Thamel: The lean towards a 12-team playoff

[MJ271]

IMO there needs to be very clear requirements to be eligible for being playoff eligible.

For P5 programs, to be eligible for playoff, their 12 games should be against 10 P5, 1 G5 & 1 Other.

For G5 teams, to be eligible for playoff, their 12 games should be 1 P5, 10 G5 & 1 Other.

I see no reason why P5 Conference Championship Games should continue. Just a money grab if conferences continue. Conferences need rules prior to season for determining champ based on 12 regular season games.

IMO no committee should be used to pick the 12 teams. Each P5 Champ should get an automatic bid and then next 7 highest ranked teams. Ranking should be based on pre-determined calculation (not polls).

Also the top 4 ranked teams should get bye. The first round games should be at higher ranked team's home. In the 2nd round games should be at neutral site based on top 4 ranked teams conference pre-set location. For example Big12 may be Dallas, SEC in Atlanta, etc. The semifinals would be at historical Bowl sites, same as current process.

I don't hate this idea, but with how scheduling currently works I'm not a huge fan. It takes two teams to agree to scheduling a game. Maybe there would be enough of an expectation for teams to follow this that it would all work out, but I don't think that's guaranteed.

However, if conferences handled scheduling of certain non-conference games, like in the Big 12-SEC challenge in basketball, it might work better.

 

[madguy30]

If they set up the playoff right - and so far, they haven't - then conference championship games would be a de facto first round playoff game. To make that work out, though, you'd have to limit playoff teams to one per conference.

The talk is that conferences are reconsidering the effect of championship games given the expanded playoff, and the use of divisions to set up those championship games. Here's their argument: you have a top-rated team winning one of your divisions, and a weaker team that takes the other. What happens if that weaker team upsets your strong team in the conference championship? You just played an unnecessary game that could cost you a spot in the all-important playoff$! So now some conferences are reconsidering divisions, and thinking about the Big XII model of just matching the two best teams in your championship game.

My son has convinced me this is dumb, under the current playoff scenario. Let's do a thought experiment - you're the Big 10. You have an undefeated Ohio State win the East, with a resurgent Michigan a close second (maybe their only loss is to OSU). In the West, Minnesota wins the division with a 7-5 record or something. If the conference changes their rules to match OSU and Michigan in the championship game, what you're doing is setting up the chance of Michigan getting another loss, and maybe knocking them out of the playoff field. If you stick with your division setup, OSU probably has an easy win over the Gophers, the Wolverines are still 11-1 or whatever, and both teams stroll into the playoffs.

But in my "perfect world" scenario, I'd say only conference champions get a ticket to the playoff. That truly makes conference championship games a first-round playoff game, which would be GREAT, in my opinion.

But I'm not in charge, so ...

I like it but there's no way any committees allow for an Ohio State going undefeated, losing in the B1G title game, and not being allowed to advance in the CFP. That's way too fair and would be met with 'why would you penalize a team for losing?' from the big wigs.

 

[isucy86]

.....
My son has convinced me this is dumb, under the current playoff scenario. Let's do a thought experiment - you're the Big 10. You have an undefeated Ohio State win the East, with a resurgent Michigan a close second (maybe their only loss is to OSU). In the West, Minnesota wins the division with a 7-5 record or something. If the conference changes their rules to match OSU and Michigan in the championship game, what you're doing is setting up the chance of Michigan getting another loss, and maybe knocking them out of the playoff field. If you stick with your division setup, OSU probably has an easy win over the Gophers, the Wolverines are still 11-1 or whatever, and both teams stroll into the playoffs.

I am jaded, but I think the SEC and Big10 conferences are counting on your thought experiment.

At a minimum they get 2 teams in and possibly a 3rd undeserving team. If the Top 6 ranked Conference Champs are selected.

Use last season for the Big 10.
Scenario 1: If OSU beats Northwestern, then OSU & Indiana make the 12 team playoff.

Scenario 2: If NW beats OSU then NW would make as one of 6 highest rated Conference Champs (Bama, Notre Dame, OU, Cincy, Coastal and NW). THEN OSU and Indiana make playoff based on rankings.

 

[isucy86]

I don't hate this idea, but with how scheduling currently works I'm not a huge fan. It takes two teams to agree to scheduling a game. Maybe there would be enough of an expectation for teams to follow this that it would all work out, but I don't think that's guaranteed.

However, if conferences handled scheduling of certain non-conference games, like in the Big 12-SEC challenge in basketball, it might work better.

I like the idea of the Challenge concept. There are 64 P5 teams and 58 G5 teams. But if the 6 independents are included with G5, then there are 64 teams on both sides.

It would be a fun weekend in September if the 64 P5 matched up against the 64 G5 & Independents. The NCAA could create matchups based on preseason rankings & geography

A Notre Dame v. Bama and Cincy v. Ohio State games would have been fun. Sure there can be teams like BYU, Coastal Carolina or Liberty that over achieve, but playing most P5 teams would have been a solid test.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

I haven't seen anyone mention this but how are we adding more games but not talking about a real effort to pay the players or letting them have a decision about their rights?

I love the idea of expanding the playoff on paper but are these students going to be compensated for more games?

That's the idea. More revenue for the schools to absorb what they will be paying players. If the students have a say in this idk?

 

[KnappShack]

Seeing more talk about conferences needing to ditch divisions with the 12 team format.

Divisions in college football suck.

From the Athletic:

The 12-team playoff should be quite forgiving for Power 5 leagues with one glaring exception. Because automatic berths go to the six highest-ranked division champs, a league probably will lose a playoff berth if it has a four- or five-loss division champ win its title game

 

[cymonw1980]

Seeing more talk about conferences needing to ditch divisions with the 12 team format.

Divisions in college football suck.

From the Athletic:

The 12-team playoff should be quite forgiving for Power 5 leagues with one glaring exception. Because automatic berths go to the six highest-ranked division champs, a league probably will lose a playoff berth if it has a four- or five-loss division champ win its title game

Yes.... the Athletic has one story on how divisions will be a disadvantage and everyone should have a championship featuring the best two teams (only B12 does this today).

They have another story highlighting how the B12 is set to make about $9M more per school every year in the new playoff system when compared to the 14 team leagues (b10, acc, sec) since they only have 10 teams.

They just need a story liking all this together on how smart (well, lucky really) the B12 was to stay at 10 schools, get rid of divisions, and maximize $/school.