Great, but long article, about pumping up the SEC bias

[Ric Flair]

I'm a fan of reorganizing major college football into superconferences, maybe 6 of them with 12 to 16 teams each. Then have an eight team playoff, where you seed the six conference champions and the top two teams that are left based on their rankings.

I think that's about as fair as it can get.

 

[AgMarauder04]

I'm a fan of reorganizing major college football into superconferences, maybe 6 of them with 12 to 16 teams each. Then have an eight team playoff, where you seed the six conference champions and the top two teams that are left based on their rankings.

I think that's about as fair as it can get.

I want to see the playoff expanded to 8. 5 Conference Champions and 3 at large.

Done.

 

[Mavric]

He's saying that he fears that next year will be LSU, Bama, OSU, and and Oregon all playing games in the South. That's not what he wants.

As for the conference champs, you're using guesswork to justify putting two teams in otherwise. If you don't make it, you lost a game, and you have no valid argument. If not, I guarantee you'll see 2 SEC teams each year, based on exactly the type of stuff the OP was talking about.

Got it. My bad. I obviously wasn't reading well.

 

[wiuhusker]

I'm a fan of reorganizing major college football into superconferences, maybe 6 of them with 12 to 16 teams each. Then have an eight team playoff, where you seed the six conference champions and the top two teams that are left based on their rankings.

I think that's about as fair as it can get.

Only problem I see with this is when you get that many teams into a conference not all schedules are going to be equal. Doesn't mean it won't work but that will be the next thing that people have to complain about.

I do like that idea though. Seems like the easiest way to do it and it's more than likely where things will end up anyways.

 

[Mavric]

I want to see the playoff expanded to 8.

This, although I put a couple caveats on conference champions. Not so bad now that the Big East went away but you should have to finish in the Top 12 or something to get in. Just because you win your conference at 8-4 doesn't make you a playoff team in my book.

 

[Saunders]

Any system that doesn't use conference champions, exclusively, is flawed.

Uhhh...false? Way False.

Let's use a theoretical. What if Wisconsin and Ohio State are undefeated, except for OSU beating Wisky. They don't go to the CCG. Let's say Ohio State beats a 9-3 Meatchicken. You know have OHio State at 13-0 and Wiksy at 11-1.Now, let's say the other 4, ACC, PAC, SEC, B12 all self cannibalize and you have Champions coming out of those with records like 9-3 or 9-4 (depending on if that conference has a CCG). Are you telling me that a 11-1 Wisky, who is probably a top 5 team, is less deserving than a 9-4 Alabama or a 9-3 Oklahoma?</div>

Let's take it a step further. OSU crushes Wisconsin, but the win the rest of their games in close fashion with a weak schedule in a down conference, and finish in the top 5. Say, Oklahoma goes undefeated and Bama goes 12-1 and wins the SEC.

Now you have a 10-3 UCLA vs a 11-1 Wisconsin. UCLA had some close losses in the early season but finished really strong in a tough conference that had 4 teams finish with 10+ wins. Why does Wisconsin deserve another chance to play OSU when they already lost to them?

The entire purpose of a playoff is to whittle down contenders until you have two remaining teams remaining. Wisconsin lost to OSU, so they had their chance. It removes all subjectiveness.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Any system that doesn't use conference champions, exclusively, is flawed.

Uhhh...false? Way False.

Let's use a theoretical. What if Wisconsin and Ohio State are undefeated, except for OSU beating Wisky. They don't go to the CCG. Let's say Ohio State beats a 9-3 Meatchicken. You know have OHio State at 13-0 and Wiksy at 11-1.Now, let's say the other 4, ACC, PAC, SEC, B12 all self cannibalize and you have Champions coming out of those with records like 9-3 or 9-4 (depending on if that conference has a CCG). Are you telling me that a 11-1 Wisky, who is probably a top 5 team, is less deserving than a 9-4 Alabama or a 9-3 Oklahoma?</div>

So you would suggest that a conference championship hold no water at all? Personally I don't think you can have it both ways with only 4 teams making it into the playoffs. Either a conference champion gets in over a team that doesn't win one or you do away with that factor altogether.

 

[Saunders]

Any system that uses at-larges based on human rankings is inherently flawed. There's not enough cross conference play to use SOS as a metric for grading either.

 

[Mavric]

Let's take it a step further. OSU crushes Wisconsin, but the win the rest of their games in close fashion with a weak schedule in a down conference, and finish in the top 5. Say, Oklahoma goes undefeated and Bama goes 12-1 and wins the SEC.

Now you have a 10-3 UCLA vs a 11-1 Wisconsin. UCLA had some close losses in the early season but finished really strong in a tough conference. Why does Wisconsin deserve another chance to play OSU when they already lost to them?

The entire purpose of a playoff is to whittle down contenders until you have two remaining teams remaining. Wisconsin lost to OSU, so they had their chance. It removes all subjectiveness.

So Wiscons had their one chance and blew it but UCLA can lose three times and they still get a shot. How is that fair?

 

[Mavric]

So you would suggest that a conference championship hold no water at all? Personally I don't think you can have it both ways with only 4 teams making it into the playoffs. Either a conference champion gets in over a team that doesn't win one or you do away with that factor altogether.

So there are four spots for five conference champions. How do you decide?

 

[Saunders]

Let's take it a step further. OSU crushes Wisconsin, but the win the rest of their games in close fashion with a weak schedule in a down conference, and finish in the top 5. Say, Oklahoma goes undefeated and Bama goes 12-1 and wins the SEC.

Now you have a 10-3 UCLA vs a 11-1 Wisconsin. UCLA had some close losses in the early season but finished really strong in a tough conference. Why does Wisconsin deserve another chance to play OSU when they already lost to them?

The entire purpose of a playoff is to whittle down contenders until you have two remaining teams remaining. Wisconsin lost to OSU, so they had their chance. It removes all subjectiveness.

So Wiscons had their one chance and blew it but UCLA can lose three times and they still get a shot. How is that fair?

Because Wisconsin lost to the team that was crowned best in their conference. You can't be the best in the nation if you're not even the best team in your own division, let alone conference.

UCLA won their conference. With little cross conference play, that's the only fair way you can do it. Take the "best" from each conference and let them play.

 

[Saunders]

I'll go one further. Starting next year, Wisconsin is in the West division. Say OSU wins the regular season matchup by 10, and Wisconsin wins the rematch in the CCG by 7. The other 4 conference produce one undefeated team, and 3 teams with one loss (all ranked behind OSU). Should OSU/Wisconsin be played a third time?

 

[Landlord]

8 team playoff.

Conference champions of Big Ten, Big XII, ACC, SEC, Pac-12 are automatic qualifiers with the caveat of being ranked #15 or higher.

Remaining three teams decided by selection committee while fitting the criteria of being ranked in the Top 10.

First round games played at higher ranked team's home stadium. Second round and championship game played at the same neutral location rotating host site.

Two week wait between the end of the season and the first round. Two week wait between the first and second round. 4-7 day wait between second round and championship game.

I just made this garbage up off the top of my head but I fail to find any legitimate downsides.

 

[Redux]

Until we get the Big 12 back to 12+ teams, their inclusion will hold less weight with no title game to add to a resume. The AAC, MAC and MtnWest will all have title games, even CUSA should have one again by next year. I think the SunBelt is about dried up.

 

[Mavric]

Because Wisconsin lost to the team that was crowned best in their conference. You can't be the best in the nation if you're not even the best team in your own division, let alone conference.

UCLA won their conference. With little cross conference play, that's the only fair way you can do it. Take the "best" from each conference and let them play.

So you're saying a team that lost to three average teams is more deserving of a fourth shot than a team that lost to one great team is deserving of a second shot. No thanks.