(11-24-2014 02:47 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  With a 4 game playoff I believe a program should not be able to participate if they are not their conference champion. The NCAA has to depend on each conference to determine their champion as equitable as possible.

I'm a big believer in conference champions, but in the 4-team playoff, we just can't have that hard and fast rule. Notre Dame exists as an independent, and that alone means that it's untenable to have a conference champs only rule. They have a vote on CFP matters that is equal to any conference and they have are aligned with the P5. Why should an independent be shut out of the playoff or, in turn, if you provide some type of special exception for independents, why should the 2nd place SEC team if it's in the top 4 be treated worse than a lower-ranked independent? When you have a top 4 playoff, you're already arbitrarily excluding at least one P5 conference champ. So, all that a conference champ requirement does in that scenario is make another arbitrary cut to the pool of possible teams.

Now, in an 8-team playoff, the calculation shifts quite a bit. That's large enough to accommodate all 5 P5 champs. How the other 3 spots are filled would be debatable, but I'd certainly want the flexibility to include highly ranked non-champs and independents (and more importantly, the TV networks that are funding all of this to make it possible will INSIST upon it - they WANT Notre Dame and those 2nd place SEC and Big Ten teams to have a chance).

(11-24-2014 03:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I just think it's pretty damn funny that everyone on here is still fighting the conference champions only battle. That battle was lost- you guys need to just move on....

People talk about the way things should be all the time in many aspects of society, even though those things will never will be due to corruption and greed. It has a certain positive effect just to call a little attention to the reality of the situation.

A champs only NCAA tournament doesn't work.

The NCAA rules require that the first round of a NCAA championship tournament (in any sport) only consist of half the field being AQ Champs. So the other half has to be balanced with at large bids.

You could do the Top 8 champs but it would still be a 16 team field to meet the NCAA requirements with the other 8 being at large selections.

That's why this system has no AQs so there is no need for matching number of at large bids.

(11-24-2014 03:32 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  A champs only NCAA tournament doesn't work.

The NCAA rules require that the first round of a NCAA championship tournament (in any sport) only consist of half the field being AQ Champs. So the other half has to be balanced with at large bids.

You could do the Top 8 champs but it would still be a 16 team field to meet the NCAA requirements with the other 8 being at large selections.

That's why this system has no AQs so there is no need for matching number of at large bids.

The FBS post-season is not organized by the NCAA and does not need to follow NCAA guidelines. ESPN and the major conferences control the playoff and could choose whatever format they want and whatever access rules they want to put in place.

and what did ESPN and the major conferences choose? Was it champions only? Hell no.

I understand the ND/Independents issue, or the G5 access issue - but otherwise, I have absolutely no problem with a champions-only model. It's simple and straightforward - win your conference and you're in. If you don't, you're not.

Does that mean that sometimes an upset can occur in a conference championship game? Yes, absolutely that can happen. But everybody knows going into that game how it's going to work. If an 8-3 Georgia beats an 11-0 Alabama to take the SEC title in a given year, well, Alabama didn't do what they had to do to get in. It eliminates "beauty contests" and puts it all on the field. It also helps to keep the intensity high in the regular season - you have to win games just to get to that CCG, and can't coast along and have a bad week or two without concern because you're going to get an at-large bid based on SOS/reputation/etc anyway. (Obviously in football with their smaller schedules this is less of a concern than in hoops, but this is one reason that many fans aren't that engaged in regular season hoops - if you're a big-name team in a big-name league, you're likely to be in despite having a handful of stumbles.)

Having said that, I agree with the poster above who noted above that ultimately winning a tournament proves one thing - that you've won that tournament. It is not a definitive demonstration of overall superiority. There are many times when teams win the NCAA tournament (and more often, win a given game, and thus altering the makeup of the overall tournament) who most observers would agree would be unlikely to be able to repeat that feat. But the NCAA basketball tournament has long progressed past the point where the primary goal is to crown a legitimate champion from a disparate grouping that is too large to allow regular season results to be definitive. It's all about brackets, baby, and the draw of seeing anybody have a chance to win the office pool, even the person who has never watched a game in their life who fills out their bracket based on where relatives went to school and/or their fondness for a school's mascot or colors.

(11-24-2014 01:05 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  However, I believe the conference only model does not allow for the inevitable upset in which a team that would lose 49 out of 50 times ousts a better team.

That being the case, why play any games at all? I'm obviously being facetious but in your example you want to reward (or more accurately not penalize) a team for usually being better than another team, regardless of the actual outcome of the game. If a 12-0 team loses to an 8-4 team in a CCG, should it have no impact? They just lost in the most important game of the season to a team they should not have. Since they were 12-0 and looked great all season, it shouldn't matter? If the answer to that is yes- where is the cutoff? 10 wins, 11 wins? When do the remaining games cease to count?

8 Team Playoff
ACC Champ
B1G Champ
SEC Champ
PAC-12 Champ
Big 12 Champ
G5
At-Large
At-Large

Works Best and I feel like the most fair. With the G5 required to play at least one P5 program during the season and a P5 at-large must play at least another P5 school in non-conference to qualify for at large spot. Also each conference must have a conference championship game (looking at you Big 12)

This year that gives all these teams a chance at playoff and championship games at like round 1 games.
SEC Champ: Alabama vs. Georgia
ACC Champ: Georgia Tech vs. Florida State
PAC-12 Champ: Oregon vs. Arizona
Big 12 Champ: Baylor vs. TCU
B1G Champ: Nebraska vs. Ohio State
G5: Colorado State
At Large 1: Mississippi State*
At Large 2: UCLA*

*Also believe at large should only be teams that did not have a chance of playing in conference championship game because of strong division like PAC-12 South or SEC West this year.

(11-24-2014 03:58 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  Does that mean that sometimes an upset can occur in a conference championship game? Yes, absolutely that can happen. But everybody knows going into that game how it's going to work. If an 8-3 Georgia beats an 11-0 Alabama to take the SEC title in a given year, well, Alabama didn't do what they had to do to get in. It eliminates "beauty contests" and puts it all on the field.

100% agree.

Quote:Having said that, I agree with the poster above who noted above that ultimately winning a tournament proves one thing - that you've won that tournament. It is not a definitive demonstration of overall superiority.

Fair enough, but it is much better than the subjective alternative because at least it was settled in an ACTUAL COMPETITION instead of based on someone's opinion about which team is 'better' or 'best'. When a team wins it on the field it's hard to argue with. Notably, it is how every other league, division, sport, etc. decides its champion. Still not sure why it is only flawed for CFB

(11-24-2014 04:31 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  8 Team Playoff
ACC Champ
B1G Champ
SEC Champ
PAC-12 Champ
Big 12 Champ
G5
At-Large
At-Large

Works Best and I feel like the most fair. With the G5 required to play at least one P5 program during the season and a P5 at-large must play at least another P5 school in non-conference to qualify for at large spot. Also each conference must have a conference championship game (looking at you Big 12)

This year that gives all these teams a chance at playoff and championship games at like round 1 games.
SEC Champ: Alabama vs. Georgia
ACC Champ: Georgia Tech vs. Florida State
PAC-12 Champ: Oregon vs. Arizona
Big 12 Champ: Baylor vs. TCU
B1G Champ: Nebraska vs. Ohio State
G5: Colorado State
At Large 1: Mississippi State*
At Large 2: UCLA*

*Also believe at large should only be teams that did not have a chance of playing in conference championship game because of strong division like PAC-12 South or SEC West this year.

I like and agree with all of this. Would rather have 16 team with all conf champs, but this is the next best thing to me. Not sure who could argue the fairness of this

(11-24-2014 04:31 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  8 Team Playoff
ACC Champ
B1G Champ
SEC Champ
PAC-12 Champ
Big 12 Champ
G5
At-Large
At-Large

Works Best and I feel like the most fair. With the G5 required to play at least one P5 program during the season and a P5 at-large must play at least another P5 school in non-conference to qualify for at large spot. Also each conference must have a conference championship game (looking at you Big 12)

This year that gives all these teams a chance at playoff and championship games at like round 1 games.
SEC Champ: Alabama vs. Georgia
ACC Champ: Georgia Tech vs. Florida State
PAC-12 Champ: Oregon vs. Arizona
Big 12 Champ: Baylor vs. TCU
B1G Champ: Nebraska vs. Ohio State
G5: Colorado State
At Large 1: Mississippi State*
At Large 2: UCLA*

*Also believe at large should only be teams that did not have a chance of playing in conference championship game because of strong division like PAC-12 South or SEC West this year.

An issue I have with this model is that you're still dealing with the problem of who "deserves" the G5 bid. Every P5 is deciding their champion on the field and every P5 school as a chance at that auto-bid.

A guaranteed G5 playoff spot is better than nothing, but I still don't like that there's no on-the-field result to determine who is chosen.

Perhaps the at-large selection committee could choose the "top" 2 G5s and have a G5 Championship game. Like this year having Colorado State/Boise State vs Marshall for the playoff spot...

Speaking of models.
The FCS announced their pairings:

http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/football/fcs/

Of Note: Jacksonville University withdraws it contention for the Pioneer League title due to an internal investigation of 'financial aid inconsistancies' per PFL conference rules. This make University of San Diego the champion and gets the Pioneers auto-bid.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...eague-race

So if I understand correctly, the Pioneer League does something similiar to the Ivy League where even though they don't offer athletic scholarships, there are other financial aid assistance to help pay for the school.

You could still have at-larges.

A 16-team playoff would be great. All 10 Conf Champs + 6 at-larges. Here's the thing. If you didn't win your conference, you better be one bad-azz team. You failed at making the marker to progression. There'd still be room for that.

The NCAA Tourney isn't the Top 60-something schools. It's not trying to be. If you won your CHAMPIONSHIP, you get to go to test your mettle. It also allows the big-dogs to have an easier pathway thru the 1st round.

Same could be applied in football.

(11-24-2014 02:16 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 12:13 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  My favorites are:

1. A 6 team playoff = 5 P5 champs + 1 at large. #1 and #2 get a 1st round by.

2. An 8 team playoff = 5 P5 champs + 1 highest ranked G5 + 2 at large.

I see no reason for a 16 team playoff as conference championships make up a de facto 1st round.

If the CFP goes to 8 schools, this is how it should be done.

However, this season has been very interesting and demonstrates the strength of the 4 team format. Because there are 5 P5 conferences, at least one of them has to be left out. It's like a high stakes game of musical chairs. Every mistake is a potential season ender. It has led to some dramatic matchups almost every week of schools trying either to stay in the top 4 or stave off virtual elimination by virtue of a second loss.

An eight school format takes the pressure off to an extent. For instance, Florida State clinched the ACC Atlantic a couple of weeks ago. Under an eight team format, it might choose to coast until the CCG. Also, a number of 2 and 3 loss schools are fighting for division championships. Games such as Wisconsin-Minnesota this weekend would suddenly become playoff games. However, games like Georgia-Georgia Tech could become exhibitions, since both may be focussed on their CCG. I guess the question is whether such a result would be better or worse, overall, for college football.

FSU still has to get past the conference championship game.

And extra meaning can be pumped into other remaining games by coming up with some formula to handle seeding the bracket. I'd prefer something like RPI but better. Ideally, criteria can be set to encourage better OOC scheduling while discouraging a bunch of bunny home games.

(11-24-2014 04:48 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 04:31 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  8 Team Playoff
ACC Champ
B1G Champ
SEC Champ
PAC-12 Champ
Big 12 Champ
G5
At-Large
At-Large

Works Best and I feel like the most fair. With the G5 required to play at least one P5 program during the season and a P5 at-large must play at least another P5 school in non-conference to qualify for at large spot. Also each conference must have a conference championship game (looking at you Big 12)

This year that gives all these teams a chance at playoff and championship games at like round 1 games.
SEC Champ: Alabama vs. Georgia
ACC Champ: Georgia Tech vs. Florida State
PAC-12 Champ: Oregon vs. Arizona
Big 12 Champ: Baylor vs. TCU
B1G Champ: Nebraska vs. Ohio State
G5: Colorado State
At Large 1: Mississippi State*
At Large 2: UCLA*

*Also believe at large should only be teams that did not have a chance of playing in conference championship game because of strong division like PAC-12 South or SEC West this year.

An issue I have with this model is that you're still dealing with the problem of who "deserves" the G5 bid. Every P5 is deciding their champion on the field and every P5 school as a chance at that auto-bid.

A guaranteed G5 playoff spot is better than nothing, but I still don't like that there's no on-the-field result to determine who is chosen.

Perhaps the at-large selection committee could choose the "top" 2 G5s and have a G5 Championship game. Like this year having Colorado State/Boise State vs Marshall for the playoff spot...

In the case of a guaranteed G5 slot, maybe the authority could be devolved to the G5 as a whole to organize a way to fill it. Whether they have their own ranking mechanism or setup a play-in game would be entirely up to them to arrange and implement. This might include up to 3 teams depending on how the other 2 at large slots get filled.

The only thing 5 AQ bids does is reward mediocrity from August to November while making teams that take care of business from August to November irrelevant until December. I don't see how any purist would enjoy that setup unless they want an extra week of playoff excitement and are willing to render the majority of the season irrelevant.

(11-24-2014 11:57 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The only thing 5 AQ bids does is reward mediocrity from August to November while making teams that take care of business from August to November irrelevant until December. I don't see how any purist would enjoy that setup unless they want an extra week of playoff excitement and are willing to render the majority of the season irrelevant.

that's what playoff opponents said before even going to 4 and look at this year- one of the most exciting years ever. Sorry that argument just doesn't hold squat to me at all whatsoever...

Most of the arguments here avoid the simple reality of structural change. Every time you hear me speak of a champions only model you also hear me say P4. Consolidate to 4 conferences and a champions only model works just fine. And excuse me but why should Notre Dame get a pass as an independent when every other school plays within a preset structure. There are only two solutions for Notre Dame. Either every school becomes an independent and the top 64 are seeded and pre-scheduled every year so that their chance within a structure is relatively handicapped equally, or everyone plays within the conference system. Since it is easier to change the parameters of one school than that of 63 or 64 others the answer is simple. Besides since when have the Irish been that relevant to the national championship picture. The fact that they are accorded any measure of special treatment is a travesty in itself. I've got nothing against them but really why are we still catering to the whims of one school who needs all of the others who are already in conferences to comprise their schedule anyway (unless they are still picking on the service academies which historically they have dominated in all but N.D.'s worst years.)

If conference championships are the only way into a 4 team field, and you have only 4 conferences to start with, then every game played factors into those schools that face off for that conference title. And yet again for the uninitiated if that is your model you not only decide the issue on the field and get it out of the hands of the corporate interests in commercial advertising, but you also get rid of the need to have beauty pageant games in the first place.

But it is true that having a champions only model doesn't work with a P5.

But giving losers of conference championship games a pass cheapens the whole process so I despise the at large positions. The thing that made college football superior for so long was that you couldn't afford to stumble. I just don't believe in giving losers of big games a second chance at the victor. L.S.U. should never have had to face Alabama again after having won the Western Division and risked another loss in the Conference championship game.

Football is not basketball thank goodness and if the playoffs expand to 8 and then 16 that's exactly how the NCAA basketball tournament began for all of you too young to remember it. I agree that the tournament has made most of the regular season totally meaningless. You can play mediocre basketball for the majority of the season, get hot and win your conference tourney and punch your ticket.

Right now college football isn't anything like that. Yes we have expanded and now have divisions within conferences but you still have to win your division to earn a right to play in that championship game for your conference title. In football, until the year that Alabama got a redo, which I consider to be a major setback, you had to at least win your division to get to play for a championship, and to have a shot at one of the two BCS slots you needed to win your conference as well, and at least have a great OOC win loss record to boot. It wasn't perfect because it still permitted rent a kill games, but it was better than punishing a champion (LSU) by making them vanquish a team they had already defeated in a redo game.

The only reason we don't have a P4 is because ESPN paid to keep it a P5 (see LHN for details) and the reason they did that is because that way they could have a damned committee pick schools by a subjective criteria and still have a modicum of control over the demographics of those who get in. Anyone who believes that a small market P5 school is going to beat out a national brand or big market school for slots in a 4 school tournament is nuts. Millions in advertising dollars are at stake. IMO that is why Ohio State is getting positioned to move past either a second SEC school or ahead of two small market draws from the Big 12. Mississippi state is presently positioned to either serve as an Alabama replacement should they stumble against Auburn or Georgia, but placed where Ohio State can pass them (provided OSU beats Michigan & Wisconsin) should Alabama win out. If OSU wins out what you wind up with, given all others presently ranked win out, is 4 national brands representing 4 strong regional markets which is exactly why we have the committee and a P5 instead of a P4. Your field will be Florida State, Alabama, Oregon, and Ohio State. Oregon will get positioned to play the Buckeyes in the Rose Bowl and Alabama will play Florida State in the Sugar. Add rates will soar and ESPN will make millions more than if Mississippi State, Baylor, T.C.U. or Arizona State stumbled into the mix. 4 national brands representing 4 distinct markets is as good as it gets for the Mouse.

ESPN's worst nightmare could have happened this year. Duke or Georgia Tech upsets Florida State. Mississippi State wins the SEC. Ohio State stumbles in a weak Big 10 and gets left out. Baylor or T.C.U. win the Big 12. And, Arizona State takes the PAC. Now ESPN for all the money they have invested get no national brands in the final 4 and they get 4 very small regional markets. Ad dollars drop to an all time low and they lose money on their baby the 4 team playoff.

Let's assume they had allowed the PAC to be successful in acquiring Texas schools. It could have been worse. Let's say that the SEC took Baylor to get a hold on the DFW market and added an Oklahoma school to make sure of it and that Texas had taken T.C.U. with them to the west coast. We have a P4 but one in which T.C.U. upsets Arizona State and Oregon on their way to the PAC championship. Baylor wins the SEC. Georgia Tech upsets Florida State in the ACC championship game. And Minnesota somehow takes the Big 10. Without the committee and the extra conference ESPN loses again.

The Baylor's, T.C.U.'s, Mississippi State's, Duke's and Georgia Tech's, Minnesota's and Arizona State's of the world are never going to get a fair shake in the present system, especially if there are two or more of them viably entering the final weeks of the season. As long as a conference championship is not a requirement (and screw the language that says preference) and as long as a committee gets to pick, the Alabama's, Ohio State's, Texas's and Oklahoma's (as long as they are at least competitive in the win/loss ledger) and the U.S.C.'s and Oregon's will get their shot whether they win their conferences or not. All of this jazz is about making sure the corporate network's investment in paying for all of this is protected.

We talk about buying players, cheating in academics to keep them eligible, ignoring their criminal behavior to keep them on the field, and we get riled up in our righteous indignation about all of that only then we swallow yet another excuse to keep the sham of selection arbitrary instead of letting it be handled on field. Gee we've either got a lot of gullible people or we love to wallow in our hypocrisy.

And for the record if we want to include the G5 it should be champs only for them too and they (the kids) should have the right to earn that on the field and not have some corporate executives derive a system to shaft them because they come from a poor ratings area.

********************************************************************************************************************************

Addendum: I do think the corporate networks were interested in shrinking the pool of schools to compete for the championship because that limits overhead to a large degree. And anyone who thinks that the colleges have hit their upside hasn't really considered just how low the overhead is compared to professional sports and producing network programming from scratch. There is still a big upside. That said I also believe that the networks were originally interested in the super conference model. Such a model allowed for greater scheduling freedom, more content, and 4 divisions per conference could hedge their bets on national brands. Put Penn State, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan and Nebraska in different divisions and the odds of a non national Big 10 brand winning everything goes way down. Put L.S.U., Florida, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, and Texas A&M into 4 divisions and you reduce the chances of a non national brand emerging from the SEC. Find ways to do the same in the ACC and PAC and then 4 conferences of 4 divisions each become a better guarantor of appropriate outcomes for a 4 school playoff. But right now while property rights to certain schools have to be calculated in it was better to have a P5 with committee control for the networks. I do sincerely hope we move quickly past this mess.

(11-25-2014 12:29 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 11:57 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The only thing 5 AQ bids does is reward mediocrity from August to November while making teams that take care of business from August to November irrelevant until December. I don't see how any purist would enjoy that setup unless they want an extra week of playoff excitement and are willing to render the majority of the season irrelevant.

that's what playoff opponents said before even going to 4 and look at this year- one of the most exciting years ever. Sorry that argument just doesn't hold squat to me at all whatsoever...

Cause proponents just want to dance around the arguments I've already put forth. If you clinch a division in late October, your schedule is irrelevant in November outside of seeding, win or lose. That's what happens to FSU games in November. Meanwhile, 7-3 teams stay alive in other divisions. That to me is diluting your brand. You wanna say, "so what?" to that. I say the hell with that and don't ruin the regular season. Until someone provides me a model where this isn't the case, I want no part of it.

Edit: JRsec's model would make that system viable, but it also removes the bottom half of FBS.

(11-25-2014 07:03 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Cause proponents just want to dance around the arguments I've already put forth. If you clinch a division in late October, your schedule is irrelevant in November outside of seeding, win or lose. That's what happens to FSU games in November.

All of FSU's games are relevant, because if they lose 1 they are most likely out of the playoff picture. It keeps people tuned in to see if they can close out undefeated or slip up.