»
Topic: A new idea for the CFP
Replies: 43   Last Post: Oct 24, 2019 9:45 AM by: clemsonbluejay
[ Tiger Boards - Football ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 43  

A new idea for the CFP


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 10:15 AM
    Reply

I don't think the CFP should expand to 8 teams
In my opinion it should go to 16

Here is what, in my opinion, would make almost everyone happy (or not)

Keep regular schedules at 12 games

All division winners in the power 5 get automatic bids, but the first game
in the playoffs is their conference championship game. With the BIG12 champ having to play the
highest rated Group of 5 in the first round.

This takes most of the committees work out of their hands.
The committee will get to decide who the 6 at large teams are with the caveat
that in the at large teams only one per conference can be added.

This will cause independents to play the same amount of games as everyone else
and will limit each conference to a max of 3 teams in the 16 team field.

Also, only 2 teams will play 16 games, 4 will play 15.

it's just a thought.

Now, pick some holes in it. What did I miss?


the fact that these kids don't get paid. and

[2]
Posted: Oct 23, 2019 10:26 AM
    Reply

that they will be used up by the time they go pro?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

is this free association or what?***


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 10:35 AM
    Reply



2019 white level member


irrelevant comment


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 11:01 AM
    Reply

our kids already play 15 games. as do lower lever competition

null


Re: irrelevant comment

[2]
Posted: Oct 23, 2019 2:06 PM
    Reply

15 games is already a lot, and only 2 teams currently end up playing that many with 2 other teams potentially playing 14, several teams playing 13, and several more playing 12.

The above idea would move 2 teams to 16 games, 2 others to 15, and another 4 teams to 14. That's not to mention that last season a 7-5 Pitt, 8-5 Northwestern would've been in the playoff in addition to Texas, Washington, and Utah who were all 9-3. That would ruin the college football regular season which is really what makes college football special IMO.


Too many teams IMHO


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 10:28 AM
    Reply

You would end up with potentially 3 teams from each power 5 conference and one Group of 5, who would have to play the Big 12 Champ. So the division winners get screwed. They have to play other division winners, while the non-division winners get to play the at larges?

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Well, the Big 12 does have a championship game

[1]
Posted: Oct 23, 2019 10:28 AM
    Reply

already so that is going to cause a problem.

A better idea is find 128 teams worth of being in division 1. You can then you have 8 conferences with 16 teams. All have to pick their champion the same way and no provisions for when a 3 loss team upsets a 0 loss team in that conference championship weekend.

The committee can stay around to figure out seeding when the 8 teams are known.

This was on the Saturday before Labor Day, all 128 teams have a shot to get in.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: A new idea for the CFP

[1]
Posted: Oct 23, 2019 10:40 AM
    Reply

This doesn't make sense. Look at last year, for example. Alabama and Georgia would be the two automatic selections in your scenario, and they'd play each other round one. The at-large selection may have been LSU, let's say. LSU would play an at-large selection from another conference, which clearly would not be the caliber of an Alabama or Georgia.

So in essence, you are punishing division winners by putting their toughest matchup in round one and rewarding "wild card" selections with easier opponents.


Re: A new idea for the CFP


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 10:53 AM
    Reply

I doubt that the toughest match up most teams would play
is their conference champ game.

The toughest match ups come in round 2 and 3


Re: A new idea for the CFP


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 10:56 AM
    Reply

I just gave you a very specific, factual example of where you are giving the easier matchup to a "wild card" and a tougher matchup to a division winner. It simply doesn't make sense.


Re: A new idea for the CFP


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 2:57 PM
    Reply

You make a very good point. Things like that could potentially lead to teams dropping a game on purpose in order to avoid playing the #1 team in the country in the 1st round who just happens to be in the opposite division in their conference.

I'm sure the response would be that the team in this case would risk not getting selected as an at large team, and that's true which would make it not happen all the time or anything. However, let's say you're Alabama this year. They're currently dealing with the Tua injury, and maybe he'll be back in time for LSU, and maybe he won't. With this 16 playoff idea they'd almost certainly sit him out against LSU. That way they'd still certainly get into the playoffs at 11-1, and maybe even at 10-2 if they happened to lose to Auburn as well. They may also think they'd have an easier chance of beating an at large team in the 1st round instead of Georgia in the SEC Championship game.

Or let's say Georgia hadn't lost to South Carolina this year and were still unbeaten. Their game with Florida will likely determine who wins the SEC East and plays the Bama/LSU winner in the conference title game. One could see where Georgia could decide they'd have an easier time with beating whatever at large team they'd play in the 1st round instead of playing either Bama or LSU. Georgia would most certainly still get picked as an at large team with an 11-1 record.

Last season those at large based on the final regular season CFP rankings would've been ND, Michigan, UCF, Florida(9-3) LSU(9-3) and Penn State(9-3). The next 5 teams in order based on the CFP rankings would've been Washington State(10-2) Kentucky(9-3) Texas(9-4, but they would've been 9-3 without the Big 12 title game) West Virginia(8-3) and Miss State(8-4).


Agree, although you stated it better than I did***


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 9:16 PM
    Reply



2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: A new idea for the CFP

[1]
Posted: Oct 23, 2019 10:52 AM
    Reply

Seems like a waste to call it a 16 team playoff and then still play conference championship games that you are calling playoff games.

You added in a lot of details to try to make it seem like a 16 team playoff, but what you are really presenting is the current format with conference championships, 5 winners get bids, and figure out some at large teams.

I like 4 or at most 6, but if you want 8 then give 5 auto bids and 3 at large teams.

Put in a rule like the BCS had where if a Group of 5 team achieves a certain ranking by the committee, then they get one of the at-large spots.


I think if the system is 8 with at-large bids


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 11:08 AM
    Reply

then the system has to put the "best" Group of 5 gets in really no matter what.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: I think if the system is 8 with at-large bids


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 1:30 PM
    Reply

The "best" group of 5 team could realistically be 9-3 in any season.

With the exception of power 5 champions, there should be no guarantees.

The possibility of a terrible Power 5 champion is one of the reasons why I am in favor of remaining at 4.


The 9-3 thing is fair. Would still need to come up with

[1]
Posted: Oct 23, 2019 1:59 PM
    Reply

some protection so a committee couldn't screw them over. If that protection is they have to be undefeated, I can live with that.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: A new idea for the CFP

[1]
Posted: Oct 23, 2019 10:59 AM
    Reply

I have thought for a couple of years now that the playoff should expand, but only to six teams. All Power 5 conference champions get a playoff bid. Then, the committee picks the highest rated team from the other non-Power 5 conferences. The committee, using the same process as now, then seeds the 6 teams 1-6. The top two seeds get first round buys. The other four seeds play in the first round, which are the 2 of major 6 bowls that rotate, just as they do now. These playoff games would be played just like now, which is around December 28-31 or so. The semi-final games would be played one week later, which is roughly the same time as the championship game is played now, and they would be 2 of the other 4 big bowls that have yet to be used. They would also rotate yearly. The championship game would then be played one week later, so the season is only expanded by one week. This system would allow for everyone, all 10 D-1 conferences (130 teams) to technically get a chance to be a D-1 national champion. The season is only expanded by 1 week. The bowls are kept intact. The committee is kept intact, and everyone gets a chance. 8 teams are unnecessary. To me, 6 is the perfect and most fair number, and it also alters the current landscape the least.


No playoff should EVER


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 11:06 AM
    Reply

Have byes. Never.

Eight would be fine...and those four new CFP games could use four existing bowls, ideally on a regional basis, meaning they won't be assigned as Quarter-Finals until the CFP poll is finalized.

I don't even care if conference championship games go by the wayside. They could be used, as suggested above, for seeding purposes and cross-over versus other conference division winners.

However it's sliced, above, there's still a 15th game only in the Natty. The players don't need more games in their season, nor do they need a month between the season's end and the start of CFP games.


Re: Byes aren’t bad


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 1:35 PM
    Reply

While I agree with some of what you wrote, I do not think that byes are a bad idea simply for this reason: there is absolutely NO reward for playing a tough schedule, and going undefeated in that schedule, to only be rewarded with playing another playoff caliber team at some neutral site, or even at home. I just think there should be a SIGNIFICANT reward for being a top seed in a playoff system. Since football could never have the number of teams that basketball’s tournament does, any team making a football playoff isn’t going to be some cupcake of a team. If you can’t have a bye, I don’t see any reward for playing a tough schedule or going undefeated in a playoff system.

I HATE the NFL, but they have a six team playoff in each conference, and I think they do it right. The NCAA could do the same. Moving the mega bowls (the first round of my suggested playoff idea) up to early December or allowing the games to be played at the home sites of higher seeds is fine by me, but I do believe the two top seeds should be rewarded for being the best regular season teams by not having to play an extra game. That’s just my thoughts.

P.S. I’m really biased toward top seeds because I look at the way baseball has always done it, and then especially after they introduced the wild card at the start of the 1994 strike season. The reason being is that I think it is HIGHLY unfair to play 162 games, have the best record in the entire league, and your only reward is POSSIBLY one extra home game than your opponent in a series of games. That’s crazy, and I feel the same way about an 82 game NBA season too. If a team plays well enough to have the best record in a league, they either shouldn’t have to play in the first round of a playoff or they should get to have all games in a series played at their home field. Granted, this attitude is more centered toward professional sports, but I don’t particularly think that it’s totally fair to not SIGNIFICANTLY grant an advantage to top seeds, after long seasons, regardless of the sport.


Re: No playoff should EVER


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 2:42 PM
    Reply

Tell that to MLB, the NFL, the NBA (before 2005)...

How about "No team that cannot even win its division, let alone its conference/league can be in the playoffs!" The Washington Nationals say hello from the World Series.

[For MLB, I am considering the one-game wildcard playoff game to mean that the division champs have a bye.]

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Re: No playoff should EVER


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 2:59 PM
    Reply

When has the NBA ever had byes?


Re: A new idea for the CFP


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 2:36 PM
    Reply

"everyone gets a chance"

Really?

Doesn't everyone get a chance now? Just gotta be in the top 4. Win your games against reasonable level of competition and get in. Does #5 now really get to complain anymore than #9 would in an 8-team playoff? They both had a chance to get to #4 or #8, but failed. In an all-champions-plus-Go5 scheme, we could have a 8-4 PAC12 champ and 9-3 Boise State in while a 12-1 Big 10 championship loser is out?

Everyone gets a chance? Everyone gets a chance now, everyone had a chance in the BCS, everyone has a chance in a 16-team playoff. But there will ALWAYS be teams on whatever constitutes the cusp that get left out and they'll continue to moan about and demand expansion.

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Re: A new idea for the CFP


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 3:05 PM
    Reply

I agree completely. Heck, many of the teams to make the CFP so far have done so while even losing a game including us a couple of times. Most of the time the #5 team is one that has at least 2 losses, and often times lost to at least one team that made the CFP. Expand the playoff to 8 or more teams and you begin to get 3 loss teams and beyond.

I get it, there's part of me that thinks a 16 team playoff would be exciting, and it would be in a lot of ways. That excitement wouldn't offset what it would take away from the regular season. Who wants to see the college football regular season become like the NFL where the top ranked teams start sitting out players in the last week or two of the regular season once they know their playoff spot is safe?
Who wants to see less exciting OOC games because the top teams no longer feel they need resume builders?


Why? 5 power 5 conferences

[1]
Posted: Oct 23, 2019 11:00 AM
    Reply

So you only need 5 spots.

Make a 6th for 1 non power five team.


6 spots is all you need. Do a lottery for seeding.


You'll get a lot of controversy over who gets the weeks off


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 11:11 AM
    Reply

though.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Always is...


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 11:14 AM
    Reply

But if you do a lottery you can only argue against bad luck.


I still think you try to avoid any sort of bye.


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 11:23 AM
    Reply

The idea I laid out above really seems to be the best way. Sure, you've got to pick two teams to get demoted, but eh.

One could also take the Power 5, have them play one for one championship the group of 5 for another. We'd just stop pretending they are the same league. Maybe even bring in relegation.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Always is...

[2]
Posted: Oct 23, 2019 1:42 PM
    Reply

A) It's beyond silly to determine 2 teams getting a bye into the second round based on a lottery. B) People would still argue because many people would be convinced of it being rigged. Imagine the reaction on this site when the 2 winners of that lottery being Alabama and a 2nd SEC team, or Alabama and any other team not named Clemson.


Say what?


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 3:11 PM
    Reply

I think I mislead you.


6 spots
1 for each winner of the conference championship game.

1 spot for a non power 5 team.


Seeding done by lottery.


Re: Say what?


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 3:13 PM
    Reply

A 6 team playoff requires 2 teams have a bye. So, seeding by lottery is also a blind draw for which 2 teams are gifted a bye to the second round. That's a ridiculous way to determine who gets the easier path.


I'm ok with it.


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 3:17 PM
    Reply

I'd rather a bouncing ball than a bunch of idiots who will always give the sec champ a bye.


Re: I'm ok with it.


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 3:35 PM
    Reply

The byes awarded by the "idiots" historically would have been:

2014: Alabama, Oregon. Oregon lost to Ohio St in the final.
2015: Clemson, Alabama. Alabama beat Clemson in the final.
2016: Alabama, Clemson. Clemson beat Alabama in the final.
2017: Clemson, Oklahoma. Both teams lost the semifinal.
2018: Alabama, Clemson. Clemson beat Alabama in the final.

Only one year has the SEC been left out of the top 2 seeds, and 'Bama won the title that year. Outside of 2017, the seeding has been pretty accurate.

I understand the "SEC" bias stuff, but nobody can deny Alabama has earned it. It's not like the committee is gifting spots to the SEC every year. Other than 'Bama, only Georgia has earned a playoff spot from that conference.

Bids by conference:
ACC - 5
Big10 - 3
Big12 - 3
PAC12 - 2
SEC - 6
Independents - 1

Titles by conference:
ACC - 2
Big10 - 1
SEC - 2


The SEC and ESPIN Will Cry They Don't Get Every Team In***


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 11:20 AM
    Reply



2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: A new idea for the CFP


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 11:38 AM
    Reply

I know you covered the Independents, but that is where you and I differ.
There can be no independents, period and that means Notre Dame. They are no better than anybody else, and they either join a conference or their season ends at 12 games.
Otherwise, you come close. You may have to drop 1 regular-season game because of exams; after all, we are still talking "student-athletes" here, but your proposal has merit.


Nope. Will never happen. Anything over 4 ruins this sport***


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 1:24 PM
    Reply



2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Best Is The Standard


CFP should be 1 team; let the AP decide


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 1:32 PM
    Reply

'Murica!

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: A new idea for the CFP


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 1:44 PM
    Reply

Why would the Big 12 want to eliminate their conference championship game? Especially since with your idea the other P5 conferences are getting at least 2 teams in, and the Big 12 would be giving up their 2nd guaranteed team by having their championship game removed.


Re: A new idea for the CFP


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 2:58 PM
    Reply

it will never be more than 8 teams

2019 orange level member

The only problem I see is


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 3:03 PM
    Reply

the SEC fanboys crying how this format also limits their ability to get more teams in.

Not that it does, but they'll find and argument that says it does.

2019 white level member

At-larges, plus the Big XII have an easier path to the


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 8:41 PM
    Reply

round of eight than most of the conference division champs, for one thing.

2019 student level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg2008_ncaa_champ.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-clemsonpoker489.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

Re: A new idea for the CFP


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 8:50 PM
    Reply

We already have enough people bitchlng about Too many SEC teams getting acknowledge. Could you imagine, they’d be trying to put all 14 of them in there if they could!


Message was edited by: Touch_The_Rock79



Re: A new idea for the CFP


Posted: Oct 24, 2019 9:45 AM
    Reply

There is no actual proof of this. The AP poll, sure, that happens. But if you look at the 5-year history of the CFP, there has been no bias evident.


You don’t ever want to water down the regular season.


Posted: Oct 23, 2019 9:28 PM
    Reply

That would make college football suck just like any other sports league.

One thing that makes college football unique, and makes the regular season exciting, is that one single loss could disqualify any team from winning a championship.

2019 white level member

In response to the above criticisms


Posted: Oct 24, 2019 7:53 AM
    Reply

I hope I remember all of them, but

Any system that allows for a bye from a playoff team is going to unacceptable
to almost everyone. 6 team playoff is not the answer. Non of the ADs or the NCAA
is going to approve that I believe.

There were comments about eliminating the BIG12 championship game. I see that so,
the answer, I guess would be that their second place team would get one of the at large
bids and would play them in the first round moving the Group of 5 qualifier to a
match up with an at large team.

To those who said it would water down the regular season. I don't see how
when the regular season is untouched by this scenario. If your argument is that
teams will schedule cupcakes as OOC games in order to get in the field guess what?
They are already doing that now.

For the argument that the best teams are screwed in the first round because they have to play a tougher opponent than the at large teams do...well I believe that they want to
play for their conference championships. After the first round where conference championships are
completed. The games in the round of 8 can be seeded 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, 3 plays 6 etc.

I think on of the things that this type of play off will do is get the whole nation involved.
And, we wouldn't hear how everyone was tired of the same match ups in the 4 team playoff.

4 team play off isn't big enough, 6 teams create a bye for 2 teams and that's nor right either

8 or 16 teams is better. I'm for 16 as I have said


Replies: 43  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: South Carolina
FOR SALE: Clemson VS South Carolina 4 tickets in Clemson section Section 501 Row 34 Face value $125 per tick...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Tiger Boards - Football ]
Start New Topic
1488 people have read this post