OT: Simple Theoretical CFP System
With Michigan finally involved in all the playoff scenarios and hypotheticals starting to pop up this year, I got to thinking about a possible format to eliminate the guesswork and subjectivity. I know the bickering and rankings is something some people love about the college game, but this makes a lot more sense to me.
- Six team tourney.
- Each Power Five Conference Champion gets an automatic bid
- One Wild Card/At Large bid selected by the Committee.
- Seeds 1 and 2 get first round byes, 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5.
It eliminates most of the subjective elements in the current system and values Conference Championships. Teams would still be compelled to schedule tough non-conference opponents for sake of seeding/byes and you could even add a home field advantage to the higher seeds if teams needed more incentive for the non-conference schedule.
Is it too simple to be interesting? Do teams that don't win their conference deserve a shot at the National Title? Too similar to the pros?
November 7th, 2018 at 9:31 PM ^
6 teams is a dumb idea and you should feel bad. 4 or 8 are the only options.
November 7th, 2018 at 9:32 PM ^
I have a simpler system: let random pairs of conferences meet in traditional bowl games.
when that is over, have a bunch of journalists anoint a "champion".
November 7th, 2018 at 9:41 PM ^
Now that is progressive thinking.
November 8th, 2018 at 12:13 PM ^
Agree 100%!
There was nothing whatsoever wrong with the pre-1998 arrangement.
The past 20 years of first the BCS and then the playoffs have been a bad joke played on college football fans around the country and the world with the sole objective of making the sports networks more money.
November 7th, 2018 at 9:33 PM ^
My system:
Eight teams. P5 conference champs each get in. The top ranked group of 5 gets in. Two wild cards from the P5. No byes. Play 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 on Dec. 29. Play the semi-finals one week later. Play the finals one or two weeks after that.
Done. Everyone is happy that a true champion is crowned and nobody with a legitimate bitch is yapping. Not sure why this is so difficult to figure out or enact. It adds one game more than the current system for two teams in FBS.
November 7th, 2018 at 9:36 PM ^
Great minds think alike! I posted almost the same sentiment a minute later.
November 7th, 2018 at 9:48 PM ^
Seems the great minds are only at mgoblog. We need to be on the committee that figures out what the committee should do. Let's have a meeting about the meeting and figure out a timeline when we're gonna create the timeline.
November 7th, 2018 at 9:34 PM ^
I like the way you are thinking, however one modification. It needs to be an 8 team playoff with no byes. If you go with the 1st round bye for the top 2 teams, the benefit will continue to give an unfair advantage to the SEC.
8 Teams - Same set up as yours but 3 at large. The Power Five Conference Champions are seeded 1-5 and 3 Wild Card/At Large selected by the Committee.
Every conference gets a representative and there is room for other selections from conference or at large. I would recommend a cap of no more than 2 teams from any one Conference to eliminate over ranking based on bias impacting the odds any more than they do already.
November 7th, 2018 at 9:34 PM ^
Home field advantage for higher seed is a bad idea IMO. Just makes it that much harder for northern teams to get a higher seed. And that much more difficult to win it all.
Take all of the BS out of biased voting by rotating the conference(s) with home field. Then the ONLY thing some stupid ass committee has in their power is including the +1 or +3 teams that didn’t win a P5 conference.
PS - Home field could be a team stadium or nearby facility of THEIR choosing. Ticket allotment proportionate to regular season.
November 7th, 2018 at 9:34 PM ^
Another change I think needs to be made is there should be a NY6 game played in the north. Honestly there should be a NY8. Put one bowl in Indy one in Charlotte. That gets the east and north represented
November 7th, 2018 at 9:42 PM ^
in the 6 team scenario the bye week is too much of an advantage for the 1 and 2 seeds. why give the better teams an extra week to rest and deal with injuries while the lower seeds are in grudge matches?
if it expands it has to go to 8, either as 5 conference champs plus 3 at large or just the top 8 based on the averages of the best 3 computer models, the ap, and coaches poll. i lean toward the top 8 regardless of conference champ status because the pac 12 blows this year and doesn't deserve to be in the top 8. WSU is on the edge at #8 and they barely beat Cal last week and if they lose another game and are still conference champ they shouldn't make the playoff being ranked outside of the top 8.
November 8th, 2018 at 8:56 AM ^
The PAC12 isn’t that bad, they just lack an obviously elite team relative to the rest of the conference. Other than Clemson, is the ACC any better?
November 7th, 2018 at 9:42 PM ^
NO. BOOOO.
November 7th, 2018 at 9:44 PM ^
I've seen variations of this over the last few years, and I like it. It seems like a no-brainer. One idea with regard to the effect on non-conference schedules would be to actually expand the conference schedule by a game or two. I'd a lot rather see us play another Big Ten team, even a lower - tier team, than watch us steam roll some random non-conference team.
November 7th, 2018 at 9:45 PM ^
Byes are unfair. Saw that point made recently and found myself completely agreeing.
November 7th, 2018 at 9:51 PM ^
Nope. You only want the best teams, not necessarily the champ of a weak conference. Your system will almost always get in two SEC teams because of the bias of the Committee. The teams that are bitching (e.g. UCF) would still be bitching.
November 7th, 2018 at 9:55 PM ^
I just don't understand why they didn't just use a system like the BCS from the start to determine the top 4. Combination of computer models and a poll/comittee vote to get the top 4. Just weigh conference championships more in the model. The current system is terrible.
November 8th, 2018 at 4:43 AM ^
Because nobody liked the BCS and there was much clamoring for a system that used people that would pay attention to the games instead of pollsters who abdicated the responsibility and unpublished computer rankings that could be doing almost anything.
November 8th, 2018 at 8:50 AM ^
Yeah, those damn computer rankings, not seeing what an obvious juggernaut the ACC is this year...
November 7th, 2018 at 10:03 PM ^
I love the idea, I like almost all of the ideas for an expanded playoff but I just do not understand why the NCAA does even think about adding more teams. It seems like everyone wants to add more teams. Does adding more teams to the playoff conversation get more money for the NCAA? (as that seems like all they care about)
November 7th, 2018 at 10:05 PM ^
I would give the 2 Conference winners with the highest non-conference strength of schedule the 1 and 2 seeds. Gets rid of the eye test factor and encourages teams to play meaningful games.
November 7th, 2018 at 10:08 PM ^
8 teams w no byes... 5 conference champs and 3 at large teams seems about right.
November 7th, 2018 at 10:14 PM ^
If you go to 8 I think the highest rated group of 5 team should get a 6th automatic bid then 2 at large teams.
November 8th, 2018 at 10:15 AM ^
No, the Group of 5 can suck eggs. If the committee thinks a G5 team should get an at-large, fine, but you shouldn't get an auto bid for whooping up on Louisiana Lafayette and FIU all year.
November 8th, 2018 at 11:15 AM ^
You have to give them a chance, in my opinion (obviously). They're part of FBS. You can't just systematically exclude 5 conferences. And until proven otherwise, the committee will exclude G5 teams from this conversation, the same as you and I would.
Throw the top ranked G5 team in there. If they're really crap like we all think they are, then the 1 seed will kick their ass every year and we don't have to hear them whine anymore.
November 8th, 2018 at 10:13 AM ^
Yes, this. It's so simple. If your idea is different you're a dumb person.
November 7th, 2018 at 10:32 PM ^
I keep seeing these discussions from a fan perspective and not once does the discussion bring up the players.
If you want an 6/8 team playoff, the regular season needs to be shorter. Or the first round needs to be done in the place of the conference title games. This sport is incredibly dangerous, and playing three games in a row against the best of the best can be very brutal on these kids. There have been interviews with some kids after the title games in the new system and they say that there is no way they could have played another game.
Poll era was flawed. BCS everybody hated (I didn't mind it) because computers were left to decide the best two teams. Now there's a four team playoff with humans deciding the teams, and everybody wants computers back.
The system is fine right now. All 16 teams that have been included have been the most deserving teams. And this 4 team playoff will last a long time before any more games are added, due to player safety
November 7th, 2018 at 10:56 PM ^
I agree. The season is too long as it is. 4 teams are plenty. If you can't figure out the four best teams then you're playing dumb, just like to argue, and 8 teams won't be enough either (e.g. UCF would still be sitting at home claiming mythical championships).
November 7th, 2018 at 11:16 PM ^
The last two years, people were outraged over a two-loss team with a 31/39 point loss being left out.
I don't need to see those teams play again for a national title.
The committee has chosen all 16 teams so far correctly, and I am going to bet it stays that way this year.
November 8th, 2018 at 6:24 AM ^
I agree that our nature is to be outraged.
November 8th, 2018 at 12:21 PM ^
Disagree. The first year, they left out TCU & Baylor both at 11-1 in favor of 12-1 OSU fresh off a blowout win over Wisconsin in the B1G title game. There was no reason whatsoever to pick one of the three over the other two. They just didn't have enough spots and somebody had to get shafted for no reason at all. That ended up being the Big XII.
As luck would have it, OSU won the whole thing so now everybody just pretends like it was correct and obvious, but it wasn't. It was a sign of a major flaw. There's nothing that says TCU couldn't have done the same thing OSU did, but they were a one-loss conference champ that got left out in the cold because we all just decided the Big XII wasn't invited that year. You can't have 5 major conferences who operate independently of each other and act like we all know which is better. Here's a doomsday scenario:
Alabama loses to Miss. St., Clemson loses to non-conference South Carolina. Notre Dame loses to Syracuse. Every other major player wins out. In that scenario, which probably won't happen exactly like that but is very possible, your CFP options are:
Alabama (or UGA) 12-1
Clemson 12-1
Michigan 12-1
Oklahoma 12-1
Washington State 12-1
Notre Dame 11-1
It doesn't matter which 4 you pick, you're picking based on your feelings, and that's the same bullshit we were doing pre-BCS and why we moved to a playoff in the first place.
There is no tangible way to determine which conference is better than another. Nobody plays the same strength of schedule. They share no common opponents. Whichever one of you said "If you can't find the 4 best teams, you're dumb" or whatever, is the worst person to be discussing this with because you refuse to see the glaring flaw. This system is only 4 years old and already produced a no-win situation in Year 1, regardless of whether you choose to admit it.
Maybe not this year, but soon you will get a situation like I laid out above, with more similar teams than available spots and somebody's going to get the shaft for no better reason than we refuse to the logical thing and expand to at least 8 and give everyone a defined path to the playoff. Relying on voters or computers or a committee continues to be idiotic.
Cancel a non-conference game if 16 games hurts your feelings. Just don't act like the current system isn't deeply flawed, because it is.
November 8th, 2018 at 12:53 PM ^
16 games doesn't hurt my feelings, douche. I am simply stating what is fact - it will not go to 8 teams because of safety. That isn't me being hurt emotionally - it is an actual fact.
Also, the Big 12 wouldn't declare a champion in the Big 12, even though Baylor held the real tiebreaker in that scenario. I saw Baylor lost to MSU too so I am more than fine with how 2014 worked out.
Maybe stop watching CFB if a 4 team playoff hurts your feelings?
November 8th, 2018 at 2:55 PM ^
Well, something hurt you emotionally if you resorted to name calling, wouldn't you say?
Nothing you said changes the facts of my post. Shockingly, you think 2014 was decided correctly. (Who could've seen that coming?!)
The poll system was dumb. The Bowl Alliance was a step in the right direction, but dumb in that didnt include the B1G and PAC. The BCS was a step forward but far too limited for 100+ team league dumb. The current 'Plus-1' system finally created a bracketed playoff, but is once again too exclusive for the league it represents. All of them are steps toward a legitimate playoff. They're not there yet. They will be soon, despite you and your feelings. Take care.
November 8th, 2018 at 3:16 PM ^
I said that there is a dilemma with adding more games because of player safety, and you came at me smugly saying 16 games “hurts my feelings”. The smug response saying I was hurt emotionally was douchey - plain and simple.
What do the players gain from adding another game to the schedule? Do they get extra scholarship money for the extra games? When Michigan won in 97 they played 12 games total...now you want them to play 33% more games for the same outcome? Just pointing out the issues of adding more games from the players’ perspective
November 8th, 2018 at 4:46 AM ^
Good point.
Heck, let's do the same thing in college basketball. You knew who the four best teams were last year -- Virginia, Kansas, Villanova, and Xavier. To say otherwise is playing dumb and you just like to argue. Why not just seed them directly into the Final Four?
November 8th, 2018 at 6:21 AM ^
On any given day, any college football team can lose. Increasing the number of teams just increases the probability of that occurring. The season is the de facto playoff. Heck, even 64 teams wasn't enough for March Madness.
There will always be consternation and gnashing of teeth. Complaints of bias in seeding, etc won't stop. Four is enough. Increasing it is not for the benefit of the athletes. If you want more football, I'm okay with a next four playoff akin to the NIT in basketball.
November 8th, 2018 at 12:51 PM ^
You do know that the reason March Madness is so appealing is that the best team doesn't always win, right? A single elimination tournament in a game like basketball is not the best way to crown a champion, but it is by far the most entertaining. I could have an hour long debate about this because people don't understand how it isn't the best way to determine the real best team. Sometimes it does crown the real best team though.
November 7th, 2018 at 10:33 PM ^
This actually seems reasonable.
November 7th, 2018 at 10:36 PM ^
I'm finding it difficult to love the idea of a bye in college football.
Maybe 16 teams, with top 2 hosting 16, 15. And then the other 12 fill out New Year's 6 bowls. Take each P5 champ and have three (or more) different committees pick their top 25, and use composite scores both to select the next 11 and determine seeding.
It'll be like the CFP and BCS had a March madness baby.
November 7th, 2018 at 10:43 PM ^
64 teams, first Saturday three games, next Saturday two games, Monday night for all the marbles.
its how Yoder and the Amish would do it!
November 7th, 2018 at 10:46 PM ^
I like the more teams format...but to allow every power 5 winner automatic is a bad idea.
imagine a 8-5 northwestern in the playoff because they pulled off an upset in the championship game.
November 8th, 2018 at 10:09 AM ^
Actually, Cinderella playoff runs are great sporting spectator events. Imagine that same team making a deep run...
November 8th, 2018 at 12:54 PM ^
If an 8-teamer including 5 P5 conference champs, 2 at large based on the CFP rankings and the top ranking G-5 team would have been the format for the first 4 seasons of the CFP, the worst team to have made it through 4 years is 2nd at large Auburn in 2015 at 10-3.
Everybody else, 31 of the 32 teams, would have been 11-2 or better. I wish I had time to draw up the brackets because they're pure college football porn.
But yes, let's scrap the idea where everyone is included in a logical fashion and every FBS team in the country is afforded a fair shot at the ultimate prize because what if Northwestern pulls off an all-time miracle a month from now.
November 7th, 2018 at 11:07 PM ^
CFP Committe continues to rank teams (using the Klatt logic). Conference playoffs 12/1. Top 8 teams playoff in a quarter final 12/15: 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5. Top 8 teams are conference champs and top 3 at large (max. 2 per conference - if season ended today LSU would be passed over for WVU). Higher ranking team gets home field. Winners face off in CFP Bowls (semi final), highest ranking winner playing the lowest and 2 and 3 facing off. Winners move onto playoff. 4 losing quarter final teams get NY CFP selection bowls against 9-12.
November 7th, 2018 at 11:31 PM ^
No byes. Go right to 8 team playoff.
November 8th, 2018 at 12:04 AM ^
There's an error in there. Your plan does not allow for three SEC teams in the field of six.
I mean just imagine being LSU in that scenario, having two embarrassing in-conference losses, but still not allowed to compete for the national title.
November 8th, 2018 at 4:00 AM ^
My proposal:
Get rid of bland conference championship games in half filled NFL stadiums, conference championships decided by standings once again.
Then, replace conference championship game Saturday with the first round of an eight team playoff (occupied by power 5 conference champions and 3 at large, one of those can be an undefeated group of 5 if applicable).
Here is the catch though: each game of this round of 8 is hosted by higher seeds (Just think about how cool that would be!!, we could have gotten Alabama vs. Wisconsin in Madison last year, for example).
Then, proceed December/January postseason as normal, with round of four and national championship at same times (Jan 1 semifinals, etc.) and at neutral sites.
November 8th, 2018 at 4:48 AM ^
So... you really think that the 14-team SEC can name a meaningful conference champion with its eight-game regular season schedule?
Remember when the Big Ten used to have co-champions all the time -- even undefeated co-champions occasionally?
This is that writ large.
November 8th, 2018 at 11:14 AM ^
Tiebreakers exist for a reason, and if it were really that much of a controversy, that second team would get one of the at-large bids.
November 8th, 2018 at 6:51 AM ^
Since we're stuck with 14-team conferences and conference championship games, they should mean something.
I've been advocating this idea for a couple of years now.
Take the 5 major conference champions. Seed them 1-5. Add six more teams, by committee. 6 plays 11, 7 plays 10, 8 plays 9. Those three winners reach the round of eight along with the champions.
This eliminates the Notre Dame advantage of not having to risk a solid championship game, while giving them a six-seed as reward. There's room for UCF in this model. There's room for that second-place divisional team (like LSU) that seems good enough but has key losses.