(01-04-2019 09:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Therefore the playoff should be expanded to allow all conference champs to participate. There are 10 conferences plus the independents. Therefore, the best solution is to have a 16 team playoff.

10 conference Champs, highest ranked Independent, and then 5 wild card teams.

This is where we are headed.

1st round - December 1 or 2nd each year - Conference Championship games

2nd round - December 7 or 8th each year (16 teams) (played at top eight home fields)

3rd round - December 21 or 22nd each year (8 teams) Quarter final

4th round - January 1st each year (4 teams) Semifinal

5th round - January 7th 0r 8th (2 teams) National Championship

(01-04-2019 09:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

But there shouldn't be any special advantages granted to independents either, which is what Ohio's clause would provide. If the CFP rank is all that matters, as I think you support, then a #6 should not be able to hop over a #5 just because one's in a conference and one is not.

(01-04-2019 11:24 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 09:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

But there shouldn't be any special advantages granted to independents either, which is what Ohio's clause would provide. If the CFP rank is all that matters, as I think you support, then a #6 should not be able to hop over a #5 just because one's in a conference and one is not.

Yes, if an 8 team playoff is coming, I am in favor of straight-8, the top 8 get in and in that seeding order, regardless of whether they are conference champs or not, or in a conference or not.

(01-04-2019 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 11:24 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 09:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

But there shouldn't be any special advantages granted to independents either, which is what Ohio's clause would provide. If the CFP rank is all that matters, as I think you support, then a #6 should not be able to hop over a #5 just because one's in a conference and one is not.

Yes, if an 8 team playoff is coming, I am in favor of straight-8, the top 8 get in and in that seeding order, regardless of whether they are conference champs or not, or in a conference or not.

I've been on the fence about this. I wouldn't want to conference championships to stop being meaningful, but I guess you could say that they would factor into seeding. I do think, however, that it should be detrimental for teams that don't make the CCG or aren't in a conference. It doesn't make sense for those teams to be able to skip what would usually be one of the toughest games of their year. Someone worth a crap could have played in the playoff if ND would have gone ahead and gotten embarrassed by Clemson in the ACC conference championship game.

Regardless of that issue, I don't think the G5 should get an auto-bid unless the other conferences do. If you're taking all of the champs from the other 5 conferences automatically, then that's different. But if it's straight top-8, (as an AAC fan) I don't want an auto-bid. We should have to produce a top 8 team like everyone else.

I would rather have my conference not represented in a given year than potentially be locked into the 8-seed when we produce a (for example) #6 team.

There appears to be too many hurdles to - in the near-term - expand to an eight-team playoff.


https://apnews.com/5e75e220751f405cad4a5cc6e8aa5962

(01-04-2019 03:58 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 11:24 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 09:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

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

But there shouldn't be any special advantages granted to independents either, which is what Ohio's clause would provide. If the CFP rank is all that matters, as I think you support, then a #6 should not be able to hop over a #5 just because one's in a conference and one is not.

Yes, if an 8 team playoff is coming, I am in favor of straight-8, the top 8 get in and in that seeding order, regardless of whether they are conference champs or not, or in a conference or not.

I've been on the fence about this. I wouldn't want to conference championships to stop being meaningful, but I guess you could say that they would factor into seeding. I do think, however, that it should be detrimental for teams that don't make the CCG or aren't in a conference. It doesn't make sense for those teams to be able to skip what would usually be one of the toughest games of their year.

I think winning a major conference is something that clearly the current system takes into consideration. In the 5 years of the current system, 17/20 of the participants in the playoffs have been P5 conference champs.

Even though it is mathematically certain that at least one P5 champ will be left out, in the 5 years of the CFP, if you win a P5 conference your chance of making the playoffs has been 68%. If you don't, your chance has been less than 1%. That's not by accident, so the idea that somehow the current CFP gives short-shrift to winning a conference just doesn't hold water.