JSC 76 said:

---

This was a bad year to argue for expanding the CFP to 8. We've got 3 excellent teams plus a sacrificial lamb -- Oklahoma drew the short straw.

---

Why? Because on paper there are 3 "resumes" i.e. undefeated teams that are tangibly different than any others, i.e. 1 or more losses?

The unbalanced nature of the schedules makes these comparisons as qualifiers undesirable.

You determine bests in any sport by qualifying teams regionally (divisions, conferences, etc) and match them up in a tournament to determine the champion. The basic concept of this is to compensate for the unbalanced nature of schedules and how poorly transposing outcomes when comparing teams actually is.

71Bear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

No they don't. They need to continue to pick the four best regardless of where they play. Conference affiliations are no longer based on geography, they are based on who can provide the most people who watch college football on television.

---

Here we go again with the mythical four best teams argument. No one knows who the four best teams are and therefore the only thing that makes sense is an objective criteria to win your way in and SHOW you are one of the four best teams. The conference champion is the gateway and is also the best way to making sure the championship does not get political or regionalized.

It works in almost every sport and tournament. It shouldn't be a beauty pageant or a judged figure skating competition.

BearSD said:

---

The Orange Bowl goes to an ACC team. Comparing Utah to Virginia doesn't matter.

---

It does when we question whether the rules make sense.

There's no debate that Utah got what they're supposed to under the current rules. We're not talking about that, but instead on whether those rules make sense (in particular, the dumb "Orange Bowl gets an ACC team no matter how bad" rule)

sycasey said:

---

JSC 76 said:

---

This was a bad year to argue for expanding the CFP to 8. We've got 3 excellent teams plus a sacrificial lamb -- Oklahoma drew the short straw. Including 4 more teams would just make it worse.

I'd be in favor of basing the CFP selection on conference champions, though.

---

I think if you expanded the playoff you might see some surprising upsets. Clemson really hasn't played anyone too tough yet.

---

Agreed. Auburn beat Oregon and Alabama and was within 3 points of LSU. Why not give them, or Georgia or Florida, a chance to take down Clemson. Alabama was a boinked FG attempt away from tying Auburn and a poor reaction to a trick play kept them from getting the ball back with another chance to tie or win.

Also, I'm not sure OU has no shot. LSU looks quite a bit better, but OU might be 12-0 if not for an inadvertent tip on the ball on an onside kick.

510 Bear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

The Orange Bowl goes to an ACC team. Comparing Utah to Virginia doesn't matter.

---

It does when we question whether the rules make sense.

There's no debate that Utah got what they're supposed to under the current rules. We're not talking about that, but instead on whether those rules make sense (in particular, the dumb "Orange Bowl gets an ACC team no matter how bad" rule)

---

This all goes back to the real issue, Larry Scott not securing a second NY6 bowl bid for the conference, instead the Big 10 & SEC will get 3 teams into the NY6 bowls, while the ACC & Big 12 will get 2.

71Bear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

No they don't. They need to continue to pick the four best regardless of where they play. Conference affiliations are no longer based on geography, they are based on who can provide the most people who watch college football on television.

---

So after the first round of the playoffs, would you agree that they should pick the two best regardless of who won? How about after the final game of the playoff? Just choose the best team regardless of who won?

We literally have a three round playoff where one round is ignored. How can you possibly be the best team if you haven't won your own division of a conference, or lost the conference championship? And if your argument is that they can be the best team, not just the team to win the last two games, why not have a FBS wide playoff.

We could break teams into divisions and have them play each other. Combine two divisions into a conference, have the two best teams play each other. The winners could play the winners from other conference duels. Then the winners of that could play each other... Wouldn't that be something... Where in that, though, does the loser from a previous level advance?

Honestly, why have a playoff at all? Just pick the "best" team at the end of the bowl game schedule and call them champion. Imagine how that would be. I'd call it the All oPinion champion. AP for short. Hell, we could have been let some coaches in on the action to give their opinion on who is best. That definitely sounds like what you want. I actually think that is a better system, but TBH, if we want a Playoff, you can't just advance losers.

Remember when Cal killed Clemson in the Citrus Bowl? That was cool.

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

That is just plain stupid.

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

That is just plain stupid.

---

This is just plain stupid.

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

That is just plain stupid.

---

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. Conferences are big now, so the teams do not play equal schedules. Plus there is the question of independents. There should be some way for the best non-champions to also be included.

sycasey said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

That is just plain stupid.

---

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. Conferences are big now, so the teams do not play equal schedules. Plus there is the question of independents. There should be some way for the best non-champions to also be included.

---

I shouldn't have been rude, I just think it's begging for some really really awful outcomes. The #1 issue that needs to be addressed before anything else matters is the normalization of scheduling, as you alluded. What if Oregon's QB room got the flu the week of the CCG in 2011? We get a 7 loss UCLA in the CFB playoff? That can't ever be a thing. A 9-4 Minnesota upsets an 11-1 Ohio State and now the Gophers are in? We're begging for disaster. I don't like this erosion of college football tradition, but it's time to pull the bandaid off.

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

71Bear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

No they don't. They need to continue to pick the four best regardless of where they play. Conference affiliations are no longer based on geography, they are based on who can provide the most people who watch college football on television.

---

If we must have a playoff (and it seems we must) then it should expand to include all conference champs plus some wild cards (to account for the fact that not all schedules are created alike). That way it's fair and everyone has a shot.

---

If we must, I'd prefer no Wild Card teams. Instead I'd like an 8-game playoff. The Conference Champions for each Power 5 conference get in, while the Sun Belt, Mountain West, WAC, American Athletic Conference, MAC, and Independents have a play-in game against each other for the final three spots.

Adjust the schedule to end the Regular Season the week before Thanksgiving. Have the Play-in games & Conference Championship games the weekend of Thanksgiving. Have the Quarter-finals be the first or second weekend of December, and the rest of the schedule is as it is now. At least it makes sense to me.

---

Nice!

blungld said:

---

71Bear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

No they don't. They need to continue to pick the four best regardless of where they play. Conference affiliations are no longer based on geography, they are based on who can provide the most people who watch college football on television.

---

Here we go again with the mythical four best teams argument. No one knows who the four best teams are and therefore the only thing that makes sense is an objective criteria to win your way in and SHOW you are one of the four best teams. The conference champion is the gateway and is also the best way to making sure the championship does not get political or regionalized.

It works in almost every sport and tournament. It shouldn't be a beauty pageant or a judged figure skating competition.

---

Exactly. Plus a huge benefit would be the P5 teams can schedule each other OOC instead of 3 patsies and still win in he NC. That would produce Increased TV revenues, fan interest, increased ticket sales, great road trips...

sycasey said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

That is just plain stupid.

---

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. Conferences are big now, so the teams do not play equal schedules. Plus there is the question of independents. There should be some way for the best non-champions to also be included.

---

8 Team playoffs including P5 champs plus 3 at large with at most 1 from P5. Pac-12 champ hosts their first round in the Rose Bowl on NYD.

calumnus said:

---

8 Team playoffs including P5 champs plus 3 at large with at most 1 from P5. Pac-12 champ hosts their first round in the Rose Bowl on NYD.

---

I think almost everyone sees this as the obvious choice sitting right there in plain sight. I would be okay with this--but I would add stipulation that you can only have one at large birth from each conference. No 3 teams from the SEC because they are so OBVIOUSLY superior.

I like this approach to treating the conference championships as the first round so you get 5 qualifiers there. And then one at large P5 team (that's six). And then 2 independent at larges, who perhaps play each other in the first round automatically so that the semis are always 3 P5 and one independent?

I agree that this will keep the championship less political, more national, encourage better intersectional games during the season, eliminate this one loss eliminates you stupidity (which results in cupcakes schedules), and puts all the emphasis on the conference season as it should be.

A field of 6, featuring the 5 P5 champions and the best non-P5 team, with the top 2 teams having a first round playoff bye.

blungld said:

---

And then 2 independent at larges, who perhaps play each other in the first round automatically so that the semis are always 3 P5 and one independent?

---

So it would always be Notre Dame vs BYU? There aren't that many independents any more.

(Back in the day ... say, 1980's ... Notre Dame, Florida State, Miami, Penn State and West Virginia were all independent.)

JSC 76 said:

---

blungld said:

---

And then 2 independent at larges, who perhaps play each other in the first round automatically so that the semis are always 3 P5 and one independent?

---

So it would always be Notre Dame vs BYU? There aren't that many independents any more.

(Back in the day ... say, 1980's ... Notre Dame, Florida State, Miami, Penn State and West Virginia were all independent.)

---

I'm guessing he means at-larges from the rest of the pool that didn't win a conference.

Current FBS independents:

Notre Dame
BYU
Liberty
Army
New Mexico State
UMass

sycasey said:

---

JSC 76 said:

---

blungld said:

---

And then 2 independent at larges, who perhaps play each other in the first round automatically so that the semis are always 3 P5 and one independent?

---

There aren't that many independents any more.

---

I'm guessing he means at-larges from the rest of the pool that didn't win a conference.

---

Yes, I meant the five P5 conference winners, one P5 at large, and two non-P5/independents who play each other and then the #1 seed in semi. So this year it might look like this:

LSU/Georgia vs Notre Dame/Memphis
Ohio State/Oregon vs Clemson/Oklahoma

Ideally you would also have a seeding rule where teams from same conference can't play each other in first game. So you reseed and get this?

LSU/Oregon vs Notre Dame/Memphis
Ohio State/Georgia vs Clemson/Oklahoma

blungld said:

---

sycasey said:

---

JSC 76 said:

---

blungld said:

---

And then 2 independent at larges, who perhaps play each other in the first round automatically so that the semis are always 3 P5 and one independent?

---

There aren't that many independents any more.

---

I'm guessing he means at-larges from the rest of the pool that didn't win a conference.

---

Yes, I meant the five P5 conference winners, one P5 at large, and two non-P5/independents who play each other and then the #1 seed in semi. So this year it might look like this:

LSU/Georgia vs Notre Dame/Memphis
Ohio State/Oregon vs Clemson/Oklahoma

Ideally you would also have a seeding rule where teams from same conference can't play each other in first game. So you reseed and get this?

LSU/Oregon vs Notre Dame/Memphis
Ohio State/Georgia vs Clemson/Oklahoma

---

I think this gives too much advantage to being an independent. It's way easier to win a "division" of only 7 or 8 independent teams (many of them schools that just made the jump to FBS) than to win a major conference. You're basically guaranteeing a slot for Notre Dame every year.

510 Bear said:

---

Utah got completely screwed. They fall 6 spots after losing to Oregon and end up in the Alamo Bowl vs. Texas, while Virginia gets obliterated and still gets into the Orange Bowl.

---

We're living in an EST college football biased world. If it's not within driving distance from ESPN's HQ, they're not interested.

ducktilldeath said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

That is just plain stupid.

---

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. Conferences are big now, so the teams do not play equal schedules. Plus there is the question of independents. There should be some way for the best non-champions to also be included.

---

I shouldn't have been rude, I just think it's begging for some really really awful outcomes. The #1 issue that needs to be addressed before anything else matters is the normalization of scheduling, as you alluded. What if Oregon's QB room got the flu the week of the CCG in 2011? We get a 7 loss UCLA in the CFB playoff? That can't ever be a thing. A 9-4 Minnesota upsets an 11-1 Ohio State and now the Gophers are in? We're begging for disaster. I don't like this erosion of college football tradition, but it's time to pull the bandaid off.

---

There should be no conference championship games

GBear4Life said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

That is just plain stupid.

---

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. Conferences are big now, so the teams do not play equal schedules. Plus there is the question of independents. There should be some way for the best non-champions to also be included.

---

I shouldn't have been rude, I just think it's begging for some really really awful outcomes. The #1 issue that needs to be addressed before anything else matters is the normalization of scheduling, as you alluded. What if Oregon's QB room got the flu the week of the CCG in 2011? We get a 7 loss UCLA in the CFB playoff? That can't ever be a thing. A 9-4 Minnesota upsets an 11-1 Ohio State and now the Gophers are in? We're begging for disaster. I don't like this erosion of college football tradition, but it's time to pull the bandaid off.

---

There should be no conference championship games

---

Hell has refrozen

Bear19 said:

---

510 Bear said:

---

Utah got completely screwed. They fall 6 spots after losing to Oregon and end up in the Alamo Bowl vs. Texas, while Virginia gets obliterated and still gets into the Orange Bowl.

---

We're living in an EST college football biased world. If it's not within driving distance from ESPN's HQ, they're not interested.

---

LSU is a pretty long drive from Connecticut.

GBear4Life said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

That is just plain stupid.

---

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. Conferences are big now, so the teams do not play equal schedules. Plus there is the question of independents. There should be some way for the best non-champions to also be included.

---

I shouldn't have been rude, I just think it's begging for some really really awful outcomes. The #1 issue that needs to be addressed before anything else matters is the normalization of scheduling, as you alluded. What if Oregon's QB room got the flu the week of the CCG in 2011? We get a 7 loss UCLA in the CFB playoff? That can't ever be a thing. A 9-4 Minnesota upsets an 11-1 Ohio State and now the Gophers are in? We're begging for disaster. I don't like this erosion of college football tradition, but it's time to pull the bandaid off.

---

There should be no conference championship games

---

**** man, I think the NBA should go to a 58 or whatever game regular season where every team plays every other team home and away and then the playoffs start.

ducktilldeath said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

That is just plain stupid.

---

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. Conferences are big now, so the teams do not play equal schedules. Plus there is the question of independents. There should be some way for the best non-champions to also be included.

---

I shouldn't have been rude, I just think it's begging for some really really awful outcomes. The #1 issue that needs to be addressed before anything else matters is the normalization of scheduling, as you alluded. What if Oregon's QB room got the flu the week of the CCG in 2011? We get a 7 loss UCLA in the CFB playoff? That can't ever be a thing. A 9-4 Minnesota upsets an 11-1 Ohio State and now the Gophers are in? We're begging for disaster. I don't like this erosion of college football tradition, but it's time to pull the bandaid off.

---

There should be no conference championship games

---

**** man, I think the NBA should go to a 58 or whatever game regular season where every team plays every other team home and away and then the playoffs start.

---

The NBA, NFL and MLB do not determine conf/div champions in a one-game do or die before the playoffs, it's based on body of work (W-L)

ducktilldeath said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

That is just plain stupid.

---

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. Conferences are big now, so the teams do not play equal schedules. Plus there is the question of independents. There should be some way for the best non-champions to also be included.

---

I shouldn't have been rude, I just think it's begging for some really really awful outcomes. The #1 issue that needs to be addressed before anything else matters is the normalization of scheduling, as you alluded. What if Oregon's QB room got the flu the week of the CCG in 2011? We get a 7 loss UCLA in the CFB playoff? That can't ever be a thing. A 9-4 Minnesota upsets an 11-1 Ohio State and now the Gophers are in? We're begging for disaster. I don't like this erosion of college football tradition, but it's time to pull the bandaid off.

---

What you are saying is bull**** and intentionally missing the point.

Alabama is the only team to lose its division and therefore the conference and still get in. The alternative isn't a 7 loss team. It's an 11-2 Ohio State coming off a win over a 12-0 team.

If you allow losers to advance, it invalidates the season. With a 2 or 4 team playoff, you have to use SOME objective measure to place teams. But what measure? There are 3 0 loss teams and 7 1 loss teams. How do you place those 10 teams completely subjectively and then claim the system now is better than the BCS, or better than the traditional bowls where we subjectively placed teams #1 and #2?

The goal of the system is an objective result, but then losers of a conference division move forward (along with the conference champion) because... We think they are better and the schedule was hard? How can you claim to be the objective best when you lose head to head against the division winner and conference loser? Bad day?

If this were basketball, sure, have a 128 team tourney. But this is football: the NFL puts winners through, even if the division sucked. They also put through a team with the next best record, even if the division sucked. They don't look at the NFC and say "the AFC was much tougher, so you get no wildcard, and your division champ doesn't go through, we want more AFC teams to be fair." That's idiotic. The Giants never win a super bowl is a 9-7 record. Are they not a legitimate super bowl champion? Honestly, if you think head to head playoff type systems find the best team, who gives a **** what the next conference champ's record is? Win and go forward.

What would be best, IMO, is 8 16 team conferences (or similar if you HAVE to continue the independents). Winners move on to the traditional big 4 bowls. Winners move onto the semi final. Winners move on to the championship game. Regular season matter. Every game matters. Division and conference championships matter. Traditional big bowls matter. Playoff positions are entirely objective and not manipulatable.

But if your argument is a that in the current system a 7 loss team supplants a 1 loss Alabama, that's ridiculous. It's a 2 loss conference winner at #5 supplanting a conference loser at #4. THAT is stupid and should never happen unless we have a playoff with more teams than conferences.

Anyway, having a system that has conference championships and ignores them is a stupid system.

LunchTime said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

That is just plain stupid.

---

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. Conferences are big now, so the teams do not play equal schedules. Plus there is the question of independents. There should be some way for the best non-champions to also be included.

---

I shouldn't have been rude, I just think it's begging for some really really awful outcomes. The #1 issue that needs to be addressed before anything else matters is the normalization of scheduling, as you alluded. What if Oregon's QB room got the flu the week of the CCG in 2011? We get a 7 loss UCLA in the CFB playoff? That can't ever be a thing. A 9-4 Minnesota upsets an 11-1 Ohio State and now the Gophers are in? We're begging for disaster. I don't like this erosion of college football tradition, but it's time to pull the bandaid off.

---

What you are saying is bull**** and intentionally missing the point.

Alabama is the only team to lose its division and therefore the conference and still get in. The alternative isn't a 7 loss team. It's an 11-2 Ohio State coming off a win over a 12-0 team.

If you allow losers to advance, it invalidates the season. With a 2 or 4 team playoff, you have to use SOME objective measure to place teams. But what measure? There are 3 0 loss teams and 7 1 loss teams. How do you place those 10 teams completely subjectively and then claim the system now is better than the BCS, or better than the traditional bowls where we subjectively placed teams #1 and #2?

The goal of the system is an objective result, but then losers of a conference division move forward (along with the conference champion) because... We think they are better and the schedule was hard? How can you claim to be the objective best when you lose head to head against the division winner and conference loser? Bad day?

If this were basketball, sure, have a 128 team tourney. But this is football: the NFL puts winners through, even if the division sucked. They also put through a team with the next best record, even if the division sucked. They don't look at the NFC and say "the AFC was much tougher, so you get no wildcard, and your division champ doesn't go through, we want more AFC teams to be fair." That's idiotic. The Giants never win a super bowl is a 9-7 record. Are they not a legitimate super bowl champion? Honestly, if you think head to head playoff type systems find the best team, who gives a **** what the next conference champ's record is? Win and go forward.

What would be best, IMO, is 8 16 team conferences (or similar if you HAVE to continue the independents). Winners move on to the traditional big 4 bowls. Winners move onto the semi final. Winners move on to the championship game. Regular season matter. Every game matters. Division and conference championships matter. Traditional big bowls matter. Playoff positions are entirely objective and not manipulatable.

But if your argument is a that in the current system a 7 loss team supplants a 1 loss Alabama, that's ridiculous. It's a 2 loss conference winner at #5 supplanting a conference loser at #4. THAT is stupid and should never happen unless we have a playoff with more teams than conferences.

Anyway, having a system that has conference championships and ignores them is a stupid system.

---

The right way to go is a 24-team playoff like FCS has. 10 conference champs, 14 at-large teams.

It's just too bad that the bowl games have their tentacles so far into the system that it won't happen.

BearSD said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

That is just plain stupid.

---

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. Conferences are big now, so the teams do not play equal schedules. Plus there is the question of independents. There should be some way for the best non-champions to also be included.

---

I shouldn't have been rude, I just think it's begging for some really really awful outcomes. The #1 issue that needs to be addressed before anything else matters is the normalization of scheduling, as you alluded. What if Oregon's QB room got the flu the week of the CCG in 2011? We get a 7 loss UCLA in the CFB playoff? That can't ever be a thing. A 9-4 Minnesota upsets an 11-1 Ohio State and now the Gophers are in? We're begging for disaster. I don't like this erosion of college football tradition, but it's time to pull the bandaid off.

---

What you are saying is bull**** and intentionally missing the point.

Alabama is the only team to lose its division and therefore the conference and still get in. The alternative isn't a 7 loss team. It's an 11-2 Ohio State coming off a win over a 12-0 team.

If you allow losers to advance, it invalidates the season. With a 2 or 4 team playoff, you have to use SOME objective measure to place teams. But what measure? There are 3 0 loss teams and 7 1 loss teams. How do you place those 10 teams completely subjectively and then claim the system now is better than the BCS, or better than the traditional bowls where we subjectively placed teams #1 and #2?

The goal of the system is an objective result, but then losers of a conference division move forward (along with the conference champion) because... We think they are better and the schedule was hard? How can you claim to be the objective best when you lose head to head against the division winner and conference loser? Bad day?

If this were basketball, sure, have a 128 team tourney. But this is football: the NFL puts winners through, even if the division sucked. They also put through a team with the next best record, even if the division sucked. They don't look at the NFC and say "the AFC was much tougher, so you get no wildcard, and your division champ doesn't go through, we want more AFC teams to be fair." That's idiotic. The Giants never win a super bowl is a 9-7 record. Are they not a legitimate super bowl champion? Honestly, if you think head to head playoff type systems find the best team, who gives a **** what the next conference champ's record is? Win and go forward.

What would be best, IMO, is 8 16 team conferences (or similar if you HAVE to continue the independents). Winners move on to the traditional big 4 bowls. Winners move onto the semi final. Winners move on to the championship game. Regular season matter. Every game matters. Division and conference championships matter. Traditional big bowls matter. Playoff positions are entirely objective and not manipulatable.

But if your argument is a that in the current system a 7 loss team supplants a 1 loss Alabama, that's ridiculous. It's a 2 loss conference winner at #5 supplanting a conference loser at #4. THAT is stupid and should never happen unless we have a playoff with more teams than conferences.

Anyway, having a system that has conference championships and ignores them is a stupid system.

---

The right way to go is a 24-team playoff like FCS has. 10 conference champs, 14 at-large teams.

It's just too bad that the bowl games have their tentacles so far into the system that it won't happen.

---

My personal hobby-horse is for a 16-team playoff. 10 conference champs, 6 at-large. First two rounds are played at the home stadiums of the higher seeds, then the semifinals and finals at bowl sites as they are now. Other bowls can have guaranteed slots for teams that get knocked out. It would look like this:

1 LSU (13-0)
16 Miami (Ohio) (8-5)

8 Wisconsin (10-3)
9 Florida (10-2)

5 Georgia (11-2)
12 Memphis (12-1)

4 Oklahoma (12-1)
13 Boise State (12-1)

6 Oregon (11-2)
11 Penn State (10-2)

3 Clemson (13-0)
14 Appalachian State (12-1)

7 Baylor (11-2)
10 Utah (11-2)

2 Ohio State (13-0)
15 Florida Atlantic (10-3)

NOTE: Utah and Penn State are swapped to avoid a Pac-12 rematch. It's actually pretty balanced, in that the power conferences all get at least two teams in. There is an incentive to get a higher seed, because you can get a significantly easier matchup in the first round. All teams have a fair shot to get in by winning the conference.

sycasey said:

---

blungld said:

---

sycasey said:

---

JSC 76 said:

---

blungld said:

---

And then 2 independent at larges, who perhaps play each other in the first round automatically so that the semis are always 3 P5 and one independent?

---

There aren't that many independents any more.

---

I'm guessing he means at-larges from the rest of the pool that didn't win a conference.

---

Yes, I meant the five P5 conference winners, one P5 at large, and two non-P5/independents who play each other and then the #1 seed in semi. So this year it might look like this:

LSU/Georgia vs Notre Dame/Memphis
Ohio State/Oregon vs Clemson/Oklahoma

Ideally you would also have a seeding rule where teams from same conference can't play each other in first game. So you reseed and get this?

LSU/Oregon vs Notre Dame/Memphis
Ohio State/Georgia vs Clemson/Oklahoma

---

I think this gives too much advantage to being an independent. It's way easier to win a "division" of only 7 or 8 independent teams (many of them schools that just made the jump to FBS) than to win a major conference. You're basically guaranteeing a slot for Notre Dame every year.

---

I think it includes G5 teams as well as independents.

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

That is just plain stupid.

---

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. Conferences are big now, so the teams do not play equal schedules. Plus there is the question of independents. There should be some way for the best non-champions to also be included.

---

I shouldn't have been rude, I just think it's begging for some really really awful outcomes. The #1 issue that needs to be addressed before anything else matters is the normalization of scheduling, as you alluded. What if Oregon's QB room got the flu the week of the CCG in 2011? We get a 7 loss UCLA in the CFB playoff? That can't ever be a thing. A 9-4 Minnesota upsets an 11-1 Ohio State and now the Gophers are in? We're begging for disaster. I don't like this erosion of college football tradition, but it's time to pull the bandaid off.

---

What you are saying is bull**** and intentionally missing the point.

Alabama is the only team to lose its division and therefore the conference and still get in. The alternative isn't a 7 loss team. It's an 11-2 Ohio State coming off a win over a 12-0 team.

If you allow losers to advance, it invalidates the season. With a 2 or 4 team playoff, you have to use SOME objective measure to place teams. But what measure? There are 3 0 loss teams and 7 1 loss teams. How do you place those 10 teams completely subjectively and then claim the system now is better than the BCS, or better than the traditional bowls where we subjectively placed teams #1 and #2?

The goal of the system is an objective result, but then losers of a conference division move forward (along with the conference champion) because... We think they are better and the schedule was hard? How can you claim to be the objective best when you lose head to head against the division winner and conference loser? Bad day?

If this were basketball, sure, have a 128 team tourney. But this is football: the NFL puts winners through, even if the division sucked. They also put through a team with the next best record, even if the division sucked. They don't look at the NFC and say "the AFC was much tougher, so you get no wildcard, and your division champ doesn't go through, we want more AFC teams to be fair." That's idiotic. The Giants never win a super bowl is a 9-7 record. Are they not a legitimate super bowl champion? Honestly, if you think head to head playoff type systems find the best team, who gives a **** what the next conference champ's record is? Win and go forward.

What would be best, IMO, is 8 16 team conferences (or similar if you HAVE to continue the independents). Winners move on to the traditional big 4 bowls. Winners move onto the semi final. Winners move on to the championship game. Regular season matter. Every game matters. Division and conference championships matter. Traditional big bowls matter. Playoff positions are entirely objective and not manipulatable.

But if your argument is a that in the current system a 7 loss team supplants a 1 loss Alabama, that's ridiculous. It's a 2 loss conference winner at #5 supplanting a conference loser at #4. THAT is stupid and should never happen unless we have a playoff with more teams than conferences.

Anyway, having a system that has conference championships and ignores them is a stupid system.

---

The right way to go is a 24-team playoff like FCS has. 10 conference champs, 14 at-large teams.

It's just too bad that the bowl games have their tentacles so far into the system that it won't happen.

---

My personal hobby-horse is for a 16-team playoff. 10 conference champs, 6 at-large. First two rounds are played at the home stadiums of the higher seeds, then the semifinals and finals at bowl sites as they are now. Other bowls can have guaranteed slots for teams that get knocked out. It would look like this:

1 LSU (13-0)
16 Miami (Ohio) (8-5)

8 Wisconsin (10-3)
9 Florida (10-2)

5 Georgia (11-2)
12 Memphis (12-1)

4 Oklahoma (12-1)
13 Boise State (12-1)

6 Oregon (11-2)
11 Penn State (10-2)

3 Clemson (13-0)
14 Appalachian State (12-1)

7 Baylor (11-2)
10 Utah (11-2)

2 Ohio State (13-0)
15 Florida Atlantic (10-3)

NOTE: Utah and Penn State are swapped to avoid a Pac-12 rematch. It's actually pretty balanced, in that the power conferences all get at least two teams in. There is an incentive to get a higher seed, because you can get a significantly easier matchup in the first round. All teams have a fair shot to get in by winning the conference.

---

IMO, 16 teams is too many (why not go the basketball route and have 64?), because it has to cut the regular season too much. an 8 team playoff with 5 P5 champions, 1 G5 team guaranteed, and 2 at-large which could be an independent (e.g., ND), another G5 team, or at-large teams from P5 conferences (I like the stipulation that no more than 1 at-large from any one conference).

GBear4Life said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

That is just plain stupid.

---

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. Conferences are big now, so the teams do not play equal schedules. Plus there is the question of independents. There should be some way for the best non-champions to also be included.

---

I shouldn't have been rude, I just think it's begging for some really really awful outcomes. The #1 issue that needs to be addressed before anything else matters is the normalization of scheduling, as you alluded. What if Oregon's QB room got the flu the week of the CCG in 2011? We get a 7 loss UCLA in the CFB playoff? That can't ever be a thing. A 9-4 Minnesota upsets an 11-1 Ohio State and now the Gophers are in? We're begging for disaster. I don't like this erosion of college football tradition, but it's time to pull the bandaid off.

---

There should be no conference championship games

---

**** man, I think the NBA should go to a 58 or whatever game regular season where every team plays every other team home and away and then the playoffs start.

---

The NBA, NFL and MLB do not determine conf/div champions in a one-game do or die before the playoffs, it's based on body of work (W-L)

---

Not unreasonable, except in college football you run the risk of 2 or 3 teams tied for the conference championship. Then what? Beauty contest?

UrsaMajor said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearSD said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

That is just plain stupid.

---

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. Conferences are big now, so the teams do not play equal schedules. Plus there is the question of independents. There should be some way for the best non-champions to also be included.

---

I shouldn't have been rude, I just think it's begging for some really really awful outcomes. The #1 issue that needs to be addressed before anything else matters is the normalization of scheduling, as you alluded. What if Oregon's QB room got the flu the week of the CCG in 2011? We get a 7 loss UCLA in the CFB playoff? That can't ever be a thing. A 9-4 Minnesota upsets an 11-1 Ohio State and now the Gophers are in? We're begging for disaster. I don't like this erosion of college football tradition, but it's time to pull the bandaid off.

---

What you are saying is bull**** and intentionally missing the point.

Alabama is the only team to lose its division and therefore the conference and still get in. The alternative isn't a 7 loss team. It's an 11-2 Ohio State coming off a win over a 12-0 team.

If you allow losers to advance, it invalidates the season. With a 2 or 4 team playoff, you have to use SOME objective measure to place teams. But what measure? There are 3 0 loss teams and 7 1 loss teams. How do you place those 10 teams completely subjectively and then claim the system now is better than the BCS, or better than the traditional bowls where we subjectively placed teams #1 and #2?

The goal of the system is an objective result, but then losers of a conference division move forward (along with the conference champion) because... We think they are better and the schedule was hard? How can you claim to be the objective best when you lose head to head against the division winner and conference loser? Bad day?

If this were basketball, sure, have a 128 team tourney. But this is football: the NFL puts winners through, even if the division sucked. They also put through a team with the next best record, even if the division sucked. They don't look at the NFC and say "the AFC was much tougher, so you get no wildcard, and your division champ doesn't go through, we want more AFC teams to be fair." That's idiotic. The Giants never win a super bowl is a 9-7 record. Are they not a legitimate super bowl champion? Honestly, if you think head to head playoff type systems find the best team, who gives a **** what the next conference champ's record is? Win and go forward.

What would be best, IMO, is 8 16 team conferences (or similar if you HAVE to continue the independents). Winners move on to the traditional big 4 bowls. Winners move onto the semi final. Winners move on to the championship game. Regular season matter. Every game matters. Division and conference championships matter. Traditional big bowls matter. Playoff positions are entirely objective and not manipulatable.

But if your argument is a that in the current system a 7 loss team supplants a 1 loss Alabama, that's ridiculous. It's a 2 loss conference winner at #5 supplanting a conference loser at #4. THAT is stupid and should never happen unless we have a playoff with more teams than conferences.

Anyway, having a system that has conference championships and ignores them is a stupid system.

---

The right way to go is a 24-team playoff like FCS has. 10 conference champs, 14 at-large teams.

It's just too bad that the bowl games have their tentacles so far into the system that it won't happen.

---

My personal hobby-horse is for a 16-team playoff. 10 conference champs, 6 at-large. First two rounds are played at the home stadiums of the higher seeds, then the semifinals and finals at bowl sites as they are now. Other bowls can have guaranteed slots for teams that get knocked out. It would look like this:

1 LSU (13-0)
16 Miami (Ohio) (8-5)

8 Wisconsin (10-3)
9 Florida (10-2)

5 Georgia (11-2)
12 Memphis (12-1)

4 Oklahoma (12-1)
13 Boise State (12-1)

6 Oregon (11-2)
11 Penn State (10-2)

3 Clemson (13-0)
14 Appalachian State (12-1)

7 Baylor (11-2)
10 Utah (11-2)

2 Ohio State (13-0)
15 Florida Atlantic (10-3)

NOTE: Utah and Penn State are swapped to avoid a Pac-12 rematch. It's actually pretty balanced, in that the power conferences all get at least two teams in. There is an incentive to get a higher seed, because you can get a significantly easier matchup in the first round. All teams have a fair shot to get in by winning the conference.

---

IMO, 16 teams is too many (why not go the basketball route and have 64?), because it has to cut the regular season too much. an 8 team playoff with 5 P5 champions, 1 G5 team guaranteed, and 2 at-large which could be an independent (e.g., ND), another G5 team, or at-large teams from P5 conferences (I like the stipulation that no more than 1 at-large from any one conference).

---

8 teams certainly seems like the next logical expansion. I'm just going with what I would like to see in an ideal world, and I don't think you have to cut the regular season much (if at all). There is time to play four rounds between the conference championship games and early January.

You wouldn't go the basketball route and have 64 because the FBS division has way fewer teams (130) than all of D1 basketball (351). 16 teams is actually a decent ratio for that and still preserves the idea that regular-season games are very important.

BearSD said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

That is just plain stupid.

---

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. Conferences are big now, so the teams do not play equal schedules. Plus there is the question of independents. There should be some way for the best non-champions to also be included.

---

I shouldn't have been rude, I just think it's begging for some really really awful outcomes. The #1 issue that needs to be addressed before anything else matters is the normalization of scheduling, as you alluded. What if Oregon's QB room got the flu the week of the CCG in 2011? We get a 7 loss UCLA in the CFB playoff? That can't ever be a thing. A 9-4 Minnesota upsets an 11-1 Ohio State and now the Gophers are in? We're begging for disaster. I don't like this erosion of college football tradition, but it's time to pull the bandaid off.

---

What you are saying is bull**** and intentionally missing the point.

Alabama is the only team to lose its division and therefore the conference and still get in. The alternative isn't a 7 loss team. It's an 11-2 Ohio State coming off a win over a 12-0 team.

If you allow losers to advance, it invalidates the season. With a 2 or 4 team playoff, you have to use SOME objective measure to place teams. But what measure? There are 3 0 loss teams and 7 1 loss teams. How do you place those 10 teams completely subjectively and then claim the system now is better than the BCS, or better than the traditional bowls where we subjectively placed teams #1 and #2?

The goal of the system is an objective result, but then losers of a conference division move forward (along with the conference champion) because... We think they are better and the schedule was hard? How can you claim to be the objective best when you lose head to head against the division winner and conference loser? Bad day?

If this were basketball, sure, have a 128 team tourney. But this is football: the NFL puts winners through, even if the division sucked. They also put through a team with the next best record, even if the division sucked. They don't look at the NFC and say "the AFC was much tougher, so you get no wildcard, and your division champ doesn't go through, we want more AFC teams to be fair." That's idiotic. The Giants never win a super bowl is a 9-7 record. Are they not a legitimate super bowl champion? Honestly, if you think head to head playoff type systems find the best team, who gives a **** what the next conference champ's record is? Win and go forward.

What would be best, IMO, is 8 16 team conferences (or similar if you HAVE to continue the independents). Winners move on to the traditional big 4 bowls. Winners move onto the semi final. Winners move on to the championship game. Regular season matter. Every game matters. Division and conference championships matter. Traditional big bowls matter. Playoff positions are entirely objective and not manipulatable.

But if your argument is a that in the current system a 7 loss team supplants a 1 loss Alabama, that's ridiculous. It's a 2 loss conference winner at #5 supplanting a conference loser at #4. THAT is stupid and should never happen unless we have a playoff with more teams than conferences.

Anyway, having a system that has conference championships and ignores them is a stupid system.

---

The right way to go is a 24-team playoff like FCS has. 10 conference champs, 14 at-large teams.

It's just too bad that the bowl games have their tentacles so far into the system that it won't happen.

---

That wouldnt be bad at all. The "Bowls" could still get their games through hosting the 23 games of the playoff (I do like that they play at home stadiums though). The other bowls would have no change anyway.

My point is that with a 2 or 4 or even 8 team playoff, excluding a P5 champion for a team that didnt win its division shouldn't happen. But there are a large list of things wrong with a 2 or 4 team playoff system.

LunchTime said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

They need to create a rule that only conference champions can go to the playoffs.

---

That is just plain stupid.

---

Yeah, I don't agree with that either. Conferences are big now, so the teams do not play equal schedules. Plus there is the question of independents. There should be some way for the best non-champions to also be included.

---

I shouldn't have been rude, I just think it's begging for some really really awful outcomes. The #1 issue that needs to be addressed before anything else matters is the normalization of scheduling, as you alluded. What if Oregon's QB room got the flu the week of the CCG in 2011? We get a 7 loss UCLA in the CFB playoff? That can't ever be a thing. A 9-4 Minnesota upsets an 11-1 Ohio State and now the Gophers are in? We're begging for disaster. I don't like this erosion of college football tradition, but it's time to pull the bandaid off.

---

What you are saying is bull**** and intentionally missing the point.

Alabama is the only team to lose its division and therefore the conference and still get in. The alternative isn't a 7 loss team. It's an 11-2 Ohio State coming off a win over a 12-0 team.

If you allow losers to advance, it invalidates the season. With a 2 or 4 team playoff, you have to use SOME objective measure to place teams. But what measure? There are 3 0 loss teams and 7 1 loss teams. How do you place those 10 teams completely subjectively and then claim the system now is better than the BCS, or better than the traditional bowls where we subjectively placed teams #1 and #2?

The goal of the system is an objective result, but then losers of a conference division move forward (along with the conference champion) because... We think they are better and the schedule was hard? How can you claim to be the objective best when you lose head to head against the division winner and conference loser? Bad day?

If this were basketball, sure, have a 128 team tourney. But this is football: the NFL puts winners through, even if the division sucked. They also put through a team with the next best record, even if the division sucked. They don't look at the NFC and say "the AFC was much tougher, so you get no wildcard, and your division champ doesn't go through, we want more AFC teams to be fair." That's idiotic. The Giants never win a super bowl is a 9-7 record. Are they not a legitimate super bowl champion? Honestly, if you think head to head playoff type systems find the best team, who gives a **** what the next conference champ's record is? Win and go forward.

What would be best, IMO, is 8 16 team conferences (or similar if you HAVE to continue the independents). Winners move on to the traditional big 4 bowls. Winners move onto the semi final. Winners move on to the championship game. Regular season matter. Every game matters. Division and conference championships matter. Traditional big bowls matter. Playoff positions are entirely objective and not manipulatable.

But if your argument is a that in the current system a 7 loss team supplants a 1 loss Alabama, that's ridiculous. It's a 2 loss conference winner at #5 supplanting a conference loser at #4. THAT is stupid and should never happen unless we have a playoff with more teams than conferences.

Anyway, having a system that has conference championships and ignores them is a stupid system.

---

I think you just explained why an expanded playoff does not work. There is no way to adequately and fairly out together a playoff (NFL) system in college football. ESPN guys are advocating for a "commissioner" etc. I mean really there is no way to do it right. At the end of the day everyone will be complaining about how they got screwed, but even more. And the rest of the season whittles away in terms of value and quality and attendance. There are 130 teams. Not possible.

At the end of the day, putting the #1 and #2 in a bowl game was fine. But the continual expansions will end up killing the sport.

I have 12 guys who want to go to the Redbox bowl right now. I am dropping almost 2k in tickets. How is the 4 game playoff going to work?