1-9-1-0

Enhance said:
It appears one of you is dealing in hypotheticals (8-team playoff with auto-qualfiers) whereas @junior4949 is dealing in the current system. So, yes, a conference champ matters in an auto-qualifying scenario. It doesn't matter as much right now.

They really only matter right now if the totality of the season turns the CCG into a play-in game and that's been inconsistent to this point. This is where the article comes into play because two conferences currently face less risk (on paper) in their path to the CFP. Teams are being judged on inconsistent criteria.

The committee's current slogan should basically be "it doesn't matter unless it matters." The CFP needs to expand and allow for AQ's if the CCG's are to matter as much again.
Click to expand...


At the end of the day, they're going to do what they're going to do.  However, there is a bit of a problem with auto-qualifiers.  It has long been told that the reason it took so long to even get a playoff was because D1 didn't want to diminish the regular season.  If we had auto-qualifiers this year, 10-3 Washington would be in the playoff.  They lost to 7-5 Auburn in the regular season.  Auburn finished 5th in the SEC West.  By putting Washington in the playoff, I would think it would greatly diminish the regular season.  Another reason it took so long to get a playoff was because of the extra games.  By playing a conference title game and then having an eight team playoff, there would be more games for a couple of teams. 

I have no doubt that going to an eight team playoff will be fought tooth and toenail by the Power 5 Commissioners unless there are auto-qualifiers.  Yet, they're still going to have to have a committee that picks the three at-large teams.  The exact same committee that has in the past chose teams in the current four team playoff that didn't even win their conference.  I've long thought an eight team playoff was the best and doing away with conference championship games.  However, I just don't we're going to see it because of butthurt Power 5 Commissioners.  It appears that an eight team playoff is still quite a ways off.

 
It needs to be made so that you have to win your conference. Every conference plays the same number of conference games, or give weight to the conferences that play more conference games (playing more non-con P5 teams would work also).  This would force ND to join a conference. IF, there is a champ that shouldn't get in, i.e. Washington this year, they are left out. If there is more than one undeserving team, then the next best team gets in. What constitutes undeserving would need to be ironed out.  

 
jager said:
It needs to be made so that you have to win your conference. Every conference plays the same number of conference games, or give weight to the conferences that play more conference games (playing more non-con P5 teams would work also).  This would force ND to join a conference. IF, there is a champ that shouldn't get in, i.e. Washington this year, they are left out. If there is more than one undeserving team, then the next best team gets in. What constitutes undeserving would need to be ironed out.  
Click to expand...


I've been saying the same for awhile. Here is my idea how to have a true national champion

Put all teams in the power 5 and 3 other conferences giving a total of 8 conferences. That would put 16 with some having 17 teams in the conference. Each conference will have 2 divisions. Each team will play their 7 division teams, 2 cross division teams and 3 ooc games. Then the first round of the play offs would be the conference championships.

With that formula the final four teams would only play 1 more game than they do right now. It would also give every team like UCF currently and Boise State previously a fair shot, where they would never get it in the current system. It wouldn't take away from conference play as it would matter to get to the conference championship. The teams that don't make the 16 team field and those that lost in the first round would then play in bowl games like we have currently. It would also force teams such as Notre Dame to join a conference.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
junior4949 said:
However, there is a bit of a problem with auto-qualifiers.  It has long been told that the reason it took so long to even get a playoff was because D1 didn't want to diminish the regular season.  If we had auto-qualifiers this year, 10-3 Washington would be in the playoff.  They lost to 7-5 Auburn in the regular season.  Auburn finished 5th in the SEC West.  By putting Washington in the playoff, I would think it would greatly diminish the regular season.  Another reason it took so long to get a playoff was because of the extra games.  By playing a conference title game and then having an eight team playoff, there would be more games for a couple of teams. 

I have no doubt that going to an eight team playoff will be fought tooth and toenail by the Power 5 Commissioners unless there are auto-qualifiers.  Yet, they're still going to have to have a committee that picks the three at-large teams.  The exact same committee that has in the past chose teams in the current four team playoff that didn't even win their conference.  I've long thought an eight team playoff was the best and doing away with conference championship games.  However, I just don't we're going to see it because of butthurt Power 5 Commissioners.  It appears that an eight team playoff is still quite a ways off.
Click to expand...
A few thoughts on what you've posted here:

First, I used to have a bit of an issue with AQ's (i.e. Wisconsin in 2012 who 'won the conference' at 7-5). But, I think any expanded system is going to lend itself to imperfection. The benefits or optics of a conference champion automatically qualifying outweigh the negative possibilities in most scenarios, in my opinion.

Second, I think you're right about still needing a committee to pick the other three teams. Sounds like the prevailing popular opinion is five P5 AQ's, one non-P5 conference champion, and two at-large bids. The three teams being chosen by the 'eye test' are an easier pill to swallow than all four teams for a lot of people.

Lastly, as for the P5 commissioners, do we know they're against expansion without AQ's? Just curious - I haven't looked much into it. I think we would both agree expansion would likely include AQ's but, hypothetically saying it doesn't, most conferences wouldn't have much to worry about. The only P5 conference that wouldn't have been represented this year is the PAC 12. In 2017, every P5 conference would've been represented.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance said:
A few thoughts on what you've posted here:

First, I used to have a bit of an issue with AQ's (i.e. Wisconsin in 2012 who 'won the conference' at 7-5). But, I think any expanded system is going to lend itself to imperfection. The benefits or optics of a conference champion automatically qualifying outweigh the negative possibilities in most scenarios, in my opinion.

Second, I think you're right about still needing a committee to pick the other three teams. Sounds like the prevailing popular opinion is five P5 AQ's, one non-P5 conference champion, and two at-large bids. The three teams being chosen by the 'eye test' are an easier pill to swallow than all four teams for a lot of people.

Lastly, as for the P5 commissioners, do we know they're against expansion without AQ's? Just curious - I haven't looked much into it. I think we would both agree expansion would likely include AQ's but, hypothetically saying it doesn't, most conferences wouldn't have much to worry about. The only P5 conference that wouldn't have been represented this year is the PAC 12. In 2017, every P5 conference would've been represented.
Click to expand...


I've long wanted an 8-team playoff but, as you said, there needs to be some specification about who is eligible.  Something like you have to be in the Top 10/12 as a conference champion to auto-qualify and in a non-Power 5 conference champion is in the Top 10/12 they automatically qualify as well.  Also, no more than two per conference.

 
Mavric said:
I've long wanted an 8-team playoff but, as you said, there needs to be some specification about who is eligible.  Something like you have to be in the Top 10/12 as a conference champion to auto-qualify and in a non-Power 5 conference champion is in the Top 10/12 they automatically qualify as well.  Also, no more than two per conference.
Click to expand...
I think that's an intriguing idea. The whole '7-5 Wisconsin' thing has always been stuck in my jaw, even as I type this out, but a ranking requirement tossed in there would help.

 
Enhance said:
I think that's an intriguing idea. The whole '7-5 Wisconsin' thing has always been stuck in my jaw, even as I type this out, but a ranking requirement tossed in there would help.
Click to expand...


Top 12 would probably be acceptable and lead to a little less crying if there was a fringe team.  If a conference champion was #11 and the rule was Top 10, they would probably cry pretty hard because I'm sure there would be arguments that they're better than one or two of the teams ahead of them.  But if they are #13 that's a pretty good indication they really don't deserve to be in the 8-team playoff.

This year it would be:

#1-Alabama vs. #8-Washington

#4-Oklahoma vs. #5-Georgia

#2-Clemson vs. #7 UCF

#3-Notre Dame vs. #6-Ohio State

Michigan (#7 in the CFP Rankings) is the team that gets "left out" in favor of the auto-qualifying teams (UCF & Washington) behind them.

 
Mavric said:
Michigan (#7 in the CFP Rankings) is the team that gets "left out" in favor of the auto-qualifying teams (UCF & Washington) behind them.
Click to expand...
Nice write up. I'd be OK with that outcome and not even as a non-Michigan fan. Everybody knew the path the to the CFP ran through Columbus and they didn't get it done.

 
Mavric said:
Top 12 would probably be acceptable and lead to a little less crying if there was a fringe team.  If a conference champion was #11 and the rule was Top 10, they would probably cry pretty hard because I'm sure there would be arguments that they're better than one or two of the teams ahead of them.  But if they are #13 that's a pretty good indication they really don't deserve to be in the 8-team playoff.

This year it would be:

#1-Alabama vs. #8-Washington

#4-Oklahoma vs. #5-Georgia

#2-Clemson vs. #7 UCF

#3-Notre Dame vs. #6-Ohio State

Michigan (#7 in the CFP Rankings) is the team that gets "left out" in favor of the auto-qualifying teams (UCF & Washington) behind them.
Click to expand...


Bama-Washington would probably be a dud, but I'd watch the s#!t out of those other games

 
Enhance said:
Nice write up. I'd be OK with that outcome and not even as a non-Michigan fan. Everybody knew the path the to the CFP ran through Columbus and they didn't get it done.
Click to expand...


Yep, Michigan had a very good season.  They lost the first game of the year and the last game of the year to teams that would be in my playoff.

That being said, they had their chance - on the field - to earn their way in.  Win either one and they are more than likely in the playoff.  But they didn't.  So they're out.

I suspect that would almost always be the case with the first couple teams "left out".  If I have some time tonight I might go back and look at the last few years.

 
Washington really didn't have a very good season.  They lost three games all at the hands of teams that finished unranked.  The only team they beat that finished ranked was Utah.  Yet, we're willing to give them a playoff spot because they happened to be the champion of a very weak conference this year?  This is why I have a bit of a problem with this format.  Michigan loses to teams ranked in the top 10.  They stay home.  Washington loses to just about every team they play with a pulse, but they get into the playoff.  If this doesn't diminish the regular season, I don't know what does.  Bama vs. Washington in the first round would pretty much just be giving Bama a bye.

 
junior4949 said:
Washington really didn't have a very good season.  They lost three games all at the hands of teams that finished unranked.  The only team they beat that finished ranked was Utah.  Yet, we're willing to give them a playoff spot because they happened to be the champion of a very weak conference this year?  This is why I have a bit of a problem with this format.  Michigan loses to teams ranked in the top 10.  They stay home.  Washington loses to just about every team they play with a pulse, but they get into the playoff.  If this doesn't diminish the regular season, I don't know what does.  Bama vs. Washington in the first round would pretty much just be giving Bama a bye.
Click to expand...


I agree with you that conference champs should not automatically qualify, and that Washington was not all that special this year (mediocre conference and three bad losses), but they did beat Wazoo, who finished 13th, and they beat Utah twice, which is difficult to do.

 
BIG ERN said:
The problem is that conference commissioners are trying to get a formula when there should be one set in place for all...

-All conferences play the same amount of conference games

-No FBS teams can schedule FCS opponents 

-There can be no 'independent' football teams - have to be in a conference 

3 simple changes that would make a mile of difference 

Furthermore, make it possible for a non-P5 team to get into the playoff or let them have their own playoff
Click to expand...
There is a much easier solution.  Add a week and make the playoffs 6 or 8 teams.  Its basically the BCS in a playoff format.

 
onlyHskrfaninIL said:
There is a much easier solution.  Add a week and make the playoffs 6 or 8 teams.  Its basically the BCS in a playoff format.
Click to expand...
The system is the obvious issue. A one-loss power conference champ missing the playoffs should never happen. Can not believe we are still at 4 teams.

 
Back
Top