re: About the new playoff

quote:

---

I don't want to see a 6-6 Nebraska who barely won their crappy division, and then get lucky and beat OSU in the conf championship game, make the playoff.

---

Get rid of conference divisions as well.

quote:

---

So let's get rid of annual interconference rivalry games to appease the participation trophy crowd?

---

Where did I say that?

quote:

---

Where did I say that?

---

It's necessarily implied. If you eliminate divisions in a 14 team conference you aren't going to be able to play any one opponent on an annual basis and maintain any sort of scheduling equity. The Big 12's arrangement only works because they can play a round robin schedule.

quote:

---

The Big 12's arrangement only works because they can play a round robin schedule.

---

I'm also in favor of getting rid of a few teams and doing the same thing.

quote:

---

I don't know if there's a mechanism for removing expansion teams

---

I know it would be tricky, and don't have any idea what would need to be done.

quote:

---

Like who?

---

For purely personal reasons and opinions, any 3 or 4 of Ole Miss, MSU, Missouri, Texas A&M, Arkansas, and USC. Maybe Vandy, but I like the Nashville road trip and academic boost.

Advocates of an 8-team CFP w/automatic bids for P5 conference champs and a G5 push false narratives that it'll improve CFB and fan interest. But their very flawed CFP model not only makes it likely that some of the best FBS teams will be excluded from the CFP, it'll also reduce CFB's #1 appeal -- what CFB needs more of -- competitive regular season games that matter.

How to expand CFP opportunities and get more competitive & appealing regular season games:

FBS CFP - top 6 teams per committee rankings: No auto-bids. Rnd-1: #6@#3, #5@#4, #1/#2 bye. Rnd-2: R1 winners vs #1/#2. Final 1st Sat in Jan.

A Top-6 CFP allows all 5 P5 conf champs & a G5 to get in and has key advantages over an 8-team with 6 auto-bids. Auto-bids for P5 conf-champs discourage scheduling good out-of-conf teams. The top-6 model with round-1 byes for #1 & #2 and home-fields for #3 & #4 encourages it -- in order to achieve higher seeding. Also, #8 at #1 and #7 at #2 games would probably be routs. Worst of all, 6 of 8 as auto-bids would result in undeserving multi-loss conf champs getting in over 1-loss non-champs with better resumés.

FBS scheduling criteria - to qualify for the CFP:
• P5 must schedule 9 in-conf, 1 other P5, 0 FCS.
• G5 must schedule 8 in-conf, 3 to 4 P5s, 0 FCS.
• 12 games in Sep-Nov; CCGs 1st Fri-Sat in Dec.
Consistent schedule grids for all conferences (with 1 bye occurring only after game 6 or 7) would simplify in- and out-of-conf scheduling.

Bama's out-of-conf & cross-div rotations:
7 homes & 5 aways; 9th SEC replaces FCS;
6 SEC-West games in 2nd half of season.
'22: vs G5, vs P5, vs G5; at SC, vs UK, at TN
'23: vs G5, at P5, vs G5; vs VB, at Ga, vs TN
'24: vs G5, vs P5, vs G5; at MO, vs UF, at TN
'25: vs G5, at P5, vs G5; vs SC, at UK, vs TN
'26: vs G5, vs P5, vs G5; at VB, vs Ga, at TN
'27: vs G5, at P5, vs G5; vs MO, at UF, vs TN

CFP expansion to 6 teams, with the criteria that G5s must schedule 3-4 P5s to qualify, will give G5s a viable means to achieve a top-6 ranking. Since P5s can & will schedule a couple of G5s, good G5s like Memphis, ULL or CCU aspiring to reach the top-6 can find 3-4 good P5s seeking a quality G5 opponent to strengthen their resumé. Teams without CFP expectations don't have to schedule out-of-conf P5s; instead they can aim for bowl eligibility.

There are good reasons smart people chose a Top-4 CFP model. The Top-6 CFP model above supports those same good reasons even better. It inherently encourages teams to enhance their resumés by scheduling good out-of-conf teams. And it enables all 5 P5 conf champs and a G5 conf champ to earn a top-6 ranking.

A top-6 CFP with benefits/incentives for higher seedings and scheduling criteria to qualify for it will produce schedules with more competitive games that will improve clarity of the true top 6. The regular season will become a better "de facto playoff" filled with more appealing games that matter. TV ratings and attendance should improve significantly.

quote:

---

This would be a perfect opportunity for the SEC to implement the pod system, which they've openly stated they've reviewed and discussed.

---

I don’t like the pod system. It’s too convoluted, and in a given year, you could still see one terrible division and one good one.

I prefer 5 rotating + 3 permanent setup similar to basketball although the basketball permanents are laughably half-assed. Every team would get to play all opponents home and away over 4 years and keep 3 rivalries as annual opponents.

What if we just turned the entire season into a playoff? Like, you play your schedule and if you lose, your team is basically almost eliminated, unless the other teams ahead of you lose too. Then if you lose again, you're definitely out unless something crazy happens. You would play everyone in your division of the conference and a mostly rotating group of teams from the other division (except rivals - you play them every year). You could have some interesting out of conference matchups too, usually early in the season. You might also play a couple of teams that are from conferences no one ever heard of, normally you would win those games by a lot and give your younger players some playing time in a game so they could get better; but if you lost it would go down in history and you would be eliminated from the playoffs.

I dunno, I'm kind of crazy though.

That’s always been my gripe with champs only view .... an upset can happen by an undeserving team in a down division