The 5-1-2 Playoff:

-8-team playoff
-Each Power 5 Champion is an AQ.
-The highest ranked G5 Champion is an AQ.
-The remaining two at-large seeds go to the highest ranked teams not already in as an AQ.
-After the 8 team field is set, they are seeded by the CFB Playoff Committee for match-ups.

Here is that format with this year's teams. Tell me what you think (teams already seeded using the current CFB Ranking):

1. LSU 13-0 (SEC Champ)
2. Ohio State 13-0 (B10 Champ)
3. Clemson (13-0 (ACC Champ)
4. Oklahoma (12-1 B12 Champ)
5. Georgia (11-2 Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
6. Oregon (11-2 PAC12 Champ)
7. Baylor (11-2 2nd Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
8. Memphis (12-1 Highest ranked G5 Champ-AAC)

Single elimination with pods 1v8/4v5 & 2v7/3v6. Have a yearly bidding for the big name bowls to host these 5 games (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, Rose, Peach...may the 5 highest bidders win the rights on a yearly basis).

Of course it's still imperfect...but I think it's the better than what we have. Why have this format instead of "top 8, regardless of conference affiliation or conference title"? Because of toxic politics in everything from pre-season rankings all throughout the regular season. Also, this puts an emphasis on winning your conference and ULTIMATELY it would put pressure on those left out to pressure for the 16 team playoff which is what I think EVERYONE wants.

(12-09-2019 10:40 AM)TTT Wrote:  The 5-1-2 Playoff:

-8-team playoff
-Each Power 5 Champion is an AQ.
-The highest ranked G5 Champion is an AQ.
-The remaining two at-large seeds go to the highest ranked teams not already in as an AQ.
-After the 8 team field is set, they are seeded by the CFB Playoff Committee for match-ups.

Here is that format with this year's teams. Tell me what you think (teams already seeded using the current CFB Ranking):

1. LSU 13-0 (SEC Champ)
2. Ohio State 13-0 (B10 Champ)
3. Clemson (13-0 (ACC Champ)
4. Oklahoma (12-1 B12 Champ)
5. Georgia (11-2 Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
6. Oregon (11-2 PAC12 Champ)
7. Baylor (11-2 2nd Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
8. Memphis (12-1 Highest ranked G5 Champ-AAC)

Single elimination with pods 1v8/4v5 & 2v7/3v6. Have a yearly bidding for the big name bowls to host these 5 games (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, Rose, Peach...may the 5 highest bidders win the rights on a yearly basis).

Of course it's still imperfect...but I think it's the better than what we have. Why have this format instead of "top 8, regardless of conference affiliation or conference title"? Because of toxic politics in everything from pre-season rankings all throughout the regular season. Also, this puts an emphasis on winning your conference and ULTIMATELY it would put pressure on those left out to pressure for the 16 team playoff which is what I think EVERYONE wants.

Well ...

1) I don't think this is better than the 4-team playoff we currently have. What have the other four teams done to merit playing for the title?

2) I don't think 5-1-2 is better than "straight 8", winning a conference is a local achievement not a national one and these are national playoffs.

3) No, I don't want 16 team playoff for the same reason I can live without an 8-team playoff.

So I'm glad you posted this, as it reminded me of what I like about the current system.

(12-09-2019 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 10:40 AM)TTT Wrote:  The 5-1-2 Playoff:

-8-team playoff
-Each Power 5 Champion is an AQ.
-The highest ranked G5 Champion is an AQ.
-The remaining two at-large seeds go to the highest ranked teams not already in as an AQ.
-After the 8 team field is set, they are seeded by the CFB Playoff Committee for match-ups.

Here is that format with this year's teams. Tell me what you think (teams already seeded using the current CFB Ranking):

1. LSU 13-0 (SEC Champ)
2. Ohio State 13-0 (B10 Champ)
3. Clemson (13-0 (ACC Champ)
4. Oklahoma (12-1 B12 Champ)
5. Georgia (11-2 Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
6. Oregon (11-2 PAC12 Champ)
7. Baylor (11-2 2nd Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
8. Memphis (12-1 Highest ranked G5 Champ-AAC)

Single elimination with pods 1v8/4v5 & 2v7/3v6. Have a yearly bidding for the big name bowls to host these 5 games (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, Rose, Peach...may the 5 highest bidders win the rights on a yearly basis).

Of course it's still imperfect...but I think it's the better than what we have. Why have this format instead of "top 8, regardless of conference affiliation or conference title"? Because of toxic politics in everything from pre-season rankings all throughout the regular season. Also, this puts an emphasis on winning your conference and ULTIMATELY it would put pressure on those left out to pressure for the 16 team playoff which is what I think EVERYONE wants.

Well ...

1) I don't think this is better than the 4-team playoff we currently have. What have the other four teams done to merit playing for the title?

2) I don't think 5-1-2 is better than "straight 8", winning a conference is a local achievement not a national one and these are national playoffs.

3) No, I don't want 16 team playoff for the same reason I can live without an 8-team playoff.

So I'm glad you posted this, as it reminded me of what I like about the current system.

Look, I'm gonna be honest: I like my model for my own selfish reasons. I really want to see the highest ranked G5 Champion get into the playoff if we're gonna move to 8.

Look at it this way: it's the equivalent of some random SWAC or Big South BBall Tournament Champion getting into the NCAA tourney over a 22-10 B10 or ACC bubble team.

*B1G/PAC to Rose (Ohio St/Oregon)
*SEC to Sugar (LSU)
*BXII to Cotton (Oklahoma)
*ACC to Orange (Clemson)

CFP NYD Quarterfinals
ORANGE 11est --- #3 Clemson/#7 Baylor
COTTON 230est -- #4 Oklahoma/#5 Georgia
ROSE 6est -------- #2 Ohio St/#6 Oregon
SUGAR 930est ---- #1 LSU/#8 Memphis

(12-09-2019 10:40 AM)TTT Wrote:  The 5-1-2 Playoff:

-8-team playoff
-Each Power 5 Champion is an AQ.
-The highest ranked G5 Champion is an AQ.
-The remaining two at-large seeds go to the highest ranked teams not already in as an AQ.
-After the 8 team field is set, they are seeded by the CFB Playoff Committee for match-ups.

Here is that format with this year's teams. Tell me what you think (teams already seeded using the current CFB Ranking):

1. LSU 13-0 (SEC Champ)
2. Ohio State 13-0 (B10 Champ)
3. Clemson (13-0 (ACC Champ)
4. Oklahoma (12-1 B12 Champ)
5. Georgia (11-2 Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
6. Oregon (11-2 PAC12 Champ)
7. Baylor (11-2 2nd Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
8. Memphis (12-1 Highest ranked G5 Champ-AAC)

Single elimination with pods 1v8/4v5 & 2v7/3v6. Have a yearly bidding for the big name bowls to host these 5 games (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, Rose, Peach...may the 5 highest bidders win the rights on a yearly basis).

Of course it's still imperfect...but I think it's the better than what we have. Why have this format instead of "top 8, regardless of conference affiliation or conference title"? Because of toxic politics in everything from pre-season rankings all throughout the regular season. Also, this puts an emphasis on winning your conference and ULTIMATELY it would put pressure on those left out to pressure for the 16 team playoff which is what I think EVERYONE wants.

16 team puts in 3 and even 4 loss teams in some years. I don't think the MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA champs need to be in every year. 2/3 of the CUSA and Sun Belt haven't been around in FBS as long as the Big 12 or CUSA (both started play in 1996). 6 of the 14 CUSA members weren't even playing football at all when the CUSA was conceived in 1994 with UH, Memphis, Tulane, Louisville, Cincinnati and Southern Miss. 4 others moved to FBS after.

I think we need 8 to get most of the beauty contest aspect out of it. Given their #1 has never won, I think the CFP has conclusively proven that human polls aren't very accurate.

I'm ok with 11 where the P5 get byes to NYD and 3 to 5 wildcards and 1 to 3 G5 champs get in.

(12-09-2019 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 10:40 AM)TTT Wrote:  The 5-1-2 Playoff:

-8-team playoff
-Each Power 5 Champion is an AQ.
-The highest ranked G5 Champion is an AQ.
-The remaining two at-large seeds go to the highest ranked teams not already in as an AQ.
-After the 8 team field is set, they are seeded by the CFB Playoff Committee for match-ups.

Here is that format with this year's teams. Tell me what you think (teams already seeded using the current CFB Ranking):

1. LSU 13-0 (SEC Champ)
2. Ohio State 13-0 (B10 Champ)
3. Clemson (13-0 (ACC Champ)
4. Oklahoma (12-1 B12 Champ)
5. Georgia (11-2 Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
6. Oregon (11-2 PAC12 Champ)
7. Baylor (11-2 2nd Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
8. Memphis (12-1 Highest ranked G5 Champ-AAC)

Single elimination with pods 1v8/4v5 & 2v7/3v6. Have a yearly bidding for the big name bowls to host these 5 games (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, Rose, Peach...may the 5 highest bidders win the rights on a yearly basis).

Of course it's still imperfect...but I think it's the better than what we have. Why have this format instead of "top 8, regardless of conference affiliation or conference title"? Because of toxic politics in everything from pre-season rankings all throughout the regular season. Also, this puts an emphasis on winning your conference and ULTIMATELY it would put pressure on those left out to pressure for the 16 team playoff which is what I think EVERYONE wants.

Well ...

1) I don't think this is better than the 4-team playoff we currently have. What have the other four teams done to merit playing for the title?

2) I don't think 5-1-2 is better than "straight 8", winning a conference is a local achievement not a national one and these are national playoffs.

3) No, I don't want 16 team playoff for the same reason I can live without an 8-team playoff.

So I'm glad you posted this, as it reminded me of what I like about the current system.

Fans basically want to sacrifice the validity of the regular season and the majority of inter conference (OOC) play on the off chance that there is a year where 4-8 teams are bunched up for the 4th spot for the playoff.

Absolutely comical, but that's the way the fans work. I'd say the most years have been clear cut, exceptions being 2014 with the Big 12 sans a title game left out for OSU's 59-0 win. Then you have a year with two loss OSU and one loss Bama, with Bama getting in as a non-champ. Also the year where OSU went in as a one loss non-champ based on a strong OOC win in Norman.

Make no mistake, there will be years where 6-7 teams have legit claim to the top four, but more than likely all these teams will have at least one if not multiple losses. 1/50 years we will have 5 undefeated P5 champs. But yeah, apparently that's enough to sack the significance of the regular season by going to a 6AQ and two At-Large playoff.

(12-09-2019 10:40 AM)TTT Wrote:  The 5-1-2 Playoff:

-8-team playoff
-Each Power 5 Champion is an AQ.
-The highest ranked G5 Champion is an AQ.
-The remaining two at-large seeds go to the highest ranked teams not already in as an AQ.
-After the 8 team field is set, they are seeded by the CFB Playoff Committee for match-ups.

Here is that format with this year's teams. Tell me what you think (teams already seeded using the current CFB Ranking):

1. LSU 13-0 (SEC Champ)
2. Ohio State 13-0 (B10 Champ)
3. Clemson (13-0 (ACC Champ)
4. Oklahoma (12-1 B12 Champ)
5. Georgia (11-2 Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
6. Oregon (11-2 PAC12 Champ)
7. Baylor (11-2 2nd Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
8. Memphis (12-1 Highest ranked G5 Champ-AAC)

Single elimination with pods 1v8/4v5 & 2v7/3v6. Have a yearly bidding for the big name bowls to host these 5 games (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, Rose, Peach...may the 5 highest bidders win the rights on a yearly basis).

Of course it's still imperfect...but I think it's the better than what we have. Why have this format instead of "top 8, regardless of conference affiliation or conference title"? Because of toxic politics in everything from pre-season rankings all throughout the regular season. Also, this puts an emphasis on winning your conference and ULTIMATELY it would put pressure on those left out to pressure for the 16 team playoff which is what I think EVERYONE wants.

What happens if a 6-6 team in a weak conference beats the only good team in the conference on the other side? That would leave out a 10-2 team like Florida, whose only 2 loses came to the two teams who played for the CCG.

(12-09-2019 11:07 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  *B1G/PAC to Rose (Ohio St/Oregon)
*SEC to Sugar (LSU)
*BXII to Cotton (Oklahoma)
*ACC to Orange (Clemson)

CFP NYD Quarterfinals
ORANGE 11est --- #3 Clemson/#7 Baylor
COTTON 230est -- #4 Oklahoma/#5 Georgia
ROSE 6est -------- #2 Ohio St/#6 Oregon
SUGAR 930est ---- #1 LSU/#8 Memphis

Swap the Rose and Sugar around. Rose should be 9:30 est because they're on the west coast.

(12-09-2019 11:14 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 10:40 AM)TTT Wrote:  The 5-1-2 Playoff:

-8-team playoff
-Each Power 5 Champion is an AQ.
-The highest ranked G5 Champion is an AQ.
-The remaining two at-large seeds go to the highest ranked teams not already in as an AQ.
-After the 8 team field is set, they are seeded by the CFB Playoff Committee for match-ups.

Here is that format with this year's teams. Tell me what you think (teams already seeded using the current CFB Ranking):

1. LSU 13-0 (SEC Champ)
2. Ohio State 13-0 (B10 Champ)
3. Clemson (13-0 (ACC Champ)
4. Oklahoma (12-1 B12 Champ)
5. Georgia (11-2 Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
6. Oregon (11-2 PAC12 Champ)
7. Baylor (11-2 2nd Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
8. Memphis (12-1 Highest ranked G5 Champ-AAC)

Single elimination with pods 1v8/4v5 & 2v7/3v6. Have a yearly bidding for the big name bowls to host these 5 games (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, Rose, Peach...may the 5 highest bidders win the rights on a yearly basis).

Of course it's still imperfect...but I think it's the better than what we have. Why have this format instead of "top 8, regardless of conference affiliation or conference title"? Because of toxic politics in everything from pre-season rankings all throughout the regular season. Also, this puts an emphasis on winning your conference and ULTIMATELY it would put pressure on those left out to pressure for the 16 team playoff which is what I think EVERYONE wants.

Well ...

1) I don't think this is better than the 4-team playoff we currently have. What have the other four teams done to merit playing for the title?

2) I don't think 5-1-2 is better than "straight 8", winning a conference is a local achievement not a national one and these are national playoffs.

3) No, I don't want 16 team playoff for the same reason I can live without an 8-team playoff.

So I'm glad you posted this, as it reminded me of what I like about the current system.

Fans basically want to sacrifice the validity of the regular season and the majority of inter conference (OOC) play on the off chance that there is a year where 4-8 teams are bunched up for the 4th spot for the playoff.

Absolutely comical, but that's the way the fans work. I'd say the most years have been clear cut, exceptions being 2014 with the Big 12 sans a title game left out for OSU's 59-0 win. Then you have a year with two loss OSU and one loss Bama, with Bama getting in as a non-champ. Also the year where OSU went in as a one loss non-champ based on a strong OOC win in Norman.

Make no mistake, there will be years where 6-7 teams have legit claim to the top four, but more than likely all these teams will have at least one if not multiple losses. 1/50 years we will have 5 undefeated P5 champs. But yeah, apparently that's enough to sack the significance of the regular season by going to a 6AQ and two At-Large playoff.

One of the primary reasons why I support the 8-team CFP with conference champ autobids is because I believe it will promote more quality non-conference matchups during the regular season. You wouldn't need sparkling undefeated or single-loss records to qualify.

Give me more Georgia v. Notre Dame, Oregon v. Auburn, and LSU v. Texas, not less.

(12-09-2019 11:14 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 10:40 AM)TTT Wrote:  The 5-1-2 Playoff:

-8-team playoff
-Each Power 5 Champion is an AQ.
-The highest ranked G5 Champion is an AQ.
-The remaining two at-large seeds go to the highest ranked teams not already in as an AQ.
-After the 8 team field is set, they are seeded by the CFB Playoff Committee for match-ups.

Here is that format with this year's teams. Tell me what you think (teams already seeded using the current CFB Ranking):

1. LSU 13-0 (SEC Champ)
2. Ohio State 13-0 (B10 Champ)
3. Clemson (13-0 (ACC Champ)
4. Oklahoma (12-1 B12 Champ)
5. Georgia (11-2 Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
6. Oregon (11-2 PAC12 Champ)
7. Baylor (11-2 2nd Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
8. Memphis (12-1 Highest ranked G5 Champ-AAC)

Single elimination with pods 1v8/4v5 & 2v7/3v6. Have a yearly bidding for the big name bowls to host these 5 games (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, Rose, Peach...may the 5 highest bidders win the rights on a yearly basis).

Of course it's still imperfect...but I think it's the better than what we have. Why have this format instead of "top 8, regardless of conference affiliation or conference title"? Because of toxic politics in everything from pre-season rankings all throughout the regular season. Also, this puts an emphasis on winning your conference and ULTIMATELY it would put pressure on those left out to pressure for the 16 team playoff which is what I think EVERYONE wants.

Well ...

1) I don't think this is better than the 4-team playoff we currently have. What have the other four teams done to merit playing for the title?

2) I don't think 5-1-2 is better than "straight 8", winning a conference is a local achievement not a national one and these are national playoffs.

3) No, I don't want 16 team playoff for the same reason I can live without an 8-team playoff.

So I'm glad you posted this, as it reminded me of what I like about the current system.

Fans basically want to sacrifice the validity of the regular season and the majority of inter conference (OOC) play on the off chance that there is a year where 4-8 teams are bunched up for the 4th spot for the playoff.

Absolutely comical, but that's the way the fans work. I'd say the most years have been clear cut, exceptions being 2014 with the Big 12 sans a title game left out for OSU's 59-0 win. Then you have a year with two loss OSU and one loss Bama, with Bama getting in as a non-champ. Also the year where OSU went in as a one loss non-champ based on a strong OOC win in Norman.

Make no mistake, there will be years where 6-7 teams have legit claim to the top four, but more than likely all these teams will have at least one if not multiple losses. 1/50 years we will have 5 undefeated P5 champs. But yeah, apparently that's enough to sack the significance of the regular season by going to a 6AQ and two At-Large playoff.

So what is your problem with deciding it on the field instead of a board room based on an "eye" test? Maybe USC shouldn't have had to play Texas in 2005. Miami FL should have just been annointed in 2002 and not deigned to play Ohio St..

The point of expanding is so the best team doesn't get left out. There is a very good argument that TCU was that best team in 2014. There are lots of other examples in the last 20 years. Look at 2007 or 2008 where there were a bunch of teams with arguments.

(12-09-2019 11:52 AM)YNot Wrote:  One of the primary reasons why I support the 8-team CFP with conference champ autobids is because I believe it will promote more quality non-conference matchups during the regular season. You wouldn't need sparkling undefeated or single-loss records to qualify.

Give me more Georgia v. Notre Dame, Oregon v. Auburn, and LSU v. Texas, not less.

Why would those schools risk injury against other big schools early in the year before conference play? Why would the road school of these hypothetical big matchups want to travel so early in the year?

Schools already have enough incentive to schedule those games given that there is no AQ for P5. So what is the rationale for scheduling more of those matchups than we have currently on the off chance your school is a top 2 non-AQ? Argument doesn't hold water to me.

What I do support is a top 8 playoff with AQ if you are in the top 10 and a conference champ, in lieu of conference championship games. That way you get rid of rematches and gather more information by playing some neutral site regional quarterfinals to cut down the field. However this would be a more complicated system and rematches with long time rivals is not something I'd eagerly toss away.

Since not one team can play every single other team across the nation, selecting P5 champs is a way to whittle down the field. I don’t understand why this is so hard for some to grasp.

(12-09-2019 11:23 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-09-2019 10:40 AM)TTT Wrote:  The 5-1-2 Playoff:

-8-team playoff
-Each Power 5 Champion is an AQ.
-The highest ranked G5 Champion is an AQ.
-The remaining two at-large seeds go to the highest ranked teams not already in as an AQ.
-After the 8 team field is set, they are seeded by the CFB Playoff Committee for match-ups.

Here is that format with this year's teams. Tell me what you think (teams already seeded using the current CFB Ranking):

1. LSU 13-0 (SEC Champ)
2. Ohio State 13-0 (B10 Champ)
3. Clemson (13-0 (ACC Champ)
4. Oklahoma (12-1 B12 Champ)
5. Georgia (11-2 Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
6. Oregon (11-2 PAC12 Champ)
7. Baylor (11-2 2nd Highest ranked team not already in as an AQ)
8. Memphis (12-1 Highest ranked G5 Champ-AAC)

Single elimination with pods 1v8/4v5 & 2v7/3v6. Have a yearly bidding for the big name bowls to host these 5 games (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, Rose, Peach...may the 5 highest bidders win the rights on a yearly basis).

Of course it's still imperfect...but I think it's the better than what we have. Why have this format instead of "top 8, regardless of conference affiliation or conference title"? Because of toxic politics in everything from pre-season rankings all throughout the regular season. Also, this puts an emphasis on winning your conference and ULTIMATELY it would put pressure on those left out to pressure for the 16 team playoff which is what I think EVERYONE wants.

What happens if a 6-6 team in a weak conference beats the only good team in the conference on the other side? That would leave out a 10-2 team like Florida, whose only 2 loses came to the two teams who played for the CCG.

I'm confused..."conference on the other side"? Can you re-phrase your question? Are you asking what if a 6-6 team beats a 10-2 team in a conference championship game? Sorry, not following your question.

(12-09-2019 12:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  So what is your problem with deciding it on the field instead of a board room based on an "eye" test? Maybe USC shouldn't have had to play Texas in 2005. Miami FL should have just been annointed in 2002 and not deigned to play Ohio St..

The point of expanding is so the best team doesn't get left out. There is a very good argument that TCU was that best team in 2014. There are lots of other examples in the last 20 years. Look at 2007 or 2008 where there were a bunch of teams with arguments.

I think there was one year in the BCS era... ONE year, where we had 3 undefeated P5 teams. Auburn got left out in lieu of USC OU where OU got blown out. Auburn won their bowl game against Tech in the Sugar or whatever it was. This year has been the other since the BCS that I can recall.

Previous years, you had maybe 3 to 4 teams with a legit case for #2 or better, but they all had a loss. The four team playoff solves this. Not only that, you get great national debate on 4 vs 5 every other year or so. If you take P5 AQ, a fan of the PAC 12 could care less what is happening in the other conferences. The new system enhances the sport on every level without diminishing the regular season.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-look-like

ESPN writer on the topic.
"...maybe the most effective argument for not expanding to eight is that we'd all immediately start yelling for 12 or 16 teams if we got our way. And to be sure, that would introduce a lot of potential rematches, load even more games onto the slate and further dilute the impact of the regular season.

I don't have an effective counterargument to this. Bracket creep always kicks in. I'm shocked that the NCAA basketball tournament hasn't expanded to 96 by now, to be honest.

Here's the reason I'm willing to take on that risk, though: fairness.

The simple inclusion of a Group of 5 team in an eight-team field would mean that every FBS team could actually begin the season dreaming of a shot at the national title. That has never, ever existed in college football. Goodness knows it doesn't exist now...."

(12-09-2019 12:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-look-like

ESPN writer on the topic.
"...maybe the most effective argument for not expanding to eight is that we'd all immediately start yelling for 12 or 16 teams if we got our way. And to be sure, that would introduce a lot of potential rematches, load even more games onto the slate and further dilute the impact of the regular season.

I don't have an effective counterargument to this. Bracket creep always kicks in. I'm shocked that the NCAA basketball tournament hasn't expanded to 96 by now, to be honest.

Here's the reason I'm willing to take on that risk, though: fairness.

The simple inclusion of a Group of 5 team in an eight-team field would mean that every FBS team could actually begin the season dreaming of a shot at the national title. That has never, ever existed in college football. Goodness knows it doesn't exist now...."

Nobody really complains about that in the NFL, and they have a 12 teams.

People will always complain about the format, but I do think there is a point with having 8 teams total. It gives the conference champs + highest ranked G5 + 2 others (including indy's) a chance at Championship.

The other option would be 6 team format, with 2 play-in games and the two highest ranked conference champions sitting out the first round.

5-1-2 would be better than the current set up.

All P5 conferences should get a berth. This would encourage better OOC match ups.

This isn't any different than what's been posted 1000 times

The current system is pretty good

The only team that has been screwed over has been TCU 2014

(12-09-2019 12:42 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  This isn't any different than what's been posted 1000 times

The current system is pretty good

The only team that has been screwed over has been TCU 2014

I like the current system if we are to have a playoff. I wouldn’t mind reviewing 8, 16, etc. if there’s a need or if many schools look like contenders year after year. We just haven’t had that. Oklahoma could win it all but in all likelihood we only have 3 contenders.

Hypothetically, if we went to 8 then I’d only be in favor of a “Straight 8” system. The Big East was a power conference but in many years, their champion wasn’t even in the 10.

5-1-2 is they way to go:

5: because winning a major conference should mean something. It keeps the CCGs relevant and encourages teams to schedule tough OOC because an OOC loss won’t completely kill your national title hopes if you take care of business in your conference games

1: you can only beat the teams you can schedule and the little guys shouldn’t get punished and left out because of their schedules. You’ve got G5 leagues with better win percentages against the P5 OOC than the ACC.

2: you still need a path for teams who played in deep leagues as well as ND (although personally I think they need to join a conference)