If your 16-team playoff doesn't include automatic bids for all conference champions, you are doing it wrong.

(07-24-2018 09:34 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  If your 16-team playoff doesn't include automatic bids for all conference champions, you are doing it wrong.

I disagree. If Boise St wins the MWC at 8-5, then I don't want to be in the playoffs because: A) we'll likely get destroyed, and B) we don't deserve it. I would be an advocate for blind resumes to the committee. It should be the best 16 teams in the country.

(07-24-2018 09:45 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 09:34 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  If your 16-team playoff doesn't include automatic bids for all conference champions, you are doing it wrong.

I disagree. If Boise St wins the MWC at 8-5, then I don't want to be in the playoffs because: A) we'll likely get destroyed, and B) we don't deserve it. I would be an advocate for blind resumes to the committee. It should be the best 16 teams in the country.

Well if that is the case then March Madness should just drop down to 32 teams, and ditch the automatic bids from conference tournaments. Who would ever want to see a #16 seed like UMBC play a #1 seed like Virginia?
A) they will likely get destroyed, and B) they don't deserve it.
Oh wait.

(07-24-2018 09:32 AM)andy98 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 09:00 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I DO think we get 8 when this thing is up for renegotiation. 5+1+2

What if Central Florida wins the AAC with an undefeated record, and Boise State wins the Mountain West with an undefeated record, but Stanford wins the Pac Twelve with 4 losses? Should Stanford be given an automatic bid and then have one of the undefeated teams get left out of the playoff?
Just take the top 6 highest ranked conference champions, regardless of whether or not they are P5 or G5, and then add the top 2 at-large teams. At least 90% of the time you would still end up getting all of the P5 champions in the playoff, but you wouldn't be putting the P5 conferences on a higher pedestal by saying 5+1+2. Make it an even playing field by just saying 6+2.

It's not the perfect system but it's certainly a vast improvement over the current one.

And at least one of Boise/UCF would get in when under the current system they would almost assuredly not. And there would remain the possibility of the two wild cards so the other would at least have a path.

(07-24-2018 09:56 AM)andy98 Wrote:  I disagree. If Boise St wins the MWC at 8-5, then I don't want to be in the playoffs because: A) we'll likely get destroyed, and B) we don't deserve it. I would be an advocate for blind resumes to the committee. It should be the best 16 teams in the country.

Well if that is the case then March Madness should just drop down to 32 teams, and ditch the automatic bids from conference tournaments. Who would ever want to see a #16 seed like UMBC play a #1 seed like Virginia?
A) they will likely get destroyed, and B) they don't deserve it.
Oh wait.
[/quote]

Personally, I’m fine with that.

(07-24-2018 09:57 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 09:32 AM)andy98 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 09:00 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I DO think we get 8 when this thing is up for renegotiation. 5+1+2

What if Central Florida wins the AAC with an undefeated record, and Boise State wins the Mountain West with an undefeated record, but Stanford wins the Pac Twelve with 4 losses? Should Stanford be given an automatic bid and then have one of the undefeated teams get left out of the playoff?
Just take the top 6 highest ranked conference champions, regardless of whether or not they are P5 or G5, and then add the top 2 at-large teams. At least 90% of the time you would still end up getting all of the P5 champions in the playoff, but you wouldn't be putting the P5 conferences on a higher pedestal by saying 5+1+2. Make it an even playing field by just saying 6+2.

It's not the perfect system but it's certainly a vast improvement over the current one.

And at least one of Boise/UCF would get in when under the current system they would almost assuredly not. And there would remain the possibility of the two wild cards so the other would at least have a path.

16 teams out of 64 P5 conference schools (plus ND and BYU) is 24% making the playoffs, with no G5 schools participating.

Perhaps it is time for the 5 G5 conferences to consolidate into 4 conferences and have a playoff game between the 4 allowing 2 G5 schools to be a part of the 16 team playoff, meaning 14 P5 teams get in or 21%.

With 5 P5 conferences, have the 2 division winners from each conference automatically in, plus 4 at large (including Indys), plus the 2 G5 playoff teams. This gives all FBS schools a legitimate shot at a NC.

Harbaugh is right. The FBS should mirror what the FCS does, a 16-team playoff. How you arrive at the 16 qualifiers for an FBS playoff is up to the conferences.

FIRE UP CHIPS! :)

(07-24-2018 09:32 AM)andy98 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 09:00 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I DO think we get 8 when this thing is up for renegotiation. 5+1+2

What if Central Florida wins the AAC with an undefeated record, and Boise State wins the Mountain West with an undefeated record, but Stanford wins the Pac Twelve with 4 losses? Should Stanford be given an automatic bid and then have one of the undefeated teams get left out of the playoff?

Just take the top 6 highest ranked conference champions, regardless of whether or not they are P5 or G5, and then add the top 2 at-large teams. At least 90% of the time you would still end up getting all of the P5 champions in the playoff, but you wouldn't be putting the P5 conferences on a higher pedestal by saying 5+1+2. Make it an even playing field by just saying 6+2.

If you must go to 8, why not just pick who you think are the 8 best teams out there, regardless of conference or championship status? Chances are you would still get most P5 champions a high percentage of the time. And so what if you don't?

(07-24-2018 10:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 09:32 AM)andy98 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 09:00 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I DO think we get 8 when this thing is up for renegotiation. 5+1+2

What if Central Florida wins the AAC with an undefeated record, and Boise State wins the Mountain West with an undefeated record, but Stanford wins the Pac Twelve with 4 losses? Should Stanford be given an automatic bid and then have one of the undefeated teams get left out of the playoff?

Just take the top 6 highest ranked conference champions, regardless of whether or not they are P5 or G5, and then add the top 2 at-large teams. At least 90% of the time you would still end up getting all of the P5 champions in the playoff, but you wouldn't be putting the P5 conferences on a higher pedestal by saying 5+1+2. Make it an even playing field by just saying 6+2.

If you must go to 8, why not just pick who you think are the 8 best teams out there, regardless of conference or championship status? Chances are you would still get most P5 champions a high percentage of the time. And so what if you don't?

Because then winning a conference championship wouldn't be as meaningful, and the undefeated G5 teams would probably still get screwed out of the playoffs.

(07-24-2018 10:52 AM)andy98 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 10:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 09:32 AM)andy98 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 09:00 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I DO think we get 8 when this thing is up for renegotiation. 5+1+2

What if Central Florida wins the AAC with an undefeated record, and Boise State wins the Mountain West with an undefeated record, but Stanford wins the Pac Twelve with 4 losses? Should Stanford be given an automatic bid and then have one of the undefeated teams get left out of the playoff?

Just take the top 6 highest ranked conference champions, regardless of whether or not they are P5 or G5, and then add the top 2 at-large teams. At least 90% of the time you would still end up getting all of the P5 champions in the playoff, but you wouldn't be putting the P5 conferences on a higher pedestal by saying 5+1+2. Make it an even playing field by just saying 6+2.

If you must go to 8, why not just pick who you think are the 8 best teams out there, regardless of conference or championship status? Chances are you would still get most P5 champions a high percentage of the time. And so what if you don't?

Because then winning a conference championship wouldn't be as meaningful, and the undefeated G5 teams would probably still get screwed out of the playoffs.

There's nothing magical about being undefeated. Depending on the SOS, it could be more difficult to go 8-4 vs schedule X than 12-0 vs schedule Y.

The CC games as currently constituted are wasted. Many time you have a team from the weaker division ranked #14 or so and well out of contention vs a #1 or #2. You are better off giving a game to a higher ranking team that doesn't play the extra game (because it didn't clinch their division).

So I think you scrap it now and play FOUR QF games first week of December with one spot guaranteed for each of the P5+1G5. That's the best solution down the road. 16 teams is too many and destroys the regular season.

I think many fans miss the forrest for the trees here.

If you think that expansion of the playoffs is somehow going to eliminate controversy you are wrong. The end result will be changes in how the committee ranks teams.

All that is happening is that the demarcation line is being kicked further into the abyss. Its hard enough to discern between the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the country. Now, we fight over the 4th and 5th best teams in the country which is infinitely harder to do than the first. Now, we can fight over the 16th versus the 17th best?

Its smoke and mirrors.

The goal is to change the rules so that rankings musical chairs will land elsewhere. If you think that somehow makes its more fair it doesn't. It greatly helps ESPN weave better storylines in a sport that is looking more and more like pro wrestling.

(07-24-2018 11:30 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think many fans miss the forrest for the trees here.

If you think that expansion of the playoffs is somehow going to eliminate controversy you are wrong. The end result will be changes in how the committee ranks teams.

All that is happening is that the demarcation line is being kicked further into the abyss. Its hard enough to discern between the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the country. Now, we fight over the 4th and 5th best teams in the country which is infinitely harder to do than the first. Now, we can fight over the 16th versus the 17th best?

Its smoke and mirrors.

The goal is to change the rules so that rankings musical chairs will land elsewhere. If you think that somehow makes its more fair it doesn't. It greatly helps ESPN weave better storylines in a sport that is looking more and more like pro wrestling.

Even with expansion, the results would probably not change. The two best teams would meet in the championship game. Clemson would play Alabama. I prefer an eight team playoff in order to give the five P5 conference winners an auto bid, the best G5 school an auto bid and leave an opportunity for the two best wild card schools in FBS football, P5 or G5. But no system will be without controversy.

(07-24-2018 10:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 09:32 AM)andy98 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 09:00 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I DO think we get 8 when this thing is up for renegotiation. 5+1+2

What if Central Florida wins the AAC with an undefeated record, and Boise State wins the Mountain West with an undefeated record, but Stanford wins the Pac Twelve with 4 losses? Should Stanford be given an automatic bid and then have one of the undefeated teams get left out of the playoff?

Just take the top 6 highest ranked conference champions, regardless of whether or not they are P5 or G5, and then add the top 2 at-large teams. At least 90% of the time you would still end up getting all of the P5 champions in the playoff, but you wouldn't be putting the P5 conferences on a higher pedestal by saying 5+1+2. Make it an even playing field by just saying 6+2.

If you must go to 8, why not just pick who you think are the 8 best teams out there, regardless of conference or championship status? Chances are you would still get most P5 champions a high percentage of the time. And so what if you don't?

(07-24-2018 11:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 10:52 AM)andy98 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 10:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 09:32 AM)andy98 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 09:00 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I DO think we get 8 when this thing is up for renegotiation. 5+1+2

What if Central Florida wins the AAC with an undefeated record, and Boise State wins the Mountain West with an undefeated record, but Stanford wins the Pac Twelve with 4 losses? Should Stanford be given an automatic bid and then have one of the undefeated teams get left out of the playoff?

Just take the top 6 highest ranked conference champions, regardless of whether or not they are P5 or G5, and then add the top 2 at-large teams. At least 90% of the time you would still end up getting all of the P5 champions in the playoff, but you wouldn't be putting the P5 conferences on a higher pedestal by saying 5+1+2. Make it an even playing field by just saying 6+2.

If you must go to 8, why not just pick who you think are the 8 best teams out there, regardless of conference or championship status? Chances are you would still get most P5 champions a high percentage of the time. And so what if you don't?

Because then winning a conference championship wouldn't be as meaningful, and the undefeated G5 teams would probably still get screwed out of the playoffs.

There's nothing magical about being undefeated. Depending on the SOS, it could be more difficult to go 8-4 vs schedule X than 12-0 vs schedule Y.

I get what you're saying, but if a team ends up being the only undefeated school in the nation, and it isn't allowed to compete in the playoff, then how do we really know for sure whether or not they are or aren't #1? They need to prove it on the field as to whether or not their record is legit or not. Otherwise we end up speculating on what might have been. That is not the way any sport should end its season. All questions and speculations need to be settled on the field. If they get their asses kicked then so be it. At least it would be settled once and for all, and you wouldn't have undefeated G5 schools, like UCF, declaring themselves national champions and throwing parades for themselves.

(07-24-2018 12:42 PM)andy98 Wrote:  All questions and speculations need to be settled on the field.

No, they don't. College football has done OK for the last 150 years without settling all questions on the field. The game seems to be doing OK anyway.

The Playoff shoulda thought of this MVP idea before the SBC did
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiyhW_BXsAIIc1F.jpg

Harbaugh should be more concerned with finishing above fourth in the B1G East......

No way the playoffs will ever go to 16.

Realistically, in any given year there's 4, 5, MAYBE 6 teams that would have a legitimate shot at winning it all. Anything more than 6 would be a waste of time.

If there's a compromise to be done, go to 6 teams. The P5 champs and 1 wild card.

(07-24-2018 10:52 AM)andy98 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 10:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 09:32 AM)andy98 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 09:00 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I DO think we get 8 when this thing is up for renegotiation. 5+1+2

What if Central Florida wins the AAC with an undefeated record, and Boise State wins the Mountain West with an undefeated record, but Stanford wins the Pac Twelve with 4 losses? Should Stanford be given an automatic bid and then have one of the undefeated teams get left out of the playoff?

Just take the top 6 highest ranked conference champions, regardless of whether or not they are P5 or G5, and then add the top 2 at-large teams. At least 90% of the time you would still end up getting all of the P5 champions in the playoff, but you wouldn't be putting the P5 conferences on a higher pedestal by saying 5+1+2. Make it an even playing field by just saying 6+2.

If you must go to 8, why not just pick who you think are the 8 best teams out there, regardless of conference or championship status? Chances are you would still get most P5 champions a high percentage of the time. And so what if you don't?

Because then winning a conference championship wouldn't be as meaningful, and the undefeated G5 teams would probably still get screwed out of the playoffs.

This, the only way to even go to 8 is have best G5 get an auto bid, otherwise they will get screwed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Finally, Harbaugh has put his name in the media. I kinda missed seeing his name come up like last year during the offseason.

If you're going to do a 16 team tournament then I'd say award berths to the top 6 conference winners and 10 at larges.