I'm fine with acknowledging that.

Just seems like in a perfect world you might want the top 11 to get the other 11 spots, regardless.

2013- 8 and 9 were bounced due to 2 team conference limit
2012- 7-9 all bounced due to 2 team conference limit
2011- 6 and 9 bounced due to 2 team conference limit.

what is good is stuff like 2011 can't happen where top teams get bounced, while #11 and #13 especially get gifted bids due to names.

each automatic spot should be conditional. should be a rule that each team elligible for a conference's slot at least need to be in the top 16 or the conferences forfeit their slot that year. Same with the G5 slot.

Just drop all the bowls and go to a 16 team playoff.

Dec. 2/3 (Week After Thanksgiving) - Conference Championships (Every conference must have one winner goes to playoff, playoff committee picks 6 at large school and seeds teams )
Conference Champions:
Temple
Clemson
Penn State
Oklahoma
WKU
Western Michigan
Wyoming
Washington
Alabama
Appalchian State
At-Large:
Ohio State
Michigan
Wisconsin
USC
Colorado
Florida State

Seeding
1 Alabama
2 Clemson
3 Ohio State
4 Washington
5 Penn State
6 Michigan
7 Oklahoma
8 Wisconsin
9 USC
10 Colorado
11 Florida State
12 Western Michigan
13 San Diego State
14 Temple
15 Appalachian State
16 WKU

Dec. 9/10 (Following Week, games played) 1st Round
16 WKU @ 1 Alabama
9 USC @ 8 Wisconsin
12 Western M. @ 5 Penn State
14 SDSU @ 4 Washington
11 Florida St. @ 6 Michigan
14 Temple @ 3 Ohio State
10 Colorado @ 7 Oklahoma
15 App St. @ 2 Clemson

Dec. 16/17 2nd Round
4 Games all on campus, highest seed hosts

New Years Day
2 Playoff Games Neutral Site

National Championship Same as Now


This is the only way to make it fair for everyone and keep it fun. Would be way more fun watching 8 games on the weekend with each team playing for survival. The same goes for the second round. Imagine a Michigan home game at Noon in the second round with heavy snow, or Wisconsin going to Alabama, or Western Michigan pulling the upset at Penn State. TV wants to two things. 1 Large programs going head to head and 2 Cinderellas pulling upsets. This gives you both.

Another thing it does makes the conference championships important since it gets you to the playoff.

(12-24-2016 01:28 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Just drop all the bowls and go to a 16 team playoff.

But of course the huge problem to deal with there, and even in an 8-team bracket, is the time requirement in terms of additional weeks required.

With bowls, they're played in parallel.

(12-24-2016 01:37 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 01:28 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Just drop all the bowls and go to a 16 team playoff.

But of course the huge problem to deal with there, and even in an 8-team bracket, is the time requirement in terms of additional weeks required.

With bowls, they're played in parallel.

??? FCS does it with no problem, not sure what you mean. The time frame is there to get it done.

FCS only play 11 games. FBS will never do that. So that blows that away.

Plus with the bowl games, you have 80 out of 128 FBS teams getting a post-season game. With a 16 team playoff only, you'd only have 16.

So no one will vote for it.

(12-24-2016 01:51 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  FCS only play 11 games. FBS will never do that. So that blows that away.

Plus with the bowl games, you have 80 out of 128 FBS teams getting a post-season game. With a 16 team playoff only, you'd only have 16.

So no one will vote for it.

Haha wrong every G5 program would vote for it. Also they could have a NIT like Tournament or keep a few bowls if need. Also too many teams make the post season in college football now, use to be only a few and should go back that way makes it more meaningful.

Who were the top 5 ranked teams left out of a BCS bowl in the BCS era?

Quote:oh boo ******* hoo.

The current system- no top 9 team has been left out.

Wait -- you're Agreeing with nixing #10 for #14? I figured you'd respond by saying something like "Yeah, that needs to be fixed too." When defending it instead, you're contradicting your reasoning why Wisconsin should be in there (because they're ranked higher; go strictly by rankings only). And yet, you defend bringing in a #14 team due to conference tie-in over a #10?

Quote:The old system with the artificial crap of 2 team limits- had only 1 team ranked in the 7-9 range make BCS bowls.

I don't agree with the 2 team limits, nor have I advocated it. I'm not even for a pure 3-team limit. A 3-team limit of those in the same conference for those not in the upper half (Top 6 of 12), unless a team below them that would get in, is still from the same conference. You don't think this is kosher, and conference affiliation shouldn't play a role in any auto-bids -- yet you say it Is kosher for #10 to be trumped by #14 due to conference affiliation?

I understand questioning my POV on a 3-team conference limit of those Below the upper half of a 12-team playoff. But to say it's okay for a #14 to trump a #10 due to conference affiliation, still applies conference rules, and negates the concept of going just by ranking.

Why do I like a 3-team conference limit applied to those Not ranked in the Top 6, instead of auto-bids for non-conf champs that we have today? Because when you have rankings piling on an overflow of teams from the same conference -- if they're not The elite teams (Top 6) -- it calls more into question how exactly accurate the rankings are when most of the season is contained in in-conference play. It's somewhat common when bowl season finalizes we think "Oh, the X conference is stronger than we thought, and the Y conference isn't quite as strong as we thought," and things of that nature with different P5 conferences.

KNOWING that rankings aren't exact, I think it is a good idea to limit the # of teams from the same conference in some circumstances for at-larges, But never affecting anyone in the Top Half/6. If 5 out of those Top 6 are SEC, that's fine, they're in. But if you have #7 SEC, too? Yeah, sorry #7... unless #8/9/10/11 eligible to come in is still also SEC, you're not coming in (and limiting at 4 instead of 3).

My view of the 12-teams (In NY Bowls or a Playoff):
- 5 P5 Champs
- 1 Top G5 Champ, if ranked in Top 24
- 6 At-Larges by Ranking -- but limiting it to 3 teams of same conference if 4th team is below the Top 6 Ranking and the next team in line isn't from the same conference.

Into the 12-team Playoff:
#1: Alabama [SEC Champ]
#2: Clemson [ACC Champ]
#3: Ohio State [B1G]
#4: Washington [P12 Champ]
#5: Penn State [B1G Champ]
#6: Michigan [B1G]

#7: Oklahoma [B12 Champ]
#8: USC [P12]
#9: Colorado [P12 Div Champ]
#10: Florida State [ACC]
#11: Oklahoma State [B12]
#12: Western Michigan [G5 Champ]

thank ******* god you aren't in charge. Sorry folks don't want to see Oklahoma St in the playoff instead of Wisconsin. The powers that be have shown that over and over again. That was a HUGE part of the CFP. NO artificial conference limits when choosing access bowl teams. Just the best.

Quote:NO artificial conference limits when choosing access bowl teams. Just the best.

If it's just the best, you would want #10 Colorado in there, instead of #14 Auburn.

(12-24-2016 05:38 PM)stever20 Wrote:  thank ******* god you aren't in charge. Sorry folks don't want to see Oklahoma St in the playoff instead of Wisconsin. The powers that be have shown that over and over again. That was a HUGE part of the CFP. NO artificial conference limits when choosing access bowl teams. Just the best.

Except ... the three contract bowls have nothing to do with "the best" in a national ranking sense, except during playoff years all of their spots are reserved for teams from specific conferences, regardless of ranking, which is how the bowls and conferences wanted it.

(12-24-2016 12:28 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'm fine with acknowledging that.

Just seems like in a perfect world you might want the top 11 to get the other 11 spots, regardless.

Well in the CFP, the top 4 get the playoff spots. To have #5 - #12 get the remaining NY6 slots, you'd have to convert the three Contract bowls into Access bowls, and no way would the Rose, Sugar, and Orange want that, nor would their respective conference partners, because that would mean it would be possible for a P5 conference to place no teams at all in the NY6 in a given year.

So it can't happen.

(12-24-2016 06:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 05:38 PM)stever20 Wrote:  thank ******* god you aren't in charge. Sorry folks don't want to see Oklahoma St in the playoff instead of Wisconsin. The powers that be have shown that over and over again. That was a HUGE part of the CFP. NO artificial conference limits when choosing access bowl teams. Just the best.

Except ... the three contract bowls have nothing to do with "the best" in a national ranking sense, except during playoff years all of their spots are reserved for teams from specific conferences, regardless of ranking, which is how the bowls and conferences wanted it.

but the access bowls are for the best other teams. which is also how they wanted it. Bottom line, there are no artificial limits, and there will never be any artificial limits. Period, the end.

Quote:Except ... the three contract bowls have nothing to do with "the best" in a national ranking sense, except during playoff years all of their spots are reserved for teams from specific conferences, regardless of ranking, which is how the bowls and conferences wanted it.

It's understandable that a Mere 4-team Play Off (not a adequately robust playoff) would be strictly by rankings. But once you get to 12, or even 8 -- Conference Champs (of P5) will be getting in regardless of ranking. Understandably, as that's how pretty much all sports work (when # of 'worthy' conferences outnumber # of seeds in said playoff, by at least a few).

I think it'd be a pipe dream to think it'd ever Purely go by ranking when you have more seeds in a playoff than P5 conferences. So there's always going to be That factor. My only thought is don't make at-larges conference-oriented, except a Potential limit that may situationally apply on More than 3 teams from the same conference, in an 8 or 12-team playoff.

(12-24-2016 06:46 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Except ... the three contract bowls have nothing to do with "the best" in a national ranking sense, except during playoff years all of their spots are reserved for teams from specific conferences, regardless of ranking, which is how the bowls and conferences wanted it.

It's understandable that a Mere 4-team Play Off (not a adequately robust playoff) would be strictly by rankings. But once you get to 12, or even 8 -- Conference Champs (of P5) will be getting in regardless of ranking. Understandably, as that's how pretty much all sports work (when # of 'worthy' conferences outnumber # of seeds in said playoff, by at least a few).

I think it'd be a pipe dream to think it'd ever Purely go by ranking when you have more seeds in a playoff than P5 conferences. So there's always going to be That factor. My only thought is don't make at-larges conference-oriented, except a Potential limit that may situationally apply on More than 3 teams from the same conference, in an 8 or 12-team playoff.

but why? If a conference is like what the Big Ten has this year with 4 top 8 teams, why in a 12 team should that 4th team be left out for an inferior team. Just to make the Big 12 feel good? GTFO with that crap. I'd much rather see Wisconsin in than Oklahoma St any day of the year.

(12-24-2016 06:31 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 06:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 05:38 PM)stever20 Wrote:  thank ******* god you aren't in charge. Sorry folks don't want to see Oklahoma St in the playoff instead of Wisconsin. The powers that be have shown that over and over again. That was a HUGE part of the CFP. NO artificial conference limits when choosing access bowl teams. Just the best.

Except ... the three contract bowls have nothing to do with "the best" in a national ranking sense, except during playoff years all of their spots are reserved for teams from specific conferences, regardless of ranking, which is how the bowls and conferences wanted it.

but the access bowls are for the best other teams. which is also how they wanted it. Bottom line, there are no artificial limits, and there will never be any artificial limits. Period, the end.

So what you're saying is, "once we disregard the NY6 bowls that have artificial limits, the NY6 bowls don't have artificial limits".

Which is funny, and the thing is, it's not even strictly true, since one of the Access slots is reserved for a G5 team.

Bottom line is that when you have 12 slots and 7 of them are reserved, that puts artificial limits on things, though of course less so than under the BCS.

(12-24-2016 07:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 06:31 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 06:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 05:38 PM)stever20 Wrote:  thank ******* god you aren't in charge. Sorry folks don't want to see Oklahoma St in the playoff instead of Wisconsin. The powers that be have shown that over and over again. That was a HUGE part of the CFP. NO artificial conference limits when choosing access bowl teams. Just the best.

Except ... the three contract bowls have nothing to do with "the best" in a national ranking sense, except during playoff years all of their spots are reserved for teams from specific conferences, regardless of ranking, which is how the bowls and conferences wanted it.

but the access bowls are for the best other teams. which is also how they wanted it. Bottom line, there are no artificial limits, and there will never be any artificial limits. Period, the end.

So what you're saying is, "once we disregard the NY6 bowls that have artificial limits, the NY6 bowls don't have artificial limits".

Which is funny, and the thing is, it's not even strictly true, since one of the Access slots is reserved for a G5 team.

Bottom line is that when you have 12 slots and 7 of them are reserved, that puts artificial limits on things, though of course less so than under the BCS.

well, I'd say the results have spoken for themselves now. Top 9 made it all 3 years. 10-12 have made it in 4 of the 9 chances. So it's MUCH better than the old BCS system. So of the top 36 teams in the last 3 years- 31 have made the NY6 games. With 1 of the 5 by the way who didn't make it being conference on conference crime- last year with Oklahoma St going instead of TCU. And 3 of the other 4 being G5. So only 1 team, Colorado this year, really truly snubbed.

Quote:but why? If a conference is like what the Big Ten has this year with 4 top 8 teams, why in a 12 team should that 4th team be left out for an inferior team. Just to make the Big 12 feel good?

I'd mildly accept a Top 8 rule of 12 instead of a Top 6 of 12 rule, although I really wouldn't Like-Like it. But why either? No, it's not to make another conference feel better.

It's because the rankings are not perfect, and err'ing on the side of top conference diversity is for the best (otherwise, why have a playoff?) and what generates more excitement as a bonus. As I said before, it's kinda common as the bowl season winds down that we say "Conference X is actually stronger than we thought, and Conference Y isn't quite as strong as we thought." We didn't figure that out until the last games were finishing up. Most of the season is in-conference, that's why!

Hence, in years in which you have an overflow of teams from the same conference in the Top 11, it really brings that reminder of no, rankings aren't perfect, nor are they assumed to be. And since we're always going to give a spot to a (P5) Conference Champ when we have 8 or more teams, we should also have an overflow limit in rankings if in a particular year there's a bunch ranked teams from the same conference in the lower part of it.

The concept of All P5 winners going regardless of rank, which will always be the case when it's 8+ teams (ie a Real playoff) -- is done partially because of Worthiness & Honoring of the Conferences... and partly for Conference Diversity on the P-Conference level.

So when someone cries foul that their 4th-best team from a conference, who's not even in the Upper rankings of said 12-team playoff, didn't make it -- I say "Dude, you should have won your conference or been ranked in the Upper part to say you Need to be there. This is all about teams from different conferences playing it out for the whole title. Unless there's yet Another selectable team from your conference below you, naw man, you're not going to be the 4th team from your conference in a 12-team pool."

I think you see the rankings as absolute gold, and 100% accurate. By that rationale, you should be p!ssed that #14 got in, and #10 did not. I am! Or even why have a playoff at all? Hey, I'm #1! I don't want #2 raining on my parade! I earned it -- call us National Champs! :) That was roughly the longheld argument Against a playoff -- that rankings mean enough. Just play 1 bowl game, and have final rankings to determine it. When undefeated Boise hit the stage people thought -- wait, did we just get snowed all these years not having a playoff of some sort?

I'm all about rankings -- just having same-conference overflow stoppage when they didn't win theirs Nor even being in the Upper rankings of said playoff.