MaroonMack said:

---

tjholley16 said:

---

here is my solution. Use the old BCS system to determine the final 4 teams. That way you eliminate any personal bias, and you use simply statistics.

---

Not a bad idea, but the BCS formula still contained human input from the Coaches' Poll (aka the SID poll) and the Harris Poll, which was made up of former coaches and ADs, IIRC. I'm fine using that since the human element has less weight compared to the Playoff Committee

---

I didn't have a problem with the formula either because it had the computer input. Sports journalist bad mouthed it because its easy to bash computers and math to the average mouth breather sports fan. I would rather have a TRS480 picking the top 4 than Beano Cook or his ghost.

Not sure we will ever see 16 but if an 8 team playoff is ever implemented , only question would be what the hell took so long.

This year playoff would look something like this if all games next week go as should

Florida @ Ohio State
Wisconsin @ LSU
Oklahoma @ Clemson
Georgia @ Utah

Then the semifinals and finals rotate sites / bowls just as they do now.

Yes there would still be controversy over the seeds and over the top 8.
But who wouldn't want to watch that playoff ?

Aggie said:

---

This year playoff would look something like this if all games next week go as should

Florida @ Ohio State
Wisconsin @ LSU
Oklahoma @ Clemson
Georgia @ Utah

---

Any playoff is going to guarantee 1 spot for Group of 6 school

Take a look at the committee and see who has the biggest representation

B1G absolutely wants to hide what a sham of a schedule tOSU has played - and we're trying to rig it to get 2 teams in
BDF knows without inflating they were on the outside looking in and why they've pumped up their **** league all season lol
P12 wants to break into the playoffs at the moment Utah is their only hope - BDF is trying to keep them out
SEC - no one wants 2 teams in despite having the most top heavy of all the conferences (as we have in past years)
ACC - Clemson is their godsend

TexasLeaguer said:

---

I was literally just about to post about the rig job that is the CFP Committee.

I'm happy Bama lost, but there is no way Wisconsin, PSU, and Florida are better 10-2 teams. Bama lost by a combined 8 points to LSU and Auburn.

I also have a feeling the CFP Commitee is setting up OU to jump Utah. They have over ranked Baylor and will argue OU's last game against Baylor was better than Utah's last game against Oregon. This is predetermined and is sickening.

Can we just rank teams based on Sagarin! Dude has been doing this for years. If Vegas trusts him, so do I.

---

If we use the Sagarin rankings, that would put the Ags ..... 17th!

I like it.

tjholley16 said:

---

here is my solution. Use the old BCS system to determine the final 4 teams. That way you eliminate any personal bias, and you use simply statistics.

---

When people complain as they did with the old BCS we can say "Simple Statistics!" and everyone will be completely satisfied. The reason we have this dumb system is because that one was worse.

AGinHI said:

---

---

That would potentially have Iowa, Notre Dame, Memphis, etc. in it. No thank you.

The Committee is a failure. Bring back the old BCS ranking system, and let the top four play.

I don't really understand the people claiming Ohio State has a bad resume. Even if you want to go by your beloved AP poll, they've still beaten more ranked teams (4) than LSU (3).

Ohio State has the eye test and depth of schedule. That's why they're number 1.

Saint Pablo said:

---

AGinHI said:

---

---

That would potentially have Iowa, Notre Dame, Memphis, etc. in it. No thank you.

---

Yeah playoff games would suck.
We will just stick to watching those games in completely meaningless bowl games

Aggie said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

AGinHI said:

---

---

That would potentially have Iowa, Notre Dame, Memphis, etc. in it. No thank you.

---

Yeah playoff games would suck.
We will just stick to watching those games in completely meaningless bowl games

---

Devaluing the playoff would make the regular season less important. Which I am not a huge fan of....I'd rather have one meaningless bowl game than a handful of meaningless games regular season. With a 16 team playoff, a team like Michigan who is perennially overrated, can do nothing relevant all year, get beat by every relevant team they face...in completely embarrassing fashions and still be a playoff team. It just does not make sense to me.

Saint Pablo said:

---

Aggie said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

AGinHI said:

---

---

That would potentially have Iowa, Notre Dame, Memphis, etc. in it. No thank you.

---

Yeah playoff games would suck.
We will just stick to watching those games in completely meaningless bowl games

---

Devaluing the playoff would make the regular season less important. Which I am not a huge fan of....I'd rather have one meaningless bowl game than a handful of meaningless games regular season. With a 16 team playoff, a team like Michigan who is perennially overrated, can do nothing relevant all year, get beat by every relevant team they face...in completely embarrassing fashions and still be a playoff team. It just does not make sense to me.

---

It does not devalue the playoff or the regular season.
It adds more value. Adding more teams adds more valuable games.
If it's 8 teams then Florida had to beat Florida state on thanksgiving Saturday to stay in the mix.
As with the current system Florida is out of the mix and nobody outside of Tallahassee and Gainsville cared about that game.

I've never understood this argument? Expanding the playoffs adds more value to the regular season.

College basketball has 65 teams in its post season tournament and the regular season is full of big time matchups.

If we're limited to a 4 team field, I'd personally only like to see conference champs get in, but given the criteria and parameters that have been set in front of them, I think the CFP panel has done a pretty good job over the past few years. I don't have many gripes.

I think along the same lines as TexasLeaguer if the goal is to get the 4 best teams in the playoffs. In that case, win loss record is something to look at, but isn't the major determining factor. Could very well be that a 10-2 team at the end of the season is thought to be a better team than a 12-0 team = money would say the 10-2 team would win. No way should you have auto bids for a four team tournament. Would be interesting to let handicappers have ratings at the end of the season to compare to the current committee. Likely OU and Baylor would be out at this point no matter who wins the championship game. I would be surprised if either of those teams would be in the top 8 as determined by handicappers. Currently who is the 4th best team of those ranked 4-12? I would suspect the handicappers would say Alabama, Utah (if they win this weekend) and Florida. How about an 8 team field with no auto bids into the tournament. I guess NCAA likes the current scenario because it keeps the football world talking through the weekend. Next year, I hope the Ags are one of the teams being discussed. Gig Em

I think only conference champions should be able to participate in the playoff.

I'd like to see an 8 team playoff with each P5 conference champion, 2 at large, and one G5 team.

I've watched every OSU game. Sure, they're a great team. But the blue bloods in the big 10 are always over ranked because there are so many horrific football programs in that conference that they get to beat up on. Rutgers, Maryland, Northwestern and other Big 10 teams are basically free wins. So PSU, Michigian, OSU, and Wisconsin are always highly ranked. It's a great formula for success. Have a few solid teams, most of the rest of the conference be crap, don't schedule any difficult out of conference games, you'll be in the top 15 almost every year. Ohio State had to play without it's best player a few weeks ago against world beaters Maryland and Rutgers. What happened in 2017 when OSU played OU during the regular season? They lost and didn't make it to the playoff. Sorry, but Clay Travis is right. LSU deserves the #1 spot. Committee continues to reward playing soft schedules.

Agilaw said:

---

I think along the same lines as TexasLeaguer if the goal is to get the 4 best teams in the playoffs. In that case, win loss record is something to look at, but isn't the major determining factor. Could very well be that a 10-2 team at the end of the season is thought to be a better team than a 12-0 team = money would say the 10-2 team would win. No way should you have auto bids for a four team tournament. Would be interesting to let handicappers have ratings at the end of the season to compare to the current committee. Likely OU and Baylor would be out at this point no matter who wins the championship game. I would be surprised if either of those teams would be in the top 8 as determined by handicappers. Currently who is the 4th best team of those ranked 4-12? I would suspect the handicappers would say Alabama, Utah (if they win this weekend) and Florida. How about an 8 team field with no auto bids into the tournament. I guess NCAA likes the current scenario because it keeps the football world talking through the weekend. Next year, I hope the Ags are one of the teams being discussed. Gig Em

---

If there's an 8 team field, you've got to have some autobids. For one, it's going to be a necessary compromise to get all of the P5 conferences on board for expansion, but also if you're looking at the possibility of the SEC or Big Ten sending three or four teams to the playoffs, it REALLY takes a lot of the stakes out of the biggest games of the regular season.

5 Autobids for P5 champs
1 G5 champ
2 at-large

Sure, you're not truly taking the 8 best teams, but at the same time I don't feel too bad for anyone who's getting left out.

Aggie said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Aggie said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

AGinHI said:

---

---

That would potentially have Iowa, Notre Dame, Memphis, etc. in it. No thank you.

---

Yeah playoff games would suck.
We will just stick to watching those games in completely meaningless bowl games

---

Devaluing the playoff would make the regular season less important. Which I am not a huge fan of....I'd rather have one meaningless bowl game than a handful of meaningless games regular season. With a 16 team playoff, a team like Michigan who is perennially overrated, can do nothing relevant all year, get beat by every relevant team they face...in completely embarrassing fashions and still be a playoff team. It just does not make sense to me.

---

It does not devalue the playoff or the regular season.
It adds more value. Adding more teams adds more valuable games.
If it's 8 teams then Florida had to beat Florida state on thanksgiving Saturday to stay in the mix.
As with the current system Florida is out of the mix and nobody outside of Tallahassee and Gainsville cared about that game.

I've never understood this argument? Expanding the playoffs adds more value to the regular season.

College basketball has 65 teams in its post season tournament and the regular season is full of big time matchups.

---

You are wrong. There would be far less pressure on teams to go undefeated or have one loss. Under this format, Bama could lose to every ranked team they faced and make the playoff....same for Notre Dame...Iowa who was 1/4 against ranked opponents would be in...Auburn was 2/5 and they'd be in. If you can waltz into the playoffs with no wins against relevant competition, solely off of the strength of your reputation, how does that mean games matter?

Regular season in CBB is full of big time matchups, but many of them don't matter at all. Last night #4 Michigan played #1 Louisville and it basically has no tournament implications.

HowdyTAMU said:

---

The Committee is a failure. Bring back the old BCS ranking system, and let the top four play.

---

The BCS has close to same ranking

Yelnick McWawa said:

---

I'm kind of over Clay Travis neverending outrage.

---

This. He has very valid points. His previous ******baggery prevents me from being the slightest bit interested in anything he has to say.

This wont be popular:

-1-4 are correct
-5-25 are especially political this year
-Bama got screwed

Sagarin predictor has tOSU 6 points better than Clemson and 8.5 better than LSU. FPI has tOSU 2 points above Clemson and 5 above LSU.

The committee is consistent, if nothing else:

1. Undefeated P5/ND
2. 1-loss P5 champ /ND
3. 1-loss P5 non-champ

I dont love that process, but it is close enough to fair.

BMX Bandit said:

---

HowdyTAMU said:

---

The Committee is a failure. Bring back the old BCS ranking system, and let the top four play.

---

The BCS has close to same ranking

---

Didn't they modify the BCS later in its history to ignore margin of victory and/or SOS?

I think it should be 1-8 and just require at least 5 of those teams to be a conference champion of any conference. If somehow 1-8 only includes 4 conference champions then you bump the lowest ranked non-champ and replace them with the highest ranked conference champion that was not in the top 8.

Most years your top 8 will include 5 conference champs and when someone does get bumped it will be a team that has no conference championship and likely has 2 losses or 1 loss in a weak conference.

Doing that still only lets about 6% of teams in the playoffs so A&M will never make it but it will make a lot more games more meaningful and hopefully we will get good enough to spoil someone's chances once every few years.

Vegas knows about Tua. They know stuff

As long as human committees or computers are "guessing" at which teams they think are most deserving, any incarnation of the system will have controversy and ultimately fail.

Remove the subjective element from the process. Settle it on the field. Conference Titles should matter. Conf. Champs should be in the playoffs.

If you still want the "drama' that comes with a ranking-based selection, then add 3 wildcard spots to make an 8-team playoff.

Regular season is still important for both Conference Titles, and for the 3 coveted wildcard spots.

Clay Travis has some valid points.

I think the biggest joke by the committee is all the talk of non-conference scheduling and "play a tough schedule" and so forth.

among Utah, OU, and Baylor...one will make the CFP with a garbage non-conference. But the committee doesn't care. And Ohio State's non-conference is mediocre too

Baylor at 7 is the outrage. Either strength of schedule matters or it doesn't. Sorry the Big 12 is down, but when you have one quality team on your schedule (and at home), you need to beat them.

This has been a down year for us.

Therefore it's great if it's a down year for the SEC -- meaning only the conf champ in the CFP.

F UF, Bama, and Auburn and their 2-loss bids for a CFP spot.

Let this be a year when all of the weak conferences get more than their fair shot. The rebound back just might help us get in next year.

Not that complicated
8 teams no ccg all power 5 champs in 3 at large

Emilio Fantastico said:

---

Well, if they do rig it for ou to get in again, they will get blown out again.

---

Um, Grinch has tremendously improved that defense and last years 34 points against Bama was second only to Clemson.

FarmerJohn said:

---

Baylor at 7 is the outrage. Either strength of schedule matters or it doesn't. Sorry the Big 12 is down, but when you have one quality team on your schedule (and at home), you need to beat them.

---

The best out of conference win for the entire Big12 was Mississippi State.



Which oddly enough is our best conference win.

Sq 17 said:

---

Not that complicated
8 teams no ccg all power 5 champs in 3 at large

---

I'm for CCGs and think any team that didn't win their's is out.

I would award #1 and #2 with a first round bye and make it the 5 CCG game winners and one at large for a field of 6.

FarmerJohn said:

---

Baylor at 7 is the outrage. Either strength of schedule matters or it doesn't. Sorry the Big 12 is down, but when you have one quality team on your schedule (and at home), you need to beat them.

---

When almost no one plays any one of note OOC it is all conjecture and politicking.

Cut the 2 meaningless non-conference cupcake games every team plays each year that nobody cares about. You can either keep your big OOC game (rivalry, "kickoff classic", or otherwise) or play a cupcake. If you're a Top 8 team in the nation, you'll be getting your big OOC campus game come playoff time.

12 team playoff

5 P5 conference champs + 7 at-large

Top 4 seeds get byes as well as second round campus games -- keeps teams incentivized in regular season. Byes + homefield = extremely valuable.

ROUND 1 - on campus games. Teams are incentivized to stay in the Top 8 for valuable home game.
#12 @ #5 on campus site
#11 @ #6 on campus site
#10 @ #7 on campus site
#9 @ #8 on campus site

ROUND 2 - on campus games.
G1: 12/5 winner @ #1 seed campus site
G2: 11/6 winner @ #2 seed campus site
G3: 10/7 winner @ #3 seed campus site
G4: 9/8 winner @ #4 seed campus site

ROUND 3 - bowl sites. Bowls/corporate-sponsors/history still gets their big game.
G1 winner vs G4 winner @ CFP Bowl Site
G2 winner vs G3 winner @ CFP Bowl Site

Champ Game: @ CFP Bowl Site



You're basically swapping 2 games no teams/fans care about for 2 big time games. You're getting campus games so travel isn't bad if you've earned it, and fans can more affordably attend.

The difficulty with this is on the backside you'd have to create a similar bracket or pool for the teams that are not making the playoffs (and thus playing 2 less games, even though they are/were typically cupcake games) to have opponents setup... an NIT if you will.