College Football Playoff Talk

[PelvisPresley]

13 hours ago, DB2point0 said:

8 teams is plenty.  No need for 32 games. Just look at how diluted the Texas HS playoffs are now.  P5 conference champs, highest ranked G5 conf champ, and use the old bcs formula to figure out the last two spots. That makes the committee obsolete.  Some of you are trying to fix a small problem with huge solutions that are unnecessary 

to compare a 24 or 32 team playoff to 4th place teams (1-9 or 2-8) in Texas HS football making the "playoffs" is one of the craziest jumps ever. you will not see a 1-9 Union Hill beat a 10-0 Carthage in the first round of the HS playoffs, take away the size difference.

nobody would have seen a VCU go to the Final Four...until it happens, then you say "oh wow"...or Coastal Carolina winning a baseball championship, but whoops the big boys let it happen. great to see...

[DB2point0]

32 minutes ago, CoachPelvisPresley said:

to compare a 24 or 32 team playoff to 4th place teams (1-9 or 2-8) in Texas HS football making the "playoffs" is one of the craziest jumps ever. you will not see a 1-9 Union Hill beat a 10-0 Carthage in the first round of the HS playoffs, take away the size difference.

nobody would have seen a VCU go to the Final Four...until it happens, then you say "oh wow"...or Coastal Carolina winning a baseball championship, but whoops the big boys let it happen. great to see...

We don’t need 4th place teams in a playoff.  Thusthe high school comparison and diluted stigma.  Baseball and basketball are different animals.  You can play a baseball or basketball game everyday of the week.  The wear and tear on the body is different in those sports.  Football is different.  We don’t need 4-5 extra weekly games taking away from the regular season.  4 or 8 teams makes every week count.  A diluted playoff will weaken the best game in all of sports.  

[JustAFan11]

19 minutes ago, DB2point0 said:

We don’t need 4th place teams in a playoff.  Thusthe high school comparison and diluted stigma.  Baseball and basketball are different animals.  You can play a baseball or basketball game everyday of the week.  The wear and tear on the body is different in those sports.  Football is different.  We don’t need 4-5 extra weekly games taking away from the regular season.  4 or 8 teams makes every week count.  A diluted playoff will weaken the best game in all of sports.  

This isn’t directly pointing at you because others make this point all the time. 
 

The argument that more playoff teams will take away from the regular season is the dumbest argument of all time. We get more games like Alabama vs Western Arizona because teams can’t afford to lose twice. 
After Texas lost to OU this year their playoff hopes were over. They had no shot at playing for or winning a national championship. Florida, Wisconsin, Auburn, Notre Dame, and Michigan all 2-3 loss teams that are solid teams that could pull some upsets but have zero shot before their season is ever finished. 
 

Having a 16 team playoff won’t diminish the regular season because it’s football and not basketball or baseball. 8-8 NFL teams get into the playoffs every year, sometimes they win it all. Were the regular games meaningless? Of course not and college football has more fandom than the NFL (see Nebraska for reference). Will the RRR be less intense because the loser might make the playoffs anyway? Of course not. 
More tournament style games at the end of the year won’t change the fact that every Saturday every college football fan will be glued to their tv or at a tailgate watching their favorite team. 

[WETSU]

1 minute ago, JustAFan11 said:

This isn’t directly pointing at you because others make this point all the time. 
 

The argument that more playoff teams will take away from the regular season is the dumbest argument of all time. We get more games like Alabama vs Western Arizona because teams can’t afford to lose twice. 
After Texas lost to OU this year their playoff hopes were over. They had no shot at playing for or winning a national championship. Florida, Wisconsin, Auburn, Notre Dame, and Michigan all 2-3 loss teams that are solid teams that could pull some upsets but have zero shot before their season is ever finished. 
 

Having a 16 team playoff won’t diminish the regular season because it’s football and not basketball or baseball. 8-8 NFL teams get into the playoffs every year, sometimes they win it all. Were the regular games meaningless? Of course not and college football has more fandom than the NFL (see Nebraska for reference). Will the RRR be less intense because the loser might make the playoffs anyway? Of course not. 
More tournament style games at the end of the year won’t change the fact that every Saturday every college football fan will be glued to their tv or at a tailgate watching their favorite team. 

I disagree. Let’s at 16 teams make the playoff. All I have to do is stay in the top 16. No need for me to risk the extra loss. Also, why beat yourself up in a game that you don’t need when you already have a tough conference schedule? Playing better OOC does not benefit any top 10 power 5 team. The only people it will/could benefit is a fringe team that’s 9-3 ish that got an extra win over decent team than a 10-2 team that didn’t. 

Theres no way you’re going to get better OOC games by adding playoff teams. The only way you’re going to change scheduling is by having the committee publicly state, “we are taking the 4 most deserving resumes not the 4 best teams.” That’s the only way this changes. 

[WETSU]

2 hours ago, Lobo97 said:

Not really far off from that now are we (currently 82 teams make a bowl game)? Not that I'm advocating for a 32 team playoff, just making a point, lol. 

No there’s a difference in getting a bowl game vs technically having a shot at a national title. At least in my opinion. 

Plus I like college football because of its controversy and tradition and excitement and everything that comes with the bowl/championship system. I do not want to see it inch towards the professional model. I like that there’s these debates every year. I like that there’s uncertainty and excitement in every week not knowing what the polls/committee will think about the games. I just simply do not think this system is broken. I think it works and works beautifully. The only thing I would consider changing is the wording of how the 4 teams are selected. Call it the 4 most deserving. That will perhaps entice better OOC games while still keeping the play-off field so small that there’s still enough controversy to keep it entertaining and give the fans a more clear picture of what’s going on behind the committee doors. Or just do away with this entirely and just take the top 4 computer ranked teams with a formula similar to the bcs. 

[PelvisPresley]

then let's just throw out everything...everybody play in the old conference bowl games, then let the AP vote for a champ at the end...

just as dopey!

at least with that we could expand the voters in some way...add national sportscasters, etc and see where we are

why have a playoff...I can "eye test" at week 10 (2 weeks ago)...see the "best team" and let's go ahead and take the trophy down to Baton Rouge. cancel the rest of the season...it's a waste.

[Lobo97]

25 minutes ago, WETSU said:

No there’s a difference in getting a bowl game vs technically having a shot at a national title. At least in my opinion. 

Plus I like college football because of its controversy and tradition and excitement and everything that comes with the bowl/championship system. I do not want to see it inch towards the professional model. I like that there’s these debates every year. I like that there’s uncertainty and excitement in every week not knowing what the polls/committee will think about the games. I just simply do not think this system is broken. I think it works and works beautifully. The only thing I would consider changing is the wording of how the 4 teams are selected. Call it the 4 most deserving. That will perhaps entice better OOC games while still keeping the play-off field so small that there’s still enough controversy to keep it entertaining and give the fans a more clear picture of what’s going on behind the committee doors. Or just do away with this entirely and just take the top 4 computer ranked teams with a formula similar to the bcs. 

But I thought you wanted the 4 best teams? Who's to say a team like SMU, Boise State, Memphis, or any other non P5 team, is the best team in the country any particular year, but they don't get a chance at a title because they don't pass someone's 'eye test', or considered the most 'deserving'? 

 

That's why the people who do favor a true playoff, do so. Because as many of us have seen before, and as the old saying goes....Any Given Sunday (or as is the case with college, Saturday). It's one thing to have to win 1 game. But to win 3, 4, or 5 consecutive games over worthy teams, that proves something. 

[Lobo97]

I don't know what the perfect number of playoff teams would be. It there even a perfect number? I do believe 32 would be too many. Think about it, in a 32 team playoff, Texas would still make it. As would teams like USC, UCF, Iowa State, Air Force, etc. Does anyone in their right mind actually believe any one of those teams belongs in the playoffs? I don't. But I do believe the number of qualifying teams should be higher than 4. Especially, when there are more Power conferences than that. Just because a conference is down as a whole, does not mean that conference doesn't still possess the ONE best team in the country. Can you imagine Clemson not being in the playoff last year, just because someone may have thought they weren't deserving because their conference is bad? And just because a team isn't part of a P5 conference, doesn't mean they aren't capable of being the best team in the country any given year. Unless you reclassify every conference, and take the top 2 consistent teams from the current P5, divide them up into all the new conferences, fill in the rest, and now call them all Power conferences, you're always going to have a team considered to not be worthy simply bc of their conference. Why is that acceptable?

 

One of the arguments made against non P5 teams before was, 'you want a shot, you must win all your games.'. But we don't even give them a shot when they do that ('17 UCF). 

Now, a common argument many against expansion make is, 'it'll make the regular season meaningless.'. I've got news for you, THE REGULAR SEASON IS ALREADY MEANINGLESS!!! If not, then why can a non conference champ make it over a conference champ? We've even seen a non conference champ (Ohio State) get in over the conference champ (Penn State) of their own conference, AND had lost to said conference champ. 

Another common argument against expansion, 'It'll make the lower tier bowls irrelevant, and possibly go away'. Guess what, the lower tier bowls are already irrelevant. Did you know, last season, there were 6 bowls games with an attendance of 20K or less? The average attendance for the Texas HS State Championship games was just under 18K! There were 19 bowl games with 25K attendance or less. Very few people care about the lower tier bowl games. 

I'll tell you the reason those making the decisions are against expansion....$$$. But if you have, let's say, 16 teams that are all worthy, all fighting it out in a true playoff, I'd be willing to bet those games would make more than 3/4 of the current bowls combined. 

 

Some say expansion will make it less exciting. But do you know what the 2 least productive business days in America are, every year?.....Round 1 of the NCAA tournament. 

[JustAFan11]

I’ve got a solution, let’s throw out conference championship games, force every P5 conference to have 14 teams, then play round robin, the top 2 teams from all 5 conferences make playoffs, the champion of each G5 league gets in, that’s 15 teams and give the 16th seed to the best G5 non-champion or best independent. 

LSU vs Virginia 

Ohio St vs Miami-Ohio

Clemson vs La Tech

Georgia vs Appalachian St

Oregon vs Boise St 

Utah vs Cincinnati  

Penn St vs Baylor

Oklahoma vs Notre Dame 

Virginia(7-3) would be the worst team in this scenario but after them only Miami-Ohio(7-3) and La Tech(8-2) are unranked. 

[WETSU]

1 hour ago, Lobo97 said:

But I thought you wanted the 4 best teams? Who's to say a team like SMU, Boise State, Memphis, or any other non P5 team, is the best team in the country any particular year, but they don't get a chance at a title because they don't pass someone's 'eye test', or considered the most 'deserving'? 

 

That's why the people who do favor a true playoff, do so. Because as many of us have seen before, and as the old saying goes....Any Given Sunday (or as is the case with college, Saturday). It's one thing to have to win 1 game. But to win 3, 4, or 5 consecutive games over worthy teams, that proves something. 

I personally do want the 4 best teams. And I think that can be proven with advanced metrics and the eyeball test. I think it’s comical anyone things the pac 12 or even big 12 champion this year is “better” than Bama and should get in. One can argue more deserving, but not better. And that’s why I say just make it more deserving. You guys don’t want the 4 best teams in so let’s make it the 4 most deserving so we can stop the crying about Bamas non conference schedule or a team getting in without a conference title. 

But ill say this.... the pac 12 is not deserving of a spot this year. Oregon only has 1 win over a ranked opponent, 4 loss usc and lost to the only other decent team outside of USC it has played (auburn.) Utah has zero wins over a ranked opponent. The winner of this conference will either be 12-1 Utah with only 1 ranked win, or 12-1 Oregon with only 2 ranked wins. Bama will finish the season likely 11-1 with two ranked wins and it’s only loss coming by less than a td to the consensus number 1 team in the country. I don’t understand how anyone thinks a conference title means much and Bama not winning the conference is significant, because when you actually look at the schedules, I truthfully don’t see how you can think Utah or Oregon is “more deserving.” I get everyone hates Bama and the sec and all that, but you guys are just looking at this with shaded glasses if you think Utah or Oregon is either the better team or more deserving than Bama. I just don’t see either. Especially not better team. 

[WETSU]

24 minutes ago, JustAFan11 said:

I’ve got a solution, let’s throw out conference championship games, force every P5 conference to have 14 teams, then play round robin, the top 2 teams from all 5 conferences make playoffs, the champion of each G5 league gets in, that’s 15 teams and give the 16th seed to the best G5 non-champion or best independent. 

LSU vs Virginia 

Ohio St vs Miami-Ohio

Clemson vs La Tech

Georgia vs Appalachian St

Oregon vs Boise St 

Utah vs Cincinnati  

Penn St vs Baylor

Oklahoma vs Notre Dame 

Virginia(7-3) would be the worst team in this scenario but after them only Miami-Ohio(7-3) and La Tech(8-2) are unranked. 

I agree with expansion and making the conference all uniform and same number of conference games. But I think that should be done at the expense of the G5 conferences. Expanding to 14 teams would take essentially the top 6 teams from the G5 and put them in P5 conferences. After the top 6 G5 teams it’s a HUGE drop off and they are not worthy of automatic invites imo. There simply is no way to have a both effective and sensible, (no a 8-4 La Tech type team does not deserve a playoff spot regardless if they won their conference), while you have 128 teams in D1 with half of them being on a totally different level than the other half. The mid majors simply should not be competing for the same title as the P5 teams. They just aren’t on the same level. They need their own title and playoff system. Cut the power 5 conferences down to 4 conferences of 16 teams, “sorry big 12 it’s time to blow up” and make them play 8 conference games against all the teams in their division plus 1 rotating opponent. The winner of each division makes the playoffs. That’s 16 teams like you want. 

[Coach Rab]

1 minute ago, WETSU said:

I agree with expansion and making the conference all uniform and same number of conference games. But I think that should be done at the expense of the G5 conferences. Expanding to 14 teams would take essentially the top 6 teams from the G5 and put them in P5 conferences. After the top 6 G5 teams it’s a HUGE drop off and they are not worthy of automatic invites imo. There simply is no way to have a both effective and sensible, (no a 8-4 La Tech type team does not deserve a playoff spot regardless if they won their conference), while you have 128 teams in D1 with half of them being on a totally different level than the other half. The mid majors simply should not be competing for the same title as the P5 teams. They just aren’t on the same level. They need their own title and playoff system. Cut the power 5 conferences down to 4 conferences of 16 teams, “sorry big 12 it’s time to blow up” and make them play 8 conference games against all the teams in their division plus 1 rotating opponent. The winner of each division makes the playoffs. That’s 16 teams like you want. 

Your stance is basically the same as the NCAA's.  But here is the flaw...  "They are worthy enough to be in the same level of football but not worthy enough to compete for that championship?"

It's very 2-faced.  Do I think that a WAC champion has the same talent as an SEC, PAC12, or B12 champion?  No.  How would we know until we put them to the test?

Drop the schedule to 10 games.  You have a 4 week playoff.  Each conference mandated to play 9 conference games.  Each conference gets their champion in.  The rest are based on the committee or whatever system you want to use after that point.  Your best 4 teams should almost always be conference champions, and even if they aren't they are essentially guaranteed to get one of the at large bids from the remaining 4 slots.  Then roll the ball out there and have fun.  In the current state of college football, no one outside of the P5 would advance past the 2nd round anyway...  so it won't hurt the chest beaters in the P5 conferences that they put out a far superior product than the lesser 5 schools.  

I think we are cheating college football fans by not having a real playoff.  I thoroughly enjoy the current format, but no one will be satisfied until all conferences are included or we separate the group of 5 from the current P5.

[WETSU]

2 minutes ago, MavGrad99 said:

Your stance is basically the same as the NCAA's.  But here is the flaw...  "They are worthy enough to be in the same level of football but not worthy enough to compete for that championship?"

It's very 2-faced.  Do I think that a WAC champion has the same talent as an SEC, PAC12, or B12 champion?  No.  How would we know until we put them to the test?

Drop the schedule to 10 games.  You have a 4 week playoff.  Each conference mandated to play 9 conference games.  Each conference gets their champion in.  The rest are based on the committee or whatever system you want to use after that point.  Your best 4 teams should almost always be conference champions, and even if they aren't they are essentially guaranteed to get one of the at large bids from the remaining 4 slots.  Then roll the ball out there and have fun.  In the current state of college football, no one outside of the P5 would advance past the 2nd round anyway...  so it won't hurt the chest beaters in the P5 conferences that they put out a far superior product than the lesser 5 schools.  

I think we are cheating college football fans by not having a real playoff.  I thoroughly enjoy the current format, but no one will be satisfied until all conferences are included or we separate the group of 5 from the current P5.

I don’t think they should be in the same level. That’s what I’m saying. It’s not two faced. I do not think that G5 teams should be considered to be D1 FBS teams. There needs to be a shrinking of the FBS division into about half of what it is now. Then give the G5 teams their own division and title. 

[Lobo97]

21 minutes ago, WETSU said:

I personally do want the 4 best teams. And I think that can be proven with advanced metrics and the eyeball test. I think it’s comical anyone things the pac 12 or even big 12 champion this year is “better” than Bama and should get in. One can argue more deserving, but not better. And that’s why I say just make it more deserving. You guys don’t want the 4 best teams in so let’s make it the 4 most deserving so we can stop the crying about Bamas non conference schedule or a team getting in without a conference title. 

But ill say this.... the pac 12 is not deserving of a spot this year. Oregon only has 1 win over a ranked opponent, 4 loss usc and lost to the only other decent team outside of USC it has played (auburn.) Utah has zero wins over a ranked opponent. The winner of this conference will either be 12-1 Utah with only 1 ranked win, or 12-1 Oregon with only 2 ranked wins. Bama will finish the season likely 11-1 with two ranked wins and it’s only loss coming by less than a td to the consensus number 1 team in the country. I don’t understand how anyone thinks a conference title means much and Bama not winning the conference is significant, because when you actually look at the schedules, I truthfully don’t see how you can think Utah or Oregon is “more deserving.” I get everyone hates Bama and the sec and all that, but you guys are just looking at this with shaded glasses if you think Utah or Oregon is either the better team or more deserving than Bama. I just don’t see either. Especially not better team. 

1) You can't 'prove' the better team based on metrics. Champions aren't built on the Moneyball philosophy. 

2) You continue to argue it being comical to say this team or that team is better than Alabama, all while continuing to argue this 'eye ball' test of yours. So I have to ask, what exactly has your eyes shown you, outside of 1 game (that they lost), that Bama is one of the best teams in the country this year? Because based on that same argument, you've also said Clemson is not one of the 4 best. And again, outside of 1 game, Clemson hasn't played any weaker a schedule than Bama, and dominated more. So I have to ask, is it solely because it's Bama, and they're the top of the SEC? 

 

Don't make the assumption that anyone NOT in belief that Bama is not one of the 4 best teams because we're looking at it with 'shaded glasses', when most of your arguments for and against anyone is not much different than that of Paul Finebaum. I truly believe if it were up to you, the 4 playoff teams would look like this...

 

1) SEC Champ

2) SEC Runner Up

3) SEC West 2nd place 

4) SEC West 3rd place

[Mr. P]

Either conference titles matter or they don't. 

If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine too. 

All I want is some sort of basic criteria that's quantifiable. No eye tests. No "feeling" about who's the best team. 

In my opinion the system D-II uses is pretty much perfect. Just slap some bowl names on the games and call it the NCAA Bowl Playoffs. 

[Coach Rab]

33 minutes ago, WETSU said:

I don’t think they should be in the same level. That’s what I’m saying. It’s not two faced. I do not think that G5 teams should be considered to be D1 FBS teams. There needs to be a shrinking of the FBS division into about half of what it is now. Then give the G5 teams their own division and title. 

That's the thing... until they are in separate levels of football it is the NCAA being 2-faced about the whole thing.

[WETSU]

26 minutes ago, Lobo97 said:

1) You can't 'prove' the better team based on metrics. Champions aren't built on the Moneyball philosophy. 

2) You continue to argue it being comical to say this team or that team is better than Alabama, all while continuing to argue this 'eye ball' test of yours. So I have to ask, what exactly has your eyes shown you, outside of 1 game (that they lost), that Bama is one of the best teams in the country this year? Because based on that same argument, you've also said Clemson is not one of the 4 best. And again, outside of 1 game, Clemson hasn't played any weaker a schedule than Bama, and dominated more. So I have to ask, is it solely because it's Bama, and they're the top of the SEC? 

 

Don't make the assumption that anyone NOT in belief that Bama is not one of the 4 best teams because we're looking at it with 'shaded glasses', when most of your arguments for and against anyone is not much different than that of Paul Finebaum. I truly believe if it were up to you, the 4 playoff teams would look like this...

 

1) SEC Champ

2) SEC Runner Up

3) SEC West 2nd place 

4) SEC West 3rd place

No I don’t believe the sec should be represented 4 times in the playoffs. And I have started to change my tune on Clemson. A few weeks ago I didn’t think they had played as well as some of the others (at the time) that I had in my top 4. But they are seemingly getting better every week and other teams have slipped. 

And can you honestly tell me you think Oregon, Utah or OU are better football teams than Bama? Not more deserving, better. Answer the question. If you truly believe that one of those 3 teams is better than Bama (not that they are more deserving) then I would love to open another topic and have an Xs and Os discussion with you about why you think so. But I do not believe you think so. I think the only reason you have one of those 3 above Bama is because you believe if one of them wins a conference title they would be more deserving. Which is not the same thing as better. 

[WETSU]

4 minutes ago, MavGrad99 said:

That's the thing... until they are in separate levels of football it is the NCAA being 2-faced about the whole thing.

Oh I agree. 

[WETSU]

And btw lobo, advanced metrics are highly useful. It factors in garbage time, sos, how a team fairs against an opponent compared to other teams facing that same opponent... Advanced metrics and the eyeball test (for people who have more than a JV level understanding of the game) can be extremely useful tactics in determining “better” teams when comparing two or three teams that lack a head to head. Is it a guarantee? Of course not. But ignoring the logic behind advanced metrics and the eyeball test is naive. 

[WETSU]

26 minutes ago, AKA said:

Either conference titles matter or they don't. 

If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine too. 

All I want is some sort of basic criteria that's quantifiable. No eye tests. No "feeling" about who's the best team. 

I agree 100%. Which is why I said above just change the committee stance to the 4 most deserving teams. Openly state that the resume is the most important part of this. Right now it’s a loose interpretation of resumes along with the eyeball test. People cry from either side. Just openly stating it would please everyone. It would make teams schedule tougher opponents in  attempts to boost their resume. 

 

The only fault to that that would be do you factor in the scores and performance of the games or just the win or loss. For instance, if team A beats a ranked opponent by 13 on the road, does it hold more or less weight than a team B beating a similar ranked team by 4 at home? Do we just simply come up with a mathematic formula to determine the resume? Conference title =10 points. Top 25 win =2 points. Loss to unranked team=-5 points. Loss to ranked team=-2 points... and so and so forth until we can mathematically select a resume without watching the games or using opinion at all. 

[DB2point0]

4 hours ago, JustAFan11 said:

This isn’t directly pointing at you because others make this point all the time. 
 

The argument that more playoff teams will take away from the regular season is the dumbest argument of all time. We get more games like Alabama vs Western Arizona because teams can’t afford to lose twice. 
After Texas lost to OU this year their playoff hopes were over. They had no shot at playing for or winning a national championship. Florida, Wisconsin, Auburn, Notre Dame, and Michigan all 2-3 loss teams that are solid teams that could pull some upsets but have zero shot before their season is ever finished. 
 

Having a 16 team playoff won’t diminish the regular season because it’s football and not basketball or baseball. 8-8 NFL teams get into the playoffs every year, sometimes they win it all. Were the regular games meaningless? Of course not and college football has more fandom than the NFL (see Nebraska for reference). Will the RRR be less intense because the loser might make the playoffs anyway? Of course not. 
More tournament style games at the end of the year won’t change the fact that every Saturday every college football fan will be glued to their tv or at a tailgate watching their favorite team. 

Those games would become meaningless if only conference champions got in.  Then if the bcs rankings figured the final 2 SOS would be a factor for the 2 non champs.  Pretty simple really.  Schedule patsies, but if you lose a conference game then your oOC games have a bearing on your playoff aspirations.  
 

to me this would also be setup by scheduling rules where all conferences played the same amount, you had to have at least 2 P5 oOC games too.  This would strengthen college football even more.  
 

I don’t care if an 8-8 team makes the nfl playoffs.  The nfl #### and has for years.  
 

doing things your way would allow a biased committee to put their favorite teams in even easier without having to justify it.  If Bama has two losses they get in as a 9 seed.  Or if OHio State loses 2 they get in at 10.  That does diminish the regular season and takes the importance off of each weekly game

[DB2point0]

4 hours ago, WETSU said:

I disagree. Let’s at 16 teams make the playoff. All I have to do is stay in the top 16. No need for me to risk the extra loss. Also, why beat yourself up in a game that you don’t need when you already have a tough conference schedule? Playing better OOC does not benefit any top 10 power 5 team. The only people it will/could benefit is a fringe team that’s 9-3 ish that got an extra win over decent team than a 10-2 team that didn’t. 

Theres no way you’re going to get better OOC games by adding playoff teams. The only way you’re going to change scheduling is by having the committee publicly state, “we are taking the 4 most deserving resumes not the 4 best teams.” That’s the only way this changes. 

Why even play oOC opponents then and risk that “aw ####” moment.  Why take the risk

[WETSU]

1 minute ago, DB2point0 said:

Why even play oOC opponents then and risk that “aw ####” moment.  Why take the risk

 

4 minutes ago, DB2point0 said:

Those games would become meaningless if only conference champions got in.  Then if the bcs rankings figured the final 2 SOS would be a factor for the 2 non champs.  Pretty simple really.  Schedule patsies, but if you lose a conference game then your oOC games have a bearing on your playoff aspirations.  
 

to me this would also be setup by scheduling rules where all conferences played the same amount, you had to have at least 2 P5 oOC games too.  This would strengthen college football even more.  
 

I don’t care if an 8-8 team makes the nfl playoffs.  The nfl #### and has for years.  

I agree with this entirely. I love the bcs system and it’s “fairness” it just needed more teams added. There’s never any more than 3-4 true title contenders in a season anyway imo. I don’t see what’s wrong with selecting all 4 playoff spots with the bcs (or similar) formula. If you want to get in you better win out or play good non conference games like you said. 

What I don’t want is expanding the playoff just to make room for a “fair” or “true” playoff. Take the top 4 computer teams. If you’re not happy, win more games or schedule better teams. Period. 

[DB2point0]

45 minutes ago, AKA said:

Either conference titles matter or they don't. 

If they don't, that's fine. If they do, that's fine too. 

All I want is some sort of basic criteria that's quantifiable. No eye tests. No "feeling" about who's the best team. 

In my opinion the system D-II uses is pretty much perfect. Just slap some bowl names on the games and call it the NCAA Bowl Playoffs. 

If conference champions don’t matter just let everybody go independent 

[DB2point0]

21 minutes ago, WETSU said:

 

I agree with this entirely. I love the bcs system and it’s “fairness” it just needed more teams added. There’s never any more than 3-4 true title contenders in a season anyway imo. I don’t see what’s wrong with selecting all 4 playoff spots with the bcs (or similar) formula. If you want to get in you better win out or play good non conference games like you said. 

What I don’t want is expanding the playoff just to make room for a “fair” or “true” playoff. Take the top 4 computer teams. If you’re not happy, win more games or schedule better teams. Period. 

I want 8 to make the conferences mean something.  They should count for something.  If they don’t matter you’ll see more teams jumping ship in time