https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/what-c...10267.html

Great read and great plan in my opinion to move to an 8 team playoff.

I've been saying this since the CFP was announced. Top 5 conferences champions plus two at-large and one G5 Cinderella which would replace the Access Bowl. There would be 7 bowls that rotate between quarter, semi, and final spots: Rose, Orange, Citrus, Peach, Cotton, Fiesta, and Sugar.

It's like he's read all my posts on this message board and made an article out of it

(12-06-2016 10:24 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  I've been saying this since the CFP was announced. Top 5 conferences champions plus two at-large and one G5 Cinderella which would replace the Access Bowl. There would be 7 bowls that rotate between quarter, semi, and final spots: Rose, Orange, Citrus, Peach, Cotton, Fiesta, and Sugar.

It's like he's read all my posts on this message board and made an article out of it

It's what I have been saying and thinking too for a long time even before the CFP was announced.

Wetzel's great. We can all thank him that there is a CFP in the first place. His book, "Death To The BCS" led to, well, the death of the BCS and the birth of the CFP. I guarantee who's who's at the highest levels are taking notice of DW's great article and proposal and if not onboard yet, it's certainly respected by most.

I always find the arguments against a more expanded playoff to be funny, whether its "how will the athletes go to class and take exams?" or "the sport is already too rough on their bodies how will more games affect them?"

Every argument against an expanded playoff is from someone who lacks vision and can be explained away instantly by our former FCS Division who pulls off a 24 team pool playoff each and every year.

I hope they do as it will be the only way for the G5 to stay in the race and get more money. If they expand to 8 and dont include an auto bid to the highest rated G5 then it will just be manipulated to keep us out. It would have to be a slam dunk undefeated G5 with a conference championship game and likely have to have at least two ranked P5 name wins. WMU beating two horrible Big 10 teams did nothing for them.

I like his idea but let's all prepare ourselves for the eventual split into two separate divisions. It's absurd that half of the teams in college football have no real chance of playing for a national championship.

(12-06-2016 06:49 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  I like his idea but let's all prepare ourselves for the eventual split into two separate divisions. It's absurd that half of the teams in college football have no real chance of playing for a national championship.

That has been my biggest fear and it would make sense the P5 would exclude and force a separate league.

(12-06-2016 10:27 PM)KSDTROJAN99 Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 06:49 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  I like his idea but let's all prepare ourselves for the eventual split into two separate divisions. It's absurd that half of the teams in college football have no real chance of playing for a national championship.

That has been my biggest fear and it would make sense the P5 would exclude and force a separate league.

Never going to happen.
They need the G5 to maintain winning records/keep up interest/ticket sales and to keep boosters happy. Without us - half of them finish with losing records every year. At that point, it simply un-builds itself and destroys all of FBS college football. Bowls disappear and so does the money associated with them. They've got a good thing going, why risk it? They can keep us while at the same time ignoring the justice that would allow some of us into a playoff. We need public outcry.

8 is good. It's a start down the right road and MUST include the best G5.

But they could just as easily go to 12 with the top 4 seeded teams getting a bye in week 1. Then they could get all Conference Champions in plus the two at large. Ultimately, I hope that's where we wind up. At least let the top 4 G5 guys play each other and trim it down to 2. The 12 team set up allows for that. It's not that I believe that all G5 champions are good enough - just that winning your conference should earn you that. It'd make jumping conferences something to think about a little more. The top P5 shouldn't care if we knock each other off in an early round while they are mostly off. And I'm sure the teams left out of the bubble who would then get in would much rather still have some life in the chase for a title than not.
Go ask Penn State to vote right now on expansion!

(12-06-2016 10:24 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  I've been saying this since the CFP was announced. Top 5 conferences champions plus two at-large and one G5 Cinderella which would replace the Access Bowl. There would be 7 bowls that rotate between quarter, semi, and final spots: Rose, Orange, Citrus, Peach, Cotton, Fiesta, and Sugar.

It's like he's read all my posts on this message board and made an article out of it

Or maybe you two are the SAME PERSON...?

(12-06-2016 10:24 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  I've been saying this since the CFP was announced. Top 5 conferences champions plus two at-large and one G5 Cinderella which would replace the Access Bowl. There would be 7 bowls that rotate between quarter, semi, and final spots: Rose, Orange, Citrus, Peach, Cotton, Fiesta, and Sugar.

It's like he's read all my posts on this message board and made an article out of it

Not to bust your bubble but this isn't some crazy out the box solution, it's the obvious way it should be. A lot of people have said this before they even talked about going to 4 teams.... but it makes too much sense so it won't happen

(12-07-2016 03:10 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 10:27 PM)KSDTROJAN99 Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 06:49 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  I like his idea but let's all prepare ourselves for the eventual split into two separate divisions. It's absurd that half of the teams in college football have no real chance of playing for a national championship.

That has been my biggest fear and it would make sense the P5 would exclude and force a separate league.

Never going to happen.
They need the G5 to maintain winning records/keep up interest/ticket sales and to keep boosters happy. Without us - half of them finish with losing records every year. At that point, it simply un-builds itself and destroys all of FBS college football. Bowls disappear and so does the money associated with them. They've got a good thing going, why risk it? They can keep us while at the same time ignoring the justice that would allow some of us into a playoff. We need public outcry.

8 is good. It's a start down the right road and MUST include the best G5.

But they could just as easily go to 12 with the top 4 seeded teams getting a bye in week 1. Then they could get all Conference Champions in plus the two at large. Ultimately, I hope that's where we wind up. At least let the top 4 G5 guys play each other and trim it down to 2. The 12 team set up allows for that. It's not that I believe that all G5 champions are good enough - just that winning your conference should earn you that. It'd make jumping conferences something to think about a little more. The top P5 shouldn't care if we knock each other off in an early round while they are mostly off. And I'm sure the teams left out of the bubble who would then get in would much rather still have some life in the chase for a title than not.
Go ask Penn State to vote right now on expansion!

Every history textbook should have a chapter with this as the title.

(12-07-2016 03:10 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  But they could just as easily go to 12 with the top 4 seeded teams getting a bye in week 1. Then they could get all Conference Champions in plus the two at large. Ultimately, I hope that's where we wind up. At least let the top 4 G5 guys play each other and trim it down to 2. The 12 team set up allows for that. It's not that I believe that all G5 champions are good enough - just that winning your conference should earn you that. It'd make jumping conferences something to think about a little more. The top P5 shouldn't care if we knock each other off in an early round while they are mostly off. And I'm sure the teams left out of the bubble who would then get in would much rather still have some life in the chase for a title than not.
Go ask Penn State to vote right now on expansion!

12 with the top 4 getting byes is smart. 8 conferences would work better than 10 but 10 still works. Some people may complain about how extra games will be on players but the probability is low that the bottom 8 will advance past the top 4, it just adds enough intrigue to make it a little more exciting.

(12-07-2016 09:16 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 03:10 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  But they could just as easily go to 12 with the top 4 seeded teams getting a bye in week 1. Then they could get all Conference Champions in plus the two at large. Ultimately, I hope that's where we wind up. At least let the top 4 G5 guys play each other and trim it down to 2. The 12 team set up allows for that. It's not that I believe that all G5 champions are good enough - just that winning your conference should earn you that. It'd make jumping conferences something to think about a little more. The top P5 shouldn't care if we knock each other off in an early round while they are mostly off. And I'm sure the teams left out of the bubble who would then get in would much rather still have some life in the chase for a title than not.
Go ask Penn State to vote right now on expansion!

12 with the top 4 getting byes is smart. 8 conferences would work better than 10 but 10 still works. Some people may complain about how extra games will be on players but the probability is low that the bottom 8 will advance past the top 4, it just adds enough intrigue to make it a little more exciting.

The younger you are the better equipped you are to handle extra games...35-38 year old men play 19 games in the NFL...an extra game or 2 for 18-21 year olds...doesn't bother them one bit.

(12-07-2016 09:35 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:16 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 03:10 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  But they could just as easily go to 12 with the top 4 seeded teams getting a bye in week 1. Then they could get all Conference Champions in plus the two at large. Ultimately, I hope that's where we wind up. At least let the top 4 G5 guys play each other and trim it down to 2. The 12 team set up allows for that. It's not that I believe that all G5 champions are good enough - just that winning your conference should earn you that. It'd make jumping conferences something to think about a little more. The top P5 shouldn't care if we knock each other off in an early round while they are mostly off. And I'm sure the teams left out of the bubble who would then get in would much rather still have some life in the chase for a title than not.
Go ask Penn State to vote right now on expansion!

12 with the top 4 getting byes is smart. 8 conferences would work better than 10 but 10 still works. Some people may complain about how extra games will be on players but the probability is low that the bottom 8 will advance past the top 4, it just adds enough intrigue to make it a little more exciting.

The younger you are the better equipped you are to handle extra games...35-38 year old men play 19 games in the NFL...an extra game or 2 for 18-21 year olds...doesn't bother them one bit.

Tell that to people like Jimbo Fisher: http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2016/1...teams.html

I don't think any team should be in the playoffs that hasn't won their conference championship. Here is my proposal.

Six of the eight slots are filled automatically by the Power Conferences and the AAC. The reason I would include the AAC is because they are the top G5 conference in terms of attendance and competitiveness with the P5. For the other two slots the MWC vs CUSA, and MAC vs SBC winners are included. The eight competing schools are ranked top to bottom with 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 etc.

Example

Play in games
ASU beats W. Michigan
SDSU beats Southern Miss.

First Round
1. Penn St vs 8. SDSU
2. Ala. vs 7. ASU
3. Stanford vs. 6. ECU
4. Texas vs 5. NCSU

Second Round
Penn St vs NCSU
ASU vs ECU

Championship Game
NCSU vs ASU

In the meantime, Mark Emmert made a statement this morning
"I think all 5 conference champions should be in the playoffs."

You can see where his head is and where it's headed.

I'd like to see all 5 conf champions in, plus the highest rated non-champ. So that is 6, then have 7 vs Highest G-5 and 8 vs 9 as 2 separate "Play-in" games to become the official 7 and 8 seeds. Then it's just a normal 8 team tourney from there.

(12-07-2016 02:01 PM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  I'd like to see all 5 conf champions in, plus the highest rated non-champ. So that is 6, then have 7 vs Highest G-5 and 8 vs 9 as 2 separate "Play-in" games to become the official 7 and 8 seeds. Then it's just a normal 8 team tourney from there.

There are 10 conferences and that is the problem with what Emmert said. He is all but discounting the fact that there are 10.

When the G5 all but discounts our own inclusion, that is the way they will continue to go....our ultimate exclusion.

(12-07-2016 12:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I don't think any team should be in the playoffs that hasn't won their conference championship. Here is my proposal.

Six of the eight slots are filled automatically by the Power Conferences and the AAC. The reason I would include the AAC is because they are the top G5 conference in terms of attendance and competitiveness with the P5. For the other two slots the MWC vs CUSA, and MAC vs SBC winners are included. The eight competing schools are ranked top to bottom with 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 etc.

Example

Play in games
ASU beats W. Michigan
SDSU beats Southern Miss.

First Round
1. Penn St vs 8. SDSU
2. Ala. vs 7. ASU
3. Stanford vs. 6. ECU
4. Texas vs 5. NCSU

Second Round
Penn St vs NCSU
ASU vs ECU

Championship Game
NCSU vs ASU

Its a thought, but if you ever went to conference champs only, the only fair way to determine who gets the last bye would be by ranking of the champs.

No one is giving Temple a bye because they came from a stronger league than Western Michigan.