I have struggled with finding a way to have the college football playoff include all teams with a reasonable chance of winning, reward conference champions, give realistic access to G5 schools, and not extend the pre-bowl season any later than it already is.

This is my proposed solution. Before making up your mind as to its merits, please first read all of it, not just the first paragraph or two.

Step 1 is to do away with all conference championship games (thus, my request in the previous paragraph). Allow each conference to determine its champion according to its own rules. That includes scheduling models, which may or may not include divisions or pods.

Step 2: End the regular season the weekend prior to Thanksgiving, in order to allow for two playoff rounds before the Final Four games at New Year's.

Step 3: Select a 12 team field, as follows.

The four highest ranked conference champions (including champions of G5 conferences) will receive a first round bye, and will host a second round game on their home field one week after the first round games.

First round hosts will include:

Any remaining P5 champion
Any G5 champion or Independent ranked between #5-12
or
The highest ranked G5 champion if no other has already qualified

If all four hosts are not determined by the above, the remaining spots are filled with the highest ranked P5 teams, regardless of conference.

The remaining four teams will be selected as follows:

The highest ranked remaining G5 team will visit the G5 host.
If no G5 is ranked in the Top 12, the higher ranked team will host.

The last three spots will go to the highest ranked P5 teams not
already selected.

Using these criteria, every P5 champion will be included. The G5 will be guaranteed 2 of the 12 spots, and may qualify for a third by having a champion ranked in the Top 4. The G5 is also guaranteed a spot in the Final 8. No team ranked in the Top 8 is likely to ever be left out. There would no longer be designated "access bowls". G5 playoff teams who fail to reach the Final Four will be available to fill any conference bowl tie-ins.

There would be no selection committee. Other than in the first round G5 game, all pairings will be seeded by rank, using an agreed upon existing poll or ranking service, or some combination of polls such as the AP plus Coaches poll.

Conferences will be adequately compensated for the loss of their CCG by the increased payout for the expanded playoff. To avoid complaints about having too many teams from one conference, or about inequitable revenue splits because of different conference sizes, I would suggest that the teams in the P5 (including Notre Dame) split 75% of the revenue, with each school, not conference, getting an equal share (after deducting travel costs for the participants). In similar fashion, each G5 school gets an equal share of the remaining 25%.

If it's necessary for all schools to finish their 12 game schedule before Thanksgiving, start the season a week earlier, when fans are already jonesing for a football fix, and ESPN is salivating for more content.

OK. Now that you've read the entire proposal, give me your best shot.

(06-19-2014 10:07 AM)ken d Wrote:  I have struggled with finding a way to have the college football playoff include all teams with a reasonable chance of winning, reward conference champions, give realistic access to G5 schools, and not extend the pre-bowl season any later than it already is.

This is my proposed solution. Before making up your mind as to its merits, please first read all of it, not just the first paragraph or two.

Step 1 is to do away with all conference championship games (thus, my request in the previous paragraph). Allow each conference to determine its champion according to its own rules. That includes scheduling models, which may or may not include divisions or pods.

Step 2: End the regular season the weekend prior to Thanksgiving, in order to allow for two playoff rounds before the Final Four games at New Year's.

Step 3: Select a 12 team field, as follows.

The four highest ranked conference champions (including champions of G5 conferences) will receive a first round bye, and will host a second round game on their home field one week after the first round games.

First round hosts will include:

Any remaining P5 champion
Any G5 champion or Independent ranked between #5-12
or
The highest ranked G5 champion if no other has already qualified

If all four hosts are not determined by the above, the remaining spots are filled with the highest ranked P5 teams, regardless of conference.

The remaining four teams will be selected as follows:

The highest ranked remaining G5 team will visit the G5 host.
If no G5 is ranked in the Top 12, the higher ranked team will host.

The last three spots will go to the highest ranked P5 teams not
already selected.

Using these criteria, every P5 champion will be included. The G5 will be guaranteed 2 of the 12 spots, and may qualify for a third by having a champion ranked in the Top 4. The G5 is also guaranteed a spot in the Final 8. No team ranked in the Top 8 is likely to ever be left out. There would no longer be designated "access bowls". G5 playoff teams who fail to reach the Final Four will be available to fill any conference bowl tie-ins.

There would be no selection committee. Other than in the first round G5 game, all pairings will be seeded by rank, using an agreed upon existing poll or ranking service, or some combination of polls such as the AP plus Coaches poll.

Conferences will be adequately compensated for the loss of their CCG by the increased payout for the expanded playoff. To avoid complaints about having too many teams from one conference, or about inequitable revenue splits because of different conference sizes, I would suggest that the teams in the P5 (including Notre Dame) split 75% of the revenue, with each school, not conference, getting an equal share (after deducting travel costs for the participants). In similar fashion, each G5 school gets an equal share of the remaining 25%.

If it's necessary for all schools to finish their 12 game schedule before Thanksgiving, start the season a week earlier, when fans are already jonesing for a football fix, and ESPN is salivating for more content.

OK. Now that you've read the entire proposal, give me your best shot.

I can't think of a playoff or non-playoff proposal I've seen that I more disagree with. I pretty much dislike everything you have proposed-points 1, 2, selection process worse than even the BCS, adding more runnerups, revenue split, pairing that doesn't try to limit rematches.

Note that most of what you want can be achieved by simply having an 8 team playoff starting the 2nd week of December (the alternative is to use NYD as quarterfinals).

But I commend you. It took a lot of thought to come up with something so thoroughly disagreeable.

12 is too big at least overnight. I'd prefer to move towards a 6 team model in the semi-short term. But let's give the 4 team model a couple of years to actually be played first. My 6 team model is the same as the new 4 team model just with the top 2 getting 1st round byes. I also think 6 is the most that is really needed most years.

Naw, 8 teams. The five P5 Champions plus the three highest ranked teams that are not P5 champs.

(06-19-2014 11:14 AM)brista21 Wrote:  12 is too big at least overnight. I'd prefer to move towards a 6 team model in the semi-short term. But let's give the 4 team model a couple of years to actually be played first. My 6 team model is the same as the new 4 team model just with the top 2 getting 1st round byes. I also think 6 is the most that is really needed most years.

Agree. I think the 6 team (top two getting a bye) format will be the next step to ensure each P5 champ is represented. I think it then ultimately goes to 8 and doesn't expand beyond that.

5 P5 Champs
3 At-Large (or depending on autonomy/Div IV - maybe 1 G5 Champ and 2 At-Large)

If the Number is 12.

10 FBS conference champions
2 At Large

(06-19-2014 11:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 10:07 AM)ken d Wrote:  I have struggled with finding a way to have the college football playoff include all teams with a reasonable chance of winning, reward conference champions, give realistic access to G5 schools, and not extend the pre-bowl season any later than it already is.

This is my proposed solution. Before making up your mind as to its merits, please first read all of it, not just the first paragraph or two.

Step 1 is to do away with all conference championship games (thus, my request in the previous paragraph). Allow each conference to determine its champion according to its own rules. That includes scheduling models, which may or may not include divisions or pods.

Step 2: End the regular season the weekend prior to Thanksgiving, in order to allow for two playoff rounds before the Final Four games at New Year's.

Step 3: Select a 12 team field, as follows.

The four highest ranked conference champions (including champions of G5 conferences) will receive a first round bye, and will host a second round game on their home field one week after the first round games.

First round hosts will include:

Any remaining P5 champion
Any G5 champion or Independent ranked between #5-12
or
The highest ranked G5 champion if no other has already qualified

If all four hosts are not determined by the above, the remaining spots are filled with the highest ranked P5 teams, regardless of conference.

The remaining four teams will be selected as follows:

The highest ranked remaining G5 team will visit the G5 host.
If no G5 is ranked in the Top 12, the higher ranked team will host.

The last three spots will go to the highest ranked P5 teams not
already selected.

Using these criteria, every P5 champion will be included. The G5 will be guaranteed 2 of the 12 spots, and may qualify for a third by having a champion ranked in the Top 4. The G5 is also guaranteed a spot in the Final 8. No team ranked in the Top 8 is likely to ever be left out. There would no longer be designated "access bowls". G5 playoff teams who fail to reach the Final Four will be available to fill any conference bowl tie-ins.

There would be no selection committee. Other than in the first round G5 game, all pairings will be seeded by rank, using an agreed upon existing poll or ranking service, or some combination of polls such as the AP plus Coaches poll.

Conferences will be adequately compensated for the loss of their CCG by the increased payout for the expanded playoff. To avoid complaints about having too many teams from one conference, or about inequitable revenue splits because of different conference sizes, I would suggest that the teams in the P5 (including Notre Dame) split 75% of the revenue, with each school, not conference, getting an equal share (after deducting travel costs for the participants). In similar fashion, each G5 school gets an equal share of the remaining 25%.

If it's necessary for all schools to finish their 12 game schedule before Thanksgiving, start the season a week earlier, when fans are already jonesing for a football fix, and ESPN is salivating for more content.

OK. Now that you've read the entire proposal, give me your best shot.

I can't think of a playoff or non-playoff proposal I've seen that I more disagree with. I pretty much dislike everything you have proposed-points 1, 2, selection process worse than even the BCS, adding more runnerups, revenue split, pairing that doesn't try to limit rematches.

Note that most of what you want can be achieved by simply having an 8 team playoff starting the 2nd week of December (the alternative is to use NYD as quarterfinals).

But I commend you. It took a lot of thought to come up with something so thoroughly disagreeable.

Thanks for your vote of confidence.

Let's take last year as an example of how the pairings would have gone, using the BCS ranking for seeding.

First round matchups:
#10 Oregon at #3 Alabama
#9 South Carolina at #6 Baylor
#8 Missouri at #7 Ohio State
#20 Fresno at #15 UCF

Assuming that form holds, and the higher seed wins each first round game, second round pairings are:
#15 UCF at #1 Florida St
#7 Ohio State @ #2 Auburn
#6 Baylor at #4 Michigan State
#3 Alabama at #5 Stanford

Obviously, favorites won't always win, so some rematches are possible. They are now. But why should a team be penalized with a less favorable matchup just for the sake of not pairing two teams from the same conference? The playoff isn't conference versus conference, it is team versus team.

The main rationale for limiting how many teams from one conference got BCS bids was to spread the money around more evenly to all the BCS AQ conferences. I go a step further, and make it even for all P5 schools. I don't want to exclude South Carolina and Missouri just because Auburn and Alabama were also excellent in order to include Oklahoma and Clemson which were ranked lower.

My personal opinion is that the schools should be competing for the glory of a championship, not a bigger cash haul. I see no benefit in a payout system that just perpetuates the resource gap between a few schools/conferences at the expense of everybody else. But that's just my opinion.

BTW, if you don't like the 75-25 revenue split I suggested, what split do you think is more appropriate?

(06-19-2014 11:21 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 11:14 AM)brista21 Wrote:  12 is too big at least overnight. I'd prefer to move towards a 6 team model in the semi-short term. But let's give the 4 team model a couple of years to actually be played first. My 6 team model is the same as the new 4 team model just with the top 2 getting 1st round byes. I also think 6 is the most that is really needed most years.

Agree. I think the 6 team (top two getting a bye) format will be the next step to ensure each P5 champ is represented. I think it then ultimately goes to 8 and doesn't expand beyond that.

5 P5 Champs
3 At-Large (or depending on autonomy/Div IV - maybe 1 G5 Champ and 2 At-Large)

I wasn't going for what I thought would happen. I had specific goals, as I stated in my first paragraph. Obviously, not everybody will share those goals (especially the P5, who would love to keep all the loot for themselves).

Most alternate proposals seem to want to insure that all P5 champions are included. I don't see why, given that in recent memory there have been several P5 champions that arguably weren't worthy based on their record. The only rationale for that, again, is to make sure those conferences get the big bucks and the lesser conferences don't.

IMO, if you want a format that guarantees spots to all the P5, even if they are ranked outside the Top 15 or so, you need to have a field larger than 6-8 teams.

Simpler to go to 6. All 5 P5 champs are in. as is gang of 5..... 3 vs 6, and #4 and 5 Play both have play in games. #1 and #2 get bye.

In the 8 team playoff model this is how the first round would have looked:

#1 FSU ACC 13-0
#8 Missouri SEC 11-2

#4 Michigan State Big 10 13-0
#6 Baylor Big 12 11-1



#2 Auburn SEC 12-1
#7 Ohio State Big 10 12-1

#3 Alabama SEC 12-1
#5 Stanford PAC 12 11-2

(06-19-2014 11:47 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 11:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 10:07 AM)ken d Wrote:  I have struggled with finding a way to have the college football playoff include all teams with a reasonable chance of winning, reward conference champions, give realistic access to G5 schools, and not extend the pre-bowl season any later than it already is.

This is my proposed solution. Before making up your mind as to its merits, please first read all of it, not just the first paragraph or two.

Step 1 is to do away with all conference championship games (thus, my request in the previous paragraph). Allow each conference to determine its champion according to its own rules. That includes scheduling models, which may or may not include divisions or pods.

Step 2: End the regular season the weekend prior to Thanksgiving, in order to allow for two playoff rounds before the Final Four games at New Year's.

Step 3: Select a 12 team field, as follows.

The four highest ranked conference champions (including champions of G5 conferences) will receive a first round bye, and will host a second round game on their home field one week after the first round games.

First round hosts will include:

Any remaining P5 champion
Any G5 champion or Independent ranked between #5-12
or
The highest ranked G5 champion if no other has already qualified

If all four hosts are not determined by the above, the remaining spots are filled with the highest ranked P5 teams, regardless of conference.

The remaining four teams will be selected as follows:

The highest ranked remaining G5 team will visit the G5 host.
If no G5 is ranked in the Top 12, the higher ranked team will host.

The last three spots will go to the highest ranked P5 teams not
already selected.

Using these criteria, every P5 champion will be included. The G5 will be guaranteed 2 of the 12 spots, and may qualify for a third by having a champion ranked in the Top 4. The G5 is also guaranteed a spot in the Final 8. No team ranked in the Top 8 is likely to ever be left out. There would no longer be designated "access bowls". G5 playoff teams who fail to reach the Final Four will be available to fill any conference bowl tie-ins.

There would be no selection committee. Other than in the first round G5 game, all pairings will be seeded by rank, using an agreed upon existing poll or ranking service, or some combination of polls such as the AP plus Coaches poll.

Conferences will be adequately compensated for the loss of their CCG by the increased payout for the expanded playoff. To avoid complaints about having too many teams from one conference, or about inequitable revenue splits because of different conference sizes, I would suggest that the teams in the P5 (including Notre Dame) split 75% of the revenue, with each school, not conference, getting an equal share (after deducting travel costs for the participants). In similar fashion, each G5 school gets an equal share of the remaining 25%.

If it's necessary for all schools to finish their 12 game schedule before Thanksgiving, start the season a week earlier, when fans are already jonesing for a football fix, and ESPN is salivating for more content.

OK. Now that you've read the entire proposal, give me your best shot.

I can't think of a playoff or non-playoff proposal I've seen that I more disagree with. I pretty much dislike everything you have proposed-points 1, 2, selection process worse than even the BCS, adding more runnerups, revenue split, pairing that doesn't try to limit rematches.

Note that most of what you want can be achieved by simply having an 8 team playoff starting the 2nd week of December (the alternative is to use NYD as quarterfinals).

But I commend you. It took a lot of thought to come up with something so thoroughly disagreeable.

Thanks for your vote of confidence.

Let's take last year as an example of how the pairings would have gone, using the BCS ranking for seeding.

First round matchups:
#10 Oregon at #3 Alabama
#9 South Carolina at #6 Baylor
#8 Missouri at #7 Ohio State
#20 Fresno at #15 UCF

Assuming that form holds, and the higher seed wins each first round game, second round pairings are:
#15 UCF at #1 Florida St
#7 Ohio State @ #2 Auburn
#6 Baylor at #4 Michigan State
#3 Alabama at #5 Stanford

Obviously, favorites won't always win, so some rematches are possible. They are now. But why should a team be penalized with a less favorable matchup just for the sake of not pairing two teams from the same conference? The playoff isn't conference versus conference, it is team versus team.

The main rationale for limiting how many teams from one conference got BCS bids was to spread the money around more evenly to all the BCS AQ conferences. I go a step further, and make it even for all P5 schools. I don't want to exclude South Carolina and Missouri just because Auburn and Alabama were also excellent in order to include Oklahoma and Clemson which were ranked lower.

My personal opinion is that the schools should be competing for the glory of a championship, not a bigger cash haul. I see no benefit in a payout system that just perpetuates the resource gap between a few schools/conferences at the expense of everybody else. But that's just my opinion.

BTW, if you don't like the 75-25 revenue split I suggested, what split do you think is more appropriate?

I don't think you should reward conferences for adding more teams. Keep the split by conference. By splitting it by school they can get more playoff teams and keep the same split of the shared amount.

I wouldn't have a ban on rematches, but the reality is that seedings are very soft and very subjective (see the last NCAA bb tourney). In a 4 team setup if you had a clear unbeaten #1, one loss two and threes that were champs and a #4 who had already played and lost to #2 and #3, I wouldn't vary from the seeding. But if #3 had played #2 and #4 had played #1 and 3 and 4 were somewhat close, I would vary the pairings.

Your system views the seedings as inviolable when they are only opinions.

I have proposed something similar with 12 teams, since each year there seems to be about 10 legitimate contenders that deserve a shot at the national championship, plus a couple of P5 conference champions that are not in the top 10. Nobody else below that deserves a shot, so I always thought 12 was a good number.

I also like the idea of the top 4 conference champions should get a first round bye. Independents should not get a bye.

I also like the idea of at least 6 conference champions total guaranteed a spot. I don't see a need to guarantee all P5 champions a spot. If a P5 champion is out ranked by 2 G5 champions, then they don't deserve a spot.

I do not see a need to guarantee any other spots other than the top 6 conference champions.

scheduling the first 2 rounds could be a problem in December. Not sure what to do about that.

The revenue split isn't the issue I have. Yours isn't that much different from what they will do. I believe its $250 to the P5, $85 to the G5 & $6 per game to the participants.

Roughly 50% P5, 17% G5, 10% participants ($6 million times however many non-contract games there are that year) with the rest split for academic allocations, FCS and expenses.

I like the idea of 8 teams with the P5 conference champions, and the winner of the G5 spot. If the G5 champ is not ranked 10 or higher, then three At-Large P5 teams get selected by ranking. That way no top10 programs are left out unless a G5 program is top 10. Just food for thought.

(06-19-2014 01:37 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  I like the idea of 8 teams with the P5 conference champions, and the winner of the G5 spot. If the G5 champ is not ranked 10 or higher, then three At-Large P5 teams get selected by ranking. That way no top10 programs are left out unless a G5 program is top 10. Just food for thought.

I'd add or if the G5 team rep is ranked higher than the P5 champ.

(06-19-2014 01:37 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  I like the idea of 8 teams with the P5 conference champions, and the winner of the G5 spot. If the G5 champ is not ranked 10 or higher, then three At-Large P5 teams get selected by ranking. That way no top10 programs are left out unless a G5 program is top 10. Just food for thought.

With an eight team field, somebody in the Top 10 has to be left out. Why not just the 8 highest ranked conference champions?

Of course, I would love to remove the arbitrariness out of whatever selection process is used. I'd also love it if my cat coughed up gold nuggets instead of furballs. But neither is going to happen. All rankings are arbitrary. Conference championships are not.

The reality of the football polls is that they are not a reliable measure of the relative strength of teams. When #1 and #2 face each other, the result, historically, is a tossup. The #2 team wins half the time. So if we can't even get that right, how do we distinguish between #3 and #4, or even #6 and #10?

So if you can't fairly distinguish between #6 and #10, how can you say that #10 didn't deserve a chance to win a tourney on the field? But you have to have some basis for picking teams. You can't have a 128 team football tournament. The best you can hope for is that you make the field large enough that you include every team that is capable of winning four straight games against the toughest competition.

I know that four teams isn't enough to do that. I have major doubts about eight. I would guess that at least 95% of the time, a team ranked #16 wouldn't be able to win four games, and what's just as important, I don't think fans would pay premium prices to watch an almost certain defeat by the #1 team. To me, 12 is the number that includes the universe of potential winners more than 95% of the time and allows for a format that minimizes first round mismatches.

I like it. No real complaints.

(06-19-2014 10:07 AM)ken d Wrote:  If it's necessary for all schools to finish their 12 game schedule before Thanksgiving, start the season a week earlier, when fans are already jonesing for a football fix, and ESPN is salivating for more content.

ESPN doesn't want to pay the same "rate" for mid-August college football games as they do for mid-November games because the August TV ratings will be much lower.

Attendance will be lower in August, too. Students won't be on campus, younger kids won't be in school yet, families will be taking vacations before the start of school.

So, taking out a high-revenue regular-season week in November and replacing it with a low-revenue week in mid-August isn't going to happen.

Maybe someday if the push for more revenue demands it, they will add a 13th game and a game week to the beginning of the season in addition to the 12 games that are already played over 13 or 14 weeks. But CFB isn't going to give up a late-season week in exchange for a mid-August week.

So, the first Saturday in December is close to being set in concrete as the last day of the regular season (or conference title games). That means that any CFB playoff expansion must either play the first round at least a week before New Year's, or extend the date of the national championship game further into January, or both.

(06-19-2014 10:07 AM)ken d Wrote:  I have struggled with finding a way to have the college football playoff include all teams with a reasonable chance of winning, reward conference champions, give realistic access to G5 schools, and not extend the pre-bowl season any later than it already is.

Take a look at my plan. It accomplishes your goals in a different way.

http://greglange.blogspot.com/2013/04/my...-plan.html

(06-19-2014 01:37 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  I like the idea of 8 teams with the P5 conference champions, and the winner of the G5 spot. If the G5 champ is not ranked 10 or higher, then three At-Large P5 teams get selected by ranking. That way no top10 programs are left out unless a G5 program is top 10. Just food for thought.

Agree and in my 2013 there no G5 teams in the Top 10, so Top 10 team was left out.