CFP Thread

[betarhoalphadelta]

I think it would be harder for people to accept that as a method of picking a champion. I think people have even less trust in those groups than they did back then.

there are problems with a playoff, but as base it does bring some clarity.


(there’s also something fascinating about those groups being tasked with that job, because they’re in a kind of terrible spot to do it. But that’s another conversation)

Yeah, I get it. That's the reason that we always called it the "MNC", the mythical national champion. 

But what I'd argue is that every step that we've made to make the system "objective" in determining a national champion has made the sport, overall, worse.

• We determined we had to get #1 and #2 on the field together. So the Bowl Coalition / Alliance / Championship Series was put together to do that. But ultimately some years there are more than 2 worthy teams, and some years there's only one and a whole lot of teams just worthy enough to create a debate about who is included/excluded. And then there's the G5 type teams that are basically excluded. Which in many ways is fine ethically, but creates potential antitrust issues. 
• So because 2 was either too many or not enough, depending on year, we decided to go to 4. But that had inherent problems in devaluing conference championships... Winning your CCG was neither necessary nor sufficient to get into the CFP. And there were only 4 slots while we had 5 (at the time) power conferences. And it still had the G5 / antitrust problem. 
• So to solve that, we went to 12. Top 5 conference champs (assuming in normal years that's 4x P4 + 1x G5, but this year was 2x G5) plus 7 at-large. Which has its own issues... By including the G5 we basically have OAM bitching about how we're letting in the tallest midgets while excluding actually really good teams. And we all know those teams are just cannon fodder--they aren't going to put together 4 straight wins against the best of the best. And you have people like me bemoaning the fact that at 12, the CFP has sucked ALL the oxygen out of the room which devalues the entire sport for about 110 teams every year. If it's CFP-or-bust, well, the vast majority of the sport is BUST before the first game is played. 

So I say embrace the chaos. Are we going to argue about whether a bunch of AP reporters and chronically over-stressed college football coaches have selected the right MNC? YES! Of course we are! 

That's the beauty of CFB. If you want objectivity, go watch the NFL. 

[OrangeAfroMan]

Simply put, the old system like you mention, with a "Plus 1 as needed" caveat.  In a situation like 2004, USC would play Auburn for the NC.

More thoroughly, I'd like to go back to early 90s conferences of 10 teams each and equalize things in terms of number of teams per conference and number of conference games for all.

The ACC would have to add, the Big East would include Penn St and ND, and so on.
An equal-footing, regional system of conferences, with no RB tie-in screwing it all up (1991, 1997, etc).

No big, fat lie necessary.  Whether FBS, upper Division 1 is comprised of 80 or 66 or 40 or whatever number of teams, it's balanced and equal.  Traditional bowls work, but we'd all want a 1 vs 2 matchup.  Traditional bowl tie-ins after that are fine, if the conferences want them.  Or keep it as it was back then, but having a site for a +1 as necessary (1994) as well. 

The key is not pretending JMU and Ohio State are playing the same game.  OSU is Formula 1 and JMU is a kid in a go-kart with a lawn-mower engine on it.  Just stop it. 

If Rice is still in the SWC with Texas, then there are no built-in obstacles to Rice winning the SWC and vying for a NC.  If they're a cellar-dweller for 40 years, that's on them, but at least the format doesn't make them a 2nd-class citizen, their actions or lack of actions does.

G5 or mid-major programs are either in the group of conferences in this division or they're not.  If no conference picks you up, then you're out.  Go be in your own division and matter there, instead of being irrelevant like you are now.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Simply put, the old system like you mention, with a "Plus 1 as needed" caveat.  In a situation like 2004, USC would play Auburn for the NC.

Ok... So it's one of two things. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll let you clarify what you mean...

• Old bowl system prior to trying to force #1 vs #2, but with some sort of "extra game" if there are still major conference teams undefeated after the bowls. 
• BCS system where we try to force #1 vs #2, but with the same sort of "extra game" if we determine it's needed based on major conference undefeated teams having a reasonable claim.

I'm not going to get into the logistical issues of an "extra game"... You'd be the Czar, after all. You can figure it out lol. Just trying to figure out which of the above you prefer.

[OrangeAfroMan]

I'd prefer a 1 vs 2, for efficiency-sake.  Get it over and done with, why wait?  

But if it was traditional bowl tie-ins, that's perfectly fine, too.  If there's 2 undefeated teams after that, you have the +1.  
The logistics are easy, if you prepare as if it will happen and then adjust if it doesn't.  Yes, that costs money, but money is not an issue when it comes to college football.  

There are years you'd have a 1-loss NC after the results of the bowls.  If there aren't 2 undefeated teams going into the bowls, you wouldn't need a +1.

The larger point is, that in an even-footing format, there can't be egregious variances in SOS, if everyone has a normalized schedule format.  SOS won't be a problem.  So once you lose a game, you don't get to complain.

You may luck out and be voted NC, you may not.  

[OrangeAfroMan]

Here's my feasible, going forward idea, from the SEC board, involving a playoff and realignment:  Czar OAM