College Playoffs Setup: Poll

How should the College Football Playoffs Be Set Up?

  • Total voters
    72
  • Poll closed .
Donate To GopherHole
Tater

Tater

f.k.a. "Tubtastic"
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
14
Points
38
This is a poll to see what we all think about the College Football Playoff system--whether it should stay the same or change in some manner.

Please vote and then post some reasons for you thinking in the comments.
 


8 - The power 5 conference champions should be in the play offs. Expanding to 8 allows some at large bids and in years like this year allows Alabama in even though they didn't win their conference.
 


I'd pick 8.
Take the 5 P5 conference championship game winners
2 at large teams and 1 G5 team. The only way an independent gets in as an at large is if they are undefeated.
Each conference gets to put up 1 team to fill the 2 at large bids:
A fan poll(20%), P5 conference champs poll(40%) and a committee poll (40%) make up the criteria for picking the 2 at large bids.
The fan poll is conducted from Sunday to Monday after the Conf Champ. game are decided.
The coaches poll is conducted live on TV along with the committee poll. At Large teams are announced on that Monday night show.
 


I'm unique in that I would like to see 6 teams. Top two get byes and the the other four play during this dead period of mid to late December. Plus I like the idea of those first two games being played at the 3 and 4 seeds home field. If you add extra rounds and play all games on neutral fields, I'm afraid attendance for first round games will be really poor. You can't expect even hard core fans to travel to three neutral site games to follow their team through the playoffs.
 

Keep the Power 5 Championship Games. Each is for an automatic bid.

That's 5.

Group of 5 team by computer ranking.

That's 6.

Alabama gets an automatic bid

That's 7. (If they already qualified, then take the highest ranked team that lost to Alabama)

Of top 25 ranked teams, take the team with the highest GPA.

That's 8.


Group of 5 team should always be the #6 seed.
 


I would love to see a setup where the first round games are at the high seed. I would love to see Alabama or Auburn travel to Minneapolis, Iowa City, Ann Arbor, Columbus, or Madison in December.
 




bottlebass said:
8 - The power 5 conference champions should be in the play offs. Expanding to 8 allows some at large bids and in years like this year allows Alabama in even though they didn't win their conference.
Click to expand...

That would be how I set it up.

At least with champions, if you win on the field you get it. And it still has enough room to take in a couple more teams a chance, or even take a extraordinary G5 team.
 

I said stick with the 4, but I could live with it if they went to 8. Anything beyond that is unnecessary.

The one thing I'll add is about taking conference champions. I think you absolutely have to have a conference championship game if you plan on giving each P5 conference champ an auto bid. The exception to this would be the B12. They probably don't need one anymore if we go this route. But I don't see how you can legitimately name a champion of 12-14 team conference in only nine games. Even if you get rid of the divisions (which is a must if you aren't going to play a championship game), the schedules could still be very uneven. It would be embarrassing to have two or even three teams who hadn't played each other tied at the top of the standings and then have to name a champion based on like the 5th tiebreaker.
 

Face The Facts said:
Keep the Power 5 Championship Games. Each is for an automatic bid.

That's 5.

Group of 5 team by computer ranking.

That's 6.

Alabama gets an automatic bid

That's 7. (If they already qualified, then take the highest ranked team that lost to Alabama)

Of top 25 ranked teams, take the team with the highest GPA.

That's 8.


Group of 5 team should always be the #6 seed.
Click to expand...

I think we have a winner! ESPN is proposing this as we speak!
 



5 teams with one play in game between the two lowest seeds. Lord knows beyond that there aren't really teams deserving of a chance to play for a NC. The drop off after those teams is too big so having a 16 vs 1 would be a tad boring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


IMO, it’s not how many teams that are in the playoff that matter, it’s that all 10 conferences have access to the playoff. Again, I support a model with at least 12 teams, that give Play-In access to all of FBS football.

My 12 team Model ranks the 10 Conf Champs, the the Top 5 at Large Teams 1-15. Teams 1 through 9 are in the playoff. 3 Play-In Games pit . . .
15 Troy vs 10 UCF winner = 10 seed, loser to bowl
14 FAU vs 11 Miami winner = 11 seed, loser to bowl
13 Toledo vs 12 Boise winner = 12 seed, loser to bowl

2017 Playoff Matchups: assuming higher seeds win Play-In

1st Round
Penn St 9 vs USC 8
Boise 12 vs Ohio St 5
Miami 11 vs Wisconsin 6
UCF 10 vs Auburn 7

2nd Round:
8/9 winner vs Clemson 1
5/12 winner vs Alabama 4
6/11 winner vs Georgia 3
7/10 winner vs Oklahoma 2

Financial Shares awarded to Conferences of the 12 teams, 1 addition share per win.

All 132 teams have access to this championship. Today’s limited access is a joke. At least 2 G5 Conferences would share financially in this playoff too, which is good for college football. It might start balancing recruiting more than today’s very limited model.
 

Do 16 teams. Figure out how to make the time needed work.
 

As fun as this sounds, it is neither plausible nor feasible. Your "12-team model" is actually 15 teams (which at that point, why not just go to 16?). I'm all for fairness and allowing all 10 conferences a fair shot, but in this scenario, in order for Troy to be a National Champ, they would have to win at UCF (because these would have to be on-campus match-ups if anyone were to actually attend), then beat Auburn, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Clemson. What is the point in even staging this? 5-straight wins over top 10 teams is never going to happen.

8 teams is the max that we should go with each P5 championship-game winner automatically included. 3 at-large bids by committee and, for fairness to the little guys, at least one of them has to be non-P5.

My reason to vehemently be against 6 teams is the fact that the top 2 seeds get a bye. We're right back in the crapshoot of trying to decide who the best 2 teams are and why they deserve such an advantage of not playing in the opening round. (6 teams per conference works and makes sense in the NFL playoffs because those teams in each conference mathematically earn those seeds by playing 16 games against like opponents... no selection committee needed.) There's also the money thing of the top 2 seeds missing out on playing in the opening round and missing out on money. Because that's what this whole thing is going to boil down to anyways, right? MONEY.



Herd said:
IMO, it’s not how many teams that are in the playoff that matter, it’s that all 10 conferences have access to the playoff. Again, I support a model with at least 12 teams, that give Play-In access to all of FBS football.

My 12 team Model ranks the 10 Conf Champs, the the Top 5 at Large Teams 1-15. Teams 1 through 9 are in the playoff. 3 Play-In Games pit . . .
15 Troy vs 10 UCF winner = 10 seed, loser to bowl
14 FAU vs 11 Miami winner = 11 seed, loser to bowl
13 Toledo vs 12 Boise winner = 12 seed, loser to bowl

2017 Playoff Matchups: assuming higher seeds win Play-In

1st Round
Penn St 9 vs USC 8
Boise 12 vs Ohio St 5
Miami 11 vs Wisconsin 6
UCF 10 vs Auburn 7

2nd Round:
8/9 winner vs Clemson 1
5/12 winner vs Alabama 4
6/11 winner vs Georgia 3
7/10 winner vs Oklahoma 2

Financial Shares awarded to Conferences of the 12 teams, 1 addition share per win.

All 132 teams have access to this championship. Today’s limited access is a joke. At least 2 G5 Conferences would share financially in this playoff too, which is good for college football. It might start balancing recruiting more than today’s very limited model.
Click to expand...
 

Keep it at 4 but have each conference play the same amount of conference games.
 

Any system that allows for the possibility of any unbeaten team being left out is flawed. The only way to deal with this flaw is if all conferences have access plus one at large for independents. If every conference champion were to be unbeaten plus Notre Dame. Wouldn’t an 11 or 12 team playoff be great and needed? That’s why I say 12.
 

The ideal is inherently two, which we had under the BCS system and there was general consensus that the BCS got it right nearly every year or every year. Why would anyone want anything but the top two teams playing one another? Those who want something else - to have a playoff and see who could win the playoff, quite possibly an outlier, a team with three losses, a scrappy team that can come from the bottom (team 16) want something entirely different. They want a playoff, which 8 or 16 gives them. With four teams we have extra assurance that the top two are in there and that's all we should want. We have the bowls for all kinds of interesting match-ups and upsets. For a national championship the regular season should be key: at the end of the season two is best, four is another way to have the top two. Expansion beyond that is a long-winded playoff.
 

theTurning said:
There is no reason to go past 6 teams.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
There are only P5 conference champions. And any more than 1 at-large bid is too many for dozens of reasons.

The nice part about six is that it offers something to the best two conference champions (a bye). And it could also offer #3 and #4 something that #5 and #6 do not get (a home game for the quarterfinal).
 

GophersInIowa said:
Keep it at 4 but have each conference play the same amount of conference games.
Click to expand...

I concur with this. I don't think we need more than 4. I'm sure the NCAA will extend the teams out at some point, but perfectly happy with what we have now plus this slight modification.
 

Goldmember said:
Exactly.
There are only P5 conference champions. And any more than 1 at-large bid is too many for dozens of reasons.

The nice part about six is that it offers something to the best two conference champions (a bye). And it could also offer #3 and #4 something that #5 and #6 do not get (a home game for the quarterfinal).
Click to expand...

How would the Irish fit into the mix?
 

The Irish can join a conference if they have any concerns.
 

Herd said:
IMO, it’s not how many teams that are in the playoff that matter, it’s that all 10 conferences have access to the playoff. Again, I support a model with at least 12 teams, that give Play-In access to all of FBS football.

My 12 team Model ranks the 10 Conf Champs, the the Top 5 at Large Teams 1-15. Teams 1 through 9 are in the playoff. 3 Play-In Games pit . . .
15 Troy vs 10 UCF winner = 10 seed, loser to bowl
14 FAU vs 11 Miami winner = 11 seed, loser to bowl
13 Toledo vs 12 Boise winner = 12 seed, loser to bowl

2017 Playoff Matchups: assuming higher seeds win Play-In

1st Round
Penn St 9 vs USC 8
Boise 12 vs Ohio St 5
Miami 11 vs Wisconsin 6
UCF 10 vs Auburn 7

2nd Round:
8/9 winner vs Clemson 1
5/12 winner vs Alabama 4
6/11 winner vs Georgia 3
7/10 winner vs Oklahoma 2

Financial Shares awarded to Conferences of the 12 teams, 1 addition share per win.

All 132 teams have access to this championship. Today’s limited access is a joke. At least 2 G5 Conferences would share financially in this playoff too, which is good for college football. It might start balancing recruiting more than today’s very limited model.
Click to expand...

This is along the lines of what I prefer as well. The only hang up I have is the top four seeds get byes but we have 5 major conferences and I don't know how to work around that. I wish there was a way to ensure all P5 Conference Champions a bye but I don't know if there is. The reason why I like the byes is you eliminate a game for teams because the top four seeds are more likely to advance deeper in the tournament. I think the bye also helps keep a point of emphasis on the regular season. I don't like the committee and, gasp, actually prefer the BCS compared to that. I would like to see the play-in games the weekend after the conference championship games at the higher seed and then the first round games this weekend again at the higher seed.
 


I said "other" because I would go with a 6-team format.

In a perfect world, I would also give a lot of weight to strength of schedule. If you want to be a national championship contender, and you want to be in consideration for a 1st-round bye, then play real teams in non-conference. If you want to play East Directional State and Regional University in non-conf, you might get in the top 6, but no chance of a bye.
 

Ski U Master said:
4 is 100% flawed. You can't stay at 4 teams as long as there are 5 conferences.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. Some people may not like it but you definitely can stay at 4 teams.

I prefer it to stay as it is but I'd be okay if it expanded to 6 or 8 as long as the first round games are played at the higher seeds' home stadium. Then 2nd round games would be the bowl games. I'd even say that the teams that lose in the first round would still get to play in a bowl game as well.
 

HopHead said:
I'm unique in that I would like to see 6 teams. Top two get byes and the the other four play during this dead period of mid to late December. Plus I like the idea of those first two games being played at the 3 and 4 seeds home field. If you add extra rounds and play all games on neutral fields, I'm afraid attendance for first round games will be really poor. You can't expect even hard core fans to travel to three neutral site games to follow their team through the playoffs.
Click to expand...

I would like 6 as well. Agree with everything you said.

To expand on the idea, I'd like it should be a committee like it is today, but extra emphasis on taking the Power 5 conference champs and top Group of 5 conference champ, but still not automatic bids. For example, this year I can't disagree Alabama deserves to be in, probably bumping the PAC-12 champ (USC). I'd like to see an unbeaten UCF get their chance, but some years there may not be an undefeated G5 team, so they get left out that year. I like it because most years conference champs will be in, but it also passes the "smell-test" that X conference (this year PAC-12) really didn't deserve to have their champ get in.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom