Sorry, I didn't mean that we should have a 24 team playoff for FBS. I like the 12 team model, and don't think having byes is an inherently bad thing as some people have suggested in this thread.
Thamel: The lean towards a 12-team playoff
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
It is now, yes. But to give those schools a chance also gives them a better opportunity to recruit. Maybe the gap closes a bit.
But also, by that mentality we shouldn't go to 8 teams at all. The top 4 are almost ALWAYS better than the next 4. But the point is to prove it on the field. If the small schools don't get a shot, how do we know.
Not a fan of a system with "byes" as this only helps the top polled/rated teams ('Bama, OSU, etc.) get a week off and more time to prepare. Still like the 16 team field with the Power 5 Conference Championship games being part of the 1st round with 6 more at large teams playing in 3 other games. Losers of Round 1 could still play in Bowl games, and the 8 victors move forward.
I wouldn't guarantee that. And how would we know when those top 8 P5 teams usually won't agree to play the top G5 teams.
And I'm not even a big G5 supporter. **** 'em. But it might be a compelling matchup. And better than two SEC teams in the top 4 that have already played that year.
If this passes personally I think the B12 should do away with their title game. It wouldn't be as important for making the CFP. Most likely at least one of the top 2 teams would be in the first round, and the extra week off would help them in the second round if they win.
Still think you make it 8. 5 p5 teams that win their conference championship, 2 at large, and 1 non power5 guarantee.
If the G5 wants to get a spot in the playoff, why don't they have the two highest ranked G5 teams play the week after they win their respective CCG. It would help the winners SOS and resume greatly.
It still probably wouldn't get them into the top 4. There's always going to be inherent bias against G5 teams.
They aren't going to oust a P5 conference champion, even one with a loss in favor of a G5 undefeated.
The current 4 team playoff doesn't even represent the 5 P5 conference champions like it should.
Won't happen because of money but I think the Big 12 has the right idea with no divisions, just the top 2 teams in the CCG, whereas the SEC / Big10 top 3 teams could all be in the same division any given year. Then the playoff requirement for being in their CCG would be viable and keep 3 teams from the same conference from getting into the playoff.
It doesn't matter as long as the committee is the one setting the participants. Whether the playoff is 4, 6, 8, or potentially even 12, without some sort of auto bid system, the committee is incentivized to favor the schools with the biggest brands in the biggest conferences.
8,10,12 it matters not as long as this moves from the current four and gets automatic qualifiers for the power five champions. The game is suffering from boredom. Enlarge the field and get a couple of upsets every year, just like in "the dance." It will be a good thing for college football fan interest, revenue, and the game itself.
There is a solution to all of this but of course it will never happen. Like FCS, there need to be smaller conferences and no conference championship games. Then the playoff can be expanded to 16 teams, and the also-rans can have the bowls. No way the conferences or schools would go for that, I get it, but college football cannot continue with the Power5/Group of 5 crap. There is nothing the G5 have to play for.
The first round of the CFB playoffs would be way, way more profitable than the conference championship games.
I also don't like the system and agree that a traditional power has some advantage over teams that are more "surprising." But I do push back on the idea that Iowa State or similar teams have to go undefeated to get in. Even this season (granted, the season was odd), if Iowa State would have won the Big 12 championship and won either of the two regular season losses, I find it hard to believe that they would have been left out. Even on championship weekend with two losses, it wasn't out of the question that Iowa State could sneak in if the dominos fell right. The vast majority of years, a one loss conference champion will make the playoff, even if it's Iowa State or a similar school.
When TCU got left out (which I also was angry about at the time), it was in favor of four conference champions with one or zero losses. And Ohio State, the team that TCU would have replaced had they been put in the playoff, won the whole thing. That might be a sign that the committee did get it right, even if we didn't like it.
I agree, it would be a much more elegant, and geographically efficient solution. Unfortunately, you're not going to create 3 more power conferences by pulling 10 teams out of the existing P5 and promoting 20 others from the G5. P5 doesn't want to lose teams (and game inventory/money) just to create competition.
MAYBE you could kill one P5, fold it into the others along with 20 G5s, and then have 'divisions' in the P4 that are separate conferences in all but name (since they'd have like 8-9 teams per division). But no P5 is going to volunteer to die; unless the Big12 falters or the Pac12 goes broke and has to be rolled into the Big12 out of necessity.
Imagine the Pac rolled into the Big12. Four 6-team divisions:
Stoners - Wash, Wazzu, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon St, Utah
Steers - UT, TT, TCU, Bay, OU, OSU
Surfers - UCLA, USC, Stanford, Cal, UA, ASU
Soybeans - ISU, KU, KSU, WV
Yeah it doesn't add up, but with 2 minutes of thought its better than Legends and Leaders already...
The saturday after big 12 conference game and week before semifinal games was Dec 26th. It was 37 degrees and mostly cloudy in Ames.
11am kick 27.
3:30pm kick 36.
7pm kick 32.
And for all the grassholes, the grass would not have been very pretty then.
Ohio St winning doesn't mean the other 3 teams should have gotten in over TCU or even that they Buckeyes should have. The Ole Miss team that beat Bama lost to TCU 42-3 in the bowl game. Not to mention that Bama played 0 top 10 teams, while TCU went 2-1 against them....All 4 teams that got in ahead of them were bigger name teams. If OU or Texas had the exact same resume that TCU had, they would've been in. The committee set the precedent that first year that the name on the front of the jersey ($$$$/eyeballs) was all that mattered.
The is what the committee has always said, but my response would be "how do they not know that TCU would not have done the same thing, if given the opportunity? That whole first season, the committee said it was overall record, TCU lost a close game to a 10-1 Baylor team, while OSU lost 35 to 21 at home to a Virginia Tech team that ended up with a 7 and 6 record.
Until the size of the playoff is enlarged, and the rules to playing games equalized, then we will always have a system that favors the blue bloods over every other school. The current system has allowed a one loss Alabama and OSU teams that did not play in their conference championship game to make the playoff.
No way in hell that an ISU team with one loss would ever be considered for a playoff unless the teams they were going up against had two or more.
First, ISU last year was 6th after getting beat handily by a Sun Belt team and losing to a meh Okie State team. In fact, ISU has ALWAYS been viewed favorably by the CFP committee vs. pretty much every other team w/ the same number of losses.
Second, some people may have said Iowa didn't deserve to get in if they won the Big10 in 2015 or whatever year that was, but they were getting in and they weren't close to getting jumped had they beat MSU. They were #4 going in vs. #5 MSU. If they won they were getting in without a doubt. While plenty of people thought there were teams better than MSU and Iowa, there was not legitimate argument based on resume for keeping out MSU. Winner of that game was getting in no matter what else happened.
Finally, this TCU got screwed when tOSU got in narrative like it was some blatant robbery for all to see just isn't the case. So the committee could choose TCU, but do they pick them over Baylor, who had the same record and won the head to head? If they decide they go head to head and pick Baylor, do they pick them ahead of OSU, whose loss was the first game of the season and had a better SOS? Now of course the committee and media would much rather have OSU, but picking TCU was not clear at all because of the Baylor head-to-head issue. Picking Baylor raises the SOS and timing of loss issue. So it was never very clear cut like people here like to think.
