If we're going to expand, why not do top 6-8 straight up?

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

I am just curious on the contradictory nature of people's thinking.

If you support 6 or 8 teams, just have the committee pick the teams and their seeding order.

I don't understand why we need to argue that an 8-5 Wisconsin team, 11-2 Florida State team, or 10-3 Washington should get in, if they failed to make the top 6 or 8.

We do have bowls, which reward teams for winning a magical conference. These are a substitute for a college hoops or FCS playoff bracket.

You could argue that the polls are biased and can't be trusted, but then again, you're advocating for using the humans to pick the teams. It seems rather contradictory.

 

[Diego Roll Tide]

No one needs humans other than setting up what we already have.

P5 champs we in. Remaining unbeatens are in. At large can be based on the highest remaining rankings in the Massey Composite (which aggregates the 80+
rankings out there).

No committee necessary, and every team has a pathway to the playoff.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I am just curious on the contradictory nature of people's thinking.

If you support 6 or 8 teams, just have the committee pick the teams and their seeding order.

I don't understand why we need to argue that an 8-5 Wisconsin team, 11-2 Florida State team, or 10-3 Washington should get in, if they failed to make the top 6 or 8.

We do have bowls, which reward teams for winning a magical conference. These are a substitute for a college hoops or FCS playoff bracket.

You could argue that the polls are biased and can't be trusted, but then again, you're advocating for using the humans to pick the teams. It seems rather contradictory.

Because I hate people voting on who makes it in. If people are making guesses at the top 8, or top 6, there will always be controversy. The biggest way to remove controversy is removing the guessing work. Conference champs, in. And either 1 or 3 at-large bids.

 

[outofyourmind]

If they took the P5 champs this year, can you imagine the interest in the PAC and BIG CCG's.

It would be huge.

 

[gob]

I think having auto conference champs get in will improve scheduling. Teams are so nervous to get an extra loss that they schedule 1 good OOC game (sometimes you get two, sometimes none). If you're a team like OSU, Oklahoma, Bama, etc why not schedule 2 good OOC games if you're guaranteed to get in if you win your conference? Those games help prepare you for your conference slate.

 

[gob]

If conferences are too nervous about their top team getting upset in the CCG by a scrub, change the way you determine conference champs.

 

[7Samurai13]

Because I hate people voting on who makes it in. If people are making guesses at the top 8, or top 6, there will always be controversy. The biggest way to remove controversy is removing the guessing work. Conference champs, in. And either 1 or 3 at-large bids.

But who selects the at-large bids?

 

[WizardHawk]

I am just curious on the contradictory nature of people's thinking.

If you support 6 or 8 teams, just have the committee pick the teams and their seeding order.

I don't understand why we need to argue that an 8-5 Wisconsin team, 11-2 Florida State team, or 10-3 Washington should get in, if they failed to make the top 6 or 8.

We do have bowls, which reward teams for winning a magical conference. These are a substitute for a college hoops or FCS playoff bracket.

You could argue that the polls are biased and can't be trusted, but then again, you're advocating for using the humans to pick the teams. It seems rather contradictory.

Not an original thought here. Several of us have said this for some time now.

When robot was going on with a 6 team auto bid format I showed that using the committee's top 6 since the playoffs formed would have given 22 of the same 24 as that format and doesn't come with any of the same negatives.

Im happy at 4, but if change has to come use the committee to expand.

 

[rmilia1]

I'm for conference champs but only if you get rid of divisions. If you keep divisions there needs to be a minimum requirement fir getting a playoff berth ( like you can get in as a conference champ but only if you are too 12 in the rankings ). No one wants to see 9-4 NW in the playoff ( for example )

 

[MarineG8R]

If conferences are too nervous about their top team getting upset in the CCG by a scrub, change the way you determine conference champs.

Get rid of divisions and go round robin. Conferences will need to trim some fat though, soo not gonna happen that way.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

But who selects the at-large bids?

Those would have to be voted. Keeping it to a minimum is ideal. There is no perfect solution in the format we're currently using (five P5 conferences and five G5 conferences). It's actually horrible. Ideally, it would be 4 P5 conferences, each play a title game between two divisions and the winners go to a 4 team playoff. Easy. Uncontroversial.

 

[Deep Creek]

Because I hate people voting on who makes it in. If people are making guesses at the top 8, or top 6, there will always be controversy. The biggest way to remove controversy is removing the guessing work. Conference champs, in. And either 1 or 3 at-large bids.

I totally hear ya. But there are a lot...and I mean a lot... of your fellow blue blood brethren that think polls are divine and are beyond reproach. They believe there is no way bias can enter into such.

 

[Deep Creek]

I'm for conference champs but only if you get rid of divisions. If you keep divisions there needs to be a minimum requirement fir getting a playoff berth ( like you can get in as a conference champ but only if you are too 12 in the rankings ). No one wants to see 9-4 NW in the playoff ( for example )

Just for the sake of playing devil's advocate here milia, (because I wouldn't want to see it either) what's the harm if a 9-4 NW gets into the playoffs? They'll get their asses handed to them in the first rounds just like others have in the first four years of the playoffs. If Northwestern happens to win the first round playoff game....

 

[rmilia1]

Just for the sake of playing devil's advocate here milia, (because I wouldn't want to see it either) what's the harm if a 9-4 NW gets into the playoffs? They'll get their asses handed to them in the first rounds just like others have in the first four years of the playoffs. If Northwestern happens to win the first round playoff game....

Personally it wouldn't bother me BUT the "purists" would yell and scream and say "this is why you shouldn't expand "

 

[BamaFanAlways]

I think having auto conference champs get in will improve scheduling. Teams are so nervous to get an extra loss that they schedule 1 good OOC game (sometimes you get two, sometimes none). If you're a team like OSU, Oklahoma, Bama, etc why not schedule 2 good OOC games if you're guaranteed to get in if you win your conference? Those games help prepare you for your conference slate.

I disagree with this completely. If all you have to do is win your conference, you will schedule patsies the rest of the time to rest for your conference schedule. THOSE are the game you have to win. Who wants to get beat up playing top ten teams when you can play cupcakes and save your starters for the IMPORTANT games?
Auto bids will ensure that OOC goes to hell in a hand-basket.

 

[wazzu31]

I'm for conference champs but only if you get rid of divisions. If you keep divisions there needs to be a minimum requirement fir getting a playoff berth ( like you can get in as a conference champ but only if you are too 12 in the rankings ). No one wants to see 9-4 NW in the playoff ( for example )

I suppose but you could say the same for the Giants twice, the Steelers and Ravens didn’t deserve to be in the playoffs with their seasons yet went on to win the Super Bowl.

 

[rmilia1]

If you want great OOC games you need to expand to 12-16. The reason you get more great ooc games in CBB than you do CFB is because teams know it's ok to lose a game or 2 because you'll still make the tourney as long as you schedule well and win a few of the big games .

Going to 6-8 with autobids just is not providing enough impetus to schedule better .

 

[rmilia1]

I suppose but you could say the same for the Giants twice, the Steelers and Ravens didn’t deserve to be in the playoffs with their seasons yet went on to win the Super Bowl.

Sure . I'm for 16 personally as I think you'd get much better ooc games and you could do autobids AND still guarantee getting every team in who has even a slight argument but I'm just telling you what the narrative would be from those who oppose expansion

 

[Diego Roll Tide]

Just for the sake of playing devil's advocate here milia, (because I wouldn't want to see it either) what's the harm if a 9-4 NW gets into the playoffs? They'll get their asses handed to them in the first rounds just like others have in the first four years of the playoffs. If Northwestern happens to win the first round playoff game....

No harm at all.

If you have autobids plus a few at large, most everyone will be happy.

 

[Hang_On_Sloopy08]

I think having auto conference champs get in will improve scheduling. Teams are so nervous to get an extra loss that they schedule 1 good OOC game (sometimes you get two, sometimes none). If you're a team like OSU, Oklahoma, Bama, etc why not schedule 2 good OOC games if you're guaranteed to get in if you win your conference? Those games help prepare you for your conference slate.

Not only that, if you lose your conference but have two good OOC wins, it might boost your resume to get an at-large bid. It would definitely encourage tougher scheduling as it would potentially reward you versus now hurting you if you lose.