They could have a mess again when both TCU and Boise State were ranked in the top 5 in the polls. TCU was in the MWC and Boise State was in the WAC at the time. Both got an automatic spot in the Fiesta Bowl. and Boise State beat them. It was a much better game than some of the so call P5 teams played in the main spots including the Playoffs. Oklahoma and Florida State showed how flawed they were in the last 2 playoffs that they both did not deserved a spot even when FSU was undefeated.

(04-18-2016 05:47 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  No to autobids, that'd just be the bcs 2.0. A true playoff includes the best teams regardless of conference.

Do any "true playoffs" exist? I know that there are not "true playoffs" in the NFL, MLB, the NBA, NHL, MLS ... nor in any NCAA championship.

Where is this "true playoff" located ... baseketball?

(04-18-2016 10:51 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 09:19 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  That's more of a blog piece.

I'm OK with expanding to 8 teams but I would vote NO to the AUTO-BIDS. An 8 team field is not big enough to absorb autobids and have enough room for the teams that have earned a spot.

To have autobids is the only realistic way to actually get the support of the conferences.

Plus, autobids protect from the unintended consequence of diminishing the regular season. If the SEC or B1G were to have 4 or 5 participants in the 8-team CFP, the conference championship and many regular season matchups become almost meaningless.

Autobids can actually increase the importance of the regular season and conference championship - especially if the conference championships influence seeding and such - you don't just get bragging rights, you get automatic CFP access and seeding/site preferences. So, the stakes are high.

I would like to see them establish autobids for the top SIX conference champions, without mention of P5 or G5. The reality is that in most years, those top six champs will include the five P5 champs - if the G5 really is inferior, just push them out already. While I believe that P5 conferences are superior, that doesn't mean that a team that is a P5 conference champ is necessarily better than a team that is a G5 conference champ.

To have two at large wild card bids is also nice, because you include top-quality teams that play in a tough conference, but without spreading the field too thin.

I don't know why we try to re-invent the wheel. FCS, Div. 2 and Div 3 all have playoffs that work.

(04-18-2016 11:49 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 05:47 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  No to autobids, that'd just be the bcs 2.0. A true playoff includes the best teams regardless of conference.

Do any "true playoffs" exist? I know that there are not "true playoffs" in the NFL, MLB, the NBA, NHL, MLS ... nor in any NCAA championship.

Where is this "true playoff" located ... baseketball?

You're absolutely correct, one does not exist. However, they're starting from scratch here so the opportunity has presented itself.

(04-19-2016 05:57 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 10:51 AM)YNot Wrote:  To have autobids is the only realistic way to actually get the support of the conferences.

Plus, autobids protect from the unintended consequence of diminishing the regular season. If the SEC or B1G were to have 4 or 5 participants in the 8-team CFP, the conference championship and many regular season matchups become almost meaningless.

Autobids can actually increase the importance of the regular season and conference championship - especially if the conference championships influence seeding and such - you don't just get bragging rights, you get automatic CFP access and seeding/site preferences. So, the stakes are high.

I would like to see them establish autobids for the top SIX conference champions, without mention of P5 or G5. The reality is that in most years, those top six champs will include the five P5 champs - if the G5 really is inferior, just push them out already. While I believe that P5 conferences are superior, that doesn't mean that a team that is a P5 conference champ is necessarily better than a team that is a G5 conference champ.

To have two at large wild card bids is also nice, because you include top-quality teams that play in a tough conference, but without spreading the field too thin.

I don't know why we try to re-invent the wheel. FCS, Div. 2 and Div 3 all have playoffs that work.

FCS, Div.2 and 3 do not have schools and conferences that make hundreds of millions of dollars from the sport each year or multi-million bowl games.

(04-18-2016 04:57 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 02:32 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 10:51 AM)YNot Wrote:  I would like to see them establish autobids for the top SIX conference champions, without mention of P5 or G5. The reality is that in most years, those top six champs will include the five P5 champs - if the G5 really is inferior, just push them out already. While I believe that P5 conferences are superior, that doesn't mean that a team that is a P5 conference champ is necessarily better than a team that is a G5 conference champ.

That totally ignores the reality that the "Power" conferences are in a totally different world than the "non-power" conferences. It's not a fair comparison. The "Power" conferences have a magnitude differences in resources and the other conferences are not competitive in any way.

What you propose is like saying an FCS team should be eligible to play in the CFP. Can a FCS team beat a team from the Big 10 in a single game? Sure. But they NEVER would have been there if they had to play with the big-boys week in and week out. It's not fair to expect them to be. In the same way now, it's not fair to expect a team from CUSA, SBC, AAC, MWC, or MAC to be competitive with any of the teams from a "Power" conference. It's not fair to the little teams and it's not fair to a team that has invested huge $$$ only to be upset in a single game.

A division has happened, let's not act like it hasn't.

You know I heard the same type of stuff when GS moved up from FCS. Our new FBS conference mates said there would be no way we could compete with full FBS teams on a week end and week out basis. We wouldn't have the depth and while we might win a game here or there we should be prepaid to have a few losing seasons because no matter how good we had been in FCS - FBS would have better players and more depth than us. Well an undefeated conference run in our first (transitional) FBS season certainly shut up those naysayers. I'm not saying every G5 team could do it but can you really say that a team like Houston from this past season would not have been in the hunt for a conference title in some P5 leagues?

+1000

The 5 auto bids + 2 wc's + 1 mid major is absolutely the way to go. P5 champs need to be rewarded; otherwise, why have conferences and CCG's?

(04-18-2016 02:32 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 10:51 AM)YNot Wrote:  I would like to see them establish autobids for the top SIX conference champions, without mention of P5 or G5. The reality is that in most years, those top six champs will include the five P5 champs - if the G5 really is inferior, just push them out already. While I believe that P5 conferences are superior, that doesn't mean that a team that is a P5 conference champ is necessarily better than a team that is a G5 conference champ.

That totally ignores the reality that the "Power" conferences are in a totally different world than the "non-power" conferences. It's not a fair comparison. The "Power" conferences have a magnitude differences in resources and the other conferences are not competitive in any way.

What you propose is like saying an FCS team should be eligible to play in the CFP. Can a FCS team beat a team from the Big 10 in a single game? Sure. But they NEVER would have been there if they had to play with the big-boys week in and week out. It's not fair to expect them to be. In the same way now, it's not fair to expect a team from CUSA, SBC, AAC, MWC, or MAC to be competitive with any of the teams from a "Power" conference. It's not fair to the little teams and it's not fair to a team that has invested huge $$$ only to be upset in a single game.

A division has happened, let's not act like it hasn't.

What? So, Houston wasn't a better team than Florida St. and Louisville and VANDERBILT because of conference affiliation?

Houston also had to play and beat Memphis (9 wins, beat Ole Miss and Kansas), Navy (11 wins, beat Pitt in Military Bowl), Temple (10 wins, beat Penn St. and competitive with ND), and Cincinnati (beat Miami).

There's also the law of diminishing returns. Not every P5 school develops a strong football program just because of the truckloads of money spent on coaching salaries and facilities. Texas, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Missouri, Illinois, and many other P5 programs spent a lot of money for lackluster teams.

Whereas, Boise St., Houston, and UCF have recently put together solid teams on a fraction of the P5 budgets.

(04-19-2016 06:28 PM)westwolf Wrote:  The 5 auto bids + 2 wc's + 1 mid major is absolutely the way to go. P5 champs need to be rewarded; otherwise, why have conferences and CCG's?

So you don't have 8-4 teams upsetting 11-1 teams and getting in on a fluke. That is a ratings killer for round 1. More importantly, it doesn't fit into the school calendar. They are not removing Army/Navy for a playoff that weekend. They ain't playing the first round during Christmas either. Anything beyond that and you conflict with NFL playoffs. Pretty straight forward. The CCG's have to be removed or you need to go to a new Super Division with a P4.

@GeorgeSchroeder
Big 12’s Bowslby doesn’t expect conf champ game decision in May/June mtgs. Presidents might act but more discussion/deliberation probable.