(10-27-2017 08:53 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Cool...so a B1G fan wants 3 outta 8 slots...why only 3? Add Wisconsin and Iowa too.... J/K

(10-27-2017 09:05 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Why should a team like Alabama this year have to play three additional games to prove they are number 1 ?

(10-27-2017 09:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  dude losing teams in the playoffs are NOT going to play in any meaningless bowl game. I see this all the time and just LOL at it. You know last year what happened with LSU and Stanford with Fournette and McCaffery not playing in their bowl games? Think that times 10.

(10-27-2017 09:00 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(10-27-2017 08:53 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Cool...so a B1G fan wants 3 outta 8 slots...why only 3? Add Wisconsin and Iowa too.... J/K

He's using last years final CFP ranking

(10-27-2017 08:42 AM)micahandme Wrote:  I'm generally NOT in favor of an 8-team playoff. Overall, I worry that it’ll dilute the regular season…and CFP has the BEST regular season in American sports.

But if the fervor ever grows enough for an 8-team playoff, here's the best way to go about it.

Have a quarterfinal at home stadiums of highest seeds, but NOT the week after the CCGs. The lower seeds could not pull off the travel that fast...the media would want to build up the hype for the games longer. It makes the higher seeds get a HUGE advantage (a few extra million revenue off the field; a rowdy, excited stadium to help on the field).

The main "problem" with this model is the "bowl placement issue." Bowl games traditionally are set in early December...and the bowls fall like dominos. The lower bowls don't want to set THEIRS, until they can see what the higher bowls get.

To resolve this, I think you simply save a spot for quarterfinal losers in the New Year's Six (Seven*). Would this kill some fan travel to bowl games? Absolutely. But bowls are mostly about TV viewership anyway...so I don't think this is a deal breaker. You are still keeping the top 13-15 teams in the country in games versus each other. Would teams be LESS motivated to play in the bowl game after losing the quarterfinal? Absolutely...but it's another chance to play a football game and get free travel/perks to a nice vacation destination.

Teasing it out below off of last year's seeding...interested in your thoughts on what the discussion would be TODAY if this was the model.

Quarterfinals...Friday Dec 16 and Saturday Dec 17.
#8 WMU (G5 rep) at #1 Alabama (SEC champ) (8pm FRIDAY)
#7 OU (Big 12 champ) at #2 Clemson (ACC champ) (1pm SAT)
#6 Michigan (at-large) at #3 OSU (at-large) (5pm SAT)
#5 Penn State (Big Ten champ) at #4 Washington (Pac12 champ) (9pm SAT)

BOWL GAMES
Orange—#11 Florida State (ACC). vs. CFP loser
Rose—#8 Wisconsin (Big Ten) vs. #9 USC (Pac12)
Cotton—#10 Colorado (at-large) vs. CFP loser
Sugar—#14 Auburn (SEC) vs. #12 Oklahoma State (Big 12)

*Citrus—CFP loser vs. CFP loser

CFP Semifinals
Peach and Fiesta. 1/8 winner vs. 4/5 winner. 2/7 winner vs. 3/6 winner.

All of this can be announced on Selection Sunday..so the entire bowl schedule can be set, except for the 5 bowls affected by the results of the quarterfinal.
Then later...to be determined by quarterfinal results...

*to allow for a place for all quarterfinal losers and continue conference guarantees, an additional bowl will need to be created in the New Year’s Six (now Seven)

(10-27-2017 09:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  dude losing teams in the playoffs are NOT going to play in any meaningless bowl game. I see this all the time and just LOL at it. You know last year what happened with LSU and Stanford with Fournette and McCaffery not playing in their bowl games? Think that times 10.

(10-27-2017 09:41 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  With 5/6 of the semifinal games so far being absolute laughers, I'd almost be happy to return to the days of the BCS. I'm not convinced there are 4 great teams, much less 8.

(10-27-2017 09:31 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Meh, I wouldn't call having 80% of the teams in said division eliminated from contention before the season starts as the best.

I'd say NFL and CBB are better. Nothing wrong with a team losing a game or two and still being in contention for the playoff as long as everyone has an actual shot at winning the championship before the season starts.

(10-27-2017 09:22 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-27-2017 09:05 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Why should a team like Alabama this year have to play three additional games to prove they are number 1 ?

Because the ranking system is highly subjective?

(10-27-2017 01:06 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  For 2017 that would mean something like

(1)Alabama vs. (8) Stanford
(2)Penn St/Wisconsin/Ohio St vs. (7) UGA
(3)TCU vs. (6) Notre Dame
(4)USF/UCF vs. (5) Clemson

(10-27-2017 12:55 PM)YNot Wrote:  To help maintain the importance of the regular season, I'd like to see seeding rules that favor conference champions for the Round 1 home games and help to avoid Round 1 rematches. So, '16 Penn St. gets a Round 1 home game and at large '16 Ohio St. and '16 Michigan get lower seeding. This helps to get BOTH the four best AND the four most deserving (with some overlap).

Quarterfinals...Friday Dec 16 and Saturday Dec. 17
#8 WMU (G5) at #1 Alabama (SEC champ) (8pm FRIDAY)
#7 Michigan (at-large) at #2 Clemson (ACC champ) (1pm SAT)
#6 Oklahoma (B12 champ) at #3 Penn State (B1G champ) (5pm SAT)
#5 Ohio St. (at-large) at #4 Washington (PAC champ) (9pm SAT)