Why isn’t the playoff set up like this:

This topic has 14 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by Mule.

Viewing 8 reply threads

Author

Posts
- 08/26/2016 at 9:17 PM #11457
  3
  
  Utah
  Participant
  
  All five of the P5 conference champs get in.
  
  Rank them 1-5.
  
  The first bowl game of the year (right before Christmas), you have the 4 vs 5 game.
  
  Then, play the rest of the games as normal:
  
  1 vs 4/5
  
  2 vs 3
  
  Easy fix.
- 08/26/2016 at 9:19 PM #11458
  1
  
  Tony (admin)
  Keymaster
  
  Yes. The Pac-12’s schedule is so brutal that it would be a miracle for any team to go through it undefeated or even with a loss or two, knocking whoever wins the championship out of the national championship discussion.
- 08/26/2016 at 9:19 PM #11459
  2
  
  Utah
  Participant
  
  Pool the money from the 4 games. Pay the expenses for each team to travel to the games. Take what’s left and divide it by 4. 65% to the winner’s conference. 35% to the losers. Problems solved.
- 08/26/2016 at 9:50 PM #11460
  
  Anonymous
  Inactive
  
  There isn’t a problem when they exclude the PAC. The good ole boys control College Football and begrudge the hold they have on it.
- 08/26/2016 at 10:14 PM #11463
  3
  
  jamarcus24
  Participant
  
  My playoff idea is similar to yours. 6-team format. You have 4 selections from the playoff committee and 2 additional at-large selections. Presumably most years 5 of those teams will be the P5 conference champs.
  
  #1 and #2 get a first round bye
  3 vs. 6, 4 vs. 5
  
  The NY6 bowls each sponsor an individual game on a rotational basis like they normally do except this time they’ll all be playoff games. Everyone gets money so everyone should be happy.
- 08/27/2016 at 6:19 AM #11473
  
  89ute
  Participant
  
  Play in games solve the problem but it’s a brutal road for the teams who have to go that route. If schedules evened out I’d be more for it. As it stands now the SEC has a huge advantage with 8 conference games and an FCS team 2nd to last game of the season. The SEC pays at least 1 P5 out of conference, I can’t remember if it’s mandatory or not but practically every Pac12 team plays an OCC P5 so that still leaves Pac12 playing one more P5. Same with Big10 and they are even more strict. 9 conference games, 1 mandatory P5 OOC and no FCS teams. Big12 plays 9 and the ACC kind of plays 9 because of Notre Dame. (They have 8 conf games, 5 teams play ND on top of that plus many have a cross over rival with the SEC)
  
  So, long story short, the SEC has to schedule 9 conference games because you know they will be ranked high enough in the playoff to avoid a play in game so that puts the SEC playing two less P5 games compared to everyone else.
  - 08/27/2016 at 12:40 PM #11484
    1
    
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    
    Wish the PAC added the no FCS school as well. Not excited about SUU at all.
    - 08/27/2016 at 12:58 PM #11486
      
      Utah
      Participant
      
      The problem is this: as long as one P5 conference allows it, you only hurt yourself by making your schedule harder. If you eliminate FCS schools and the SEC allows it, you made the SEC a much better conference.
      - 08/27/2016 at 1:57 PM #11488
        2
        
        89ute
        Participant
        
        I don’t know what it’s going to take to get the SEC on board with tougher schedules. The way Stanford was treated last year it looks like the selection committee is not going to reward a tough schedule over a glossy record.
        
        Oklahoma got in with one loss, no conference championship game, a total on 9 P5 wins including OOC win over Tennessee.
        
        Stanford had 11 P5 wins but lost to Northwestern 1st game of the season but still played and beat ND OOC.
        
        Each team lost one conference game.
        
        I think the committee screwed Stanford and rewarded a glossy record over a better resume.
- 08/27/2016 at 2:46 PM #11491
  
  rbmw263
  Participant
  
  thats how you wind up with an 8-4 Georgia Tech in the playoff.
  - 08/28/2016 at 10:20 AM #11532
    
    Mule
    Participant
    
    The one change I’d make is some minimum standard for a conference champion to hit to get into the playoffs, otherwise an at-large may leap frog. Maybe a top15 ranking or 3 loss max.
- 08/27/2016 at 6:35 PM #11495
  1
  
  Tacoma Ute
  Participant
  
  I want at least an 8 team playoff. All 5 P5 champs plus 3 at large. Access for G5s but no guaranteed slot for them.
  - 08/27/2016 at 6:48 PM #11499
    
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    
    Too much makes the regular season meaningless. I really like the five team format.
    - 08/28/2016 at 10:18 AM #11531
      
      Tacoma Ute
      Participant
      
      I don’t think 8 makes the regular season meaningless when there are almost 130 FBS teams. I don’t even think 16 would.
      
      We would get to see some matchups we would never otherwise see. The teams would have more chances to prove it on the field as opposed to having things settled around a table full of “experts”.
- 08/28/2016 at 10:18 AM #11530
  
  TheThrill
  Participant
  
  Because of the extra week and games conflicting with school years.
  Plus the argument of “if you go to 5 then why not go to 8?”
  Also, where does Notre Dame fit in, or any other (chuckle) Independent, haha, team?
  
  Some of the “not their year” BCS bowls are played the same week as “their year” BCS bowls.
  You need 7 BCS caliber bowl games.
  Revolving (CFP, Sugar, Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Cotton and Peach) are already in place.
  I’m with you, take the conference champions and the 3 best teams after that but again, the Irish.
  Lastly it would mean 15 games for two teams, that’s a lot of football.
  
  FYI, in this scenario you had
  
  1 Clemson vs 8 Notre Dame
  4 Oklahoma vs 5 Iowa
  2 Alabama vs 7 Ohio State
  3 Michigan St vs 6 Stanford
  (out Florida St, UNC, TCU)
Author

Posts