What Realistic Changes Would You Make To The CFB Playoff?

[4Q Basket Case]

It's the offseason, so I thought I'd throw this out.

There's been a lot of quite justified criticism of the College Football Playoff. So if you were benevolent dictator what realistically achievable changes would you make?

I say "realistically achievable" in that I personally would prefer 8 teams. But due to the huge money involved, a reduction in size would never pass. So that's out.

Last year, I think the two biggest mistake were
1. Publishing the rankings too early.
2. An absurd seeding process

Wait to Publish Rankings
SMU got in only because they beat a then-undefeated Pitt. Previous to that, they were outside the Top 12. With the win, they vaulted into the Top 12. Problem is, Pitt never won another game. So the win was greatly devalued. They later beat another team (Duke, I think) that also didn't fare well after the game with SMU.

Problem is, by that time, the committee had painted themselves into a corner, keeping SMU ranked way too high for several weeks only because they were undefeated -- against a schedule of cupcakes.

IOW, by the time SMU lost to Clemson in the ACCCG, the committee couldn't exclude without admitting what Mr. Magoo could see: they'd been wrong for over a month and had passed up multiple chances to correct the mistake.

Seeding
Second major problem was seeding. Convoluted rules and some late season upsets ended up with Boise State sitting at an absurd #3 seed, complete with a bye and a guaranteed home quarterfinal game.

So my proposal is:
1. Wait until after the second game in November to publish rankings. This would have kept an undeserving SMU team out altogether.

2. Power 4 Conference Champions are guaranteed a spot in the playoff, but nothing beyond that -- no guaranteed seeding, no guaranteed byes, no nothing beyond a spot in the 12.

3. Seeding as determined by the old BCS ranking system -- which, by #1 above wouldn't be published until mid-November. Objectivity provided by computers, with humans providing the eye test. If a Power 4 Conference Champion is outside the Top 12, it replaces the #12 seed as determined by the BCS formula.

It would be unlikely, but if two Power 4 Conference Champions are out of the Top 12, they replace #s 11 and 12. If three, #s 10, 11 and 12. In the ridiculously improbable event that all four Power 4 champs are ranked outside the final BCS Top 12, they replace #s 9, 10, 11 and 12.

4. For a non-Power 4 team to get in, it would have to be ranked in the final BCS Top 12 and not get bumped by a Power 4 Champ ranked outside the BCS Top 12.

If this process had been in place in 2024, I think it would have precluded the problems we all saw.

What do you think? What changes would you make?

 

[colbysullivan]

We need to stop pretending the conferences are even remotely equal. The SEC had 3 teams that got screwed in the name of inclusiveness.

 

[Cruloc]

SEC and Big 10 need to cherry pick what's left of the other lesser conferences.....get Miami, Clemson, Florida State etc.....then do their own thing.

Big 12 has no business being considered an automatic bid....nor should the ACC be considered.

Teams like Boise can go pound sound too. No one wants to see them in a playoff other than their own fans. They'll never win multiple playoff games.

Once that fiction happens....take the top 4 from the SEC and top 4 from the Big 10 and have a playoff.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

The #1-4 Seeds that receive byes should actually be the Top 4 teams in the country regardless if the are a Conf Champ.

Actually just get rid of the Conf Champ getting anything guaranteed.

I'm not sure how to word it but if a Conf Champ is actually ranked in the Top 12 then sure put them in but otherwise leave them out.

I'm close to saying just let a BCS computer rank the teams 1-12 and be done with it. Let that pick the field and then let the Humans manipulate seeding within reason after that.

 

[Elefantman]

I would like to reduce it to eight teams, but that won't happen. So keep it at 12 or go up to 16 teams.

NO AUTOMATIC BIDS FOR CONFERENCE CHAMPS! In fact, eliminate conference championship games.

No committee, use a BCS computer ranking system.

 

[BamaFan6462]

Coaches poll top twelve. The BS playoffs were sold as matching the best teams at the end of the season and like many other things, after they got what they wanted the criteria changed to conference champions and protecting the conference championship game. Conference championship games should be weighted like any other game and if they’re deemed to be a problem by the conferences, get rid of them.

 

[JDCrimson]

Since we are heading toward 16 I would have a 16 team playoff. I would eliminate the conference championships and take the top 2 from the Big Four. I would allow a spot for Notre Dame with a minimum record and minimum ranking but they would not be given a top 8 seeding spot because of their nonconference affiliation and weak schedule.

The other 7-8 slots would go to Non-4 and 3 tier Big 4 teams. And the NC would be played on a Saturday no Monday.

 

[22Musso22]

Just go back to the BCS formula and throw those committee clowns out!

 

[selmaborntidefan]

It's the offseason, so I thought I'd throw this out.

There's been a lot of quite justified criticism of the College Football Playoff. So if you were benevolent dictator what realistically achievable changes would you make?

I say "realistically achievable" in that I personally would prefer 8 teams. But due to the huge money involved, a reduction in size would never pass. So that's out.

Last year, I think the two biggest mistake were
1. Publishing the rankings too early.
2. An absurd seeding process

Wait to Publish Rankings
SMU got in only because they beat a then-undefeated Pitt. Previous to that, they were outside the Top 12. With the win, they vaulted into the Top 12. Problem is, Pitt never won another game. So the win was greatly devalued. They later beat another team (Duke, I think) that also didn't fare well after the game with SMU.

Problem is, by that time, the committee had painted themselves into a corner, keeping SMU ranked way too high for several weeks only because they were undefeated -- against a schedule of cupcakes.

IOW, by the time SMU lost to Clemson in the ACCCG, the committee couldn't exclude without admitting what Mr. Magoo could see: they'd been wrong for over a month and had passed up multiple chances to correct the mistake.

Seeding
Second major problem was seeding. Convoluted rules and some late season upsets ended up with Boise State sitting at an absurd #3 seed, complete with a bye and a guaranteed home quarterfinal game.

So my proposal is:
1. Wait until after the second game in November to publish rankings. This would have kept an undeserving SMU team out altogether.

2. Power 4 Conference Champions are guaranteed a spot in the playoff, but nothing beyond that -- no guaranteed seeding, no guaranteed byes, no nothing beyond a spot in the 12.

3. Seeding as determined by the old BCS ranking system -- which, by #1 above wouldn't be published until mid-November. Objectivity provided by computers, with humans providing the eye test. If a Power 4 Conference Champion is outside the Top 12, it replaces the #12 seed as determined by the BCS formula.

It would be unlikely, but if two Power 4 Conference Champions are out of the Top 12, they replace #s 11 and 12. If three, #s 10, 11 and 12. In the ridiculously improbable event that all four Power 4 champs are ranked outside the final BCS Top 12, they replace #s 9, 10, 11 and 12.

4. For a non-Power 4 team to get in, it would have to be ranked in the final BCS Top 12 and not get bumped by a Power 4 Champ ranked outside the BCS Top 12.

If this process had been in place in 2024, I think it would have precluded the problems we all saw.

What do you think? What changes would you make?

The first question everyone needs to be consistent on (no reflection on you, 4BQ) is this:
you EITHER have automatic bids OR you have SOMEONE SOMEWHERE VOTING THEIR OPINION at some stage of the game. Yes, even the BCS.

Before anyone answers your question, they need to decide where they stand on that one question.

Because one's argument is either:
a) it's not fair that 3-loss Clemson gets in over us just because of conf champs
b) it's not fair that 1-loss team we killed head-to-head is ranked ahead of us
c) it's not fair that team with fewer losses played an EASIER SCHEDULE than us

 

[Slowpoke Catracho]

Just go back to the BCS formula and throw those committee clowns out!

This

 

[PA Tide Fan]

1. Teams ranked 1-4 on Selection Sunday get the byes, not conference champions.
2. Eliminate conference championship games.
3. Possibly reseed teams after each round. ( I don't want to see a game like Ohio State-Oregon being played when it was and I also don't want a team like Penn State get such an easy path to the semifinal.) It's possible though that this situation may not happen again if teams are seeded correctly from the start.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

1. Teams ranked 1-4 on Selection Sunday get the byes, not conference champions.
2. Eliminate conference championship games.
3. Possibly reseed teams after each round. ( I don't want to see a game like Ohio State-Oregon being played when it was and I also don't want a team like Penn State get such an easy path to the semifinal.) It's possible though that this situation may not happen again if teams are seeded correctly from the start.

That was the worst part of the whole selection.

ASU played well and represented themselves well but they still should not have had a 1st round Bye.

BSU got hammered and had no business getting a bye. I think they should have been in the field somewhere but not with a bye.

That also caused a lot of trickle down reshuffling where teams who deserved to be higher were forced to play in the opening round.

 

[BamaMoon]

I agree with alot of these thoughts. Maybe somebody is listening!

But I will say it was great to have meaningful football games in December. It was just hard that Bama wasn't a part of it. I fully expect CKD to get this ship turned this year!

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I like the BCS formula. Had both subjective opinion (the polls) and objective computers. So I don't see where subjectivity vs. objectivity is an either/or thing.

I do think there's a core question you have to ask yourself, but I think it's different from the one selma puts forward.

That question is, "Should conference championships matter in either the selection or seeding of the CFB playoff?" Then, if you answer yes, there's a followup: How much?

Some say it should matter. Others say it shouldn't. I think they should, but there are legitimate points on both sides.

 

[BamaBoySince89]

I would rather it be 6-8 teams but since we are where we are leave it at 12, nothing is guaranteed, the top 4 to get a bye should be the top 4 teams.

Let the BCS decide the rankings and tell the committee to kick rocks. Hopefully this will stop teams from playing these weak schedules and getting in because they are 11-1

The ACC and BigXII would be lucky to get 1 team in.

ND needs to join a conference!

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I like the BCS formula. Had both subjective opinion (the polls) and objective computers. So I don't see where subjectivity vs. objectivity is an either/or thing.

I don't see it as necessarily "either/or" myself, and you're correct.

But I get wary of "those people on the committee don't know football" being replaced by a bunch of SIDs with their own agendas when it comes to ranking teams a certain way, too. TRUE - the "computer formula" (1/3) offsets SOME of the human bias as does the "drop the highest and lowest for each team." I'm inclined to think the BCS formula is PROBABLY the best overall - but you just wait until something like 2022 happens and #3 or #4 TCU GETS A BYE ahead of us, and we're right back to the same "this is unjust" argument that underlies any discussion on the subject, too.

That question is, "Should conference championships matter in either the selection or seeding of the CFB playoff?" Then, if you answer yes, there's a followup: How much?

Some say it should matter. Others say it shouldn't. I think they should, but there are legitimate points on both sides.

I agree with this, and I've even changed my mind on the subject. But I changed my mind on the basis of persuasive arguments.

I'm sitting here watching the exact same people who thought Penn State (2016) and Ohio State (2017) should have been selected on the basis of "they won their conference" to the four-team...and these are the same folks saying the LOSERS of the conference championship game "shouldn't be punished," even though that exact thing happened to Georgia in 2012. The VERY SAME people who said "you should have to win your conference" are the same ones going with "the loser of the extra game WHO DID NOT WIN THEIR CONFERENCE should be given some sort of magical thinking mulligan consideration."

My biggest issue with the BCS is Oklahoma getting blown off the field in 2003 - and staying #1. That was the loudest "we cannot be taken seriously" moment in the history of the BCS. At least in 2022 when the CFP kept TCU at #3 - and we all know they did it to avoid an immediate Ohio State-Michigan rematch, no matter how much they lie and say otherwise - at least it was the same teams that were going to make it anyway (I'm sorry, folks, but 2-loss Alabama was never making that field no matter how good you think we were). Plus, they could point to the fact TCU HAD A WIN over Kansas State earlier in the season.

That's not the same thing that happened with OU in 2003.

 

[CajunCrimson]

I would say the P4 conference champions can have no more than two total losses to get the automatic qualifier

 

[GrayTide]

I agree with alot of these thoughts. Maybe somebody is listening!

But I will say it was great to have meaningful football games in December. It was just hard that Bama wasn't a part of it. I fully expect CKD to get this ship turned this year!

 

[GrayTide]

1. Use BCS computer formula to determine top 12 teams. First reveal of top12 teams the day after all conference championship games are done.
2. Only the final top 12 ranked teams are in. No provision for conference champions.No automatic qualifiers. That would apply to Notre Dame unless they are ranked in the final top 12.
4. No bys, all teams play. Top 4 teams get home field advantage.
5. Have semi finals and finals on Saurdays. No Monday night games.

 

[FF4bama]

Including more than four teams in a college football playoff has always been about one thing and one thing only: $$$$. The idiotic seeding and 1st round byes were done to ensure that undeserving teams didn't get crushed and humiliated in their very first games. This allowed the playoffs to be "inclusive" and to spread revenue around to teams that wouldn't ordinarily get a slice of the pie. Indiana, Boise, K State, and SMU never had a realistic shot at winning it all but their inclusion fuels the hope among casual fans of mediocre schools that their teams could pull off a miracle and somehow beat 3-4 teams with better players and coaching.