This playoff format is mostly for fun. The FBS is not going to agree to those Rivalry Game rules for determining at larges. BUT, if a 16-team playoff did come into being, those Rivalry rules would make such a playoff race more fun and more fair. Michigan fans don't want to watch the Buckeyes rest their starters because they are guaranteed an at-large spot in the playoff.
Many comments are about other proposals, notably 8-team proposals, which are fine. To those proposing more than 8 teams, I must say that our TV overlords are not going to fill an extra week of football with mid-majors, they are going to want to send in the Blue-Bloods, so if the playoff ever does expand beyond 8, it'll go to 16. I'll post a more likely playoff proposal after this week of games.
(11-26-2019 11:27 AM)stever20 Wrote: lol. Florida would be in..
The rules for the CRAZY playoff limit the number of teams per conference to 3. In part this is to prevent the SEC/Big Ten from taking half the playoff spots and spreading the literal wealth around. And the other part is that it makes rivalry weekend more exciting; Gator fans will be rooting for Texas A&M, Auburn, or Georgia Tech to pull off an upset.
As stated above, a 16-team playoff with 6 at larges (or I've seen some with more, reducing the number of G5 champs), would make the most tradition-filled weekend of college football like Week 17 in the NFL, with very few teams playing a meaningful game. The Rivalry Game rules (hokey as they may seem) would make many of these final games virtual Round-of-32 games.
(11-26-2019 11:27 AM)stever20 Wrote: Also why in the **** do you have Georgia playing Utah to avoid conference matchup- but then give Ohio St Minnesota? And also sorry but it would be a true 1-16 bracket....
I stated that rematches are avoided, not conference matchups. One of the issues with a straight 1-16 bracket is the travel, especially for Mountain and Pacific teams. While staging the games at home helps ensure attendence, making them largely regional encourages visiting fan travel and builds regional rivalries that may not exist within a conference (Boise, for example, would be more likely to face a Pac-12 team).
Implied point is taken about the relatively "ugh" appearance of #5 facing #17 in a first-round playoff matchup. The teams would be seeded by committee 1-4, within their region. The West and North regions (usually filled with Pac-12 and Big Ten teams) would send champions to the Rose Bowl, while the South and East regions would send champions to the Sugar Bowl.
(11-25-2019 07:15 PM)EvanJ Wrote: Neutral fans won't want to watch Round of 16 games when they expect Clemson to have an easy time with Appalachian State, and there are other examples. Here's my proposal for qualifying for an 8 team playoff:
Neutral fans won't want to tune in in early December to watch Clemson play a team ranked 20-something even if they are from a little further North up the Appalachians, BUT that is what we'll get in most folks' 8-team playoff, including yours.
Yes, there will be near body-bag games between unranked teams and teams which would have competed for a BCS Title. But, given a 4-round playoff, these games are preferable to excluding certain champions (keep playoff selection fair and attainable), to adding more 3-loss teams from Power conferences (to preserve integrity of regular season), and to giving the top teams byes (TV money-wise).
(11-26-2019 10:40 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: (11-26-2019 01:45 PM)stever20 Wrote: ah the stupid as **** round 1 team loses and goes to a bowl game...... it's back and as stupid as ever.
Right, a team that is denied a chance at being the national champion would never want to go on and play in a bowl game.
If the playoff ever got this big, the bowl games would lose quite a bit of their prestige. But, yes, teams would still go to them (wouldn't they?). Not sure a bowl dedicated to playoff "losers" (a consolation bowl) is the way to go though; such games would have to rotate among a series of bowls. Perhaps it may be best for logistics. Again, not sure.