(10-30-2017 04:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think it's inevitable that we'll end up with an 8-team playoff WITH auto-bids for the P5 champs. This is about control and power and *automatic* access is what that's all about. The P5 doesn't want merely a 90% or even 99% chance of making the playoffs every year: they can and will demand a 100% chance. They want their conference championship games to become de facto playoff games regardless of the rankings of the participants (and they want the increased TV revenue that comes from those de facto playoff games that doesn't have to be shared with any other league).

Autobids are going to be perceived as a power grab by the G5 and a move back to the autobids of the old BCS era.

The next move could be a plus-one where traditional bowls are preserved and more are playing for a national championship in theory going into the final 2 weekends of the season.

A team from in a conference to win a national title would have to do the following.

1. Win the division.
2. Win the conference championship game.
3. Win the bowl game.
4. Earn a Top 2 final ranking.

There would be none of this Ohio State sneaking in without winning their division crap if only 2 teams from the country make it. That is because if they don't win the B1G they don't go to the Rose Bowl and instead have to play a 2 loss SEC team or something in the Fiesta Bowl.

Plus one would have been done already, but they went with this, which is way better. A plus 4 could be possible but that tacks on two travel weeks so probably not. Don't think we are getting 8 until we get a P4 system, and probably no autobids so to prevent 2 and 3 loss teams from slipping in by scoring an upset in the CCGs. I don't see any other way we get 8 teams unless we get the next realignment, and it won't be an official 1st round since winning your CCG wouldn't be a guaranteed bid.

With the NFL on the decline, I doubt they will water down CF even more than they have by adding more playoff teams and getting even more money from networks for a diluted product.

they aren't going to a plus one system at all. why would you go backwards?

(10-30-2017 11:06 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think it's inevitable that we'll end up with an 8-team playoff WITH auto-bids for the P5 champs. This is about control and power and *automatic* access is what that's all about. The P5 doesn't want merely a 90% or even 99% chance of making the playoffs every year: they can and will demand a 100% chance. They want their conference championship games to become de facto playoff games regardless of the rankings of the participants (and they want the increased TV revenue that comes from those de facto playoff games that doesn't have to be shared with any other league).

Autobids are going to be perceived as a power grab by the G5 and a move back to the autobids of the old BCS era.

The next move could be a plus-one where traditional bowls are preserved and more are playing for a national championship in theory going into the final 2 weekends of the season.

A team from in a conference to win a national title would have to do the following.

1. Win the division.
2. Win the conference championship game.
3. Win the bowl game.
4. Earn a Top 2 final ranking.

There would be none of this Ohio State sneaking in without winning their division crap if only 2 teams from the country make it. That is because if they don't win the B1G they don't go to the Rose Bowl and instead have to play a 2 loss SEC team or something in the Fiesta Bowl.

I like the plus one format (and in some ways would have personally preferred it to the current 4-team playoff, particularly the preservation of the traditional bowls), but the TV networks made it VERY clear that they want (AKA only paying top dollar for) a 100% unambiguous elimination tournament. That is how it’s always going to be going forward. We’re never going back and, to the extent that there’s ever any change, it’s going to make that format larger.

The fact is that the general public simply isn’t bothered by an Ohio State team like last year making the playoff. This is a conference realignment board, so we’re inherently obsessed with conferences, meaning most of us (myself included) put a lot of weight on conference champs. However, that’s just not critical for the casual fans that matter, just as they don’t care who won their respective conferences in the NCAA Tournament. Besides, why should 2016 Ohio State be treated any differently than 2017 Notre Dame just because OSU is a member of a conference? That has always been the dilemma with imposing any conference champ requirement in a 4-team playoff.

The only difference with an 8-team playoff is that it’s simply large enough to hold all 5 P5 conference champs automatically. The size provides flexibility to grant auto-bids while still having enough at-large spots to logically include all of the non-champs and independents that are legitimately elite. That last part is critical because that’s what the TV networks demand. They *want* teams like 2016 Ohio State and this year’s Notre Dame team in the playoff without question. Those are the people that matter as opposed to the conference-focused people like us.

(10-31-2017 09:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 11:06 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think it's inevitable that we'll end up with an 8-team playoff WITH auto-bids for the P5 champs. This is about control and power and *automatic* access is what that's all about. The P5 doesn't want merely a 90% or even 99% chance of making the playoffs every year: they can and will demand a 100% chance. They want their conference championship games to become de facto playoff games regardless of the rankings of the participants (and they want the increased TV revenue that comes from those de facto playoff games that doesn't have to be shared with any other league).

Autobids are going to be perceived as a power grab by the G5 and a move back to the autobids of the old BCS era.

The next move could be a plus-one where traditional bowls are preserved and more are playing for a national championship in theory going into the final 2 weekends of the season.

A team from in a conference to win a national title would have to do the following.

1. Win the division.
2. Win the conference championship game.
3. Win the bowl game.
4. Earn a Top 2 final ranking.

There would be none of this Ohio State sneaking in without winning their division crap if only 2 teams from the country make it. That is because if they don't win the B1G they don't go to the Rose Bowl and instead have to play a 2 loss SEC team or something in the Fiesta Bowl.

I like the plus one format (and in some ways would have personally preferred it to the current 4-team playoff, particularly the preservation of the traditional bowls), but the TV networks made it VERY clear that they want (AKA only paying top dollar for) a 100% unambiguous elimination tournament. That is how it’s always going to be going forward. We’re never going back and, to the extent that there’s ever any change, it’s going to make that format larger.

The fact is that the general public simply isn’t bothered by an Ohio State team like last year making the playoff. This is a conference realignment board, so we’re inherently obsessed with conferences, meaning most of us (myself included) put a lot of weight on conference champs. However, that’s just not critical for the casual fans that matter, just as they don’t care who won their respective conferences in the NCAA Tournament. Besides, why should 2016 Ohio State be treated any differently than 2017 Notre Dame just because OSU is a member of a conference? That has always been the dilemma with imposing any conference champ requirement in a 4-team playoff.

The only difference with an 8-team playoff is that it’s simply large enough to hold all 5 P5 conference champs automatically. The size provides flexibility to grant auto-bids while still having enough at-large spots to logically include all of the non-champs and independents that are legitimately elite. That last part is critical because that’s what the TV networks demand. They *want* teams like 2016 Ohio State and this year’s Notre Dame team in the playoff without question. Those are the people that matter as opposed to the conference-focused people like us.

Or more to the point a team like 2011 Alabama. TV knows that a 4 team tournament where 2011 Alabama would have been left out for a #10 I think they were Wisconsin- they know the general public would never have accepted a playoff w/o Alabama. And that it would have never been viewed as being legitimate at all. And the thing is, when this came around was just after 2011 Alabama.

(10-31-2017 09:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 09:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 11:06 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think it's inevitable that we'll end up with an 8-team playoff WITH auto-bids for the P5 champs. This is about control and power and *automatic* access is what that's all about. The P5 doesn't want merely a 90% or even 99% chance of making the playoffs every year: they can and will demand a 100% chance. They want their conference championship games to become de facto playoff games regardless of the rankings of the participants (and they want the increased TV revenue that comes from those de facto playoff games that doesn't have to be shared with any other league).

Autobids are going to be perceived as a power grab by the G5 and a move back to the autobids of the old BCS era.

The next move could be a plus-one where traditional bowls are preserved and more are playing for a national championship in theory going into the final 2 weekends of the season.

A team from in a conference to win a national title would have to do the following.

1. Win the division.
2. Win the conference championship game.
3. Win the bowl game.
4. Earn a Top 2 final ranking.

There would be none of this Ohio State sneaking in without winning their division crap if only 2 teams from the country make it. That is because if they don't win the B1G they don't go to the Rose Bowl and instead have to play a 2 loss SEC team or something in the Fiesta Bowl.

I like the plus one format (and in some ways would have personally preferred it to the current 4-team playoff, particularly the preservation of the traditional bowls), but the TV networks made it VERY clear that they want (AKA only paying top dollar for) a 100% unambiguous elimination tournament. That is how it’s always going to be going forward. We’re never going back and, to the extent that there’s ever any change, it’s going to make that format larger.

The fact is that the general public simply isn’t bothered by an Ohio State team like last year making the playoff. This is a conference realignment board, so we’re inherently obsessed with conferences, meaning most of us (myself included) put a lot of weight on conference champs. However, that’s just not critical for the casual fans that matter, just as they don’t care who won their respective conferences in the NCAA Tournament. Besides, why should 2016 Ohio State be treated any differently than 2017 Notre Dame just because OSU is a member of a conference? That has always been the dilemma with imposing any conference champ requirement in a 4-team playoff.

The only difference with an 8-team playoff is that it’s simply large enough to hold all 5 P5 conference champs automatically. The size provides flexibility to grant auto-bids while still having enough at-large spots to logically include all of the non-champs and independents that are legitimately elite. That last part is critical because that’s what the TV networks demand. They *want* teams like 2016 Ohio State and this year’s Notre Dame team in the playoff without question. Those are the people that matter as opposed to the conference-focused people like us.

Or more to the point a team like 2011 Alabama. TV knows that a 4 team tournament where 2011 Alabama would have been left out for a #10 I think they were Wisconsin- they know the general public would never have accepted a playoff w/o Alabama. And that it would have never been viewed as being legitimate at all. And the thing is, when this came around was just after 2011 Alabama.

Exactly.

Everyone needs to think of it this way: if Notre Dame had the exact same schedule and won and lost the exact same games as 2011 Alabama or 2016 Ohio State, they would have been 100% in the 4-team playoff system without even a debate. There's zero doubt in my mind. So, why should a conference member be put at a disadvantage relative to Notre Dame for playoff purposes? So many college football fans whine about the supposed preferences that ND receives as an independent, yet they're ironically giving ND a big-time preference whenever they complain about teams like 2011 Alabama or 2016 Ohio State.

(10-30-2017 11:06 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think it's inevitable that we'll end up with an 8-team playoff WITH auto-bids for the P5 champs. This is about control and power and *automatic* access is what that's all about. The P5 doesn't want merely a 90% or even 99% chance of making the playoffs every year: they can and will demand a 100% chance. They want their conference championship games to become de facto playoff games regardless of the rankings of the participants (and they want the increased TV revenue that comes from those de facto playoff games that doesn't have to be shared with any other league).

Autobids are going to be perceived as a power grab by the G5 and a move back to the autobids of the old BCS era.

The next move could be a plus-one where traditional bowls are preserved and more are playing for a national championship in theory going into the final 2 weekends of the season.

A team from in a conference to win a national title would have to do the following.

1. Win the division.
2. Win the conference championship game.
3. Win the bowl game.
4. Earn a Top 2 final ranking.

There would be none of this Ohio State sneaking in without winning their division crap if only 2 teams from the country make it. That is because if they don't win the B1G they don't go to the Rose Bowl and instead have to play a 2 loss SEC team or something in the Fiesta Bowl.

8 teams is the only realistic hope the G5 have of ever even getting in the playoff. They will never make it with 4. TCU would have in 2009, but they aren't G5 anymore. Neither is Utah who would have had an argument in 2004 and 2008. The MWC lost its 3 top programs. Nobody else has come close.

And if its a power grab, its more from the ACC, Big 12 and Pac 12 trying to grab power from the P3-Big 10, SEC and ESPN.

(10-30-2017 03:06 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:41 PM)YNot Wrote:  In that scenario, I wonder if Notre Dame and the ACC would accept a football membership scenario where Navy was added as the 16th team (football only) and the 8-team ACC divisions rotated based on the future Notre Dame-ACC schedules. And, only the 7 divisional games counted toward the divisional race.

I note that a couple of future schedules have 6 Notre Dame-ACC games. Add Navy and 1-2 other ACC games and it would work - BUT, Notre Dame isn't pinned down to one specific divisional lineup each year.

For example, based on future schedules, Notre Dame's rotating divisions could be:
2019 = Navy Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Duke, Boston College, TBD
2020 = Navy, Clemson, Duke, Louisville, Wake, Pitt, Georgia Tech
2021 = Navy, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Florida St., Virginia Tech, Virginia, TBD
2022 = Navy, Boston College, Clemson, North Carolina, Syracuse, TBD, TBD
2023 = Navy, Clemson, Duke, Louisville, Pitt, Wake, NC State
2024 = Navy, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Florida St., Miami, TBD, TBD
2025 = Navy, Boston College, Miami, NC State, Pitt, Syracuse, TBD
2026 = Navy, Virginia, Florida St., Louisville, North Carolina, Syracuse, TBD

8x = Navy
4x = Virginia, Louisville
3x = Clemson, Pitt, Georgia Tech, Duke, Boston College, Florida St., Syracuse
2x = Wake, Virginia Tech, Miami, NC State, North Carolina

That's only 8 extra ACC games in 8 years and leaves 5-game flexibility on Notre Dame's OOC schedule to play USC, Stanford and two spots for the Georgia, Michigan, Ohio St., Texas A&M, Michigan St., Wisconsin type matchups and a payday home game against the MAC or similar opponent.

OR, rotate the divisions on a two-year home-away basis and require Notre Dame and Navy to only play the 7-game divisional round robin ACC schedule.

For the conference, I think the bolded portion above would be the problem. That would leave an 8-7 divisional setup (unless you went 5-5-5 which I don't believe they would prefer.) If they also added Cincinnati, for example, the conference may be okay with it. With the larger conference, new division alignment would probably be considered.

Atlantic: North Carolina, North Carolina St, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida St
Coastal: Virginia Tech, Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Navy, Syracuse, Boston College, Miami

Notre Dame plays an 8-game conference schedule (Navy, Pittsburgh, Boston College annually.) They can find their way into the ACC championship game and bowl slots.

I wasn't clear on that bolded statement. Notre Dame would be a full-fledged member of the conference and would be assigned to a specific division each year; no Cincinnati needed. However, the divisional lineup would change from year to year such that Notre Dame would not be in the same division from year to year.

So, change the bolded statement to "Notre Dame isn't pinned down to the same specific divisional lineup from year to year."

So...even though only 5 of the 12 initially-ranked top 4 actually made the playoffs...let's use last night's committee rankings to have some fun. Here's what my system would look like if the season ended tomorrow.

#8 UCF (G5 rep) at #1 UGA (SEC champ)--Friday night 8pm DEC 15
#7 UW (Pac-12 champ) at #2 Bama (at-large)--Saturday 1pm DEC 16
#6 Ohio State (Big Ten champ) at #3 Notre Dame (at-large)--Saturday 5pm DEC 16
#5 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ) at #4 Clemson (ACC champ)--Saturday 9pm DEC 16

Penn State...out again. :)

Thoughts?

How about this instead.

8 team playoff.

5 conference champions with 3 wild cards to be determined from the group of divisional winners plus ND.

Based on the first rankings, that would look something like this:

1) SEC Champ
2) B1G Champ
3) ND
4) XII Champ
5) ACC Champ
6) PAC Champ
7) WC I - SEC Runner up
8) WC II - B1G Runner up

In the mix would also be the XII runner up and the ACC runner up, depending on the final records. In other years, the PAC runner up would be in the mix as well.

Simple, straight forward, and leaves little room for bitching. ESPN and Fox are happy, the conferences are as happy as they can be.

(11-01-2017 07:45 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  How about this instead.

8 team playoff.

5 conference champions with 3 wild cards to be determined from the group of divisional winners plus ND.

Based on the first rankings, that would look something like this:

1) SEC Champ
2) B1G Champ
3) ND
4) XII Champ
5) ACC Champ
6) PAC Champ
7) WC I - SEC Runner up
8) WC II - B1G Runner up

In the mix would also be the XII runner up and the ACC runner up, depending on the final records. In other years, the PAC runner up would be in the mix as well.

Simple, straight forward, and leaves little room for bitching. ESPN and Fox are happy, the conferences are as happy as they can be.

um no. They aren't putting a team like Penn St(who could be #5 easily by end of the season) out even though they won't win their division to take a team in the Big Ten runner up who would be closer to 10. TV wants the top teams period.

(11-01-2017 08:20 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 07:45 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  How about this instead.

8 team playoff.

5 conference champions with 3 wild cards to be determined from the group of divisional winners plus ND.

Based on the first rankings, that would look something like this:

1) SEC Champ
2) B1G Champ
3) ND
4) XII Champ
5) ACC Champ
6) PAC Champ
7) WC I - SEC Runner up
8) WC II - B1G Runner up

In the mix would also be the XII runner up and the ACC runner up, depending on the final records. In other years, the PAC runner up would be in the mix as well.

Simple, straight forward, and leaves little room for bitching. ESPN and Fox are happy, the conferences are as happy as they can be.

um no. They aren't putting a team like Penn St(who could be #5 easily by end of the season) out even though they won't win their division to take a team in the Big Ten runner up who would be closer to 10. TV wants the top teams period.

What TV wants is RATINGS, not necessarily the top teams. That is why I completely dismiss the leftover conferences from the picture.

It's the same reason the bigger bowl games will take a team with a worse record but a larger fan base over a better record from a smaller program.

That's why conferences like the SEC & B1G would get the runner up. A playoff game with a Wisconsin will get just as many eyeballs as the same game with PSU and that's all that matters. I'm sure the same argument could be made in the SEC as well.

(10-27-2017 11:55 AM)micahandme Wrote:  

(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.

80% are eliminated because D1 or FBS is a joke. But all of the G5 jokers around here would rather be eliminated before the season starts (for the past 80 years) than actually have their own league and playoff and championship.

Get rid of the G5 and make the playoff just for the P5...and then you have a more equitable system.

My opinion is Penn State should have gotten a permanent death penalty for the Sandusky situation.

(11-01-2017 08:57 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 08:20 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 07:45 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  How about this instead.

8 team playoff.

5 conference champions with 3 wild cards to be determined from the group of divisional winners plus ND.

Based on the first rankings, that would look something like this:

1) SEC Champ
2) B1G Champ
3) ND
4) XII Champ
5) ACC Champ
6) PAC Champ
7) WC I - SEC Runner up
8) WC II - B1G Runner up

In the mix would also be the XII runner up and the ACC runner up, depending on the final records. In other years, the PAC runner up would be in the mix as well.

Simple, straight forward, and leaves little room for bitching. ESPN and Fox are happy, the conferences are as happy as they can be.

um no. They aren't putting a team like Penn St(who could be #5 easily by end of the season) out even though they won't win their division to take a team in the Big Ten runner up who would be closer to 10. TV wants the top teams period.

What TV wants is RATINGS, not necessarily the top teams. That is why I completely dismiss the leftover conferences from the picture.

It's the same reason the bigger bowl games will take a team with a worse record but a larger fan base over a better record from a smaller program.

That's why conferences like the SEC & B1G would get the runner up. A playoff game with a Wisconsin will get just as many eyeballs as the same game with PSU and that's all that matters. I'm sure the same argument could be made in the SEC as well.

Um no. TV has made it clear they don't want stipulations... They want the top teams period, not the top champions, not the top divisional champs in this case. Sorry but TV would want #5 Penn St over #10 Wisconsin in this scenario 100 times out of 100, and it wouldn't be remotely close.

(11-01-2017 09:01 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 08:57 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 08:20 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 07:45 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  How about this instead.

8 team playoff.

5 conference champions with 3 wild cards to be determined from the group of divisional winners plus ND.

Based on the first rankings, that would look something like this:

1) SEC Champ
2) B1G Champ
3) ND
4) XII Champ
5) ACC Champ
6) PAC Champ
7) WC I - SEC Runner up
8) WC II - B1G Runner up

In the mix would also be the XII runner up and the ACC runner up, depending on the final records. In other years, the PAC runner up would be in the mix as well.

Simple, straight forward, and leaves little room for bitching. ESPN and Fox are happy, the conferences are as happy as they can be.

um no. They aren't putting a team like Penn St(who could be #5 easily by end of the season) out even though they won't win their division to take a team in the Big Ten runner up who would be closer to 10. TV wants the top teams period.

What TV wants is RATINGS, not necessarily the top teams. That is why I completely dismiss the leftover conferences from the picture.

It's the same reason the bigger bowl games will take a team with a worse record but a larger fan base over a better record from a smaller program.

That's why conferences like the SEC & B1G would get the runner up. A playoff game with a Wisconsin will get just as many eyeballs as the same game with PSU and that's all that matters. I'm sure the same argument could be made in the SEC as well.

Um no. TV has made it clear they don't want stipulations... They want the top teams period, not the top champions, not the top divisional champs in this case. Sorry but TV would want #5 Penn St over #10 Wisconsin in this scenario 100 times out of 100, and it wouldn't be remotely close.

They don't want stipulations, as long as it's to their benefit. There's no way in hell that TV would want an undefeated UCF team (if the committee loses it's mind) over a 1 loss ND or B1G runner up for example. That just ain't happening. So in fact there are stipulations.

Your assumption is that if, for example, Wisconsin loses a close B1G championship game to tOSU, that PSU would still be rated higher. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how much weight the committee puts on winning a division and playing that 13th game.

Until they come up with a points system that eliminates the committee, it's all up to their opinion.

(11-01-2017 11:33 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 09:01 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 08:57 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 08:20 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 07:45 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  How about this instead.

8 team playoff.

5 conference champions with 3 wild cards to be determined from the group of divisional winners plus ND.

Based on the first rankings, that would look something like this:

1) SEC Champ
2) B1G Champ
3) ND
4) XII Champ
5) ACC Champ
6) PAC Champ
7) WC I - SEC Runner up
8) WC II - B1G Runner up

In the mix would also be the XII runner up and the ACC runner up, depending on the final records. In other years, the PAC runner up would be in the mix as well.

Simple, straight forward, and leaves little room for bitching. ESPN and Fox are happy, the conferences are as happy as they can be.

um no. They aren't putting a team like Penn St(who could be #5 easily by end of the season) out even though they won't win their division to take a team in the Big Ten runner up who would be closer to 10. TV wants the top teams period.

What TV wants is RATINGS, not necessarily the top teams. That is why I completely dismiss the leftover conferences from the picture.

It's the same reason the bigger bowl games will take a team with a worse record but a larger fan base over a better record from a smaller program.

That's why conferences like the SEC & B1G would get the runner up. A playoff game with a Wisconsin will get just as many eyeballs as the same game with PSU and that's all that matters. I'm sure the same argument could be made in the SEC as well.

Um no. TV has made it clear they don't want stipulations... They want the top teams period, not the top champions, not the top divisional champs in this case. Sorry but TV would want #5 Penn St over #10 Wisconsin in this scenario 100 times out of 100, and it wouldn't be remotely close.

They don't want stipulations, as long as it's to their benefit. There's no way in hell that TV would want an undefeated UCF team (if the committee loses it's mind) over a 1 loss ND or B1G runner up for example. That just ain't happening. So in fact there are stipulations.

Your assumption is that if, for example, Wisconsin loses a close B1G championship game to tOSU, that PSU would still be rated higher. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how much weight the committee puts on winning a division and playing that 13th game.

Until they come up with a points system that eliminates the committee, it's all up to their opinion.

Right. But you see, there would be the choice in the committee. There would be no requirement that you have to be a division champion though. NONE.

(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)

How about four quarterfinal games on New Years Day paired by rankings. Cotton, Rose, Orange, and Sugar Bowls. Semis a week later in Fiesta and Peach. Bid out CCG. What a New Years Day that would make.

(11-01-2017 07:45 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  How about this instead.

8 team playoff.

5 conference champions with 3 wild cards to be determined from the group of divisional winners plus ND.

Based on the first rankings, that would look something like this:

1) SEC Champ
2) B1G Champ
3) ND
4) XII Champ
5) ACC Champ
6) PAC Champ
7) WC I - SEC Runner up
8) WC II - B1G Runner up

In the mix would also be the XII runner up and the ACC runner up, depending on the final records. In other years, the PAC runner up would be in the mix as well.

Simple, straight forward, and leaves little room for bitching. ESPN and Fox are happy, the conferences are as happy as they can be.

So off on so many levels.
This would officially open up anti trust litigation due to the G5 effectively being banned from the playoff..........currently they technically can make it, even though we all know they can't....... courts would like that technicality in an anti trust case. You remove that and it becomes a lot more murkier and would favor a plaintiff.

Secondly and more importantly, what on GODS green earth makes you think the PAC, ACC, and BIG12 are just gonna roll over and allow B1G/SEC to get advantages. We all know that since they usually have more bias in their favor, they will get those last two slots most years.

Lastly, you are giving ND an inherent advantage. All they need to be is top 8. Other teams need to win their conference or compete in ranking with other runner ups......which is tough to do when the runner up would have just lost the championship game and taken a bath in the polls from the loss.

Look, I'm all for expanding the playoffs.......but just leave it to the current ranking system of the committee. You start making designated auto bids and it screws up the system and makes it weaker.

I am so amazed that a fan of any sport would be ok with making a playoff based off of potential ratings and not simply using the best teams.

(11-01-2017 08:57 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 08:20 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 07:45 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  How about this instead.

8 team playoff.

5 conference champions with 3 wild cards to be determined from the group of divisional winners plus ND.

Based on the first rankings, that would look something like this:

1) SEC Champ
2) B1G Champ
3) ND
4) XII Champ
5) ACC Champ
6) PAC Champ
7) WC I - SEC Runner up
8) WC II - B1G Runner up

In the mix would also be the XII runner up and the ACC runner up, depending on the final records. In other years, the PAC runner up would be in the mix as well.

Simple, straight forward, and leaves little room for bitching. ESPN and Fox are happy, the conferences are as happy as they can be.

um no. They aren't putting a team like Penn St(who could be #5 easily by end of the season) out even though they won't win their division to take a team in the Big Ten runner up who would be closer to 10. TV wants the top teams period.

What TV wants is RATINGS, not necessarily the top teams. That is why I completely dismiss the leftover conferences from the picture.

It's the same reason the bigger bowl games will take a team with a worse record but a larger fan base over a better record from a smaller program.

That's why conferences like the SEC & B1G would get the runner up. A playoff game with a Wisconsin will get just as many eyeballs as the same game with PSU and that's all that matters. I'm sure the same argument could be made in the SEC as well.

Amazing..... simply amazing. Any fan of sports should just shake their head in disgust.