Another Playoff Proposal

[shakim3]

Seeing that we had someone talk about their CFB Playoff proposal, thought I'd share mine. It's simple, but effective.

1.) No non-conference games. They don't show much anyway and it's impossible to compare teams from different conferences consistently

2.) 8 league games consistently across the board.

3.) ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC, Mountain West send the winners of each division to the playoffs (conference championship determines higher seed) (This is based on revenue of conferences)

4.) AAC, C-USA, Independent, MAC, Sun Belt each send their conference champion (highest ranked Independent team goes--hopefully giving incentive for teams to join conferences)

5.) The 12 teams from pot three and the 5 teams from pot 4 make up the 17 teams in the tournament with the play-in game between an Independent team and the team with the worst record from ANY conference.

6.) The rest is just a 16 team tournament based on records *tiebreakers tbd later.

7.) Week 1 of the season will be a scrimmage week against FCS teams (or Spring games will be against FCS teams).

This is the easiest way to get the best teams playing and the season wouldn't last any longer than it does now. There also can still be a bowl game system for the teams that don't make it.

 

[bat_082994]

I said this on Boomergump's proposal and I'll say it here too. What about the teams who don't win their conference. Take for example, ugag last year who almost beat Bama. Would you put in the team when won the Sun Belt or Mountain West in the playoff over a team that barely lost to future national champs?

 

[AE 87]

You can't get rid of ooc games.

 

[CobbTech]

I say 8 team playoff at the most. ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, PAC 12 and SEC champs get in. Then 3 at large. 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5.

I don't like the 4 team format. It will be fun and interesting but if it was in place this year, Mizzou would have fallen out and been punished for getting to SEC title. There are flaws with every system though.

 

[srenner]

I said this on Boomergump's proposal and I'll say it here too. What about the teams who don't win their conference. Take for example, ugag last year who almost beat Bama. Would you put in the team when won the Sun Belt or Mountain West in the playoff over a team that barely lost to future national champs?

He said the two division winners go to playoff. The conference champ. winner just gets the better seed. So if I am not wrong Bama and Georgia would've gone last year in this system.

 

[srenner]

You can't get rid of ooc games.

Why do you say this? Most teams will end up playing the same number of out of conference teams in the playoff.

Instead of bowls there could be a consolation tournamnet. Similar to NIT in basketball.

 

[bat_082994]

He said the two division winners go to playoff. The conference champ. winner just gets the better seed. So if I am not wrong Bama and Georgia would've gone last year in this system.

That was my bad. I just misread it. Still not a huge fan of doing based off if division winners. I'll tell you to look back to 2009 I think it was when GT upset VT, who still had a pretty good season, to win the coastal. Wouldn't you take that VT team over the Sun Belt champs/division winners. Also what about conference teams that have multiple title contenders, see Bama/LSU nat'l champ rematch

 

[srenner]

That was my bad. I just misread it. Still not a huge fan of doing based off if division winners. I'll tell you to look back to 2009 I think it was when GT upset VT, who still had a pretty good season, to win the coastal. Wouldn't you take that VT team over the Sun Belt champs/division winners. Also what about conference teams that have multiple title contenders, see Bama/LSU nat'l champ rematch

I used to think that would be a major problem.
However, how I view it is that the team that lost(VT) had their chance and they lost. They played a team that was destined for the playoff and lost and that was their chance. A top(probably undefeated team) in a lower conference that has been solid deserves a chance to show themselves.(VT had that chance)

 

[AE 87]

Why do you say this? Most teams will end up playing the same number of out of conference teams in the playoff.

Instead of bowls there could be a consolation tournamnet. Similar to NIT in basketball.

1. THWG
2. Economics

 

[srenner]

1. THWG
2. Economics

Yeah I understand the teams need the extra games financially. But I still believe an NIT type tourny could make up for those games. You also could add a single rivarly weekend game.

 

[Boomergump]

I said this on Boomergump's proposal and I'll say it here too. What about the teams who don't win their conference. Take for example, ugag last year who almost beat Bama. Would you put in the team when won the Sun Belt or Mountain West in the playoff over a team that barely lost to future national champs?

Who am I, or anybody for that matter, to say that a Sun Belt champion isn't worthy? Play the games on the field to find out. If you can't win your conference, you got no business claiming a shot at a NATIONAL title.

 

[bat_082994]

Who am I, or anybody for that matter, to say that a Sun Belt champion isn't worthy? Play the games on the field to find out. If you can't win your conference, you got no business claiming a shot at a NATIONAL title.

That's a fair point. agree to disagree I suppose

 

[shakim3]

My biggest issue, bat, is that how do you say VT was better than the Sun Belt winner that year? You have literally nothing to compare to because they played different teams. We get so caught up in what the media tells us preseason (the rankings basically tell us who is better), that we don't even give it a chance that a less known team may actually be better. Just because a team won all their games and were placed as the number 1 preseason team, doesn't mean they are the best team in the nation. This model would ensure that the team that does best in its conference gets an opportunity to win the national championship.

That's why I like this model. I haven't figured out what to do with the teams that don't make it but there can be something similar to the current bowl system or more conference games.

 

[AE 87]

After about week 8, there's been enuf crossover play to start to have a pretty good idea of relative strengths. No system will be perfect. The better team sometimes loses.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

If you can't win your conference, you got no business claiming a shot at a NATIONAL title.

Even MLB has wild card teams in the playoffs.

 

[Boomergump]

Even MLB has wild card teams in the playoffs.

On the surface it sounds like a good point. So does the NFL. So what? The pros are based solely on records. Nobody votes them into playoff position. In MLB, everybody plays everybody, and it is only the final records that matter. Pretty much the same for the NFL. It is a totally different scenario than what we are talking about. CFB has over 100 teams who play inside their conference for the majority of games and a couple patsies outside, then a bunch self proclaimed experts VOTE on who they THINK is the best. This isn't figure skating or diving. This is football. Settle it on the field and keep the voters out. The only way to do that is by taking conference champs because those are decided by who actually wins or loses on the field (and possibly some predetermined tie breakers). If CFB went to a field of 32 or 64 like NCAAB then I could support you, but that will never happen.

 

[GTonTop88]

I would love for it to go to 8 teams, but I'm gonna have to go with Cowherd on this. "I've never seen a team ranked 5th or lower and think they got screwed out of a national championship."

 

[dressedcheeseside]

On the surface it sounds like a good point. So does the NFL. So what? The pros are based solely on records. Nobody votes them into playoff position. In MLB, everybody plays everybody, and it is only the final records that matter. Pretty much the same for the NFL. It is a totally different scenario than what we are talking about. CFB has over 100 teams who play inside their conference for the majority of games and a couple patsies outside, then a bunch self proclaimed experts VOTE on who they THINK is the best. This isn't figure skating or diving. This is football. Settle it on the field and keep the voters out. The only way to do that is by taking conference champs because those are decided by who actually wins or loses on the field (and possibly some predetermined tie breakers). If CFB went to a field of 32 or 64 like NCAAB then I could support you, but that will never happen.

How do you account for the disparity in talent between conferences? I'm the farthest from an SEC homer as you can get, but I still recognize the talent they have at the top.

I guess it comes down to what you believe a playoff represents. Is it the collection of champions regardless of what that championship represents (tallest giants + tallest midgets) or the best teams regardless of conference affiliation (subjectively speaking of course). What about a compromise?

I say put all the champs in + one or two wild cards. No more than two teams from any one conference, however.

 

[bat_082994]

I've come up woth proposal for those intersted, that could be some what controversial. I propose the doing away with of conferences along with the addition of another division 1 subdivision, between prsent FBS and FCS. All D1 teams wld be given their option of subdivision and total controle of their schedule. The postseason, whether it be a playoff or single championship game, would be decided on a point-based scale, which would consist of a formula that consists of record, strength of schedule, and quality of wins. The bbiggest complaint ive been given about my idea ths far has been the destruction of conferences. I decided to do that foebtwo reasons. Firstly, there are a lot of conferences that dont make any sense any more (ie. The big 10 with 14 teams net year, the big 12 with 10 teams, in the SEC, Mizzou winning the east and Auburn winning the west, the AAtlantic ans Coastal divisions which no one ever understood, and the PAC 12 that stretches to the midwest). My othr reason for doing this would be to do away with the "my cconference is better than yours" argument and conference bias

 

[NoPlayCard]

My biggest issue, bat, is that how do you say VT was better than the Sun Belt winner that year? You have literally nothing to compare to because they played different teams. We get so caught up in what the media tells us preseason (the rankings basically tell us who is better), that we don't even give it a chance that a less known team may actually be better. Just because a team won all their games and were placed as the number 1 preseason team, doesn't mean they are the best team in the nation. This model would ensure that the team that does best in its conference gets an opportunity to win the national championship.

That's why I like this model. I haven't figured out what to do with the teams that don't make it but there can be something similar to the current bowl system or more conference games.

Exactly. There is too much of "does this team pass the eye test" going on right now that plays a huge part in the largely subjective rankings. A great example from this year is Florida, who was ranked top 10 preseason (mostly because pollsters favor teams from certain conferences and place too much emphasis on program history rather than the current state of the program). Two weeks into the season they lose at Miami. The polls after that week had Miami jumping from unranked to 15 and Florida dropping to 3 spots below them at 18. We all know that both of these teams would go on to have disappointing second halves of their respective seasons making it clear that preseason rankings are a joke (look at 2012 preseason champion USC, eventual loser to GT in the sun bowl). I'm sure we all could think of countless examples of things like this happening but UF came to mind.

Back to the "eye test" thing (ie. playing the game on paper). Who would have thought that FCS Georgia Southern would come into the swamp and beat preseason top 10 Florida? There is a reason we play the games. Rankings (especially preseason rankings) are way too big of a factor right now.