(03-05-2018 11:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:46 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Nice strawman, I never said anything about a 68-team tournament in football. You and I both know that's not realistically possible. I said why can't we have a tournament that includes all conference champions and at-larges? Why can't we have that?

No strawman, you just got caught up on my referencing 68 teams when the answer to your question was there as well: including all conference champs is only rational if the playoffs also includes conference non-champs who are at least as likely to win the playoffs as the worst conference champs.

IOW's, it makes no sense to include the Sun Belt champ unless we also include the category of at-large teams that are better.

For football, that probably means a 32-team playoff, as there are probably 20 or so teams each year that don't win their conference that are as good or better than some of the G5 champs.

A 16-team playoff wouldn't work at all, as 5 at larges is far too few.

So a 32-team playoff would do it - accommodate all conference champs while including all at-large with a reasonable chance to win.

BUT, a 32-team playoff would stretch the bounds of feasible, and would require a radical change to the post-season, so we have to look at costs and benefits of doing so.

Competitively, the current CFP is deficient, in that it excludes teams that are 5-8 that could conceivably win the playoffs if included (e.g., Ohio State this year). So the first order of business in expanding the playoffs would be to include those teams, not G5 champs.

Now your spouting complete gibberish again. “Five is too few at larges”? The current system you’ve defended like your life depended on it only has 4 TOTAL participants. There are reasons a 16 team playoff won’t happen—but too few “at larges” isn’t the reason. Eight with the P5 champs andthe top G5 as an AQ is the best reasonable answer. Not too big, with a viable path for all, plus 2 wildcards to guaranteei that #1 and #2 always get in regardless of upsets in the CCG. The key to me is creating a path where you can win your way into the pla6off without help from the ice skating judges.

You misunderstood completely, as you are prone to do. I wasn't saying that a 16-team playoff would be worse than what we have now - it would be better. But it wouldn't be perfect either, which was what i was explaining.

Your 8-team playoff is better than what we currently have as well, but it also doesn't do what you want it to do: A committee will have to pick the "top G5", so G5 schools will still not have what you say is "key", the ability to win their way into the playoff, because in the end, the decision will be made by ice skating judges.

True. But at least there is a viable path to the playoff. Its not ideal, but I can live with treating the entire G5 as a single AQ conference. When you figure all the other issues involved in expanding the FBS playoff (bowls, length of season, venues, spring studies for students, etc)--8-teams starts to look like the best all around compromise.

For money purposes and NY6 participation, the G5 is already treated like one giant P conference. The money share that the G5 gets is about the same as what a single P5 gets, and just as each P5 is guaranteed that its champ plays in an NY6, so too the top G5 team also plays in the NY6.

What you want is something not even the P5 have, a guaranteed slot in the playoffs. Just ask the PAC and B1G this year if P5 champs are guaranteed that.

Also, seems like your stance is self-serving, because probably 50% of the time or more, it is the AAC champ that will be the top G5 team, so that playoff spot becomes a quasi-AAC playoff slot. No wonder you can live with it and fans of other G5 conferences disagree about it.