Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Example of a very poorly-designed postseason:

12-5 Rams
@
8-9 Panthers
.
Yes, the NFL is the #1 sport in our country.  Yes, everyone knew the rules going in.
That doesn't mean it's a sane system. 
It's actively bad.

Hopefully college football doesn't do the same (despite last year's top 4 seeds...)

Yet the 6+2 model that you prescribed (3-team superconferences of 20 teams each, broken into 2 divisions, every division winner gets an automatic berth) would certainly end up with teams who are the equivalent of those 8-9 Panthers. 

Yeah, those teams would probably be no worse than say 9-3 or 8-4, but in the non-parity world of CFB relative to the NFL where teams play a lot of patsies, 9-3 in CFB is basically the equivalent of being about a 0.500 team in the NFL. 

In 2000, Purdue won the B1G with an 8-3, 6-2 record. They won it by virtue of a 3-way tie with Michigan and Northwestern (who they defeated H2H). They had two bad losses (PSU and MSU, who both finished with a losing record. Yes, that wasn't a full round-robin schedule in 2000 as it was 8 conference games and an 11-team conference, but the teams they missed were Iowa and Illinois who both finished with losing records. They were ranked in the top 10 for only one week all season, at #9. 

Had the 2000 Boilermakers been in your system, I'm sure it would have generated some grumbling about an "unworthy" CFP team considering this was the final pre-bowl poll:



Purdue was 13th in the AP, 14th in the Coaches, and outside the top 15 in the final BCS standings. If we assume the old conference system the other 5 conference champs were Oklahoma (B12), Miami (bEast), FSU (ACC), Florida (SEC), and Washington (P10). 

You're telling me that you don't think there'd be grumbling about "unworthy" 8-3 Purdue being given a CFP berth instead of making enough room for teams like 10-1 Oregon State, 10-1 VT, 9-2 Nebraska, 9-2 Notre Dame (H2H win over Purdue), 9-2 Oregon, 9-2 Texas? 

I don't buy it. 

https://twitter.com/BruceFeldmanCFB/status/2007876085254668718?s=20

Is anyone still doubting this? 

Your most fertile recruiting grounds are in the south.  Before pay for play, they had no real reason to venture to other regions of the country, although some did the the B1G football factories, USC, and ND.

Green is the best recruiter in the nation now.  If you have it to pass out, they'll come.

Is anyone still doubting this? 

Your most fertile recruiting grounds are in the south.  Before pay for play, they had no real reason to venture to other regions of the country, although some did the the B1G football factories, USC, and ND.

Green is the best recruiter in the nation now.  If you have it to pass out, they'll come.

Well, I didn’t read the entire article, but what I’m sensing is that Feldman is implying that they were getting paid all along in the SEC. 

Well, I didn’t read the entire article, but what I’m sensing is that Feldman is implying that they were getting paid all along in the SEC.

Ehhh, they were getting paid everywhere. 

Yet the 6+2 model that you prescribed (3-team superconferences of 20 teams each, broken into 2 divisions, every division winner gets an automatic berth) would certainly end up with teams who are the equivalent of those 8-9 Panthers.

Yeah, those teams would probably be no worse than say 9-3 or 8-4, but in the non-parity world of CFB relative to the NFL where teams play a lot of patsies, 9-3 in CFB is basically the equivalent of being about a 0.500 team in the NFL.

In 2000, Purdue won the B1G with an 8-3, 6-2 record. They won it by virtue of a 3-way tie with Michigan and Northwestern (who they defeated H2H). They had two bad losses (PSU and MSU, who both finished with a losing record. Yes, that wasn't a full round-robin schedule in 2000 as it was 8 conference games and an 11-team conference, but the teams they missed were Iowa and Illinois who both finished with losing records. They were ranked in the top 10 for only one week all season, at #9.

Had the 2000 Boilermakers been in your system, I'm sure it would have generated some grumbling about an "unworthy" CFP team considering this was the final pre-bowl poll:



Purdue was 13th in the AP, 14th in the Coaches, and outside the top 15 in the final BCS standings. If we assume the old conference system the other 5 conference champs were Oklahoma (B12), Miami (bEast), FSU (ACC), Florida (SEC), and Washington (P10).

You're telling me that you don't think there'd be grumbling about "unworthy" 8-3 Purdue being given a CFP berth instead of making enough room for teams like 10-1 Oregon State, 10-1 VT, 9-2 Nebraska, 9-2 Notre Dame (H2H win over Purdue), 9-2 Oregon, 9-2 Texas?

I don't buy it.

a - no one gives a shit about Oregon St
b - you're comparing a situation where a 1-game worse Purdue gets in over a 9-2 ND with the example I gave of a sub-.500 team hosting a 12-5 team?  Mkay.
c - Also, ND would be in the same division as Purdue, so.....idk what to tell you

If you have a division-winner with a subpar record, they'd be the 8 seed and have to play @ the #1 team. 
Also, if you're one of those teams on the outside looking in, and you didn't win your division AND weren't one of the top 2 at-large teams, no, you don't get to bitch about anything.

Winning a 10-team division is A LOT different than going 8-9 like Carolina in a 4-team division, and you know this.
I'm afraid you're not doing a good job of really putting yourself in my proposed format. 

It’s wild to learn that sports have been done wrong the whole time.

Defend it.

Steel man the 4-team division-winners (only 6 of your 17 games being within your division) hosting a playoff game, no matter the record disparity between them and teams that didn't win their division.