Proposal “Circulating” Around CFB That Would Expand Playoff To 8 Teams

-
Status
Not open for further replies.

CL82

The best thing about puppies is they become dogs!
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
34,649
Likes
58,341
I've heard that the model is actually:

5 - P5 champs autobids
1- Best of the rest from the P5
1- Best of the G5
1- Best of the independents.
Well played AD Dave. Well played.
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
1,672
Likes
2,710
I've been proposing this exact model for at least 2 years. Its a common sense model that tries to make sense of a broken system. I'll take credit for it and expect my consulting fee to arrive in the mail any day now.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
215
Likes
298
Just take the top eight. Consider this year under such a scheme. The play-offs would consist of the five P5 champions, Georgia, Baylor, and Wisconsin. That's a reasonable selection of the best eight teams in college football. The scheme suggested in this thread would require Memphis to replace Wisconsin. So the CFP would consist of 1 thru 7 and then 17. Memphis would be seeded against LSU which would be essentially a bye week for LSU. It would move the needle not at all and damage the integrity of the CFP.

In fact, the top seven plus a G5 representative ranked ten positions below the team that would otherwise be selected is the most likely permanent outcome for the scheme suggested in this thread. That won't go over well.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
651
Likes
973
Just take the top eight. Consider this year under such a scheme. The play-offs would consist of the five P5 champions, Georgia, Baylor, and Wisconsin. That's a reasonable selection of the best eight teams in college football. The scheme suggested in this thread would require Memphis to replace Wisconsin. So the CFP would consist of 1 thru 7 and then 17. Memphis would be seeded against LSU which would be essentially a bye week for LSU. It would move the needle not at all and damage the integrity of the CFP.

In fact, the top seven plus a G5 representative ranked ten positions below the team that would otherwise be selected is the most likely permanent outcome for the scheme suggested in this thread. That won't go over well.
The one flaw I see in this logic is the assumption that the polls (or rankings) are unbiased. We know the rankings are biased and that the G5 schools don't have a chance of being ranked in the top even if they go undefeated for years. The bias is too strong and too ingrained. In addition to providing a modicum of balance (ie access to the postseason), including the G5 in the playoff will improve their recruiting ability and provide the opportunity for them all to become even more competitive than they already are.

(On a side note, thinking LSU playing Memphis is the equivalent of a "by week" only proves my point about bias. The best G5 teams allowed to play with the big boys have fared quite well through the years.)
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
850
Likes
816
The one flaw I see in this logic is the assumption that the polls (or rankings) are unbiased. We know the rankings are biased and that the G5 schools don't have a chance of being ranked in the top even if they go undefeated for years. The bias is too strong and too ingrained. In addition to providing a modicum of balance (ie access to the postseason), including the G5 in the playoff will improve their recruiting ability and provide the opportunity for them all to become even more competitive than they already are.

(On a side note, thinking LSU playing Memphis is the equivalent of a "by week" only proves my point about bias. The best G5 teams allowed to play with the big boys have fared quite well through the years.)
Agreed. If Memphis was in a any of the power conferences with their record they would be top 10 easily. The AAC was better this year than the ACC. While Clemson is obviously excellent, the rest of the conference was a mess this year.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
215
Likes
298
The one flaw I see in this logic is the assumption that the polls (or rankings) are unbiased. We know the rankings are biased and that the G5 schools don't have a chance of being ranked in the top even if they go undefeated for years. The bias is too strong and too ingrained. In addition to providing a modicum of balance (ie access to the postseason), including the G5 in the playoff will improve their recruiting ability and provide the opportunity for them all to become even more competitive than they already are.

(On a side note, thinking LSU playing Memphis is the equivalent of a "by week" only proves my point about bias. The best G5 teams allowed to play with the big boys have fared quite well through the years.)
Memphis and Cincinnati are pretty evenly matched. I have two games to prove it. Do you remember the game between Ohio State and Cincinnati? What Ohio State did to Cincinnati could probably be prosecuted under international humanitarian law. If LSU is as good as OSU, do you think LSU would have any trouble against Memphis in a CFP game? That's big time football with big time stakes. The final score would be 60-2, and LSU would start resting their starters before halftime. So what should I call a game like that? The word "competitive" does not leap to mind.

You can complain about bias but you will encounter the reality that most people think AAC teams are fairly ranked. Hard truth time. A record of 10-2 in the AAC does not equate to a record of 10-2 in the SEC or B1G or the other P5 conferences. It is therefore a given that the G5 team would be the lowest ranked team in the CFP every single year. That means the G5 representative would be put up against the number 1 seed every single year. There is no way the G5 could compete against a team like that in the context of the CFP. The chance of G5 victory would be zero. It would look like one of those OOC games that Alabama plays in November.

You could argue about which eight teams should be included this year. Penn State? Auburn? Florida? You could make a case. But the one team that would not be included in that discussion is Memphis. No one is going to stand up to argue that Memphis is one of the best eight teams in the country. It's not bias keeping the G5 out of the CFP. It's the quality of AAC football.
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2013
Messages
1,116
Likes
2,131
@crewbear742, the foundation of your stance is that the best eight teams make an eight-team playoff. I don't want that. It would be best for college football to have the P5 champs as autoqualifiers, the best of the G5/independents based on the current ranking system, and then two wild cards based on the current ranking system. Seed them 1-8 based on the current ranking system.

This is best for college football because it could distribute the wealth a little better. The current system is already helping some conferences (and programs) to get a disproportionate share of the elite recruits. The haves like this, but many do not. Seeing the same teams on top every year is starting to bore me, and I know I am not alone.

Think about how exciting it could be if every FBS program has the opportunity be Cinderella and make a magical run. It sounds a little communist but essentially the same set up has worked very, very well for the NCAA basketball tournament. Let's do it for the FBS as well.
 

Purple Stein

I like to sim things.
Joined
Jul 9, 2017
Messages
1,554
Likes
2,531
8 would be a good start, but 24 is where we want to be. That’s the only model where UConn has a chance of being “on the bubble” someday.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,124
Likes
5,606
I highly doubt that the powers that be are going to give the group of 5 an auto bid in an 8 team playoff.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
215
Likes
298
@crewbear742, the foundation of your stance is that the best eight teams make an eight-team playoff. I don't want that. It would be best for college football to have the P5 champs as autoqualifiers, the best of the G5/independents based on the current ranking system, and then two wild cards based on the current ranking system. Seed them 1-8 based on the current ranking system.

This is best for college football because it could distribute the wealth a little better. The current system is already helping some conferences (and programs) to get a disproportionate share of the elite recruits. The haves like this, but many do not. Seeing the same teams on top every year is starting to bore me, and I know I am not alone.

Think about how exciting it could be if every FBS program has the opportunity be Cinderella and make a magical run. It sounds a little communist but essentially the same set up has worked very, very well for the NCAA basketball tournament. Let's do it for the FBS as well.
The only practical difference between the two proposals is the identity of the eighth team. The five P5 champions are virtually always in the top 8. The two at large candidates will naturally come from the top 8. So the only difference is this. Do you take the last team from the top 8 as well or do you reach outside - probably well outside - the top eight for the last team? If you do the latter, your expansion of interest amounts to sending a non-competitive team into the CFP to be ritualistically slaughtered. It's really not all that different from a CFP "buy game". The only purpose would seem to be to raise money for the league. That will not benefit the G5 over time. Eventually the first team out would be a team like Notre Dame. That's when the network heads will explode.

"Memphis or Notre Dame. We have to fix this."

The long term benefit of the G5 depends upon earning the spot. It can't be given. A yearly massacre at the hand of the one seed will only reinforce what people already believe - that the G5 doesn't deserve a place.

You do make a good point about the same teams competing every year. I don't know how to fix that. Elite talent goes where it wants. Success breeds success - and high draft picks.
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2013
Messages
1,116
Likes
2,131
True that most years the G5 rep would just be replacing the 8th best P5. Many years it may be a blowout with the G5 rep. I bet it would be a blowout vs the 8th best P5. I just say I’d rather give the seat to the “best of the rest” and give Cinderella a chance every year. I’d also argue the recent UCF teams would have had just as good a shot at being Bama than whoever the #8 P5 would have been. I’d definitely tune into the 1v 8 game every year if it was set up that way.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
8,989
Likes
6,617
It's not going to happen, that would mean extending the season for two more weeks. These kids have classes to prepare for and families to visit. This is not the NFL, there will never be a perfect scenario for college football. It is what it is.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
425
Likes
539
Except for the lower levels where the players really are student-athletes (vs athlete-students in FBS) manage to have figured out how to make it work, with more teams and fewer resources.

It’ll happen as soon as the financial incentive is too big to ignore for enough of the P5 constituency. This year with four different conferences represented is not the year that happens.
 
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
386
Likes
153
It's not going to happen, that would mean extending the season for two more weeks. These kids have classes to prepare for and families to visit. This is not the NFL, there will never be a perfect scenario for college football. It is what it is.
Anyone well and truly worried about that, instead of using it as a talking point to defend the broken status quo that no doubt benefits them more than most in FBS football, is more than entitled to declare their nonparticipation in an extended football postseason should it occur.

As it is, nearly two thirds of FBS have already participated (through a conf championship game) or will participate (through a bowl invite) in an extended postseason. Those teams invited to a bowl game will, at minimum, have a season lasting until December 20th, and for four teams, potentially until January 14th. So that argument is essentially meaningless. These students are already being kept away from classes and families.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
812
Likes
328
Still marginalizing the G5 to 1 team is stupid and lame but probably the best the G5 can hope for.
How is the G5 marginalized to one team? If multiple are in top 8 they can get more than one spot. Perform and be rewarded.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
850
Likes
816
How is the G5 marginalized to one team? If multiple are in top 8 they can get more than one spot. Perform and be rewarded.
If it's still a committee you'll never ever see a G5 team in the top 8 though. If it goes back to computers, there's a shot.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
8,989
Likes
6,617
Anyone well and truly worried about that, instead of using it as a talking point to defend the broken status quo that no doubt benefits them more than most in FBS football, is more than entitled to declare their nonparticipation in an extended football postseason should it occur.

As it is, nearly two thirds of FBS have already participated (through a conf championship game) or will participate (through a bowl invite) in an extended postseason. Those teams invited to a bowl game will, at minimum, have a season lasting until December 20th, and for four teams, potentially until January 14th. So that argument is essentially meaningless. These students are already being kept away from classes and families.
How broken of a system is it? I mean the top 4 teams are deserving. You vould make a case for Georgia, but are you saying that this years winner somehow is not the best team?

Please
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top