Revamp the playoffs

[Ree4]

Eight teams.

League champs represented, 3 at large. FCS welcome.

Seed them as they do now.

First round, higher seed gets a home game (as it should be...a reward, keep the money on campus, less travel for fans, Southern teams playing in a cold game.....). Tons of upside to this.

Semis: rotate amongst the "big bowls" as they do now. Keep the seed pairings.

Finals: Sell out to the highest bidder.

No, not all fans can see all three games live. But different ones will see different games IMO.

TV out-sells any butts-in-seats revenues anyway.

As others mentioned this would allow some teams to get in without playing the extra game that conference champions are required to win to get in, which I think is a huge issue with this model. Division winners have to go into a "playoff" style elimination while the other lower ranked teams are gifted a berth? I don't like it. I've been on board with your suggestion in the past but the fairness issue that previous posters brought to light is a huge concern for me.

 

[DDThompson]

Ok tis the time of year to start bitching and moaning about the fake playoff college football has. Why are we leaving out a team like OSU who won the 2nd toughest conference and only lost 1 game?

this new system we have is as faulty as any other system so you’re correct, it needs to be resolved-booted. I’m okay with a 16 team playoff but I think a smaller number than that would suffice.

I’m not sure if you are proposing your perfect world system or what you think can be done. If it’s the latter then you’re trying to bypass the $$$ that runs the system — that is never going to change.

OSU was left out for two reasons: (1) they got punked by Purdue while none of the teams ranked higher got drilled and (2) OSU’s whitewashing of a wife-beater

Why are we matching 2 of the top college football teams up in a Conference championship game, instead of for the title?

Scrap the conference championship games. They are obsolete with 14 team conferences. It is strictly a money grab and it doesn't even determine who makes the playoffs.

So what we do is simple, replace conference championship games with the first round of the playoffs. You don't see the FCS wasting time playing a "championship game", and the only reason they even came about was for money. Well we have a bigger money making opportunity in a opening round 8 game college football playoff slate. Here is how you do it.

-Each P5 conference division winner gets a spot (Big12's top 2 teams make it)
-6 at large bids whomever the committee picks.

First round games are a week after Thanksgiving and replace the conference championship games. Opening round games can only be hosted by teams who won their your division (At large teams have to go on the road). At large teams and the 2 "worst" division winners go on the road. Matchups determined by the committee.

i think there’s a way to accomplish your plan without a couple of downfield problems it contains.

What you’re proposing will basically turn divisions into small conferences. Bad news for some divisions.

(1) $$$ —The Big10 East could push out the low population West states (maybe flip an Indiana for a Wisconsin or Illinois) since it is all about the money — most of the West does not add to the pot.

(2) What’s the point of having a conference if there will not be a conference champion?

Just make the conference championships “the first round game” and then:

(A) three teams selected to fill out an 8-team playoff with pre-determined criteria to get an at-large bid. Yes, it may not be “fair” since some teams may not play a 13th game. Then make the criteria steep enough that it can hurt.

It’s not about equality as much as itn is everyone knowing beforehand what they need to do to make the playoffs. That’s the fair thing.

Or

(B) six at-large teams selected based on pre-determined criteria have play-in games on championship weekend.

 

[deanvogs]

this new system wenhave is as faulty as any other system so you’re correct, it needs to be resolved-booted. I’m okay with a 16 team playoff but I think a smaller number than that would suffice.

I’m not sure if you are proposing your perfect world system or what you think can be done. If it’s the latter then you’re trying to bypass the $$$ that runs the system — that is never going to change.

OSU was left out for two reasons: (1) they got punked by Purdue while none of the teams ranked higher got drilled and (2) OSU’s whitewashing of a wide-beater

i think there’s a way to accomplish your plan without a couple of downfield problems it contains.

What you’re proposing will basically turn divisions into small conferences. Bad news for some divisions.

(1) $$$ —The Big10 East could push out the low population West states (maybe flip an Indiana for a Wisconsin or Illinois) since it is all about the money — most of the West does not add to the pot.

(2) What’s the point of having a conference if there will not be a conference champion?

Just make the conference championships “the first round game” and then:

(A) three teams selected to fill out an 8-team playoff with pre-determined criteria to get an at-large bid. Yes, it may not be “fair” since some teams may not play a 13th game. Then make the criteria steep enough that it can hurt.

It’s not about equality as much as itn is everyone knowing beforehand what they need to do to make the playoffs. That’s the fair thing.

Or

(B) six at-large teams selected based on pre-determined criteria have play-in games on championship weekend.

This is why I proposed that conference CG just go away. It is really the other "unfair" thing about the playoffs, the inequities of the strength of divisions. Yet we saw briefly how bad it was in the B1G when they gerrymandered the conference and broke up the regional conference. Just like in the NFL it is based regionally for both rivalry reasons and travel reasons.

Yet it really is unfair in a playoff system that Bama has to play Georgia right away and Clemson gets Pitt or OSU gets NW. I am fine with Pitt and NW because they in essence won their regional division, but they should be fodder for the #1 and #2 seeds, not automatically its other conference division winner.

Listen I know that nothing like what I proposed would ever happen, I"m just throwing it out there to get more teams in, give every program a shot at the playoffs, and trying to still keep it top heavy where the best teams do end up advancing because they should rightfully get advantages for being the best teams (like the NFL getting home field, the "easiest opponent", etc).

 

[oldhawk12]

There really should only be two teams this year. The rest are pretending

 

[Seth53]

As others mentioned this would allow some teams to get in without playing the extra game that conference champions are required to win to get in, which I think is a huge issue with this model. Division winners have to go into a "playoff" style elimination while the other lower ranked teams are gifted a berth? I don't like it. I've been on board with your suggestion in the past but the fairness issue that previous posters brought to light is a huge concern for me.

I would think that perhaps one if not two of the at large teams might be the losers in their respective conference games.

And the team which doesn't play that 13th data point is probably going to get the 8th seed anyway.

If you don't take conference champs then it's time to do away with the game. It's a money grab and apparently meaningless regarding the playoffs (i.e. see the B1G).

 

[Ree4]

I would think that perhaps one if not two of the at large teams might be the losers in their respective conference games.

And the team which doesn't play that 13th data point is probably going to get the 8th seed anyway.

If you don't take conference champs then it's time to do away with the game. It's a money grab and apparently meaningless regarding the playoffs (i.e. see the B1G).

Yeah that's why I said losers of conference championships are already eliminated - they cannot be at large teams

 

[DDThompson]

There really should only be two teams this year. The rest are pretending

not true. Football is a fickle game.

Georgia was dominating and then the “best college QB that has ever lived” got hurt and then Hurst got some divine justice.

Well that, And then there’s the Georgia-dumber-than-any-KF-game-decision” decision.

 

[DDThompson]

I would think that perhaps one if not two of the at large teams might be the losers in their respective conference games.

And the team which doesn't play that 13th data point is probably going to get the 8th seed anyway.

If you don't take conference champs then it's time to do away with the game. It's a money grab and apparently meaningless regarding the playoffs (i.e. see the B1G).

The solution is, they have to take conference champions.

it doesn’t make sense to have conferences with no champion. Participation ribbons for everyone! Might as well just do away with conferences and go independent

And, the entire sport of college football is a money grab — not just conference championship games.

 

[DDThompson]

If the Big10 wanted balanced conferences they could have aligned balanced conferences.

They didn’t want to.

They wanted Ohio State, Michigan, or Penn State going up against West Division fodder so one of those blue bloods 95% of the time would be the Big10 conference champion/CFP representative.

The reasons why the Big10 champions have been left out the last three seasons boil down to a couple of things:

(1) Penn State and Ohio State have been boat-raced in a regular season game:

OSU to an above-average offense-handicapped Iowa team and to a average Purdue team while Penn State to a good Michigan squad.

But no other conference champions were hammered like these two during those seasons.

Since the CFP committee has said all along they are looking for the best four teams I would agree with them that a top 4 should never be hammered like they were a member of the Sun Belt.

(2) The after-effects of scandal. And I’m okay with that, too.

If we’re going to be concerned that a Big10 champ is not in the CFP we should also be concerned about the bad publicity that will focus on a conference champ that were all about winning and covering up crimes that damaged human beings.

 

[deanvogs]

I'd rather just go back to having the top 2 teams play, than what we have now.

 

[Xerxes]

I think the playoff should be 6 teams. Each P5 champion and one independent/mid-major chosen by the committee. Committee seeds them. Play it just like the nfl. Top 2 seeds get a bye, 3 plays 6 and 4 plays 5 and so on.

That would keep the tradition of a vital regular season in place, possibly force NDs hand to join a conference, give UCF and others a crack at things, and make all the conference championship games “playoff” games as well because those money grabs are never going away

 

[DDThompson]

I think the playoff should be 6 teams. Each P5 champion and one independent/mid-major chosen by the committee. Committee seeds them. Play it just like the nfl. Top 2 seeds get a bye, 3 plays 6 and 4 plays 5 and so on.

That would keep the tradition of a vital regular season in place, possibly force NDs hand to join a conference, give UCF and others a crack at things, and make all the conference championship games “playoff” games as well because those money grabs are never going away

I'm good with this, too.

I'd put two qualifiers on this:
(1) a pre-determined criteria determines seeding -- not a committee
(2) the independent/G5 cannot host a game

 

[oldhawk12]

not true. Football is a fickle game.

Georgia was dominating and then the “best college QB that has ever lived” got hurt and then Hurst got some divine justice.

Well that, And then there’s the Georgia-dumber-than-any-KF-game-decision” decision.

Georgia should be in the playoffs in my world. They are the third best team

 

[DDThompson]

Georgia should be in the playoffs in my world. They are the third best team

I agree. And the difference between 1 and 3 is a *doit* HC decision