Auto bids would be a terrible decision. There have been too many years where the Pac12 simply isn't deserving.
Last edited:
Thamel: The lean towards a 12-team playoff
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
Auto bids would be a terrible decision. There have been too many years where the Pac12 simply isn't deserving.
I doubt there are many who support what you're saying here, essentially that winning a power five conference is meaningless. Your eyeball test is what's wrong with the CFP today. Championships should be earned, not awarded.
If you get 1st or 2nd in your conference and win the title game. You deserve a shot at the playoff. A lot more than watching a rematch of SEC games we've already seen
I completely disagree. So lets say a 2 or 3 loss team upsets Clemson in the ACC title game, you want an autobid awarded? There HAS to be more flexibility for at large bids. With conference realignment schedule parity is a mess so yes, I do think a conference title should still be taken with a grain of salt. I don't care how you cut it, the eye test is going to continue to matter.
G5 guarantee contingent upon top two rated G5 square off on championship weekend. Conference champions and G5 winner get top 6 seeds.
You essentially get a 12+2 team playoff of the 2 top teams from all power 5, top 2 G5, and remaining top computer rated +2 after the dust settles on conference championship weekend.
This preserves the importance of conference play and provides incentive to build good schedules out of conference. G5 teams have a legitimate test before entering playoff with the benefit of not being one of the bottom 2 seeds. I think any team that back doors its way in without winning a conference championship should face the top seeds the first weekend.
This maintains the importance of the season, puts some more value on the CCGs, gives best G5 an opportunity beyond being perennial cannon fodder as the last team in, still provides a direct benefit to two of the best P5 teams who come up short in the CCG, and resolves itself in 3 weeks of games after the end of the season.
I'd have two regionals which would host the first two weekends of games and the championship game would be at a third location.
Last edited:
With uneven divisions how often do we truly see a 1 vs 2 in the conference title game? I mean I get it, but how often has the SEC received an undeserved playoff bid?
The eye test should never disqualify the conference champion.
It isn't 1986, Surly, conference are watered down. With unbalanced conference divisions an upset shouldn't steal a bid. I can somewhat get on board with it in a 12 team format but definitely not 8.
Here's the problem with an 8 team playoff with 5 conference champions, highest rated group of 5 champion, and 2 at large.
With only 2 at large bids those spots will be filled with SEC and Big 10 teams the vast majority of the time due to media and committee bias. If you have 6 at large spots there is a much greater chance of 1 or 2 Big 12 at large bids in addition to the champion.
Also, if this 12 team format happens the Big 12 needs to stop it's Championship game. Otherwise the 2nd best team in the conference will always be coming off a loss when trying to get an at large birth (which isn't always the case in other conferences with divisions). With a full round robin the title game isn't necessary to decide your champion.
With only 2 at large bids those spots will be filled with SEC and Big 10 teams the vast majority of the time due to media and committee bias. If you have 6 at large spots there is a much greater chance of 1 or 2 Big 12 at large bids in addition to the champion.
Also, if this 12 team format happens the Big 12 needs to stop it's Championship game. Otherwise the 2nd best team in the conference will always be coming off a loss when trying to get an at large birth (which isn't always the case in other conferences with divisions). With a full round robin the title game isn't necessary to decide your champion.
Yes. I'd say if a 9-3 team beats a 12-0 Clemson the CCG, they should get in, and Clemson can get one of the at larges.
Unbalanced divisions don't matter in a champ game scenario IMO.
That would be on the conferences to set up their championships differently. If they get rid of divisions there is a lower chance of a huge upset bc the top two teams overall are playing.
If you make CCG's matter, competitive balance in those divisions will improve. Right now they are no factor to getting into the playoff and teams play that way.
**** the media.
Eliminate the committee.
Champions make the cut.
G5 has a reason to compete.
Computer determines final 2.
No more favorites, bring it every week. Your eye test better be winning your conference title or risk not making the cut. Stop ******* around protecting blue bloods.
**** the media.
Eliminate the committee.
Champions make the cut.
G5 has a reason to compete.
Computer determines final 2.
No more favorites, bring it every week. Your eye test better be winning your conference title or risk not making the cut. Stop ******* around protecting blue bloods.
I used to be opposed to the playoff because I liked the bowls.
Now I basically haven't watched a single bowl ISU was in for probably 5 years. The atmospheres usually kind of suck and the stadiums kind of suck. Quite frankly I'd rather have another game in JT than go to the Camping World Bowl or something, even though I had a good time.
Now I basically haven't watched a single bowl ISU was in for probably 5 years. The atmospheres usually kind of suck and the stadiums kind of suck. Quite frankly I'd rather have another game in JT than go to the Camping World Bowl or something, even though I had a good time.
No, the Big XII would never get a team into the CFP without that all important 13th data point!!!!
First off I like the 12 team format but also would like a 8 or 10 team format. Are they planning on making this change for this upcoming season?
But aren't playoffs just the old Bowls by another name? I feel like all these playoff constructions are just a solution in search of a problem... If we had the old traditional Bowl system we'd have conference champs and at larges covered. After the bowls are complete the sports writers could name a #1 & #2 and they'd play a plus one...
It's a bad analogy but it's like if the NFC champ trucks the AFC champ in the SB and the NFC championship loser says the NFC championship was the "real" Superbowl. That could very well be true but football is played in leagues or conferences not a gigantic round robin. An endless expansion of playoffs isn't going to perfect anything.
We are trying to move from the eyeball test to rewarding championships, i.e. earning your way in. The last thing I want is another layer of eyeballs telling me who is qualified. No thanks.
I'm not talking about perfection I'm talking about what would actually interest me.
And no, the old bowls weren't playoffs. They were exhibitions between two conference champions. Rose = PAC 10 v. Big 10. Orange: Big 12 v. ACC etc. I'm also not talking about them, I'm more talking about the Holiday bowls of the world which would probably actually be 2 teams that would be in contention for a top 12 invite. I'm not watching that game currently. But you tell me that level of game would be happening, on campus, and the winner would advance in a tournament... I'm in.
