G5...why even

[istater7]

Sure, the best G5 team should make an 8 team playoff. Outside of that, why should G5 want to add a playoff system? Who would watch? The G5 conference championships are their season. No need to go any further for mostly pretty mediocre football teams.

 

[jdoggivjc]

And I don’t think that is a good thing for those kids. In fact, at some point I expect schools to stop having football at their school. They need to make a dramatic change to the way football is practiced and played at younger levels, college included.

You must be opposed to high school state playoffs as well.

 

[Cyclone.TV]

You must be opposed to high school state playoffs as well.

I am a proponent of having the least amount of hits to kids heads as possible. So while I’m not opposed to football or playoffs for that matter, I think kids below a certain age shouldn’t be playing tackle and they need to limit the hitting in practice. Drills that encourage violence and toughness are something I’d like to see taken out at younger ages. Shorter seasons and more sensible practices are things I would be a proponent of, yes.

 

[cyclones500]

I posted aversion of this general proposition on CF a while back, can’t recall if it was a thread I started or in a related discussion.

12-team playoff proposal

Selection process:
1. Full ranking of all 130 FBS teams is tracked beginning with first CFP “reveal” and is updated each week for the rest of the regular season/conference title games.
2. Top 6 automatic qualifiers, regardless of conference or CFP ranking, receive an automatic bid.
3. 6 best at-large teams are selected, based on CFP ranking.
4. Seeding based on CFP rank.
5. Opening round games at site of higher seed.
6. New Year’s 6 yearly-rotation for quarterfinal and semifinal games.

This season’s example:
Semifinal sites:
Sugar: 1-8/9 vs. 4-5/12
Rose: 2-7/10 vs. 3/6/11
For this demonstration, quarterfinal NY6 sites chosen randomly. Could be stipulations on location depending on regional interest or some-such.

Here's the bracket, using 2017 CFP rank (Conference auto-bid in parentheses)
Peach (Atlanta)
(1) Clemson (ACC) vs. 8/9 winner
Los Angeles
(8) USC (Pac-12) vs. (9) Penn State

Fiesta (Phoenix)
(4) Alabama vs. 5/12 winner
Columbus, Ohio
(5) Ohio State (Big Ten) vs. (12) UCF (American)

Cotton (Arlington, Texas)
(2) Oklahoma (Big 12) vs. 7/10 winner
Auburn, Ala.
(7) Auburn vs. (10) Miami

Orange (Miami)
(3) Georgia (SEC) vs. 6/11 winner
Madison, Wis.
(6) Wisconsin vs. (11) Washington

Selection process for other bowl games commences from there, preferably adhering closely to rankings of non-playoff teams.

Optional selection guideline: Seedings may be shifted one line to avoid regular-season rematches in opening round.

I also compiled a list of pros and cons for this format, but I prefer getting reaction at face-value. Within the topic of this thread, 2 pros are: (a) in principle, any FBS team could quality for the playoff; (b) Reasonable balance between “inclusion” (all FBS teams matter), while being palatable for power-5 leagues.

 

[VeloClone]

I posted aversion of this general proposition on CF a while back, can’t recall if it was a thread I started or in a related discussion.

12-team playoff proposal

Selection process:
1. Full ranking of all 130 FBS teams is tracked beginning with first CFP “reveal” and is updated each week for the rest of the regular season/conference title games.
2. Top 6 automatic qualifiers, regardless of conference or CFP ranking, receive an automatic bid.
3. 6 best at-large teams are selected, based on CFP ranking.
4. Seeding based on CFP rank.
5. Opening round games at site of higher seed.
6. New Year’s 6 yearly-rotation for quarterfinal and semifinal games.

This season’s example:
Semifinal sites:
Sugar: 1-8/9 vs. 4-5/12
Rose: 2-7/10 vs. 3/6/11
For this demonstration, quarterfinal NY6 sites chosen randomly. Could be stipulations on location depending on regional interest or some-such.

Here's the bracket, using 2017 CFP rank (Conference auto-bid in parentheses)
Peach (Atlanta)
(1) Clemson (ACC) vs. 8/9 winner
Los Angeles
(8) USC (Pac-12) vs. (9) Penn State

Fiesta (Phoenix)
(4) Alabama vs. 5/12 winner
Columbus, Ohio
(5) Ohio State (Big Ten) vs. (12) UCF (American)

Cotton (Arlington, Texas)
(2) Oklahoma (Big 12) vs. 7/10 winner
Auburn, Ala.
(7) Auburn vs. (10) Miami

Orange (Miami)
(3) Georgia (SEC) vs. 6/11 winner
Madison, Wis.
(6) Wisconsin vs. (11) Washington

Selection process for other bowl games commences from there, preferably adhering closely to rankings of non-playoff teams.

Optional selection guideline: Seedings may be shifted one line to avoid regular-season rematches in opening round.

I also compiled a list of pros and cons for this format, but I prefer getting reaction at face-value. Within the topic of this thread, 2 pros are: (a) in principle, any FBS team could quality for the playoff; (b) Reasonable balance between “inclusion” (all FBS teams matter), while being palatable for power-5 leagues.

If you are going to add two additional games (beyond the current 2 round playoff) why not add two games for all playoff participants? Two of the biggest complaints as to why they can't do this is time and adding too many games for teams. If you are adding 2 games to the 5-12 seeds you might as well add 2 games for the 1-4 seeds and expand it to 16 teams.

In this years ranking the teams added would be Stanford, Notre Dame, TCU and Michigan State.

I also would not be opposed to going back to a 11 game regular season schedule if that is what it takes to make an expanded playoff happen.

 

[ZB4CY]

Not sure if any of you have seen this article yet or not...

https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-radi...-plan-possibly-end-complaining-022518359.html

I didn't think 16 teams could work.. but this idea is cool.

 

[TykeClone]

Not sure if any of you have seen this article yet or not...

https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-radi...-plan-possibly-end-complaining-022518359.html

I didn't think 16 teams could work.. but this idea is cool.

So basically he wants to morph the P5 conferences into 10 seven team conferences with limited guaranteed crossover play.

 

[VeloClone]

It would take too much cooperation. You can't get that many teams to cooperate on anything much less a massive realignment.

 

[cyclones500]

If you are going to add two additional games (beyond the current 2 round playoff) why not add two games for all playoff participants? Two of the biggest complaints as to why they can't do this is time and adding too many games for teams. If you are adding 2 games to the 5-12 seeds you might as well add 2 games for the 1-4 seeds and expand it to 16 teams.

In this years ranking the teams added would be Stanford, Notre Dame, TCU and Michigan State.

I also would not be opposed to going back to a 11 game regular season schedule if that is what it takes to make an expanded playoff happen.

16 instead of 12 would be OK, too. A plus about 12 is it rewards top 4 teams with a bye, so there's more at stake in regular season beyond just seeding order.

I think they should go back to 11 to make it happen, too. I know there'd be resistance because of revenue loss in some way, but it removes part of the "too many additional games."

 

[cyclones500]

It would take too much cooperation. You can't get that many teams to cooperate on anything much less a massive realignment.

And if the format includes all P5 champions anyway, why not just have 10 auto-bids and 6 at-large, without tampering w/ conference alignment?

 

[VeloClone]

16 instead of 12 would be OK, too. A plus about 12 is it rewards top 4 teams with a bye, so there's more at stake in regular season beyond just seeding order.

I think they should go back to 11 to make it happen, too. I know there'd be resistance because of revenue loss in some way, but it removes part of the "too many additional games."

I'm not sure there should be that much reward for the top 4. It would be pretty rare that the top 4 are all undefeated and the next 4 all have 1 or more losses. It will be much more common that #4 and #5 have the same number of losses and it is pretty subjective which are top 4 and which don't quite make it. Home field advantage in the first and second round is enough. They should also consider coming up with some additional bowls to be the quarterfinal round sites. If there is concern about bowls losing quality teams this would negate that concern.