(12-22-2018 08:33 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-22-2018 06:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 08:26 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Keep it at 4 to encourage/facilitate a P4 scenario and ND joining a conference in full. Autobids for the P4 champs, but with a caveat that a non-P4 conference champ can take the place of a P4 champ if they're ranked higher.

Isn't that exactly what we have now?

Given that ND is independent . . . and that there are 5 power conferences with no CFP autobids . . . and that there is no conditional CFP bid for champs of a non-power conference . . . no.

Sorry, I read your post as "non-champs" rather than "non-P5"

(12-24-2018 04:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-22-2018 08:33 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-22-2018 06:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-21-2018 08:26 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Keep it at 4 to encourage/facilitate a P4 scenario and ND joining a conference in full. Autobids for the P4 champs, but with a caveat that a non-P4 conference champ can take the place of a P4 champ if they're ranked higher.

Isn't that exactly what we have now?

Given that ND is independent . . . and that there are 5 power conferences with no CFP autobids . . . and that there is no conditional CFP bid for champs of a non-power conference . . . no.

Sorry, I read your post as "non-champs" rather than "non-P5"

Ah, I can see where my wording is ambiguous -- I changed it. Thanks!

(12-21-2018 02:44 PM)esayem Wrote:  Is Army part of a G5 auto-bid? BYU?

For example, no way is a 10-3 Tulsa getting in over a 10-2 LSU. Not gonna happen. Maybe a G5 team ranked in the top 8 can get an auto-bid, but that’s about it.

IF... Tulsa had a 10-3 record than that would tell me that they had a good season out of a good solid football league, The AAC.

LOL... I see you to hung up with this G crap nonsense... Trust me I don't like either... The AAC has proven time and time again on the gridiron and with tv rating results it shouldn't be lumped with the lower FBS leagues but whatever.

Back to point, no Tulsa with that record vs LSU's shouldn't get in over the tigers.

#FAKEPLAYOFFS

The best one & most feasible one with least cries of foul:

8-team playoff:
- Top-4 as auto-bids
+ 2 auto-bids of Top Conf Champs Outside of Top-4's conferences -- within Top #12/13, chosen in order by rank.
+ 2 at-large, purely by rank

It doesn't guarantee a Top P5 Champ getting in, but almost always will. You could extend it to Top #16, instead to further ensure an upset winning P5 Champ gets in, though. But that would further the cry of #8 and/or #7 crying foul if such a big gap. Even if that #16 is a P5 team on an upset, but especially if that #16 is a G5 when all the P5 Champs are in the Top 10 to understandably get in, per usual.

SO WHY NOT JUST A P5 CHAMP-ONLY AUTO-BID?

This would create an even Bigger, More Legit cry of foul. What if you have a #10 Boise @13-0, and a #22 Wisconsin only ranked due to upsetting a 1L Ohio State for the BIG Champ? Hellish cry, even among folks who aren't huge G5 fans.

You can't make the argument for P5-ONLY auto-bid, ignoring rankings among conf winners -- because of ratings. You could make the (controversial) case for that for Bowls which are conf vs conf matchups in the spotlight for ratings -- but not Actual Playoffs. The "because of ratings and name-brand" argument NIXES the argument that Conf Playoff winners get in because that too is a playoff. That wouldn't be your actual, pure reason, is my point.

If it had been an option, I would have voted for no playoff at all, but a return to two teams and the BCS would be next best.

I choose 16 because some P5 ranked inside the top 8 are usually overrated and lose to G5 schools a lot. usually the top teams in both MWC and AAC are much better than the teams in front of them.

Quote:If it had been an option, I would have voted for no playoff at all, but a return to two teams and the BCS would be next best.

So not a human committee to do the ultimate rankings, but the computer, factoring in the Harris Poll & Coaches Poll results into it's own? I wouldn't throw a tantrum if that's the case, but...

... having just a Top Bowl be non-conf affiliates, but just #1 vs #2 -- I would never want to revert to that temporary appeasement. Many times #1 & #2 don't separate themselves from #3 and/or #4. Not enough to go on. You'd have, what #1 Alabama vs #2 Clemson, and Notre Dame would get a nice NY bowl as an undefeated consolation prize? The Catholic League would not like that, nor would most of CFB fans.

Quote:I choose 16 because some P5 ranked inside the top 8 are usually overrated and lose to G5 schools a lot. usually the top teams in both MWC and AAC are much better than the teams in front of them.

I agree that certainly can be the case. But the counter to that would be: 16 teams? Two problems here...

(1) If going by all conf winners + 2 at-larges, that's fine if the 3rd/4th/5th G5 Champs are almost always at least at the bottom of the rankings and within the Top 30, while the Top 2 G5 Champs are almost always in the Rankings at least close to #16. That is, because there'd only be *2* at-larges. Many wouldn't want consistently all 3 unranked G5 Champs get in while an SEC/P12 team who's really high but barely lost out doesn't get in. Then ND more than one year would say "What? Because we're not ranked #6 we don't get in, yet we're clearly ranked higher than that #10 P5 winner & ALL 5 G5 champs??"

(2) If it goes by a system where any Conf Champ Above X Ranking (Like, within Top 25) gets an auto-bid -- OK, fine. You'd many times have 5 P5s + 2 G5s. Sometimes 3 G5s, but that'd pretty much be the practical max. So wait, we have 8-9 at-larges out of a 16 team playoff? Isn't that too much? I would see going 12 (as many as NY6 bowls) being more feasible, although it'd take just as long... but to help preserve Conf Championship Quality, by not watering it down with too many at-larges.

16, I could only ever see in the FAR Future, the way CFB is set up and how they Purposely want to make change SLOW.

That's why I like the 8-team setup, but explaining that, no, as far as the bottom half that'd be added to the now Top 4 ranked -- it wouldn't be specifically trying to get the 5th/6th/7th/8th deservingly best Ranked team per se. It'd be trying to get those who earned it thru their Conf Championships, while (almost always) including a really great team or two that didn't win a conference. Giving the Top 4 auto-bids + limiting # of conference teams in said 8-team playoff based on how many they have at what ranking # -- and having Conditional auto-bids for Conf Champs somewhat close to Top 8 -- that to me would be best. Doing the conference limit of teams to some degree could piss off the SEC like the year of 2012 where they had: #2,#3,#7,#8,#9,#10 -- but sorry, we should keep conf-distribution alive within reason. Like, the only way you're getting 4 teams in is if your 4th best is in the Top 4.

The football version of the basketball tourney. Revenues would be astronomical for everybody. See link below.


https://csnbbs.com/thread-865406.html

(12-25-2018 10:31 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I choose 16 because some P5 ranked inside the top 8 are usually overrated and lose to G5 schools a lot. usually the top teams in both MWC and AAC are much better than the teams in front of them.

David do you have examples to prove what you are stating here in that the #20 or #18 MWC/ACC teams are better than P5's ranked #16, #15 and above?

I think usually the opposite is the case where those MWC/ACC teams drop games to lower ranked conference mates that you wouldn't think would be on the same level as their highest ranked teams.

Wait - how about everybody just gets a f**king trophy.....

Jesus H.... [shaking head]....

(12-26-2018 12:47 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Wait - how about everybody just gets a f**king trophy.....

You've just described the Bowl season.

(12-26-2018 07:29 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 12:47 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Wait - how about everybody just gets a f**king trophy.....

You've just described the Bowl season.

Not really.

Allowing teams to play bowl games isn't the same as letting 8, 12, 16, how ever many play for a natty.

That's why I STILL maintain that it should stay at 4 or at the most expand to 6 with the P5 champs plus 1 wildcard.