forums

CFP Expansion

What is the right # for the CFP?

  • Total voters
    263
AutoCANE said:
Just curious everyone’s opinions on this topic. After this cluster**** of a bowl season, and the ramp up of opt outs in these meaningless bowls, I definitely think something drastic needs to be done. I know there is a vote upcoming, but are these folks going to have the intestinal fortitude to make the disruptive change that needs to be made?

Is 12 really the right number? 16? I used to be a proponent of an 8 team playoff to incorporate all of the New Year’s Six bowls, but now I don’t think that is enough. The game has changed and the bowls are done. Toast. Need to maximize the games that mean something.

I think 16 is the absolute minimum honestly. Need to have a mini-playoff for the G5 and give them an auto bid or something.
Click to expand...
8. But idk if big 12 winner should get automatic bid. It will be the best g5 conference when Texas and aTm leave.
 
Advertisement
8, following the 5 P5 conference champs + 3 at-large. The at-large allows for a highly ranked G5 team, like Cincinnati this season, ND when they’re good, and one other team. The benefit of the 5 P5 champions is quantifiable, win and you‘re in.

There is no perfect format because of Bama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Clemson’s dominance during the CFP era, plus one-off seasons by LSU and UGA.

Without real year-in-year-out parity these debates will remain.
 
Sweet 16

Rd 1. 16 teams
Rd 2. 8
Rd 3. 4
CG. 2

everything stays even, no byes, 4 games

never going to happen because they will say 4 games is too many but I think it would be the funnest to watch. From a fans perspective.
 
No matter what happens, I think all P5 conf champs should be automatic. If you go with 16, then all P5 champs, 3 non-P5 and everything else is decided by polls.

If this happens, here are the years we would've also been National Champs: 1990, 2000 and 2003 (as bad as Brock was, he got better and the team came together at the end).
 
Echtcane said:
Whatever the system, I want it designed to remove as much judgment as possible from humans, otherwise known as bias, agendas or cheating. I see people advocating numbers of teams that would require byes. Noooooo! That's where the usual agenda-driven turds will put their favorites. For years I had always wanted a 16-team playoff, and at one time it could have been the perfect solution, but now they'll just use it as an excuse to load it with teams from the SEC. If we stick with a low number of teams, I agree with others who've said not winning your conference should eliminate you.
Click to expand...

U do recall that The BCS (computer) screwed us, right? Lol. I hear u for sure, & like u said, 16 teams in the CFP is a sure fire way to load it w/ The SEC.

Imo, this is a fair & equitable way that help the bowl game crisis & bring more parity to the CFP:

I believe 8 is the best number: take 6 automatic bids (Five P5 Conference Winners + the highest ranked G5 Conference winner) + 2 at large qualifiers. (This kinda also pushes ND to be a full conference affiliate)

In regards to voting, it should be a 6 person committee that’s rotated every 5 yrs that includes one member from each P5 conference & a G5 conference rep

I would:
-Rotate 6 of the Tier 1 Bowl games (based upon pay out, I would think Citrus, Outback, Texas, Alamo, Holiday, & Cheez-It bowls) as Quarter Final Games.
-Rotate 3 of the NY6 each year to serve as the Semi Finals, & Championship game.

The 2 Tier 1 bowls & 3 NY6 games that’s not included in the CFP would go to next highest teams w/ conference tie-in.

The results is that even when bowls games are not included in the CFP, b/c of their affiliation, the perception of them being “meaningless” will change.

Also, while I’m on this soapbox, I would change The Portal scene. I would put a time frame on when kids can enter it w/o penalty (penalty meaning sitting out a season). I would also get rid of ESD. That only happened b/c some coaches were bytching that they can’t hold on to kids until NSD. F that. ESD either needs to be pushed until after the bowl season or removed all together. These coaches bailing early is a direct correlation to that b/c they feel pressured to close on ESD.

Anyways, just some thoughts to clean up the game a bit.
 
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
U do recall that The BCS (computer) screwed us, right? Lol. I hear u for sure, & like u said, 16 teams in the CFP is a sure fire way to load it w/ The SEC.

Imo, this is a fair & equitable way that help the bowl game crisis & bring more parity to the CFP:

I believe 8 is the best number: take 6 automatic bids (Five P5 Conference Winners + the highest ranked G5 Conference winner) + 2 at large qualifiers. (This kinda also pushes ND to be a full conference affiliate)

In regards to voting, it should be a 6 person committee that’s rotated every 5 yrs that includes one member from each P5 conference & a G5 conference rep

I would:
-Rotate 6 of the Tier 1 Bowl games (based upon pay out, I would think Citrus, Outback, Texas, Alamo, Holiday, & Cheez-It bowls) as Quarter Final Games.
-Rotate 3 of the NY6 each year to serve as the Semi Finals, & Championship game.

The 2 Tier 1 bowls & 3 NY6 games that’s not included in the CFP would go to next highest teams w/ conference tie-in.

The results is that even when bowls games are not included in the CFP, b/c of their affiliation, the perception of them being “meaningless” will change.

Also, while I’m on this soapbox, I would change The Portal scene. I would put a time frame on when kids can enter it w/o penalty (penalty meaning sitting out a season). I would also get rid of ESD. That only happened b/c some coaches were bytching that they can’t hold on to kids until NSD. F that. ESD either needs to be pushed until after the bowl season or removed all together. These coaches bailing early is a direct correlation to that b/c they feel pressured to close on ESD.

Anyways, just some thoughts to clean up the game a bit.
Click to expand...
It's true the 2000 BCS screwed UM, but that was when they were trying to confine it to only 2 teams - a ridiculous concept really. I acknowledge stat formulas aren't perfect. After all, someone's gonna be choosing what to value when the program is written to crunch all the numbers. I just think it (esp with more teams) is a more objective way of doling out chances than letting a few people vote on it while they say "yes, they have the same/worst record, but my eye test tells me this team would beat anyone from the ACC - 'cause just look at their 247 star ranking!" Granted, they might not actually say that publicly, but those perceptions of power get entrenched through the polls and committee's ranking systems.

And the ranking systems depend too heavily on "strength of schedule." The trouble is, the entire concept of strength of schedule + rankings is based on circular reinforcement. Every year the SEC gets handed a high starting position by poll voters, then media hypes them accordingly. Then when they start losing to each other, voters refuse to drop them much using the argument that they lost to a highly ranked team. Well why were they highly ranked in the first place? Because the poll voters/committee chose to put them there. Meanwhile, when teams in other conferences lose to each other, the argument is they're not very good because they lost to a team that's not ranked highly. It's fraudulent.

I'm fine with the automatic bids for P5 champions + a G5. But when filling out other the 2 slots, are we gonna be back at the same "we all know Texas A&M would beat Pitt" nonsense? I don't have a solution that I feel real satisfaction with.

The irony of this SEC perception business is that it got jump started in 2006 when the media got egg on its face after dissing the conference. I remember Herbstreit claiming that OSU and Michigan were "clearly" the 2 best teams in the country and that the loser of that game should still be in the title game. Of course Michigan didn't get the invite and UF destroyed OSU. Wolverines lost their bowl too, lol. I guess my point in it all is that people who think they KNOW what would happen in a theoretical matchup don't really know anything.
 
At this point it is going to be 4 SEC teams and whomever the comittee thinks will bring in money and intruige.

I am yearning for the old system where tons of games mattered and there was excitment for so many type of bowl match ups.
Pre-BCS days.
 
Advertisement
Colombie said:
At this point it is going to be 4 SEC teams and whomever the comittee thinks will bring in money and intruige.

I am yearning for the old system where tons of games mattered and there was excitment for so many type of bowl match ups.
Pre-BCS days.
Click to expand...
But everyone said it was wrong to decide champions by polls and then they wanted a "Plus 1" and now you have a system run by a dying television network...

The arrogance of thinking the people before us were stupid and everything we touch is perfect...When it appears the exact opposite is taking place:

https://www.grandfather-economic-report.com/1895-test.htm
 
They're probably going to end up doing 12 but the 8 team format is the perfect balance of objectivity and subjectivity without diluting the actual product.

- 5 conference winners get autobids but conference divisions are scrapped and somehow allow for the "viability" of the Big 12 to be assessed in the near future in relation to the autobid.

- 3 at-large bids determined by the committee. Have some polling benchmark to guarantee a bid to a G5 school if they hit it.

I know people will assume those 2 extra bids (assuming a G5 school nabs a bid) will always go to SEC schools and that's a legitimate initial concern but that also forgets about Notre Dame and the bias toward them.

I absolutely hate the idea of byes as I think THAT would provide the SEC with the biggest competitive advantage and would much rather limit the SEC bias to the committee's subjectivity and those 2-3 at large spots.

I love having at least some objective benchmark as a Canes fan so I want to go into every year knowing if we win the ACC that we're in.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top