College football playoff selection.

Look at the March Madness...the first two days are so fun.

If they did 16 teams and had 4 games on Saturday and 4 on Sunday...everyone is watching. No one really cares if games overlap...

 
I think they should do a six team playoff. One from each major conference and the best team from the group of five. One and two seeds get a bye and the play ins are before Christmas. Although last year Penn State would have taken the Big 12s spot and would face off against Ohio State and western Michigan would have played Washington, with Clemson and Bama getting byes. Only problem with it is playing an extra game, but with rest and ample time before New Years Eve it could work. They could have the play ins slotted on Christmas Eve or before to give the players more rest. It also adds excitement to that dull period in December from after CCG to first great bowl game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
HuskermanMike said:
......It also adds excitement to that dull period in December from after CCG to first great bowl game.
Click to expand...
Agree with this point. I don't understand why there needs to be such a break in the action between the CCG and the meaningful bowl games/playoff.

IMO college football loses momentum and viewership from the more casual fans. I find myself gravitating to the NFL in December, but I would rather be watching the CFP.

 
IA State Husker said:
HuskermanMike said:
......It also adds excitement to that dull period in December from after CCG to first great bowl game.
Click to expand...
Agree with this point. I don't understand why there needs to be such a break in the action between the CCG and the meaningful bowl games/playoff.

IMO college football loses momentum and viewership from the more casual fans. I find myself gravitating to the NFL in December, but I would rather be watching the CFP.
Click to expand...
Amen.

The problem is too many throw away bowls. If they adapted the 20 team playoff idea I laid out above the could basically start on it right away, maybe give the top 4 a week off before continuting.

 
teachercd said:
Here is the thing...

Ask yourself this...If they added more playoff games would you watch them?

If yes...you love the idea

If no...you don't post here anyway so it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
I would love a quarter-final round. I have yet to watch a semi-final game because they have been scheduled around in-law family gatherings or vacations. It hasn't been worth the fight or even possible to watch them without removing myself from "family" events. Although I did get to see some of the Washington vs. Alabama on a treadmill at a hotel gym (with no sound and a pixelated signal)

Bottom line: my family gatherings are filled by a bunch of fun-haters and I would like more opportunities to watch football at a time that works for me.

(edit: To be fair they also call me a "fun-hater" because I'd rather sit in the room and watch a game that doesn't include the Huskers than go out and enjoy the slopes of Colorado.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have faith that eventually the CFP will be expanded and the minor bowls will go away based on viewership. Money talks.

What I'm not as confident in is the scheduling. I fear they will continue expanding into January rather than pulling it closer to the CCG's.

Because greed.

 
"Should one of those play in teams make it to the end, they would have played 17 games."

No, utilize flexibility clauses to allow these teams to drop a game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Play in teams would be ranked 7-10 at the end of the year. Lock in the ranking in week 12 and allow them to drop their last opponent.

I think the CCG may have to go the way of the dodo bird in order for us to have a meaningful playoff. The committee has shown they don't really care about it anyway.

A meaningful playoff has to have at least 8.

 
I see what you are getting at but it isn't remotely achievable. Locking the rankings a week before the end of the season would be jumping the gun a bit if that last opponent was a rival like many teams play. Not only that, but it screws over that team they would have to drop something fierce.

Conference championships are essential to conference revenue, they can't dismiss them. If they did that, they would have to go back to simply awarding that title to a team which would almost never be without controversy.

Instead, like I laid out above, use the conference title game as round 1. No games have to be dropped, title games matter more and everyone benefits.

 
Round 1:

B1G East

B1G West

ACC Atlantic

ACC Coastal

SEC East

SEC West

PAC North

PAC South

Big 12 #1

Big 12 #2

MWC Mountain

MWC Western

AAC

AAC

Sun Belt

Sun Belt

MAC

MAC

CUSA

CUSA

After the title games are decided, the power 5 champs are automatically in. The remaining 3 spots go to champions of the other 5 conferences AND at large teams that either didn't win their division or came up just short in the title game. The committee selects those three as well as seeding the 8 teams. This way, 20+ teams have basically a fair shake at getting into the 8 spots. So round 2 would look like:

#1 B1G Champ

#8 Mtn West Champ

#2 ACC Champ

#7 SEC East, title game runner up

#3 SEC Champ

#6 At Large Michigan (ranked say 3rd, didnt win division)

#4 Pac12 Champ

#5 Big 12 Champ

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am on the other end. 4 is a good number. Let whines whine and winners win. NCAA Baseball and Basketball let tons of teams in and people still b!^@h. Don't like it? Win your games. I don't like how playoffs can water down the regular season. 4 is good. As soon as we have 8 people will b!^@h and want 16. Next thing you know people will not play anyone cause 9 wins from a good conference will get you in, or we will let all of these non-Power 5 schools in. Kick the big 12 to the curb and go 4-16 team conferences. Screw the rest.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top