Proposal: Eight teams in the postseason

[selmaborntidefan]

Too much money to be had

Yep.

When I was ten years old, we had this for New Years Day:

Rose: #1 Ohio State vs #3 USC
Sugar: #2 Alabama vs #6 Arkansas
Orange: #4 FSU vs #5 Oklahoma
Cotton: #7 Nebraska vs #8 Houston

There was a huge controversy because Alabama had been #1 until a close Iron Bowl and Ohio State moved up in the polls (the advocacy being - I'm not kidding - "they played a tougher schedule").

Here were the rankings going into the bowl games:

AP POLL
1) Ohio St (11-0)
2) Alabama (11-0)
3) USC (10-0-1)
4) FSU (11-0)
5) Oklahoma (10-1)

UPI POLL (now the coaches poll)
1) Alabama (11-0)
2) USC (10-0-1)
3) Ohio St (11-0)
4) FSU (11-0)
5) Oklahoma (10-1)

Undefeated BYU was #9 in both polls, having started the season unranked, beaten ranked aTm in the opener, and cruised against their cupcake schedule.

As you might guess, there was a huge controversy quite similar to the ones of the previous two seasons.

Alabama whined that they were the defending champions and undefeated.
Ohio State and USC tried to sell their game was 'the winner is the national champion' and Alabama hasn't played nobody. But USC's tie was to 5-5-1 Stanford, too.
FSU played a schedule that 20 years later would've looked killer but had only one ranked team (S Carolina).

===============================

I'm sitting there watching these bowl games between trips hauling firewood across the county, and all I'm thinking is, "Why in the hell can't 1 play 2 and stop this nonsense?" (At the time, I didn't know anything about CFB history. Or bowl matchups).

Sounded logical to me at ten: you have two unbeaten teams that pretty much everyone agrees ONE OF THEM is the best team in the country.

Why couldn't they do it?
Because money.

I still recall hearing a couple of hundred times in the 80s: "the day they create a CFB playoff is the day they figure out how to make more money from the playoff than they now make from the bowl games."

 

[DzynKingRTR]

So will the PAC-?? still be considered a "power" conference in 2026? If so we will have a terrible conference with an auto bid. I know we will not consider them one, but our vote doesn't count.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

A few have mentioned going back to the BCS system. I’m in that camp and 8 teams are enough.

That's still human vote - and in that case, humans that didn't even watch the games.

There are two ways we can remove the human element:
a) computers only
b) automatic bids

Any other discussion is simply a debate over the degree of human involvement.

I'm not saying such a system is bad, but I am saying all these complaints about committees aren't materially different than an SID marking down teams to be rated higher "because we played them and it will strengthen our schedule."

And folks, we ain't going back to the BCS for however many teams, so you may as well forget it. And I would actually be IN FAVOR of that as the best available solution.

But just wait until the #1 team in the country gets plowed in a conference title game and stays at #1 and you'll see that system has its flaws, too.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

A few have mentioned going back to the BCS system. I’m in that camp and 8 teams are enough.

Btw, I was all fine and good with a four-team BCS model.

 

[81usaf92]

So will the PAC-?? still be considered a "power" conference in 2026? If so we will have a terrible conference with an auto bid. I know we will not consider them one, but our vote doesn't count.

Really there are only 3 conferences that carry any weight. Well 2 and a quarter if you want to be technical. The Big XII atleast has stability.

I think since we aren’t decreasing and everyone seems hellbent on the idea of inclusion… meet this criteria:

1) Top 4 seeds will be conference champs (B1G, SEC, Big XII, and 4th highest champ)

2) the SEC and B1G are both guaranteed 3 additional teams each.

3) The remaining 2 at large teams i couldn’t care less how you rank them because at this point you have found the field.

The problem with college football is that it doesn’t know what it wants. Does it want national appeal or does it want a true national championship? It looks at envy at the NFL and doesn’t understand why the NFL works effectively. It’s not because the NFL has a 14 team playoff or AQs. It’s because the NFL understands how to satisfy its regions while also rewarding the most deserving teams.

Giving SMU, Boise, Indiana, and ASU a bone did nothing for College football’s ratings the way the NFL rewards its region winners. Oregon had already captured the west’s interest, the South already had firm interest, Ohio State captured the Midwest interest, and Texas captured the rest. These Boise, SMU, and ASU’s aren’t massive draws like the weak NFL division winners that they are trying to replicate.

 

[81usaf92]

That's still human vote - and in that case, humans that didn't even watch the games.

There are two ways we can remove the human element:
a) computers only
b) automatic bids

Any other discussion is simply a debate over the degree of human involvement.

I'm not saying such a system is bad, but I am saying all these complaints about committees aren't materially different than an SID marking down teams to be rated higher "because we played them and it will strengthen our schedule."

And folks, we ain't going back to the BCS for however many teams, so you may as well forget it. And I would actually be IN FAVOR of that as the best available solution.

But just wait until the #1 team in the country gets plowed in a conference title game and stays at #1 and you'll see that system has its flaws, too.

Well also you have to remember most here have a very nostalgic recollection of the BCS instead of one that is really true.

I mean seriously we were a review about a when a pass went out of bounds from either Cincinnati, Boise, Florida, or TCU for playing for a national championship… Was that the committee? Checks internet and history book… that’s in 2009… oh wait that’s the BCS. Then in another year Colin Kaepernick prevented Boise from playing for the national championship, and another Alabama nearly put TCU in over Auburn.

Keep in mind this was when only 2 teams were playing for it all. But i keep seeing “Go back to the BCS” everytime we see the scooter poots ranked by the committee. But the BCS was far closer in making a scooter poot national champion on a far more consistent basis than the committee (and don’t give me TCU in 2022 because they played the same schedule as all those Oklahoma teams that reached the CFP that no one on here complained about).

My point is to be careful what you wish for. The committee has been far more harsh on G5 teams historically than BCS computers and human voters. Remember UCF… they never got higher than 7th even when many human voters were calling for it.

The real reason for the fiasco right now is because that when they were deciding all this the PAC 12 still existed and the thought was that 4 of the 5 slots would be taken by 4 regional powers with the 5th being given to a WC. Well the PAC 12 imploded and the ACC stupidly expanded in a way that made no sense in an effort to block FSU and Clemson from escaping. Now we have 3 spots taken by mediocre to bad conferences. SMU being in the ACC was the only reason they got in.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The problem with college football is that it doesn’t know what it wants. Does it want national appeal or does it want a true national championship?

College football never really wanted a true national championship.

Controversy brought attention - and a plethora of teams that could say "we won the national title, but the voters stole it from us!"

THE FANS have always wanted resolution because CFB was the one sport that so often ended in a blind alley. It's hard to get people who weren't there to understand what a HUGE deal the 1987 Fiesta Bowl was when it was played - because 1 vs 2 in the bowl games was extraordinarily rare. When Miami and Penn State played in a game that:
- was moved to Friday night as a stand alone game
- saw Sunkist kick in an extra million bucks

....it was the first 1 vs 2 POSTSEASON game since the 1979 Sugar Bowl.

Fans want resolution with an undisputed champion because that's sports.
The powers that be want pro wrestling's never-ending storyline of champions that got hosed, big draws, and bigger money in the next worked program.

 

[81usaf92]

College football never really wanted a true national championship.

Controversy brought attention - and a plethora of teams that could say "we won the national title, but the voters stole it from us!"

THE FANS have always wanted resolution because CFB was the one sport that so often ended in a blind alley. It's hard to get people who weren't there to understand what a HUGE deal the 1987 Fiesta Bowl was when it was played - because 1 vs 2 in the bowl games was extraordinarily rare. When Miami and Penn State played in a game that:
- was moved to Friday night as a stand alone game
- saw Sunkist kick in an extra million bucks

....it was the first 1 vs 2 POSTSEASON game since the 1979 Sugar Bowl.

Fans want resolution with an undisputed champion because that's sports.
The powers that be want pro wrestling's never-ending storyline of champions that got hosed, big draws, and bigger money in the next worked program.

Well it tried with the BCS… but found out that it was alienating 40-60% of the country with every single Southern matchup it produced. Now it’s trying to figure out how the NFL is drawing crazy numbers when an 8-9 division champion is hosting a playoff game but no one cares when they put a SMU, Indiana, and whatever 1 loss nobody in there for a playoff game.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Then in another year Colin Kaepernick prevented Boise from playing for the national championship, and another Alabama nearly put TCU in over Auburn.

Not to pick nits, but that's the same year.

Yes - we COULD easily have had Boise State vs TCU for the 2010 national championship.

(and don’t give me TCU in 2022 because they played the same schedule as all those Oklahoma teams that reached the CFP that no one on here complained about).

Yes, it's almost like brand name affects ranking.
Because it does.

The same thing happened with West Virginia in 1993 under the Bowl Alliance. They went unbeaten and everyone said, "You didn't play nobody," and Coach Don Nehlen pointed out, "We played in the same conference games that Miami (the dynasty) did and unlike Notre Dame, we actually beat Boston College."

My point is to be careful what you wish for. The committee has been far more harsh on G5 teams historically than BCS computers and human voters. Remember UCF… they never got higher than 7th even when many human voters were calling for it.

As well they should.

I think a lot of this is more of a rending of garments because, well, we blew the Oklahoma game.

 

[jashleyren2]

Until we get each and every school to join a conference, there's just no point in trying to settle the title with a playoff.
Either get into a conference, Notre Dame, or the sport can do away with conferences altogether.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Really there are only 3 conferences that carry any weight. Well 2 and a quarter if you want to be technical. The Big XII atleast has stability.

I think since we aren’t decreasing and everyone seems hellbent on the idea of inclusion… meet this criteria:

1) Top 4 seeds will be conference champs (B1G, SEC, Big XII, and 4th highest champ)

2) the SEC and B1G are both guaranteed 3 additional teams each.

3) The remaining 2 at large teams i couldn’t care less how you rank them because at this point you have found the field.

The problem with college football is that it doesn’t know what it wants. Does it want national appeal or does it want a true national championship? It looks at envy at the NFL and doesn’t understand why the NFL works effectively. It’s not because the NFL has a 14 team playoff or AQs. It’s because the NFL understands how to satisfy its regions while also rewarding the most deserving teams.

Giving SMU, Boise, Indiana, and ASU a bone did nothing for College football’s ratings the way the NFL rewards its region winners. Oregon had already captured the west’s interest, the South already had firm interest, Ohio State captured the Midwest interest, and Texas captured the rest. These Boise, SMU, and ASU’s aren’t massive draws like the weak NFL division winners that they are trying to replicate.

Great post and all, but you missed my point. I was asking if the morons in the committee will consider the new PAC-?? a power conference? Everyone with a fully functional brain knows there are only 2 real power conferences, however, the committee still thinks there is at least 4. Will the new PAC-?? get an automatic bid?

 

[CrimSonami]

Great post and all, but you missed my point. I was asking if the morons in the committee will consider the new PAC-?? a power conference? Everyone with a fully functional brain knows there are only 2 real power conferences, however, the committee still thinks there is at least 4. Will the new PAC-?? get an automatic bid?

I have no problem with AB’s for conference champions in the current format but that shouldn’t qualify them for a first round bye if their SOR/SOS is weak. The 2nd round of this bracket has just as much potential for blowouts as the 1st IMO.

 

[TideEngineer08]

Great post and all, but you missed my point. I was asking if the morons in the committee will consider the new PAC-?? a power conference? Everyone with a fully functional brain knows there are only 2 real power conferences, however, the committee still thinks there is at least 4. Will the new PAC-?? get an automatic bid?

This must be renegotiated in the next round of changes. The PAC, in whatever form it takes, cannot be a power conference going forward. Serious consideration needs to be given to removing the "power" status from the ACC and Big 12 as well.

The answer to 81usaf92's problem about nationwide interest is in the SEC and Big Ten expanding again to kill off the ACC and perhaps Big 12, then leaving the ncaa and creating it's own NFL-lite league and playoffs. Winner of the Big Ten plays the winner of the SEC a la NFC/AFC Super Bowl.

 

[81usaf92]

This must be renegotiated in the next round of changes. The PAC, in whatever form it takes, cannot be a power conference going forward. Serious consideration needs to be given to removing the "power" status from the ACC and Big 12 as well.

The answer to 81usaf92's problem about nationwide interest is in the SEC and Big Ten expanding again to kill off the ACC and perhaps Big 12, then leaving the ncaa and creating it's own NFL-lite league and playoffs. Winner of the Big Ten plays the winner of the SEC a la NFC/AFC Super Bowl.

It’s probably the most pragmatic solution available at this point. However it’s now more of a question of what teams outside of the SEC and B1G really matter. TBH…. Only Notre Dame. FSU, Clemson, UNC, Miami, Kansas, and UVA are nice but really don’t desperately need them.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

Until the committee (human element) is removed from the selection process there will always be disagreements, arguments, and bias regardless of how many teams are in the CFP.

Did anyone do an analysis of what the twelve team playoff would have looked like using the old BCS Formula? (I'm sure that someone dd, but hadn't seen anything on it.)

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

Fine. No auto bids. Seed teams by rank. Re-seed teams after each round.

But it will never go down that way.

Re-seeding after every round gives an unfair advantage to the top seed (most likely the same team) as it gives them the easiest path to the Championship game. Same could be said for the worst team getting the most brutal path.

As proof, I can't think of a single sport that has ever re-seeded after every round.

 

[Cruloc]

I'd like to see the Big 10 and SEC both remove themselves from the NCAA, create their own league and rules.

Both get to 40 teams each.

Each have 4 divisions or pods of 10 teams.

Each team plays the other 9 teams in their division plus 3 of whatever they schedule.

Highest ranked division winner in conference plays the lowest ranked division winner. Other two division winners play.

Those two division championship winners play each other.

Then the conference winners play each other for the national title.

 

[NoNC4Tubs]

I'd like to see the Big 10 and SEC both remove themselves from the NCAA, create their own league and rules.

Both get to 40 teams each.

Each have 4 divisions or pods of 10 teams.

Each team plays the other 9 teams in their division plus 3 of whatever they schedule.

Highest ranked division winner in conference plays the lowest ranked division winner. Other two division winners play.

Those two division championship winners play each other.

Then the conference winners play each other for the national title.

You're a few years ahead of reality, but it's a pretty good solution!

 

[Cruloc]

You're a few years ahead of reality, but it's a pretty good solution!

I'm even for doing something like European soccer. Lowest 4 winning percentages from each conference get relegated to the lower tier football group. Highest 4 of the lower tier get promoted to the big time.

But that's probably a road too far.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

the biggest problem I see with the SEC and B1G breaking off and forming a so-called Super Conference is teams like Rutgers, Purdue, Northwestern, Maryland, Miss state, Vandy, and some other traditionally weak teams are in the upper tier league. Try and keep them out and the lawsuits start and then the other lesser conferences join the lawsuits because they think they belong too.