Aresco is butt hurt about the new 12 team proposal because his conference doesn’t get an auto bid,
pac-12 and acc and big 12 want the auto bid because we don’t the playoff to degenerate into the sec vs big playoff
i think a compromise proposal should award spots to conference champions using a point system based on post season bowl performance
if the mountain west or aac can demonstrate post season wins then they can qualify thier champion i to the playoff…perhaps others could be relegated based on losing. certainly would make the playoffs more interesting and bowls down right meaningful again
A 12 team playoff can work, but it needs slight tweaking.
I think auto-bids for any P5 conference champ that is ranked in the Top 10… then at-large bids for all other teams to fill out the rest of the playoff slate.
This ensures that the conference champion has ‘earned it’ and also leaves the door open for G5 and other note-worthy teams.
Main problem with this is tha bowls are no longer so representative since a lot of players go pro before it happens. I don’t think this would stop that from happening. As well as coaches leaving (though soon we’re going to have head coaches leaving in the middle of the season, probably).
I like the thinking behind it, though.
Speaking of alternative ideas, I think with some tweaks this idea is pretty good:
https://twitter.com/drtoothsleuth/status/1456747138721931271
Though it’s not clear this is a Top Six proposal and not a P5+1 proposal, as indicated in the asterisk. But it does so in a way that still gives the P5 some deference (an assumed bid, basically).
My tweaks would involve making the Rose and Sugar Bowl the semi-finals, where the B1G and Pac-12 play each other if they both advance to it.
So it would be something like this for the first round
Sugar Bowl Bracket
Orange: ACC vs Winner of previous round
Peach: SEC vs Winner of previous round
Rose Bowl Bracket
Cotton: Big 12 vs Big Ten
Fiesta: Pac-12 vs Winner of previous round
I’d stick with 12 as the number, though, and require the 5th conference champ to earn their way to the quarterfinals.
Anyway, this at least solves the Rose Bowl problem. They can still play on January 1st and will usually feature the Big Ten champ, Pac-12 champ, or both.
1 Like
A really good plan would be to do would have have 5 auto bids for the p5 and 2 G5’s auto if they are top 20 then ND gets one as usual bc they are generally top 20 then 4 at large for the next 4 best.
I’m confused because he kept saying “top two champions” while putting both Alabama and Georgia both in the playoffs.
Apart from that his plan doesn’t appreciably differentiate much from the original Top Six proposal.
I think he misspoke about that part of the 14 team playoff. The only difference, he wants the second round on campus like the first round.
I did like the idea of removing divisions so you won’t have a 3 or 4 lost team winning the conference.
I think all the momentum is in that direction. I think divisions will be a rarity in 10 years. (Though you might have “scheduling divisions” as the AAC seems to be doing, or pods with rivalry-like trophies that change hands.)
I think he might have sold me on the home games for the second round.
1 Like
P5 - Gaurantee 1, which is the Champ. However, each conference can have 2 teams or more. The two that play in the CCG. The winner earns the bye week.
G5 - 2 teams. The two best Champs.
However, the problem is that SEC want 4 to 5 teams and B1G want 3 to 4. That leaves 1 for Pac, 1 for B12, 1 for ACC. The damn 6-4 MSST get ranked validating SEC greed and influence.
This works. Agree good idea. The P5s are not explicitly guaranteed playoff berths , but are via contract bowl tie-in. Your edits well too, not sure what you mean by fifth conference champ (P5) playing their way in while other get first round byes.
Not sure how they formulate payoff amount.
I just mean that if the fifth or sixth highest ranked conference champion is the Pac-12, they have to play a game against an at-large to make it to the Fiesta Bowl.
If a P5 champ ranked in top 10 doesn’t get an auto bid in a 12 teams playoff, do we still called CFP?
Anything with ‘byes’ is stupid.
Pick 8 or 16 teams total. It’s not that hard.
Klatt argues that byes as a mechanism to make things interesting for teams that have more or less clinched playoff slots.
I agree with that, and think that just on the merits 8 is too few and 16 is too many (unless you’re inviting all the conference champs).
I would be down with 16, all conference champs plus some at larges.
2 Likes
Rankings should be used for seeding and nothing else. The scoreboard is the only thing that should matter otherwise.
I know this is rocket science but bear with me. Each team plays to win their conference or pod or whatever throughout the course of the season, then those winners can play other conference/pod winners until one team is left standing, and then we can give that team a trophy. And because every single team in the country would have had a chance to play for the trophy, the team that won it would truly be a national champion.
1 Like
agree with the champion concept……rankings are too subjective and can be manipulated as we see with UH being 24 in cfp but 16 in AP….ridiculous
win and your in should be the path.
having a few at large spots based on a committee selection is fine but there needs to be a fair way in for the conference champs
You hit the nail on the head- “every single team in the country would have had a chance to play for the trophy”- that would make the title “national champion” wholly legitimate.
Just follow the NCAA basketball and baseball models. Every conference champion-however that is determined- gets a bid, and at large selections fill in the remaining spots. It’s pretty simple.
For that to happen, you would have to have a 20 team playoff and eliminate a cream puff game. That wouldn’t happen until 2050 but we may not have college football by then either.