12-Team Playoff On the Way; 14-Team to Follow

[NoLongerN]

Why give special favors to P5conference champs and not the others?  If you aren’t good enough to look like top 8 there is no reason to have a special exemption.  The last thing we need is 3 or 4 loss teams taking up spots that 2 loss teams should have. 

This is more of a "phantom" thought.  The problem in college football has not been a 3-4 loss team not getting a chance to win it all.  It continues to be a really good 1 or 2 loss team in a tough conference that losses to another really good team or a smaller school that has put together a nice season [usually a couple in a row, perhaps even undefeated] but who doesn't then get a shot.

Let's get a system that settled who the best is on the field to deserving teams.  I really can't imagine in an 8 or 12 team playoff system that you would ever probably have a 3 loss team on the field.  If that happens then great.  Again, that has never been the problem however.

Unfortunately, our conference wants to stay in the past.

 

[Cigarman]

This is more of a "phantom" thought.  The problem in college football has not been a 3-4 loss team not getting a chance to win it all.  It continues to be a really good 1 or 2 loss team in a tough conference

Let's get a system that settled who the best is on the field to deserving teams.  I really can't imagine in an 8 or 12 team playoff system that you would ever probably have a 3 loss team on the field.  If that happens then great.  Again, that has never been the problem however.

Last year automatic qualifiers would have put a 3 loss number 12 ranked pac champion and a 2 loss number 11 ranked Pitt into the CFP. Number 6 Ohio state and number 8 Mississippi would have gotten by passed along with number 9 Oklahoma state and number 10 Michigan state. 

 

[admo]

I like an 8 team championship tournament.  Going off of last season, it would have looked like this.

Teams

P5 SEC champ Alabama 12-1
P5 Big Ten champ Michigan 12-1
P5 Big 12 champ Baylor 11-2
P5 ACC champ Pittsburgh 11-2
P5 Pac 12 champ Utah 10-3
G5 at large - ACC champ Cincinnati 13-0

2 at large bids -
at large - Independent Notre Dame 11-1
at large - SEC runner up Georgia 12-1

New Playoff Ranking/Seeding & tournament
1. Alabama vs 8. Georgia  (winner vs Pitt/Utah winner)
2. Michigan vs 7. Notre Dame (winner vs Baylor/Cincy winner)
3. Baylor vs 6. Cincinnati
4. Pittsburgh vs 5. Utah
5. Utah
6. Cincinnati
7. Notre Dame
8. Georgia

- Georgia is the only team that did not win conference, thus 8th place
- Notre Dame is the only team with no conf title game, thus 7th place
- Cincinnati is the only G5 team, but did win conference, thus 6th place
- Utah won the pac, P5 conference, record indicates 5th place
- Pitt won the ACC, P5 conference, record/schedule indicates 4th place
- Baylor won the Big 12, P5 confr, record/schedule indicates 3rd
- Michigan won the Big Ten, P5 conf, record/schedule indicates 2nd place
- Alabama won the SEC, P5 conf, record/schedule indicates 1st place

This literally took me just 15 minutes to compose as a concept.  It would be great and pretty much wide open. Possibly flipping Baylor & Pitt, but still. All 5 P5 conferences representing in the tournament.  I don't care if one team had 3 losses or not.  A G5 team gets in.  2 at large bids.  If Notre Dame had lost 2 games, maybe tOSU gets in instead?  But in this case, that did not happen. 

May the best team win

 

[admo]

^^^ regarding the above

Sometimes we get caught up in name recognition.  So if you replace 3 teams as P5 conference champion winners, Oregon (pac 12), Oklahoma (big 12), Clemson (acc), it would look like this (had they won their conference).

Playoff Ranking & seating & tournamount
1. Alabama vs 8. Georgia  (winner vs Clemson/Oregon winner)
2. Michigan vs 7. Notre Dame (winner vs Oklahoma/Cincy winner)
3. Oklahoma vs 6. Cincinnati
4. Clemson vs 5. Oregon
5. Oregon
6. Cincinnati
7. Notre Dame
8. Georgia

 

[jager]

Either way, the first round should be played the week after the Army/Navy game. The next round a week later and so on. I hate that they drag it out so long.

They want to treat college ball like the pros, then don't give them so much time off. It would also help keep bowl season more meaningful.

Just a thought.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Either way, the first round should be played the week after the Army/Navy game. The next round a week later and so on. I hate that they drag it out so long.

They want to treat college ball like the pros, then don't give them so much time off. It would also help keep bowl season more meaningful.

Just a thought.

Bowl season, other than a few games, never meant anything and it still won't.

But, I agree that they should start the playoffs much earlier.  However, they would use the "the kids are in finals week" as an excuse.

 

[NoLongerN]

Last year automatic qualifiers would have put a 3 loss number 12 ranked pac champion and a 2 loss number 11 ranked Pitt into the CFP. Number 6 Ohio state and number 8 Mississippi would have gotten by passed along with number 9 Oklahoma state and number 10 Michigan state. 

Enjoyed your thoughts.  Thanks for sharing.  I'm probably in a bit of a different camp/view ... so you are taking what I'm saying in a bit of variant that I think gets fixed/overlooked in what I would like.

Yes, if it ends up being an 8-team playoff, then I would go with you in the idea that a conference champ of a P5 isn't necessarily a guarantee.  

Where I'm perhaps a bit different but haven't expressed, I'm probably more in the camp of at least a 12 team playoff.  In that, I'm totally good with the P5 each getting the champion in the playoff regardless.  For me, I think it builds in a bit of the region or alignments for conferences that gives good value/draw to be a part of these conferences.  With another seven [7] spots still available, I like the opportunity the extra spots gives to either 2nd place teams in major conferences verses smaller schools who have gone undefeated.  

For me, I'd be a bigger fan of one less game for everyone if it is needed to then have a bigger, more expanded playoff.  I'd even be in fan of a 16-team playoff.  Within all of the views, I don't really feel adamant about it as the B1G apposes expansion and I'm already not a fan of the conference.   Overall, I'll be hopeful that maybe we can get ourselves back to respectable and by the time the playoff is expanded maybe we can compete with our half of the conference.

 

[Cigarman]

I like an 8 team championship tournament.  Going off of last season, it would have looked like this.

Teams

P5 SEC champ Alabama 12-1
P5 Big Ten champ Michigan 12-1
P5 Big 12 champ Baylor 11-2
P5 ACC champ Pittsburgh 11-2
P5 Pac 12 champ Utah 10-3
G5 at large - ACC champ Cincinnati 13-0

2 at large bids -
at large - Independent Notre Dame 11-1
at large - SEC runner up Georgia 12-1

New Playoff Ranking/Seeding & tournament
1. Alabama vs 8. Georgia  (winner vs Pitt/Utah winner)
2. Michigan vs 7. Notre Dame (winner vs Baylor/Cincy winner)
3. Baylor vs 6. Cincinnati
4. Pittsburgh vs 5. Utah
5. Utah
6. Cincinnati
7. Notre Dame
8. Georgia

- Georgia is the only team that did not win conference, thus 8th place
- Notre Dame is the only team with no conf title game, thus 7th place
- Cincinnati is the only G5 team, but did win conference, thus 6th place
- Utah won the pac, P5 conference, record indicates 5th place
- Pitt won the ACC, P5 conference, record/schedule indicates 4th place
- Baylor won the Big 12, P5 confr, record/schedule indicates 3rd
- Michigan won the Big Ten, P5 conf, record/schedule indicates 2nd place
- Alabama won the SEC, P5 conf, record/schedule indicates 1st place

This literally took me just 15 minutes to compose as a concept.  It would be great and pretty much wide open. Possibly flipping Baylor & Pitt, but still. All 5 P5 conferences representing in the tournament.  I don't care if one team had 3 losses or not.  A G5 team gets in.  2 at large bids.  If Notre Dame had lost 2 games, maybe tOSU gets in instead?  But in this case, that did not happen. 

May the best team win

So the first game has 2 teams who share the best record at 12-1 and another first round game with two teams who share the worst record at 9-3 and 10-2 playing for a second round game. 

 

[admo]

So the first game has 2 teams who share the best record at 12-1

So?  Did you even read the reason why?

It clearly says this:

"Georgia is the only team that did not win conference, thus 8th place"

again...

"Georgia is the only team that did not win conference, thus 8th place"

or read it like this...

"They finished 12-1, but Georgia is the only team that did not win conference, thus 8th place"

with two teams who share the worst record at 9-3 and 10-2 playing

Whooooo???!?!

Who is 9-3?  Which team?  Which team went 9-3?

Who is 10-2?  Which team? Which team went 10-2?

 

[Cigarman]

So?  Did you even read the reason why?

It clearly says this:

"Georgia is the only team that did not win conference, thus 8th place"

again...

"Georgia is the only team that did not win conference, thus 8th place"

or read it like this...

"They finished 12-1, but Georgia is the only team that did not win conference, thus 8th place"

Whooooo???!?!

Who is 9-3?  Which team?  Which team went 9-3?

Who is 10-2?  Which team? Which team went 10-2?

I read that point and it’s what I was disagreeing with. 
 

Again I read that point and it’s what I disagree with. 
 

Or read it like this. Winning a conference should have zero bearing on your tournament seeding because the conferences are not created equal. 
 

Utah was 9-3 regular season. I should have included their conference championship game that still made them 10-3 with three losses and outside the top 8. Pittsburgh was 10-2 regular season but 11-2 after conference playoff and also ranked outside the top 8.

And yet this scenario puts one of these two teams automatically in the semi-finals and top 4. This is the type of crap that happens when you use “automatic qualifiers”. If you are a P5 conference champion and your record is so bad that you can’t make it to the top 8 you shouldn’t be whining about not making the playoff. What you should do is beat Oregon State, San Diego State or BYU to get ranked high enough. 

 

[NoLongerN]

I read that point and it’s what I was disagreeing with. 
 

Again I read that point and it’s what I disagree with. 
 

Or read it like this. Winning a conference should have zero bearing on your tournament seeding because the conferences are not created equal. 
 

Utah was 9-3 regular season. I should have included their conference championship game that still made them 10-3 with three losses and outside the top 8. Pittsburgh was 10-2 regular season but 11-2 after conference playoff and also ranked outside the top 8.

And yet this scenario puts one of these two teams automatically in the semi-finals and top 4. This is the type of crap that happens when you use “automatic qualifiers”. If you are a P5 conference champion and your record is so bad that you can’t make it to the top 8 you shouldn’t be whining about not making the playoff. What you should do is beat Oregon State, San Diego State or BYU to get ranked high enough. 

Again, enjoying your points.  For me, I would think that in the various scenarios of either 8, 12 or 16 teams, that their will be "qualifying" parameters.  Thus, I would think that this type of issue would be addressed.  It's more important if it's an 8-team playoff.  For me, it's less of a point in a 12-team playoff [but I'm with you in the idea] of having the best play who merit being there. 

 

[jager]

Conference champs SHOULD matter, otherwise why have them. I'm not a fan of expansion, but I do understand why people like them. The playoff should be about who deserves it (conference champs & undefeated G5) first, then other qualifying teams (higher ranked, better, etc.). When people say X team is better, most of that is the eye test. That is why I say deserve first, then the others. 

I am an older fan so I like the nostalgia of regions. Conference champs is the closest to the old days of a region champ playing another region champ.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Conference champs SHOULD matter, otherwise why have them. I'm not a fan of expansion, but I do understand why people like them. The playoff should be about who deserves it (conference champs & undefeated G5) first, then other qualifying teams (higher ranked, better, etc.). When people say X team is better, most of that is the eye test. That is why I say deserve first, then the others. 

I am an older fan so I like the nostalgia of regions. Conference champs is the closest to the old days of a region champ playing another region champ.

If there were 5 super conferences, the first round of playoffs basically would be the conference championship game.  Then, have 3 at large bids that would be other deserving teams.  

 

[Cigarman]

Again, enjoying your points.  For me, I would think that in the various scenarios of either 8, 12 or 16 teams, that their will be "qualifying" parameters.  Thus, I would think that this type of issue would be addressed.  It's more important if it's an 8-team playoff.  For me, it's less of a point in a 12-team playoff [but I'm with you in the idea] of having the best play who merit being there. 

I think there are some in favor of automatic qualifiers because they are used to seeing divisions in the NFL and think the same can be accomplished in the ncaa. It can’t with the huge discrepancies of the conferences. 
Others want it because it takes the human selection process out of it and it’s decided on the field instead of a committee. I can tell you that’s exactly opposite. Now you have a committee setting the field through protocols without ever seeing the quality of the teams being selected. This isn’t basketball where you can afford to put in 10-15 automatic qualifiers in and thus kicking out a half dozen or so of teams ranked in the 60s. Even in P5 we have had….and will continue to have teams participating and even winning conferences championships without being in the top 8. 

 

[Cigarman]

Conference champs SHOULD matter, otherwise why have them. I'm not a fan of expansion, but I do understand why people like them. The playoff should be about who deserves it (conference champs & undefeated G5) first, then other qualifying teams (higher ranked, better, etc.). When people say X team is better, most of that is the eye test. That is why I say deserve first, then the others. 

I am an older fan so I like the nostalgia of regions. Conference champs is the closest to the old days of a region champ playing another region champ.

You have conference championships to declare a conference champion. That should in no way qualify you for a playoff. Not with a limited field of 8 or even 12. If your conference is bad enough that the winner isn’t ranked in the top 10 you shouldn’t be in it. And if we have to give special treatment to a P5 champion over a Non P5 school what message does that send?