(12-12-2018 04:27 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  So based on this year, the 8 team playoff should be:

Alabama
Clemson
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Georgia
Ohio State
Washington (Michigan is #7 but UW is a P5 champ)
Central Florida

#1 Alabama vs #8 UCF
#2 Clemson vs #7 Washington
#3 Notre Dame vs #6 Ohio State
#4 Oklahoma vs #5 Georgia

Not bad. Not bad.

I’d rather have Michigan in there than a 3 loss UW but it’s better than what’s there now.

(12-12-2018 04:27 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  So based on this year, the 8 team playoff should be:

Alabama
Clemson
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Georgia
Ohio State
Washington (Michigan is #7 but UW is a P5 champ)
Central Florida

#1 Alabama vs #8 UCF
#2 Clemson vs #7 Washington
#3 Notre Dame vs #6 Ohio State
#4 Oklahoma vs #5 Georgia

Not bad. Not bad.

Not only is it not bad, but it would have made the PAC, B1G and B12 championship games more interesting knowing that the winner would be 'in' rather than under consideration. A Pitt win over Clemson would have created a Cinderella story.

(12-12-2018 04:40 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 04:27 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  So based on this year, the 8 team playoff should be:

Alabama
Clemson
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Georgia
Ohio State
Washington (Michigan is #7 but UW is a P5 champ)
Central Florida

#1 Alabama vs #8 UCF
#2 Clemson vs #7 Washington
#3 Notre Dame vs #6 Ohio State
#4 Oklahoma vs #5 Georgia

Not bad. Not bad.

Not only is it not bad, but it would have made the PAC, B1G and B12 championship games more interesting knowing that the winner would be 'in' rather than under consideration. A Pitt win over Clemson would have created a Cinderella story.

And may have screwed over a more deserving UGA, UCF, or ND team.

(12-12-2018 04:46 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 04:40 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 04:27 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  So based on this year, the 8 team playoff should be:

Alabama
Clemson
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Georgia
Ohio State
Washington (Michigan is #7 but UW is a P5 champ)
Central Florida

#1 Alabama vs #8 UCF
#2 Clemson vs #7 Washington
#3 Notre Dame vs #6 Ohio State
#4 Oklahoma vs #5 Georgia

Not bad. Not bad.

Not only is it not bad, but it would have made the PAC, B1G and B12 championship games more interesting knowing that the winner would be 'in' rather than under consideration. A Pitt win over Clemson would have created a Cinderella story.

And may have screwed over a more deserving UGA, UCF, or ND team.

Thus beginning the push for 16!

(12-12-2018 10:38 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  It was a very real possibility this year that the CFP could have been an all SEC/ACC affair if Georgia had narrowly beat Alabama. (And yes, I am counting ND as an ACC-lite)

Well, you can't count ND that way because they aren't.

Second, what's the big deal? How many times has a conference put two teams in the NCAA Final 4, it's happened many times, IIRC, not a problem.

I'm not necessarily against an 8-team playoff, but too many from one conference making a 4-team playoff isn't a reason to do it.

(12-12-2018 03:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 03:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 12:06 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  File this under "Least surprising development ever".

A flawed system that uses opinion as the sole justification for leaving out two of the five voting conferences every year is up for reconsideration? I am stunned... just stunned!

Eight might hold for a while. It still isn't ideal but it takes a long time for the powerbrokers to get to the obvious solution.

Eight is another step in the right direction.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

How we can design a system that ignores an entire conference season and replaces it with the judgement of a dozen ice skating judges is just inexplicable. If you want to destroy the sanctity of the regular season---thats the way to do it.

Precisely.

IMO, better to have 12 ice skating judges considering an *entire* season for all teams than have conference champs get auto-bids, which entirely throws out all the OOC games.

That's 1/4 to 1/3 of the schedule that now means nothing, and that's actually the most theoretically meaningful part of a schedule, as conference games are local, they don't necessarily tell us how well a team stacks up to national competition, which is what a playoff is.

Plus, and it's hard to see how an NIU fan is overlooking this, the highest ranked G5 team WILL still be chosen by ice skating judges, not by winning their conference.

(12-12-2018 04:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 03:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 03:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 12:06 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  File this under "Least surprising development ever".

A flawed system that uses opinion as the sole justification for leaving out two of the five voting conferences every year is up for reconsideration? I am stunned... just stunned!

Eight might hold for a while. It still isn't ideal but it takes a long time for the powerbrokers to get to the obvious solution.

Eight is another step in the right direction.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

How we can design a system that ignores an entire conference season and replaces it with the judgement of a dozen ice skating judges is just inexplicable. If you want to destroy the sanctity of the regular season---thats the way to do it.

Precisely.

IMO, better to have 12 ice skating judges considering an *entire* season for all teams than have conference champs get auto-bids, which entirely throws out all the OOC games.

That's 1/4 to 1/3 of the schedule that now means nothing, and that's actually the most theoretically meaningful part of a schedule, as conference games are local, they don't necessarily tell us how well a team stacks up to national competition, which is what a playoff is.

Plus, and it's hard to see how an NIU fan is overlooking this, the highest ranked G5 team WILL still be chosen by ice skating judges, not by winning their conference.

The OOC schedule (and the beauty pageant judges) will still play a huge part in seeding and the 2 wild card selections.

(12-12-2018 04:40 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 04:27 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  So based on this year, the 8 team playoff should be:

Alabama
Clemson
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Georgia
Ohio State
Washington (Michigan is #7 but UW is a P5 champ)
Central Florida

#1 Alabama vs #8 UCF
#2 Clemson vs #7 Washington
#3 Notre Dame vs #6 Ohio State
#4 Oklahoma vs #5 Georgia

Not bad. Not bad.

Not only is it not bad, but it would have made the PAC, B1G and B12 championship games more interesting knowing that the winner would be 'in' rather than under consideration. A Pitt win over Clemson would have created a Cinderella story.

So would it be like this then, if Pitt won?
Pittsburgh was not ranked in the CG so if they were to win then it still wouldn't beat rankings of Washington and UCF to change any of the format.

#1 Alabama vs. #? Pittsburgh
#2 Notre Dame vs. #9 Washington
#3 Oklahoma vs. #8 UCF
#4 Clemson/OhioState vs. #5 Clemson/OhioState/Georgia

* Clemson probably wouldn't have drop to far in the rankings. As it would've been their first loss.

IMHO, I believe it would make the regular season and championship games much stronger in viewership. "Win and You're In"

(12-12-2018 05:03 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 04:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 03:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 03:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 12:06 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  File this under "Least surprising development ever".

A flawed system that uses opinion as the sole justification for leaving out two of the five voting conferences every year is up for reconsideration? I am stunned... just stunned!

Eight might hold for a while. It still isn't ideal but it takes a long time for the powerbrokers to get to the obvious solution.

Eight is another step in the right direction.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

How we can design a system that ignores an entire conference season and replaces it with the judgement of a dozen ice skating judges is just inexplicable. If you want to destroy the sanctity of the regular season---thats the way to do it.

Precisely.

IMO, better to have 12 ice skating judges considering an *entire* season for all teams than have conference champs get auto-bids, which entirely throws out all the OOC games.

That's 1/4 to 1/3 of the schedule that now means nothing, and that's actually the most theoretically meaningful part of a schedule, as conference games are local, they don't necessarily tell us how well a team stacks up to national competition, which is what a playoff is.

Plus, and it's hard to see how an NIU fan is overlooking this, the highest ranked G5 team WILL still be chosen by ice skating judges, not by winning their conference.

The OOC schedule (and the beauty pageant judges) will still play a huge part in seeding and the 2 wild card selections.

This could also lead to better OOC scheduling for P5 teams, because they would know they could lose 1-2 games in the year and still have a chance to play in the CFP.

(12-12-2018 04:51 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 04:46 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 04:40 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 04:27 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  So based on this year, the 8 team playoff should be:

Alabama
Clemson
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Georgia
Ohio State
Washington (Michigan is #7 but UW is a P5 champ)
Central Florida

#1 Alabama vs #8 UCF
#2 Clemson vs #7 Washington
#3 Notre Dame vs #6 Ohio State
#4 Oklahoma vs #5 Georgia

Not bad. Not bad.

Not only is it not bad, but it would have made the PAC, B1G and B12 championship games more interesting knowing that the winner would be 'in' rather than under consideration. A Pitt win over Clemson would have created a Cinderella story.

And may have screwed over a more deserving UGA, UCF, or ND team.

Thus beginning the push for 16!

That’s too big IMO

This is anti - SEC bellyaching by the twice jilted B1G, and since the B1G matters, it could go somewhere.

(12-12-2018 11:55 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Inevitably, the issue in expanding the CFP is ensuring that the P5 does not lose value in any of the following: losing potential home games during the season, losing value in its conference championship games, nor does it "lock out" any of the P5 conferences. Additionally, it must give flexibility towards Notre Dame, who will not join a conference, but still provides tremendous value on a national scale if they are in the conversation. From a national perspective, there simply is just not enough push from networks or advertisers "demanding" that all of the G5 Champions are included, so that is definitely not a requirement. Finally, I do not think an autobid from the G5 is required either because the last think the committee (or the audience) would want is a 9-3/8-4 top-ranked G5 team that is being forced on the playoff (just like a 9-4 Northwestern would have ultimately hurt the playoff as well). Ultimately, I think a committee can continue with the present ranking format and resist providing auto-bids, whether to conference champions or a G5 representative.

This year, under the final rankings, we could have seen:

Alabama v. UCF
Clemson v. Michigan
Notre Dame v. Ohio State
Oklahoma v. Georgia

However, what would have been interesting had the committee bumped Washington (PAC Champion) over UCF (Top G5) at #8. That certainly would have been an interesting conversation.

(12-12-2018 02:52 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Would rather go back to 2 (or none) than expand but think we get 8 eventually.

Five years after that, we'll be wondering why ratings are down for most the regular season and why its less exciting.

You want a truly meaningful regular season? Give the P5 champs auto-bids. One could argue that the entire Big Ten regular season was pointless THIS year - but if Ohio State and Northwestern had been playing for an auto-bid... then the CCG (and by extension every game that led up to it) would be CRITICAL.

(12-12-2018 05:56 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 11:55 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Inevitably, the issue in expanding the CFP is ensuring that the P5 does not lose value in any of the following: losing potential home games during the season, losing value in its conference championship games, nor does it "lock out" any of the P5 conferences. Additionally, it must give flexibility towards Notre Dame, who will not join a conference, but still provides tremendous value on a national scale if they are in the conversation. From a national perspective, there simply is just not enough push from networks or advertisers "demanding" that all of the G5 Champions are included, so that is definitely not a requirement. Finally, I do not think an autobid from the G5 is required either because the last think the committee (or the audience) would want is a 9-3/8-4 top-ranked G5 team that is being forced on the playoff (just like a 9-4 Northwestern would have ultimately hurt the playoff as well). Ultimately, I think a committee can continue with the present ranking format and resist providing auto-bids, whether to conference champions or a G5 representative.

This year, under the final rankings, we could have seen:

Alabama v. UCF
Clemson v. Michigan
Notre Dame v. Ohio State
Oklahoma v. Georgia

However, what would have been interesting had the committee bumped Washington (PAC Champion) over UCF (Top G5) at #8. That certainly would have been an interesting conversation.

(12-12-2018 02:52 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Would rather go back to 2 (or none) than expand but think we get 8 eventually.

Five years after that, we'll be wondering why ratings are down for most the regular season and why its less exciting.

You want a truly meaningful regular season? Give the P5 champs auto-bids. One could argue that the entire Big Ten regular season was pointless THIS year - but if Ohio State and Northwestern had been playing for an auto-bid... then the CCG (and by extension every game that led up to it) would be CRITICAL.

That is the ultimate point that even Saban has made. He wants the regular season to matter, and he doesn't want expansion so that it becomes a matter of who is the healthiest team at the end of a long season as opposed to is the best team. Even if you catch the weakest team in the first round of an 8 team playoff you could suffer key injuries.

So the only fair system that could exist will be when there is a P4. Then everyone has the same path in August. If one conference is stronger than another the bowls will prove it. And their champion is still the team that won it on the field.

(12-12-2018 11:53 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Fine with me. Personally, I'd even go a step further and just make it "highest rated G5".

That should be the initial demand that the Go5 make, but I don't expect them to win it. "Highest ranking among Go5 Champions and Independents" is the best I could see ... IOW, "ND's unless they stumble and leave it for the best Go5 champion to pick up".

(12-12-2018 05:16 PM)leofrog Wrote:  This could also lead to better OOC scheduling for P5 teams, because they would know they could lose 1-2 games in the year and still have a chance to play in the CFP.

Yes. With a 4-team playoff, everyone knows that their playoff hopes are dead once they pick up a second loss.

(12-12-2018 05:56 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  You want a truly meaningful regular season? Give the P5 champs auto-bids. One could argue that the entire Big Ten regular season was pointless THIS year - but if Ohio State and Northwestern had been playing for an auto-bid... then the CCG (and by extension every game that led up to it) would be CRITICAL.

This, too.

(12-12-2018 03:37 PM)Centdukesfan Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 02:52 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Would rather go back to 2 (or none) than expand but think we get 8 eventually.

Five years after that, we'll be wondering why ratings are down for most the regular season and why its less exciting.

attendance and ratings have suffered so much since they expanded the FCS playoffs...

haha jk, its football, regular season football is still amazing, and playoffs are an unreal experience. Attendance actually drops during the postseason due to the thanksgiving holiday. I suspect that wont be a problem at the FBS level.

Maybe take a minute to learn a bit about the playoff systems that exist outside of the FBS.

I know plenty about it. I also know though that college football is the only sport where I want to watch random games each week in the first two months on the season because they have big national title stakes. If we're talking 8 teams, any random loss is far less likely o matter much to who wins it all.

I get people want this. Ohio State fans are for most far as strong as any (remember they would have not missed last two years with one). My opinion though is the sport becomes far more regional for most the year with a move though. The sport is inherently regional and the only thing that has created huge national interesting games are the incredible stakes that makes a loss a big deal every week. With this, expect far less interest for games in the Midwest from thr south, in the west from those in the east, etc. The CCGs will get bigger but until late November the season will be less exciting to me and I think to a lot more (even if I dont think people will realize it until later).

It is just my opinion, I know, but this to me takes a lot of what I love about thr sport away.

Interesting. I see 8 teams in the very near future.
But we'll see what the power brokers have to say about it. Having the 8 best teams vs auto-bids. I keep remembering Larry Scott saying that if you want an 8 team playoff it will require have auto-bids.
UCF would get in at #8 but the Pac-12 champ Washington still wouldn't get in since they were ranked #9.

They are not playing playoff games before Christmas, so I ask again, what weekend are the games going to be played unless you are moving the season back or getting rid of CC games?

(12-12-2018 05:56 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 11:55 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Inevitably, the issue in expanding the CFP is ensuring that the P5 does not lose value in any of the following: losing potential home games during the season, losing value in its conference championship games, nor does it "lock out" any of the P5 conferences. Additionally, it must give flexibility towards Notre Dame, who will not join a conference, but still provides tremendous value on a national scale if they are in the conversation. From a national perspective, there simply is just not enough push from networks or advertisers "demanding" that all of the G5 Champions are included, so that is definitely not a requirement. Finally, I do not think an autobid from the G5 is required either because the last think the committee (or the audience) would want is a 9-3/8-4 top-ranked G5 team that is being forced on the playoff (just like a 9-4 Northwestern would have ultimately hurt the playoff as well). Ultimately, I think a committee can continue with the present ranking format and resist providing auto-bids, whether to conference champions or a G5 representative.

This year, under the final rankings, we could have seen:

Alabama v. UCF
Clemson v. Michigan
Notre Dame v. Ohio State
Oklahoma v. Georgia

However, what would have been interesting had the committee bumped Washington (PAC Champion) over UCF (Top G5) at #8. That certainly would have been an interesting conversation.

(12-12-2018 02:52 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Would rather go back to 2 (or none) than expand but think we get 8 eventually.

Five years after that, we'll be wondering why ratings are down for most the regular season and why its less exciting.

You want a truly meaningful regular season? Give the P5 champs auto-bids. One could argue that the entire Big Ten regular season was pointless THIS year - but if Ohio State and Northwestern had been playing for an auto-bid... then the CCG (and by extension every game that led up to it) would be CRITICAL.

How can the B1G regular season have been pointless when Ohio State surely would have made the playoffs had they not lost to Purdue? For OSU, every single game was critical, as it was for just about every other team.

What would make games pointless is ... autobids for the P5. That would mean that a team like Ohio State could lose at least 3 games - all its OOC games - and not have its playoff chances dented at all.

OOC games would be vastly diminished. And anyone who thinks that the bellyaching is bad when a P5 champ like OSU or Washington is left out of a four team playoff (and so far, I've seen none of that) just wait until a 8-4 conference champ gets in while 10-2 or 11-1 team that played a tougher schedule misses out.

(12-12-2018 04:22 PM)McKinney Wrote:  Top 6 conference representatives. Two at-large bids.

This is the way I would go to avoid a legal challenge. That is part of the reason they busted up the BCS in the first place because some conferences had autobids while others didn't.

Keep the CCGs and make it a 12 bowl system.

1st tier: Rose, Las Vegas, Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar, Peach, Citrus, Orange
2nd tier: Holiday, Sun, Independence, Gator

The top 6 conference champions would play in the 8 team playoff which would rotate every year among the NY8 bowls.

The other 4 conference champions (G4) would be send to a second tier bowl game to play a 9-3 type P5 team. That makes all the conference championship games more valuable if a major bowl game is on the line.

1st Tier (2018) (Dec 31th-Jan 2nd)
1. Alabama (champ)
2. Clemson (champ)
3. Notre Dame (at-large)
4. Oklahoma (champ)
5. Georgia (at-large)
6. Ohio St. (champ)
8. UCF (champ)
9. Washington (champ)

2nd Tier (2018) (Dec 27th-Dec 30th)
21. Fresno St (champ) vs. 10-2 Washington St. (Holiday)
10-2 App St (champ) vs. 9-3 Penn St. (Gator)
9-3 UAB (champ) vs. 9-3 Kentucky (Independence)
8-5 Northern Illinois (champ) vs. 8-3 West Virginia (Sun)

To me this would be a fair system while still keeping the competitive realities intact for the power conferences. The P5 can still have its own bowls outside of the CFP that exclude the G5 ect. But at least this way the G5 CCGs have something on the line.