The one month gap between CCGs and bowls is one of the dumbest things in all of sports. You lose so much momentum among the marginal fans...

Two weeks of hype and prep time for the quarterfinals on home fields after the CCGs would fix that problem perfectly. Then two more week until the semifinal bowl games keeps the momentum going (and preserves some of the dwindling excitement over bowls). And then the whole season is over by January 10th or so. And by that time, the NFL playoffs have stolen all of the attention anyway.

(12-29-2018 11:21 PM)micahandme Wrote:  The one month gap between CCGs and bowls is one of the dumbest things in all of sports. You lose so much momentum among the marginal fans...

Not to mention the players lose their rhythm. These games have looked like season openers.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ns-formats

First, ban Notre Dame

(12-29-2018 11:21 PM)micahandme Wrote:  The one month gap between CCGs and bowls is one of the dumbest things in all of sports. You lose so much momentum among the marginal fans...

Two weeks of hype and prep time for the quarterfinals on home fields after the CCGs would fix that problem perfectly. Then two more week until the semifinal bowl games keeps the momentum going (and preserves some of the dwindling excitement over bowls). And then the whole season is over by January 10th or so. And by that time, the NFL playoffs have stolen all of the attention anyway.

And notice here ... the "solution", which is, "NO, GRAB SOME ATTENTION BACK FROM THE NFL!!!" ... is NOT what the media networks want to pay for. They want media value in College Football in the time period that the race to make the NFL playoffs is reaching the finale and more and more NFL fans know that their team is not going to the playoffs this year.

You can have an on-campus game two weeks after the CCGs, with the losers guaranteed pre-determined bowl games, but it will still hurt ticket sales. This might be what Saban is talking about hurting bowl games.

Auto bids for G5 champs and 3 at large for best P 5 schools.

Quote:Auto-bids for the P-5 Champions & then the highest rated teams getting the other three slots (regardless of P-5 or G-5 designation).

That's one of the classic knee-jerk thought that everyone (including sports blog writers) may have -- but it doesn't work. Fine for 4 Top-Tier Bowls as the system, which are for a show for ratings & conf vs conf. But Playoffs are fundamentally different. A G5 Champ could be rated & ranked higher than a P5 Champion, where a P5 Champ gets in but the better team doesn't. To a PLAYOFF. Not good. Look at the 2009 rankings before the bowls started. :)

Quote:The one month gap between CCGs and bowls is one of the dumbest things in all of sports. You lose so much momentum among the marginal fans...

The good part is that it gives room for playoffs to be had. Like, as mentioned a few posts above, have the 8-team play their 1st Round home/away games 2 weeks after CCGs. Then 2 weeks later, they can be placed how they are now with the Top 4. I don't think this will hurt ticket sales for bowls. It'd be happening during G5 bowl week. The games could be placed where they're not happening at the same time. This would help "fill in" December more. We can't have it both ways -- say a round of playoffs to get to that "4" for the top 2 bowls for a Nat Champ would hurt ticket sales, then Also say "there's not enough football" without it. :)

But I don't think the month of December being too "hollow" is such a bad thing. First, it's always been this way, and CFB has always been popular; it's not a new idea or anything hurting it. Second, it is exam time, so you want to give some room for that. Yeah, it's overplayed, but you don't want a team having every-week football games. And third, especially nowadays, they want to avoid injuries as much as possible, especially with some being NFL bound.

Quote:Auto bids for G5 champs and 3 at large for best P 5 schools.

LOL - funny! I like the idea.

(12-29-2018 11:21 PM)micahandme Wrote:  The one month gap between CCGs and bowls is one of the dumbest things in all of sports. You lose so much momentum among the marginal fans...

Two weeks of hype and prep time for the quarterfinals on home fields after the CCGs would fix that problem perfectly. Then two more week until the semifinal bowl games keeps the momentum going (and preserves some of the dwindling excitement over bowls). And then the whole season is over by January 10th or so. And by that time, the NFL playoffs have stolen all of the attention anyway.

Part of the reason for the gap are that the students need to take their finals.

(12-28-2018 10:31 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-28-2018 09:53 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(12-27-2018 04:22 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-27-2018 01:22 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  With 12 teams and all conference champs. Top four seeds an extra home game vs lowest four seeds

I think you missed the "8" in the title. And the OP. And the poll.

(12-27-2018 03:52 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  4 NY6 Bowls are the quarterfinals

The remaining 2 NY6 are the semi-finals all on a rotation basis

Then the National Title game is its own entity as it is currently.

The 8 teams come from 3 categories:
-5 conference champions
-2 At-Large
-1 G5 champion

Conference champions are seeded 1-5 based on the Out of Conference record vs FBS teams of the entire conference. For example, if the SEC had the most Out of Conference wins vs FBS teams, their champion would be the number 1 seed and so on.

At-Large teams are the runner-ups from the top 2 seeded conferences. For example, if this year the top 2 conferences in Out of Conference wins vs the FBS were the SEC and the Big 10, UGA and Northwestern would get the 6 and 7 seeds of the playoff.

The G5 champion is determined how it normally is. Since the Access Bowl for G5 teams is a NY6 bowl game, it will continue as usual except the G5 champion will be the 8th seed in the playoff and will advance should they win.

I gather that your intent is to discourage power conference schools from scheduling OOC games against one another. That way they play more G5 schools. Am I right?

My intent would be more to discourage P5 teams from scheduling FCS schools and instead schedule more FBS whether they be G5 or P5.

Well, regardless of the intent, the effect would be P5 schools stocking up on bodybag G5 schools at the expense of more competitive OOC P5 opponents.

Most P5 schools already play 1 FCS and 2-3 G5 schools a year. I don't really see why P5 schools dropping the FCS game to schedule another G5 school is counterproductive.

(01-02-2019 09:20 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(12-28-2018 10:31 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-28-2018 09:53 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(12-27-2018 04:22 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-27-2018 01:22 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  With 12 teams and all conference champs. Top four seeds an extra home game vs lowest four seeds

I think you missed the "8" in the title. And the OP. And the poll.

(12-27-2018 03:52 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  4 NY6 Bowls are the quarterfinals

The remaining 2 NY6 are the semi-finals all on a rotation basis

Then the National Title game is its own entity as it is currently.

The 8 teams come from 3 categories:
-5 conference champions
-2 At-Large
-1 G5 champion

Conference champions are seeded 1-5 based on the Out of Conference record vs FBS teams of the entire conference. For example, if the SEC had the most Out of Conference wins vs FBS teams, their champion would be the number 1 seed and so on.

At-Large teams are the runner-ups from the top 2 seeded conferences. For example, if this year the top 2 conferences in Out of Conference wins vs the FBS were the SEC and the Big 10, UGA and Northwestern would get the 6 and 7 seeds of the playoff.

The G5 champion is determined how it normally is. Since the Access Bowl for G5 teams is a NY6 bowl game, it will continue as usual except the G5 champion will be the 8th seed in the playoff and will advance should they win.

I gather that your intent is to discourage power conference schools from scheduling OOC games against one another. That way they play more G5 schools. Am I right?

My intent would be more to discourage P5 teams from scheduling FCS schools and instead schedule more FBS whether they be G5 or P5.

Well, regardless of the intent, the effect would be P5 schools stocking up on bodybag G5 schools at the expense of more competitive OOC P5 opponents.

Most P5 schools already play 1 FCS and 2-3 G5 schools a year. I don't really see why P5 schools dropping the FCS game to schedule another G5 school is counterproductive.

Many P5 schools actually play at least 1 other P5 OOC. They will seek to drop P5 (and strong G5) opponents from their OOC schedule in addition to FCS ones, with lower-tier G5 opponents being the main goal. Overall the disparity in OOC opponent strength will increase substantially. Fewer competitive matchups seems counterproductive to me.

(01-02-2019 05:21 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 09:20 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(12-28-2018 10:31 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-28-2018 09:53 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(12-27-2018 04:22 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I think you missed the "8" in the title. And the OP. And the poll.


I gather that your intent is to discourage power conference schools from scheduling OOC games against one another. That way they play more G5 schools. Am I right?

My intent would be more to discourage P5 teams from scheduling FCS schools and instead schedule more FBS whether they be G5 or P5.

Well, regardless of the intent, the effect would be P5 schools stocking up on bodybag G5 schools at the expense of more competitive OOC P5 opponents.

Most P5 schools already play 1 FCS and 2-3 G5 schools a year. I don't really see why P5 schools dropping the FCS game to schedule another G5 school is counterproductive.

Many P5 schools actually play at least 1 other P5 OOC. They will seek to drop P5 (and strong G5) opponents from their OOC schedule in addition to FCS ones, with lower-tier G5 opponents being the main goal. Overall the disparity in OOC opponent strength will increase substantially. Fewer competitive matchups seems counterproductive to me.

There's no basis to believe that will happen though. If that were the case, you would already see most P5's foregoing out-of-conference match ups with each other for an extra G5 or FCS game. Some already do this, but most still schedule at least one other P5 team (usually an in-state rival of a different conference). Why would that suddenly change just because teams were incentivized to replace their FCS match-up with an FBS one?

(01-02-2019 06:25 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 05:21 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 09:20 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(12-28-2018 10:31 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-28-2018 09:53 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  My intent would be more to discourage P5 teams from scheduling FCS schools and instead schedule more FBS whether they be G5 or P5.

Well, regardless of the intent, the effect would be P5 schools stocking up on bodybag G5 schools at the expense of more competitive OOC P5 opponents.

Most P5 schools already play 1 FCS and 2-3 G5 schools a year. I don't really see why P5 schools dropping the FCS game to schedule another G5 school is counterproductive.

Many P5 schools actually play at least 1 other P5 OOC. They will seek to drop P5 (and strong G5) opponents from their OOC schedule in addition to FCS ones, with lower-tier G5 opponents being the main goal. Overall the disparity in OOC opponent strength will increase substantially. Fewer competitive matchups seems counterproductive to me.

There's no basis to believe that will happen though. If that were the case, you would already see most P5's foregoing out-of-conference match ups with each other for an extra G5 or FCS game. Some already do this, but most still schedule at least one other P5 team (usually an in-state rival of a different conference). Why would that suddenly change just because teams were incentivized to replace their FCS match-up with an FBS one?

Even if they drop the FCS opponent, P5 teams are being incentivized to weaken their OOC schedule, since the CFP seeding and at-large spots are determined merely by OOC FBS wins, regardless of SOS. Hence, there will be far fewer competitive OOC games.

Take the P5 champs, highest G5 champ plus one wild card.

The regular season is a playoff.

Conference Championships are the first round of the playoff

Seed the playoffs based on the 8

Second round is on December 21 or 22

Third round is on New years Day - 4 teams

Fourth round is the National Title game on January 7 or 9.

No quibbles from everybody. (except the four g5 champs left out)

This is the best compromise and makes the most money and does not extend the CFP past current timeline
Today 09:10 PM
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Edit this post Delete this post

Been debating how I would want this to look if they eventually go this route. This is what I have come up with:

1. Have all 5 conferences tie to a major bowl. Big 12 and SEC can continue to be tied to Sugar together if they want, but I suspect for this they would separate out with the SEC keeping the Sugar and the Big 12 going to either the Cotton or back to the Fiesta (let's say the Cotton).

2. The 4 quarterfinals would all be on New Years Day or over 2 days. The conference champs would all be placed in their respective bowls. In the Rose Bowl, you will have both Big Ten and PAC-12 champs unless the two teams both are in either the top 3 or the bottom 3 of the 8 playoff teams. If that ends up the case, the lower ranked team is made an at large team. The same would apply for the SEC/Big 12 if both stuck with the Sugar (although for the rest of this I'm saying they aren't).

3. The 3 at large teams (possibly with added protections for Group of 5 of independents) would be placed to balance the seeds as much as possible.

4. I think the compromise with the Group of 5 teams and independents would be this. Any independent guarenteed in if they are in the top 8 (unlike everyone else, they can never get in outside of the top 8, so they also won't be able to be kicked out if they are in it). For the Group of 5, the highest champ will be in if they are in the top 12.

Here's how that would look this year, assuming the Big 12 went with the Cotton Bowl:
Rose Bowl: #6 Ohio State vs. #3 Notre Dame
Sugar Bowl: #1 Alabama vs.#9 Washington
Cotton Bowl: #4 Oklahoma vs. #5 Georgia
Orange Bowl: #2 Clemson vs. #8 UCF

If Ohio State had been #5 instead of #6, Ohio State and Washington still would have been in the Rose Bowl, but at #6 they and Washington are both the bottom 3 seeds. In this particular year, that would have given the Big Ten an easier opponent than pure rankings, but the opposite can just as easily happen as well.

After the playoff bowls, I would have a single site for the semi-finals and national championship and make it a week long event.

(01-03-2019 01:04 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Been debating how I would want this to look if they eventually go this route. This is what I have come up with:

1. Have all 5 conferences tie to a major bowl. Big 12 and SEC can continue to be tied to Sugar together if they want, but I suspect for this they would separate out with the SEC keeping the Sugar and the Big 12 going to either the Cotton or back to the Fiesta (let's say the Cotton).

2. The 4 quarterfinals would all be on New Years Day or over 2 days. The conference champs would all be placed in their respective bowls. In the Rose Bowl, you will have both Big Ten and PAC-12 champs unless the two teams both are in either the top 3 or the bottom 3 of the 8 playoff teams. If that ends up the case, the lower ranked team is made an at large team. The same would apply for the SEC/Big 12 if both stuck with the Sugar (although for the rest of this I'm saying they aren't).

3. The 3 at large teams (possibly with added protections for Group of 5 of independents) would be placed to balance the seeds as much as possible.

4. I think the compromise with the Group of 5 teams and independents would be this. Any independent guarenteed in if they are in the top 8 (unlike everyone else, they can never get in outside of the top 8, so they also won't be able to be kicked out if they are in it). For the Group of 5, the highest champ will be in if they are in the top 12.

Here's how that would look this year, assuming the Big 12 went with the Cotton Bowl:
Rose Bowl: #6 Ohio State vs. #3 Notre Dame
Sugar Bowl: #1 Alabama vs.#9 Washington
Cotton Bowl: #4 Oklahoma vs. #5 Georgia
Orange Bowl: #2 Clemson vs. #8 UCF

If Ohio State had been #5 instead of #6, Ohio State and Washington still would have been in the Rose Bowl, but at #6 they and Washington are both the bottom 3 seeds. In this particular year, that would have given the Big Ten an easier opponent than pure rankings, but the opposite can just as easily happen as well.

After the playoff bowls, I would have a single site for the semi-finals and national championship and make it a week long event.

I like it but I see some drawbacks:

Would it be fair for a conference champ from say the ACC that's ranked somewhere outside the top 15 to get to play host to a higher ranked at-large and get to play closer to home?

What I like about my Option 2 is that it gives some flexibility between the 4 quarter-final sites and get the top 2 close to home and/or their conference's historical bowl tie in.

I do like your idea of the semis and final being in one site--maybe the FCS title gets played at the same location between the two rounds.

(01-03-2019 01:04 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Been debating how I would want this to look if they eventually go this route. This is what I have come up with:

1. Have all 5 conferences tie to a major bowl. Big 12 and SEC can continue to be tied to Sugar together if they want, but I suspect for this they would separate out with the SEC keeping the Sugar and the Big 12 going to either the Cotton or back to the Fiesta (let's say the Cotton).

2. The 4 quarterfinals would all be on New Years Day or over 2 days. The conference champs would all be placed in their respective bowls. In the Rose Bowl, you will have both Big Ten and PAC-12 champs unless the two teams both are in either the top 3 or the bottom 3 of the 8 playoff teams. If that ends up the case, the lower ranked team is made an at large team. The same would apply for the SEC/Big 12 if both stuck with the Sugar (although for the rest of this I'm saying they aren't).

3. The 3 at large teams (possibly with added protections for Group of 5 of independents) would be placed to balance the seeds as much as possible.

4. I think the compromise with the Group of 5 teams and independents would be this. Any independent guarenteed in if they are in the top 8 (unlike everyone else, they can never get in outside of the top 8, so they also won't be able to be kicked out if they are in it). For the Group of 5, the highest champ will be in if they are in the top 12.

Here's how that would look this year, assuming the Big 12 went with the Cotton Bowl:
Rose Bowl: #6 Ohio State vs. #3 Notre Dame
Sugar Bowl: #1 Alabama vs.#9 Washington
Cotton Bowl: #4 Oklahoma vs. #5 Georgia
Orange Bowl: #2 Clemson vs. #8 UCF

If Ohio State had been #5 instead of #6, Ohio State and Washington still would have been in the Rose Bowl, but at #6 they and Washington are both the bottom 3 seeds. In this particular year, that would have given the Big Ten an easier opponent than pure rankings, but the opposite can just as easily happen as well.

After the playoff bowls, I would have a single site for the semi-finals and national championship and make it a week long event.

I don't think any special measures should be made for independent teams. Why should a #6 Notre Dame get in over a #5 Oregon just because the latter didn't win its conference? The Irish didn't win a conference either.

With the tie-ins, I really like the idea of SEC teams going all season trying to get to the Sugar Bowl again and the Rose Bowl fully regaining its place to Big Ten and PAC-12 fans. Having a desired deatination each year makes the bowls more than random neutral site affairs which is I feel the more ad hock nature we have been heading to as started to turn them into.

Its not a must but I like the protection for independents just because it feels like it balances things out to me. You will see conference champs in ranked in the teens or even lower 20s over time. If the power 5 conferences can get in with that and the highest Group of 5 champiom given extra cusion, it at least makes sense to me that an indpendent shouldn't be knocked out based on that when they cant also benefit. This will usually only be an issue if they are the #7 or #8 team (otherwise theyll be in regardless most the time). If you have #8 Notre Dame getting in over #7 Texas that doesn't bother me because Texas had a chance to win their conference and get the auto bid (even if outside the top 8).

(01-04-2019 01:36 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  With the tie-ins, I really like the idea of SEC teams going all season trying to get to the Sugar Bowl again and the Rose Bowl fully regaining its place to Big Ten and PAC-12 fans. Having a desired deatination each year makes the bowls more than random neutral site affairs which is I feel the more ad hock nature we have been heading to as started to turn them into.

Its not a must but I like the protection for independents just because it feels like it balances things out to me. You will see conference champs in ranked in the teens or even lower 20s over time. If the power 5 conferences can get in with that and the highest Group of 5 champiom given extra cusion, it at least makes sense to me that an indpendent shouldn't be knocked out based on that when they cant also benefit. This will usually only be an issue if they are the #7 or #8 team (otherwise theyll be in regardless most the time). If you have #8 Notre Dame getting in over #7 Texas that doesn't bother me because Texas had a chance to win their conference and get the auto bid (even if outside the top 8).

The thing about ND is that they're voluntarily remaining independent. They could join any conference they wanted to. So they should have to accept whatever disadvantage comes with not being in a conference.

(01-04-2019 06:06 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 01:36 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  With the tie-ins, I really like the idea of SEC teams going all season trying to get to the Sugar Bowl again and the Rose Bowl fully regaining its place to Big Ten and PAC-12 fans. Having a desired deatination each year makes the bowls more than random neutral site affairs which is I feel the more ad hock nature we have been heading to as started to turn them into.

Its not a must but I like the protection for independents just because it feels like it balances things out to me. You will see conference champs in ranked in the teens or even lower 20s over time. If the power 5 conferences can get in with that and the highest Group of 5 champiom given extra cusion, it at least makes sense to me that an indpendent shouldn't be knocked out based on that when they cant also benefit. This will usually only be an issue if they are the #7 or #8 team (otherwise theyll be in regardless most the time). If you have #8 Notre Dame getting in over #7 Texas that doesn't bother me because Texas had a chance to win their conference and get the auto bid (even if outside the top 8).

The thing about ND is that they're voluntarily remaining independent. They could join any conference they wanted to. So they should have to accept whatever disadvantage comes with not being in a conference.

Thing is, though, when it comes to determining a champ, there shouldn't be any disadvantages in the playoff system to not being in a conference.