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

[Savage Husker]

23 hours ago, admo said:

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

Might need to spend more than 15 minutes alone on the SEC attempting to ensure their teams won’t meet until the title game. 

[jager]

4 hours ago, Cigarman said:

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?

But a conference champ is the BEST in the conference. This means they eliminated the others. using a committee to establish ranking is subjective. I know most on here complain about the SEC bias (and tOSU) in ranking (because it's true) that skews opinions/rankings. These "false" opinions are why I would prefer to have conference champs mean something. If not, then do what Junior said and eliminate the conference champion game.

[Cigarman]

3 hours ago, jager said:

But a conference champ is the BEST in the conference. This means they eliminated the others. using a committee to establish ranking is subjective. I know most on here complain about the SEC bias (and tOSU) in ranking (because it's true) that skews opinions/rankings. These "false" opinions are why I would prefer to have conference champs mean something. If not, then do what Junior said and eliminate the conference champion game.

Ok two points in your statement. Let’s assume you are correct that the conference championship game winner is the best in the conference. That still doesn’t make them one of the best teams for the playoff. In the case of this year there were two P5 conference winners that wouldn’t have met the eye test for a 8 team playoff. Why would you want some rules committee tying our hands on the selection that we by pass teams that showing themselves as better teams on the field. 
 

Now as to your argument of the conference winner being the best?  I agree that they won, they get the trophy and they get to claim themselves as conference champion for a full year. But the CFP was always designed to match up the best. It started with the top 2 and went to 4. Now they are talking 8 or 12. I really don’t care but take the top 8 or 12. Stop trying to add in automatic qualifiers because they do it in basketball. Which by the way is stupid. We have seen basketball teams get in that are barely over .500 while 22 win teams from a conference as tough as the B1G stay home. That was Nebraska back in 2018. 

[runningblind]

4 minutes ago, Cigarman said:

Ok two points in your statement. Let’s assume you are correct that the conference championship game winner is the best in the conference. That still doesn’t make them one of the best teams for the playoff. In the case of this year there were two P5 conference winners that wouldn’t have met the eye test for a 8 team playoff. Why would you want some rules committee tying our hands on the selection that we by pass teams that showing themselves as better teams on the field. 
 

Now as to your argument of the conference winner being the best?  I agree that they won, they get the trophy and they get to claim themselves as conference champion for a full year. But the CFP was always designed to match up the best. It started with the top 2 and went to 4. Now they are talking 8 or 12. I really don’t care but take the top 8 or 12. Stop trying to add in automatic qualifiers because they do it in basketball. Which by the way is stupid. We have seen basketball teams get in that are barely over .500 while 22 win teams from a conference as tough as the B1G stay home. That was Nebraska back in 2018. 

Thanks for the laugh.  Just like the BCS right?

[desertshox]

5 hours ago, Cigarman said:

Ok two points in your statement. Let’s assume you are correct that the conference championship game winner is the best in the conference. That still doesn’t make them one of the best teams for the playoff. In the case of this year there were two P5 conference winners that wouldn’t have met the eye test for a 8 team playoff. Why would you want some rules committee tying our hands on the selection that we by pass teams that showing themselves as better teams on the field. 
 

Now as to your argument of the conference winner being the best?  I agree that they won, they get the trophy and they get to claim themselves as conference champion for a full year. But the CFP was always designed to match up the best. It started with the top 2 and went to 4. Now they are talking 8 or 12. I really don’t care but take the top 8 or 12. Stop trying to add in automatic qualifiers because they do it in basketball. Which by the way is stupid. We have seen basketball teams get in that are barely over .500 while 22 win teams from a conference as tough as the B1G stay home. That was Nebraska back in 2018. 

 

Given the dearth of interconference games between p5 conferences, how do you know exactly team a from conference b is better than team c from conference d? And if the 2nd best team in a conference really is better, why didn't they win their conference? So which is the lesser evil, rules that put conference Champs in or using a subjective eye test?

[Cigarman]

5 hours ago, desertshox said:

 

Given the dearth of interconference games between p5 conferences, how do you know exactly team a from conference b is better than team c from conference d? And if the 2nd best team in a conference really is better, why didn't they win their conference? So which is the lesser evil, rules that put conference Champs in or using a subjective eye test?

The eye test is much better. 99.9% of the world knew the second best SEC team was better than conference champs Pitt and Utah State this year. For that matter……if Utah State was that good why did they lose 3 regular season games including one to perineal power Oregon State?  But we want to put an administrative clause into the selection process that “automatically” puts a lower team in? I don’t understand that logic. Evidently some are dismissing the reality of how badly we are tieing the hands of the selection committee. 
 

I can’t imagine the outrage of a seventh ranked Nebraska team missing a playoff because teams like Utah State got in automatically with 3 losses. 

[jager]

13 hours ago, Cigarman said:

Ok two points in your statement. Let’s assume you are correct that the conference championship game winner is the best in the conference. That still doesn’t make them one of the best teams for the playoff. In the case of this year there were two P5 conference winners that wouldn’t have met the eye test for a 8 team playoff. Why would you want some rules committee tying our hands on the selection that we by pass teams that showing themselves as better teams on the field. 
 

Now as to your argument of the conference winner being the best?  I agree that they won, they get the trophy and they get to claim themselves as conference champion for a full year. But the CFP was always designed to match up the best. It started with the top 2 and went to 4. Now they are talking 8 or 12. I really don’t care but take the top 8 or 12. Stop trying to add in automatic qualifiers because they do it in basketball. Which by the way is stupid. We have seen basketball teams get in that are barely over .500 while 22 win teams from a conference as tough as the B1G stay home. That was Nebraska back in 2018. 

I'm just saying that I think the most DESERVING team gets in, not the fool proof EYE test. Earn it on the field by winning your conference. It's not like you can change conferences at will or completely make a schedule the way you want. Play the teams you have scheduled. That's how you win, not by some arbitrary ranking made in the pre-season or by some perceived notion that because you look better you are better.

Again just my opinion. 

[NoLongerN]

53 minutes ago, jager said:

I'm just saying that I think the most DESERVING team gets in, not the fool proof EYE test. Earn it on the field by winning your conference. It's not like you can change conferences at will or completely make a schedule the way you want. Play the teams you have scheduled. That's how you win, not by some arbitrary ranking made in the pre-season or by some perceived notion that because you look better you are better.

Again just my opinion. 

Agreed.  But I think the point is ... if, after winning your conference, you don't crack a certain rank, then you are not automatic.  This prevents a team that wins their conference championship but has has already lost to teams they had no business losing to, perhaps they get bumped out of the NCAA championship tournament.

For me, one has to keep those conference championships as that is why those are formed in the first place within the defined connection of teams.  That's all well and good.  I would think that any scenario for the championship tournament would include conference champions that also hit a criteria that have them at the top of various rankings.  

Once the system is designed, you could simply take in the past 40 years and use it toward those years and see what problems it solves or issues it creates and then formulate a system that takes out those concerns.  

 

[jager]

50 minutes ago, BigRedN said:

Agreed.  But I think the point is ... if, after winning your conference, you don't crack a certain rank, then you are not automatic.  This prevents a team that wins their conference championship but has has already lost to teams they had no business losing to, perhaps they get bumped out of the NCAA championship tournament.

For me, one has to keep those conference championships as that is why those are formed in the first place within the defined connection of teams.  That's all well and good.  I would think that any scenario for the championship tournament would include conference champions that also hit a criteria that have them at the top of various rankings.  

Once the system is designed, you could simply take in the past 40 years and use it toward those years and see what problems it solves or issues it creates and then formulate a system that takes out those concerns.  

 

I like this idea and the acknowledgement that other problems can arise. I can't think of anyway that is not going to have some problems. I personally like the idea of regions with champions that move on and, unfortunately, conference champs are the closest to this right now.

[Cigarman]

1 hour ago, jager said:

I like this idea and the acknowledgement that other problems can arise. I can't think of anyway that is not going to have some problems. I personally like the idea of regions with champions that move on and, unfortunately, conference champs are the closest to this right now.

And I understand you wanting regional concepts because it’s similar to pro sports. However they set the teams for each region/division and the schedules to try and equal it out. Even high school football does that by putting teams into different divisions based on enrollment. But they keep conferences separate. 
 

here’s the deal. If a P5 conference winner takes care of business in a 8-12 team scenario they WILL NOT need an automatic qualification. If they didn’t take care of business and snuck in with 3 or 4 losses they don’t need to be kicking out teams that only had 2 losses and ranked higher who did do a better job on the field. 
 

the bottom line is automatic qualifiers will do more to get the wrong teams in then it will do to get a deserving team in. Automatic qualifying exemption is a committee putting a rule in place for the future that restricts fairness. No P5 champion with 2 losses will ever be left out. 

[BigRedBuster]

It's amazing how hard people try to argue that FBS football should decide championships way differently than any other sporting event anywhere.

[admo]

6 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

It's amazing how hard people try to argue that FBS football should decide championships way differently than any other sporting event anywhere.

Thank you!

[Cigarman]

18 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

It's amazing how hard people try to argue that FBS football should decide championships way differently than any other sporting event anywhere.

Well that is a whole nother story. It could be done but it would require a shorter regular season and giving up conference championship games. Bowls could still take place by incorporating the name into first and second round games but all the player activities that take place around them would cease. 

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, Cigarman said:

Well that is a whole nother story. It could be done but it would require a shorter regular season and giving up conference championship games. Bowls could still take place by incorporating the name into first and second round games but all the player activities that take place around them would cease. 

No.  That's not the case.

[Cigarman]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

No.  That's not the case.

Care to elaborate?