The college football playoff expansion Thread

[Mormon Red Death]

This thread is for all news and rumors surrounding college football playoff expansion.

So as I was driving this afternoon and I happened on Jack Arute and Rick Neuheisel (they have a radio show on sirius). Arute predicted that by the third 4-team playoff championship game we will have press conference to move it 8 teams. Hallelujah. IMO the best way to do that is the following:

1. Conference Champs from the B1G, PAC12, ACC and SEC get AutoBids (
2. Big12 plays the highest ranked Non p5 team (or ND) for an autobid. Higher BCS ranked team gets home field advantage.
3. 6 Highest BCS ranked teams that are not in Conf Champ game play for 3 at large spots. Home teams are the ones with highest rankings (1vs6,2v5,3v4) (losers still go to bowl games)
4. Next weekend teams are seeded by BCS rank and 1 plays 8, 2 v 7 etc.. Higher seed (Losers still go to bowl games)
5. Christmas Day Semifinal is played
6. New Years Day Final is played

- This solves a lot of problems
A. Every Team would play the same amount of games
B. Instead of 7 games to sell media rights to they would have 10 games (the 11th game Media rights (Big12vNonP5) could be split with the home team getting 75% of the tv revenue).
C. Half of the playoff revenue is split between all DIV1 teams. The other half uses the Unit system they use for the NCAA bball tourney to divide out $
D. Bowls still happen Even if you are elite 8 you get one more game.

[sancho]

Sounds complicated. Why not just take the winners of the P5 conferences plus 3 at larges? As long as each P5 is included, nobody who matters can complain too much.

[Scratch]

Interesting, but I really don't like the idea of the non-division champs ("6 Highest BCS ranked teams that are not in Conf Champ game") having an easier road to the 8-team playoff than the divisional champs.

[Scratch]

Sounds complicated. Why not just take the winners of the P5 conferences plus 3 at larges? As long as each P5 is included, nobody who matters can complain too much.

I agree with this, and think it's the most likely outcome. They can even put some sort of qualification on the 5 conferences so that the lesser conferences could get one of those spots, but there's no real concern there because with the recent sifting there's no chance a G5 conference could touch a P5 conference (which was the case when the Big East was a power conference and before the MWC was stripped of its elite programs).

[Mormon Red Death]

Sounds complicated. Why not just take the winners of the P5 conferences plus 3 at larges? As long as each P5 is included, nobody who matters can complain too much.

Some reasons:
1. The non big12 P5 complain because the big12 doesnt have to play a champ game.
2. It could incentivize teams to not win their division. (say Miss st and Ole Miss are undefeated at the end of the season when they play. Why not lose that game knowing you dont have to play in the SEC champ game as you will be auto invite.
3. You get more money (hint this is the biggest reason)

[concerned]

I can't imagine the B-12 would agree to a play in game against a G-5 opponent. BTW, whatever happened to their request for a champitonship game with 10 members? Is is still under consideration somewhere? Havent heard that it was denied.

[Scratch]

Some reasons:
1. The non big12 P5 complain because the big12 doesnt have to play a champ game.
2. It could incentivize teams to not win their division. (say Miss st and Ole Miss are undefeated at the end of the season when they play. Why not lose that game knowing you dont have to play in the SEC champ game as you will be auto invite.
3. You get more money (hint this is the biggest reason)

If you're going to get an at-large invite by losing to team X so you don't have to play in a conference championship game, then you would certainly get an at-large invite by beating team X and then losing in the conference championship game. One more win over a quality opponent, same number of losses, and a loss in a championship game is better than a loss to a non-champ.

[Scratch]

I can't imagine the B-12 would agree to a play in game against a G-5 opponent. BTW, whatever happened to their request for a champitonship game with 10 members? Is is still under consideration somewhere? Havent heard that it was denied.

I also don't think the other conferences would want to incentivize the B12 to expand. I think a playoff with 10 is more likely.

[sancho]

I can't imagine the B-12 would agree to a play in game against a G-5 opponent. BTW, whatever happened to their request for a champitonship game with 10 members? Is is still under consideration somewhere? Havent heard that it was denied.

I hope it's denied. Why should the Big12 get the benefit that all the other conferences had to expand for? Why should the Big12 be rewarded for stupidly staying at 10 instead of adding FSU/Clemson when they were available? If they want a title game, let them add Memphis and Cincy for it.

[sancho]

If you're going to get an at-large invite by losing to team X so you don't have to play in a conference championship game, then you would certainly get an at-large invite by beating team X and then losing in the conference championship game. One more win over a quality opponent, same number of losses, and a loss in a championship game is better than a loss to a non-champ.

Plus, the 3 at larges are determined by a committee, not by a computer ranking. If you clearly tank a game to avoid a conference championship game, the committee is not taking you.

[Mormon Red Death]

Interesting, but I really don't like the idea of the non-division champs ("6 Highest BCS ranked teams that are not in Conf Champ game") having an easier road to the 8-team playoff than the divisional champs.

I dont think it would be easier. Lets look at how this would play out last year:
Playoff teams:
Florida st (beat duke)
Auburn (beat georgia)
Mich St (beat Ohio st)
Stanford (beat ASU)
Baylor vs UCF winner
Bama vs Oregon winner
South Carolina vs Oklahoma winner
Clemson vs Missouri winner

That wouldnt be awesome?

[Mormon Red Death]

I hope it's denied. Why should the Big12 get the benefit that all the other conferences had to expand for? Why should the Big12 be rewarded for stupidly staying at 10 instead of adding FSU/Clemson when they were available? If they want a title game, let them add Memphis and Cincy for it.

Fine but you are penalizing the winner of that game by making them play in champ game while the loser gets to rest before their playoff game.

[Scratch]

I dont think it would be easier. Lets look at how this would play out last year:
Playoff teams:
Florida st
Auburn
Mich St
Stanford
Baylor vs UCF winner
Bama vs Oregon winner
South Carolina vs Oklahoma winner
Clemson vs Missouri winner

That wouldnt be awesome?

You have to look at the teams that lost the conference championship games. Why should those teams, that earned something significant on the field (winning their division) have to beat teams like Florida State and Auburn to get in while non-division winners (Baylor, UCF, South Carolina, OU, Clemson, and Mizzou) get to play easier "play-in" games than the division winners who had to play the absolute cream of the crop in championship games?

[Mormon Red Death]

You have to look at the teams that lost the conference championship games. Why should those teams, that earned something significant on the field (winning their division) have to beat teams like Florida State and Auburn to get in while non-division winners (Baylor, UCF, South Carolina, OU, Clemson, and Mizzou) get to play easier "play-in" games than the division winners who had to play the absolute cream of the crop in championship games?

Fla st beat #24 Duke (clemson has a tougher game)
Auburn beat #23 Georgia (Bama and South Carolina would have a tougher game)
Stanford beat #15 ASU (Oregon has a tougher game)
Mich st and Ohio st played no other BIG team was in the playoff
Baylory would play #16 UCF vs Oklahoma at South Carolina again the conf champ has a tougher game.
What conference champ game was the absolute cream of the crop? Has their been a #1 vs #2 in the conference champ game?

If you are so concerned about the non divisional winners getting an easier path why not make sure that at large teams can't have a higher seed 6 thus they will be assured of playing road games and they have sufficient incentive to win their division.

Its not going to be perfect but no system is. It is however going to give us fans some sweet playoff football.

[Mormon Red Death]

Btw Ucf beat Baylor so they would be one of the 8

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[concerned]

I also don't think the other conferences would want to incentivize the B12 to expand. I think a playoff with 10 is more likely.


and we dont want them to have any reason to even think about the Y, at least i dont.

[sancho]

Fine but you are penalizing the winner of that game by making them play in champ game while the loser gets to rest before their playoff game.

Isn't the Big12 scheduled with their last game on conference championship weekend? I forget. Either way, the playoff is a few weeks away. Extra rest is not a big concern.

[Mormon Red Death]

Isn't the Big12 scheduled with their last game on conference championship weekend? I forget. Either way, the playoff is a few weeks away. Extra rest is not a big concern.
They end on that week because they don't have a championship game. In the scenario above they would have a "champ" game. Everyone would end the regular season on the same weekend (thanksgiving weekend). The next week would be the conf championship game (Dec 6). The week after would be the Quarter finals (Dec 12). xmas would be 2 weeks away and New years is one week from xmas.

[Mormon Red Death]

I can't imagine the B-12 would agree to a play in game against a G-5 opponent. BTW, whatever happened to their request for a champitonship game with 10 members? Is is still under consideration somewhere? Havent heard that it was denied.

Why wouldn't it agree? 9 times out of 10 they are playing the game in a big 12 stadium. They are getting most of the media money for the game. They get to stay at 10 teams and still get their champ game. I don't think its a hurdle too large.

[concerned]

Why wouldn't it agree? 9 times out of 10 they are playing the game in a big 12 stadium. They are getting most of the media money for the game. They get to stay at 10 teams and still get their champ game. I don't think its a hurdle too large.

Its demeaning.

[sancho]

Its demeaning.

Yup, and every once in a while, they will lose that game, and then they don't have a team in the playoff. That is unacceptable.

It will happen eventually, and it will be P5 winners + 3 at large. Nothing wrong with that system.

[Mormon Red Death]

Yup, and every once in a while, they will lose that game, and then they don't have a team in the playoff. That is unacceptable.

It will happen eventually, and it will be P5 winners + 3 at large. Nothing wrong with that system.

You guys don't want more football? What is wrong with you?

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[Mormon Red Death]

Its demeaning.

Colleges are always passing up money cause it might be demeaning. That is sound logic.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[concerned]

Colleges are always passing up money cause it might be demeaning. That is sound logic.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

it certainly is sound logic. The B12 is never going to allow itself to be treated differently than the other P5 conferences and create the perception that it is P5-lite. As Sancho points out, the risk of losing even once in a long while and missing the playoff that would cost the conference a lot of money far outweighs what money they might make from a play in game.

[Mormon Red Death]

it certainly is sound logic. The B12 is never going to allow itself to be treated differently than the other P5 conferences and create the perception that it is P5-lite. As Sancho points out, the risk of losing even once in a long while and missing the playoff that would cost the conference a lot of money far outweighs what money they might make from a play in game.

Bah... they also have the at large they can make it in as well. Since they don't have two teams playing in the champ game their odds of getting an at large is higher than everyone else

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[concerned]

Bah... they also have the at large they can make it in as well. Since they don't have two teams playing in the champ game their odds of getting an at large is higher than everyone else

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

You get the last word, even if it makes no sense. Congratulations.

[Mormon Red Death]

You get the last word, even if it makes no sense. Congratulations.

I see what you are trying to do.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[sancho]

The B12 is never going to allow itself to be treated differently than the other P5 conferences

Nor should they. The Big12 has been the #2 conference after the SEC for the past few years. It's the #3 this year. It's clearly above the ACC in traditional and current success.

[Mormon Red Death]

Expansion is coming (http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post?id=80804).

[sancho]

Expansion is coming (http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post?id=80804).

I think everyone always knew it was inevitable.

[wally]

Expansion is coming (http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post?id=80804).

For us cheap-asses, can you give a cursory summary?

[concerned]

I never thought I would say this, but I would keep it at 4. It creates so much regular season drama, so many elimination games. If you get to 8, the MSU/auburn, MSU/Bama, MSU/OSU (different MSU), Baylor/TCU, all the PAC 12 games, etc., don't mean as much.

[Mormon Red Death]

For us cheap-asses, can you give a cursory summary?
It was just a bunch of coaches and admins bitching about only 4 teams.

[sancho]

I never thought I would say this, but I would keep it at 4. It creates so much regular season drama, so many elimination games. If you get to 8, the MSU/auburn, MSU/Bama, MSU/OSU (different MSU), Baylor/TCU, all the PAC 12 games, etc., don't mean as much.

I agree with you. This season has been great. In a perverse way, it's really fun that there are only four spots for 5 conferences. Musical chairs.

But expansion is coming, and nothing can stop it. The good news is an increased likelihood of Utah making the playoff someday.

[wally]

Okay, thanks bro!

[concerned]

I agree with you. This season has been great. In a perverse way, it's really fun that there are only four spots for 5 conferences. Musical chairs.

But expansion is coming, and nothing can stop it. The good news is an increased likelihood of Utah making the playoff someday.

The other good news: it would give the Big XII even less reason to expand, and ensure that BYU remains in limbo for eternity (which may be the case anyway).

[utefan]

I never thought I would say this, but I would keep it at 4. It creates so much regular season drama, so many elimination games. If you get to 8, the MSU/auburn, MSU/Bama, MSU/OSU (different MSU), Baylor/TCU, all the PAC 12 games, etc., don't mean as much.
Please tell me you don't buy into that "playoffs diminish the regular season" nonsense. If the regular season was so important, then there's no way Utah would have finished as the only undefeated team in the country, beating several ranked teams in the process, and still wasn't seriously considered for the championship.

[concerned]

Please tell me you don't buy into that "playoffs diminish the regular season" nonsense. If the regular season was so important, then there's no way Utah would have finished as the only undefeated team in the country, beating several ranked teams in the process, and still wasn't seriously considered for the championship.

Playoff at 4 has been very exciting in the regular season. Playoff at 8? maybe exciting to those vying for the 7th and 8th spots, but the games at the top wouldn't matter so much.

[chrisrenrut]

Playoff at 4 has been very exciting in the regular season. Playoff at 8? maybe exciting to those vying for the 7th and 8th spots, but the games at the top wouldn't matter so much.

Kind of like basketball now, top teams playing for seeding position, but not having to worry as much about being left out of the dance.

[Scratch]

Playoff at 4 has been very exciting in the regular season. Playoff at 8? maybe exciting to those vying for the 7th and 8th spots, but the games at the top wouldn't matter so much.

Not so sure. There isn't a singe team right now whose playoff chances wouldn't be significantly hurt (by which I mean they would probably not control their own destiny) if they were to lose a game.

[sancho]

Not so sure. There isn't a singe team right now whose playoff chances wouldn't be significantly hurt (by which I mean they would probably not control their own destiny) if they were to lose a game.


If they did auto berths to the P5 champs with just 3 at-larges, things would stay pretty interesting. I do think the Big12 would expand, though.

[FountainOfUte]

Playoff at 4 has been very exciting in the regular season. Playoff at 8? maybe exciting to those vying for the 7th and 8th spots, but the games at the top wouldn't matter so much.

I'm not sure I buy into this. What I've always hated about college football is the subjectivity that creeps into its "national championship." A conference championship is inarguable. It's fact. Winning a power conference means something, even if you won the fifth-best power conference. You still should be given the chance on the field to see how you stack up against the best teams from other parts of the country.

Again, winning a power conference championship needs to mean something. Even if you win it ugly. Whoever survives the PAC-12 gauntlet has earned a shot to play for the national championship. Right now, Oregon is our only shot at that. If they lose one more game, they're out. That's bull. I just can't wrap my brain around a college football playoff that doesn't have a PAC-12 representative every single year. It shouldn't happen.

[Sullyute]

If they did auto berths to the P5 champs with just 3 at-larges, things would stay pretty interesting. I do think the Big12 would expand, though.

I don't want any auto bids. That is what caused Utah to play a crappy Pitt team in the Fiesta bowl when we should have played a better team.

[UTEopia]

What I like about this year is that every conference and non-conference game counts. The non-conference games of teams in your conference count because if you win they pump up the strength of the conference. If you go to an 8 game playoff and you guarantee the conference champion of the P5 conferences an automatic berth, what is to say that a team might say. I have the best chance of getting to the playoff by winning my conference. What gives me the best chance of winning the conference, loading up with some difficult non-conference games or playing patsy non-conference games and giving my guys some rest? The SEC already does this by playing 8 conference games and usually scheduling a patsy non-confernence game in early November.

Unless you are going to place a requirement on P5 conferences that 1) require them to have at least 12 teams and a conference championship game, 2) play 9 conference games, and 3) play at least 1 school from another P5 conference, there will be some conference championships that are not equal to another. It will never be absolutely equal because sometimes teams you think will be good are not and sometimes teams you think will be bad will not, but you should at least have a n equal framework.

I know the argument will be that there will be 3 at-large. The reality is that there will be 2 at-large because the non-P5 will need to get a seat at the table for the highest ranked conference champion in order to avoid antitrust issues. The chances are still better to win your conference against 12+ other schools instead of competing against 50 schools for the other 2 playoff spots.

[sancho]

Unless you are going to place a requirement on P5 conferences that 1) require them to have at least 12 teams and a conference championship game, 2) play 9 conference games, and 3) play at least 1 school from another P5 conference, there will be some conference championships that are not equal to another. It will never be absolutely equal because sometimes teams you think will be good are not and sometimes teams you think will be bad will not, but you should at least have a n equal framework.


That's a good point against auto-bids. I think you are right - it only works if there is some standardization.

[sancho]

I don't want any auto bids. That is what caused Utah to play a crappy Pitt team in the Fiesta bowl when we should have played a better team.

I don't know if I agree. I think nonBCS bias is what caused Utah to play Pitt instead of Auburn. If they wanted that match up, they could have made it happen. Auburn definitely didn't want that matchup.

[FountainOfUte]

What I like about this year is that every conference and non-conference game counts. The non-conference games of teams in your conference count because if you win they pump up the strength of the conference. If you go to an 8 game playoff and you guarantee the conference champion of the P5 conferences an automatic berth, what is to say that a team might say. I have the best chance of getting to the playoff by winning my conference. What gives me the best chance of winning the conference, loading up with some difficult non-conference games or playing patsy non-conference games and giving my guys some rest? The SEC already does this by playing 8 conference games and usually scheduling a patsy non-confernence game in early November.

Unless you are going to place a requirement on P5 conferences that 1) require them to have at least 12 teams and a conference championship game, 2) play 9 conference games, and 3) play at least 1 school from another P5 conference, there will be some conference championships that are not equal to another. It will never be absolutely equal because sometimes teams you think will be good are not and sometimes teams you think will be bad will not, but you should at least have a n equal framework.

I know the argument will be that there will be 3 at-large. The reality is that there will be 2 at-large because the non-P5 will need to get a seat at the table for the highest ranked conference champion in order to avoid antitrust issues. The chances are still better to win your conference against 12+ other schools instead of competing against 50 schools for the other 2 playoff spots.

I can see where you're coming from. But it seems like the current set up already discourages teams from scheduling difficult games. We were told "difficulty of schedule" would be one of the metrics, but I haven't seen much evidence of that yet among the committee's initial rankings. Do you think we'll see SEC teams drop like crazy as they play their mid-season FCS teams this week? I doubt it.

I'll wait until we actually see which four teams are chosen, but if we end up with two SEC teams, I'll know that any criteria we were told would be used was lip service. If two, or even one loss knocks you out of contention for the playoff, then you need to schedule as many easy games as you can - i.e. the SEC model. Seems like it's working.

As for your suggestions for future scheduling requirements, I'm all for those - I'd love to see them. Additionally, to encourage some more "cross pollination" I'd like to see a rule among the P5 conferences that they need to play a home-and-home with at least one team from every other P5 conference w/in a certain timeline, like every eight years, or so. (Suddenly, Indiana's phone would start ringing off the hook from southern state area codes). Make all of these teams travel across the country now and again.

[UBlender]

I don't want any auto bids. That is what caused Utah to play a crappy Pitt team in the Fiesta bowl when we should have played a better team.

Thank you! I don't get the logic behind wanting to hand out auto bids. If Florida State or Alabama lose to whatever crappy team wins the other division in each conference, should that team be in the playoff, even with 3-4 losses? No, no, no, a million times no. I think a four team playoff is acceptable, a six or eight teamer would also be exciting. But never, never, never go to auto bids. Haven't we learned that lesson already?

[sancho]

Thank you! I don't get the logic behind wanting to hand out auto bids. If Florida State or Alabama lose to whatever crappy team wins the other division in each conference, should that team be in the playoff, even with 3-4 losses? No, no, no, a million times no. I think a four team playoff is acceptable, a six or eight teamer would also be exciting. But never, never, never go to auto bids. Haven't we learned that lesson already?

Autobids would have worked better in that sense back in the 10 team round robin days.

[UBlender]

I don't know if I agree. I think nonBCS bias is what caused Utah to play Pitt instead of Auburn. If they wanted that match up, they could have made it happen. Auburn definitely didn't want that matchup.

The point is that under that system, Pitt would have been in the playoff regardless of what the original matchup is. There is absolutely no reason to require automatic access to the playoff for a crappy team like Pitt or that UConn team that made the Fiesta Bowl just because they won a P5 conference that is in a down cycle.

[sancho]

I'll wait until we actually see which four teams are chosen, but if we end up with two SEC teams, I'll know that any criteria we were told would be used was lip service. If two, or even one loss knocks you out of contention for the playoff, then you need to schedule as many easy games as you can - i.e. the SEC model. Seems like it's working.


The SEC has many teams with top 20 schedules in SOS. I don't think anyone can argue that they have an easy path. Now, FSU on the other hand, could easily work the system, schedule nobody, coast through the ACC, and get in on brand recognition.

[sancho]

The point is that under that system, Pitt would have been in the playoff regardless of what the original matchup is. There is absolutely no reason to require automatic access to the playoff for a crappy team like Pitt or that UConn team that made the Fiesta Bowl just because they won a P5 conference that is in a down cycle.

The idea is to encourage long term parity among the P5 conferences. With no auto-bid, and if teams are ranked fairly, it's possible an 8 team playoff could consist of 4-5 SEC teams (Sagarin has 5 in the top 8 right now - maybe that drops with their SOS this week and maybe it drops as they beat each other up in the last week).

[utefan]

What I like about this year is that every conference and non-conference game counts. The non-conference games of teams in your conference count because if you win they pump up the strength of the conference. If you go to an 8 game playoff and you guarantee the conference champion of the P5 conferences an automatic berth, what is to say that a team might say. I have the best chance of getting to the playoff by winning my conference. What gives me the best chance of winning the conference, loading up with some difficult non-conference games or playing patsy non-conference games and giving my guys some rest? The SEC already does this by playing 8 conference games and usually scheduling a patsy non-confernence game in early November.

Unless you are going to place a requirement on P5 conferences that 1) require them to have at least 12 teams and a conference championship game, 2) play 9 conference games, and 3) play at least 1 school from another P5 conference, there will be some conference championships that are not equal to another. It will never be absolutely equal because sometimes teams you think will be good are not and sometimes teams you think will be bad will not, but you should at least have a n equal framework.

I know the argument will be that there will be 3 at-large. The reality is that there will be 2 at-large because the non-P5 will need to get a seat at the table for the highest ranked conference champion in order to avoid antitrust issues. The chances are still better to win your conference against 12+ other schools instead of competing against 50 schools for the other 2 playoff spots.
I have to disagree with this. The SEC is not going to be penalized for playing a soft schedule. In fact, there is talk about 2 SEC teams going to the playoffs.

An auto bid eliminates all that nonsense and guarantees the true champ will be settled on the field.

There will probably be a lot more discussion about this after the season.

Picture this, the 4 playoff teams are Alabama, Oregon, TCU, and Florida State.

First game, Florida State beats Alabama by 21 points. Second game, Oregon beats Florida State by 28 points.

Ohio State/Wisconsin/Michigan State fans are going to be pretty vocal about Alabama getting selected over the Big 10 teams.

We just need an auto bid for all 5 conferences, plus 3 at large. Then it can be settled on the field with no bias.

[Ma'ake]

Five P5 autobids protects those conferences. Let's say we somehow win the PAC South and then find a way to beat Oregon at Levi's Stadium. Why should we *NOT* be in the playoff in that scenario? (Same for UCLA, or ASU or USC or UA).


The example of our Fiesta Bowl game vs Pitt isn't really valid, because the Big East is history, and we're down to 5 power conferences.

Then two at-large P5 teams, and a non-P5 team that gets to travel to the #1 seed's home stadium for the first round.


This prevents ridiculous NCs like 1984, and doesn't punish really strong conferences.


As far as I'm concerned, if the Big-12 doesn't feel the need to expand, why force it? They play 9 league games, and then a CCG for them is a rematch. Let them. Otherwise, the pressure will be on to have 5x16, which dilutes the pool, or eliminate the Big-12 and go 4x16, which isn't going to happen. 10 teams is enough for a CCG.


The ACC & SEC addressed the 8 game schedule by requiring teams to play another P5 team.

[sancho]

I have to disagree with this. The SEC is not going to be penalized for playing a soft schedule. In fact, there is talk about 2 SEC teams going to the playoffs.

This is because the SEC has not played a soft schedule. The SEC might get rewarded for playing some of the tougher schedules in the country.



Ohio State/Wisconsin/Michigan State fans are going to be pretty vocal about Alabama getting selected over the Big 10 teams.


They have no leg to stand on. Alabama is a pretty clear #1 right now, and if they beat Auburn and then Georgia, they put distance on the field.

[utefan]

This is because the SEC has not played a soft schedule. The SEC might get rewarded for playing some of the tougher schedules in the country.



They have no leg to stand on. Alabama is a pretty clear #1 right now, and if they beat Auburn and then Georgia, they put distance on the field.
What are you basing the SEC strong schedule and Alabama being a clear cut #1 on? We won't have the real answer to those questions until after the playoffs.

SEC teams we're ranked so high in the preseason so they are considered to have a tough schedule for playing each other, basically.

I'm with the camp that wants to get rid of the speculation and opinion. Let them settle it on the field. Every conference champ should get to the playoffs, and have a few at large bids for the really good teams that don't win their conference.

[sancho]

What are you basing the SEC strong schedule and Alabama being a clear cut #1 on? We won't have the real answer to those questions until after the playoffs.

SEC teams we're ranked so high in the preseason so they are considered to have a tough schedule for playing each other, basically.



I was mostly basing on computer SOS rankings, which don't take any preseason rankings into account. Both computers and media seem to agree that the SEC teams have played pretty tough schedules.

[utefan]

I was mostly basing on computer SOS rankings, which don't take any preseason rankings into account. Both computers and media seem to agree that the SEC teams have played pretty tough schedules.
Well the SEC hasn't really played a lot of tough out of conference games, so they are likely basing that strength of schedule on the "fact" that all the SEC teams are great and they all play each other.

We'll see if that proves to be true when they play some tough out of conference games in the playoffs.

It's a perfect example of why every P5 conference should have an auto bid. We don't really know which conferences are the best until after the best teams from each conference play it out on the field.

[Scratch]

Well the SEC hasn't really played a lot of tough out of conference games, so they are likely basing that strength of schedule on the "fact" that all the SEC teams are great and they all play each other.

We'll see if that proves to be true when they play some tough out of conference games in the playoffs.

It's a perfect example of why every P5 conference should have an auto bid. We don't really know which conferences are the best until after the best teams from each conference play it out on the field.

The SEC has a lot more quality OOC wins than any other conference this year.

[utefan]

The SEC has a lot more quality OOC wins than any other conference this year.
That's just an opinion. Nothing more.

My opinion is the SEC will be exposed when they're forced to play tough out of conference games in the playoffs.

The statements of "fact" that the SEC has played a tough out of conference schedule are a perfect example of why every P5 conference should have an auto bid to the playoffs.

Of all the college football fans out there, I'd think Ute fans should know this better than anyone. Opinions should play no part in determining the champion. Let them settle it on the field.

My opinion is the SEC is over rated, has not played a really tough out of conference schedule, and will be exposed in the playoffs.

It's a good thing we'll get to see it all play out on the field, finally. It's too bad at least one of the P5 conferences will be left out. Hopefully there will be enough outcry from the fans to get the playoff expansion going.

If all the P5 schools send their best and the SEC wins, they proved they were the best. If we're just going on opinions and crowning them as the clear cut #1 when they haven't played anyone, that's basically meaningless.

I personally think Oregon is the clear cut #1. I can't see them losing to anyone, depending on how healthy they are.

[UTEopia]

This is because the SEC has not played a soft schedule. The SEC might get rewarded for playing some of the tougher schedules in the country.


BS: Here is a comparison of the OOC of SEC West and PAC South + Oregon (7 teams each). By scheduling OOC games against only 4 P5 schools, the SEC West has guaranteed themselves an additional 24 wins, meaning that most schools need only win 2 or 3 conference games to become bowl eligible. Four schools: Alabama, Miss. St., Ole Miss and Texas AM played no P5 schools. On the flip side, the PAC South has 14 games against non-P5, meaning they need to win at least 3 or 4 conference games to become bowl eligible. Only Arizona and CU did not play a P5 opponent and USC and UCLA will each play 2.



SEC West: 4 of 28 against P5


Alabama: West Va., Fla. Atl., So. Miss, W.Carolina
Miss. St.: So. Miss., UAB, So. Ala., UT Martin
Ole Miss: Boise St., La. Laf., Memphis, Presyterian
Auburn: SJSU, K.State, La. Tech, Samford
Texas AM: Lamar, Rice, SMU, UL Monroe
LSU: Wisconsin, Sam Houston, UL Monroe, New Mexico St.
Ark.: Nicholls St., Texas Tech, N. Illinois, UAB


PAC South + Oregon: 7 of 21 against P5


USC: Fresno, Boston College, Notre Dame
UCLA: Virginia, Memphis, Texas
ASU: Weber St., New Mexico, Notre Dame
Arizona: UNLV, UTSA, Nevada
Utah: Idaho St., Fresno, Michigan
CU: CSU, Mass, Hawaii
Oregon: So. Dakota, Mich. St., Wyoming

[sancho]

BS: Here is a comparison of the OOC of SEC West and PAC South + Oregon (7 teams each). By scheduling OOC games against only 4 P5 schools, the SEC West has guaranteed themselves an additional 24 wins, meaning that most schools need only win 2 or 3 conference games to become bowl eligible. Four schools: Alabama, Miss. St., Ole Miss and Texas AM played no P5 schools. On the flip side, the PAC South has 14 games against non-P5, meaning they need to win at least 3 or 4 conference games to become bowl eligible. Only Arizona and CU did not play a P5 opponent and USC and UCLA will each play 2.


If we are only talking about OOC schedules, you are probably right. I was talking about SOS for the complete schedule, which I think should matter more than just OOC SOS.

Computers currently rank SEC schedules pretty well, though there will be a bit of a drop after this weekend. The computers are not opinion based or biased towards any particular conference.


Four schools: Alabama, Miss. St., Ole Miss and Texas AM played no P5 schools.

Alabama played West Virginia.

[sancho]

My opinion is the SEC is over rated, has not played a really tough out of conference schedule, and will be exposed in the playoffs.


If Alabama loses a playoff game, does that mean they were overrated? Does that mean their schedule was soft? Three teams will lose playoff games. When it happens, are those teams being exposed as frauds?

[utefan]

If Alabama loses a playoff game, does that mean they were overrated? Does that mean their schedule was soft? Three teams will lose playoff games. When it happens, are those teams being exposed as frauds?

Well it certainly means they weren't the clear cut number 1. And if they aren't the clear cut number 1, then maybe the SEC teams weren't so tough after all. Which means their strength of schedule shouldn't have been rated so high just for playing each other. So then maybe we should not have basically guaranteed the SEC champion an auto bid.

You're basically saying the SEC schedule is so great because they play each other. And you're saying we should just accept that as a fact, even if it means a Big 10 or Big 12, or even Pac 12 team does not get into the playoffs.

I think that is absurd. We should give every P5 champion an auto bid, and have a few at large bids for teams that may suffer an injury and lose a game that they would win 9 out of 10 times.

Let them settle it on the field. I know you keep saying the computers are not opinion based or biased, but there is certainly a flaw in there somewhere. There's no logical reason to say the SEC has played one of the toughest schedules when they've only played each other. They could prove that it was a really tough schedule or a really easy schedule after the playoffs, but we have no way to know for sure either way at this point. They haven't played any really good teams out of conference so all we can do is speculate on what would happen if they did.

[Scratch]

Well it certainly means they weren't the clear cut number 1. And if they aren't the clear cut number 1, then maybe the SEC teams weren't so tough after all. Which means their strength of schedule shouldn't have been rated so high just for playing each other. So then maybe we should not have basically guaranteed the SEC champion an auto bid.

You're basically saying the SEC schedule is so great because they play each other. And you're saying we should just accept that as a fact, even if it means a Big 10 or Big 12, or even Pac 12 team does not get into the playoffs.

I think that is absurd. We should give every P5 champion an auto bid, and have a few at large bids for teams that may suffer an injury and lose a game that they would win 9 out of 10 times.

Let them settle it on the field. I know you keep saying the computers are not opinion based or biased, but there is certainly a flaw in there somewhere. There's no logical reason to say the SEC has played one of the toughest schedules when they've only played each other. They could prove that it was a really tough schedule or a really easy schedule after the playoffs, but we have no way to know for sure either way at this point. They haven't played any really good teams out of conference so all we can do is speculate on what would happen if they did.

Computer rankings don't have the SEC so high for playing each other, they have the SEC high because of OOC success (so that playing each other then means something).

[sancho]

Computer rankings don't have the SEC so high for playing each other, they have the SEC high because of OOC success (so that playing each other then means something).

Yes. It's a pretty limited sample in football, but the SEC beat KState, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. (and pretty much everyone else they played except for Indiana). The computer conference pecking order each year is established with just a handful of cross-conference games.

[utefan]

Yes. It's a pretty limited sample in football, but the SEC beat KState, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. (and pretty much everyone else they played except for Indiana). The computer conference pecking order each year is established with just a handful of cross-conference games.
That doesn't jump out to me as being clear cut number 1. Every conference can point to a couple of big out of conference wins.

So we're saying the SEC is the best conference because of a couple of big out of conference wins. Therefore, the SEC teams playing each other have the toughest schedule, even though most of them, including the so called clear cut number 1, don't have any big out of conference wins.

That's a flawed system. I say we just let them settle it on the field and remove all the speculation.

[FountainOfUte]

Whether we stay at four, or expand to six or eight, what I want to see from our playoff is to see the field made up of the broadest sample possible. If we're at four, I don't think any school is getting "robbed" if the one team that finished ahead of them in their own conference represents their conference. No power conference should get double representation at the cost of TWO power conferences getting NO representation.

To me, the four-team playoff is flawed from the outset knowing that a power conference champion is always going to be left out of it. Because of that, there's a whole swath of the country, a whole group of 10-14 teams that played a near round robin who won't get to see how the best of their bunch hangs with the best from other regions. If you fill half the field with teams from one conference, that doubles the amount of P5 teams having ZERO representation in the playoff. That's lame. With only four spots, I don't think it's too much to ask that the four teams represent the best of their conferences. Will some dang good teams be left out? Yes. I can live with that.

[Ma'ake]

I can understand why they started the playoff at 4 - don't demolish the bowl system, insane travel logistics for multiple large groups of people.

But it simply has to be expanded, and the insanity of having 3+ huge travel games for the top two teams is addressed by having the first round hosted by the top four seeds.

Playoff Teams:
- P5 champ auto bids
- 2-3 at large P5 teams
- 1 (maybe) non-P5 team, if you have an undefeated G5 school, or BYU (cough)

I appreciate the PAC championship game at a neutral site, but realistically, this game may have be scheduled at the conference's top seed (which introduces problems, I know, but the logistics of a neutral site CCG and more than one round of neutral site playoffs gets out of hand.)

The logistics in tens of thousands of people traveling to 2+ "road" games on short notice, in successive weeks, just isn't going to work, except the top 2 teams.

Total Games for top teams
12 game season
CCG at high seed

First round at Top 4 seeds - 8 teams
2nd round at major bowl, rotated to be in the playoff - 4 teams
Championship at major venue - 2 teams

- 16 games total for two teams in the nation. This is pushing it, but is not out of the realm of possibility. Teams have played 15 games multiple times.
- Four teams play 15 games.
- 8-13 teams play 14 games (CCGs + bowl games for the losers)
- 50+ teams play 13 games - seasons + bowl games

If the G5 + BYU wanted to put together their own playoff for an auto-bid, more along the lines of the home-field playoff in FCS, let 'em.

[LuckyUte]

To me, the four-team playoff is flawed from the outset knowing that a power conference champion is always going to be left out of it.

All you have to do is have other conferences raid four teams from the Big-12 and they are at 6 teams and the P5 becomes the P4. Solved

[chrisrenrut]

The race for the 4th playoff spot-

Ohio State- 12-1 with a loss to unranked Va Tech. Ended season with B1G championship by shutting/wiping out #13 Wisconsin 59-0. Currently #5. SOR prior to today- 54

TCU- 12-1 with a loss to #6 Baylor. Ended season loosing tie breaker for the Big-12 championship,with a 53-3 win over unranked 2-10 Iowa St. currently ranked #3. SOR prior to today- 45

Baylor- 12-1 with a loss to unranked WVU. Ended season winning the Big-12 championship through tie-breaker, with an 11 point win over #9 Kansas St. Currently ranked #6. SOR prior to today- 64

I personaly think Ohio St. jumps into the #4 spot, and FSU moves to #3. OSU's loss is the worst of the three, but regency bias is strong, and their win today is the most impressive.

If if that happens, does the Big-12 consider expansion for a championship game more seriously? The whole "one true champion" concept is proven false in the first season of playoffs.

What scenario causes the most amount of uproar and call for playoff expansion?

[sancho]

FSU is probably worse than all three.

I hate giving teams a mulligan on a bad loss. I vote tcu.

If tcu and Baylor are left out, nobody will care all that much. If osu is left out, there will be enough uproar to get an 8 team playoff in place.

If it were Texas and Oklahoma tied in the big 12, osu would have no chance. Name still matters in college football.

If I were the committee, I would say that the four teams (including FSU) are too close to call, and I would draw straws on national tv.

[chrisrenrut]

Playoff selection criteria:

The bolded part is why I feel Ohio State may be in, and Baylor/TCU are out. Apparently, the Big-12 has said they would not submit a champion to the committee, or possibly co-champions.

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/selection-committee-protocol

Selection Process:

Establish a committee that will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength of schedule and head-to-head competition when comparing teams with similar records and pedigree (treat final determination like a tie-breaker; apply specific guidelines).
The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.
When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:


Championships won
Strength of schedule
Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)

[Scratch]

Playoff selection criteria:

The bolded part is why I feel Ohio State may be in, and Baylor/TCU are out. Apparently, the Big-12 has said they would not submit a champion to the committee, or possibly co-champions.

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/selection-committee-protocol

Selection Process:

Establish a committee that will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength of schedule and head-to-head competition when comparing teams with similar records and pedigree (treat final determination like a tie-breaker; apply specific guidelines).
The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.
When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:


Championships won
Strength of schedule
Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)



Except TCU is a champion.

[chrisrenrut]

From what I have read, the Big12 is submitting co-champions to the committee. Art Briles was pretty pissed about it. According to the Big 12 bylaws, the champion is determined by tie breaker first with head-to-head results. So technically, Baylor is the Big 12 champion.

[utefan]

TCU has a head to head loss against Baylor. I think that should eliminate them.

They should not be considered a champion of their conference when another team in their conference has the same record as them and beat them head to head.

They should also not be selected to the playoffs ahead of a team in their own conference that has an identical record to them and beat them in their only head to head meeting.

Ohio State versus Oregon in the Rose Bowl. Book it.

[Solon]

To me, TCU, OHio State, & Baylor were all about the same.
i think the committee was going to cause a storm no matter what. Neither the Big-12 nor the Big-10 was all that good this year. I like the matchups.

[sancho]

To me, TCU, OHio State, & Baylor were all about the same.
i think the committee was going to cause a storm no matter what. Neither the Big-12 nor the Big-10 was all that good this year. I like the matchups.

No one who follows college football should be surprised that they found a way to squeeze out two small programs to make room for an Ohio state.

There is even less of a surprise when you know that Barry Alvarez and Tom Osborne are the two ex coaches on the committee.

One last non surprise - Urban Meyer absolutely wrecked his opponent when style points mattered.

[OrangeUte]

I understand the arguments and don't disagree with putting Ohio State in over TCU and Baylor.

What doesn't make sense to me is how Florida State rose from the number for to the number three spot.

TCU was in ahead of them last week, now TCU drops out because of their "resume". After struggling against Georgia Tech, why move them up to three? Is it simply because you can't argue that Ohio State deserved the three?

[sancho]

I understand the arguments and don't disagree with putting Ohio State in over TCU and Baylor.


It really is a three way tie. But all the old ugly biases of college football are apparent once again:

- Would OSU be in with a normal win over Wisconsin? No. It was the style points that made it happen.

- Would FSU be in with their resume if their name was North Carolina State? No, it was their brand that carried them in.

- Would TCU be out if their name was Texas? Not a chance.

- Would people have been as forgiving of a loss to VaTech if it were someone other than OSU with the loss? No. Remember Oklahoma State vs Iowa State?

- Late games still count for more than early games. OSU had exactly one game all year where they looked scary. It happened to occur yesterday, and that's all that matters. They also had multiple games where they looked pretty ordinary, but those all game in Sept and Oct. Out of sight, out of mind.

[OrangeUte]

It really is a three way tie. But all the old ugly biases of college football are apparent once again:

- Would OSU be in with a normal win over Wisconsin? No. It was the style points that made it happen.

- Would FSU be in with their resume if their name was North Carolina State? No, it was their brand that carried them in.

- Would TCU be out if their name was Texas? Not a chance.

- Would people have been as forgiving of a loss to VaTech if it were someone other than OSU with the loss? No. Remember Oklahoma State vs Iowa State?

- Late games still count for more than early games. OSU had exactly one game all year where they looked scary. It happened to occur yesterday, and that's all that matters. They also had multiple games where they looked pretty ordinary, but those all game in Sept and Oct. Out of sight, out of mind.

Very well said

[SoCalPat]

The committee totally got it right with Ohio State. Outright conference champions, totally smashed a top 15 team to win conference in epic fashion. Much tougher non-conference schedule. Down to third string QB. Not really up for debate.

What was the difference between TCU last week and TCU this week? They became a co-champion instead of an outright champion, and the committee finally brought HTH into the equation, which was their right. Ditto for Baylor. They cannibalized each other and left the door ajar for Ohio State. Case closed.

[concerned]

What was the difference between TCU last week and TCU this week? They became a co-champion instead of an outright champion, and the committee finally brought HTH into the equation, which was their right. Ditto for Baylor. They cannibalized each other and left the door ajar for Ohio State. Case closed.

By beating Kansas State, Baylor made its victory over TCU the tiebreaker in its ranking over TCU. Not much consolation however.

[Solon]

The committee totally got it right with Ohio State. Outright conference champions, totally smashed a top 15 team to win conference in epic fashion. Much tougher non-conference schedule. Down to third string QB. Not really up for debate.

What was the difference between TCU last week and TCU this week? They became a co-champion instead of an outright champion, and the committee finally brought HTH into the equation, which was their right. Ditto for Baylor. They cannibalized each other and left the door ajar for Ohio State. Case closed.

So, who's the best of the four?
i think Oregon can score on anyone. OSU is the weakest, if only because of the QB situation.
FSU looked pretty fast last night. Alabama is a more deliberate monster.
all of these teams will give up points.

[sancho]

So, who's the best of the four?
i think Oregon can score on anyone. OSU is the weakest, if only because of the QB situation.
FSU looked pretty fast last night. Alabama is a more deliberate monster.
all of these teams will give up points.

Vegas has both Oregon and Bama as big favorites (-8) in their first round games. FSU would have been +8 underdogs to any of the other teams or TCU/Baylor.

[UTEopia]

I am against an 8 team playoff. I would prefer a 6 team playoff with the conference champion from each of the Big5 and the highest rated conference champion from the other 5. A committee would seed the teams 1-6. Teams 1 and 2 would get byes. Teams 3 and 4 would host teams 5 and 6. I think going to 8 and having at-large teams would result in the same type of angst and problems that the 4 team playoff generates. It would make every conference championship game the first round of the playoffs.

[utefan]

I am against an 8 team playoff. I would prefer a 6 team playoff with the conference champion from each of the Big5 and the highest rated conference champion from the other 5. A committee would seed the teams 1-6. Teams 1 and 2 would get byes. Teams 3 and 4 would host teams 5 and 6. I think going to 8 and having at-large teams would result in the same type of angst and problems that the 4 team playoff generates. It would make every conference championship game the first round of the playoffs.

How would the conference championship game become the first round of the playoffs when there are 3 at large bids?

[Mormon Red Death]

How would the conference championship game become the first round of the playoffs when there are 3 at large bids?

See the first post in this thread.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[utefan]

See the first post in this thread.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2
So without going back and reading that first post, are you suggesting that the teams who lose a conference championship game would never be allowed to get an at large bid?

I don't think that's realistic. If there are at large bids going to teams that did not win their conference, then the conference runner up would presumably be the most qualified in a lot of cases.

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me that 3 at large bids would go to teams who finished in 3rd place in their conferences, while passing up the teams that finished in 2nd place. It would make sense to do that in some instances, but more of an exception than a rule.

[Mormon Red Death]

This thread is for all news and rumors surrounding college football playoff expansion.

So as I was driving this afternoon and I happened on Jack Arute and Rick Neuheisel (they have a radio show on sirius). Arute predicted that by the third 4-team playoff championship game we will have press conference to move it 8 teams. Hallelujah. IMO the best way to do that is the following:

1. Conference Champs from the B1G, PAC12, ACC and SEC get AutoBids (
2. Big12 plays the highest ranked Non p5 team (or ND) for an autobid. Higher BCS ranked team gets home field advantage.
3. 6 Highest BCS ranked teams that are not in Conf Champ game play for 3 at large spots. Home teams are the ones with highest rankings (1vs6,2v5,3v4) (losers still go to bowl games)
4. Next weekend teams are seeded by BCS rank and 1 plays 8, 2 v 7 etc.. Higher seed (Losers still go to bowl games)
5. Christmas Day Semifinal is played
6. New Years Day Final is played

- This solves a lot of problems
A. Every Team would play the same amount of games
B. Instead of 7 games to sell media rights to they would have 10 games (the 11th game Media rights (Big12vNonP5) could be split with the home team getting 75% of the tv revenue).
C. Half of the playoff revenue is split between all DIV1 teams. The other half uses the Unit system they use for the NCAA bball tourney to divide out $
D. Bowls still happen Even if you are elite 8 you get one more game.
The first post in the thread


Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[chrisrenrut]

How would the conference championship game become the first round of the playoffs when there are 3 at large bids?

If there were only 6 teams in the playoffs as UTEopia mentioned, then there are no at large bids. Each participant is a conference champion, and each conference championship acts as the first round of playoffs. I like the idea.

[utefan]

If there were only 6 teams in the playoffs as UTEopia mentioned, then there are no at large bids. Each participant is a conference champion, and each conference championship acts as the first round of playoffs. I like the idea.
Ahhhhh, okay. Well that makes sense. I like it too. But I also like the idea of all the conference champions plus a few at large. Either is better than the "somebody is guaranteed to be left out" system currently in place.

[LA Ute]

College football conference title game restrictions to be relaxed by 2016 (http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/dennis-dodd/25139160/big-12-acc-conference-championship-game-restrictions-to-be-relaxed-by-2016)Dennis Dodd says there's a revision coming, effective in 2016, to the NCAA rules requiring a league to have at least 12 teams in order to play a conference title game. It would allow a 10-league team to have such a game. This is interesting. Would we have gotten into the PAC-12 without that rule? Will BYU ever get added to a P5 conference now?

[Mormon Red Death]

College football conference title game restrictions to be relaxed by 2016 (http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/dennis-dodd/25139160/big-12-acc-conference-championship-game-restrictions-to-be-relaxed-by-2016)

Dennis Dodd says there's a revision coming, effective in 2016, to the NCAA rules requiring a league to have at least 12 teams in order to play a conference title game. It would allow a 10-league team to have such a game. This is interesting. Would we have gotten into the PAC-12 without that rule? Will BYU ever get added to a P5 conference now?
Yes (We would have taken Texas A&M or Mizzou's spot). No especially considering this tweet:

https://twitter.com/espn960sports/status/585569543008956416


"Holmoe said that BYU has exhausted their contacts about joining the Big 12 as both a full &football only-member but no one was interested."

[LA Ute]

Yes (We would have taken Texas A&M or Mizzou's spot).

I thought wanted to expand because he needed 12 teams to have a championship game.

Speaking of that, I think if this passes the PAC-12 would be free to eliminate football divisions and play the top two teams in a championship game.

[Mormon Red Death]

I thought wanted to expand because he needed 12 teams to have a championship game.

Speaking of that, I think if this passes the PAC-12 would be free to eliminate football divisions and play the top two teams in a championship game.

big 12 lost 4 teams (nebraska, colorado, TAMU & Mizzou). they replaced 2 of them (tcu & west va) We would have been first on the list.

[LA Ute]

big 12 lost 4 teams (nebraska, colorado, TAMU & Mizzou). they replaced 2 of them (tcu & west va) We would have been first on the list.

Got it. I didn't realize you were talking about us joining the Big 12 instead of the PAC.

[Scratch]

I suspect that once this goes through the P12 will eliminate divisions and go with pods (NW, CA, and AZ/Rockies) where you play the other 3 teams in your pod every year and 3 of the 4 teams in the other pods every year. The NW teams will want to get on equal footing with the others for SoCal trips.

[sancho]

I suspect that once this goes through the P12 will eliminate divisions and go with pods (NW, CA, and AZ/Rockies) where you play the other 3 teams in your pod every year and 3 of the 4 teams in the other pods every year. The NW teams will want to get on equal footing with the others for SoCal trips.

Maybe someday, instead of chants of "S-E-C" and "Pac-12", we'll hear "Mountain Pod! Mountain Pod!"

[LA Ute]

I suspect that once this goes through the P12 will eliminate divisions and go with pods (NW, CA, and AZ/Rockies) where you play the other 3 teams in your pod every year and 3 of the 4 teams in the other pods every year. The NW teams will want to get on equal footing with the others for SoCal trips.

That'd be OK with me. (I know you were all wondering what I thought about this.)

[jrj84105]

This will likely facilitate PAC expansion as well. Texas/Oklahoma didn't want to be in a division with the Mountain schools while playing USC every 4 years. A PAC16 shedule would now likely consist of 3 games in pod plus two games (home and away) versus each other pod. Essentially, play podmates annually and everyone else semiannually with every team playing in your stadium within a 4 year cycle.

[sancho]

This will likely facilitate PAC expansion as well. Texas/Oklahoma didn't want to be in a division with the Mountain schools while playing USC every 4 years. A PAC16 shedule would now likely consist of 3 games in pod plus two games (home and away) versus each other pod. Essentially, play podmates annually and everyone else semiannually with every team playing in your stadium within a 4 year cycle.

Is it too early for me to campaign for Kansas instead of Texas Tech, Baylor, or Okie State?

[jrj84105]

Is it too early for me to campaign for Kansas instead of Texas Tech, Baylor, or Okie State?

If I had to choose, it would be Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Rice (that $5.5 Billion endowment makes Rice a sleeping giant- a potential Lonestar version of Stanford).

[sancho]

Rice (that $5.5 Billion endowment makes Rice a sleeping giant- a potential Lonestar version of Stanford).

Right. Along with Northwestern, Tulane, Vanderbilt, and every other smart school.

[sancho]

Maybe someday, instead of chants of "S-E-C" and "Pac-12", we'll hear "Mountain Pod! Mountain Pod!"

I'm rooting for Arizona State because it's good for the Mountain Pod.

[Sullyute]

big 12 lost 4 teams (nebraska, colorado, TAMU & Mizzou). they replaced 2 of them (tcu & west va) We would have been first on the list.

We will never know, but if the PAC 12 didn't need to expand then Colorado never goes anywhere. So they only need one team. You don't think they go after TCU first, in their own back yard, instead coming all the way to Utah?

[sancho]

You don't think they go after TCU first, in their own back yard, instead coming all the way to Utah?

I think, with CU still there and Nebraska gone, Utah would have made sense as a travel partner and a market.

TCU was more of a function of them looking around and not liking their other options. If they could go back and do it again, they would have passed on TCU in favor of Louisville or Pitt.

It's also hard to remember this now because the Big12 is in such good shape, but there was a year where people were thinking the Big12 could not possibly survive. When they offered West Va and TCU, they were thinking survival more than anything else.

[Mormon Red Death]

Condi says 4 teams is good enough for the playoff (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12698084/condoleezza-rice-pac-12-commissioner-larry-scott-say-four-right-number-college-football-playoff).


It was a rare opportunity to hear the former secretary of state speak about her first season as a committee member. Rice called it "one of the best committees I've ever served on." She said she would watch football from 9 a.m. PT on Saturday until around midnight. - That is committee I would love to be on.

I of course respectfully disagree with Miz Rice. I think 11 teams would be optimal. 5 big conf champ winners and 6 wild card teams that play for the 3 remaining spots on conf championship weekend would be amazing and a giant cash cow.

[Scratch]

Condi says 4 teams is good enough for the playoff (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12698084/condoleezza-rice-pac-12-commissioner-larry-scott-say-four-right-number-college-football-playoff).

- That is committee I would love to be on.

I of course respectfully disagree with Miz Rice. I think 11 teams would be optimal. 5 big conf champ winners and 6 wild card teams that play for the 3 remaining spots on conf championship weekend would be amazing and a giant cash cow.

The problem with that is it excludes Power 5 runners-up from the playoff, which doesn't make any sense because those teams are regularly going to be top 11 teams.

[SoCalPat]

Condi says 4 teams is good enough for the playoff (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12698084/condoleezza-rice-pac-12-commissioner-larry-scott-say-four-right-number-college-football-playoff).

- That is committee I would love to be on.

I of course respectfully disagree with Miz Rice. I think 11 teams would be optimal. 5 big conf champ winners and 6 wild card teams that play for the 3 remaining spots on conf championship weekend would be amazing and a giant cash cow.

Anything more than 8 is unwieldy, unsatisfying and lessens the importance of the regular season by diminishing the significance of losses. It opens the door for 3-loss teams to claim a national title. I prefer 6.

[sancho]

Anything more than 8 is unwieldy, unsatisfying and lessens the importance of the regular season by diminishing the significance of losses. It opens the door for 3-loss teams to claim a national title. I prefer 6.

I'm not a fan of byes when so little separates #1-2 from #3-6.

I was pretty happy with 4 last year, even if they botched the selection. I think 8 would be great, too.

[jrj84105]

I like 4 best. The whole premise of one of the power 5 conferences being eliminated from the playoff makes strength of schedule the key factor in deciding the participants. Strength of schedule as the decider places the greatest amount of importance on every single game possible. Does anybody care about Cal versus NW if the possibility of the B1G or PAC being left out doesn't exist? Autobids for each P5 champ would kill OOC scheduling. If you're going to expand the playoffs (and increase the P5's share of the revenue which is an essential feature) the best way is to eliminate conference championships and go straight into the playoffs. With new rules relaxing division play, it's possible.

Autobids (1 for every 4-5 team P5 group):
PAC NW
PAC Cali
PAC SW

BigXII North
BigXII South

B1G Atlantic
B1G Central
B1G West

SEC Appalacia
SEC Gulf
SEC West

ACC NE
ACC Central
ACC South

At Large: 2

Seed them up and have a 16 team tournament. SEC versus PAC in round 1 will generate way more viewers and revenues than a conference CCG for either conference.

[Mormon Red Death]

The problem with that is it excludes Power 5 runners-up from the playoff, which doesn't make any sense because those teams are regularly going to be top 11 teams.

really good Power 5 runner ups that arent in the champ game (Ie same division) would be in one of the 3 play in wild card games.

[Mormon Red Death]

Anything more than 8 is unwieldy, unsatisfying and lessens the importance of the regular season by diminishing the significance of losses. It opens the door for 3-loss teams to claim a national title. I prefer 6.

I just prefer more top notch football which is what we would get with 3 play in wild card games. Yes you could have a 3 loss team be the champion. That 3 loss team would also win 13 games with their last 4 wins on the road against top competition.

[Mormon Red Death]

If my preferred method of playoff happened this year.

Conf Champ Weekend
FSU vs GATech
Ohio St vs Wisconsin
Bama vs Missouri
Oregon vs Ariz
Baylor vs TCU

Wild Card Play in
UCLA @ Miss st
GA @ Mich St
K State @ Ole Miss

Winners are seeded by the committee and play the next week at the higher seed with the losers still going to bowl games.
Top 4 play out how the current system works.

All the conf champ games are playing for something and we don't penalize conference for having good teams in the same division.

[Scratch]

really good Power 5 runner ups that arent in the champ game (Ie same division) would be in one of the 3 play in wild card games.

So what happens if, for example, USC finishes the regular season (pre-CCG) ranked #2 and Oregon finishes ranked #4. You're going to have an 11-team playoff without one of those 2 teams?

[Mormon Red Death]

So what happens if, for example, USC finishes the regular season (pre-CCG) ranked #2 and Oregon finishes ranked #4. You're going to have an 11-team playoff without one of those 2 teams?

If that happened now and the #2 USC lost they wouldn't be in the play off. No system is perfect. Whoever won that year would have least proved it on the field. Isn't that what we have always wanted?

[mUUser]

12 teams. 1-4 get a bye. 5-8 gets a home game vs 9-12. Reshuffle -- 1-4 gets a home game vs winners of first round. Final four go bowling. This makes the regular season crucial for both the rest, and the home field advantage.

[Mormon Red Death]

Since it is the offseason. Playoff expansion is coming.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25178382/pressure-mounting-for-college-football-playoff-system-to-go-to-eight-teams

[Mormon Red Death]

https://twitter.com/espn700bill/status/1072910219812851712?s=19

[Mormon Red Death]

Had my plan been in affect then the conference champ weekend would have been

Ga v bama
Ok v texas
Clemson v pitt
Ohio st v northwestern
Utah v wash

Penn st @ ND
Lsu @ michigan
Florida @ ucf