hawkeyes87
Well-Known Member
You still haven't included the Group of 5- Mountain West, MAC, etc (Group of 5 are FBS, not FCS)
How About This For An 8 Team CFP?
- Thread starter Fryowa
- Start date
AreWeThereYet
Well-Known Member
I think this is confusing people. "An Alabama or Clemson bitching because they're better than NDSU but they came in second in their conference? Too bad...they had a way in and didn't make it." Is there an NDSU besides the Bison. How did they sneak into contention.
NCHawker
Well-Known Member
I think in time it will go to 8. For now 4 is very lucrative. Once every 20 years or so someone seeded 5-8 will make it to the final.
Their goal was to get the best 2 teams in the 'ship and it has worked.
They got it right last year by picking Alabama to be in.
They got it right when they put OSU in - and they won it all.
I think people roll their eyes when a P5 team gets in and gets destroyed...MSU in 2015 and would have been Iowa had Iowa won the B1G instead of MSU. People want to see competitive playoff games.
Their goal was to get the best 2 teams in the 'ship and it has worked.
They got it right last year by picking Alabama to be in.
They got it right when they put OSU in - and they won it all.
I think people roll their eyes when a P5 team gets in and gets destroyed...MSU in 2015 and would have been Iowa had Iowa won the B1G instead of MSU. People want to see competitive playoff games.
If you go to 8, people will still complain and say it should be 12,14,16.
The problem with any fcs team is sos. If they really want to play in the championship, they have one option, absolutely load up on tough top notch non cons. Because I have no doubt if UCF had beaten OSU, Stanford, Alabama in non cons and then went undefeated they should have been invited.
That doesn't sound fair? Look at who we play week in and week out.. except even then our easy games like Maryland or Purdue, are a heck of a lot harder than whatever their easy games are and possibly close to their hardest conf games. You don't think Purdue could go to the fcs and clean house??
What you are advocating is a team that plays a schedule like our non con and wins it all is somehow in the same realm as one who plays and beats Wisconsin, , Michigan, PSU, OSU??? I don't think so.
The problem with any fcs team is sos. If they really want to play in the championship, they have one option, absolutely load up on tough top notch non cons. Because I have no doubt if UCF had beaten OSU, Stanford, Alabama in non cons and then went undefeated they should have been invited.
That doesn't sound fair? Look at who we play week in and week out.. except even then our easy games like Maryland or Purdue, are a heck of a lot harder than whatever their easy games are and possibly close to their hardest conf games. You don't think Purdue could go to the fcs and clean house??
What you are advocating is a team that plays a schedule like our non con and wins it all is somehow in the same realm as one who plays and beats Wisconsin, , Michigan, PSU, OSU??? I don't think so.
Last edited:
hawkeyes87
Well-Known Member
UCF is not FCS.
UCF is FBS Group of 5.
FCS is North Dakota State, James Madison, etc. Used to be called Division I-AA.
And, as I said, I still don't understand why any playoff talk would include NDSU but not UCF.
It doesn't matter the conference the same rules and logic should apply. If UCF, NDSU, or anyone wants to be considered, they should have to have a brutal 3 game stretch of non cons. Every p5 deals with it in conference almost every year. Maybe some years are a little easier, but in general terms.
DunderMifflinHk
Well-Known Member
I posted the following a couple years ago:
“Select the top 8 teams in the country no matter what conference they are in. Use the committee and add some sort of RPI-like component to help rank the teams. The RPI wouldn't be the deciding factor, just a metric that the committee looks at so its not all just the eyeball test. Elite 8 and Final 4 rounds are played at the higher seeds home immediately after the conference championship games. This ensures fans can attend games and it rewards teams for their regular season performance. This would help to keep the regular season relevant. Teams that lose in the Elite 8 and Final 4 are guaranteed a New Years 6 Bowl. The final two play for the National Championship. This keeps the bowls alive and gives college football a true playoff.”
“Select the top 8 teams in the country no matter what conference they are in. Use the committee and add some sort of RPI-like component to help rank the teams. The RPI wouldn't be the deciding factor, just a metric that the committee looks at so its not all just the eyeball test. Elite 8 and Final 4 rounds are played at the higher seeds home immediately after the conference championship games. This ensures fans can attend games and it rewards teams for their regular season performance. This would help to keep the regular season relevant. Teams that lose in the Elite 8 and Final 4 are guaranteed a New Years 6 Bowl. The final two play for the National Championship. This keeps the bowls alive and gives college football a true playoff.”
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Try this: take it to 16 teams. Include all conference champions. Whatever is left, i.e., six teams since there are currently 10 conferences, is left to a formula of some kind. Use the top 16 (in terms of payout) bowls for the playoffs. Use the rest of the bowls for a week of "non-CFP" games during an off-week for the playoffs.
Start the season Labor Day weekend, with no "bye" weeks. CCGs are Thanksgiving weekend or the week before (depending on the year). Next week the playoff start. Third weekend/week in December is the time for "loser" bowls, then resume with "Final Four" the following week. Championship game takes place right around NY Day.
This year it would look like:
September 1, 8, 15, 22, 29==Weeks 1 through 5
October 6, 13, 20, 27==Weeks 6 through 9
November 3, 10, 17==Weeks 10 through 12
November 24==CCGs
December 1==Round of 16
December 8==Round of 8
December 15==Final 4
December 22/surrounding dates==Loser bowls
December 29==CFP CG
Now the only thing left is figuring out the six at-large teams, and how to deal with the four independents listed on the ESPN College Football site, Army, BYU, ND and UMass...as well as seeding the 16 teams.
Some rules for at-large teams might include that they must have played for CCG OR have lost ONLY to a participant in their respective CCG OR another CFP participant. An example would have been Alabama last year, OSU the year before, etc. A CCG loser should not be able to get in with more than two losses, perhaps. Maybe require any "independent" the same, i.e., two losses or less.
Also, unless doing it on a rotation basis, "loser" bowls would be reevaluated every five years, maybe even bidding out sites/games, etc., with a chance to move up to "playoff" bowl status.
Alternatively, move the "loser" bowls up a couple weeks earlier so as to incorporate the "good" bowls for the playoffs closer to "traditional" bowl season. Another take would be to have 8 of the CCG winners as "guaranteed" hosts for first round, and knock out a few more :loser" bowls from the scenario. Come to think of it, would eliminating the bowl system be that big a deal? Just let the "Elite Eight" be played in the four traditional /original "grandaddy" bowls, i.e, Rose, Orange, Sugar and Cotton (sorry, Fiesta, you were always a poser, and nobody wants to do CFP bowls in Arizona, anyway). Let the rest of the bowls fight it out to sponsor the playoff games.
Frankly, a "hybrid" bowl/CFP system like the one currently in place won't survive beyond, probably, an eight-team playoff. It might not even survive an eight-team playoff, given that moving most of the bowls to early- or mid-December would ruin them. And while I like seeing the Hawks in bowl games, we are well past the time when playing in the Insight Bowl, Liberty Bowl, etc., is "productive" for a football program. No P5 program is waiting anxiously on that Pinstripe Bowl payout to cover next week's payroll, presumably.
Now all that's left is to see how the networks/media can screw it up...
Start the season Labor Day weekend, with no "bye" weeks. CCGs are Thanksgiving weekend or the week before (depending on the year). Next week the playoff start. Third weekend/week in December is the time for "loser" bowls, then resume with "Final Four" the following week. Championship game takes place right around NY Day.
This year it would look like:
September 1, 8, 15, 22, 29==Weeks 1 through 5
October 6, 13, 20, 27==Weeks 6 through 9
November 3, 10, 17==Weeks 10 through 12
November 24==CCGs
December 1==Round of 16
December 8==Round of 8
December 15==Final 4
December 22/surrounding dates==Loser bowls
December 29==CFP CG
Now the only thing left is figuring out the six at-large teams, and how to deal with the four independents listed on the ESPN College Football site, Army, BYU, ND and UMass...as well as seeding the 16 teams.
Some rules for at-large teams might include that they must have played for CCG OR have lost ONLY to a participant in their respective CCG OR another CFP participant. An example would have been Alabama last year, OSU the year before, etc. A CCG loser should not be able to get in with more than two losses, perhaps. Maybe require any "independent" the same, i.e., two losses or less.
Also, unless doing it on a rotation basis, "loser" bowls would be reevaluated every five years, maybe even bidding out sites/games, etc., with a chance to move up to "playoff" bowl status.
Alternatively, move the "loser" bowls up a couple weeks earlier so as to incorporate the "good" bowls for the playoffs closer to "traditional" bowl season. Another take would be to have 8 of the CCG winners as "guaranteed" hosts for first round, and knock out a few more :loser" bowls from the scenario. Come to think of it, would eliminating the bowl system be that big a deal? Just let the "Elite Eight" be played in the four traditional /original "grandaddy" bowls, i.e, Rose, Orange, Sugar and Cotton (sorry, Fiesta, you were always a poser, and nobody wants to do CFP bowls in Arizona, anyway). Let the rest of the bowls fight it out to sponsor the playoff games.
Frankly, a "hybrid" bowl/CFP system like the one currently in place won't survive beyond, probably, an eight-team playoff. It might not even survive an eight-team playoff, given that moving most of the bowls to early- or mid-December would ruin them. And while I like seeing the Hawks in bowl games, we are well past the time when playing in the Insight Bowl, Liberty Bowl, etc., is "productive" for a football program. No P5 program is waiting anxiously on that Pinstripe Bowl payout to cover next week's payroll, presumably.
Now all that's left is to see how the networks/media can screw it up...
SpiderRico
Well-Known Member
I've always been a fan of the 6 team model. Take the 5 P5 conference champs and the highest rated G5 team. Put them in rank order from 1-6. Teams 1 and 2 get a bye. Team 3 plays 6 at 3's home stadium and 4 plays 5 at 4's home stadium. Winner of 3/6 plays the 2 and the winner of 4/5 plays the 1 in the semi-final with the winners playing in the championship.
This model does the following:
1. Forces Notre Dame to join a freaking conference.
2. Gives a G5 team a seat at the table
3. Ensures that conference championships do, in fact, matter
4. Has the possibility of forcing an SEC/ACC team to travel north to play in inclement weather
5. Helps keep the regular season extremely relevant (as opposed to a 16 team playoff)
This model does the following:
1. Forces Notre Dame to join a freaking conference.
2. Gives a G5 team a seat at the table
3. Ensures that conference championships do, in fact, matter
4. Has the possibility of forcing an SEC/ACC team to travel north to play in inclement weather
5. Helps keep the regular season extremely relevant (as opposed to a 16 team playoff)
Fryowa
Administrator
Unless I'm reading your post incorrectly, this would potentially be a 17 game season with no bye weeks for teams in the playoffs. NCAA would never go for that.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Yeah, since the 15/16 game seasons some teams play now are so outrageous...
Fryowa
Administrator
I want this almost as much as I want a qualifying playoff.
It should be like pro sports; here's your goal (win the division (conference) and you earn a spot in the post season. No opinion, no bias, no unfairness.
Who gives a F about some idiotic popularity contest poll and whether a bunch of writers and coaches think a team they don't know anything about is 6th or 7th or 14th best in the country?
Fryowa
Administrator
Can you give me an example of a college team that plays 16 games?
15 games with 5 bye weeks (under the current system) is a whole lot different than 17 games with 1 bye (in your example no bye until Dec 22).
Last edited:
Nobody in college football plays 16 games in a season, and only a maximum of two will play 15 each year. While the argument is "it's just 1-2 more games", that adds up when players are already getting beat up over the course of a season
Fryowa
Administrator
If anything the season will get shorter, starting with the Noonecares Football League.
Motigerhawk
Well-Known Member
8 team playoff
5 conference champs
3 wild cards
One of the WCs is a Other 5 school.
last year you would have had:
Ohio St
Clemson
Georgia
Oklahoma
Alabama
USC
Wisconsin
UCF
#1 Clemson v. #8 UCF
#2 Oklahoma v. #7 Wisconsin
#3 Georgia v. #6 USC
#4 Alabama v. #5 Ohio St.
3 games instead of 2 for the participants.
Start a week before the now semi final games.
Kids are on break. So school not a problem.
5 conference champs
3 wild cards
One of the WCs is a Other 5 school.
last year you would have had:
Ohio St
Clemson
Georgia
Oklahoma
Alabama
USC
Wisconsin
UCF
#1 Clemson v. #8 UCF
#2 Oklahoma v. #7 Wisconsin
#3 Georgia v. #6 USC
#4 Alabama v. #5 Ohio St.
3 games instead of 2 for the participants.
Start a week before the now semi final games.
Kids are on break. So school not a problem.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
If a team plays one of those "classic" games, they have the possibility of playing that, plus the 12, plus CCG, plus 2 CFP games. That's 16 games.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
That works, too. I just figured with a 16-team playoff EVERY conference champ is "in", whether P5 or Other5. Sort of like the b-ball tournament, i.e., every "champion", whether by regular season or tournament, is in the NCAA Tournament.
You mean like the Cowboy's classic or the Chick-Fil-A Kickoff Classic? No, that's false. Those all count towards a team's 12-game regular season (ex: Michigan this past year played in it and only had 12 games + bowl game for a total of 13).
The ONLY possible way for a team to play 16 games is if they have Hawaii (or be Hawaii themselves) on their schedule, since there is a special clause in NCAA rules that allow teams traveling to (or from) Hawaii to schedule one more game to pay for extra travel costs. Then they would have to play in a conference with a championship game, play in said championship game, and then make it into the playoff and win their semifinal game. Obviously, since it is such a specific set of circumstances, it has never happened and likely never will.
As it stands, there is only 5 teams (2 each year from 2014 to now minus OU, Bama, and OSU once each for not playing in a CCG) who have ever played a 15 game season, and with concerns about player safety and CTE mounting, I think it's likely we see calls for shortening the season in the coming years.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
So in other words, even an 8-team playoff is bad, and the case can be made that the old bowl system and "on-paper" champions were better. Less games, less injury and CTE exposure.
11-game seasons and the old traditional bowl tie-ins would work for me. That, and cutting back to 24 bowls (48 teams in bowls would equal 37% of FBS teams making bowls) would make it good again. Require 8-game conference schedules, limit one FCS opponent every three years and require it to be same-state (i.e., no Iowa vs. West Wyoming School for the Uncoordinated, but Iowa vs. UNI is permitted), and maximum of four teams from one conference getting bowl bids. And teams could not "jump" a conference member unless you had something like a "if a conference has six eligible bowl teams with the the bottom three being tied, conference can award to team or teams with less recent bowl appearance."
I would actually be fine with all of that.
