I've mentioned it before and I do think it will eventually happen, but I want to break down in greater detail why this should work and why it makes other beneficial alterations more plausible as well.

1. 8 Teams gives a chance to every school that could conceivably argue it deserves a shot to make a national playoff.

How so? Because it gives you room to include the 5 conference champions plus a few really strong wildcard teams. Whether there remain 5 Power conferences or we eventually shrink down to 4, there will always be an argument that a conference title shouldn't trump the "eye test," the idea that certain teams from certain conferences are just as deserving if not more so than the actual winner of another league.

No matter how large the playoff grows, there will always be debate on who gets in and who is left out. That's the nature of the beast. It was true when there were only 2 teams in the BCS Championship and it's true now that 4 get a shot. The arguments are less compelling now that more teams get in, but I believe they are compelling enough to expand. With 8, there's no reason to ever expand the playoff again for the sake of access. 8 does the trick because while there are too many major college football programs to carefully and accurately compare resumes, the number 8 allows representatives from all regions and all conferences. It's a true national playoff with no room for complaints from those who cry favoritism.

Sure, there will still be debate about who the best 8 are. Again, it's the nature of the beast, but never again will anyone be able to argue that the process favors some leagues and not others. Never again will anyone be able to argue that a potentially deserving team was left out as was the case in the first two years with schools like TCU, Baylor, and Stanford.

I believe that in a vacuum, it is a better system. But what happens when the vacuum is removed? Is it still beneficial in other areas?

2. More money for 8 teams/7 games than 4 teams/3 games.

This is a no brainer. The CFP will be significantly more valuable with the inclusion of additional schools. I believe this path of revenue enhancement is better than others. I'll explain why as we continue.

3. 8 teams allows for a better balance between postseason and regular season.

What do I mean by that? Think about this. The postseason has become less intriguing over the years for a few reasons. There are a lot more bowls now and that makes the events less special. The over indulgence in bowl games has unfortunately altered how the selection process works. The leagues now have tie-ins with the same sites over and over. Invariably, the same teams seem to meet again and again. Finally, to put it bluntly, some of these locales are less than stellar tourist destinations. Put it all together and the bowl season just doesn't mean as much as it used to.

There are ways to solve this though. The first is obvious. By putting more teams into the playoff, there is inherently greater interest for more postseason games. Secondly, a new selection process for bowl games is in order. We also need the leagues to come together, kick out the bowl committees, and jointly own the games in order to maximize revenue and maximize the interest and uniqueness of match-ups. That's really another topic so I won't go too deeply into that right now.

The other way to solve this problem is, fortuitously, the same solution for other conundrums. Simply put, college football needs 10 game conference schedules. Think about it this way. More conference games removes most of the complaints from the expansion era as schools and rivals can play each other more often. In addition...5 home and 5 away...better competitive balance and more attractive home schedules for fans who are sick of watching cupcakes. Also, greater revenue for the conferences as they keep more of their money in house. For example, 10 league games will be worth more to the SEC than 8. More still, while some schools like to play OOC rivals and still need room on their schedules to do so, other schools will also like to have room to play a decent OOC opponent. There's bound to be one cupcake per school still as the guaranteed additional home game helps out revenue.

But let's think deeper about this. If the leagues play 10 conference games with the conference champ guaranteed a spot in the playoff and if the playoff includes 8 teams then there's no need to beef up your OOC resume. Why is that a good thing? Because we're at a point where expansion is about to have diminishing returns. We're at a point where leagues are also on the verge of growing too large so as to complicate the league politics. Outside of the Big 12, there isn't a league out there that needs to get bigger. So don't...

Instead, play more league games to increase revenue internally and make the conference championship a more balanced affair by playing more crossover games, increase revenue from the post season by growing the playoff and making other bowl games more unique and attractive...

The postseason becomes special again because it's basically the only time you play OOC foes. The match-ups are more unique because of league cooperation and therefore making a bowl becomes a true reward rather than just an add-on game for networks. Frankly, I'd rather play more conference games anyway and allow the post season to be the true measure of conference pride and strength. If everyone essentially plays all their OOC games at the same time of year then there's no special advantage by opening up with a less experienced team. Everybody's on the same level by that point.

4. The 8 team playoff gives greater flexibility as opposed to 4 team conference semi-finals.

I really don't mind the idea of conference semi-finals, but you really need 18 teams to pull it off. You need 3 solid divisions otherwise the match-ups are bound to include unworthy participants and unnecessary rematches. Think in terms of what the Big 12 is about to do...playing a CCG for the sake of doing it and guaranteeing a rematch perhaps even 1 or 2 weeks after the initial meeting.

What my argument really hinges on is the fact that, the more I think about it, 16 is probably the limit of expansion. Anything beyond that is really pushing the envelope on revenue. It would be much easier to expand revenue by re-imagining the post season rather than adding a couple of extra games to the regular season slate.

Frankly, I think the national playoff is a much more intriguing idea for TV than conference semi-finals. I think proportionally, more people will watch and the networks will pay more for that sort of inventory.

That and playing more regional games(more conference games) would be a better way to engage more fans and create more intrigue to the conference race as opposed to expanding ever larger and having a conference playoff.

-----------------------------------------

Well, that's basically every tenant of my argument. What do you think?

I don't like the idea of 10 conference games. It would essentially kill off non conference rivalries. I enjoy the OOC games.

I posted this on the main board awhile ago but I think it's relevant here. Just an idea on how to tweak the postseason.

One way to allow teams to play their conference rivals every year is to drop divisions. Everyone plays 3-5 permanent conference games, set by the conferences with a conference set amount of crossovers. FSU can play Clemson, Miami & GT every year. Bama can play Auburn, Tennessee, LSU & anyone else they want every year. If you don't trust the conferences to pick their own CCG participants then let the CFPC do it. This would essentially make the CCG elimination/play in games for the CFP. How about an OSU v Penn St rematch for the B1G championship. Do you really think VT is the second best team in the ACC?

Maybe do away with the CCG & let the CFPC select the conference champions. Put those 5 CC & 3 wildcards into 4 games with the 4 winners going to the CFP. Would the $ for these games offset the lost $ from the CCG?

Example for this year:

SEC champ Alabama
ACC champ Clemson
B1G champ Ohio State
PAC champ Washington
B12 champ Oklahoma
WC 1 Michigan
WC 2 Wisconsin
WC 3 Colorado

7 Wisconsin @ 1 Alabama
8 Colorado @ 2 Ohio State
6 Michigan @ 3 Clemson
5 Oklahoma @ 4 Washington

Essentially it's an 8 team playoff without actually going to one. The first round would essentially be played in place of the CCG but not effect the bowl season in any way. Would you rather see Bama take on Florida or Wisconsin? Clemson take on VT or Michigan? Washington take on Colorado or make Oklahoma play a 13th game against Washington?

no. Keep the regular season meaningful.

If we went to 8, teams would still cry that the field is too small.

(12-01-2016 02:23 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  no. Keep the regular season meaningful.

If we went to 8, teams would still cry that the field is too small.

Exactly! The NCAA basketball tournament began with 4. Then it went to 8. Then to 16. Then to 32. Hell now it isn't even 64. I think expanding to 8 for football is totally unnecessary if the we only have 4 major conferences and each produces a champion.

College football grew to its present popularity because it was universally played at lower levels. It's season was limited. Each game was unique and meaningful to the outcome of the season. And, losers didn't get do overs. The game's popularity is shrinking because all of these factors are being violated.

Now it is not universally played at lower levels. The season is ever expanding. Because of increased numbers of games some games are now considered meaningless money games. And, losers get do overs. The creep toward expanding the playoffs began when the BCS was formed and we only promised to match what we perceived to be the best two. Committees gain power by managing more and more. That's how the Basketball Tournament grew from 4 to over 64. Now the basketball champion is frequently not the best school for the year, but the one that had better teams upset in the early rounds of their bracket and got hot at the right time. No thanks! Win your conference and you have won a right to play for a title. Every other method will only be left to the decisions of a committee and will only continue to expand because of it.

Alabama got a do over against LSU in the BCS system & ultimately we got 3 teams who could stake a claim as to why they should be champ. Championship should be won on the field, the BCS was to limited. The 4 team playoff has been putting the 4 best & most deserving teams in. I think putting Ohio State in over the B1G champ is the right decision this year. The only real argument this year is the B1G champ v Washington. At first I thought that 4 teams would be to limiting but I think that the CFP has got it right so far. I like it. If anything add a SF to the CC's.

I think the only reason to expand the playoffs would be to include all conference champions and 2 wildcards/at larges -- and that would only happen to defer legal action.

4 is fine. The 4 best teams are in, chosen by committee.

if we do expand to 8, include the best G5 Champion if they're ranked above 15 (similar to the Big East rule in the BCS days) and otherwise take the top 7.

This would be perfect

(1)Bama/(8)Western Michigan
(4)Washington/(5)Big Ten Champ
(2)Clemson/(7)Michigan
(3)Ohio State/(6)Big 12 Champ

(12-01-2016 11:18 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  This would be perfect

(1)Bama/(8)Western Michigan
(4)Washington/(5)Big Ten Champ
(2)Clemson/(7)Michigan
(3)Ohio State/(6)Big 12 Champ

B12 champ doesn't deserve in. Ok State loses to Cdntral Michigan? I don't care if the refs messed up, OSU should never be in that position ever. OU did what everyone wanted; schedule tough ooc games. Both Houston and Ohio State destroyed OU and if OU beats Pokie, it'll just further cement Ohio State in the top four.

Western Michigan? Why? Michigan and southern cal probably deserve in more so than western.

Just not a fan of eight teams. Especially if fans are not watching the semifinals as they should

(12-01-2016 12:25 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(12-01-2016 11:18 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  This would be perfect

(1)Bama/(8)Western Michigan
(4)Washington/(5)Big Ten Champ
(2)Clemson/(7)Michigan
(3)Ohio State/(6)Big 12 Champ

B12 champ doesn't deserve in. Ok State loses to Cdntral Michigan? I don't care if the refs messed up, OSU should never be in that position ever. OU did what everyone wanted; schedule tough ooc games. Both Houston and Ohio State destroyed OU and if OU beats Pokie, it'll just further cement Ohio State in the top four.

Western Michigan? Why? Michigan and southern cal probably deserve in more so than western.

Just not a fan of eight teams. Especially if fans are not watching the semifinals as they should

I'd follow a 5/1/2 model.

Western Michigan gets in because theyre undefeated

(12-01-2016 01:40 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-01-2016 12:25 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(12-01-2016 11:18 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  This would be perfect

(1)Bama/(8)Western Michigan
(4)Washington/(5)Big Ten Champ
(2)Clemson/(7)Michigan
(3)Ohio State/(6)Big 12 Champ

B12 champ doesn't deserve in. Ok State loses to Cdntral Michigan? I don't care if the refs messed up, OSU should never be in that position ever. OU did what everyone wanted; schedule tough ooc games. Both Houston and Ohio State destroyed OU and if OU beats Pokie, it'll just further cement Ohio State in the top four.

Western Michigan? Why? Michigan and southern cal probably deserve in more so than western.

Just not a fan of eight teams. Especially if fans are not watching the semifinals as they should

I'd follow a 5/1/2 model.

Western Michigan gets in because theyre undefeated

Wins over Illinois and Northwestern. Not the norm or way I want teams to schedule in the future. Now if Houston had not dropped several games, I'd have no problem in that example.

The regular season is still meaningful with 10 league games. More so I think.

Why? Because focusing on in-conference play not only brings greater value and frequency to regional rivalries, but it ensures whoever makes the conference championship game has run the gauntlet and in greater likelihood is one of the 2 or 3 best teams in the league. It's already like that, of course, with 12-14. If we expand again though and I think it's likely then we need address how one makes the CCG.

Yes, there's less room for OOC games, but we'll eventually get to the point where we're playing almost exclusively if not exclusively P5 schools. Maybe everyone still plays a cupcakes, maybe not, I don't know. I don't see the frequency of playing OOC rivals or showcase games diminishing. As it is, very few schools take advantage of their 3 or 4 OOC slots to schedule strong opponents. Especially if we expand, I'd rather use those slots to play conference games.

Think about it like this...

Let's say the SEC grabs OU and OSU. We've talked about the divisional alignment before so I won't lay that out, but here's a mock schedule for my Tide with 10 league games.

Week 1: Showcase game - Virginia Tech (I'm betting the SEC and ACC continue to schedule more crossover match-ups to retain more content for ESPN)
Week 2: Vanderbilt (D)
Week 3: Georgia (D)
Week 4: South Carolina (D)
Week 5: Florida (D)
Week 6: BYE
Week 7: Tennessee (D)
Week 8: Kentucky (D)
Week 9: cupcake (Homecoming game)
Week 10: LSU
Week 11: Arkansas
Week 12: Mississippi State
Week 13: Auburn (D)

I'm much rather play that slate than have 3 cupcakes.

The regular season would be very meaningful because very few will make it out into meaningful postseason games...

Only 2 get access to conference championship...not 4.

Only 8 nationwide get access to national playoff.

I understand the argument that some are getting do-overs. But we're talking about 3 teams max here. And it's not really a do-over in the traditional sense because you probably have to win at least 10 games to even get considered.

More than that...here's the crux of my argument...we should not have a system that considers all conference champions equal. Let's be honest, the conferences are not set up based on parity or competitiveness. They're based on geography and tradition. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't guarantee 4 quality opponents for a national playoff. It doesn't guarantee 2 either, but that ship has sailed. We're never going back to the old days where there were 3,4, or 5 meaningful bowl games that might have some impact on the national championship. For all its benefits, it was a messy system that often left deserving teams in the cold. If we're going to only crown one national champion then we need one national playoff.

Also, consider this...if 4 conference champions make it into the playoff then there's no point in playing meaningful OOC games. They can only hurt you as we've seen with OU this year. Had they played a couple of mediocre teams and gone undefeated then they would be locked into the playoff(assuming they beat OSU). Do we really want that? If all you have to do is win your conference then you don't even have to bother with scheduling decent OOC games if you don't want to. The conference games are the ONLY ones that matter.

To expound on the original point, we shouldn't consider all conferences equal. We're not giving do-overs to conference losers. We're giving access to conference runner-ups who may be and in many years are likely to be better teams than other conference champions. Assuming the SEC adds OU and OSU then it's really unfair when you think about it that the SEC champion would be valued to the same extent as the PAC 12 champion. The PAC 12 may have fewer teams and in that scenario would obviously have fewer quality programs. Not picking a fight with the PAC, just a demonstration of the point.

Also, if we're going with the conference champions only idea then Penn State or Wisconsin will get in over Ohio State. Now, I don't necessarily have a problem with that because I don't think a champion should be left out in place of a team in the same conference. Point being, Ohio State deserves a shot based on their resume. The solution is easy...make sure they're both in there.

If you reserve almost all the OOC games for the postseason then you still get great OOC match-ups. They just mean more because you don't see teams like that very often. There will always be room for OOC rivalries by contrast. We're not going to 12 conference games.

Why do we need conference championship games? After an 8 or 9 game schedule a dominate team stands out. Why do they need to take on a less deserving team for the championship? Who would be a more deserving champ in the SEC this year, Florida or Alabama? Would VT be a more deserving ACC champ than Clemson? No. These games can only cost a deserving team a shot at the CFP & cause chaos. Look at the B1G, their best team isn't even playing for the championship. I would rather turn championship weekend into a play in weekend for the top 8 teams. These games would mean more than CCG & would be better content than these usually lopsided CCG's. These games would be more valuable to TV & likely bring in more $ to the conferences than their CCG. The winners move on to the CFP & the losers get put into the bowl pool.

I think autobids for conference champs make sense in a scenario like basketball where you are going to have 64 slots because even if there is an upset in the conference tournaments the deserving teams still typically make the field (at least those from the major or somewhat major; MWC, MVC, etc...; conferences)

But the unbalanced schedules and unbalanced divisions of the larger P5 leagues will continue to result in conference title game match ups that aren't actually pitting the two top teams against each other. I don't want to see autobids unless everyone is playing a round robin conference schedule with the true conference champion decided on the field....no stupid conference title games when everyone has already played like the Big 12 is rolling out.

(12-01-2016 03:48 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  I think autobids for conference champs make sense in a scenario like basketball where you are going to have 64 slots because even if there is an upset in the conference tournaments the deserving teams still typically make the field (at least those from the major or somewhat major; MWC, MVC, etc...; conferences)

But the unbalanced schedules and unbalanced divisions of the larger P5 leagues will continue to result in conference title game match ups that aren't actually pitting the two top teams against each other. I don't want to see autobids unless everyone is playing a round robin conference schedule with the true conference champion decided on the field....no stupid conference title games when everyone has already played like the Big 12 is rolling out.

What you're essentially talking about is an 8 team playoff except you're just scheduling the first round in place of the CCGs. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but we'll never get rid of CCGs if for no more reason than they bring too much money.

I still like the CCGs all in all though. They're showcase games for teams that have completed a measurable accomplishment. I do think the winner deserves the conference championship even if we're talking about a one game scenario where a multi-loss team beats an undefeated team or something like that. Reason being is these leagues are too big to do the simple round robin and the granting of a championship to someone who didn't get a chance to play everyone in the league wouldn't be more fair than the way we do it now. It would just be different.

I like the conference champions getting an auto-bid for a few reasons.

1. Every regular season game has additional meaning because the conference championship race determines a playoff participant rather than a more subjective process. The division match-ups carry extra meaning even if the division winner ends up being a multi-loss team because any division winner can potentially make the playoff.

2. I get the argument about basketball, but the bball tournaments allow far too many participants. With most leagues, it's every member and I think that's what devalues the regular season. No real point in playing regular season games if everyone has an equal shot at the conference tourney title. So anyway, yes, the schedules are unbalanced in football and I think that's why we need the CCGs so that there's some sort of objective measure. We just don't have enough games in football to play a round robin schedule like in basketball. Point being, making sure you have auto-bids ensures that every team with the desire to make a championship run plays their best week in and week out rather than thinking they can lose games here and there and still get in if the committee thinks highly enough of them. They don't have the opportunity to stock their schedule with cupcakes and make themselves look better. Playing 10 league games and granting an auto-bid makes sure a conference champion is a pretty darn good team.

3. By granting auto-bids, you make sure every league is represented and so every corner of the country has a dog in the fight.

(12-03-2016 11:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-01-2016 03:48 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  I think autobids for conference champs make sense in a scenario like basketball where you are going to have 64 slots because even if there is an upset in the conference tournaments the deserving teams still typically make the field (at least those from the major or somewhat major; MWC, MVC, etc...; conferences)

But the unbalanced schedules and unbalanced divisions of the larger P5 leagues will continue to result in conference title game match ups that aren't actually pitting the two top teams against each other. I don't want to see autobids unless everyone is playing a round robin conference schedule with the true conference champion decided on the field....no stupid conference title games when everyone has already played like the Big 12 is rolling out.

What you're essentially talking about is an 8 team playoff except you're just scheduling the first round in place of the CCGs. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but we'll never get rid of CCGs if for no more reason than they bring too much money.

I still like the CCGs all in all though. They're showcase games for teams that have completed a measurable accomplishment. I do think the winner deserves the conference championship even if we're talking about a one game scenario where a multi-loss team beats an undefeated team or something like that. Reason being is these leagues are too big to do the simple round robin and the granting of a championship to someone who didn't get a chance to play everyone in the league wouldn't be more fair than the way we do it now. It would just be different.

I like the conference champions getting an auto-bid for a few reasons.

1. Every regular season game has additional meaning because the conference championship race determines a playoff participant rather than a more subjective process. The division match-ups carry extra meaning even if the division winner ends up being a multi-loss team because any division winner can potentially make the playoff.

2. I get the argument about basketball, but the bball tournaments allow far too many participants. With most leagues, it's every member and I think that's what devalues the regular season. No real point in playing regular season games if everyone has an equal shot at the conference tourney title. So anyway, yes, the schedules are unbalanced in football and I think that's why we need the CCGs so that there's some sort of objective measure. We just don't have enough games in football to play a round robin schedule like in basketball. Point being, making sure you have auto-bids ensures that every team with the desire to make a championship run plays their best week in and week out rather than thinking they can lose games here and there and still get in if the committee thinks highly enough of them. They don't have the opportunity to stock their schedule with cupcakes and make themselves look better. Playing 10 league games and granting an auto-bid makes sure a conference champion is a pretty darn good team.

3. By granting auto-bids, you make sure every league is represented and so every corner of the country has a dog in the fight.

Maybe the best teams got into the CCGs. Starts with your divisions. If you can't even win your division what does that say? Apparently Penn State was a bit better than Ohio State. Just like in the NFL and MLB, records mean nothing in the playoffs. Conference championships are the pillars of CFB. They have to mean something. I hate having these "football experts (like Condy Rice...lol) deciding who is most deserving. Hell, I would rather have the old BCS system with four, six, or eight, if it is going to end up like this every year. At least computers use logic.

(12-01-2016 01:44 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've mentioned it before and I do think it will eventually happen, but I want to break down in greater detail why this should work and why it makes other beneficial alterations more plausible as well.

1. 8 Teams gives a chance to every school that could conceivably argue it deserves a shot to make a national playoff.

How so? Because it gives you room to include the 5 conference champions plus a few really strong wildcard teams. Whether there remain 5 Power conferences or we eventually shrink down to 4, there will always be an argument that a conference title shouldn't trump the "eye test," the idea that certain teams from certain conferences are just as deserving if not more so than the actual winner of another league.

No matter how large the playoff grows, there will always be debate on who gets in and who is left out. That's the nature of the beast. It was true when there were only 2 teams in the BCS Championship and it's true now that 4 get a shot. The arguments are less compelling now that more teams get in, but I believe they are compelling enough to expand. With 8, there's no reason to ever expand the playoff again for the sake of access. 8 does the trick because while there are too many major college football programs to carefully and accurately compare resumes, the number 8 allows representatives from all regions and all conferences. It's a true national playoff with no room for complaints from those who cry favoritism.

Sure, there will still be debate about who the best 8 are. Again, it's the nature of the beast, but never again will anyone be able to argue that the process favors some leagues and not others. Never again will anyone be able to argue that a potentially deserving team was left out as was the case in the first two years with schools like TCU, Baylor, and Stanford.

I believe that in a vacuum, it is a better system. But what happens when the vacuum is removed? Is it still beneficial in other areas?

2. More money for 8 teams/7 games than 4 teams/3 games.

This is a no brainer. The CFP will be significantly more valuable with the inclusion of additional schools. I believe this path of revenue enhancement is better than others. I'll explain why as we continue.

3. 8 teams allows for a better balance between postseason and regular season.

What do I mean by that? Think about this. The postseason has become less intriguing over the years for a few reasons. There are a lot more bowls now and that makes the events less special. The over indulgence in bowl games has unfortunately altered how the selection process works. The leagues now have tie-ins with the same sites over and over. Invariably, the same teams seem to meet again and again. Finally, to put it bluntly, some of these locales are less than stellar tourist destinations. Put it all together and the bowl season just doesn't mean as much as it used to.

There are ways to solve this though. The first is obvious. By putting more teams into the playoff, there is inherently greater interest for more postseason games. Secondly, a new selection process for bowl games is in order. We also need the leagues to come together, kick out the bowl committees, and jointly own the games in order to maximize revenue and maximize the interest and uniqueness of match-ups. That's really another topic so I won't go too deeply into that right now.

The other way to solve this problem is, fortuitously, the same solution for other conundrums. Simply put, college football needs 10 game conference schedules. Think about it this way. More conference games removes most of the complaints from the expansion era as schools and rivals can play each other more often. In addition...5 home and 5 away...better competitive balance and more attractive home schedules for fans who are sick of watching cupcakes. Also, greater revenue for the conferences as they keep more of their money in house. For example, 10 league games will be worth more to the SEC than 8. More still, while some schools like to play OOC rivals and still need room on their schedules to do so, other schools will also like to have room to play a decent OOC opponent. There's bound to be one cupcake per school still as the guaranteed additional home game helps out revenue.

But let's think deeper about this. If the leagues play 10 conference games with the conference champ guaranteed a spot in the playoff and if the playoff includes 8 teams then there's no need to beef up your OOC resume. Why is that a good thing? Because we're at a point where expansion is about to have diminishing returns. We're at a point where leagues are also on the verge of growing too large so as to complicate the league politics. Outside of the Big 12, there isn't a league out there that needs to get bigger. So don't...

Instead, play more league games to increase revenue internally and make the conference championship a more balanced affair by playing more crossover games, increase revenue from the post season by growing the playoff and making other bowl games more unique and attractive...

The postseason becomes special again because it's basically the only time you play OOC foes. The match-ups are more unique because of league cooperation and therefore making a bowl becomes a true reward rather than just an add-on game for networks. Frankly, I'd rather play more conference games anyway and allow the post season to be the true measure of conference pride and strength. If everyone essentially plays all their OOC games at the same time of year then there's no special advantage by opening up with a less experienced team. Everybody's on the same level by that point.

4. The 8 team playoff gives greater flexibility as opposed to 4 team conference semi-finals.

I really don't mind the idea of conference semi-finals, but you really need 18 teams to pull it off. You need 3 solid divisions otherwise the match-ups are bound to include unworthy participants and unnecessary rematches. Think in terms of what the Big 12 is about to do...playing a CCG for the sake of doing it and guaranteeing a rematch perhaps even 1 or 2 weeks after the initial meeting.

What my argument really hinges on is the fact that, the more I think about it, 16 is probably the limit of expansion. Anything beyond that is really pushing the envelope on revenue. It would be much easier to expand revenue by re-imagining the post season rather than adding a couple of extra games to the regular season slate.

Frankly, I think the national playoff is a much more intriguing idea for TV than conference semi-finals. I think proportionally, more people will watch and the networks will pay more for that sort of inventory.

That and playing more regional games(more conference games) would be a better way to engage more fans and create more intrigue to the conference race as opposed to expanding ever larger and having a conference playoff.

-----------------------------------------

Well, that's basically every tenant of my argument. What do you think?

Champions only.
We must first reduce the P5 to a P4. The conference can orchestrate the semi finals between the three division winners and a wild card entry to produce a champion.
Ever expanding tournaments cheapen the regular season.

When only the champion of the ACC basketball tournament made it into the NCAA tournament, it made that tournament the premiere sports event in the country.

(12-01-2016 08:53 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Alabama got a do over against LSU in the BCS system & ultimately we got 3 teams who could stake a claim as to why they should be champ. Championship should be won on the field, the BCS was to limited. The 4 team playoff has been putting the 4 best & most deserving teams in. I think putting Ohio State in over the B1G champ is the right decision this year. The only real argument this year is the B1G champ v Washington. At first I thought that 4 teams would be to limiting but I think that the CFP has got it right so far. I like it. If anything add a SF to the CC's.

If Penn State is not more deserving than Ohio State then why do we have conference championships at all? Why do we have divisional champs? Penn State won the division over Ohio State.

And if Penn State wins it by the rules why should they be denied the slot? And if Ohio State is to get in then please tell me just how we know that they are better than Washington? The point is unless they play each other there is no way to know. But, Washington did win the PAC championship. We need to move to 4 champions only and it wouldn't hurt if we had 4 conferences with which to do it. Then the kids can win it on the field without having to be in a beauty contest. It is the only fair way to decide an annual champion. Does that mean the best teams will always win? No. But that's what keeps it interesting. But it does mean that somebody's champion (who won that on the field) will be the ultimate champ.

Ohio State didn't win their division, let alone their conference. Why should they get in over Washington?

(12-04-2016 11:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2016 08:53 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Alabama got a do over against LSU in the BCS system & ultimately we got 3 teams who could stake a claim as to why they should be champ. Championship should be won on the field, the BCS was to limited. The 4 team playoff has been putting the 4 best & most deserving teams in. I think putting Ohio State in over the B1G champ is the right decision this year. The only real argument this year is the B1G champ v Washington. At first I thought that 4 teams would be to limiting but I think that the CFP has got it right so far. I like it. If anything add a SF to the CC's.

If Penn State is not more deserving than Ohio State then why do we have conference championships at all? Why do we have divisional champs? Penn State won the division over Ohio State.

And if Penn State wins it by the rules why should they be denied the slot? And if Ohio State is to get in then please tell me just how we know that they are better than Washington? The point is unless they play each other there is no way to know. But, Washington did win the PAC championship. We need to move to 4 champions only and it wouldn't hurt if we had 4 conferences with which to do it. Then the kids can win it on the field without having to be in a beauty contest. It is the only fair way to decide an annual champion. Does that mean the best teams will always win? No. But that's what keeps it interesting. But it does mean that somebody's champion (who won that on the field) will be the ultimate champ.

Ohio State didn't win their division, let alone their conference. Why should they get in over Washington?

Absolutely Jr. No matter how many playoff slots we eventually end up with, the first schools invited should be conference champions. What ever slots left can then go to highest ranked schools available.

(12-04-2016 12:36 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 11:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2016 08:53 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Alabama got a do over against LSU in the BCS system & ultimately we got 3 teams who could stake a claim as to why they should be champ. Championship should be won on the field, the BCS was to limited. The 4 team playoff has been putting the 4 best & most deserving teams in. I think putting Ohio State in over the B1G champ is the right decision this year. The only real argument this year is the B1G champ v Washington. At first I thought that 4 teams would be to limiting but I think that the CFP has got it right so far. I like it. If anything add a SF to the CC's.

If Penn State is not more deserving than Ohio State then why do we have conference championships at all? Why do we have divisional champs? Penn State won the division over Ohio State.

And if Penn State wins it by the rules why should they be denied the slot? And if Ohio State is to get in then please tell me just how we know that they are better than Washington? The point is unless they play each other there is no way to know. But, Washington did win the PAC championship. We need to move to 4 champions only and it wouldn't hurt if we had 4 conferences with which to do it. Then the kids can win it on the field without having to be in a beauty contest. It is the only fair way to decide an annual champion. Does that mean the best teams will always win? No. But that's what keeps it interesting. But it does mean that somebody's champion (who won that on the field) will be the ultimate champ.

Ohio State didn't win their division, let alone their conference. Why should they get in over Washington?

Absolutely Jr. No matter how many playoff slots we eventually end up with, the first schools invited should be conference champions. What ever slots left can then go to highest ranked schools available.

Penn State won the tiebreaker over Ohio State in their division. They lost to Michigan by 39 points & they also lost OOC to Pittsburgh. Penn State also had the easier conference SOS as they avoided both Wisconsin & Nebraska. Ohio State was 4 points away from an undefeated season, beat the team that beat Penn State by 39 & they also beat the top teams in the other division in Wisconsin & Nebraska. Not to mention winning @ Oklahoma. Ohio State has the superior resume. H2H only comes into play in the case of a tie. If Penn St didn't get beat by 39 or beat Pittsburgh then they would be in. I don't have a problem with the 4 in the CFP. I think there's a better argument between Penn State & Washington giving their pathetic OOC schedule.

With a P4 I would be for a champs only model, especially if the CCG had SF's.

I think Penn State deserved to be in. I also think Ohio State has a great resume.

Solution...put them both in. Expand to 8.