OT- My new college playoff model
This is purely my opinion but I think the best college football playoff model would be to expand to six teams, having each power 5 conference winner earning a spot, and the sixth spot going to the highest ranked non power five team like Houston. The six teams from last year would be 1. Clemson 2. Alabama 3. Mich st 4. Oklahoma 5. Stanford 6. Houston.
The two issues I see with this is Independent teams like Notre Dame and BYU and the potential to play 16 games in a year. For this to work, I think the Independents would have to forced to move to a conference if they want to be considered for the college football playoff. The first two teams would get a bye in the first round, while (3) plays (6) and (4) plays( 5). In the next round, (1) would play the winner of (4) vs (5), and (2) would play the winner of (3) vs (6). The top two teams with byes, if they make it to the championship, would only play 15 games, just like right now.
I think this model takes away the real need for a committee to decide the top teams, and the conference winners would be the only thing that matters in making it to the playoff for power 5 teams, and other conferences would also get a chance to at least play for a title. This could also eliminate teams in the power 5 from scheduling cupcake games, because their OOC shedule would no longer affect their post season. What do you guys think?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Six gives the top two a bye and some rest and would be another fun debate topic. Who gets the bye and who doesn't? Also allows you to have all 5 conferences represented most years and allows teams like ND to get in more often (they basically have to be perfect now)
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
August 6th, 2016 at 10:45 PM ^
Yep and I'll be damned if I'm going to listen to the numb-nuts Notra Shame fans brag how good their teams are year after year because of this. I guarantee I'd explain things until I was blue in the face over and over. In one ear and out the other every time.
August 6th, 2016 at 11:42 PM ^
Why not just the two best teams who have had the two most deserving seasons?
Heck, why not just pick the one most deserving, after the season, and not even bother?
August 6th, 2016 at 11:45 PM ^
August 7th, 2016 at 12:37 AM ^
Here's why. It is conceivable that Conference A pits an 11-1 team against a 12-0 team for their championship game and the 12-0 team loses to the 11-1. Simultaneously Conference B has an 8-4 team playing a 9-3 team for their championship. Under your rule, and logic, a 9-4 team is better and more deserving than a 12-1 team.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
"Best teams" is subjective. It's a beauty contest that is dependent upon scheduling. If every Power Five champion was guaranteed a spot, the championships would actually mean something. The best side benefit: a team like Michigan could schedule ND, Texas and Oregon as its three non-conference games with no punitive consequences.
Champions only: if you can't win our conference, you aren't one of the "best." Let the results on the field determine the participants.
I already explained why Champions only is sophistry so let me add this. Under your format there is absolutely nothing to be gained by playing quality non-conference games so if you're good with Michigan playing Eastern Michigan, South Dakota and New Mexico State every year, stand up and be recognized.
for maintaining that status. We have seen teams; TX is a good example of behaving as an independent for revenue generating reasons. If independents were to be penalized, then unilateral decisions while a member of a conference should not be allowed either, imo.
The thing we should be concerned with is SOS. If SOS is as solid as 4 of the six P5 champions there should be no punishment. As long as they are paying their own way and not using tax dollars, they should maintain the right to participate and still honor their religion.
I mean one has to admit, there is no better time than getting the buzz on with a bunch of happy Mormons.
I'm afraid this proposal would lead to fewer good, non-conference matchups, not more. We've just seen the Big 12 enact a rule forcing their schools to play tougher schedules. Why? Because SOS is an important consideration in the current selection process and they don't want their teams left out. The SEC and Big Ten also made the same rule in recent years.
Take SOS out of the equation and schools will go back to scheduling to maximize $$.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Four is perfect. If each conference champ got in, why even have a non-conference schedule?
It would turn into the NFL preseason. If there is no incentive for winning, teams won't play their best players.
I personally hate the NFL preseason and resent the fact that they force season ticket holders to pay full price for those games.
August 6th, 2016 at 10:25 PM ^
Completely Agree
August 7th, 2016 at 12:39 AM ^
To determine who gets the bye?
Which poll decides which G5 team has the highest rank?
Just like in politics, never give the politicans power over the important issues. If you do, you will get the same results we've received since right around 19 and 68. It hasn't been pretty.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
change, but a couple issues.
1) 6 teams would mirror the NFL too much, and I think the college playoff would like to try to be as much its' own as possible.
2) Taking conference winners is in theory a great idea, but a myriad of issues could arise. Take the BIG in 2012 for instance (I know, highly irregular, but still), Wisconsin won the title game routing Nebraska and finished like 8-5. Were they playoff worthy?
3) The highest non-power 5 team is not always highly ranked, as Houston was last year.
4) I think a lot of power 5 teams would schedule cupcakes, because the strength of schedule would not matter (just win the conference), try to avoid injury, do not show other teams and wrinkles until you have to, etc.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I like it. It rewards a better regular season and makes the regular season more valuable.
Typically the teams ranked 1-2, will have noticeably better regular seasons than the teams ranked 3-6.
I think the pollsters do an okay job of considering SoS.
An undefeated midmajor team rarely cracks the top 6 heading into the post season. And if we are honest, it is why the SEC has so many teams ranked.
This illustrates the problem with expansion... no matter what they expand to, it will never be enough.
August 7th, 2016 at 12:18 AM ^
Not bowl games.
I would prefer a 6 team playoff, but with the top 6 ranked overall.
The problem is that there are times when a 3+ loss team wins the conference.
For example, in 2012 Ohio State was banned from post season play and 8-6 Wisconsin was BigTen Champion.
In 1999, Stanford was 8-3 in the regular season, but that was enough to win the Pac-10. Etc...
There are over 120 D1 FBS teams and only 6 playoff spots in this scenario. You are fine with giving a spot away to a clearly inferior team simply because they won a conference, a team that may have only lucked out due to the better team getting a post season ban?
August 6th, 2016 at 10:04 PM ^
So a few years ago, Wisconsin finished the regular season 7-5, yet through a series of flukes went on to win the BigTen title. Their OOC schedule included beating Northern Iowa by 5 and Utah State by 2 points, losing to Oregon State and beating UTEP in a game that was within 4 points during the 4th quarter.
Would they not be undeserving to have such a limited playoff spot even though they won the conference?