A workable 8 team playoff?


It would work, but I disagree with the approach of removing conference championship games. In my opinion:

  • Divisions give more teams a chance to stay "in the hunt" later into the season, piquing more interest from more people. Conference titles still matter, and removing divisions lessens the chance that your team will be eligible to win it as the season goes on.
  • I believe we'll be at 16-team conferences sooner than later. Trying to maintain balanced scheduling while avoiding nearly half of the teams in your conference is nearly impossible. With a conference title game and balanced divisions, however, you can hedge that two pretty good or great teams will face off against each other.
 

I don't see why they would get rid of conference championships. They are entertaining, they just aren't important enough because they are treated like any other game.

I'd like to see an 8 team playoff with these rules:
• Keep the conference championships
• Automatic bids for the winners of each of the P5 conference championships
• 1 at-large spot reserved for the group of 5
• 2 other at-large spots that can go to any team

I'd also love to see there be a requirement that you play at least 1 top-25 team outside your conference, but that's not reasonable at this point with how far in advance scheduling is done. In the absence of that, I'd like to see strength of schedule be a much bigger selection criteria than in the past.
 

I'm not a huge fan of expansion at this point. Not totally opposed, but I like it at 4. I've never felt like the committee left out a legitimate national title threat under the current system. I could be talked into 8. I think you absolutely have to keep conference championship games if you are going to go to 8 though.

You'd still have some griping about the final couple spots even with 8 teams...that will never go away no matter how many teams you go to. The key is balancing the schedules as much as possible. And the way it is right now they are not even close.

I'm mainly worried that if we go from 4 to 8 then about three years after that people will be calling for 16, which I think is way too many. I think it is pretty clear that teams like Michigan State, TCU, Washington, and Stanford are not the best teams in the country so I think it would be pointless to include them in a playoff. I get it why they do that at FCS/D2/D3. Those teams often don't play anyone outside of their region so it can be difficult to gauge who the top teams are without putting all of them in a playoff.
 

Anything getting rid of the conf champ games is DOA. Conferences want to keep that revenue to themselves, they don't want that revenue stream to go away, and P5 confs are pushing for their champions to always be included. They want being the conf champion to mean something.

What's the point of a CCG between Auburn and Georgia if Alabama gets selected over the winner?
 


I don't see why they would get rid of conference championships. They are entertaining, they just aren't important enough because they are treated like any other game.

I'd like to see an 8 team playoff with these rules:
• Keep the conference championships
• Automatic bids for the winners of each of the P5 conference championships
• 1 at-large spot reserved for the group of 5
• 2 other at-large spots that can go to any team

I'd also love to see there be a requirement that you play at least 1 top-25 team outside your conference, but that's not reasonable at this point with how far in advance scheduling is done. In the absence of that, I'd like to see strength of schedule be a much bigger selection criteria than in the past.

Yep, I'd be on board with that.


Problem more than likely is that TV networks may not sign up for it. Or they may provide very little, if any, increase in payments for that system.
 

They'll never give up the conference championship games - too much money involved. Four seems just right to me: uses up only two bowls and even that could be remedied. Just as with four, with eight teams, a bunch of teams would be screaming they were excluded. The prior season, the entire season, is important, not just the playoffs, as in basketball. There is already an extra game for the conference title, plus one for the 4-team playoffs - that's enough, with 12 games in the regular season. The college game is already injury-plagued.
 

Anything getting rid of the conf champ games is DOA. Conferences want to keep that revenue to themselves, they don't want that revenue stream to go away, and P5 confs are pushing for their champions to always be included. They want being the conf champion to mean something.

What's the point of a CCG between Auburn and Georgia if Alabama gets selected over the winner?

Isn't that exactly what happened to Penn State last year under this current system? They won their division, won the CCG and beat tOSU head to head but the playoff still took Ohio State.

The reason this scenario gets rid of the CCG is to minimize the amount of games played.
 

My thought is that the Big Ten should go to an 11 games schedule. Big Ten would be 8 conference games.
Then final game would be left open for final east vs west games.

1st place west vs 1st place east
2nd place west vs 2nd place east
3rd place west vs 3rd place east
4th place west vs 4th place east
etc.

With games after 3rd place vs 3rd place, a substitution could be made if the two teams previously played that season.

WISC vs OSU
NW vs PSU
Purdue vs MSU
Iowa vs Mich
Neb vs Rutgers - Sub in Indiana
Minn vs Maryland - sub in Rutgers
Illinois vs Indiana - sub in Maryland

Every team would have their 9 game conference schedule (for a total of 12) that way and give the #2 teams in east and west a chance to bolster the resume.
 



My thought is that the Big Ten should go to an 11 games schedule. Big Ten would be 8 conference games.
Then final game would be left open for final east vs west games.

1st place west vs 1st place east
2nd place west vs 2nd place east
3rd place west vs 3rd place east
4th place west vs 4th place east
etc.

With games after 3rd place vs 3rd place, a substitution could be made if the two teams previously played that season.

WISC vs OSU
NW vs PSU
Purdue vs MSU
Iowa vs Mich
Neb vs Rutgers - Sub in Indiana
Minn vs Maryland - sub in Rutgers
Illinois vs Indiana - sub in Maryland

Every team would have their 9 game conference schedule (for a total of 12) that way and give the #2 teams in east and west a chance to bolster the resume.

Not a bad idea. Could still play the "Conf. Champ" game at a neutral site at night and have all other games going on at either 11 or 2:30. East could be the host team one year and the West could be the host team the next year, then all teams would have a 9 game conf. schedule either 4 or 5 home games every year, just like it is now.
 

I don't see why they would get rid of conference championships. They are entertaining, they just aren't important enough because they are treated like any other game.

I'd like to see an 8 team playoff with these rules:
• Keep the conference championships
• Automatic bids for the winners of each of the P5 conference championships
• 1 at-large spot reserved for the group of 5
• 2 other at-large spots that can go to any team

I'd also love to see there be a requirement that you play at least 1 top-25 team outside your conference, but that's not reasonable at this point with how far in advance scheduling is done. In the absence of that, I'd like to see strength of schedule be a much bigger selection criteria than in the past.

I think your automatic bid idea for conference championship game winners makes a lot of sense and was thinking along the same lines after the selection show. It sucks that the conference championships are now meaningless for the playoffs, but there's no way the conferences get rid of them because of the revenue. The Big Ten CC TV announcers kept on referring to the game as a "quarterfinal" to the playoffs (even though it wasn't) so why not make it an actual quarterfinal game?
 

I’d prefer a 16 team format. Move some bowl games up, have lower tier bowl games serve as the first 2 rounds.
 

Another idea - off the top of my head. If 4 is too few, and 8 is too many (some say), split the difference and go with a 6-team playoff.

Top two teams get a 1st round bye. play 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5. winner of 4 vs 5 plays #1 seed in the next round, and winner of 3 vs 6 plays the #2 seed.

Followed of course by the championship game.

That could keep most people happy. those who say 4 is too few get two extra deserving teams.

Those who say 8 is too many get the top 6 teams in the country in a play-down to determine the champion.

I like it. I should, it's my idea. (actually stolen from HS FB playoffs in MN where a lot of the bigger classes have 6 teams in a section).
 



This seems entirely reasonable and workable to me. By ditching the conference championships, you don't even add any more games.

https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-make-college-football-playoff-even-better-032144320.html

Thoughts?

I'd leave it alone - I understand it's not perfect but when does it end? We started with two teams playing for the title because voting in a champion wasn't good enough. We went to selecting the two "best" teams to play for the title and that wasn't good enough. Now we have four team play-off and this is flawed because the #5 and #6 teams who were overlooked got screwed so no this is flawed and we have to go to 8 teams. Well I guess if we do that then the #9 and #10 teams will cry foul (that would be TCU and USC) and that won't be good enough. Meanwhile student athletes take their talents elsewhere and the likes of Jimbo Fischer sign for $7.0 million a year. College football used to appeal to me because it did not have the antics that pro football exuded. Not sure that is the case anymore. College football is turning into the same circus. Having said that if D-II and D-III can make it work there might be a way. The Tommies were eliminated in the third round quarterfinal - which means 32 teams made the D-III tourney, but then again #33 and #34 will cry foul. In D-1 who would that be? Based on some quick research that would be the likes of Louisville, Iowa and Iowa State. I could hear the cries now in Iowa City that the hawkeyes got screwed. Leave it alone there is no good answer
 

I’d prefer a 16 team format. Move some bowl games up, have lower tier bowl games serve as the first 2 rounds.

Playoffs will consume four weeks. Work it into the bowl game schedule. Requires fifteen Bowls. Another way - play the Semi Finals and the National Championship in February. That leaves only twelve bowl games that the rest of the playoff games will occupy. It isn't fair that non Power 5 conference team can go 12-0 and not be included in the national championship playoffs.
 

I'm already bored with the 4 team playoff. Plus, the committee has made it beyond obvious that the $$ teams are going to get in over others. I know, shocking. They just make up justifications (often contradictory from year to year or even week to week) as to who and why a certain team gets into the 4 team bracket.

Questions we all know the answer to:

Do you really think Alabama gets in ahead of Ohio State this year with the exact same resume if 'Alabama' was actually 'Missouri', or 'South Carolina', etc...?
Do you think there is even a debate of Ohio State getting in over Alabama if 'Ohio State' is actually 'Maryland', 'Michigan State', or 'Indiana' with the same exact resume?
Do you really think TCU would have gotten in ahead of Alabama, Ohio State, or USC if they would have won against Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship?
Do you think UCF would have gotten in if they would have won every game by 30 points?

NO CHANCE on all accounts. Only four years in and this 4 team playoff is already exposed. It is already obvious that the deck is stacked. The thing is rigged. The traditional powers are overtly catered to and always will be. Good luck keeping up interest as the years move along. The thing is already rotten to the core and stale at the same time. Alabama (all 4 years), Clemson (3), Oklahoma (2), and Ohio State (2). Boring.

If anyone agrees, join me and DO NOT WATCH "IT". By not watching "it" you don't feed "it". By not feeding "it", you'll eventually kill "it" or cause "it" to figure out different ways of getting fed (watched).

With the Gophers being done for the year, this, or something similar, is about all that would keep me interested:

-16 team playoff
-All Power 5 Division winners (10 teams)
-All Group of 5 Conference champions (5 teams)
-ONE at large (This year I guess it would be Alabama. Leaves open a slot for the network darling Notre Dame every year they have a good team)

Seeding:
-Use the ridiculous committee for seeding the tournament and picking the at large team. They should be able to rig some of it, right...?
-Seeding should be adjusted to keep Conference Championship rematches from occurring before the Semifinals.

2017-2018 Bracket (*Used final Selection Committee rankings for seedings):

(1) @ Clemson
(16) Troy

(8) USC
(9) UCF (*Bumped up from #10 seed to avoid a potential rematch of Clemson and Miami (Fla) in the 2nd round.)

(5) Ohio State
(12) TCU

(4) @ Alabama
(13) Boise St.

(3) @ Georgia
(14) Toledo

(6) Wisconsin
(11) Stanford

(7) Auburn
(10) Miami (Fla.) (*Moved down from being the #9 seed to avoid potential 2nd round rematch with Clemson.)

(2) @ Oklahoma
(15) Florida Atlantic

Venues:
-Top 4 seeds host at home.
-Remaining 4 games are drafted by bowls or other neutral sites. (Wisconsin/Stanford would be a logical choice for the Rose Bowl to draft. Ohio State/TCU, the Cotton Bowl. Etc...)

One can dream....
 


What? No mythical championship?

All kidding aside, the 16-team playoff is a good idea.

It will generate fan interest nationally like the BB March Madness Tournament where you can see a smaller school potentially upset a big BB behemoth school.

This current 4-team playoff smells rotten. You might as well call it the SEC Bowl Championship Series.
 

I'd leave it alone - I understand it's not perfect but when does it end? We started with two teams playing for the title because voting in a champion wasn't good enough. We went to selecting the two "best" teams to play for the title and that wasn't good enough. Now we have four team play-off and this is flawed because the #5 and #6 teams who were overlooked got screwed so no this is flawed and we have to go to 8 teams. Well I guess if we do that then the #9 and #10 teams will cry foul (that would be TCU and USC) and that won't be good enough. Meanwhile student athletes take their talents elsewhere and the likes of Jimbo Fischer sign for $7.0 million a year. College football used to appeal to me because it did not have the antics that pro football exuded. Not sure that is the case anymore. College football is turning into the same circus. Having said that if D-II and D-III can make it work there might be a way. The Tommies were eliminated in the third round quarterfinal - which means 32 teams made the D-III tourney, but then again #33 and #34 will cry foul. In D-1 who would that be? Based on some quick research that would be the likes of Louisville, Iowa and Iowa State. I could hear the cries now in Iowa City that the hawkeyes got screwed. Leave it alone there is no good answer

There's only a small handful of teams that have a realistic chance of winning it all whether it's Division 1 FBS, FCS, 2, 3, NAIA. 1 to 3 heavy favorites then a very small number of teams that are good enough to get hot (e.g. Ohio State in 2014). 8 teams is probably a maximum realistic number, especially in FBS where there are bowl games to accommodate the non-playoff teams like your Louisville/Iowa/Iowa State reference above. D3 (and NAIA before?) expanded from a small number of good at-large teams over the decades to the big 32-team field now with automatic qualifiers to throw a bone to the crappy conference champions that don't have a prayer to win anything. There's no way FBS should expand beyond 8 teams as long as bowl games exist.
 

You might as well hand over the BB Championship trophy to NC, KY, Duke, etc... on alternating years. Maybe take turns at it. Forget about the 64 field tournament. Forget about the giant killers in the tournaments. It is a waste of their time knowing that the usual suspects will be crowned champions. I think not.

Same thing for FB - Give it to Bama, Clemson, tOSU on alternate years. Bama, you might as well pencil them in every year. Let's get back to the mythical championships.

Maybe the death of college basketball and football popularity will come due to monied interests of power schools and media influence. By the way - Minnesota, Colorado State - those of you building new facilities, you are wasting your time.
 

My thought is that the Big Ten should go to an 11 games schedule. Big Ten would be 8 conference games.
Then final game would be left open for final east vs west games.

1st place west vs 1st place east
2nd place west vs 2nd place east
3rd place west vs 3rd place east
4th place west vs 4th place east
etc.

With games after 3rd place vs 3rd place, a substitution could be made if the two teams previously played that season.

WISC vs OSU
NW vs PSU
Purdue vs MSU
Iowa vs Mich
Neb vs Rutgers - Sub in Indiana
Minn vs Maryland - sub in Rutgers
Illinois vs Indiana - sub in Maryland

Every team would have their 9 game conference schedule (for a total of 12) that way and give the #2 teams in east and west a chance to bolster the resume.

Would guarantee the conference an extra 14 losses per year
 

You might as well hand over the BB Championship trophy to NC, KY, Duke, etc... on alternating years. Maybe take turns at it. Forget about the 64 field tournament. Forget about the giant killers in the tournaments. It is a waste of their time knowing that the usual suspects will be crowned champions. I think not.

Same thing for FB - Give it to Bama, Clemson, tOSU on alternate years. Bama, you might as well pencil them in every year. Let's get back to the mythical championships.

Maybe the death of college basketball and football popularity will come due to monied interests of power schools and media influence. By the way - Minnesota, Colorado State - those of you building new facilities, you are wasting your time.

I agree with your sentiment, but I think football is different from basketball. While a cinderella basketball team can get hot for multiple games with 1 or 2 late blooming stars and a few more good upperclassmen, it would be much harder for an overachieving football team to win a large playoff format. To me, the perfect format to allow a football cinderella team would be a relatively small number of conference champion teams with no at-large bids. This would eliminate some of the committee bias in selecting helmet schools at-large every year. Every few years the stars align and non-helmet schools win a Power 5 conference title and major powers don't (like Alabama this year). For example, if Wisky could have won the Big Ten this year (god forbid) they would have only needed to win 2 games to win the Natty.
 

Absolutely not to a 16 team playoff. I don't need to see Georgia vs Stanford or Clemson vs TCU in a playoff to know which one is the better team. That is a waste of everyone's time and makes the regular season so meaningless. Show me that game in the regular season instead of Clemson vs The Citadel. Here is what I would do:

1. Keep the 4 team playoff. (Or if you absolutely must, go to an 8 team playoff between the 5 P5 champs, the top G5 champ, and 2 at-large teams. But sign like a 30 year unbreakable contract so that it can't expand anytime soon.)

2. The key is scheduling. Mandate that every power 5 conference plays 9 conference games, 1 nonconf game against another P5, 1 nonconf game against a Group of 5, and one nonconf of their choosing. (That way the Mercer's and Citadel's can still get their payday if Power 5 team's so choose.) If some teams want to play a second P5 they can go ahead and have at it.

3. Spread out the nonconf P5 vs P5 games from the beginning of the season through October. Play them at neutral sites if you want. Part of the point of this is to get rid of the "Well, Team X beat Team Y in the first game of the season, and they are different teams now that it's November" argument. Spread em out.

4. Keep the conference championship games. Not from a revenue standpoint, but because I don't see how you can have 14 team conferences name a champion without playing a championship game.

5. Give the Group of 5 teams the respect that they deserve. UCF dealt with a hurricane that forced them to go 23 days between games and had no bye weeks after mid-September. They have more wins over CFP ranked teams than Washington, Penn St, and Wisconsin. They are the only undefeated team in the country. I'm not arguing they are the best team, but...ranked 12th?? Are you kidding me?

Would the regular season scheduling changes be difficult to implement considering how far out the schedules are made? Of course it would. But if the powers that be of college football can deal with the nightmare of building in a 4 team playoff while keeping the old bowl system intact then I'm sure they can figure it out. A lot of P5 teams have already made an effort to schedule more P5 and G5 teams. If there are P5 teams that have two lower tier teams already scheduled for 2020 I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard for them to push that game to the next season in order to create a spot for a P5 opponent.
 

I think I’d rather see a 5 team playoff with the first game as a play in than an 8 team playoff. I don’t think there are really 8 deserving teams but 5 isn’t a stretch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I think I’d rather see a 5 team playoff with the first game as a play in than an 8 team playoff. I don’t think there are really 8 deserving teams but 5 isn’t a stretch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is good.

To go along with that the process for deciding who those 5 teams are needs to drastically improve.

If it stays at 4 teams, the process for deciding who those 4 teams are needs to drastically improve.
 

I go with 7 teams and give the top seed a bye.

#1 Clemson ACC
#2 Oklahoma Big 12
#3 Georgia SEC
#4 Alabama - At-large
#5 Ohio State Big Ten
#6 USC PAC 12
#7 Highest Rated G5 team if they are ranked in the top 15. UCF. If not in top 15, Wisconsin is the next at-large.

This leaves incentive for a strong schedule and winning to get the bye.

Neutral Site bidding for the three Quarter-final games.
 

I go with 7 teams and give the top seed a bye.

#1 Clemson ACC
#2 Oklahoma Big 12
#3 Georgia SEC
#4 Alabama - At-large
#5 Ohio State Big Ten
#6 USC PAC 12
#7 Highest Rated G5 team if they are ranked in the top 15. UCF. If not in top 15, Wisconsin is the next at-large.

This leaves incentive for a strong schedule and winning to get the bye.

Neutral Site bidding for the three Quarter-final games.

If you are going this way, stick with 8 teams. Why should you give the top seed the added advantage of having an extra week of rest? You'd have an extra team that would otherwise have not been considered.

I do get the point that in football, there are huge disparity in talent levels between the upper echelon teams and the rest. Playing an eight team or sixteen playoffs may only slightly change the trajectory of the eventual national champion. It leaves the door open for a UCF or another up and coming team that have an unusual run. But, it may also put more drama, interest, and excitement. Football is more tougher than basketball logistically. You have considerably more moving parts to plan and execute around.

The reality is that the top 10-20 teams nationally get the bulk of the top echelon athletes. If you look at football history, there are teams that rise to prominence and stay there. Others fade away. Teams like Wisconsin become consistent, but never quite break it to the next higher tier level. Alabama has dominated under Nick Saban

So, yeah mindful of this reality, we need to keep the rest of the college football world happy with all the conference titles and Bowls. But, leave the door open for an Oregon in the Chip Kelly era to raise some excitement.

The historical record gives a clue that there will be shifts in who will be a dominant power. Some by tradition that self-perpetuate getting top level recruits. Many are from areas of recruiting hotbeds. Nebraska through its affiliation with the Beg 8 and by prevailing eligibility standards.

I am sure as the population centers shift due natural or man-made disasters, job trends - we'll see a changing of the fortunes of college football teams. Stuff like green house warming, more intensive worsening weather patterns like super hurricanes continuing in high frequency of occurrences, continuous flooding of coastal areas, worsening and frequent wild fires, volcanic eruptions, major earthquakes, expanding sinkholes swallowing up a big chunk of a State, plagues, Kim Jung Un & Dennis Rodman, yet to be named diseases, etc..., Some may be brought down by criminal indictments. Did I cover everything possible?

Between 1940 through 2016, Minnesota has won three national titles. It may be entirely possible that there may be more, but I will long be part of recycled material on the ground.

National Football Champions Since 1940:
2016 Clemson
2015 Alabama
2014 Ohio State
2013 Florida State
2012 Alabama
2011 Alabama
2010 Auburn
2009 Alabama
2008 Florida
2007 Louisiana State
2006 Florida
2005 Texas
2004 Southern California
2003 Louisiana State, Southern California
2002 Ohio State
2001 Miami (Fla.)
2000 Oklahoma
1999 Florida State
1998 Tennessee
1997 Michigan, Nebraska
1995 Nebraska
1994 Nebraska
1993 Florida St.
1992 Alabama
1991 Washington, Miami (Fla.)
1990 Colorado, Georgia Tech
1989 Miami (Fla.)
1988 Notre Dame
1987 Miami (Fla.)
1986 Penn St.
1985 Oklahoma
1984 Brigham Young
1983 Miami (Fla.)
1982 Penn St.
1981 Clemson
1980 Georgia
1979 Alabama
1978 Alabama, Southern California
1977 Notre Dame
1976 Pittsburgh
1975 Oklahoma
1974 Southern California, Oklahoma
1973 Notre Dame, Alabama
1972 Southern California
1971 Nebraska
1970 Nebraska, Texas, Ohio St.
1969 Texas
1968 Ohio St.
1967 Southern California
1966 Notre Dame, Michigan St.
1965 Michigan St., Alabama
1964 Alabama, Arkansas, Notre Dame
1963 Texas
1962 Southern California
1961 Alabama, Ohio St.
1960 Minnesota, Mississippi
1959 Syracuse
1958 LSU, Iowa
1957 Ohio St., Auburn
1956 Oklahoma
1955 Oklahoma
1954 UCLA, Ohio St.
1953 Maryland
1952 Michigan St.
1951 Tennessee
1950 Oklahoma
1949 Notre Dame
1948 Michigan AP
1947 Notre Dame
1946 Notre Dame
1945 Army
1944 Army
1943 Notre Dame
1942 Ohio St.
1941 Minnesota
1940 Minnesota

Source: http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/college-football-national-championship-history
 

2. The key is scheduling. Mandate that every power 5 conference plays 9 conference games, 1 nonconf game against another P5, 1 nonconf game against a Group of 5, and one nonconf of their choosing. (That way the Mercer's and Citadel's can still get their payday if Power 5 team's so choose.) If some teams want to play a second P5 they can go ahead and have at it.

My biggest issue right now is the difference in conference games. Sure Alabama had one loss. But they also played two less power 5 games than Ohio St. Easier to lose once when you don't have as many tougher games. This change would make things much better in my opinion.

I'm not against expanding to 6 or 8 but only if the first round games are played at the higher seed's home stadium.
 

I am in favor of a 12 team playoff.

5-12
6-11
7-10
8-9
Hosted by higher seed

Winners play @1-4

Semis and national championship as they are now.




10 conference champions get auto bids.
2 at larges.

Committee picks seeding and the two at larges.
At larges seeded 5th at highest.


I like this setup for a number of reasons. Every conference game has national implications all year.
Never a debate about whether or not a team like UCF gets a chance. Go win 4 games and you are champs.


The real reasons I like it are:
Avoids subjectivity of the teams in playoff. Just 1/6 of the field is determined by people’s opinions.
The even bigger one is that it creates an incentive for smaller regional conferences that make football more fun. Texas and Oklahoma would never be added to any conference because it would hurt both of their national title hopes as well as every team in the conference they are joining. In fact, the real reason for superconferences is more games. You can get more games by two conferences partnering (think ACC Big Ten challenge for hoops) rather than combining. At the same time, it never creates an incentive to avoid scheduling tough games early in the year because all conference champions go.
 

Absolutely not to a 16 team playoff. I don't need to see Georgia vs Stanford or Clemson vs TCU in a playoff to know which one is the better team. That is a waste of everyone's time and makes the regular season so meaningless.

Agree 100%. Would add that football is a very fluky game. Doesn't seem right to take a 13-0 team that has battled all year, and set them up with #8 ranked team that would very much have a chance to upset them. Don't think that #8 team earned or deserves such a chance. You need to earn it in the regular season, IMO.


1. Keep the 4 team playoff. (Or if you absolutely must, go to an 8 team playoff between the 5 P5 champs, the top G5 champ, and 2 at-large teams. But sign like a 30 year unbreakable contract so that it can't expand anytime soon.)

I like ensuring that each P5 champion gets in automatically. But that could be a deal breaker for TV. We will see when negotiations start for the next CFP contract in a few more years.

2. The key is scheduling. Mandate that every power 5 conference plays 9 conference games, 1 nonconf game against another P5, 1 nonconf game against a Group of 5, and one nonconf of their choosing. (That way the Mercer's and Citadel's can still get their payday if Power 5 team's so choose.) If some teams want to play a second P5 they can go ahead and have at it.

I would simply mandate that every P5 must schedule 10 games against other P5 teams, except in extraordinary conditions.

That keeps it even (5 home, 5 away ideally), and there shouldn't be any problem with the in-state, non-conf rivalry games in Iowa, Kentucky, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

Leave the last two home games up to each P5 team.

3. Spread out the nonconf P5 vs P5 games from the beginning of the season through October. Play them at neutral sites if you want. Part of the point of this is to get rid of the "Well, Team X beat Team Y in the first game of the season, and they are different teams now that it's November" argument. Spread em out.

I get this, but I don't think it's practical to mandate.

4. Keep the conference championship games. Not from a revenue standpoint, but because I don't see how you can have 14 team conferences name a champion without playing a championship game.

Agreed. Plus conferences want to keep them and they want their champion to mean something.

5. Give the Group of 5 teams the respect that they deserve. UCF dealt with a hurricane that forced them to go 23 days between games and had no bye weeks after mid-September. They have more wins over CFP ranked teams than Washington, Penn St, and Wisconsin. They are the only undefeated team in the country. I'm not arguing they are the best team, but...ranked 12th?? Are you kidding me?

Only way to achieve that is to give them an auto-bid in an 8 team bracket. Don't know if we'll get there, but I'd be OK with it.
 




Top Bottom