
The four quarterfinal games will be played at neutral sites. The winners will advance to either the Peach Bowl or the Cotton Bowl for the semifinals. The losers will be assigned to the Rose, Sugar, Orange or Fiesta based first on contractual tie-ins, if any, and then at the discretion of the Pairings Committee in consultation with the Bowls and the media partners. The championship game will rotate among these four sites.
That's my scenario. What do you think are the chances that the presidents, conferences, bowls and media partners could agree to it?
Good chance. I proposed a virtually identical proposal. However, I like home fields for the quarterfinals. Home field advantage would be ENORMOUS for the top 4 seeds...and makes the regular season (and CCGs) mean as much as possible soon.
I still maintain that a 6 team playoff is the way to go.
P5 conference champions plus either ND or a wild card team.
If the P5 eventually becomes the P4, then it would be the 4 champs plus ND or 2 wild cards.
The P5 will never agree to any expansion or format that doesn't benefit THEIR conference, that's why the P5 champions MUST be part of any playoff.
The P5 is happy. ND is happy. The networks are happy.
^ What's likely and agreeable to the fat cats ≠ what's best for the sport.
(10-03-2018 10:27 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote: [ -> ]16 team playoff starting week after CCG's.
11 conf champions
5 at large
1st round - 2nd week Dec
qtr.'s - 3rd week Dec
week off
semi's - NYE (just like now)
finals - 1st Mon in Jan (like now)
spread the games out among-
Pasadena (Rose Bowl)
Tempe, AZ (Cards stadium)
Dallas (Jerry World)
NOLA (Superdome)
Atlanta (Mercedes dome)
Houston (NRG)
Indy (Lucas Oil)
Miami (Dolphins stadium)
Jax (Gator Bowl)
Detroit (Ford Field)
Minneapolis (Vikings stadium)
there's probably a few other cities who'd be in the mix, but it spreads it around the country like the NCAA tournament so a team like Ohio St/ Michigan or a west coast team could play relatively close to home in rounds 1 & 2 if seeded high enough. Teams that don't make it can play in the lesser bowl games
Sub Orlando for Miami or Jacksonville (stadium availability) and add a stadium in the Northeast (the Carrier Dome would be available if there is a concern about weather that would eliminate MetLife, Heinz Field, or Gillette Field) and I would be for this.
8 teams, 6 conference champs, 2 wildcards. Quarterfinals played on campus.
Quarterfinal losers get to go to NY6 bowls for consolation prizes.
(10-03-2018 04:51 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]8 teams, 6 conference champs, 2 wildcards. Quarterfinals played on campus.
Quarterfinal losers get to go to NY6 bowls for consolation prizes.
This gets my vote. You likely get BOTH the 4 best teams and the 4 most deserving. Limit fan base travel with the on-campus quarterfinals and provide a huge incentive to finish in the top-4. Keeps the NY6 contracts and system in place.
(10-03-2018 02:40 PM)McKinney Wrote: [ -> ]^ What's likely and agreeable to the fat cats ≠ what's best for the sport.
Fat Cats - Derogatory term used by those currently NOT "fat cats" looking to BECOME "fat cats" themselves.
BTW, the opposite is true as well. What's agreeable to the non fat cats doesn't equal "what's best for the sport" either.
(10-03-2018 07:21 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote: [ -> ]BTW, the opposite is true as well. What's agreeable to the non fat cats doesn't equal "what's best for the sport" either.
You're right. Extremes are usually not ideal. The best solution is probably either somewhere in the middle or is based on something entirely different. Like idk current on-field performance instead of who you've mingled with for the past century. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯