How is this even an argument? How can a team, any team, already be out of consideration before a down of football is played? This stinks of unamerican “3/5 compromise” segregation.

Take Akron for example. Their 2019 schedule includes Illinois, UMASS, UAB, and Troy. Add to that their MAC schedule, and in our current system by any consistent metric they are already ineligible for consideration into the playoff. The closed door secret society committee could and would never allow this to happen regardless of what’s happens on the field.

I’ll scream from the rafters: 16 team playoff, 10 conference champs, 6 at large. Special provisions for Indy teams (I will elaborate another time). Take the power away from debates, biases, generalizations, and labels.

Every FBS team should have a clear path to the national championship.

5+1+2 solves this, honestly.

I guess theoretically two or more G5 teams could go undefeated, but we rarely ever see that and the last two instances I can remember were when the WAC was in existence.

(12-18-2018 02:21 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  How is this even an argument? How can a team, any team, already be out of consideration before a down of football is played? This stinks of unamerican “3/5 compromise” segregation.

Take Akron for example. Their 2019 schedule includes Illinois, UMASS, UAB, and Troy. Add to that their MAC schedule, and in our current system by any consistent metric they are already ineligible for consideration into the playoff. The closed door secret society committee could and would never allow this to happen regardless of what’s happens on the field.

Actually, the open door AP and Coaches polls wouldn't put an Akron team that won all its games against a schedule that soft in either, nor would the computers - and for a good reason, beating that soft schedule doesn't prove you are one of the best 8 or 16 teams.

I have a better idea that also provides a path for everyone:

After the CCGs, the G5 teams play playoffs among themselves. The two lowest ranked G5 champs play, then the winner of that advances to play the #1 ranked G5 champ while the #2 and #3 G5 champs play each other. Then the two survivors play a final to determine the overall G5 champ.

That G5 champ then gets entered in to an 8-team playoff with the five P5 champs and two at-large teams.

This format recognizes that winning a G5 conference isn't equal to winning a P5 conference, so the best G5 team has to win more playoff games to get in to the Final 8. And, it does provide every conference team a clear path.

I disagree strongly. What you presented again attempts to separate FBS teams based on conjecture and assumption. By merely existing in a G5 conference a team would have to overcome significantly more hurdles than a team in a P5 conference even if the field deomstarated the G5 team better earlier in the season. One example would be if UCF beat Pitt who later won the ACC.

(12-18-2018 03:12 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  I disagree strongly. What you presented again attempts to separate FBS teams based on conjecture and assumption. By merely existing in a G5 conference a team would have to overcome significantly more hurdles than a team in a P5 conference even if the field deomstarated the G5 team better earlier in the season. One example would be if UCF beat Pitt who later won the ACC.

It's not conjecture and assumption that the P5 conferences are categorically better than the G5 conferences - they always are, just look at the computers, RPI, ELO, won loss record, anything you want.

So it makes sense that the G5 conferences should not be on an equal playoff footing. Because their schedules are softer, they should have to do more work in the post-season to prove they belong.

Otherwise, we are allowing a school like Akron to skate in to the playoff the same as say Oklahoma, even though Akron never faced a top 30 team all year long.

(12-18-2018 03:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:21 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  How is this even an argument? How can a team, any team, already be out of consideration before a down of football is played? This stinks of unamerican “3/5 compromise” segregation.

Take Akron for example. Their 2019 schedule includes Illinois, UMASS, UAB, and Troy. Add to that their MAC schedule, and in our current system by any consistent metric they are already ineligible for consideration into the playoff. The closed door secret society committee could and would never allow this to happen regardless of what’s happens on the field.

Actually, the open door AP and Coaches polls wouldn't put an Akron team that won all its games against a schedule that soft in either, nor would the computers - and for a good reason, beating that soft schedule doesn't prove you are one of the best 8 or 16 teams.

Take a moment and analyze how many assumptions you make in that sentence. If by some strange set of circumstances and the stars aligned and Akron had the right players and the right system and were good enough to beat anyone in the country, literally the ONLY way to be “proven you are one of the best 8 or 16 teams” would be to be included into the playoff.

Beyond the point of simply undefeated teams, it is important to remember: FBS has ten conferences. There are not 5 conferences and the rest. FBS Has ten conferences and assuming which would be good over others is unamerican.

(12-18-2018 03:16 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:21 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  How is this even an argument? How can a team, any team, already be out of consideration before a down of football is played? This stinks of unamerican “3/5 compromise” segregation.

Take Akron for example. Their 2019 schedule includes Illinois, UMASS, UAB, and Troy. Add to that their MAC schedule, and in our current system by any consistent metric they are already ineligible for consideration into the playoff. The closed door secret society committee could and would never allow this to happen regardless of what’s happens on the field.

Actually, the open door AP and Coaches polls wouldn't put an Akron team that won all its games against a schedule that soft in either, nor would the computers - and for a good reason, beating that soft schedule doesn't prove you are one of the best 8 or 16 teams.

Take a moment and analyze how many assumptions you make in that sentence. If by some strange set of circumstances and the stars aligned and Akron had the right players and the right system and were good enough to beat anyone in the country, literally the ONLY way to be “proven you are one of the best 8 or 16 teams” would be to be included into the playoff.

Beyond the point of simply undefeated teams, it is important to remember: FBS has ten conferences. There are not 5 conferences and the rest. FBS Has ten conferences and assuming which would be good over others is unamerican.

First, it doesn't make sense to design a system, something used every year, to handle a 1 in 500 probability. And let's face it, the odds that Akron would ever have the players and system to beat the likes of Alabama and Clemson is probably 1 in 500, if not lower. I mean, the odds against are pretty astronomical.

But anyway, if that did in fact happen, my proposed system would give that Akron team the opportunity. It provides a clear path to the title for Akron, while recognizing the *fact*, not assumption, that the P5 conferences are better.

(12-18-2018 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:16 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:21 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  How is this even an argument? How can a team, any team, already be out of consideration before a down of football is played? This stinks of unamerican “3/5 compromise” segregation.

Take Akron for example. Their 2019 schedule includes Illinois, UMASS, UAB, and Troy. Add to that their MAC schedule, and in our current system by any consistent metric they are already ineligible for consideration into the playoff. The closed door secret society committee could and would never allow this to happen regardless of what’s happens on the field.

Actually, the open door AP and Coaches polls wouldn't put an Akron team that won all its games against a schedule that soft in either, nor would the computers - and for a good reason, beating that soft schedule doesn't prove you are one of the best 8 or 16 teams.

Take a moment and analyze how many assumptions you make in that sentence. If by some strange set of circumstances and the stars aligned and Akron had the right players and the right system and were good enough to beat anyone in the country, literally the ONLY way to be “proven you are one of the best 8 or 16 teams” would be to be included into the playoff.

Beyond the point of simply undefeated teams, it is important to remember: FBS has ten conferences. There are not 5 conferences and the rest. FBS Has ten conferences and assuming which would be good over others is unamerican.

First, it doesn't make sense to design a system, something used every year, to handle a 1 in 500 probability. And let's face it, the odds that Akron would ever have the players and system to beat the likes of Alabama and Clemson is probably 1 in 500, if not lower. I mean, the odds against are pretty astronomical.

But anyway, if that did in fact happen, my proposed system would give that Akron team the opportunity. It provides a clear path to the title for Akron, while recognizing the *fact*, not assumption, that the P5 conferences are better.

Playoff conference champion seeding wouldn’t care about which “conferences is better,” it would select the ten champions.if AAC champ were to beat ACC champ Pitt in the regular season why would UCF have to go through additional steps? If eleven teams were trash in cusa but FAU was excellent why should they be penalized?

(12-18-2018 02:21 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  How is this even an argument? How can a team, any team, already be out of consideration before a down of football is played? This stinks of unamerican “3/5 compromise” segregation.

Take Akron for example. Their 2019 schedule includes Illinois, UMASS, UAB, and Troy. Add to that their MAC schedule, and in our current system by any consistent metric they are already ineligible for consideration into the playoff. The closed door secret society committee could and would never allow this to happen regardless of what’s happens on the field.

I’ll scream from the rafters: 16 team playoff, 10 conference champs, 6 at large. Special provisions for Indy teams (I will elaborate another time). Take the power away from debates, biases, generalizations, and labels.

Every FBS team should have a clear path to the national championship.

Why?

(12-18-2018 03:25 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:16 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:21 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  How is this even an argument? How can a team, any team, already be out of consideration before a down of football is played? This stinks of unamerican “3/5 compromise” segregation.

Take Akron for example. Their 2019 schedule includes Illinois, UMASS, UAB, and Troy. Add to that their MAC schedule, and in our current system by any consistent metric they are already ineligible for consideration into the playoff. The closed door secret society committee could and would never allow this to happen regardless of what’s happens on the field.

Actually, the open door AP and Coaches polls wouldn't put an Akron team that won all its games against a schedule that soft in either, nor would the computers - and for a good reason, beating that soft schedule doesn't prove you are one of the best 8 or 16 teams.

Take a moment and analyze how many assumptions you make in that sentence. If by some strange set of circumstances and the stars aligned and Akron had the right players and the right system and were good enough to beat anyone in the country, literally the ONLY way to be “proven you are one of the best 8 or 16 teams” would be to be included into the playoff.

Beyond the point of simply undefeated teams, it is important to remember: FBS has ten conferences. There are not 5 conferences and the rest. FBS Has ten conferences and assuming which would be good over others is unamerican.

First, it doesn't make sense to design a system, something used every year, to handle a 1 in 500 probability. And let's face it, the odds that Akron would ever have the players and system to beat the likes of Alabama and Clemson is probably 1 in 500, if not lower. I mean, the odds against are pretty astronomical.

But anyway, if that did in fact happen, my proposed system would give that Akron team the opportunity. It provides a clear path to the title for Akron, while recognizing the *fact*, not assumption, that the P5 conferences are better.

Playoff conference champion seeding wouldn’t care about which “conferences is better,” it would select the ten champions.if AAC champ were to beat ACC champ Pitt in the regular season why would UCF have to go through additional steps? If eleven teams were trash in cusa but FAU was excellent why should they be penalized?

That really doesn't make much sense. E.g., let's imagine if Pitt had upset Clemson and won the ACC title this year. Why should that mean much when evaluating UCF? UCF wasn't the only team that beat Pitt, e.g., North Carolina beat Pitt too, so obviously you didn't have to be that great to beat Pitt this year. Pitt lost 4 games in the regular season.

Remember, if we are going to give auto-bids to *conferences* then we have to evaluate the status of a conference, and G5 conferences are categorically far weaker, so a play-in among them makes sense.

Now, if you think it is unfair for a Great Team stuck in a bad conference to be penalized (and remember, as my Akron example shows, that is very unlikely), then the solution is to dispense with conference auto-bids entirely, and just use humans or computers to rank *teams* and put the 8 or 16 highest-ranked teams in, so that the Mighty Great Akron Team of 2020 that could beat Alabama isn't held back by its conference.

But you can't have your weak conference cake and eat it too.

Starting with the belief and assumption that all schools and football programs are created equal and, thus, should be guaranteed equal opportunity, is inaccurate and incorrect.

Unfortunately, there is already a division within FBS - not determined by a committee, or by athletic directors or even by commissioners - but by the fans, created by past success, viewership, attendance, fan support and resources, which all are given a value that networks (via viewers) place a monetary figure on. Content distributors have determined what programs and conferences provide the most value and have made offers reflecting as such. No entity is forcing fans what to watch, attend or spend money on programs/games, or even what teams are voted-on for the CFP. The bigger (and unfortunate) reality is that football is an expensive sport, and not all institutions can provide the same experience and/or resources to consumers equally. However, just because there is an inequality, does not mean the more successful and lucrative schools and programs should de-value their own products (either by loss in revenue of home buy-games, or via forced revenue sharing to help promote and advance lower-tier schools) in order to make things "fair" and "equal" for all.

The G5 have the freedom to create their own playoff without the oversight or guidance of the P5. They signed off on the current CFP structure and format.

(12-18-2018 02:59 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  5+1+2 solves this, honestly.

I guess theoretically two or more G5 teams could go undefeated, but we rarely ever see that and the last two instances I can remember were when the WAC was in existence.

Yes, that would suck for one of those 2 undefeated G5's (maybe they get lucky and squeeze in as a widlcard)--but I think the 5+1+2 is still the best all around format by a wide margin. Every playoff format will have a flaw--but the 5+1+2 addresses all of the most pressing issues while still constricting the playoff field to a manageable number. It guarantees a viable path for every team. It maintains the sanctity of the regular season. It makes every P5 conference race important and elevates every P5 CCG to virtual playoff game status. For those that prefer subjective measures---it guarantees that no matter what happens in the CCG's---the Committee's #1 and #2 teams WILL ALWAYS make the playoff field (which is all we had for years under the BCS). Its really a very elegant and attractive system for a compromise that contains something of value for everyone--including the fans.

(12-18-2018 03:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:21 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  How is this even an argument? How can a team, any team, already be out of consideration before a down of football is played? This stinks of unamerican “3/5 compromise” segregation.

Take Akron for example. Their 2019 schedule includes Illinois, UMASS, UAB, and Troy. Add to that their MAC schedule, and in our current system by any consistent metric they are already ineligible for consideration into the playoff. The closed door secret society committee could and would never allow this to happen regardless of what’s happens on the field.

I’ll scream from the rafters: 16 team playoff, 10 conference champs, 6 at large. Special provisions for Indy teams (I will elaborate another time). Take the power away from debates, biases, generalizations, and labels.

Every FBS team should have a clear path to the national championship.

Why?

BRILLIANT question! And a question that isn’t being asked by the sports media.

Why do I have this opinion? Well, what other sport and division level has a system where there are impossibilities to national champions prior to the season even beginning? I feel every team should have a clear (not disruptable to the whims of bias, rankings, closed door discussions) to ensure an equal FBS allaying field for all FBS members.

“Why?” Is such a great question for all sorts of things. The first time someone’s suggested that the phrase “All men are created equal” should include slaves, I’m sure someone responded the same way - Why?

(12-18-2018 03:35 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Starting with the belief and assumption that all schools and football programs are created equal and, thus, should be guaranteed equal opportunity, is inaccurate and incorrect.

Unfortunately, there is already a division within FBS - not determined by a committee, or by athletic directors or even by commissioners - but by the fans, created by past success, viewership, attendance, fan support and resources, which all are given a value that networks (via viewers) place a monetary figure on.

...............................

The G5 have the freedom to create their own playoff without the oversight or guidance of the P5. They signed off on the current CFP structure and format.

There is a distinction within FBS that has been created by the NCAA: Autonomy vs non-Autonomy conferences - for those who think NCAA distinctions matter.

Your last sentence is the key - if the G5 ever decided to insist that FBS was created as a *competitive* entity for playoffs (and it never was, just the opposite, it was created for those schools and conferences that did NOT want to be in a formal playoff system), then the P5 would just break away and formalize the informal reality that we all have always recognized.

(12-18-2018 02:21 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  How is this even an argument? How can a team, any team, already be out of consideration before a down of football is played? This stinks of unamerican “3/5 compromise” segregation.

Take Akron for example. Their 2019 schedule includes Illinois, UMASS, UAB, and Troy. Add to that their MAC schedule, and in our current system by any consistent metric they are already ineligible for consideration into the playoff. The closed door secret society committee could and would never allow this to happen regardless of what’s happens on the field.

I’ll scream from the rafters: 16 team playoff, 10 conference champs, 6 at large. Special provisions for Indy teams (I will elaborate another time). Take the power away from debates, biases, generalizations, and labels.

Every FBS team should have a clear path to the national championship.

More like Jim Crow. You see it in Quo's initial post, and from guys like Brett McMurphy and Dennis Dodd who champion a separate playoff (Dodd has written about this about 10 times in the past year).

(12-18-2018 03:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:25 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:16 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Actually, the open door AP and Coaches polls wouldn't put an Akron team that won all its games against a schedule that soft in either, nor would the computers - and for a good reason, beating that soft schedule doesn't prove you are one of the best 8 or 16 teams.

Take a moment and analyze how many assumptions you make in that sentence. If by some strange set of circumstances and the stars aligned and Akron had the right players and the right system and were good enough to beat anyone in the country, literally the ONLY way to be “proven you are one of the best 8 or 16 teams” would be to be included into the playoff.

Beyond the point of simply undefeated teams, it is important to remember: FBS has ten conferences. There are not 5 conferences and the rest. FBS Has ten conferences and assuming which would be good over others is unamerican.

First, it doesn't make sense to design a system, something used every year, to handle a 1 in 500 probability. And let's face it, the odds that Akron would ever have the players and system to beat the likes of Alabama and Clemson is probably 1 in 500, if not lower. I mean, the odds against are pretty astronomical.

But anyway, if that did in fact happen, my proposed system would give that Akron team the opportunity. It provides a clear path to the title for Akron, while recognizing the *fact*, not assumption, that the P5 conferences are better.

Playoff conference champion seeding wouldn’t care about which “conferences is better,” it would select the ten champions.if AAC champ were to beat ACC champ Pitt in the regular season why would UCF have to go through additional steps? If eleven teams were trash in cusa but FAU was excellent why should they be penalized?

That really doesn't make much sense. E.g., let's imagine if Pitt had upset Clemson and won the ACC title this year. Why should that mean much when evaluating UCF? UCF wasn't the only team that beat Pitt, e.g., North Carolina beat Pitt too, so obviously you didn't have to be that great to beat Pitt this year. Pitt lost 4 games in the regular season.

Remember, if we are going to give auto-bids to *conferences* then we have to evaluate the status of a conference, and G5 conferences are categorically far weaker, so a play-in among them makes sense.

Now, if you think it is unfair for a Great Team stuck in a bad conference to be penalized (and remember, as my Akron example shows, that is very unlikely), then the solution is to dispense with conference auto-bids entirely, and just use humans or computers to rank *teams* and put the 8 or 16 highest-ranked teams in, so that the Mighty Great Akron Team of 2020 that could beat Alabama isn't held back by its conference.

But you can't have your weak conference cake and eat it too.

Auto-bids to the ten conference champions and six at large bids.

Why are you evaluating the status of the conference? FBS has ten conference champions. These teams get auto bids regardless of ups and downs of the conference. This allows every team in FBS to have a clear path to the national championship without humans and computers ranking anything. Luckily for the conferences with multiple strong teams size at large bids can Be utilized by teams of any conference. (Indy teams have an added clause that I’ll get to later)

(12-18-2018 03:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:59 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  5+1+2 solves this, honestly.

I guess theoretically two or more G5 teams could go undefeated, but we rarely ever see that and the last two instances I can remember were when the WAC was in existence.

Yes, that would suck for one of those 2 undefeated G5's (maybe they get lucky and squeeze in as a widlcard)--but I think the 5+1+2 is still the best all around format by a wide margin. Every playoff format will have a flaw--but the 5+1+2 addresses all of the most pressing issues while still constricting the playoff field to a manageable number. It guarantees a viable path for every team. It maintains the sanctity of the regular season. It makes every P5 conference race important and elevates every P5 CCG to virtual playoff game status. For those that prefer subjective measures---it guarantees that no matter what happens in the CCG's---the Committee's #1 and #2 teams WILL ALWAYS make the playoff field (which is all we had for years under the BCS). Its really a very elegant and attractive system for a compromise that contains something of value for everyone--including the fans.

How can you say “it guarantees a viable path for every team” when if two G5’s go undefeated one is left out if not ranked high enough?

(12-18-2018 03:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:21 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  How is this even an argument? How can a team, any team, already be out of consideration before a down of football is played? This stinks of unamerican “3/5 compromise” segregation.

Take Akron for example. Their 2019 schedule includes Illinois, UMASS, UAB, and Troy. Add to that their MAC schedule, and in our current system by any consistent metric they are already ineligible for consideration into the playoff. The closed door secret society committee could and would never allow this to happen regardless of what’s happens on the field.

I’ll scream from the rafters: 16 team playoff, 10 conference champs, 6 at large. Special provisions for Indy teams (I will elaborate another time). Take the power away from debates, biases, generalizations, and labels.

Every FBS team should have a clear path to the national championship.

Why?

Because it exists in every other level of college football

(12-18-2018 03:42 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:25 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:16 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  Take a moment and analyze how many assumptions you make in that sentence. If by some strange set of circumstances and the stars aligned and Akron had the right players and the right system and were good enough to beat anyone in the country, literally the ONLY way to be “proven you are one of the best 8 or 16 teams” would be to be included into the playoff.

Beyond the point of simply undefeated teams, it is important to remember: FBS has ten conferences. There are not 5 conferences and the rest. FBS Has ten conferences and assuming which would be good over others is unamerican.

First, it doesn't make sense to design a system, something used every year, to handle a 1 in 500 probability. And let's face it, the odds that Akron would ever have the players and system to beat the likes of Alabama and Clemson is probably 1 in 500, if not lower. I mean, the odds against are pretty astronomical.

But anyway, if that did in fact happen, my proposed system would give that Akron team the opportunity. It provides a clear path to the title for Akron, while recognizing the *fact*, not assumption, that the P5 conferences are better.

Playoff conference champion seeding wouldn’t care about which “conferences is better,” it would select the ten champions.if AAC champ were to beat ACC champ Pitt in the regular season why would UCF have to go through additional steps? If eleven teams were trash in cusa but FAU was excellent why should they be penalized?

That really doesn't make much sense. E.g., let's imagine if Pitt had upset Clemson and won the ACC title this year. Why should that mean much when evaluating UCF? UCF wasn't the only team that beat Pitt, e.g., North Carolina beat Pitt too, so obviously you didn't have to be that great to beat Pitt this year. Pitt lost 4 games in the regular season.

Remember, if we are going to give auto-bids to *conferences* then we have to evaluate the status of a conference, and G5 conferences are categorically far weaker, so a play-in among them makes sense.

Now, if you think it is unfair for a Great Team stuck in a bad conference to be penalized (and remember, as my Akron example shows, that is very unlikely), then the solution is to dispense with conference auto-bids entirely, and just use humans or computers to rank *teams* and put the 8 or 16 highest-ranked teams in, so that the Mighty Great Akron Team of 2020 that could beat Alabama isn't held back by its conference.

But you can't have your weak conference cake and eat it too.

Auto-bids to the ten conference champions and six at large bids.

Why are you evaluating the status of the conference? FBS has ten conference champions. These teams get auto bids regardless of ups and downs of the conference. This allows every team in FBS to have a clear path to the national championship without humans and computers ranking anything. Luckily for the conferences with multiple strong teams size at large bids can Be utilized by teams of any conference. (Indy teams have an added clause that I’ll get to later)

Because there are no "ups and downs of the conference" between the G5 and P5. Yes, it makes sense to have the ACC and B1G on an equal playoff footing, and the MAC and MWC, because between those pairs, there are "ups and downs" - sometimes the MAC is better than the MWC and vice-versa, sometimes the ACC is better than the B1G, and vice-versa.

But, the MAC is NEVER better than the B1G. Ever. So it makes sense to treat them differently.

My plan does provide a path to the title for every single team in FBS. But it also recognizes that reality, so the path should be longer for the G5 team.

(12-18-2018 04:00 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:21 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  How is this even an argument? How can a team, any team, already be out of consideration before a down of football is played? This stinks of unamerican “3/5 compromise” segregation.

Take Akron for example. Their 2019 schedule includes Illinois, UMASS, UAB, and Troy. Add to that their MAC schedule, and in our current system by any consistent metric they are already ineligible for consideration into the playoff. The closed door secret society committee could and would never allow this to happen regardless of what’s happens on the field.

I’ll scream from the rafters: 16 team playoff, 10 conference champs, 6 at large. Special provisions for Indy teams (I will elaborate another time). Take the power away from debates, biases, generalizations, and labels.

Every FBS team should have a clear path to the national championship.

Why?

Because it exists in every other level of SPORTS

FIFY