24 team CFP with no conference championship games? | The Boneyard

24 team CFP with no conference championship games?

K

Kembafan

Joined
Oct 31, 2023
Messages
216
Reaction Score
1,822
At first glance, I think this is good for UConn. If you can get in the top 24 teams, you're in. Thoughts?

www.espn.com

Big Ten details 24-team CFP plan with no league title games

The Big Ten is circulating an internal document that lays out what a 24-team CFP would look like, including the elimination of conference championship games, a 23+1 selection model and an additional weekend of on-campus CFP home games.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
 
I think it’s terrible for us and all of the other non power conference teams. Only one guaranteed spot. I don’t think in most years any of the non power conference teams will have the strength of schedule to be consistently ranked in the top 23 even if undefeated. Really puts scheduling at a premium but this construct encourages the power teams to only play each other because a loss there wouldn’t kill their chances to finish in the top 23 unlike a loss against a group of six team.
 
Kembafan said:
At first glance, I think this is good for UConn. If you can get in the top 24 teams, you're in. Thoughts?

www.espn.com

Big Ten details 24-team CFP plan with no league title games

The Big Ten is circulating an internal document that lays out what a 24-team CFP would look like, including the elimination of conference championship games, a 23+1 selection model and an additional weekend of on-campus CFP home games.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Expand ...
I have been arguing for years that they should eliminate conference championship games. Put the 24 best teams regardless of conference or non-conference affiliation. The strength of schedule issue will always be a problem for us until we get into a power conference. I don't know how we are going to solve that issue while we remain an independent.
 
nycscooby said:
I think it’s terrible for us and all of the other non power conference teams. Only one guaranteed spot. I don’t think in most years any of the non power conference teams will have the strength of schedule to be consistently ranked in the top 23 even if undefeated. Really puts scheduling at a premium but this construct encourages the power teams to only play each other because a loss there wouldn’t kill their chances to finish in the top 23 unlike a loss against a group of six team.
Expand ...
Exactly, just like what happened to Notre Dame when they lost to NIU.
 
Pass a law creating an English football pyramid for college football.
Top League - 24 teams, two divisions of 12. 11 games, winner if each division plays for the national championship. The bottom two teams in each divison are relegated. The next 2 from each division play across, losers are also relegated. 4 teams from the Second league are promoted.

Second league - 24 teams, two divisions of 12. 11 games, winner of each division is division is promoted, next two play across, winners are also promoted. Bottom teams are related as above.

That's 48 national league programs. More than enough teams to have traveling across the country.

The rest of the 80-90 are put into regionally geographic leagues. Have as many as you want, multiple layers if necessary. Winners are selected by a combination of auto promotion or playoff promotion depending on how they are structured and number of teams in each league. Any program can play itself up or down over time. The regular season now matters, a lot. You now have a huge inventory of meaningful postseason games to sell. Instead of 95% of programs playing for a meaningless bowl, you play for promotion or to avoid relegation. A program like BC can play itself out of the Northeast league into the national leagues.

Obvious question, how to start. Easy use the CFP rankings for the last two years. If you were ranked in the top 25 in either year, your in. Repeat until you fill both top leagues.

Oh, and with 13 games, you're done by Christmas. No more portal problems. You can even have the promotion games one weekend, the relegation, the next and the Championship before semester break. Or, you can give each division it's own weekend. Imagine 6 promotion/relegation games the week before the NCG and 2 more for each regional league two weeks before?

The money would be insane, NFL level.
 
.-.
Below is my proposal for a playoff. Let me know what you think!

conf champ week:
-all conf champ games
-five play-in games (top ten ranked teams who did not make their conf champ games; independents eligible)

round 1: twelve teams
-big 12 champ
-acc champ
-big ten runner-up
-sec runner-up
-top ranked g5 team
-five play-in game winners
-two lucky losers: the two highest ranked teams who played and lost during champ week

round 2: eight teams
-big ten champ
-sec champ
-the six winners from round 1

round 3:
semifinals

round 4:
natioanl championship

Details:
-This is essentially a 19 team playoff between the eight p4 conf champ game participants, the ten play-in game participants, and the highest ranked g5 team.
-This proposal keeps conference championship games and makes them valuable. Right now, it's somewhat not worth it to make your conference championship game. There's risk to making it (you can drop in the rankings if you make it and lose, like BYU this year) and not enough reward for winning it. Meanwhile, as the conf champ game participants are racking up wear and tear from the additional game, every other playoff team gets a bye week. That's unfair and this proposal corrects it, as all teams getting into the playoff will be required to play a game during conference championship week. Also, winning a conf championship will have a major reward:
-Big Ten and SEC champs are rewarded with a bye and an automatic bid into the second round. Big Ten and SEC champ game losers get an automatic bid into the first round. Big 12 and ACC winners get an automatic bid into the first round. The highest ranked G5 team gets an automatic bid into the first round.
-During conference championship week, there would be five play-in games between the ten highest-ranked teams that missed their conference champ games. The winner of every play-in game gets into the first round. The two remaining spots in the first round would go to the highest ranked teams who played and lost during conf champ week. No other teams would be eligible.

Thoughts?
 
pick6s said:
Below is my proposal for a playoff. Let me know what you think!

conf champ week:
-all conf champ games
-five play-in games (top ten ranked teams who did not make their conf champ games; independents eligible)

round 1: twelve teams
-big 12 champ
-acc champ
-big ten runner-up
-sec runner-up
-top ranked g5 team
-five play-in game winners
-two lucky losers: the two highest ranked teams who played and lost during champ week

round 2: eight teams
-big ten champ
-sec champ
-the six winners from round 1

round 3:
semifinals

round 4:
natioanl championship

Details:
-This is essentially a 19 team playoff between the eight p4 conf champ game participants, the ten play-in game participants, and the highest ranked g5 team.
-This proposal keeps conference championship games and makes them valuable. Right now, it's somewhat not worth it to make your conference championship game. There's risk to making it (you can drop in the rankings if you make it and lose, like BYU this year) and not enough reward for winning it. Meanwhile, as the conf champ game participants are racking up wear and tear from the additional game, every other playoff team gets a bye week. That's unfair and this proposal corrects it, as all teams getting into the playoff will be required to play a game during conference championship week. Also, winning a conf championship will have a major reward:
-Big Ten and SEC champs are rewarded with a bye and an automatic bid into the second round. Big Ten and SEC champ game losers get an automatic bid into the first round. Big 12 and ACC winners get an automatic bid into the first round. The highest ranked G5 team gets an automatic bid into the first round.
-During conference championship week, there would be five play-in games between the ten highest-ranked teams that missed their conference champ games. The winner of every play-in game gets into the first round. The two remaining spots in the first round would go to the highest ranked teams who played and lost during conf champ week. No other teams would be eligible.

Thoughts?
Expand ...


There will not be players available after finals to play these games. If people think this year's participation rate was poor with guys opting out. Just wait until this year.

Adding rounds isn't going to work. They need to make at least the same money with fewer games. The bottom halves of the SEC and B1G need to realize they would be better off not in those leagues and with an objective chance to access the playoff games. Hoping the committee picks you isn't the best business plan.
 
On our current trajectory, we can sneak into a 24 team filed once every decade.

We are never cracking a 12 team field as an independent.
 
Conference championship games to me are a waste anyway. Most are re-matches or mis matches. The actual league title is awarded to the winner of the head to head. If they did meet during the season than the championship title goes to the higher ranked team. You save a wasted weekend that very few care about.
 
SubbaBub said:
There will not be players available after finals to play these games. If people think this year's participation rate was poor with guys opting out. Just wait until this year.

Adding rounds isn't going to work. They need to make at least the same money with fewer games. The bottom halves of the SEC and B1G need to realize they would be better off not in those leagues and with an objective chance to access the playoff games. Hoping the committee picks you isn't the best business plan.
Expand ...
To address this, the playoff should begin immediately after the regular season, with the championship game in early January. If they chose to play a round each week, they could finish as early as Jan 2nd next year. This would also help fix/reduce the issue of players being in the portal while their team is still active in the playoff.

As for opt-outs, while many players opted out of bowl games, most players did not opt out of playoff games.
 
.-.
Has to be something simple like a 20 team playoff.
Top 4 ranked teams get a bye. Of the remaining 16 teams, power conferences get 12 spots and the rest of D1 gets 4 spots.
 
nycscooby said:
I think it’s terrible for us and all of the other non power conference teams. Only one guaranteed spot. I don’t think in most years any of the non power conference teams will have the strength of schedule to be consistently ranked in the top 23 even if undefeated. Really puts scheduling at a premium but this construct encourages the power teams to only play each other because a loss there wouldn’t kill their chances to finish in the top 23 unlike a loss against a group of six team.
Expand ...
But it's better than having multiple auto-bids for the big conferences, isn't it? This seems like a much fairer system than the current one. That was my first thought. If we schedule good teams and we win, there's a path to the CFP. Right now, that's not the case. Even if we get close to being ranked in the top 23, our games would become more meaningful and generate fan interest.

The single guaranteed spot for G6 doesn't limit how many G6 bids there can be. If this format were held in this past season, there'd have been 2 G6 teams that made it. Theoretically you could have many more than that.

Of course, as you point out, scheduling might be difficult. But it's pretty difficult now, isn't it? And the more we beat the likes of BC and Duke (and hopefully Cuse), the less they'll want to play us even in the current system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,079
Messages
4,505,707
Members
10,377
Latest member
EmekaMD


Top Bottom