I want teams in the playoff to be Conference Champions.
If you really want to make the regular season matter, which I have always believed is something college football has over pro, than requiring playoff teams to be conference champions is a great idea. That way teams have to fight and claw to win their division, and then conference championship games because they know that they can still have a chance if others lose their conference championship game.
If you have to win your conference and for almost all conferences that means your conference championship game, than instead of a 4 team playoff we have roughly a 6-10+ team playoff with conference championship games serving as quarterfinals.
From last year here are 7 games that would have mattered huge. You would have had to watch every game to see how the playoff picture would unfold. In at least 3 of the games whoever won would have made the playoff. In other words, those were quarter-final games.
1 LSU vs 9 South Carolina
This game is simple, winner represents the SEC in the playoff because both teams are ranked high enough.
3 Oklahoma State vs 14 OU | 8 Kansas State vs Someone
This Big 12 should go back to a CCG, that way we could have had OSU vs KSU; winner gets a spot in the playoff. As it worked out it would have been OSU if they won or a 3 way tie if they lost.
5 Oregon vs UCLA 7-9 USC (obviously it was UCLA)
If USC was playing in this game (and they will be this year) than this game is simple as well; winner represents the PAC 12 in the playoff.
7 Boise State vs New Mexico
If Boise were part of the playoff than they would have to win their last game to make the playoffs. Their road in the Big East will be tougher going forward.
10 Wisconsin vs. 17 Michigan State
The B1G wouldn’t have a representative in the playoffs if Wisconsin won unless Boise lost or Wisconsin jumped over one of the other teams.
11 Virginia Tech vs 15 Clemson
By winning Virginia Tech would make a playoff if Boise and Wisconsin lost OR they jumped 1 or 2 teams.
You probably would never get the 4 "best" teams, and upsets do happen. BUT you would make the regular season and conference championship games much more compelling and would essentially have quarterfinals (plus others games that mattered on the first Saturday of December).
The implications of this would be far reaching for a lot of teams. Nebraska for instance, sitting at 7-1 or 8-2 would not only have a chance to still win its division, but the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. If you win your division and then CCG you had a decent
This means that late into the season, say after week 8 or 9, 15-20 teams could still have a legitimate hope for the national championship.
This proposal basically makes the non-conference games irrelevant, and since most conferences only play 8 of their 12 games in-conference, you make a full 1/3rd of their schedules pointless.
Never thought about that... Interesting take...
Originally Posted by peder
But wouldnt teams be more likely to schedule harder non-con games because it wont cost them a shot at the national title to lose?
I'm not really sure what the implications for noncon scheduling would be. I imagine it could go either way, whichever produces more revenue.
Originally Posted by PimpMario
I understand your desire to make the CCGs more important, but I think one of the proposals that marries conference champions + wildcards will be selected
not true at all...guve home field to the top 2 seeds and teams would think twice about patsies for non conference. 1st off, a lose would not be the end of the world but a big win out of conference could go a long way into securing a home game in december/january...
Originally Posted by peder
as we all know, this will not happen as a southern schools that have never seen snow (sec, usc, miami ect...) arent about to give into playing a big game their. on campus games and conference champs only would make college football great across the board as the hole season would matter. as it is now, the hole season boils down to following about 3/4 teams max as the season winds down.
I don't understand that teams would think twice about patsies? I don't see any incentive to not schedule patsies if these wins will add to their win total. Are you saying patsy wins don't count?
Originally Posted by 70county
Originally Posted by HuskerFanz
The current system actually encourages the teams in conferences like the Big 10, Big 12 to scedule weaklings in the OOC. The main objective is to go undefeated. Why risk a loss in the OOC? As long as you go undefeated in one of those conferences you are in the title game about 99.5% of the time.
SEC is a different animal. THey are pretty much guaranteed a spot in the BCS title game...and possibly two. Under a 4 team playoff they will essentially be assured of 2 teams in the playoffs if there is no requirement for winning your conference.
Originally Posted by peder
However they pick...computers, committee, etc. you are still going to have to be in the top 4 of conference champs. Conceivably you could win your conference but the lack of decent OOC games or losing one or two of them could get you shut out of the playoff.
How many conferences are we realistically talking about? 7 or 8? That's a pool of let's say 8 teams that already met the big criteria...conference champion. What is going to differentiate them further? Certainly the toughness of their conference. But it's also going to come down to OOC as well. OOC is definitely not rendered meaningless.
Even if it was lessened in importance I'd rather see that be the case than have the conference season diminished in importance.
I disagree completely, especially in regard to this proposal keeping the regular season meaningful. A conference championship can be won by a team with multiple non-conference losses...making the regular season, as a whole, meaningless and only the conference games meaningful.
I like the idea of using the BCS end of season formula to place the eight top BCS teams into the 4 BCS bowl games (#1 vs 8, #2 vs #7, #3 vs #6, and #4 vs #5). NO CONFERENCE GUARANTEES. Then after the bowl games, the winners play off (winner of 1vs8 plays winner of 4vs5 and winner of 2vs7 plays winner of 3vs6) for the crown. This way there is no need to worry about strong or weak conferences or a team with a poor record slipping into the playoff because they got hot in a weak conference.
PS--last year Bama was clearly the best team in the nation. They would not have had the opportunity to win a national title despite having only one loss (in an OT game to the then #1 team) in your system. In mine, no doubt they get into the 8-team playoff.
If Bama was clearly the best team, then they should have cancelled the games and given them the trophy. Bama got in to the title game because OSU, Boise St and Stanford lost. Either of those teams goes undefeated and Bama doesn't sniff the title game.
Originally Posted by Greatest Fan of All
They were only clearly the best team after all of the games were played, not before. A VERY deserving national champ, despite not winning their conference.
Originally Posted by utsker
The non conference schedule is already watered down. Making the games meaningless could get you more games where the big boys are playing each other, instead of gorging on cupcakes. I think it should be conference champs myself, but it needs to get opened up to eight conferences...screw Notre Dame
Keep the 4 team playoff as it sounds like they are going to, selected based on BCS ranking. However, make it a prerequisite that in order to be included, you MUST have won your conference championship.
If the rankings are:
5 Boise St.
And All but LSU won their conference championship, LSU is out because they already had their chance and were beaten by Alabama.
The idea of playing only the top (best?) 8 teams makes sense. Imagine there weren't any conferences*. Even if the top 8 were all from Florida and Texas, it would be great for them to play each other in a championship.
*lyrics by John Lennon.