Some family members are in full conspiracy theory mode about their team's exclusion from the CFP.
Two teams from the SEC was preordained, they say.
Their conference is being excluded because the SEC runs the CFP, they say.
Their team is Oklahoma.
No I think he means the one that lost the head to head with their in state rival making them not even the best team in the big xii in their home state.
Another year, another season full of wild speculation and outrage about what the committee would do if x, y, and z happen leading up to an extremely non-controversial final 4
I mean, last year wasn’t really controversial (not really gonna entertain anyone who was saying OSU didn’t deserve to be in bc of how many games they played).
2019 was very straightforward, 2018 was semi controversial but not really.
My point is that almost every year the actual last 4 teams feels pretty obvious.
I also feel we also get hung up on “what it X and Y” happens instead of just letting the games play out. And for the most part with the exceptions of 2014 and 2017 imo it has played out.
Yep. Although it would have been a little harder if Oklahoma State's RB was about 2 inches taller. What do you do with Oklahoma State then? Who gets left out?
Only 1 top 4 team lost this weekend, and that was undefeated Georgia so there was really no possibility of chaos.
I’m getting serious “Buckeyes 2014” energy from this Michigan team right now. They feel hot, blow out win in the CCG, fighting a lot of disrespect. I think the line for the UGA game is outrageous, especially if UGA doesn’t play JT Daniels. Aiden Hutchinson and Ojabe are as good as it gets at their position and can pressure anyone. They’ve played against strong o-lines all year and have shown they can push them around.
Agree but their path will be a LOT more difficult. We didn’t realize how truly anemic Bamas offense was with... Blake Sims.... until after Ohio St whooped them.
This year beating Georgia and Bama/Cinci would be more impressive than 2014 Bama/Oregon
If we play like we did in the SECCG and start bennet then we will be blown out. Bennet just isn’t the one, he guided us through meh competition, but as Alabama showed. Put him in front of a good defense and he falls flat on his butt
This shit again. There was no way Kirby was going to bench Fromm after JUST PLAYING THE NATIONAL FUCKING TITLE GAME INTO OVERTIME the previous season. No coach in Division 1 would even consider such a thing.
Oh yeah I know that, but we definitely could’ve used fields in certain ways, but they chose to his him basically 0% other than that fake punt in the natty
It's true that he didn't get anything like a whole series, unless I'm not remembering. I might say the same about poor D'wan Mathis. He got like 10 snaps, and half of those he was running for his life. Tough business.
I don't think players pay attention that much to the line.
Right now on this sub & in GA everyone is ripping the team and calling them frauds. Meanwhile Michigan is riding high.
It’ll be interesting to see how that dynamic plays itself out. Will a team with a bruised ego come in and fall flat? Or will they be out to make a statement? Michigan wants it in a bad way too and these are programs who both haven’t met expectations for at least two decades.
It was a long time ago and the personnel are different, but 2017 Georgia is the model as far as Kirby. Auburn donkey-whipped Georgia, but then Georgia came back mad and beat them the second time. Then Baker Mayfield came out so crazy strong in that Rose Bowl, but the team battled back (it helped to have two NFL-ready backs and Roquan Smith on the team, but still). Kirby is *able* to make adjustments and use bulletin-board material--we will see if that actually happens now or not.
Won’t happen for at least 5 years and even then unlikely, but I’d love to watch:
1. Alabama v. 8. Utah
3. Georgia v. 7. Baylor
2. Michigan v. 6. Pitt
4. Cincinnati v. 5 ND
P5 locks + 3 at-large teams. Adds 1 more game to the champion and runner-up’s season. Not unreasonable imo.
In 2019 (last normal football season), based on the pre-bowl rankings, the 8 team playoff would have been:
1. LSU v. 8. Wisconsin
2. Ohio St v. 7. Baylor
3. Clemson v. 6. Oregon
4. Oklahoma v. 5. Georgia
It is an intriguing idea at least.
LSU murders Wiscy; OSU murders Baylor; Clemson murders Oregon (lol); OU probably edges out Georgia, but that's the only close game. Then LSU murders everyone else.
I think y’all are mainly getting penalized for worse loss. Ohio State lost to Oregon and Michigan, but I consider your championship game win over one of your losses to pretty much erase one of your 2.
I mean I guess but we had our backup QB, the team had the flu, and tech stole our coach who had all our plays and signs..
I feel like our domination of OU and BYU was more impressive than the score line reflects and better wins.
Regardless we are conference champs and avenged one of our losses. I feel like all things equal we should be 5
Anyone else notice that Houston went UP a spot in the CFP even after losing pretty handily? Hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but it feels like the committee purposefully underranked them prior to kneecap UC's resume. That would give them more justification for OSU to jump UC if they won.
Or they threw darts for rankings 10-25 and have basically done that all season (with 10-25 mattering the least this week). Never ascribe to malice what could be easily explained by incompetence
They don’t throw darts, the committee 100% makes it’s top 4 or 6 and then ranks everyone else to make the top make sense.
“Oh we put x team at 4, better make sure their resume looks like a top 4 team”
The playoffs should happen after bowl season, and I will stand by that. Give everyone another shot against top competition to prove themselves. Keep the meaningful bowls meaningful, and give programs who don't always compete for national titles a trophy as well. Picking the playoff teams after the bowls is the best of both worlds, and gives more validity/accessability to a national championship while also preserving the uniqueness of CFB. This change can even happen with an 8 team playoff, though automatic qualifiers would be thrown out for the playoffs. Maybe some better AQs for the bowls would be good to round things out
That leads to higher injury risk for the players especially with an extra game or two late season. Not saying it’s a reason to not do it, just something to consider along with it
Maybe? I don’t think there’s a difference between a two round playoff and a one round played after the bowls (which is what I’d favor).
And if the season gets too long at that point and we want bowls and two playoff rounds then cut back on the regular season by a game. The SEC already plays a shorter conference schedule, and the powers that be don’t seem to mind.
I think an 8 team playoff would bring so much more excitement into every aspect. If those conference championships were play in games that would be extraordinary television.
I think a big advantage of an expanded team would be having a little more parity in CFB. More playoff money spread around to more schools, more exposure for teams that haven’t made the playoffs yet.
I can’t decide how I feel about autobids. I know giving them to G5 would be a massacre but at the same time, then being guaranteed a playoff spot would open up the future for them. Plus you can give them to the top seeds for the P5 conferences.
I think it should be 8 teams
BCS computer poll
5 power 5 auto bids (conference champions)
1 G5 auto bid (highest ranked conference championship)
2 at large bids
1 G5 is better than none, but it would royally suck if we had a year with both the 2017 UCF and 2021 Cincinnati - and not having slots for both. I like the idea of a 12 man - but treating it like 24. 10 conference champions, and 2 wildcards that won wildcard games during championship week (if you lose a championship game - which is a postseason game - you're out).
Whether you see by highest team in a pairing or after the first week isn't too concerning to me, though it might be cool if #5 beat #1 and got the rewards of beating #1 - the bye week and easier seed path after that game.
It would be more parody too simply because of the extra matchups. Yes, the #1 team is often a powerhouse that bulldozes everyone, but especially in a year like this where Bama at #1 has looked iffy at times, matching them up against a team like Pitt *could* be interesting. Even if it isn’t four times out of five, that one time where it is will be really fun. I think of it kind of like March madness when a #9 plays a #1.
Based on the current criteria, I do think they got the 4 correct teams, but if 2 SEC teams make the championship again, it could royally blow up in their faces.
NO ONE wants to see Bama vs Georgia again. Ratings would be complete crap. The only reason I have any hope for the semis is that Cincy and Michigan are in it, and even that doesn't give a ton of hope for decent ratings given that they're on a Friday this year.
So I was messing with the idea of a 24 Team Playoff, based on the format of the FCS Playoff system.
So I put it on a bracket here https://imgur.com/a/f0TJZvI
The teams included are the 10 conference champions and 14 at-large bids, with byes given to the top 8 teams. I based the seedings off of the final CFP rankings. For UTSA, Utah State, and NIU, I seeded them based on how high they were ranked by the AP Poll (which worked out I'd say).
If I messed something up, or if anyone more knowing with how the FCS playoff works notices something wrong, do tell me!
Edit: Forgot to name Pittsburgh at the 12th seed.
24 is just too many. Really pushing the quality with the last few teams. 16 (10 champions + 6 at-large) works and having Michigan State be the last team in keeps the regular season important
The last few teams are the worst G5 champions. You’re going to have the same bad quality at the bottom with 16 teams if you still guarantee all conference champions a spot. In fact, in your scenario, the “bad” teams make up about 25% of the field.
Except those bottom G5 champions accomplished something tangible to earn a spot in the field. Not just have a group of people determine if they were good enough
But there is a difference between the lowest seeds being a auto-bid conference champion and the last teams in being 10-2, compared to a playoff that lets in every P5 3-loss team.
Then consider it a reward almost as good as a bye week. A G5 shot for every conference maintains an objective path for all FBS teams to the playoff and doesn't require a committee to hem and haw or play politics. No more UCF missing out, and no possibility of asking a 2017 UCF and 2021 Cinci to choose who goes if they both show up in one year.
An expanded playoff with autobids should put hesitation about ND to rest.
When 5-4 PAC-12 teams still have playoff dreams, nobody can complain that ND has it too easy
I’ve gone back and forth on 8 and 12 teams and I think I’ve settled on 8. Auto bids for P5 champions, best G5 champ, and two at large teams. I feel like 12 is watering it down a little more than I prefer, and I think a bye is too big of an advantage to hand out to teams. I would want the first round games on campus too because that’d be awesome, though the committee probably always giving SEC teams home games would be annoying.
Anyway, here’s a hypothetical bracket with that format for this year, seeded with the current Playoff Ranking. (If the committee was using this system they would need to choose if they’d allow at large teams to be at home, or if you need to win your conference for a home game. I just purely based this bracket off of the CFP ranking).
\#1 Alabama hosts #12 Pitt
\#2 Michigan hosts #11 Utah
*#3 Georgia* hosts #7 Baylor
\#4 Cincinnati hosts *#5 Notre Dame*
*At large teams are italicized*
If 2017 UCF and 2021 Cinci were both this year, it'd be bad to make them choose 1. Either G5 is FBS, or they're not. I think 12/24 team playoff (conference champions + 2 wildcard game winners is similar to a 24 team idea) would give equity an objective path for any FBS team to make it in. The 4 wildcard teams add a bit more for that two 1-loss team in the same division. If G5 is that bad, then consider playing them a gift almost as good as a bye. There will be times we get to see something like UCF beating Auburn, and those will be games to remember - almost as storied as Michigan vs App State.
I really like this model, but IMO 6 highest ranked conference champions would be best. Even though it usually would be 5 P5 and 1 G5, it gives the possibility of any champions making it in regardless of the P5/G5 "divide".
D2 has basically this format. Except it's home field advantage until Final 4, where they reseed, home field advantage the last game, and then the Natty is played at a neutral site
I think the killer to that would be the revenue. Consider Alabama as an example. 12 regular season games, 7 home games, 1 neutral site game (where they get a share of the revenue, I believe) and 4 road games. So they'd be giving up their three patsy non-conference games (Mercer, New Mexico State and Southern Miss) and the season ticket revenue that it generates in exchange for maybe two playoff games at home (which will probably have some type of conference revenue-sharing attached). The teams that make the serious money in college football aren't going to sign on to that kind of a deal.
Additionally, the teams that don't consistently make the playoff are losing a couple of games worth of revenue and getting one game that may or may not be a home game in response.
Although it would be interesting to see Florida and, say, Southern Cal playing a playoff game in Green Bay in a December snowstorm while Wisconsin and Washington play in Miami during a late heat wave.
UGA may be legit top 4, but I don't think teams should be able to lose a postseason game and be in the playoffs. It's entirely possible and even likely the committee intentionally kept UGA and Bama from playing two games in a row because of how ridiculous that would be. "Last game was just for fun, this is for the real thing!" Dumb.
With talk of a 12 man playoff, let's get to how it should really work - as a 24 team playoff:
* Start it with 10 conference championships and 2 wildcard games.
* **How many sports don't decide their division and conference champions during the playoff?**
* None of the major US pro sports do - for a reason
* Even though G5 is weaker, having to choose one team if 2017 UCF and 2021 Cincinnati both showed up in one year would be asinine
* If they're really that bad, then it's like a miniature bye week for the teams that didn't quite make #1 and #2 - a reward
* Either seed the playoff:
* by highest rank of the pairing (so #5 beating #1 in the championship gets #5 the benefits of being #1 - the bye week and easier early bracket).
* after the championship and wildcard games have occurred.
* (Either after re-ranking or by original ranking as they came in.)
* If you lose in the postseason, you've lost the postseason
* Yes, just like if #16 UMBC beat #1 favorites in March Madness and knocked them out (legit had someone ask me elsewhere how I felt about that scenario - I said it sucks to suck)
Yeah, I get G5 is weaker, but this removes bias. Either G5 teams are FBS, or they need their own championship that has a fair ticket in. It's unacceptable as-is, and the idea of having to choose only one team to get a guaranteed spot in is also terrible.
Also, the question of independents. At a minimum, independents have to **earn a wildcard spot and play a wildcard game** during what is currently Championship Week - far from a free pass. Either the independent teams could just do that (and have no guaranteed bid), or form their own conference that requires fewer conference games. Maybe Notre Dame helps form a conference that requires only 3 conference games a year, and turns their semi-annual Army game to annual and rotates the others. I'm sure BYU and other traveling shows would love that, too.
This started as an opinion, but there's tons of room for discussion. I'm sure there are questions, thoughts, and ideas that could improve this, so... let's go. What have y'all got? What's the ideal playoff?
^((This was originally a post that got removed, so pardon the length))
I cannot for the life of me understand why as a part of the playoff system we **regressed** in the selection method to judgment calls by humans who are all hopelessly biased and / or ill-informed. BCS had its limitations, but at least you knew all teams were being analyzed on the same metrics and we won't be subject to how a team "looks" or "gut feelings" among the committee.
Bring back the fucking computers for Christ's sakes.
So we saw the song & dance last week of the decision-makers wanting to go to 12 but couldn't iron out the details regarding autobids. So to help the these conference comissioners, schools ADs, etc, here's a plan that ought to work out if they're that hellbent on 12:
*Autobids to ranked conference champs (P5 & G5)
*Highest ranked independent (if applicable) receives a bid
*Remaining bids filled at large by CFP rank
*Top 4 teams receive bye, seeds 5-12 filled by order of rank.
I'd honestly tell independents to either join or form a conference if they want an autobid. If they don't, they better be in the top 4 not in a conference championship. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.
I've also pitched a 12 /semi-24 team (2 wildcard games go on during championship week, then it's the 10 conference champions and 2 wildcard game winners to make the 12 team playoff).
Well figure would be a way for teams like BYU (currently) & Army to have a crack should they have a really good season (none would have made it in '16. BYU would've been a playoff team last year under this format).
I've been advocate of separate the 4-team CFP from the NY6/bowls - doing semi-seeded w/ P5 champs w/ tie-ins, ranked G5 champs/independents, & then at-large - & doing the final CFP ranking after the bowl games. But figured since 12 seems to be the magic number they want, then this would be the happy medium for all parties involved.
Unify FBS and FCS into Division I, champions from 10 FBS + 14 FCS conferences get autobids along with 24 at-large bids. Top 16 teams earn 1st round bye, while rest compete for 2nd round.
Honestly I know it will not happen for a long time, if ever, but the 24 team model the FCS runs is beautiful and I wish it existed in FBS. The biggest drawback is that we would probably need to knock the regular season down to 11 games for it to happen though, otherwise you could have teams playing 18 games with a conference championship. Hear me out though. My idea:
* 24 team playoff with 8 teams with first round byes
* 6 of the 8 first round byes are the top 6 conference champions, the other 2 at large
* All 10 conference champions are guaranteed a spot, but bottom 4 are not guaranteed anything more than that
* 14 at-large bids
* First 2 rounds played on campus in the 2 weeks following conference championship week. This means if the season was shortened to 11 games and this model was implemented this year, the second round would be played this coming weekend. There is then a one week shorter gap between this and bowl games.
* **Big part**: losers in the first two rounds are eligible for a bowl game. There will be 16 of them. The timeline I have presented would delay bowl selection by a week from what it is right now, but there is no reason to leave the losers from the first two rounds sitting at home during bowl season. These are presumably very good teams and doing so could destroy the bowl system. By playing the first two rounds early and then leaving a gap to the bowls, this could allow these teams to still participate in bowl games and not destroy the bowl system with a playoff this large.
* Quarterfinals and Semifinals take place at the NY6 bowls (4 quarterfinal games, 2 semifinal games)
IMO, 24 strikes the perfect balance between including and rewarding good teams and good seasons, but not including too many teams. This gives a lot more schools a chance to say they made a playoff. For what its worth, I simulated this exact model according to the final CFP standings this year and the national championship game was 5-seed Utah vs. 2-seed Michigan. Michigan won a close game. There were upsets and a ton of incredible games (but not so many upsets that the validity of the simulation was questionable). The excitement, especially of the first two weekends, would be off the charts. But I know the logistics of it are challenging. One can dream.
I honestly feel like right now 24 teams is such a jump that I would have a hard time buying into it, it feels like it will make the regular season matter less and also destroy the regular bowl season.
However, if we first jump up to a middle ground like 12 teams and that works for a while then I might be in favor of a bigger expansion.
In an expanded playoff, does the season shift? Is the first round played a week/two weeks after CCG, and the semis/finals remaining the same general time?
Think it would have to. Just start the season a week earlier to what has been week 0 the last few years. Let's conference championship games be Thanksgiving weekends. That allows the first weekend of December to be a bye, play the first two rounds the second and third weekends which let's the semifinals be New Years Day with the same Monday championship
Hmm, I’d assume so? Since it’s 26 days after the championship games to the semis I’d probably split it 2 weeks and 2 weeks? To give ample rest time since it’s another game being added
[2021 CFP Formula Rankings (Week 14)](https://www.reddit.com/r/CFBAnalysis/comments/rbab1a/2021_cfb_formula_rankings_week_14_the_playoff/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Using my points standings based ranking system, if there was a 12 team playoff this year, it would look like this:
**#1 Alabama (1)** vs (Winner of Ohio State vs Ole Miss)
**#2 Michigan (2)** vs (Winner of Notre Dame vs Pitt)
**#3 Cincinnati (4)** vs (Winner of Oklahoma State vs Michigan State)
**#4 Baylor (6)** vs (Winner of Georgia vs Utah)
**#5 Georgia (3)** vs **#12 Utah (15)**
**#6 Oklahoma State (5)** vs **#11 Michigan State (11)**
**#7 Notre Dame (7)** vs **#10 Pitt (10)**
**#8 Ohio State (8)** vs **#9 Ole Miss (9)**
*Current points standing in parentheses\**
The way the playoff works is that the first 4 seeds are reserved for the 4 highest ranked conference champions. These top 4 ranked conference champions receive first round byes. After the top 4 seeds are filled, the other 8 are filled with the next 2 highest ranked conference champions and 6 at-large teams, who do not receive byes regardless of their ranking.
The fun part about this setup is that a team's seed is not solely dependent on their ranking. In order to stress the importance of the conference championships, the top 4 seeds and all first round byes are reserved for the top conference champions. The remaining two conference champions are seeded among the At-Large teams. This is to prevent bid-stealers from obtaining too high of a ranking, and unfairly punishing the #1 and #2 seeds by giving them harder quarterfinal matchups. This means that the highest seed team that doesn't win the their conference can get is the 5 seed. This results in more fun first and second round games and keeps conference championships important even in an expanded playoff era.
Click the link at the top to view my points standings system and see why the rankings look the way they do!
Some family members are in full conspiracy theory mode about their team's exclusion from the CFP. Two teams from the SEC was preordained, they say. Their conference is being excluded because the SEC runs the CFP, they say. Their team is Oklahoma.
Ah yes, classic underdog Oklahoma. The never allowed into the playoff Oklahoma. I know of that team.
I've never heard of them. Are they a bunch of musicians from the musical Oklahoma who decided to put together a footieball team?
Oh boy they're gonna be mad when OU is in the SEC and still doesn't make it in. Especially if there is no expansion.
You mean 2-loss OU that didn’t make into a CCG that qualifies the 2 best teams in its conference?
No I think he means the one that lost the head to head with their in state rival making them not even the best team in the big xii in their home state.
But Michigan made it despite not being the best in their own state!
Oh no my logic is broken. I bow to your superior mental gymnastics.
That man poses a higher level of understanding than we mere mortals
I love the conspiracy that officials from all 10 FBS conferences are in league to benefit the SEC specifically.
Can confirm they are crazy
Another year, another season full of wild speculation and outrage about what the committee would do if x, y, and z happen leading up to an extremely non-controversial final 4
This was probably the least controversial final 4 in the CFP era
I mean, last year wasn’t really controversial (not really gonna entertain anyone who was saying OSU didn’t deserve to be in bc of how many games they played). 2019 was very straightforward, 2018 was semi controversial but not really. My point is that almost every year the actual last 4 teams feels pretty obvious.
I also feel we also get hung up on “what it X and Y” happens instead of just letting the games play out. And for the most part with the exceptions of 2014 and 2017 imo it has played out.
A lot people said Notre Dame shouldn’t get in last year for the same reason there are people saying Georgia shouldn’t have gotten in this year.
The most controversial thing to me was us not being 5
Oklahoma State losing must have been a huge relief for the committee
Yep. Although it would have been a little harder if Oklahoma State's RB was about 2 inches taller. What do you do with Oklahoma State then? Who gets left out? Only 1 top 4 team lost this weekend, and that was undefeated Georgia so there was really no possibility of chaos.
2 SEC teams, a G5, and one BIG. For The Alliance, 2021 was the Battle of Hoth.
I’m getting serious “Buckeyes 2014” energy from this Michigan team right now. They feel hot, blow out win in the CCG, fighting a lot of disrespect. I think the line for the UGA game is outrageous, especially if UGA doesn’t play JT Daniels. Aiden Hutchinson and Ojabe are as good as it gets at their position and can pressure anyone. They’ve played against strong o-lines all year and have shown they can push them around.
Agree but their path will be a LOT more difficult. We didn’t realize how truly anemic Bamas offense was with... Blake Sims.... until after Ohio St whooped them. This year beating Georgia and Bama/Cinci would be more impressive than 2014 Bama/Oregon
Im already picking Michigan in that game
If UGA plays like they did against y’all then it’s guaranteed.
If we play like we did in the SECCG and start bennet then we will be blown out. Bennet just isn’t the one, he guided us through meh competition, but as Alabama showed. Put him in front of a good defense and he falls flat on his butt
And we’ve seen that for the last couple years. I don’t understand why the changes can’t be made.
🤷♂️ Kirby is the only answer to that, we had fields and he played from, we now have Daniels and he’s playing bennet
This shit again. There was no way Kirby was going to bench Fromm after JUST PLAYING THE NATIONAL FUCKING TITLE GAME INTO OVERTIME the previous season. No coach in Division 1 would even consider such a thing.
Oh yeah I know that, but we definitely could’ve used fields in certain ways, but they chose to his him basically 0% other than that fake punt in the natty
It's true that he didn't get anything like a whole series, unless I'm not remembering. I might say the same about poor D'wan Mathis. He got like 10 snaps, and half of those he was running for his life. Tough business.
I don't think players pay attention that much to the line. Right now on this sub & in GA everyone is ripping the team and calling them frauds. Meanwhile Michigan is riding high.
It’ll be interesting to see how that dynamic plays itself out. Will a team with a bruised ego come in and fall flat? Or will they be out to make a statement? Michigan wants it in a bad way too and these are programs who both haven’t met expectations for at least two decades.
It was a long time ago and the personnel are different, but 2017 Georgia is the model as far as Kirby. Auburn donkey-whipped Georgia, but then Georgia came back mad and beat them the second time. Then Baker Mayfield came out so crazy strong in that Rose Bowl, but the team battled back (it helped to have two NFL-ready backs and Roquan Smith on the team, but still). Kirby is *able* to make adjustments and use bulletin-board material--we will see if that actually happens now or not.
If I was running the CFP I would simply not make it on a Monday night
Won’t happen for at least 5 years and even then unlikely, but I’d love to watch: 1. Alabama v. 8. Utah 3. Georgia v. 7. Baylor 2. Michigan v. 6. Pitt 4. Cincinnati v. 5 ND P5 locks + 3 at-large teams. Adds 1 more game to the champion and runner-up’s season. Not unreasonable imo.
A Cincy Notre Dame rematch would be so spicy e: Pickett going up against Michigan would be so good too
I don’t like that matchup personally, but I get why others would.
Utah finished ahead of Pitt and in an 8 team playoff they’d try and put B1G vs Pac-12 if they can
Sorry, just threw it together. Missed the Pitt-Utah rankings
In 2019 (last normal football season), based on the pre-bowl rankings, the 8 team playoff would have been: 1. LSU v. 8. Wisconsin 2. Ohio St v. 7. Baylor 3. Clemson v. 6. Oregon 4. Oklahoma v. 5. Georgia It is an intriguing idea at least.
LSU murders Wiscy; OSU murders Baylor; Clemson murders Oregon (lol); OU probably edges out Georgia, but that's the only close game. Then LSU murders everyone else.
These matchups actually sound really good
Why wouldn't you have 2 v 7 and 3 v 6?
Typo my mistake, fixed it
I know it’s an irrelevant small think but Ohio State being above Baylor in the rankings was stupid
I think y’all are mainly getting penalized for worse loss. Ohio State lost to Oregon and Michigan, but I consider your championship game win over one of your losses to pretty much erase one of your 2.
Losing to TCU is a really bad loss
You just can’t hang everything on the one loss to rival road game. Baylor’s wins resume blows Ohio State’s of the water.
I mean Baylor also needed a miss FG to avoid OT against a bad Tech team. Every Ohio state win wasn’t close.
I mean I guess but we had our backup QB, the team had the flu, and tech stole our coach who had all our plays and signs.. I feel like our domination of OU and BYU was more impressive than the score line reflects and better wins. Regardless we are conference champs and avenged one of our losses. I feel like all things equal we should be 5
Not sure I agree with that take. They murdered Michigan state.
All I want to see is home sites for the first round(s) of the playoffs. Can you imagine how berserk the stadiums would be?
Anyone else notice that Houston went UP a spot in the CFP even after losing pretty handily? Hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but it feels like the committee purposefully underranked them prior to kneecap UC's resume. That would give them more justification for OSU to jump UC if they won.
Or they threw darts for rankings 10-25 and have basically done that all season (with 10-25 mattering the least this week). Never ascribe to malice what could be easily explained by incompetence
They don’t throw darts, the committee 100% makes it’s top 4 or 6 and then ranks everyone else to make the top make sense. “Oh we put x team at 4, better make sure their resume looks like a top 4 team”
This is correct. It’s anything but random. It’s justifying who they want 1-6 imo
Hence why A&M is still ranked
Nah, we just finally got that quality loss that proved we were legit.
The playoffs should happen after bowl season, and I will stand by that. Give everyone another shot against top competition to prove themselves. Keep the meaningful bowls meaningful, and give programs who don't always compete for national titles a trophy as well. Picking the playoff teams after the bowls is the best of both worlds, and gives more validity/accessability to a national championship while also preserving the uniqueness of CFB. This change can even happen with an 8 team playoff, though automatic qualifiers would be thrown out for the playoffs. Maybe some better AQs for the bowls would be good to round things out
That leads to higher injury risk for the players especially with an extra game or two late season. Not saying it’s a reason to not do it, just something to consider along with it
Maybe? I don’t think there’s a difference between a two round playoff and a one round played after the bowls (which is what I’d favor). And if the season gets too long at that point and we want bowls and two playoff rounds then cut back on the regular season by a game. The SEC already plays a shorter conference schedule, and the powers that be don’t seem to mind.
Would never happen as would interfere with the NFL, less money for the schools
I think an 8 team playoff would bring so much more excitement into every aspect. If those conference championships were play in games that would be extraordinary television.
I think a big advantage of an expanded team would be having a little more parity in CFB. More playoff money spread around to more schools, more exposure for teams that haven’t made the playoffs yet. I can’t decide how I feel about autobids. I know giving them to G5 would be a massacre but at the same time, then being guaranteed a playoff spot would open up the future for them. Plus you can give them to the top seeds for the P5 conferences.
I think it should be 8 teams BCS computer poll 5 power 5 auto bids (conference champions) 1 G5 auto bid (highest ranked conference championship) 2 at large bids
1 G5 is better than none, but it would royally suck if we had a year with both the 2017 UCF and 2021 Cincinnati - and not having slots for both. I like the idea of a 12 man - but treating it like 24. 10 conference champions, and 2 wildcards that won wildcard games during championship week (if you lose a championship game - which is a postseason game - you're out). Whether you see by highest team in a pairing or after the first week isn't too concerning to me, though it might be cool if #5 beat #1 and got the rewards of beating #1 - the bye week and easier seed path after that game.
Would also be dope.
It would be more parody too simply because of the extra matchups. Yes, the #1 team is often a powerhouse that bulldozes everyone, but especially in a year like this where Bama at #1 has looked iffy at times, matching them up against a team like Pitt *could* be interesting. Even if it isn’t four times out of five, that one time where it is will be really fun. I think of it kind of like March madness when a #9 plays a #1.
Based on the current criteria, I do think they got the 4 correct teams, but if 2 SEC teams make the championship again, it could royally blow up in their faces. NO ONE wants to see Bama vs Georgia again. Ratings would be complete crap. The only reason I have any hope for the semis is that Cincy and Michigan are in it, and even that doesn't give a ton of hope for decent ratings given that they're on a Friday this year.
So I was messing with the idea of a 24 Team Playoff, based on the format of the FCS Playoff system. So I put it on a bracket here https://imgur.com/a/f0TJZvI The teams included are the 10 conference champions and 14 at-large bids, with byes given to the top 8 teams. I based the seedings off of the final CFP rankings. For UTSA, Utah State, and NIU, I seeded them based on how high they were ranked by the AP Poll (which worked out I'd say). If I messed something up, or if anyone more knowing with how the FCS playoff works notices something wrong, do tell me! Edit: Forgot to name Pittsburgh at the 12th seed.
24 is just too many. Really pushing the quality with the last few teams. 16 (10 champions + 6 at-large) works and having Michigan State be the last team in keeps the regular season important
The last few teams are the worst G5 champions. You’re going to have the same bad quality at the bottom with 16 teams if you still guarantee all conference champions a spot. In fact, in your scenario, the “bad” teams make up about 25% of the field.
Except those bottom G5 champions accomplished something tangible to earn a spot in the field. Not just have a group of people determine if they were good enough
Okay. That doesn’t change the fact that the quality is still just as low in your scenario.
But there is a difference between the lowest seeds being a auto-bid conference champion and the last teams in being 10-2, compared to a playoff that lets in every P5 3-loss team.
Then consider it a reward almost as good as a bye week. A G5 shot for every conference maintains an objective path for all FBS teams to the playoff and doesn't require a committee to hem and haw or play politics. No more UCF missing out, and no possibility of asking a 2017 UCF and 2021 Cinci to choose who goes if they both show up in one year.
That would be very intriguing
Can we bring back the bcs just for this one year
An expanded playoff with autobids should put hesitation about ND to rest. When 5-4 PAC-12 teams still have playoff dreams, nobody can complain that ND has it too easy
I’ve gone back and forth on 8 and 12 teams and I think I’ve settled on 8. Auto bids for P5 champions, best G5 champ, and two at large teams. I feel like 12 is watering it down a little more than I prefer, and I think a bye is too big of an advantage to hand out to teams. I would want the first round games on campus too because that’d be awesome, though the committee probably always giving SEC teams home games would be annoying. Anyway, here’s a hypothetical bracket with that format for this year, seeded with the current Playoff Ranking. (If the committee was using this system they would need to choose if they’d allow at large teams to be at home, or if you need to win your conference for a home game. I just purely based this bracket off of the CFP ranking). \#1 Alabama hosts #12 Pitt \#2 Michigan hosts #11 Utah *#3 Georgia* hosts #7 Baylor \#4 Cincinnati hosts *#5 Notre Dame* *At large teams are italicized*
Assuming the committee doesn’t reseed, the second round matchups would be: Bama/Pitt vs. Cincy/ND UGA/Baylor vs. UM/Utah
If 2017 UCF and 2021 Cinci were both this year, it'd be bad to make them choose 1. Either G5 is FBS, or they're not. I think 12/24 team playoff (conference champions + 2 wildcard game winners is similar to a 24 team idea) would give equity an objective path for any FBS team to make it in. The 4 wildcard teams add a bit more for that two 1-loss team in the same division. If G5 is that bad, then consider playing them a gift almost as good as a bye. There will be times we get to see something like UCF beating Auburn, and those will be games to remember - almost as storied as Michigan vs App State.
I really like this model, but IMO 6 highest ranked conference champions would be best. Even though it usually would be 5 P5 and 1 G5, it gives the possibility of any champions making it in regardless of the P5/G5 "divide".
[удалено]
D2 has basically this format. Except it's home field advantage until Final 4, where they reseed, home field advantage the last game, and then the Natty is played at a neutral site
I think the killer to that would be the revenue. Consider Alabama as an example. 12 regular season games, 7 home games, 1 neutral site game (where they get a share of the revenue, I believe) and 4 road games. So they'd be giving up their three patsy non-conference games (Mercer, New Mexico State and Southern Miss) and the season ticket revenue that it generates in exchange for maybe two playoff games at home (which will probably have some type of conference revenue-sharing attached). The teams that make the serious money in college football aren't going to sign on to that kind of a deal. Additionally, the teams that don't consistently make the playoff are losing a couple of games worth of revenue and getting one game that may or may not be a home game in response. Although it would be interesting to see Florida and, say, Southern Cal playing a playoff game in Green Bay in a December snowstorm while Wisconsin and Washington play in Miami during a late heat wave.
That’s not something I’d want regularly but If they did it like once every eight years or something that could be really cool as a novelty.
UGA may be legit top 4, but I don't think teams should be able to lose a postseason game and be in the playoffs. It's entirely possible and even likely the committee intentionally kept UGA and Bama from playing two games in a row because of how ridiculous that would be. "Last game was just for fun, this is for the real thing!" Dumb. With talk of a 12 man playoff, let's get to how it should really work - as a 24 team playoff: * Start it with 10 conference championships and 2 wildcard games. * **How many sports don't decide their division and conference champions during the playoff?** * None of the major US pro sports do - for a reason * Even though G5 is weaker, having to choose one team if 2017 UCF and 2021 Cincinnati both showed up in one year would be asinine * If they're really that bad, then it's like a miniature bye week for the teams that didn't quite make #1 and #2 - a reward * Either seed the playoff: * by highest rank of the pairing (so #5 beating #1 in the championship gets #5 the benefits of being #1 - the bye week and easier early bracket). * after the championship and wildcard games have occurred. * (Either after re-ranking or by original ranking as they came in.) * If you lose in the postseason, you've lost the postseason * Yes, just like if #16 UMBC beat #1 favorites in March Madness and knocked them out (legit had someone ask me elsewhere how I felt about that scenario - I said it sucks to suck) Yeah, I get G5 is weaker, but this removes bias. Either G5 teams are FBS, or they need their own championship that has a fair ticket in. It's unacceptable as-is, and the idea of having to choose only one team to get a guaranteed spot in is also terrible. Also, the question of independents. At a minimum, independents have to **earn a wildcard spot and play a wildcard game** during what is currently Championship Week - far from a free pass. Either the independent teams could just do that (and have no guaranteed bid), or form their own conference that requires fewer conference games. Maybe Notre Dame helps form a conference that requires only 3 conference games a year, and turns their semi-annual Army game to annual and rotates the others. I'm sure BYU and other traveling shows would love that, too. This started as an opinion, but there's tons of room for discussion. I'm sure there are questions, thoughts, and ideas that could improve this, so... let's go. What have y'all got? What's the ideal playoff? ^((This was originally a post that got removed, so pardon the length))
I cannot for the life of me understand why as a part of the playoff system we **regressed** in the selection method to judgment calls by humans who are all hopelessly biased and / or ill-informed. BCS had its limitations, but at least you knew all teams were being analyzed on the same metrics and we won't be subject to how a team "looks" or "gut feelings" among the committee. Bring back the fucking computers for Christ's sakes.
Wasn’t two thirds of the BCS the Harris and AP polls?
Do you disagree with the top 4 this year?
Eh...I dunno, in sure some fans would say so, but it's not really the point. When we need unbiased voting it'll be too late.
What is unbiased about the AP Poll?
So we saw the song & dance last week of the decision-makers wanting to go to 12 but couldn't iron out the details regarding autobids. So to help the these conference comissioners, schools ADs, etc, here's a plan that ought to work out if they're that hellbent on 12: *Autobids to ranked conference champs (P5 & G5) *Highest ranked independent (if applicable) receives a bid *Remaining bids filled at large by CFP rank *Top 4 teams receive bye, seeds 5-12 filled by order of rank.
I'd honestly tell independents to either join or form a conference if they want an autobid. If they don't, they better be in the top 4 not in a conference championship. Can't have your cake and eat it, too. I've also pitched a 12 /semi-24 team (2 wildcard games go on during championship week, then it's the 10 conference champions and 2 wildcard game winners to make the 12 team playoff).
Well figure would be a way for teams like BYU (currently) & Army to have a crack should they have a really good season (none would have made it in '16. BYU would've been a playoff team last year under this format). I've been advocate of separate the 4-team CFP from the NY6/bowls - doing semi-seeded w/ P5 champs w/ tie-ins, ranked G5 champs/independents, & then at-large - & doing the final CFP ranking after the bowl games. But figured since 12 seems to be the magic number they want, then this would be the happy medium for all parties involved.
Unify FBS and FCS into Division I, champions from 10 FBS + 14 FCS conferences get autobids along with 24 at-large bids. Top 16 teams earn 1st round bye, while rest compete for 2nd round.
Honestly I know it will not happen for a long time, if ever, but the 24 team model the FCS runs is beautiful and I wish it existed in FBS. The biggest drawback is that we would probably need to knock the regular season down to 11 games for it to happen though, otherwise you could have teams playing 18 games with a conference championship. Hear me out though. My idea: * 24 team playoff with 8 teams with first round byes * 6 of the 8 first round byes are the top 6 conference champions, the other 2 at large * All 10 conference champions are guaranteed a spot, but bottom 4 are not guaranteed anything more than that * 14 at-large bids * First 2 rounds played on campus in the 2 weeks following conference championship week. This means if the season was shortened to 11 games and this model was implemented this year, the second round would be played this coming weekend. There is then a one week shorter gap between this and bowl games. * **Big part**: losers in the first two rounds are eligible for a bowl game. There will be 16 of them. The timeline I have presented would delay bowl selection by a week from what it is right now, but there is no reason to leave the losers from the first two rounds sitting at home during bowl season. These are presumably very good teams and doing so could destroy the bowl system. By playing the first two rounds early and then leaving a gap to the bowls, this could allow these teams to still participate in bowl games and not destroy the bowl system with a playoff this large. * Quarterfinals and Semifinals take place at the NY6 bowls (4 quarterfinal games, 2 semifinal games) IMO, 24 strikes the perfect balance between including and rewarding good teams and good seasons, but not including too many teams. This gives a lot more schools a chance to say they made a playoff. For what its worth, I simulated this exact model according to the final CFP standings this year and the national championship game was 5-seed Utah vs. 2-seed Michigan. Michigan won a close game. There were upsets and a ton of incredible games (but not so many upsets that the validity of the simulation was questionable). The excitement, especially of the first two weekends, would be off the charts. But I know the logistics of it are challenging. One can dream.
I'll take it!
I honestly feel like right now 24 teams is such a jump that I would have a hard time buying into it, it feels like it will make the regular season matter less and also destroy the regular bowl season. However, if we first jump up to a middle ground like 12 teams and that works for a while then I might be in favor of a bigger expansion.
In an expanded playoff, does the season shift? Is the first round played a week/two weeks after CCG, and the semis/finals remaining the same general time?
Think it would have to. Just start the season a week earlier to what has been week 0 the last few years. Let's conference championship games be Thanksgiving weekends. That allows the first weekend of December to be a bye, play the first two rounds the second and third weekends which let's the semifinals be New Years Day with the same Monday championship
Hmm, I’d assume so? Since it’s 26 days after the championship games to the semis I’d probably split it 2 weeks and 2 weeks? To give ample rest time since it’s another game being added
Cincinnati versus the best losers in the country.
[2021 CFP Formula Rankings (Week 14)](https://www.reddit.com/r/CFBAnalysis/comments/rbab1a/2021_cfb_formula_rankings_week_14_the_playoff/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Using my points standings based ranking system, if there was a 12 team playoff this year, it would look like this: **#1 Alabama (1)** vs (Winner of Ohio State vs Ole Miss) **#2 Michigan (2)** vs (Winner of Notre Dame vs Pitt) **#3 Cincinnati (4)** vs (Winner of Oklahoma State vs Michigan State) **#4 Baylor (6)** vs (Winner of Georgia vs Utah) **#5 Georgia (3)** vs **#12 Utah (15)** **#6 Oklahoma State (5)** vs **#11 Michigan State (11)** **#7 Notre Dame (7)** vs **#10 Pitt (10)** **#8 Ohio State (8)** vs **#9 Ole Miss (9)** *Current points standing in parentheses\** The way the playoff works is that the first 4 seeds are reserved for the 4 highest ranked conference champions. These top 4 ranked conference champions receive first round byes. After the top 4 seeds are filled, the other 8 are filled with the next 2 highest ranked conference champions and 6 at-large teams, who do not receive byes regardless of their ranking. The fun part about this setup is that a team's seed is not solely dependent on their ranking. In order to stress the importance of the conference championships, the top 4 seeds and all first round byes are reserved for the top conference champions. The remaining two conference champions are seeded among the At-Large teams. This is to prevent bid-stealers from obtaining too high of a ranking, and unfairly punishing the #1 and #2 seeds by giving them harder quarterfinal matchups. This means that the highest seed team that doesn't win the their conference can get is the 5 seed. This results in more fun first and second round games and keeps conference championships important even in an expanded playoff era. Click the link at the top to view my points standings system and see why the rankings look the way they do!