OT: New College Football Playoff Format Will Only Add to the Chaos
- Thread starter Source
- Start date
Undefeated and one-loss major conference teams will now basically be guaranteed a slot.
Adding teams doesn't fix the problem, it just changes which teams will feel screwed. The problem isn't the number of teams, it's that teams are hand-chosen rather than having a clear qualifying process. They should really just end this nonsense and take the four power conference champions and call it a day.
Then you have to formally break and relegate the other half of FBS teams/conferences.
Otherwise you are just formalizing “Doesn’t matter if you go undefeated, you can’t get in”.
Which is fine.
Many it seems want to keep up the charade though.
There's some truth to the idea that some games will be watered down. I've long thought of tinkering with the conference championships to make them more of play-in games for the national championship.
Why not change the conference championship games - which are dumb when the real prize is the natty) - to include four teams. The 13th game would have Conf #4 versus Conf #1 and #2 versus #3. You double the number of games and the two games serve as essentially play-ins to the national championship.
Alternatively, I've long been a fan of cross-conference games in lieu of the dumb conference championships. Again, have the top four teams in each conference play against the other top four teams. In a P4 world, this idea would work well.
On other thought how about a series of four-team regional tournaments? Two games are played at the higher-seed home field and the winners meet in a traditional bowl. For example, Syracuse @ Rutgers & Army/Navy @ West Virginia and Navy/Army. Winners meet in a bowl in Fort Lauderdale or Tampa.
Why not change the conference championship games - which are dumb when the real prize is the natty) - to include four teams. The 13th game would have Conf #4 versus Conf #1 and #2 versus #3. You double the number of games and the two games serve as essentially play-ins to the national championship.
Alternatively, I've long been a fan of cross-conference games in lieu of the dumb conference championships. Again, have the top four teams in each conference play against the other top four teams. In a P4 world, this idea would work well.
On other thought how about a series of four-team regional tournaments? Two games are played at the higher-seed home field and the winners meet in a traditional bowl. For example, Syracuse @ Rutgers & Army/Navy @ West Virginia and Navy/Army. Winners meet in a bowl in Fort Lauderdale or Tampa.
I’m looking forward to the expanded playoff. I think the first round games on campus have the potential to be really exciting. I’ve never understood the logic of “well now the teams that are just outside the 12 are getting screwed” as a means to argue against more access which will include a non “power” conference champion. It will be good for the sport.
I think the expanded playoff is a negative. They went too far with 12 teams. Maybe 6 or 8 could be worthy in any given year but no one is going to get to worked up about which 2 or 3 loss teams don't make the playoff outside their own fan bases. The have also drastically reduced the importance of the conference championship games. I can see teams sitting guys in those games if not 100% healthy.
Following up on your idea, the Power 4 Conferences should change their championship game from divisions to the top 2 rated teams. P4 Championship games are round 1 - gives you 8 teams.
The other 4 teams come from the the next 4 highest ranked non-Power 4 conferences. Champion of Conf 5 plays Champ of Conf 8; 6 v 7. Then have the highest ranked P4 play winner 6/7 game. #2 Power 4 play 5/8; then #3 P4 v #4 P4
Allows champions from more leagues to be included and eliminates the need to hear arguments about why the 5th place SEC team deserves a spot in a 12 team playoff.
I’m in the opinion that you only hold a playoff if you need one.
Take the #1 team.
Only hold a playoff if there are any other division champions with an equal or better record.
A non-conference team can get in if ranked in the top 5 and have a better record than #1.
That’s it.
In any given year, you can have 0 to 6 teams in the playoffs. Granted, a lot of the time we will see an SEC champion be crowned in the regular season without playoffs, but that’s fine. We would be rooting for them to lose up until the very last week of the season.
It makes the regular season and conference champions relevant again.
Take the #1 team.
Only hold a playoff if there are any other division champions with an equal or better record.
A non-conference team can get in if ranked in the top 5 and have a better record than #1.
That’s it.
In any given year, you can have 0 to 6 teams in the playoffs. Granted, a lot of the time we will see an SEC champion be crowned in the regular season without playoffs, but that’s fine. We would be rooting for them to lose up until the very last week of the season.
It makes the regular season and conference champions relevant again.
Its already diluted as wins don't matter, see FSU.
I agree. College football had the most meaningful regular season because one loss could prevent you from getting into the playoff. Now with the new format you could sneak in with 2 or 3 losses. What made late November football so compelling was a late loss probably doomed you. Now not so much.
100% this.
Also I’d rather get rid of the committee and just have the BCS formula pick the teams. The committee is encouraged to do make stupid, “edgy”, and controversial picks to generate views and clicks. Just let the math pick this.
The water down regular season makes no sense to me. Now more teams games still have meaning. You can’t tell me a bye and home field advantage isn’t meaningful. On top of that going into the last week of the season there will be many games with impact on who is in.
There are still only 12-13 games so they will always have weight. It’s not like baseball or basketball where there are many more games.
Conference champ games will always matter because someone could be playing to get in or someone could be playing for the bye which is still important. Playing to keep your position and home field in the first round matters too. Near the end of the regular season, teams in the teens area will have legitimate shots to try to sneak in there as well. So in a bunch of ways many games become meaningful.
I don’t understand how an expanded 12 team playoff, which represents less than 10% of the schools in the FBS, “waters down” or “devalues the regular season”. Instead of 6 or 7 teams having a legitimate chance in Nov. of getting into the playoff, upwards of 20 teams will be vying for the playoff and seeding. That will only increase interest in the regular season. The “devalues the regular season” arguement was used forever against any type of playoff. Instead the NC was decided by sportswriters or coaches in often absurd fashion.
Do other divisions exclude half the teams from a playoff opportunity?
Fixed it for you:
16 teams
All 10 (soon to be 9?) FBS conference winners (which would include all undefeated teams) get an AQ
6 (soon to be 7?) at-large
Want to throw a bone and reserve 1 at-large for best Independent team?
Sure (I wouldn't and just rely on them being ranked high enough to earn an AQ or just join a conference).
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Football VIDEO: Rutgers Football HC Greg Schiano talks 2024 Spring Game
- Latest: -RUFAN4LIFE-