12-Team Playoff On the Way; 14-Team to Follow
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
Red Five
New member
Am I the only one that is ok with the conference champs getting byes? It makes winning the conference mean something.
Take this year for example. The highest 4 ranked teams were Oregon, Georgia, Texas, and Penn St. Funny that Oregon/Penn St and Georgia/Texas played each other in the CCGs. With the committee not penalizing teams for losing CCGs (and I get why they do that), then those games really don't mean much as each of those teams already would have had a bye locked up.
Look at the NFL for example, a 14-3 Lions/Vikings team is going to have to travel to a 10-7 Bucs team (or even a 9-8 Bucs/Falcons team). Are people screaming and losing their minds over this?
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
I have long been a fan of that. But I'm not sure it makes as much sense in the current conference environment - basically two power conferences. This year may be an outlier (though I'm not sure it will be going forward), but it's a good example of the problems it can create:
- Oregon and Georgia earned the top two seeds but (arguably) have a tougher road to the championship that Texas and Penn State, who were behind Oregon and Georgia in their conferences.
- While I like giving credit to teams who win their conference, I'm not sure giving Boise State and Arizona State *that* much credit is really fair either.
- I don't know that rewarding a team for winning a middling conference should be that much more worthy than a team that may play a much tougher schedule and happens to lose to one of the top two teams in the country.
Back in the days when there were five conferences that were at least somewhat balanced, I was a big fan of an eight-team playoff with the five conference champions and three at-large teams invited. But I always wanted to qualify the five conference champions as having to be in the Top 10/12 overall. I didn't think that a 9-3 Pac-12 team (for example) should automatically get in if the quality of their conference didn't warrant that extra credit. That's kind of where I am with the playoff now: I'm fine with the top five conference champions getting in but I'd like to see some sort of caveat like they have to be in the Top 8 to get the bye. If there are only three conference champions in the Top 8, they get three of the byes and the next highest ranked team gets the fourth bye. Of course, that would put even more pressure on the Committee to not rank a conference champion #9. But I still think there should be some caveats.
RedDenver
Active member
Go to 16 teams and get rid of byes. Problem solved. (8 teams with no byes would have been better.)
Lorewarn
Active member
Hard to argue with anything here, but it's maddening and disheartening that the B1G and SEC are able to stack teams, create these stupid super conferences, and then rewrite the postseason rules to benefit their decision making. If the playoff continues to be reactive to what the powers that be want, there's just no mechanism to slow down the train of haves f#&%ing over the have nots.
Red Five
New member
I 100% understand these arguments. And yes it doesn't make a ton of sense in a P2 world. It just would be stupid to have the top 4 seeds locked in, but make them play in an CCG that really doesn't mean too much.
I think a way around it a bit would be to reseed after the first round, so the #1 seed would play the lowest remaining team (although that would not have changed anything this year). Or get rid of the CCGs, but we all know the reasons why that ain't happening.
But this is all probably a moo point* in a couple years when it goes to 14 and the B1G/SEC are locked into the byes every year.
Red Five
New member
Were you someone who was complaining about the blowouts this year? If so, going to 16 won't help that one bit.
Stumpy1
New member
I think re-seed the first round winners if they want to keep the current format. Clemson is the only CC that got screwed on seedings this year but the ACC was kind of a joke to begin with.
My second round would look like this:
5. OSU
4. ASU
8. Texas
1. Oregon
6. ND
3. BSU
7. PSU
2. Georgia
I based my re-seedings off performance in the first round games. This is strictly my opinion on how the first round looked.
My second round would look like this:
5. OSU
4. ASU
8. Texas
1. Oregon
6. ND
3. BSU
7. PSU
2. Georgia
I based my re-seedings off performance in the first round games. This is strictly my opinion on how the first round looked.
Hilltop
Active member
I don't like Texas but they looked good against Clemson imo. Up 28-10 at half and then 31-10 halfway through the third- on cruise control the rest of the way with quite a few subs playing. Notre Dame would be my bottom seed - a 10 point win over Indiana at home seems kind of blah. I know they had subs in as well at the end. Fun to consider and easy to see how reseeding would get picked apart lol.
RedDenver
Active member
I was not. I don't want to watch blowouts, but there are going to be blowouts even with just two teams, so it's silly to blame that on the playoffs or number of teams IMO.
admo
New member
Thanks and as I look back upon it, the reason why it was enjoyable, was that it filled up a weekend of anticipated match-ups. The following week had another exciting weekend of great Bowl Games / match-ups too. So it felt continuous.Dr. Strangelove said:
One thing I wish they would do in the future, if it wasn't such a Network money thing.... I would have scattered Round 1 of the playoffs.
I will give an example.
8 teams, 4 games, Round 1 college football playoffs were played in 24 hours. We had one Friday night game. But do we really need 3 playoff games on Saturday that starts at 11AM/Noon? The biggest playoff in college football history crammed into 9-10 hours on one day?? Sheesh, it was too much (overloaded).
Why would anyone tell 2 CFB playoff teams that they need to play during Brunch? Go play 11AM-3pm? FOX ?? Yeah - that's why $$$$$$. I mean, What kind of reward is that to possibly advance or end your season?
It makes no sense to have to play so early for a game that you want to be at your best. Those 11AM games are perfectly fine for NW vs Purdue with Beth Mowins calling the game. Not a playoff.
So what I hope they do (the committee) is read my mind and spread 4 games over 3 days. Give some prime time love for making the prime time playoffs. These teams definitely have more time on their hands than anything.
For example -
Thursday Night Prime Time - SMU at Penn State (whiteout)
Friday Night Prime Time - Clemson at Texas
Saturday 330pm - Indiana at Notre Dame
Saturday 7pm Prime Time - Tennessee at Ohio State
Allow fans to enjoy the early part of the day getting stuff done. And if you want to fill in the Big Noon Kickoff - just schedule a warm-up game like Navy vs OU, or Rutgers vs KSU, etc....
3 nights of college football playoffs covering Thurs, Fri & Saturday. No overloading it onto one day and the night before. Plus, it won't feel like one big s#!tty day of college football if there are blowouts because we have it spread out over 3 days.
That's what I would do if I was in the Committee Room and dealing with Networks. And it even works out for the winners when they play next (2 playoff games NY eve, and 2 playoff games on New Years Day "like usual")
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance
Administrator
I'm personally not a huge fan of rules that lock conference champions into additional benefits. I prefer the way the NFL does it - win your division and you're in, but your seeding/byes are determined by how good you are and what games you won. In relation to college, win your conference and you're in, but your seeding and bye potential will be based on your ranking.
I realize it's a very niche scenario, but in 2011 or 2012, Ohio State was ineligible to win the conference and Wisconsin won the B1G championship game. They were barely bowl eligible that year. Imagine a team like that getting a first round bye... just gross. And again I realize that's a niche example, but it's not an impossible one.
To be fair, the NFL still gives preferential seeding to the division winners. It's not quite as obvious because there is only one bye per conference but usually the #5 seed has a much better record than the #4 seed but the #4 seed still gets to host. This year the loser of the Lions/Vikings game will be 14-3 and have to travel to play a team that will be no better than 10-7.
Red Five
New member
Yes, that year is an outlier. OSU went 12-0 (8-0) and Penn St went 8-4 (6-2), but both were ineligible for post season play. Next up was Wisconsin who went 7-5 (4-4).
And I am going to say that is impossible nowadays. First, because the NCAA doesn't really do post season bans anymore (because you are penalizing the current players for something a they didn't do), they just hit the coaches with penalties. Second, in the super conference era you are not going to have a 7-5 team sneak into a CCG (you would need 4 or 5 teams to be hit with post season penalties to get down that far in the pecking order).