Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

On the face of it that makes 100% sense, but there is also a major drawback. This is going to eliminate championship quality teams in the big 10 and SEC and elevate teams like ND and the other P4 conferences. Why should the SEC have a playoff, while ND sits back with a bowl of popcorn and watches? Perhaps the simplest answer is that there should be no automatic bids for conferences champions. Given the unbalanced schedules we cannot even guarantee the 2 best teams will play for the conference championship (this year the committee says 50% of the P4 will match the 2 best teams in the conference). This is not like 20-30 years ago when everyone played each other. We have diluted conference championships. 

What it boils down to me is I really wish we wouldn't keep overthinking this, posts like @El Hornarino's are just doing the thing where we keep treating FBS college football postseason as if it's some kind of special snowflake that needs a unique format. I'll keep saying it, but for the umpteenth time it just needs to be a normal playoff format like every other sport.

It would be great, no teams that are considered championship caliber would ever be left out, and everyone would get to prove it on the field. Automatic bids are fine as long as they don't push out deserving teams or teams that are obviously strong enough to compete.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

What it boils down to me is I really wish we wouldn't keep overthinking this, posts like @El Hornarino's are just doing the thing where we keep treating FBS college football postseason as if it's some kind of special snowflake that needs a unique format. I'll keep saying it, but for the umpteenth time it just needs to be a normal playoff format like every other sport.

It would be great, no teams that are considered championship caliber would ever be left out, and everyone would get to prove it on the field. Automatic bids are fine as long as they don't push out deserving teams or teams that are obviously strong enough to compete.

College football is a bit different than other sports. Most sports have conferences where every team play each other and, in many cases, it is a home and home. In that world the conference championship is decided on the field. There is a lot more luck and nuance in CFB

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Codaxx said:

College football is a bit different than other sports. Most sports have conferences where every team play each other and, in many cases, it is a home and home. In that world the conference championship is decided on the field. There is a lot more luck and nuance in CFB

That doesn't really matter nor does it mean we need a condensed, weird playoff format headed by a committee like we have now. 24 team playoff, 8 byes, top 20 or whatever automatically get in and you have some play-ins for the rest. It's not that complicated and doesn't need to be.

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

That doesn't really matter nor does it mean we need a condensed, weird playoff format headed by a committee like we have now. 24 team playoff, 8 byes, top 20 or whatever automatically get in and you have some play-ins for the rest. It's not that complicated and doesn't need to be.

I wasnt complicating anything. I just said get rid of any guaranteed spots. That seems pretty simple to me, just end the athletic DEI nonsense

Edited by Codaxx
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

8 teams. All at large. Cancel CCG unless there are divisions and for those make championship weekend tournament style matchups for 1-2 3-4 5-6 etc for a competitive conference game to end the season. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
59 minutes ago, El Hornarino said:

P4 championships in the second round, after the first At Large round.  Could plausibly seed the conferences for quality and swap them around the bracket depending on the year.  But generally G5 champs and random independent freeloaders can compete for At Large spots along with whatever power teams are not in conference championship games.

toobigplayoff.png

I don't see ND in here ;)

Posted
29 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

On the face of it that makes 100% sense, but there is also a major drawback. This is going to eliminate championship quality teams in the big 10 and SEC and elevate teams like ND and the other P4 conferences. Why should the SEC have a playoff, while ND sits back with a bowl of popcorn and watches? Perhaps the simplest answer is that there should be no automatic bids for conferences champions. Given the unbalanced schedules we cannot even guarantee the 2 best teams will play for the conference championship (this year the committee says 50% of the P4 will match the 2 best teams in the conference). This is not like 20-30 years ago when everyone played each other. We have diluted conference championships. 

I don't care if Notre Dame is excluded while they are an independent.  They can be crowned AP champ if they want.

As far as conference tournaments, there is little difference between SEC and B1G teams eliminating themselves against conference foes or against other random teams.  Single elimination post season is never going to guarantee the "strongest" team is the last one standing anyway.

Actually the fun thing is that the probability the best team wins the tournament drops as the number of played games increases anyway, so expanding the field and number of rounds isn't really about finding the "best" team.  It's just about filling tv time with fun games.

Posted
18 minutes ago, immamac said:

8 teams. All at large. Cancel CCG unless there are divisions and for those make championship weekend tournament style matchups for 1-2 3-4 5-6 etc for a competitive conference game to end the season. 

This.  Shrinking the playoff might actually breathe some life back into bowl games as well.

And let computers choose the top 8.  Drop the human element or have the criteria strictly spelled out.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

My preferred way is whatever way gets Texas in, with the details subject to change each season depending on how that individual season went for us.  

Posted

I saw a reel come across my feed yesterday where some guy applied point value for wins and losses and came up with a season total.

I can’t find the link but his formula was something like this:

+50 pts - non top25 win 
+100 - top25 win
+25 - top10 win
+10 - top5 win

-100 - non top25 loss
-50 - top25 loss
-35 - top10 loss
-25 - top5 loss

Top25 rankings were based on current end of season rankings, not time of game rankings

Add up team totals and seed a playoff accordingly

Posted

I don't mind if they shrink the playoff, or let an algorithm decide.

But which system(s) does one use?  It isn't like they all spit out the same top 8.  And even if you aggregate a few, you don't want to pollute it with one or more junk rankings.

How much should MOV matter?

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, BluTechsan said:

I saw a reel come across my feed yesterday where some guy applied point value for wins and losses and came up with a season total.

I can’t find the link but his formula was something like this:

+50 pts - non top25 win 
+100 - top25 win
+25 - top10 win
+10 - top5 win

-100 - non top25 loss
-50 - top25 loss
-35 - top10 loss
-25 - top5 loss

Top25 rankings were based on current end of season rankings, not time of game rankings

Add up team totals and seed a playoff accordingly

Apologies for quoting myself but here’s Tech’s season total:

50 Ark PB 
50 Kent St
50 Oregon St
100 Utah (15)
100 Houston (21)
50 Kansas 
-100 Az St
50 Ok St
50 K St
100 BYU (11) (should be 10)
50 UCF
50 WV
______

600

Edited by BluTechsan
Posted
1 hour ago, El Hornarino said:

P4 championships in the second round, after the first At Large round.  Could plausibly seed the conferences for quality and swap them around the bracket depending on the year.  But generally G5 champs and random independent freeloaders can compete for At Large spots along with whatever power teams are not in conference championship games.

toobigplayoff.png

this looks beautiful... and it only takes 5 rounds...  but the CCG losers are out and the b1g and sec won't go for that

Posted
2 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

this looks beautiful... and it only takes 5 rounds...  but the CCG losers are out and the b1g and sec won't go for that

Yeah, CCG loser need a way back into the bracket vs the at-large teams

Posted

Its a fun problem to think about. I've always preferred a regional model that filters up into other nearby regions. I'm extremely happy with being in the SEC and playing OU, A&M, and Arkansas. However, in my dream scenario, we would also play LSU, TCU, Texas Tech, and SMU. Thats mostly due to my personal network of family and friends, my favorite part of cfb is the shit talking and bragging rights. In this scenario I think we would filter up into playing against the rest of the SEC in the first regional round of a larger playoff. 

Posted

Funny thing is, any level of football I have been involved with or watched has always struggled with the issue of unequal strength of schedules and the bitching that one school/team has faced a more difficult regular season schedule and another has benefitted from an easier schedule argument.

No league and level of sport does more to try to mitigate levels of competition be it through the draft process, hard salary cap, and weighted scheduling than the NFL and yet we still see the same arguments. Not to the same extreme as at the lower levels, but it is always going to be there so whatever system you employ stop trying to address this issue.

No one forced the SEC to load up on teams, they did it because of money and the perceived advantages and yet this time of year we hear the argument about how difficult it is playing in the SEC.  Deal with it.  

No guaranteed bids outside of conference winners simply because if you don't then why play the regular season.  

I do like the FCS model of playing most of the games on campus to award the better teams and truthfully I think any number outside of 16 is too many rounds.  

Whatever model is developed should only be implemented if there is no committee and there is no weekly fucking show that talks about the hypothetical rankings that really don't matter.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

The problem with the current format is there are too many AQs for only 12 spots. If you want that many then you need to expand. 

Just use the same AQ model and expand to 24-team format like FCS. 

Everyone will still bitch about the 24th team just like they do the 68th in the basketball tournament, but at least you don't have too many shitty teams blocking more worthy P4 teams.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, The Dog said:

The problem with the current format is there are too many AQs for only 12 spots. If you want that many then you need to expand. 

Just use the same AQ model and expand to 24-team format like FCS. 

Everyone will still bitch about the 24th team just like they do the 68th in the basketball tournament, but at least you don't have too many shitty teams blocking more worthy P4 teams.

Yep. Every conference champ gets in and you still have 14 at large slots (after Pac-12 starts again next year). First two rounds on campus. 

No I don't care if bowls die. 

Edited by Huckleberry
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, BluTechsan said:

Yeah, CCG loser need a way back into the bracket vs the at-large teams

 

and i have a way to do that in 5 rounds with a system that takes account of all of the weirdness that's evolved since 1978

copypasta from wulaw/9-3

+++

below is the new australian Final 10 system which debuts next year

in the case of the cfp, it would become a Final 16 system - double the bracket - it takes 5 rounds of games and requires KILLING THE BOWLS

the committee still seeds the field, but there is the possibility of a double-chance for the seeded top 8

 

also, there is a new domer (& uconn) rule: they can't play in a qualifying final and they can't host in the first round - they can be seeded no higher than 9th after "championship saturday"

just like this year where 2 teams are going to automatically 'move up' to 11 & 12 on sunday, undefeated and #1 domer automatically moves down to #9 for final seeding

 

the first week labeled "wildcard" would be all of the CCGs ++PLUS++ 8 'wildcard' play-in games in each p4 league where 3 hosts 6 and 4 hosts 5

3/4/5/6 winners ARE NOT guaranteed a spot in the 16-team field but can make their case with the extra data point

P4 CCG winners get to host a Qualifying Final with the opportunity to WIN against another top 8 seed and EARN a bye the following week & the losers of these games (1/8 2/7 3/6 4/5) are not out - the aussies call this "the double chance"

it is therefore possible for a CCG loser to win away from home playing a CCG winner, and if the CCG lower wins the 1st round game on a CCG winner's camput, the CCG loser advances AND earns a bye, while the CCG winner that lost it's 1st round game at home IS STILL ALIVE

this INCREASES the value of the CCG results but DOES NOT penalize the outcome for CCG losers

i've never seen a system proposed that does both of these... 

rephrased....

***ONLY*** the CCG winners and 4 other teams (seeded 5/6/7/8) get the double chance - a CCG loser could get a double chance - a CCG loser could also be seeded 9-16 and a non-CCG participant could be seeded 5/6/7/8 and get the double chance

NOTE that only the winner of 4 of the 8 games in the first round earn a bye and get to skip a week - the loser of 4 of the first 8 games eliminated

 

seeding:

 week 1: the Qualifying and Elimination Finals with the 16-team field, no guarantees beyond the P4 CCG winners and losers (8 teams) getting in

P4 CCG losers get seeded with the rest of the field - a conference play-in 3/4/5/6 winner might nab one of the qualifying finals and play away with a double chance, or they might be seeded 9/10/11/12 and host a playoff game but if they lose they are out

the 3/4/5/6 'championship saturday' winners might get in to the field - but they might not - although a 3/4/5/6 winner is likely to get in

8 ccg winners/losers and 6 of 8 winners from the 3/4/5/6 'playoffs' would leave 2 slots reserved for the G5 and/or domer in the final 16

there would be 12 games on championship saturday - it would be like new year's day in the 20th century

 

this system gives 24 teams meaningful december football, and 14-16 of them are going to be playing in round 1

KILL THE BOWLS

it's no longer the "Football Bowl Subdivision"

 

remember - double this graphic - and the 'wildcard' round is the 3/6 and 4/5 intra-conference final data-point games on championship saturday - and the ccg games are themselves not shown either - the wildcard round is 'championship saturday'

 

image.png.4e5c00fe140225bb2fe568b81fa0da6b.png

Edited by Hagbard Celine
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, The Dog said:

The problem with the current format is there are too many AQs for only 12 spots. If you want that many then you need to expand. 

Just use the same AQ model and expand to 24-team format like FCS. 

Everyone will still bitch about the 24th team just like they do the 68th in the basketball tournament, but at least you don't have too many shitty teams blocking more worthy P4 teams.

There will always be arguments about the last team, but the arguments have much less meaning as you expand the playoffs. It was a massive deal when it was #2 vs #3 (call it 40%-50% chance to a NC vs 0%). You get to 24 and it is something like 2% vs 0%

Edited by Codaxx
Posted

You guys have lost your fucking minds. This isn't hard. There are only 5 maybe 6 teams that have the potential to win a national championship every year. 8 gets you those and some cinderellas that get a chance. 

You then make things meaningful by having cross conference play as a tournament with bowl games or exhibitions that's a little akin go the NIT for basketball. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

24 teams. Eliminate conference championship weekend, it's even now pointless with the 12 team playoff, would be even more pointless by doubling it. No byes. Everyone would start the playoffs this weekend.

But with the 24 teams, shorten the season to 10 games. All conference games, no OOC. I'd rather see this than pointless games against junk G5 teams. 

I know this will never happen but my preference. If not 24, then do 16 with 4 byes. 12 isn't enough. 

Posted
43 minutes ago, BluTechsan said:

I saw a reel come across my feed yesterday where some guy applied point value for wins and losses and came up with a season total.

I can’t find the link but his formula was something like this:

+50 pts - non top25 win 
+100 - top25 win
+25 - top10 win
+10 - top5 win

-100 - non top25 loss
-50 - top25 loss
-35 - top10 loss
-25 - top5 loss

Top25 rankings were based on current end of season rankings, not time of game rankings

Add up team totals and seed a playoff accordingly

qa078.gif

 

Posted
9 minutes ago, immamac said:

You guys have lost your fucking minds. This isn't hard. There are only 5 maybe 6 teams that have the potential to win a national championship every year. 8 gets you those and some cinderellas that get a chance. 

You then make things meaningful by having cross conference play as a tournament with bowl games or exhibitions that's a little akin go the NIT for basketball. 

 

My idea makes more money and that's what this is really all about.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
9 minutes ago, immamac said:

You guys have lost your fucking minds. This isn't hard. There are only 5 maybe 6 teams that have the potential to win a national championship every year. 8 gets you those and some cinderellas that get a chance. 

You then make things meaningful by having cross conference play as a tournament with bowl games or exhibitions that's a little akin go the NIT for basketball. 

 

Sorry but you're just wrong. You don't create a playoff bracket based only on the handful of teams you subjectively believe can win it all, no fucking sport does that.

Do you think March Madness would be anywhere near as popular if you started at the Sweet 16? Fuck outta here.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

There will always be arguments about the last team, but the arguments have much less meaning as you expand the playoffs. It was a massive deal when it was #2 vs #3 (call it 40%-50% chance to a NC vs 0%). You get to 24 and it is something like 2% vs 0%

You're right but still it's wild watching the NCAA Selection Show and all of the crying and hand-wringing over the first four left out of a 68 team field.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Sorry but you're just wrong. You don't create a playoff bracket based only on the handful of teams you subjectively believe can win it all, no fucking sport does that.

Do you think March Madness would be anywhere near as popular if you started at the Sweet 16? Fuck outta here.

March Madness wasn't shit until unorganized gambling, i.e, the office pools, started to become more and more popular.

Very similar to how fantasy football has caused the popularity of the NFL to explode and bring in new viewers. 

Posted
1 hour ago, immamac said:

8 teams. All at large. Cancel CCG unless there are divisions and for those make championship weekend tournament style matchups for 1-2 3-4 5-6 etc for a competitive conference game to end the season. 

Office Space Idea GIF

Posted

If teams get into a playoff based on their performance during the season (duh) then there has to be scheduling parity to have anything that makes sense.  Because of money, we can't and won't have scheduling parity.  There has to be a financial reason to change this fucked up system and right now, there is not.  Maybe having both Texas and ND miss the playoffs this year would spur some change.  But you've got schools in the Big 10 and SEC making $70M per school per year.  Are any of those schools going to voluntarily give up tens of millions of dollars just to make a "cleaner" or "more fair" playoff system.  FUCK no.  This is a financial problem, not an idea problem.

Posted

The playoff system is for a field of 16 teams, with four slots decided by play-in games. Notre Dame and the Group of 6 would have to play their way in, even if they're ranked number one in the AP poll. Why? Because fuck ND they need to join a conference, and I want the Group of 6 to maintain their sacrificial lamb status without being in the 16-team field.

Only four teams would be selected by the committee, and the rules could require them to choose from the eight highest-ranked teams that didn't earn an automatic bid through a BCS-type formula. They'd have to explain in writing, with a press release, why each selected team is ranked ahead of the teams they bypassed.

Structure:

  • The playoff system includes 12 automatic qualifiers and 8 play-in teams, with 4 pay-in teams being automatic qualifiers and 4 being at-large play-in teams.
  • Each Power 4 conference ends up with a predetermined number of automatic qualifiers (SEC: 4, BIG10: 4, BIG12: 2, ACC: 2).
  • Each Power 4 conference ends up with one play-in automatic qualifier, and each of those teams gets to host a play-in game, with the hosting conference keeping the revenue.
  • 4 at-large play-in teams are selected by a committee, with one being for the Group of 6.
     
  • Committee seeds play-in match-ups and play-off field after play-in game
Key benefits:
  • Group of 6 team gets booted during play in weekend. If we are the team that gets to play these guys we probably can do it with our backups and reduce injury risk.
  • We at worst end up in a play in game playing weak ass ACC, BIG12, or lower tier BIG10 team to get into 16 team field.
  • The play-in games remove the argument of conference bias by sending the weak conference teams home with on-the-field results.
  • The system replaces the conference championship game revenue, as those games will become irrelevant.

 

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...