Why not use P5 champs plus top 3 from computers? If UCF can storm through a decent schedule then #8 overall is realistic.

What is good for the sport is a completely subjective criterion. I want objectivity in CFB.

(10-03-2018 05:20 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 04:51 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  8 teams, 6 conference champs, 2 wildcards. Quarterfinals played on campus.

Quarterfinal losers get to go to NY6 bowls for consolation prizes.

This gets my vote. You likely get BOTH the 4 best teams and the 4 most deserving. Limit fan base travel with the on-campus quarterfinals and provide a huge incentive to finish in the top-4. Keeps the NY6 contracts and system in place.

Sounds good to me. Keeps P5 happy, keeps G5 happy, everyone has a shot (even independents).

(10-03-2018 07:45 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Why not use P5 champs plus top 3 from computers? If UCF can storm through a decent schedule then #8 overall is realistic.

What is good for the sport is a completely subjective criterion. I want objectivity in CFB.

Because who's to say the P5 will remain the five most dominant conferences? In all likelihood they will, but it's generally bad system design to bank on something like that being deterministic. You want to try to avoid baking in assumptions of the future.

(10-03-2018 07:55 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 07:45 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Why not use P5 champs plus top 3 from computers? If UCF can storm through a decent schedule then #8 overall is realistic.

What is good for the sport is a completely subjective criterion. I want objectivity in CFB.

Because who's to say the P5 will remain the five most dominant conferences? In all likelihood they will, but it's generally bad system design to bank on something like that being deterministic. You want to try to avoid baking in assumptions of the future.

Eliminating such assumptions is a big part of the suggestion in the OP. What isn't a part of it is trying to replace subjectivity in the process with objectivity. Why? Because real objectivity simply isn't, and can never be, possible in this process. The best we can hope for is reducing bias in the system, and reducing the appearance of bias.

I don't want to see just computer algorithms in the selection process. I think we need human judgement as well. I would prefer that the human process, however, be exercised in a very different way. I would not recommend using either the AP poll or the current coaches' poll. Here's what I would recommend.

Roughly half of the FBS coaches vote in the Coaches' Poll. Like the AP, they begin voting in the preseason, and every subsequent poll builds from the first. Builds on in a way that IMO gives the appearance that the bias that is unavoidable in any preseason poll also taints subsequent polls.

I would have a new poll, using all of the FBS coaches not in the traditional one. That poll would be taken only once - after all the games are played except the NY6 games whose pairings are partly determined by these polls.

The panelists for the second human poll would be determined as follows. All ten FBS conferences nominate four candidates, and submit them confidentially to a reputable Trustee like Price Waterhouse. The Trustee compiles the complete list of nominees in alphabetical order, without any hint as to which conference(s) nominated them and sends this list back to the conferences. Then, each of the ten conferences would be allowed to strike one nominee for any reason or no reason at all, again by confidential communication with the Trustee. Finally, the Trustee would publish the final panelists, all of whom would agree to make their ballots public.

Anyone can be nominated for this panel except people who are employed - paid or otherwise - by any FBS member or any broadcast media company.

As a final change, I would have the panelists in both polls only vote for their Top 12 teams, not 25. Any school that fails to receive any votes in each poll would be assigned a rank of 30 for purposes of combining them to arrive at their average rank.

While continuing my strong cry that an expanded playoff would be bad for the sport (I will gladly go back to 2 if 6 or 8 is the other option), I'll take a crack at how I think it would look.

First a few things I think the powers that be will think:
1. Adding games is problematic given the injury issues (they'll justify it for the national title maybe, but doubt beyond that) and the bowls are going to lose luster always being filled with playoff losers. For that reason, while I personally like the idea, I don't think the presidents would go for having the 1st round losers in bowls. So I think once a team loses in the playoffs, it will be done.

2. Each of the power 5 champs will be in. They will want to leave some room for others, but with 8 teams in, it will be a major mark not to have a team in and they'll insist this rule be put in there.

3. The position on the bowls will likely vary. For the CFP, if I remember right, the Big Ten was arguing to use the bowls in the playoff and the SEC's first preference (although not to the same degree) was to use neutral sites outside the bowls. There are pluses and minus of both. If you take it outside the bowls, you still get the big name bowls played in addition to the playoff. On the other hand though, those bowls will slowly (or not so slowly) lose their luster as their importance fades. Even though the bowls have been incorporated, the bowls have still faded in importance some in the last few years as there is a lot more talk about "getting to the playoff" than getting to the individual bowls (which have been made almost secondary).

So with those thoughts, my best guess on how an 8 team playoff would look would be:
1. It would be fully in bowl season. I prefer first round in early December, but they are still going to want to emphasize the CCGs and the bowl pairings work better for the first round. They might play all 4 games New Years Day (or the 2nd) or might spread them over 2 days.

2. The 5 champs from power 5 conferences are automatically in. If an independent or a Group of 5 champ is in the top 8, it is guarenteed in (theoretically this could mean the #8 team could bump the #7 team).

3. The Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl are always quarterfinal playoff bowls played on New Years Day (or the 2nd if its a Sunday). The other 2 can be bid out (likely filled by some combination of the Orange, Cotton, Fiesta, and Peach). Teams are ranked 1-8 and placed in bowls, but due to their long time association, an effort is made to put the highest Big Ten or PAC-12 champ in the Rose Bowl and the highest SEC team in the Sugar. Orange Bowl may well be included here too with the ACC. This would come mainly because the Big Ten would push for it.

4. Other 2 NY6 bowls and rest of the bowls stay basically as is.

5. The semi-finals and championship would be at one site a week apart. It would be bid out.

How about 16 with 8 teams from the A5 and 8 from the G5?

-Separate TV contracts for the A5 and G5. This way A5 doesn't have to get antsy about splitting the money.

-No A5 vs. G5 interaction until the final game. Make it into a super bowl.

(10-03-2018 05:20 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 04:51 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  8 teams, 6 conference champs, 2 wildcards. Quarterfinals played on campus.

Quarterfinal losers get to go to NY6 bowls for consolation prizes.

This gets my vote. You likely get BOTH the 4 best teams and the 4 most deserving. Limit fan base travel with the on-campus quarterfinals and provide a huge incentive to finish in the top-4. Keeps the NY6 contracts and system in place.

agree completely, and for NY6 P5 get autos and one for best non playoff G5.

I could get behind a 16-team playoff IF it supplanted the conference championship games.

10 P5 *division* champs get an autobid (B12 adds two teams and splits into divisions), plus the highest ranked G5 division champ. 5 wild cards.

Round 1 at home stadiums the first weekend of December. Round 2 quarterfinals at Indianapolis, Atlanta, Arlington, and Las Vegas, the following week or so. Semifinals and championship over New Year's, per the current CFP-NY6 rotation.

2017 Example:

ROUND 1
December 1 and 2, 2017
(16)Michigan St. (wild card) at (1)Clemson (ACC Coastal)
(15)Notre Dame (wild card) at (2)Auburn (SEC West)
(14)UCF (AAC East) at (3)Oklahoma (B12 North)
(13)Washington (wild card) at (4)Wisconsin (B1G West)
(12)Stanford (PAC North) at (5)Alabama (wild card)
(11)TCU (B12 South) at (6)Georgia (SEC East)
(10)Penn St. (wild card) at (7)Miami (ACC Atlantic)
(9)USC (PAC South) at (8)Ohio St.(B1G East)

ROUND 2: QUARTERFINALS
December 15 and 16, 2017
Atlanta: (1)Clemson v. (8)Ohio St.
Indianapolis: (2)Auburn v. (7)Miami
Arlington: (3)Oklahoma v. (6)Georgia
Las Vegas: (4)Wisconsin v. (5)Alabama

SEMIFINAL ROUND
January 1, 2018
ROSE: (2)Auburn v. (6)Georgia
SUGAR: (1)Clemson v. (5)Alabama

NY6 Consolation
ORANGE: Wisconsin v. Miami
COTTON: Oklahoma v. Ohio St.
FIESTA: USC v. Penn St.
PEACH: TCU v. UCF

Meanwhile, the other G5 division champs and 3 wild cards stage a 12-team NIT that spills into a couple of pre-Christmas semifinal bowl games and ends with a NIT championship game on New Year's Eve.

(10-03-2018 02:35 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  I still maintain that a 6 team playoff is the way to go.

P5 conference champions plus either ND or a wild card team.

If the P5 eventually becomes the P4, then it would be the 4 champs plus ND or 2 wild cards.

The P5 will never agree to any expansion or format that doesn't benefit THEIR conference, that's why the P5 champions MUST be part of any playoff.

The P5 is happy. ND is happy. The networks are happy.

This format would place 2012 Wisconsin, unranked and 4-4 in the B1G, in the CFP.

But it would’ve had committee member Barry Alvarez coaching in the CFP.

(10-03-2018 07:55 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 07:45 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Why not use P5 champs plus top 3 from computers? If UCF can storm through a decent schedule then #8 overall is realistic.

What is good for the sport is a completely subjective criterion. I want objectivity in CFB.

Because who's to say the P5 will remain the five most dominant conferences? In all likelihood they will, but it's generally bad system design to bank on something like that being deterministic. You want to try to avoid baking in assumptions of the future.

Even if the P5 remain the dominant conferences, that doesn't mean their champion deserves an automatic bid. What happens if the ACC champ is ranked #14? Should they be in the playoff? I have no problem with them being guaranteed an NY6 spot. Just not a playoff berth. By that same logic, I wouldn't want to guarantee a playoff spot to a G5 champion either.

(10-05-2018 07:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 07:55 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 07:45 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Why not use P5 champs plus top 3 from computers? If UCF can storm through a decent schedule then #8 overall is realistic.

What is good for the sport is a completely subjective criterion. I want objectivity in CFB.

Because who's to say the P5 will remain the five most dominant conferences? In all likelihood they will, but it's generally bad system design to bank on something like that being deterministic. You want to try to avoid baking in assumptions of the future.

Even if the P5 remain the dominant conferences, that doesn't mean their champion deserves an automatic bid. What happens if the ACC champ is ranked #14? Should they be in the playoff? I have no problem with them being guaranteed an NY6 spot. Just not a playoff berth. By that same logic, I wouldn't want to guarantee a playoff spot to a G5 champion either.

I agree. I think it is one of the strengths of the current CFP system that conference champs are not guaranteed a playoff spot.

Winning a conference is a 'regional' not national achievement. Why should team X be guaranteed a playoff spot just because they beat out 11 other teams from their area? Says nothing about how they compare to teams nationally. If anything, OOC games should count more, not less, than conference games.

(10-03-2018 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 09:35 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 08:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 08:42 AM)ken d Wrote:  We all have our individual preferences for how a more inclusive playoff should be structured. At the end of the day, the only people whose opinion will matter are the FBS presidents and the media companies who will provide the bulk of the money to be distributed. That being said, this is my opinion.

As I have said elsewhere, the only way I believe the decision makers will agree to expand the playoff is by extending the season at the beginning - that is, what is now called Week Zero. That means it will never, IMO, go beyond 8 teams in size.

In my scenario, the 12 teams would be chosen for the NY6 bowls as follows.

1. Any conference champion or independent ranked in the Top 12 automatically qualifies for the playoff. In the unlikely event there are more than 8 who meet this criterion, the 8 highest ranked are selected.

2. If there are fewer than 8 AQ schools, the remaining playoff spots go to the highest ranked teams regardless of conference affiliation.

3. The remaining four NY6 spots are filled as follows. Any champion of a conference that has a tie in with the Rose, Sugar or Orange Bowls that has not qualified for the playoff is guaranteed an NY6 slot. If no G5 school has qualified for the playoff, the highest ranked G5 conference champion is guaranteed a spot. The remaining spots are filled by the highest ranked teams still available.

4. The rankings used to determine which teams qualify would be a combination of human polls and computer rankings. Six such rankings would be selected, and each team's highest and lowest ranking among these six would be discarded and the remaining four ranks averaged.

5. A pairings committee will determine which teams play in which bowls, taking geography and tradition into account along with the rankings.


The four quarterfinal games will be played at neutral sites. The winners will advance to either the Peach Bowl or the Cotton Bowl for the semifinals. The losers will be assigned to the Rose, Sugar, Orange or Fiesta based first on contractual tie-ins, if any, and then at the discretion of the Pairings Committee in consultation with the Bowls and the media partners. The championship game will rotate among these four sites.

That's my scenario. What do you think are the chances that the presidents, conferences, bowls and media partners could agree to it?

The big flaw I see here are that the 8 highest-ranked conference champs get in. What if there are 8 conference champs ranked in the top 12, but a team that isn't a champ is ranked #1? They would miss the playoffs in your scenario, likely in favor of a #10 ranked G5 champ. Any system that leaves #1 out is doomed, IMO.

Also, while I like the way you try to accommodate the existing bowl arrangements by giving contract conferences an NY6 slot if their champ makes the playoffs, because 8 of the 12 slots are spoken for by the playoffs, this will basically cut back on the number of A5 teams in NY6 bowls. Conferences like the SEC and B1G have gotten used to putting 3 teams in the NY6 bowls, and that is a big appeal of the current arrangement for them. I don't see them surrendering that so that G5 champs can get in.

I'll address the second one first. The only situation in which the A5 conferences get fewer teams in the NY6 than they do now is if there are 2 or more non A5 champions ranked in the Top 8. That's going to be extremely rare, IMO. And if it happens, don't those schools deserve to be in there?

As for your first objection, has such a situation ever happened, or come close to happening? About the only way it is possible is if a team that didn't win its division is ranked #1, or goes into its CCG (in essence, the Sweet Sixteen round) ranked #1 and loses, but is still ranked #1 after that loss, ahead of the team that just beat them, and ahead of all the other A5 champions as well.

My feeling is that in either case the #1 team somehow played its way out of contention during the regular season (including CCG's) and blew its chance for the playoff (but not an NY6 bid). I can live with that.

Your objections to both of my points hinge in part on their rarity. I agree they are very unlikely to happen. But, I've seen many, many things happen in my life that were very unlikely to happen. Just when you think something can't happen, it does.

Also, it's not just #1 being left out. You could very well be leaving #2, or #3, or #4 out as well. That's exactly what prompted change in the NCAA tournament - in 1974 a #3 Maryland team that was clearly a top national title contender was left out because they lost their conference tournament to the #1 team.

To me, the validity of a playoff isn't defined by how many opportunities it provides for lower-ranked teams but by the odds that the truly "best" team is left out. Right now, the CFP-defined top 4 always get in. In your scenario, we expand the playoff to 8 but allow for top-4 teams to be left out. To me, that is a step backwards.

And there was the year #2USC stayed at home with a 24-2 record. Their only losses were to #1 UCLA.

(10-03-2018 07:55 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 07:45 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Why not use P5 champs plus top 3 from computers? If UCF can storm through a decent schedule then #8 overall is realistic.

What is good for the sport is a completely subjective criterion. I want objectivity in CFB.

Because who's to say the P5 will remain the five most dominant conferences? In all likelihood they will, but it's generally bad system design to bank on something like that being deterministic. You want to try to avoid baking in assumptions of the future.

These contracts are for 12 years. Its not going to change that much in 12 years. If a conference slides like the Big East did, they get left out.

If there must be an 8 team playoff that includes 6 conference champions, then IMO we must limit the number of conferences eligible to participate to 6. The reality in college football is that there are only about 8-10 teams outside the current P5 conferences with anything but the remotest of chances to ever be capable of winning a national championship.

If all of them (and only them) were put in the same football conference, then you could have your 6 automatic qualifiers. Add the two highest ranked non-champions (including Notre Dame) and you have your field of eight.

I doubt if all the other conferences combined would produce a team that is among the 8 best in the country more often than once every 40-50 years. And I doubt they would produce the best team in 100 years. That's infrequent enough for me to justify not including them for playoff consideration.

(10-03-2018 10:05 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Bring back the BCS polls and take the top 8. Disband the committee.

The basic problem with the current four team playoff model is that it has been predictable: Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State/Oklahoma and 2nd SEC team. The current AP top 4 is Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, Clemson. Using the current AP top 8, there would be four SEC schools, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Ohio State and Clemson in an eight team playoff format. If that ended up being the BCS top 8, it just as well be called the SEC Invitational.

If there ever is an eight team playoff, the five P5 conferences need to represented. Add the best G5 school and two wild card teams from any conference. That should make it more interesting to the public. In the current four team playoff setup, it just feels too predictable.

In Post #34 I suggested creating a sixth AQ conference, which would replace the current AQ for the highest ranked G5 team in the NY6. It would also allow for an 8 team CFP that included all 6 AQ champions.

Here's my suggestion for realigning the G5 to create that conference.

Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, South Florida and Central Florida split off into a new conference, and invite East Carolina, Boise State, BYU and San Diego State as football only members in a nine team league.

Those five also invite UConn, Temple, UMass, Wichita State and St Louis to be members for all sports except football, giving them a 10 member multibid hoops conference.

Boise State and San Diego State join BYU in the West Coast Conference. Along with Gonzaga and St Mary's, this, too is likely a multibid hoops conference as well.

East Carolina and Liberty go together into the Colonial Conference. The defections of UMass and St Louis still leave the A-10 as a 12 team multibid hoops conference.

UConn, Navy and Temple join Army Liberty and UMass as eastern independents who form a scheduling compact that allows them to have two annual bowl tie-ins (The Armed Forces Bowl and the Military Bowl were both set up to provide a bowl opportunity for Army and Navy). That is sufficient critical mass to ensure filling the late October and November dates on their respective schedules. The six eastern members of the new football conference could help them out as well with a scheduling agreement.

The new football conference would still be the weakest of the A6 (lacking a single perennial CFP contender), but it would reduce the gap that now exists between the AAC and the P5 and widen the gap with the remaining G5 conferences. It would clearly deserve to be consided a P6 conference.

IMO, those nine schools would have little difficulty negotiating 2 OOC games against the other 5 AQ conferences to bolster their schedule strength to where it would be comparable to the current P5 SOS.

(10-06-2018 10:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  In Post #34 I suggested creating a sixth AQ conference, which would replace the current AQ for the highest ranked G5 team in the NY6. It would also allow for an 8 team CFP that included all 6 AQ champions.

Here's my suggestion for realigning the G5 to create that conference.

Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, South Florida and Central Florida split off into a new conference, and invite East Carolina, Boise State, BYU and San Diego State as football only members in a nine team league.

Those five also invite UConn, Temple, UMass, Wichita State and St Louis to be members for all sports except football, giving them a 10 member multibid hoops conference.

Boise State and San Diego State join BYU in the West Coast Conference. Along with Gonzaga and St Mary's, this, too is likely a multibid hoops conference as well.

East Carolina and Liberty go together into the Colonial Conference. The defections of UMass and St Louis still leave the A-10 as a 12 team multibid hoops conference.

UConn, Navy and Temple join Army Liberty and UMass as eastern independents who form a scheduling compact that allows them to have two annual bowl tie-ins (The Armed Forces Bowl and the Military Bowl were both set up to provide a bowl opportunity for Army and Navy). That is sufficient critical mass to ensure filling the late October and November dates on their respective schedules. The six eastern members of the new football conference could help them out as well with a scheduling agreement.

The new football conference would still be the weakest of the A6 (lacking a single perennial CFP contender), but it would reduce the gap that now exists between the AAC and the P5 and widen the gap with the remaining G5 conferences. It would clearly deserve to be consided a P6 conference.

IMO, those nine schools would have little difficulty negotiating 2 OOC games against the other 5 AQ conferences to bolster their schedule strength to where it would be comparable to the current P5 SOS.

I'm totally biased, but I'm a big fan of that conference. Sounds like a really fun and competitive football league and basketball league. I might add Army and Navy in football (because they've both been really competitive the last few years) and Dayton and VCU in basketball.

For sake of realignment collateral: As the basketball schools get better at football you could start transitioning them over as full members. Same thing with football members, if they want to leave the WCC or CAA (where they'd likely already be pretty dominant) then the conference could transition them over.

(10-03-2018 08:42 AM)ken d Wrote:  1. Any conference champion or independent ranked in the Top 12 automatically qualifies for the playoff. In the unlikely event there are more than 8 who meet this criterion, the 8 highest ranked are selected.

Where do these rankings come from? Voters in human polls rarely see most of the teams they are voting on. They also make emotional votes like moving school X who was #20 up to #5 for no apparent reason. They also rank teams who haven't played a game yet!

(10-03-2018 04:51 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Quarterfinal losers get to go to NY6 bowls for consolation prizes.

No consolation prizes. Win or go home. We don't need to water down the NY6 with teams that don't want to be there. There are already too many games where one or both teams are skating because they feel they should have been in a better bowl, CFP, etc.

(10-07-2018 08:32 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Where do these rankings come from? Voters in human polls rarely see most of the teams they are voting on. They also make emotional votes like moving school X who was #20 up to #5 for no apparent reason. They also rank teams who haven't played a game yet!

I think we should see how the NCAA's new Google machine learning system goes. If that works in basketball maybe it'll translate well to football.