College Football Playoffs Legit or a scam?

[Creed]

Playoffs are a huge step in the right direction but there's always going to be subjectivity until we take scheduling out of the hands of the individual schools and have a parity based scheduling system administered by a centralized organization. Also there is absolutely no reason to create your schedule 8+ years down the road. It can be done the season prior. I am not a fan of the NFL but they seem to have a good scheduling system down.

 

[VA Husker Fan]

Playoffs are a huge step in the right direction but there's always going to be subjectivity until we take scheduling out of the hands of the individual schools and have a parity based scheduling system administered by a centralized organization. Also there is absolutely no reason to create your schedule 8+ years down the road. It can be done the season prior. I am not a fan of the NFL but they seem to have a good scheduling system down.

Nailed it.

 

[Redux]

8 years ahead of time is probably too far ahead. But 4 years in advance is fine. Waiting too long you could end up facing no power 5 teams and miss out on a playoff berth.

I like the direction the Pac 12/Big Ten agreement was headed before that fell through. However I would rather see us mix it up a hit more. Play 1 group of 5 team, play one power 5 basement dweller (Purdue/ISU), and play one power 5 actual contender.

 

[Enhance]

Does anyone know how other NCAA sports create their schedules, i.e. basketball, volleyball, & baseball? Are they almost all entirely up to the schools/conferences or does some centralized agency like the NCAA do it?

 

[Enhance]

8 years ahead of time is probably too far ahead. But 4 years in advance is fine. Waiting too long you could end up facing no power 5 teams and miss out on a playoff berth.

I like the direction the Pac 12/Big Ten agreement was headed before that fell through. However I would rather see us mix it up a hit more. Play 1 group of 5 team, play one power 5 basement dweller (Purdue/ISU), and play one power 5 actual contender.

I like where your head is at, but, I'm wondering about the implications of the bolded. Hypothetically, I think it would be tough, even one season ahead of time, to determine who is a basement dweller and who is an actual contender. And are there enough basement dwellers to go around? Does that mean a team like Purdue would get screwed and have to play Bama, Baylor and Oregon in one non-con?

Just playing Devil's Advocate a bit. I think it'd be tough to project how good some teams are year-to-year and use that as justification for scheduling.

 

[Undone]

I've felt for some time that the real point of the four team playoff is simply to ensure that the two best teams get a chance to play for the title. For me, it's really not any more complicated than that.

 

[Redux]

8 years ahead of time is probably too far ahead. But 4 years in advance is fine. Waiting too long you could end up facing no power 5 teams and miss out on a playoff berth.

I like the direction the Pac 12/Big Ten agreement was headed before that fell through. However I would rather see us mix it up a hit more. Play 1 group of 5 team, play one power 5 basement dweller (Purdue/ISU), and play one power 5 actual contender.

I like where your head is at, but, I'm wondering about the implications of the bolded. Hypothetically, I think it would be tough, even one season ahead of time, to determine who is a basement dweller and who is an actual contender. And are there enough basement dwellers to go around? Does that mean a team like Purdue would get screwed and have to play Bama, Baylor and Oregon in one non-con?
Just playing Devil's Advocate a bit. I think it'd be tough to project how good some teams are year-to-year and use that as justification for scheduling.

Not all teams could do something like that but we certainly could. I would like to see us schedule something like this:
Wake Forest

Arizona State

Central Michigan

Or

Kansas

Clemson

Western Kentucky

Get a yearly game with an Iowa State or Kansas lined up and you typically have a basement dweller power 5 team on the schedule. Most years, a respectable MAC team would be better on field but not on paper so it would strengthen the schedule.

 

[Enhance]

8 years ahead of time is probably too far ahead. But 4 years in advance is fine. Waiting too long you could end up facing no power 5 teams and miss out on a playoff berth.

I like the direction the Pac 12/Big Ten agreement was headed before that fell through. However I would rather see us mix it up a hit more. Play 1 group of 5 team, play one power 5 basement dweller (Purdue/ISU), and play one power 5 actual contender.

I like where your head is at, but, I'm wondering about the implications of the bolded. Hypothetically, I think it would be tough, even one season ahead of time, to determine who is a basement dweller and who is an actual contender. And are there enough basement dwellers to go around? Does that mean a team like Purdue would get screwed and have to play Bama, Baylor and Oregon in one non-con?
Just playing Devil's Advocate a bit. I think it'd be tough to project how good some teams are year-to-year and use that as justification for scheduling.

Not all teams could do something like that but we certainly could. I would like to see us schedule something like this:
Wake Forest

Arizona State

Central Michigan

Or

Kansas

Clemson

Western Kentucky

Get a yearly game with an Iowa State or Kansas lined up and you typically have a basement dweller power 5 team on the schedule. Most years, a respectable MAC team would be better on field but not on paper so it would strengthen the schedule.

That would make more sense that way - as long as we could ensure we'd have one really good non-con opponent would be my big concern. I'm sure years ago it was projected Miami would be better than they are these last couple seasons. It'll be disappointing if we don't have at least one really good squad on our non-con.

 

[Redux]

That's why I like scheduling a team up to only 5 years in advance, gives a better expectation on where they will be by the time we play them.

 

[InOmaha]

The other problem is that almost 1/2 of the teams in FBS football realistically aren't ever going to be allowed to compete in a championship. Maybe it's time to stop pretending these schools have a shot at a title game. One or two good teams here and there can join the rest in conference realignment and then the NCAA could drop C-USA, MAC, MW, and the Sun Belt Conference from the mix.

In the new P5/6 FBS, FBS schools must play other FBS schools in non-conference play. Then teams won't have any super easy non-conference teams on their schedule. If you start with 64 teams it makes it easier to pick 4 at the top. You toss out the odd mid-major team here and there that goes undefeated by playing nobody all year long before the season even starts so you don't have to deal with them being undefeated at the end of the year.

 

[dvdcrr]

Needs to be 8 or 16 teams.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

If it gets to 8 or 16 teams, we need to stop pretending these are student athletes and just pay them for the hundreds of millions of dollars they'll be making for someone else.

 

[Redux]

I would be in favor of 8 IF it went as follows:

Big Ten champ

SEC champ

Big 12 champ

Pac 12 champ

ACC champ

Group of 5 champ ranked highest

Independent ranked in top 8 or at large

At large

That gives each power 5 champ a shot, a runner up who got upset in title game, a group of 5 champ and one other to fill it out.

If it expanded to 16, which I'm against, we would almost have to cut back to 11 game regular season OR use conference championship games as a 1st round.

SEC East

SEC West

B1G East

B1G West

ACC Coastal

ACC Atlantic

Big 12 whatever

Big 12 who knows

Pac 12 North

Pac 12 South

MAC champ

AAC champ

Sun Belt champ

CUSA champ

MtnWest champ

Independent

That could actually be a pretty great playoff. After the above round takes place, seed the remaining 8 teams accordingly.

 

[The Dude]

I just hope the Big XII gets left out again.

 

[deedsker]

I would be in favor of 8 IF it went as follows:

Big Ten champ

SEC champ

Big 12 champ

Pac 12 champ

ACC champ

Group of 5 champ ranked highest

Independent ranked in top 8 or at large

At large

That gives each power 5 champ a shot, a runner up who got upset in title game, a group of 5 champ and one other to fill it out.

If it expanded to 16, which I'm against, we would almost have to cut back to 11 game regular season OR use conference championship games as a 1st round.

SEC East

SEC West

B1G East

B1G West

ACC Coastal

ACC Atlantic

Big 12 whatever

Big 12 who knows

Pac 12 North

Pac 12 South

MAC champ

AAC champ

Sun Belt champ

CUSA champ

MtnWest champ

Independent

That could actually be a pretty great playoff. After the above round takes place, seed the remaining 8 teams accordingly.

Holy bananas! That may be the best expanded playoff idea I have ever sent! Kudos.