How Would You Change CFP?


#1

Didn’t want to hijack other thread but wanted to hear others take on the CFP. I don’t care for the current 4 team format but so much plays into it. First and foremost has to be the student-athlete IMHO. We can’t just keep piling more games on these kids and expect them to maintain their academics. We’ve had the 11-12 games per year since early 70’s, now with CFP creeping up into 13-14+ games. I’d think expanding to 8 teams and doing away with one of the OOC games maybe. Know you have Conference Championship games and such that comes into play. All the details and politics of it way over my head. I’d like 8 it gives the G5 a chance at least.

5 - P5 Conference Champs
1 - Top G5 team
2 - Wild Card/At Large be it P5 or G5, of course we know how that will go


#2

I posted this a while back. As long as the selection of who’s in the playoff is up to humans, it will never be fair. UCS won the PAC12 title and was NOT ranked in the top 8. So no solution there. I like the way DII does it but it isn’t the only way.

"I spent the weekend researching how NCAA Division II handles their football playoff. I learned a lot. First, a bit of background. If you already know this stuff, apologies.

The NCAA has a championship committee for each division. Each sport has a committee for the purpose of recommending to the championship committee who should compete for the championship. In Division II, there are 7 required criteria, all objective, that the sports committees look at. Additionally, each sport can choose up to 3 additional criteria from a criteria pool. All but one of the additional criteria are objective, that is, based on data, although one is an index and another is an ‘indicator’ and neither is used by football. The one subjective criterion is only used by Women’s Rowing so I am not concerned about it here.

For playoff purposes, the sports committees totally disregard the opinion poll, AFCA, I think it’s called. Instead, all 160+ D-2 schools are divided geographically into 4 regions. Each region has a sports committee for each sport who rank each team in the region according to the criteria for the sport - 7 required and up to 3 more from the pool.

The first such ranking for any sport comes out late in the season after enough contests have been completed to provide good data. At the end of the season, the top teams or individuals are selected for the championship. For D-2 football, 7 teams from each region make the playoffs. The number 1 seed gets a first round bye.

And off they go. In a few weeks they have a champion that no sane person can argue with. That’s 27 total playoff games that could very easily be worked into the existing bowl structure, maybe alternate the semi’s and championship game among the big bowls so no one gets their wallets hurt. I know there are 41 bowls, so the 14 left out will have to find a way to survive or just die.

Here are the criteria used for picking the championship teams for D2 football. All of the pool criteria are listed so you know what they AREN’T using. Nowhere in the criteria does winning your conference come in to play. I like that.

Division II Football Playoff Selection Criteria

The 7 required criteria are 1-7 below, the 3 additional criteria, 8-10.

Availability of Student Athletes
Application of Nullification (use of ineligible athlete)
Overall Division II In-Region Winning Percentage
Overall Division II Winning Percentage
Overall Division II Strength of Schedule (Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage and Opponents’ Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage)
Division II Head to Head Competition
Results Versus Division II Common Opponents
Division II Record on the Road
Division II Results Versus Teams with .500 Record or Better
In-Region Division II Non-Conference Won-Lost Record
Here is the pool of all available ‘Additional Sports Specific Selection Criteria’.

Division II Record on the Road
Division II Results Versus Teams with .500 Record or Better
Division II Results Versus Teams with a Winning Record
In-Region Division II Non-Conference Won-Lost Record
In-Region Strength of Schedule (Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage and Opponents’ Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage)
Late Season Performance
Performance Indicator (PI)
In-Region Rating Percentage Index (RPI)
Results Versus Division II In-Region Common Opponents
Results Versus Ranked Division II Opponents (this is a ranking compiled by the regional sports committees using the criteria for that sport. It shows, if the playoffs started today, who would be in. It is first published well into the season)
Other Comments (Only Sport using this criterion is Women’s Rowing)
NCAA.org lists Fairness as one of their 3 priorities. Here is what they say:

Maybe the UH lawyers out there can comment on the merits of filling suit against the NCAA for not providing equal opportunity for ALL D-1 FBS student athletes to earn a championship."


#3

6 is fine, i dont like non conference winners competing for “national championship”. Having 8 would take aeway from having every game be a do or die for thoes teams chasing the NC. I would also like there to be some reward for being the top seed


(WRB) #4

I liked this when you put it out the first time, but boy oh boy would it be a drastic change.

Frankly I prefer a system that lines up the highest ranked 8 conference champions and let them have at it on the field. Still probably too drastic of a change to pull off.

So I would vote for 5 P5 conference champions + Highest ranked G5 conference champion + 2 at large.


(Chris) #5

Why play Div I if you have no chance at winning the biggest prize?
In all logic why should a tax payer agree to give his taxes to a program that has no chance to win the highest prize?
Why build new stadium(s)?
Div I College Football is the only sport where this happens.
What is the beauty of sport? The uncertainty of the outcome. That is real life.
To rob non P5’s Schools from this is the definition of a SCAM.


(Patrick) #6
  • Change the regular season to 10 games
  • Take the 10 conference champions and 6 wildcard teams and play a 16 team tourney. Higher seeded teams get home field in first two rounds
  • Allow teams to play consolation games if they lose in the first two rounds.
  • Allow for other 16 team tourneys in the same vein as basketball (NIT, etc) to help make up for loss of 2 regular season games

#7

All good stuff, I’d think most agree the current CFP format needs changing, except probably the SEC crew…Go UCF !


(Chris) #8

UCF is now undefeated. Their victory is going to be swept under the rug like it never happened.
The so called experts predicted we would get blown away by FSU. They predicted Auburn will blow away UCF. They predicted Utah…and it goes on and on and on. Meanwhile everyone is silent and not demanding that this bs of a scam cease to exist. What is it going to take?
The only way to change this is to either DEMAND 10 Conferences champions and six at large or sue the cfp.
Tomorrow Aresco is going to say that we belong. Big #$%ing deal. He either demands 10 + 6 or threatens them with a lawsuit. Anything else or he should resign. He is part of the problem.
How long is this bs going to last friends?


#9

Got to get the politicians involved…get those snakes squirming and watch how fast the NCAA expands the CFP


#10

The most democratic way to conduct a playoff is to follow the FCS format. All conference champions within the G-5 and P-5 are represented and winners advance. At a minimum you are looking at a 10-12 team playoff format. Organizers can work out the details. The current system is oligarchic and should not be allowed to continue.


#11

I hear you but I think the people to sue are the NCAA for negligence, violating their own mission, etc.


#12

The CFP and NCAA are two separate organizations. That the NCAA has never organized a proper playoff like in other football divisions just shows how they have bought and paid for.


(Chris) #13

100% agree. Do you all remember title IX?
The ncaa and the creation of the cfp should be sued for the same reason.
Aresco should sue tomorrow morning on the basis of inequality. Remember friends this has nothing to do with sports. It has everything to do with MONEY


(Mike Higdon) #14

16 teams. all conference champions – P5 & G5. The rest at large


(Chris) #15

Why on earth do you think the cartel is against this? MONEY, MONEY, MONEY
They want to keep it all and give us the crumbs.
Just wait for one second and imagine the **COUNTRY’S excitement **if we had a 16 Teams playoff? HUGE like he said it would be HUGE!!!


#16

I don’t like it because of the at large part and the default entry for conference champs. I actually would be happy if NCAA would just use objective criteria. Most conference champs would get in but with only 16 teams, some would be left out. So I like 28 teams with no preference to conference champ.


(G.W.) #17

10 conference champions, all in.
Best 6 records get byes. 4 teams play in the first round…like the pros
Home field advantage for the best records.
You don’t win your conference then you don’t participate.
True NCAA Champion is crowned.

Have an NIT for the Conference Runners-up and whoever you want to invite…up to 16 teams in the bracket.

CFI bracket for other teams who have a record of 8-4 or better.

Bowls for anyone who wants to play in one.


(WRB) #18

I’ll take Saban’s original position, in that if you can’t win your conference you should not be in the playoffs.


#19

An NIT format for runners up is an interesting thought. It fulfills the need for post season representation (bowls) for the rest of college football.


(G.W.) #20

The NCAA needs to have the cajoles to take back CFB.