Quote:Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, who’s overseen the conference since 1989, told The Athletic that he would “definitely” like to discuss the possibility of expanding the College Football Playoff to eight teams.

His statement comes just a week after Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby offered a similar sentiment.

“The Big Ten would be happy to discuss structure issues with colleagues,” Delany told The Athletic’s Nicole Auerbach, in an article Tuesday morning. “It’s probably a good idea, given all of the conversations and noise around the issue, to have discussions with our colleagues.

“The Big Ten would definitely have conversations.”

https://www.centredaily.com/sports/colle...54660.html

Long way from discussing to implementing, but if he supports expansion it is a big change. I'm personally hoping he's not, but seems to be the direction things are going and only a matter of time (although that might well be after the 12 year current contract is up).

All that said, if we are going to 8, might be better while he is still in charge as he has seemed to put more value on the Rose Bowl than most the other conferences have their bowls and would hope would implement a system which keeps it as high as possible.

I see six with top two seeds getting a bye week.
First round would be 3 and 4 seeds home field.
Five conference champs and one at large protecting the bowls as much as possible.

Five P5 conference champs, 1 G5 champ, 2 at-large. Simple and no one can have a legit complaint. If you didn't make it in, you either didn't win your conference or wasn't a strong enough independent or G5 champ.

(12-24-2018 10:17 PM)AntiG Wrote:  Five P5 conference champs, 1 G5 champ, 2 at-large. Simple and no one can have a legit complaint. If you didn't make it in, you either didn't win your conference or wasn't a strong enough independent or G5 champ.

While I agree 8 is better than 4 where all P5's make it.
I don't agree with the statement "no one can have a complaint" because you have another at large team gets in over another team being considered for an at large. Why are we to assume the at large chosen is better than the at large that didn't make it? They had a path to make it and yet another similar at large didn't.

The way to make it no complaints is to go to a 6 team playoff where 5 power conference champs make it and have a play in game between the two highest rated G5 champs. Then everyone has the same path, except maybe besides the G5's but that is more access than they have ever had.

The other way is a 16 team playoff where the top 3 P5's make it(drop the CCG's so the number of games are the same) and again let the highest 2 rated G5's play for the 16th spot.

We could probably go 24 even and have the top 4 in each P5 league make it, do 2 spots that rotate evenly among P5's and let the 2 highest G5 schools in for 24.

All of the scenarios above I gave would involve no choosing of teams and everyone plays their way in and know the rules to begin the season. It would really make CFB great especially if they went to 16 or 24 because I think the bowl games are useless and we see that more and more each year.

thats why I said legit complaint.

Didn't make it in? Well win your conference.

(12-26-2018 05:25 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 10:17 PM)AntiG Wrote:  Five P5 conference champs, 1 G5 champ, 2 at-large. Simple and no one can have a legit complaint. If you didn't make it in, you either didn't win your conference or wasn't a strong enough independent or G5 champ.

While I agree 8 is better than 4 where all P5's make it.
I don't agree with the statement "no one can have a complaint" because you have another at large team gets in over another team being considered for an at large. Why are we to assume the at large chosen is better than the at large that didn't make it? They had a path to make it and yet another similar at large didn't.

The way to make it no complaints is to go to a 6 team playoff where 5 power conference champs make it and have a play in game between the two highest rated G5 champs. Then everyone has the same path, except maybe besides the G5's but that is more access than they have ever had.

The other way is a 16 team playoff where the top 3 P5's make it(drop the CCG's so the number of games are the same) and again let the highest 2 rated G5's play for the 16th spot.

We could probably go 24 even and have the top 4 in each P5 league make it, do 2 spots that rotate evenly among P5's and let the 2 highest G5 schools in for 24.

All of the scenarios above I gave would involve no choosing of teams and everyone plays their way in and know the rules to begin the season. It would really make CFB great especially if they went to 16 or 24 because I think the bowl games are useless and we see that more and more each year.

A six-team championship with five P5 auto-bids and one G5 bid after a play-in game would ignore independents and therefore not "fair". Unless Notre Dame can steal the ACC spot, then that's likely a non-starter. If Notre Dame is forced to join a conference, that's also likely a non-starter for them.

(12-27-2018 09:20 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 05:25 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 10:17 PM)AntiG Wrote:  Five P5 conference champs, 1 G5 champ, 2 at-large. Simple and no one can have a legit complaint. If you didn't make it in, you either didn't win your conference or wasn't a strong enough independent or G5 champ.

While I agree 8 is better than 4 where all P5's make it.
I don't agree with the statement "no one can have a complaint" because you have another at large team gets in over another team being considered for an at large. Why are we to assume the at large chosen is better than the at large that didn't make it? They had a path to make it and yet another similar at large didn't.

The way to make it no complaints is to go to a 6 team playoff where 5 power conference champs make it and have a play in game between the two highest rated G5 champs. Then everyone has the same path, except maybe besides the G5's but that is more access than they have ever had.

The other way is a 16 team playoff where the top 3 P5's make it(drop the CCG's so the number of games are the same) and again let the highest 2 rated G5's play for the 16th spot.

We could probably go 24 even and have the top 4 in each P5 league make it, do 2 spots that rotate evenly among P5's and let the 2 highest G5 schools in for 24.

All of the scenarios above I gave would involve no choosing of teams and everyone plays their way in and know the rules to begin the season. It would really make CFB great especially if they went to 16 or 24 because I think the bowl games are useless and we see that more and more each year.

A six-team championship with five P5 auto-bids and one G5 bid after a play-in game would ignore independents and therefore not "fair". Unless Notre Dame can steal the ACC spot, then that's likely a non-starter. If Notre Dame is forced to join a conference, that's also likely a non-starter for them.

What do you mean not "fair". ND could join any P5 tomorrow, there is nothing unfair about that. You could make that case for BYU since they can't join a P5 league.
ND can choose not to be able to participate if they want to. Why should cfb focus their whole playoff around ND? Now if the ACC wants to give ND access to their CCG with a set criteria, that's up to them.

(12-26-2018 10:17 PM)AntiG Wrote:  thats why I said legit complaint.

Didn't make it in? Well win your conference.

Your still creating 2 spots for teams that don't win their conference, a team that misses can absolutely have a legit complaint.

By the basis of your argument teams #7 & #8 are not legitimate playoff teams.

What would be real simple would be the 16 model I mentioned 3 teams from each P5 league and the top G5 school. If you do away with CCG's its the same number of games as a 8 team playoff.

(12-26-2018 10:17 PM)AntiG Wrote:  thats why I said legit complaint.

Didn't make it in? Well win your conference.

Your still creating 2 spots for teams that don't win their conference, a team that misses can absolutely have a legit complaint.

By the basis of your argument teams #7 & #8 are not legitimate playoff teams.

What would be real simple would be the 16 model I mentioned 3 teams from each P5 league and the top G5 school. If you do away with CCG's its the same number of games as a 8 team playoff.

Quote:Five P5 conference champs, 1 G5 champ, 2 at-large. Simple and no one can have a legit complaint.

Problems with that. First, it won't fly to bring in an Auto-Bid to a G5 Champ with only 8 teams. Second, it's playoffs, not bowls -- ranking matters more. Not as bad as a 4-team playoff, where inarguably it goes by pure rank -- but a rank cut-off for even the P5 would have to be cumming into play when you factor in a G5.

So wait: Why would a G5 Champ auto-bid not fly? Because there's only 8 teams. Even when the BCS Bowls were only 10 teams, they wouldn't let a G5 Champ automatically come in. And these weren't even playoffs (where rank even among at-larges weren't the sole factor). The Top G4 had to not only be better than a P6 Champ, but they had to at least be ranked #16, where the Top P6 Champ did not have to. They then expanded the BCS/NY bowls to 12, and sending Big East/AAC to G5 -- they figured, well, better G-Conference teams, we'll take the Top G5 if there's 12 teams. OK.

But going from 12 -> 8 teams, they'll take the Top G5 no matter what ranking? Nope. #7 or #8 Notre Dame or 2nd-place-SEC Georgia may have to suck on it with a #9 Washington or #10 VA-Tech trumping them... but #20 Houston?! A G5 not even in the Top 16, for an 8-team playoff? "Whoah whoah dude! This isn't for a nice NY bowl to watch a notably lower ranked Cinderella vs a Big Boy -- this is for a National Championship where you're kicking out a very high ranked team!"

Then what if there's an upset (which occasionally does and Will happen) in Conference Championships, and 8-5 Pitt "jumps" from unranked to #21 because they upset Clemson (who's not Quite as good as the last few years presently)? Should a #21 P5 Upset Champ kick #8 ND or SEC team out -- while #19 Boise won the MW And Doesn't? Because #13 UCF already got in for "G5" winning the AAC?

See how this becomes an issue? Something like that WILL happen, given some time (and not multiple decades, either).

P5, if you ARE so dominant -- great. But we don't nor shouldn't base NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYOFFS based on popularity/tv-audience among teams in the same FBS. Money-making bowls? OK, that's one thing -- we have that. But not National Champ Playoffs in actuality. That's ludicrous.

That's why I have MY OWN PLAN to avoid this. If the P5 claims it's because they are through-and-through better, TV ratings be damned -- fine. And hey, I agree, a G5 Champ no-matter-what shouldn't be auto. In an 8-team playoff, there's Fewer slots than there are Conferences. That's the key. So here's what I have, not paying attention to P5 or G5. If P5 is superior, it should have Full Confidence their bases will be covered + the G5 cannot complain:

(1) Top 4 get the only auto-bids. You're in.

(2) Conference Champion Conditional Auto-Bids:
- UP TO 3 remaining Conference Champions get auto-bids, ordered by Rank. MUST be ranked within the Top 13*.
- If Any Conference Champ is within Top 8, it's unconditional -- it's an Auto-Bid

(3) Remaining At-large(s) selected purely by Rank, but conference-max may skip team(s).
- No more than 3 teams from the same conference, unless 4th team is ranked #4 (auto-bid trumps that).
- 3rd team from the same conference skipped if ranked #7 or #8, unless the team below them is from the same conference or if #9 would be the 3rd team from another conference anyway

So yes, a P5 Champ does risk in rare circumstances, not getting in. Aside from 2012 where undefeated Ohio State was banned from any post-season and 7-5 Wisconsin took their place to upset #12 Nebraska in the B1G Championship but still remained unranked, you have to go back to the 00s to find an ACC Champ a couple times to be below #13. Before Clemson established themselves well enough, and the ACC being what it is today (fully stripping the AAC).

Problem with this though is, a little over half the time, you won't have Cinderella making it to the ball. And P5 Conferences not FULLY FULLY guaranteed they'll have their Champ in there. But if their champ isn't #13, nor is any of their was-supposed-to-be-champ around the Top 5-8, well, yeah, get up on that.

*I say Top 13 because it's slightly higher than 50% more than the 8 slots (12). This is based on the Top G4 Champ having to be ranked #16 or higher when there were 10 slots for the 5 BCS Bowls. One could UP this to 16 to appease both P5 & G5, as #15 WMU was undefeated in 2016 and wouldn't make it under this.

(12-27-2018 03:09 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Five P5 conference champs, 1 G5 champ, 2 at-large. Simple and no one can have a legit complaint.

Problems with that. First, it won't fly to bring in an Auto-Bid to a G5 Champ with only 8 teams. Second, it's playoffs, not bowls -- ranking matters more. Not as bad as a 4-team playoff, where inarguably it goes by pure rank -- but a rank cut-off for even the P5 would have to be cumming into play when you factor in a G5.

So wait: Why would a G5 Champ auto-bid not fly? Because there's only 8 teams. Even when the BCS Bowls were only 10 teams, they wouldn't let a G5 Champ automatically come in. And these weren't even playoffs (where rank even among at-larges weren't the sole factor). The Top G4 had to not only be better than a P6 Champ, but they had to at least be ranked #16, where the Top P6 Champ did not have to. They then expanded the BCS/NY bowls to 12, and sending Big East/AAC to G5 -- they figured, well, better G-Conference teams, we'll take the Top G5 if there's 12 teams. OK.

But going from 12 -> 8 teams, they'll take the Top G5 no matter what ranking? Nope. #7 or #8 Notre Dame or 2nd-place-SEC Georgia may have to suck on it with a #9 Washington or #10 VA-Tech trumping them... but #20 Houston?! A G5 not even in the Top 16, for an 8-team playoff? "Whoah whoah dude! This isn't for a nice NY bowl to watch a notably lower ranked Cinderella vs a Big Boy -- this is for a National Championship where you're kicking out a very high ranked team!"

Then what if there's an upset (which occasionally does and Will happen) in Conference Championships, and 8-5 Pitt "jumps" from unranked to #21 because they upset Clemson (who's not Quite as good as the last few years presently)? Should a #21 P5 Upset Champ kick #8 ND or SEC team out -- while #19 Boise won the MW And Doesn't? Because #13 UCF already got in for "G5" winning the AAC?

See how this becomes an issue? Something like that WILL happen, given some time (and not multiple decades, either).

P5, if you ARE so dominant -- great. But we don't nor shouldn't base NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP PLAYOFFS based on popularity/tv-audience among teams in the same FBS. Money-making bowls? OK, that's one thing -- we have that. But not National Champ Playoffs in actuality. That's ludicrous.

That's why I have MY OWN PLAN to avoid this. If the P5 claims it's because they are through-and-through better, TV ratings be damned -- fine. And hey, I agree, a G5 Champ no-matter-what shouldn't be auto. In an 8-team playoff, there's Fewer slots than there are Conferences. That's the key. So here's what I have, not paying attention to P5 or G5. If P5 is superior, it should have Full Confidence their bases will be covered + the G5 cannot complain:

(1) Top 4 get the only auto-bids. You're in.

(2) Conference Champion Conditional Auto-Bids:
- UP TO 3 remaining Conference Champions get auto-bids, ordered by Rank. MUST be ranked within the Top 13*.
- If Any Conference Champ is within Top 8, it's unconditional -- it's an Auto-Bid

(3) Remaining At-large(s) selected purely by Rank, but conference-max may skip team(s).
- No more than 3 teams from the same conference, unless 4th team is ranked #4 (auto-bid trumps that).
- 3rd team from the same conference skipped if ranked #7 or #8, unless the team below them is from the same conference or if #9 would be the 3rd team from another conference anyway

So yes, a P5 Champ does risk in rare circumstances, not getting in. Aside from 2012 where undefeated Ohio State was banned from any post-season and 7-5 Wisconsin took their place to upset #12 Nebraska in the B1G Championship but still remained unranked, you have to go back to the 00s to find an ACC Champ a couple times to be below #13. Before Clemson established themselves well enough, and the ACC being what it is today (fully stripping the AAC).

Problem with this though is, a little over half the time, you won't have Cinderella making it to the ball. And P5 Conferences not FULLY FULLY guaranteed they'll have their Champ in there. But if their champ isn't #13, nor is any of their was-supposed-to-be-champ around the Top 5-8, well, yeah, get up on that.

*I say Top 13 because it's slightly higher than 50% more than the 8 slots (12). This is based on the Top G4 Champ having to be ranked #16 or higher when there were 10 slots for the 5 BCS Bowls. One could UP this to 16 to appease both P5 & G5, as #15 WMU was undefeated in 2016 and wouldn't make it under this.

Then don't play CCG's if they are meaningless, quit having a game where one team isn't playoff worthy at the end of a season. That devalues the sport. Go to 16 teams and do away with CCG's.

(12-27-2018 01:19 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 10:17 PM)AntiG Wrote:  thats why I said legit complaint.

Didn't make it in? Well win your conference.

Your still creating 2 spots for teams that don't win their conference, a team that misses can absolutely have a legit complaint.

Not really, because they are not their conference's champion. They are fighting for an at-large spot, which would be determined by an average of the existing polls, human + scientific. As an at-large berth, you don't have a legit leg to stand on if you don't make it because you didn't win your conference. The at-large are essentially "extra spots" for the highest ranked teams that are top 10 but didn't win the conference or are independent.

(12-27-2018 01:19 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  By the basis of your argument teams #7 & #8 are not legitimate playoff teams.

Hence why they are at-large aka wildcard berths.

(12-18-2018 06:40 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Quote:Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, who’s overseen the conference since 1989, told The Athletic that he would “definitely” like to discuss the possibility of expanding the College Football Playoff to eight teams.

His statement comes just a week after Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby offered a similar sentiment.

“The Big Ten would be happy to discuss structure issues with colleagues,” Delany told The Athletic’s Nicole Auerbach, in an article Tuesday morning. “It’s probably a good idea, given all of the conversations and noise around the issue, to have discussions with our colleagues.

“The Big Ten would definitely have conversations.”

https://www.centredaily.com/sports/colle...54660.html

And I'm sure they'd start with discussing the wide variety of "standards" that are currently used for determining conference schedules. 8 or 9 team conference games? To play FCS teams or to not play FCS teams? How many OOC games against other power conference teams?

Unless everyone is on the same page, I don't see expansion happening, especially if auto bids are off the table.

(12-27-2018 01:14 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(12-27-2018 09:20 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 05:25 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 10:17 PM)AntiG Wrote:  Five P5 conference champs, 1 G5 champ, 2 at-large. Simple and no one can have a legit complaint. If you didn't make it in, you either didn't win your conference or wasn't a strong enough independent or G5 champ.

While I agree 8 is better than 4 where all P5's make it.
I don't agree with the statement "no one can have a complaint" because you have another at large team gets in over another team being considered for an at large. Why are we to assume the at large chosen is better than the at large that didn't make it? They had a path to make it and yet another similar at large didn't.

The way to make it no complaints is to go to a 6 team playoff where 5 power conference champs make it and have a play in game between the two highest rated G5 champs. Then everyone has the same path, except maybe besides the G5's but that is more access than they have ever had.

The other way is a 16 team playoff where the top 3 P5's make it(drop the CCG's so the number of games are the same) and again let the highest 2 rated G5's play for the 16th spot.

We could probably go 24 even and have the top 4 in each P5 league make it, do 2 spots that rotate evenly among P5's and let the 2 highest G5 schools in for 24.

All of the scenarios above I gave would involve no choosing of teams and everyone plays their way in and know the rules to begin the season. It would really make CFB great especially if they went to 16 or 24 because I think the bowl games are useless and we see that more and more each year.

A six-team championship with five P5 auto-bids and one G5 bid after a play-in game would ignore independents and therefore not "fair". Unless Notre Dame can steal the ACC spot, then that's likely a non-starter. If Notre Dame is forced to join a conference, that's also likely a non-starter for them.

What do you mean not "fair". ND could join any P5 tomorrow, there is nothing unfair about that. You could make that case for BYU since they can't join a P5 league.
ND can choose not to be able to participate if they want to. Why should cfb focus their whole playoff around ND? Now if the ACC wants to give ND access to their CCG with a set criteria, that's up to them.

You say there would be no complaints under that scenario but that is wrong, thus not fair. Notre Dame would have major complaints as would conferences forced to add independent schools just so everyone has a home.

(12-28-2018 01:15 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(12-27-2018 01:14 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(12-27-2018 09:20 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 05:25 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(12-24-2018 10:17 PM)AntiG Wrote:  Five P5 conference champs, 1 G5 champ, 2 at-large. Simple and no one can have a legit complaint. If you didn't make it in, you either didn't win your conference or wasn't a strong enough independent or G5 champ.

While I agree 8 is better than 4 where all P5's make it.
I don't agree with the statement "no one can have a complaint" because you have another at large team gets in over another team being considered for an at large. Why are we to assume the at large chosen is better than the at large that didn't make it? They had a path to make it and yet another similar at large didn't.

The way to make it no complaints is to go to a 6 team playoff where 5 power conference champs make it and have a play in game between the two highest rated G5 champs. Then everyone has the same path, except maybe besides the G5's but that is more access than they have ever had.

The other way is a 16 team playoff where the top 3 P5's make it(drop the CCG's so the number of games are the same) and again let the highest 2 rated G5's play for the 16th spot.

We could probably go 24 even and have the top 4 in each P5 league make it, do 2 spots that rotate evenly among P5's and let the 2 highest G5 schools in for 24.

All of the scenarios above I gave would involve no choosing of teams and everyone plays their way in and know the rules to begin the season. It would really make CFB great especially if they went to 16 or 24 because I think the bowl games are useless and we see that more and more each year.

A six-team championship with five P5 auto-bids and one G5 bid after a play-in game would ignore independents and therefore not "fair". Unless Notre Dame can steal the ACC spot, then that's likely a non-starter. If Notre Dame is forced to join a conference, that's also likely a non-starter for them.

What do you mean not "fair". ND could join any P5 tomorrow, there is nothing unfair about that. You could make that case for BYU since they can't join a P5 league.
ND can choose not to be able to participate if they want to. Why should cfb focus their whole playoff around ND? Now if the ACC wants to give ND access to their CCG with a set criteria, that's up to them.

You say there would be no complaints under that scenario but that is wrong, thus not fair. Notre Dame would have major complaints as would conferences forced to add independent schools just so everyone has a home.

Don't make up a ridiculous argument. Nobody would be forced to add ND. ND can join any conference they want tomorrow.

I said BYU would be the only real team with a complaint and the reason is they would be forced to join the MWC or AAC or some combo of those leagues because they deserve to be in a P5 league. Don't tell me any of this has to do with Army, Liberty, UMASS & New Mexico St., LOL. They have no relevance to the playoffs.

I am not for an expanded playoff (not even for 4 teams), but I do think if we get expansion, it will include the 5 power conference champs. I think there will be some protections for the Group of 5 and independents, but not necessarily a locked spot (unless they guarantee one independent or Group of 5 team will be in each year). The other option is to set a certain rank they have to reach to get in (maybe top 8 for independents and the top Group of 5 champ in if in the top 12 or above a p5 champ).

(01-02-2019 12:05 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I am not for an expanded playoff (not even for 4 teams), but I do think if we get expansion, it will include the 5 power conference champs. I think there will be some protections for the Group of 5 and independents, but not necessarily a locked spot (unless they guarantee one independent or Group of 5 team will be in each year). The other option is to set a certain rank they have to reach to get in (maybe top 8 for independents and the top Group of 5 champ in if in the top 12 or above a p5 champ).

After watching the bowls decline for the past few years I think we should have an opening week for P5 schools swapping home and homes for the lesser finishers of each conference, with the opening day at the best bowl locations for the top 20. These games could be spread out 2 a day over the course of the opening week. That gives the participants center stage and fully engages fan bases for the participants. The bowls would be full, the games meaningful, and it wouldn't cost us another game on the schedule. It would be an expansion of the early neutral site game. Then with conference schedules of 8 games everyone would have 9 P games and still have 7 home games at least counting all non P games as home games. If the G5 or FCS want a game in will be in a P venue.

It would be best if we contracted into 4 conferences with our champions advancing to the CFP which could have it's first game by the 2nd weekend of December and the finals on New Year's Day at 2:30 PM, right after the noon dinner for most of the country and just before it for the rest.

Nothing much has to change. Conference Championships and the playoff bid are won on the field so every game matters, and there is no selection committee.

It will work great.

Besides fans could recover from their opening day trips and still afford the playoffs.

Now if we could only get rid of the targeting rules and go back to simply giving 15 yards for unnecessary roughness I'll be happy.

(01-02-2019 09:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 12:05 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I am not for an expanded playoff (not even for 4 teams), but I do think if we get expansion, it will include the 5 power conference champs. I think there will be some protections for the Group of 5 and independents, but not necessarily a locked spot (unless they guarantee one independent or Group of 5 team will be in each year). The other option is to set a certain rank they have to reach to get in (maybe top 8 for independents and the top Group of 5 champ in if in the top 12 or above a p5 champ).

After watching the bowls decline for the past few years I think we should have an opening week for P5 schools swapping home and homes for the lesser finishers of each conference, with the opening day at the best bowl locations for the top 20. These games could be spread out 2 a day over the course of the opening week. That gives the participants center stage and fully engages fan bases for the participants. The bowls would be full, the games meaningful, and it wouldn't cost us another game on the schedule. It would be an expansion of the early neutral site game. Then with conference schedules of 8 games everyone would have 9 P games and still have 7 home games at least counting all non P games as home games. If the G5 or FCS want a game in will be in a P venue.

It would be best if we contracted into 4 conferences with our champions advancing to the CFP which could have it's first game by the 2nd weekend of December and the finals on New Year's Day at 2:30 PM, right after the noon dinner for most of the country and just before it for the rest.

Nothing much has to change. Conference Championships and the playoff bid are won on the field so every game matters, and there is no selection committee.

It will work great.

Besides fans could recover from their opening day trips and still afford the playoffs.

Now if we could only get rid of the targeting rules and go back to simply giving 15 yards for unnecessary roughness I'll be happy.

I think CFB is better served by home and home games than all the neutral site games, and it disadvantages teams in the midwest and the north from having to travel and play southern and western teams on their home turf. Filled home stadiums are a lot more fun to watch games than neutral sites with smaller crowds.

I wish on the targeting they went to a tiered system. A targeting that is egregious and gets an ejection right away and a second category where the 15 yard penalty remains but the player is issued one warning and wouldn't be ejected unless a 2nd personal foul is committed. I think this could help the game.