8 is fine. Top 8 no auto bids. ACC champ is rated #10, too bad, same for every one.

(06-02-2013 09:23 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  8 teams, no AQs

If you aren't a top 8 team already, you don't have a case for being the #1 team no matter what conference you won.

We finally agree on something. Top 8 teams should make it, whether that's 4 SEC schools or 2 G5 schools or zero B1G schools.

I hesitate to agree with just top 8 ranked teams. The best teams from different conferences don't play each other enough. So you can't really determine who is best based on 3-4 OOC games. I don't know what the answer is but the rankings are more questionable than some people like to think they are. 8 is a lot better than 4 though. You're usually going to get everybody that has a shot at being the best team, with only 4 teams I don't think that's the case.

8 team playoff and the 13 game schedule are very likely because there is too much money left on the table not to make a jump. I think we will see a 13 game schedule before the 8 team playoff because its going to take longer work out the logistics for a larger playoff. The easy solution is that the first round is played on campus sites with higher seeded team hosting. After the first round the structure remains the same as the 4 team playoff. Also, I believe the top eight teams will make the playoff because that is probably the only thing the conference will be able to agree on. One big issue is when do you play the quarterfinal round?

(06-03-2013 06:48 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  8 is fine. Top 8 no auto bids. ACC champ is rated #10, too bad, same for every one.

I agree with you in principle and wish that it would work that way. That is to say that if I thought the ranking process was fair and equitable, I'd be on board with that sentiment 100 percent.

The problem is I think a lot of the voters are extremely provincial and many others don't know if a football is blown up or stuffed - as they have proven time and again over the years.

With those factors in mind, I want to get as far away as possible from public opinion polls determining who plays for the national championship. That is the biggest reason why I have always favored a 16-team tournament but would settle - for now at least - for an eight-team playoff. They each lower the chances of a worthy team being left out. It is one thing for one 9-3 team or a 10-2 team from a lesser perceived league to be left out in favor of another 9-3 or an 8-4 team from a more prestigious league. It is something altogether different to be choosing between an 11-1 team and a pair of 12-1 teams for that fourth and final playoff spot. The four-team playoff will definitely cause us to face that latter conundrum. A larger playoff would feature the much more manageable former scenario.

Obviously, with 120 some teams competing, there inherently has to be some sort of voting that takes place. I get that and accept it. However, I want it to be by an accountable and transparent committee who have proven themselves knowledgeable on the game. I do not want some schmoe who went to journalism school and whose expertise is in syntax and sentence structure, deciding which football teams should square off. That is how we have done it for almost a century now and that will no longer suffice because that system is unbelievably biased and antiquated.

I also favor an eight-team playoff with auto-bids to the champion of each of the P5 and guarantees of access to the GOF if their best teams meet certain criteria. In a 16-team playoff, the auto-bids remain but then we add 11 at-large berths and that should keep just about everyone happy.

I'm not in favor of a playoff where at large teams outnumber conference champions. If we do that, why not just start the season with a playoff, and forget the regular season altogether? The teams knocked out of the playoff can then fill their schedule out by playing games to determine the conference pecking order...

(06-03-2013 09:19 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 06:48 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  8 is fine. Top 8 no auto bids. ACC champ is rated #10, too bad, same for every one.

I agree with you in principle and wish that it would work that way. That is to say that if I thought the ranking process was fair and equitable, I'd be on board with that sentiment 100 percent.

The problem is I think a lot of the voters are extremely provincial and many others don't know if a football is blown up or stuffed - as they have proven time and again over the years.

With those factors in mind, I want to get as far away as possible from public opinion polls determining who plays for the national championship. That is the biggest reason why I have always favored a 16-team tournament but would settle - for now at least - for an eight-team playoff. They each lower the chances of a worthy team being left out. It is one thing for one 9-3 team or a 10-2 team from a lesser perceived league to be left out in favor of another 9-3 or an 8-4 team from a more prestigious league. It is something altogether different to be choosing between an 11-1 team and a pair of 12-1 teams for that fourth and final playoff spot. The four-team playoff will definitely cause us to face that latter conundrum. A larger playoff would feature the much more manageable former scenario.

Obviously, with 120 some teams competing, there inherently has to be some sort of voting that takes place. I get that and accept it. However, I want it to be by an accountable and transparent committee who have proven themselves knowledgeable on the game. I do not want some schmoe who went to journalism school and whose expertise is in syntax and sentence structure, deciding which football teams should square off. That is how we have done it for almost a century now and that will no longer suffice because that system is unbelievably biased and antiquated.

I also favor an eight-team playoff with auto-bids to the champion of each of the P5 and guarantees of access to the GOF if their best teams meet certain criteria. In a 16-team playoff, the auto-bids remain but then we add 11 at-large berths and that should keep just about everyone happy.

That is what I would like to see too.

(06-03-2013 01:54 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 05:13 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 04:46 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Would hope they would eventually go to 16 and keep it there.

I'm hoping they stop at 8. That's adding 3 weeks to the schedule for the champ and runner-up already. I just don't see a compelling argument for teams 9 - 16 like there is for 5 - 8.

2008 was really the only time as many as 8 teams was needed. We had undefeated Texas Tech as the 3-way tie for Big 12 champ...PSU as Big Ten champ (1 last-second loss...very similar to mighty Florida's loss...the eventual champion since they were bequeath a shot in the BCS title game)...USC as Pac-12 champ...and undefeated Utah....all left out of a 4-team playoff.

8 is perfect. Home game for round 1 the week after conference championship games...then use the new 5-bowl rotation for the semifinals still.

I would say you probably would have needed it in 2009 as well really.

Final BCS Standings:
1) Alabama (13-0)
2) Texas (13-0)
3) Cincinnati (12-0)
4) TCU (12-0)
5) Florida (12-1)
6) Boise St (12-0)
7) Oregon (10-2)
8) Ohio St (10-2)

Would have been a heck of a playoff for sure.

(06-03-2013 09:19 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 06:48 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  8 is fine. Top 8 no auto bids. ACC champ is rated #10, too bad, same for every one.

I agree with you in principle and wish that it would work that way. That is to say that if I thought the ranking process was fair and equitable, I'd be on board with that sentiment 100 percent.

The problem is I think a lot of the voters are extremely provincial and many others don't know if a football is blown up or stuffed - as they have proven time and again over the years.

With those factors in mind, I want to get as far away as possible from public opinion polls determining who plays for the national championship. That is the biggest reason why I have always favored a 16-team tournament but would settle - for now at least - for an eight-team playoff. They each lower the chances of a worthy team being left out. It is one thing for one 9-3 team or a 10-2 team from a lesser perceived league to be left out in favor of another 9-3 or an 8-4 team from a more prestigious league. It is something altogether different to be choosing between an 11-1 team and a pair of 12-1 teams for that fourth and final playoff spot. The four-team playoff will definitely cause us to face that latter conundrum. A larger playoff would feature the much more manageable former scenario.

Obviously, with 120 some teams competing, there inherently has to be some sort of voting that takes place. I get that and accept it. However, I want it to be by an accountable and transparent committee who have proven themselves knowledgeable on the game. I do not want some schmoe who went to journalism school and whose expertise is in syntax and sentence structure, deciding which football teams should square off. That is how we have done it for almost a century now and that will no longer suffice because that system is unbelievably biased and antiquated.

I also favor an eight-team playoff with auto-bids to the champion of each of the P5 and guarantees of access to the GOF if their best teams meet certain criteria. In a 16-team playoff, the auto-bids remain but then we add 11 at-large berths and that should keep just about everyone happy.

I prefer no autobids for anyone to anything. A few people on this board claim that the G5 just want things given to them. That's not want I want, what I want is to have nothing "given" to anyone. I want the top 8 teams in the playoff, and we can disagree and argue about the bottom 2 or 3 but I don't want a conference champ making it just because they won a league unless it's going to include all conference champs and not just the P5. Since that will obviously not happen I don't want anyone given anything. If the ACC or B1G's champ is in the 15-20 range it has no business being in an 8 team playoff.

I like auto bids cause the make the conference champ games meaningful. The more the playoffs are expanded those games become a joke. I'd go with 8 team playoff, 4 auto bids to the highest ranked conference champs and 4 at large bids. 1st round would be on campus 2nd week-end in december. I might go with 2nd round would be a double header at rotated site around new years with champ game week later.

From the article:

Quote:The current contracts lock the College Football Playoff in with a four-team format until 2026-27, so it would take strong support from the conference commissioners to get anything changed in the foreseeable future. Also, the ESPN agreement with the College Football Playoff does not include the typical "look-in" language that could give either party an opportunity to make changes to the deal.

Not that contracts can't be broken, but there would have to be a strong feeling to expand beyond the four. I also know that there was a lot of resentment about using home stadiums for the first round. A lot of people felt it was too large an advantage to give, especially in that 4/5 matchup, where the choice by the selection committee could be rather arbitrary. Not that the system as it stands now isn't and that 4/5 selection determines who's in and who's not in the CFP, but at least #5 still goes to a major bowl otherwise.

IMHO I think they'd approve conference semifinals before they approve a third round of playoffs. If they had a third round of playoffs, that's 4 of the top 8 teams that don't go to the major bowls. I think they are using that sort of thinking in keeping the playoffs from expanding.

(06-03-2013 10:14 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I like auto bids cause the make the conference champ games meaningful. The more the playoffs are expanded those games become a joke. I'd go with 8 team playoff, 4 auto bids to the highest ranked conference champs and 4 at large bids. 1st round would be on campus 2nd week-end in december. I might go with 2nd round would be a double header at rotated site around new years with champ game week later.

I'd be fine with that too, but again that wouldn't happen. I either want the thing with every conference champ getting an auto bid or none getting it. That's not asking for the G5 to be "given" anything, that's saying I don't believe any conferences should be given anything and all should have to earn what they get. I'd prefer no auto bids, because I want the best 8 or however many teams in the thing period, and if that's 5 SEC teams then too bad everyone else just needs to get better.

I think 8 teams is the next logical step with 5 conference champs of 10 wins or more. If the ACC champ (just picked ACC arbitrarily) has 9 victories, they fall into the "at large" selection pool. Play this for 3-5 years and see how well it represents the legit teams vs. access scenario, then expand to 12 or 16 teams if it is deemed necessary to keep legit teams in play.

This type of gradual expansion would allow the truth to come out on what size is appropriate without watering down the regular season. Truth be told, 8 teams represent less than 10% of FBS schools and would still require outstanding regular season results to qualify for the playoffs, but not leave a deserving program out in the cold.

This also would give bowls a chance to play a part of the playoff system without being relegated to "best of the rest" type post season options. Just my two cents.

(06-03-2013 10:25 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 10:14 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I like auto bids cause the make the conference champ games meaningful. The more the playoffs are expanded those games become a joke. I'd go with 8 team playoff, 4 auto bids to the highest ranked conference champs and 4 at large bids. 1st round would be on campus 2nd week-end in december. I might go with 2nd round would be a double header at rotated site around new years with champ game week later.

I'd be fine with that too, but again that wouldn't happen. I either want the thing with every conference champ getting an auto bid or none getting it. That's not asking for the G5 to be "given" anything, that's saying I don't believe any conferences should be given anything and all should have to earn what they get. I'd prefer no auto bids, because I want the best 8 or however many teams in the thing period, and if that's 5 SEC teams then too bad everyone else just needs to get better.

That's another reason why an 8-team playoff won't have any autobids.

The non-contract leagues don't want to be stigmatized as the leagues that don't have autobids, and the contract leagues are not going to be on board with autobids for every league unless the playoff gets to at least 16 teams. (The big boys might not be in favor of autobids even then, because they think that the autobids in basketball have encouraged dozens of schools that don't belong in D-I to move up just for the basketball money, and they don't want to see the same kind of mass movement into FBS.)

(06-03-2013 10:46 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 10:25 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 10:14 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I like auto bids cause the make the conference champ games meaningful. The more the playoffs are expanded those games become a joke. I'd go with 8 team playoff, 4 auto bids to the highest ranked conference champs and 4 at large bids. 1st round would be on campus 2nd week-end in december. I might go with 2nd round would be a double header at rotated site around new years with champ game week later.

I'd be fine with that too, but again that wouldn't happen. I either want the thing with every conference champ getting an auto bid or none getting it. That's not asking for the G5 to be "given" anything, that's saying I don't believe any conferences should be given anything and all should have to earn what they get. I'd prefer no auto bids, because I want the best 8 or however many teams in the thing period, and if that's 5 SEC teams then too bad everyone else just needs to get better.

That's another reason why an 8-team playoff won't have any autobids.

The non-contract leagues don't want to be stigmatized as the leagues that don't have autobids, and the contract leagues are not going to be on board with autobids for every league unless the playoff gets to at least 16 teams. (The big boys might not be in favor of autobids even then, because they think that the autobids in basketball have encouraged dozens of schools that don't belong in D-I to move up just for the basketball money, and they don't want to see the same kind of mass movement into FBS.)

That's fine with me.

(06-03-2013 09:24 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'm not in favor of a playoff where at large teams outnumber conference champions. If we do that, why not just start the season with a playoff, and forget the regular season altogether? The teams knocked out of the playoff can then fill their schedule out by playing games to determine the conference pecking order...

I agree. It's one thing with a 4-team playoff, where it was simply too convoluted to try to have any conference champ requirements with a field that small. I actually agreed with the SEC on that setup. However, I think the "moral authority" switches over to granting autobids in an 8-team playoff. You can even use the bowls to do this (and yes, I get it that many people here would wish bowls would die a violent death, but the power 5 wants CONTROL over anything else and the bowls allow them to that better than any other mechanism). The quarterfinals could be pretty simple:

Rose Bowl: Big Ten champ vs. Pac-12 champ
Sugar Bowl: SEC champ vs. at-large
Orange/Peach Bowl: ACC champ vs. at-large
Cotton/Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 champ vs. at-large

Heck, even give a guaranteed spot to the best Gang of Five conference champ to placate that side of the equation. While it isn't a purely-seeded affair in the quarterfinals (and I've always been someone that thinks that's an overrated concern outside as long as #1 isn't facing #2 in round 1), it keeps the tradition/power conference control of the bowls, distributes the power champs among 4 different games, gives one Gang of Five champ a shot at the title, is a fairly easy next step to implement (a gradual change from the new system as opposed to a radical leap), and will make gazillions of dollars because *everyone* would love watching these games.

Anyone can create a playoff system that he or she *personally* likes. Those typically are about as likely as finding real unicorns or Big Foot. However, the real challenge is finding a playoff system that the 5 power conferences like... and maybe more specifically, the system that the Big Ten and SEC would be willing to pass. Show me why *they* would continue to have more power and money *compared* than everyone else (not just "more money for everyone" equality, which is irrelevant), and you might actually have something viable on the table.

(06-02-2013 08:50 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Every conference champion deserves a spot in the playoff, just like in basketball and baseball. Anything less than that is highly suspect, in my opinion.

Any conference with 12 or more teams and a championship game.

(06-02-2013 04:46 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Would hope they would eventually go to 16 and keep it there.

I think the best hope for the non-Big 5 teams in the post-season is to start a second-level 16 team tournament with the games being played at the homes of the higher seed.

Feeding the corrupt bowl system hurts the schools, and limits the excitement and marketability of the product. It works for the big 5, but not the others. We have to provide a different product.

Tournaments generate lots of excitement. Ask ECU fans about the excitement their College Insider Tournament championship generated. Having something like this in college football would build the local fan base for many nonBig 5 teams, and provide a different, unique product that would make money, instead of the bowls guaranteeing that money is lost.

Go Cougs!!!!!!

(06-03-2013 03:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 09:24 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'm not in favor of a playoff where at large teams outnumber conference champions. If we do that, why not just start the season with a playoff, and forget the regular season altogether? The teams knocked out of the playoff can then fill their schedule out by playing games to determine the conference pecking order...

I agree. It's one thing with a 4-team playoff, where it was simply too convoluted to try to have any conference champ requirements with a field that small. I actually agreed with the SEC on that setup. However, I think the "moral authority" switches over to granting autobids in an 8-team playoff. You can even use the bowls to do this (and yes, I get it that many people here would wish bowls would die a violent death, but the power 5 wants CONTROL over anything else and the bowls allow them to that better than any other mechanism). The quarterfinals could be pretty simple:

Rose Bowl: Big Ten champ vs. Pac-12 champ
Sugar Bowl: SEC champ vs. at-large
Orange/Peach Bowl: ACC champ vs. at-large
Cotton/Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 champ vs. at-large

Heck, even give a guaranteed spot to the best Gang of Five conference champ to placate that side of the equation. While it isn't a purely-seeded affair in the quarterfinals (and I've always been someone that thinks that's an overrated concern outside as long as #1 isn't facing #2 in round 1), it keeps the tradition/power conference control of the bowls, distributes the power champs among 4 different games, gives one Gang of Five champ a shot at the title, is a fairly easy next step to implement (a gradual change from the new system as opposed to a radical leap), and will make gazillions of dollars because *everyone* would love watching these games.

Anyone can create a playoff system that he or she *personally* likes. Those typically are about as likely as finding real unicorns or Big Foot. However, the real challenge is finding a playoff system that the 5 power conferences like... and maybe more specifically, the system that the Big Ten and SEC would be willing to pass. Show me why *they* would continue to have more power and money *compared* than everyone else (not just "more money for everyone" equality, which is irrelevant), and you might actually have something viable on the table.

That system is perfectly logical. But the P5 were probably concerned about the power side of the equation if they moved too fast. There were a number in the SEC, Big 12 and even a Pac 12 president who liked the idea of 8. But the Big 10 was very opposed. You really do have to get the SEC and Big 10 both on board.

(06-03-2013 08:16 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 04:46 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Would hope they would eventually go to 16 and keep it there.

I think the best hope for the non-Big 5 teams in the post-season is to start a second-level 16 team tournament with the games being played at the homes of the higher seed.

Feeding the corrupt bowl system hurts the schools, and limits the excitement and marketability of the product. It works for the big 5, but not the others. We have to provide a different product.

Tournaments generate lots of excitement. Ask ECU fans about the excitement their College Insider Tournament championship generated. Having something like this in college football would build the local fan base for many nonBig 5 teams, and provide a different, unique product that would make money, instead of the bowls guaranteeing that money is lost.

Go Cougs!!!!!!

Totally different situation. Yes the CIT tournament generated a lot of excitement for ECU, but that was just more about ECU fans have been looking for a reason to be excited about basketball for so long than that the CIT is that exciting itself. Tournaments only generate excitement for those excited to be in them. You look at the power conference teams that end up in the NIT or CBI and they just don't care. That's how the better and more traditionally good G5 would view that type of tournament. They wouldn't see it as an opportunity but more of a punishment. ECU fans would not be jacked up about hosting Akron (or any other random G5 team we have zero history with) in a tournament that ECU fans all know in the grand scheme of things is meaningless.