Having given some thought to it, and after my post on another thread, here's what I'd make the CFP if I were benevolent dictator:
-- 12 teams, top 4 seeds get a bye in the first round. Seeds 5-8 host first round games at their own stadiums. Seeds 9-12 on the road. All that is the same as what it is today.
-- All teams must earn their way in. There are no guarantees of any sort for any conference or team.
No minimum number of participants from any conference (lookin' at you, B1G). No guarantees that if you're ranked better than X at the end of the regular season you're in (lookin' at you, Notre Dame). No spots allocated to a G5 team in a misguided attempt at "fairness." How fair is it that James Madison is in this year, but Notre Dame isn't?
-- The major criteria for determining the field are Strength of Schedule and Strength of Record.
-- Similar to the NCAA Basketball Tournament protocol, the CFP Committee makes only one announcement, and it's on the Tuesday after Rivalry Saturday. There are no weekly publications of the evolving rankings.
-- Conferences may choose to have a Conference Championship Game. Or not. If they do have a CCG, it will have no effect on either the makeup of the field or its seeding.
IOW, a CCG can neither help nor hurt any team's standing. Regardless of whether you win or lose the CCG, or what the final score was, your position is where it was before the game.
Your conference does deny either or both participants a week of rest and preparation, but that's your conference's choice.
-- Your exclusion, inclusion, and if included your seeding, is determined by your team's body of work over the course of the regular season.
-- Except to the extent that it affects your regular season body of work, loss of a key player and/or coach is irrelevant to the selection or seeding.
This is exactly what the NFL does and nobody's lost their mind about "what a team will be going forward" without a star QB who was lost in the last game of the regular season.
Example 1: You lose your star QB in Week 5 and go .500 after that. But he's healed up now and available for the playoff. You're not in.
Not because you lost your QB, but because your body of work isn't good enough. True, the loss of your QB likely had an impact on that. And the fact that he's back now probably makes your team better. But as a team, you didn't earn your way in during the course of the entire regular season. Better luck next year.
Example 2: You're like the barn in 2010 -- entirely dependent on one player. Unlike the barn, you lose that one player for the rest of the season on Rivalry Saturday.
Even though the world recognizes that you wouldn't have had the record you do without the guy, you're in because of what you did during the regular season.
Yes, I know that means admitting that FSU got jobbed a few years ago when their QB went down late and as a result, they were excluded. We can't turn back the clock and fix that. It makes no sense whatsoever to continue jobbing future teams in similar circumstances simply because it happened once in the past. We can only make the best rules for the future.
What say you? If you were benevolent dictator, what would you propose?
-- 12 teams, top 4 seeds get a bye in the first round. Seeds 5-8 host first round games at their own stadiums. Seeds 9-12 on the road. All that is the same as what it is today.
-- All teams must earn their way in. There are no guarantees of any sort for any conference or team.
No minimum number of participants from any conference (lookin' at you, B1G). No guarantees that if you're ranked better than X at the end of the regular season you're in (lookin' at you, Notre Dame). No spots allocated to a G5 team in a misguided attempt at "fairness." How fair is it that James Madison is in this year, but Notre Dame isn't?
-- The major criteria for determining the field are Strength of Schedule and Strength of Record.
-- Similar to the NCAA Basketball Tournament protocol, the CFP Committee makes only one announcement, and it's on the Tuesday after Rivalry Saturday. There are no weekly publications of the evolving rankings.
-- Conferences may choose to have a Conference Championship Game. Or not. If they do have a CCG, it will have no effect on either the makeup of the field or its seeding.
IOW, a CCG can neither help nor hurt any team's standing. Regardless of whether you win or lose the CCG, or what the final score was, your position is where it was before the game.
Your conference does deny either or both participants a week of rest and preparation, but that's your conference's choice.
-- Your exclusion, inclusion, and if included your seeding, is determined by your team's body of work over the course of the regular season.
-- Except to the extent that it affects your regular season body of work, loss of a key player and/or coach is irrelevant to the selection or seeding.
This is exactly what the NFL does and nobody's lost their mind about "what a team will be going forward" without a star QB who was lost in the last game of the regular season.
Example 1: You lose your star QB in Week 5 and go .500 after that. But he's healed up now and available for the playoff. You're not in.
Not because you lost your QB, but because your body of work isn't good enough. True, the loss of your QB likely had an impact on that. And the fact that he's back now probably makes your team better. But as a team, you didn't earn your way in during the course of the entire regular season. Better luck next year.
Example 2: You're like the barn in 2010 -- entirely dependent on one player. Unlike the barn, you lose that one player for the rest of the season on Rivalry Saturday.
Even though the world recognizes that you wouldn't have had the record you do without the guy, you're in because of what you did during the regular season.
Yes, I know that means admitting that FSU got jobbed a few years ago when their QB went down late and as a result, they were excluded. We can't turn back the clock and fix that. It makes no sense whatsoever to continue jobbing future teams in similar circumstances simply because it happened once in the past. We can only make the best rules for the future.
What say you? If you were benevolent dictator, what would you propose?
