Hoping the MNC Selection "Logic" Will Be Tested This Year

[NewEra 2014]

I don't really care who makes the MNC invitational this year, but I will be interested to see the logic used by the MNC committee to make their selection.

In 2016, when OSU and Washington were invited over Penn State, head to head wins didn't matter, conference championships didn't matter, and Washington's strength of schedule didn't matter. Penn State lost by too many points to Michigan, some said. But all that really mattered was that Penn State had 2 losses, and the MNC "playoff" teams didn't.

In 2017, conference championships still didn't matter, as Bama was taken over 2-loss OSU. Again, all that mattered was OSU having 2 losses, with one being a bad 55-24 loss to Iowa.

This year, there could be as many as 7 teams with zero or one loss. Will the "bad loss" logic that was used in 2016 against Penn State and in 2017 against OSU be applied to OSU's 49-20 loss to Purdue? If Oklahoma wins against Texas, Oklahoma will have avenged its only loss of the season, which was by only 3 points to Texas.

Will the "weak schedule" argument be used to keep UCF out of the playoff, even though Washington was invited to the MNC tournament in 2016 after playing a non-conference schedule that included Rutgres, Idaho, and Portland State? I do expect the weak schedule excuse will be used to keep UCF from this year's party.

I can't believe college football still can't get its postseason right after all these years, when the answer of having a true 8-team playoff is sitting there in front of them. What will hasten the 4-team invitational system's transition to an 8-team playoff will be the collapse of the MNC committee's internal logic from year to year. The committee can keep UCF out this year, and no one outside of central Florida will care. Further, there is no way this committee will keep out an undefeated Clemson or ND. The committee can still select Alabama, even if Bama loses a close game to Georgia, based on last year's MNC results and the committee's previous use of the "eye test" with respect to Bama. I believe Bama is the only program right now that deserves the benefit of the doubt of the "eye test". Every other team this year could get blown out in an MNC bowl game situation, and the committee knows it.

Where the committee previously screwed up was making conference championships not matter. By removing that perfectly definable selection criterion, the committee eliminated what effectively could have served as a first round of a playoff. As a result, the playoff system will now go to 8 teams once the committee's collapse in logic is exposed and hurts one too many name-brand teams. It happened to Penn State in 2016 and to OSU in 2017. Oklahoma or OSU could fill that role nicely this year--I hope it happens.

The committee is going to have a real logic conundrum if the final MNC spot comes down to Oklahoma vs. OSU. Even through I think OSU is the better team, I fully expect the CFP to select Oklahoma over OSU if both teams win this coming weekend. If they don't, the "bad loss" excuse will fall away, and the committee can't afford to have yet another one of its made-up criteria removed from its arsenal so soon after this bogus system was put into place.

 

[Fayette_LION]

I don't really care who makes the MNC invitational this year, but I will be interested to see the logic used by the MNC committee to make their selection.

In 2016, when OSU and Washington were invited over Penn State, head to head wins didn't matter, conference championships didn't matter, and Washington's strength of schedule didn't matter. Penn State lost by too many points to Michigan, some said. But all that really mattered was that Penn State had 2 losses, and the MNC "playoff" teams didn't.

In 2017, conference championships still didn't matter, as Bama was taken over 2-loss OSU. Again, all that mattered was OSU having 2 losses, with one being a bad 55-24 loss to Iowa.

This year, there could be as many as 7 teams with zero or one loss. Will the "bad loss" logic that was used in 2016 against Penn State and in 2017 against OSU be applied to OSU's 49-20 loss to Purdue? If Oklahoma wins against Texas, Oklahoma will have avenged its only loss of the season, which was by only 3 points to Texas.

Will the "weak schedule" argument be used to keep UCF out of the playoff, even though Washington was invited to the MNC tournament in 2016 after playing a non-conference schedule that included Rutgres, Idaho, and Portland State? I do expect the weak schedule excuse will be used to keep UCF from this year's party.

I can't believe college football still can't get its postseason right after all these years, when the answer of having a true 8-team playoff is sitting there in front of them. What will hasten the 4-team invitational system's transition to an 8-team playoff will be the collapse of the MNC committee's internal logic from year to year. The committee can keep UCF out this year, and no one outside of central Florida will care. Further, there is no way this committee will keep out an undefeated Clemson or ND. The committee can still select Alabama, even if Bama loses a close game to Georgia, based on last year's MNC results and the committee's previous use of the "eye test" with respect to Bama. I believe Bama is the only program right now that deserves the benefit of the doubt of the "eye test". Every other team this year could get blown out in an MNC bowl game situation, and the committee knows it.

Where the committee previously screwed up was making conference championships not matter. By removing that perfectly definable selection criterion, the committee eliminated what effectively could have served as a first round of a playoff. As a result, the playoff system will now go to 8 teams once the committee's collapse in logic is exposed and hurts one too many name-brand teams. It happened to Penn State in 2016 and to OSU in 2017. Oklahoma or OSU could fill that role nicely this year--I hope it happens.

The committee is going to have a real logic conundrum if the final MNC spot comes down to Oklahoma vs. OSU. Even through I think OSU is the better team, I fully expect the CFP to select Oklahoma over OSU if both teams win this coming weekend. If they don't, the "bad loss" excuse will fall away, and the committee can't afford to have yet another one of its made-up criteria removed from its arsenal so soon after this bogus system was put into place.

You can bet ND moves to No 4 after this weekend setting up a game with Bama. The other 2 will be OSU and Clemson with Okie being a possibility. Somehow, we need to get to 8 teams and let them play it out.

 

[Art]

I don't really care who makes the MNC invitational this year, but I will be interested to see the logic used by the MNC committee to make their selection.

In 2016, when OSU and Washington were invited over Penn State, head to head wins didn't matter, conference championships didn't matter, and Washington's strength of schedule didn't matter. Penn State lost by too many points to Michigan, some said. But all that really mattered was that Penn State had 2 losses, and the MNC "playoff" teams didn't.

In 2017, conference championships still didn't matter, as Bama was taken over 2-loss OSU. Again, all that mattered was OSU having 2 losses, with one being a bad 55-24 loss to Iowa.

This year, there could be as many as 7 teams with zero or one loss. Will the "bad loss" logic that was used in 2016 against Penn State and in 2017 against OSU be applied to OSU's 49-20 loss to Purdue? If Oklahoma wins against Texas, Oklahoma will have avenged its only loss of the season, which was by only 3 points to Texas.

Will the "weak schedule" argument be used to keep UCF out of the playoff, even though Washington was invited to the MNC tournament in 2016 after playing a non-conference schedule that included Rutgres, Idaho, and Portland State? I do expect the weak schedule excuse will be used to keep UCF from this year's party.

I can't believe college football still can't get its postseason right after all these years, when the answer of having a true 8-team playoff is sitting there in front of them. What will hasten the 4-team invitational system's transition to an 8-team playoff will be the collapse of the MNC committee's internal logic from year to year. The committee can keep UCF out this year, and no one outside of central Florida will care. Further, there is no way this committee will keep out an undefeated Clemson or ND. The committee can still select Alabama, even if Bama loses a close game to Georgia, based on last year's MNC results and the committee's previous use of the "eye test" with respect to Bama. I believe Bama is the only program right now that deserves the benefit of the doubt of the "eye test". Every other team this year could get blown out in an MNC bowl game situation, and the committee knows it.

Where the committee previously screwed up was making conference championships not matter. By removing that perfectly definable selection criterion, the committee eliminated what effectively could have served as a first round of a playoff. As a result, the playoff system will now go to 8 teams once the committee's collapse in logic is exposed and hurts one too many name-brand teams. It happened to Penn State in 2016 and to OSU in 2017. Oklahoma or OSU could fill that role nicely this year--I hope it happens.

The committee is going to have a real logic conundrum if the final MNC spot comes down to Oklahoma vs. OSU. Even through I think OSU is the better team, I fully expect the CFP to select Oklahoma over OSU if both teams win this coming weekend. If they don't, the "bad loss" excuse will fall away, and the committee can't afford to have yet another one of its made-up criteria removed from its arsenal so soon after this bogus system was put into place.

Tested? Should happen, but not gonna. And a "collapse in logic" will not bring about an larger playoff, just means that the committee has more opportunities to get it wrong. Besides, there are too many vested interest in keeping the system the way it is.

 

[RTRMR]

Ummmmm.....didn’t OSU only have 1 loss, last year?

 

[2020 is Our Year]

Can we please stop stating the committee compared Penn State and Ohio State in 2016 when they're on record saying the teams weren't comparable? H2H, conference title, etc wasn't a factor because they didn't compare the teams. Ohio State's win over OU coupled with our loss to Pitt ended that discussion before it began. The committee got it wrong when they compared Penn State and Washington as SOS should have given us the spot.

I thought they got it right last year. There's no way Bama should have been left out. They'll get it right this year if Georgia beats Bama (easy four at that point 1 Clemson 2 Georgia 3 Notre Dame 4 Bama as they won't have a rematch for round 1) but if Bama, Clemson, Ohio State and OU all win it gets very interesting. IMO Ohio State gets in over Oklahoma because Oklahoma's defense is a joke and they likely won't own a top 15 win (Texas will fall) while Ohio State will have 2 (Penn State and Michigan). Both teams had close calls (Maryland/Penn State vs WVU/Oklahoma State/Army/Texas Tech). The quality of wins matter more when the teams are even as opposed to losses. The number of losses has always mattered with P5 teams. They have been consistent there. I don't think the "bad loss" criteria has ever applied though they may use it to drive home a point when they didn't take a school.

Going to be an interesting selection process. I won't lie. I'm kind of hoping we get to see what Bama's offense can do to OU but Ohio State getting in could get us a NY6 bowl so hopefully it's Ohio State > OU

 

[2020 is Our Year]

Ummmmm.....didn’t OSU only have 1 loss, last year?

Iowa blew them out and OU beat them (Mayfield/flag/50 yard line)
If OSU had one loss last year they would have been in

 

[CDLionFL]

Let's also not forget that politics in 2016 helped keep Penn State out -- the committee had to keep everyone as happy as possible by not having 2 from the same conference in and leaving the Pac 12 out again.

 

[drblue1977]

I don't really care who makes the MNC invitational this year, but I will be interested to see the logic used by the MNC committee to make their selection.

In 2016, when OSU and Washington were invited over Penn State, head to head wins didn't matter, conference championships didn't matter, and Washington's strength of schedule didn't matter. Penn State lost by too many points to Michigan, some said. But all that really mattered was that Penn State had 2 losses, and the MNC "playoff" teams didn't.

In 2017, conference championships still didn't matter, as Bama was taken over 2-loss OSU. Again, all that mattered was OSU having 2 losses, with one being a bad 55-24 loss to Iowa.

This year, there could be as many as 7 teams with zero or one loss. Will the "bad loss" logic that was used in 2016 against Penn State and in 2017 against OSU be applied to OSU's 49-20 loss to Purdue? If Oklahoma wins against Texas, Oklahoma will have avenged its only loss of the season, which was by only 3 points to Texas.

Will the "weak schedule" argument be used to keep UCF out of the playoff, even though Washington was invited to the MNC tournament in 2016 after playing a non-conference schedule that included Rutgres, Idaho, and Portland State? I do expect the weak schedule excuse will be used to keep UCF from this year's party.

I can't believe college football still can't get its postseason right after all these years, when the answer of having a true 8-team playoff is sitting there in front of them. What will hasten the 4-team invitational system's transition to an 8-team playoff will be the collapse of the MNC committee's internal logic from year to year. The committee can keep UCF out this year, and no one outside of central Florida will care. Further, there is no way this committee will keep out an undefeated Clemson or ND. The committee can still select Alabama, even if Bama loses a close game to Georgia, based on last year's MNC results and the committee's previous use of the "eye test" with respect to Bama. I believe Bama is the only program right now that deserves the benefit of the doubt of the "eye test". Every other team this year could get blown out in an MNC bowl game situation, and the committee knows it.

Where the committee previously screwed up was making conference championships not matter. By removing that perfectly definable selection criterion, the committee eliminated what effectively could have served as a first round of a playoff. As a result, the playoff system will now go to 8 teams once the committee's collapse in logic is exposed and hurts one too many name-brand teams. It happened to Penn State in 2016 and to OSU in 2017. Oklahoma or OSU could fill that role nicely this year--I hope it happens.

The committee is going to have a real logic conundrum if the final MNC spot comes down to Oklahoma vs. OSU. Even through I think OSU is the better team, I fully expect the CFP to select Oklahoma over OSU if both teams win this coming weekend. If they don't, the "bad loss" excuse will fall away, and the committee can't afford to have yet another one of its made-up criteria removed from its arsenal so soon after this bogus system was put into place.

Those in charge of bowl selection and CFP are always 20 years behind the curve........due to obvious agendas which of conflict with the fans. 8 makes too much sense, too easy figure out so I guess there is .......no money in it for the ............decision makers. 5 conf. champs, 2 at large and ND if they have a winning season. joke!

 

[ILLINOISLION]

You can bet ND moves to No 4 after this weekend setting up a game with Bama. The other 2 will be OSU and Clemson with Okie being a possibility. Somehow, we need to get to 8 teams and let them play it out.

ND will be #3 this week, not #4.

 

[Lion78]

I don't really care who makes the MNC invitational this year, but I will be interested to see the logic used by the MNC committee to make their selection.

In 2016, when OSU and Washington were invited over Penn State, head to head wins didn't matter, conference championships didn't matter, and Washington's strength of schedule didn't matter. Penn State lost by too many points to Michigan, some said. But all that really mattered was that Penn State had 2 losses, and the MNC "playoff" teams didn't.

In 2017, conference championships still didn't matter, as Bama was taken over 2-loss OSU. Again, all that mattered was OSU having 2 losses, with one being a bad 55-24 loss to Iowa.

This year, there could be as many as 7 teams with zero or one loss. Will the "bad loss" logic that was used in 2016 against Penn State and in 2017 against OSU be applied to OSU's 49-20 loss to Purdue? If Oklahoma wins against Texas, Oklahoma will have avenged its only loss of the season, which was by only 3 points to Texas.

Will the "weak schedule" argument be used to keep UCF out of the playoff, even though Washington was invited to the MNC tournament in 2016 after playing a non-conference schedule that included Rutgres, Idaho, and Portland State? I do expect the weak schedule excuse will be used to keep UCF from this year's party.

I can't believe college football still can't get its postseason right after all these years, when the answer of having a true 8-team playoff is sitting there in front of them. What will hasten the 4-team invitational system's transition to an 8-team playoff will be the collapse of the MNC committee's internal logic from year to year. The committee can keep UCF out this year, and no one outside of central Florida will care. Further, there is no way this committee will keep out an undefeated Clemson or ND. The committee can still select Alabama, even if Bama loses a close game to Georgia, based on last year's MNC results and the committee's previous use of the "eye test" with respect to Bama. I believe Bama is the only program right now that deserves the benefit of the doubt of the "eye test". Every other team this year could get blown out in an MNC bowl game situation, and the committee knows it.

Where the committee previously screwed up was making conference championships not matter. By removing that perfectly definable selection criterion, the committee eliminated what effectively could have served as a first round of a playoff. As a result, the playoff system will now go to 8 teams once the committee's collapse in logic is exposed and hurts one too many name-brand teams. It happened to Penn State in 2016 and to OSU in 2017. Oklahoma or OSU could fill that role nicely this year--I hope it happens.

The committee is going to have a real logic conundrum if the final MNC spot comes down to Oklahoma vs. OSU. Even through I think OSU is the better team, I fully expect the CFP to select Oklahoma over OSU if both teams win this coming weekend. If they don't, the "bad loss" excuse will fall away, and the committee can't afford to have yet another one of its made-up criteria removed from its arsenal so soon after this bogus system was put into place.

You’ve missed the key item in their criteria. They can change it whenever they want. This year it will be the eye test and OK defense or lack thereof

 

[fairfaxlion2]

This could be the year that pushes it to 6 or 8. Some of the schools who would normally be “in” are going to get left out arbitrarily

 

[not so fast my friend]

You’ve missed the key item in their criteria. They can change it whenever they want. This year it will be the eye test and OK defense or lack thereof

OSU vs OU, they had one common opponent, TCU. OSU struggled and surged at end to win by 12 at neutral site. OSU beat them by 25 IIRC.

 

[ILLINOISLION]

This could be the year that pushes it to 6 or 8. Some of the schools who would normally be “in” are going to get left out arbitrarily

If it expands (as it should) it’ll never go to 6, it has to go to 8. Seedings will always be an issue, but throwing in byes for #1 and #2 in a 6 team format is an incredibly bad idea.....it’ll never happen.

 

[HazletonLion]

ND will get in without playing in a championship game, and if Alabama loses vs. Georgia they will get in playing a weak schedule. If OU beats Texas, OSU is out southern cooking wins. Just my guess, it still stinks.

 

[2020 is Our Year]

ND will get in without playing in a championship game, and if Alabama loses vs. Georgia they will get in playing a weak schedule. If OU beats Texas, OSU is out southern cooking wins. Just my guess, it still stinks.

Sorry but A&M, LSU & Miss State alone means Bama played more ranked teams than we did this year. Alabama won ever game by 20+. Do you realize how unreal that is? Alabama should be in if they lose to Georgia by 40.

Ohio State and Alabama have got in without playing a title game. Pretty sure OU did one year as well. I'm not sure why that's even a discussion.

I think people are making the "anti-playoff" thing out to be worse than it is. The only selection, IMO, that they got wrong was Washington over Penn State in 2016. Even the seedings of the 4 playoff teams has been dead on. 4 teams just isn't enough. Nor is 8. Nor is 12. 16 or 24 (like FCS) is what need to be done but we'll continue to be robbed of what would be the best month of sports.

 

[fastlax16]

Nothing will hasten the switch to 8. The current contract runs through 2025 and that will be the soonest you can have 8.

As far as the committee and the criteria they use. It is intentionally vague and the fact that there is turnover on the committee every year allows different factors to be weighed differently in different seasons to fit agendas. That will never change.

 

[Option Bob]

Ummmmm.....didn’t OSU only have 1 loss, last year?

No, the Buckeyes lost badly to Oklahoma and to Iowa.

 

[NewEra 2014]

Let's also not forget that politics in 2016 helped keep Penn State out -- the committee had to keep everyone as happy as possible by not having 2 from the same conference in and leaving the Pac 12 out again.

Those politics didn't keep the committee from choosing 2 SEC schools the following year in 2017 and leaving the Pac 12 out. This helps our case.

After this season, the Pac 12 will have had only 2 appearances out of 20 potential slots in the MNC invitational. Depending on how things shake out, the SEC will have had 6 or 7, and the BIG will have had 3 or 4. The Big 12 will have had 2 or 3, and the ACC will likely have had 5. (Currently, it is the SEC with 5 appearances, ACC with 4, BIG with 3, and the Pac 12 and Big 12 with 2 each). That imbalance is another factor that will push things towards a needed change.

 

[Fayette_LION]

ND will be #3 this week, not #4.

No way, all the other team play a game this weekend and ND sits home and rests. They will move to No 4. Bet on it!

 

[JWB389]

I still believe that if somebody else is your conference champion, you should not be voted to play for the national championship. Among the 130ish teams, you have already been eliminated.

 

[NittPicker]

You’ve missed the key item in their criteria. They can change it whenever they want. This year it will be the eye test and OK defense or lack thereof

Oh yeah. The eye test is back!!! Herbstriet approves.

 

[Obliviax]

Of course, ND, AL and Clemson are in almost no matter what AL and CL do in their championship games.

That leaves OK, tOSU and GA as elite, one-loss teams. IF GA beats AL, they are in. If not, that leaves OK and tOSU. If both teams win, it will come down to quality of schedule and tOSU will be in. OK beat UCLA, Iowa State, Texas, TCU, OK State, & WVU. I'd take PSU over any of those teams this year. OK's schedule isn't that they beat any elite teams but that they beat several good teams.

My bet is that tOSU is in the playoffs if they beat NW and AL beats GA.

 

[2020 is Our Year]

No way, all the other team play a game this weekend and ND sits home and rests. They will move to No 4. Bet on it!

I could see ND being 4 tonight with Georgia at 3 but the only possible way they finish 4th in the final poll is if Georgia beats Bama and Clemson beats Pitt

 

[2020 is Our Year]

Of course, ND, AL and Clemson are in almost no matter what AL and CL do in their championship games.

That leaves OK, tOSU and GA as elite, one-loss teams. IF GA beats AL, they are in. If not, that leaves OK and tOSU. If both teams win, it will come down to quality of schedule and tOSU will be in. OK beat UCLA, Iowa State, Texas, TCU, OK State, & WVU. I'd take PSU over any of those teams this year. OK's schedule isn't that they beat any elite teams but that they beat several good teams.

My bet is that tOSU is in the playoffs if they beat NW and AL beats GA.

I agree with everything here aside from the fact I don't think Clemson is a lock despite a loss IF Georgia beats Alabama. Not sure what the committee would do with a 12-1 Ohio State and/or Oklahoma that's a conference champ with a better resume over 12-1 Clemson that isn't a conference champ, no quality wins other than A&M but passes the eye test unlike the other 2. I think Clemson could have lost to South Carolina beat Pitt and been a lock but not sure about losing to Pitt. All that said, it's highly unlikely Pitt wins so...

If people want true chaos root for Texas, Northwestern, UCF and Alabama to win by about 5 scores. Then who gets the 4th spot? An undefeated UCF without Milton? A 2 loss Georgia or Michigan that got blown out in their last game? A 2 loss Ohio State or Oklahoma that just lost their title game? There is no 4th team at that point. Could be fun

 

[OzLion]

[QUOTE="NewEra 2014, post: 3831357, member: 10088

Where the committee previously screwed up was making conference championships not matter. By removing that perfectly definable selection criterion, the committee eliminated what effectively could have served as a first round of a playoff. [/QUOTE]

THIS! It is impossible to pick the four best teams among 100+ when there era only twelve games on each schedule. Why not let the conferences do triage for us, and just pick the best four conference champions (if you really have to stick with only four teams)?

 

[Kiber]

I do not see it as too difficult this season:

scenario #1 = UGA beats Bama.
> Should this happen, then Clemson gets #1, ND gets #2, UGA gets #3 and you have a 3-way argument for #4 between Bama, OU and OSU
................ In a 3-team debate, Bama wins easy. Unless Bama loses to UGA by a score of like 50-0, it is obvious to anyone that Bama is the most deserving of those 3. Not only was Bama the best team all season, but their lone loss would be to a 12-1 / #3 ranked Georgia team, while OU's loss would be to a 4-loss Texas team and OSU's loss to a 6-loss Purdue team.

scenario #2 = Bama beats Georgia.
> Should this happen then Bama is #1, Clemson #2, ND #3 and you have a 2-way argument for #4 between OU and OSU.
.............. In a 2-team debate, I believe OSU wins. Simply out, OU's defense is just so bad it is hard to justify a team with such a bad defense as one of the top 4 teams. OSU has not looked great all year, but the easy argument for the committee would be that they are the more "complete team" than OU. My guess is you will hear the term "complete team" very often Saturday night and Sunday morning leading up to the selection show. Think of it this way. The Vegas line for Bama-OSU would be much lower than the Vegas line for Bama-OU.

This is all based on OU beating TX, OSU beating NW, and Clemson beating pitt.

 

[Elwood Blues]

"Where the committee previously screwed up was making conference championships not matter. By removing that perfectly definable selection criterion, the committee eliminated what effectively could have served as a first round of a playoff."

Very well said, N.E.! Alabama did not deserve to be in the playoffs last year when they didn't win their conference ... and didn't even win their division. That should be a clear criteria for inclusion. "Eye test" = amorphous undefined factor to allow committee to do whatever the hell it wants to do. More on my anti-Alabama rant...how can the committee REWARD a team for NOT making their conf. championship game? Staying home gave Alabama another week to rest and allowed them to avoid potential injury in a championship game. They were arguably better situated for the CFB playoffs for having missed the SEC championship game.

The obvious solution is 8 team playoff, consisting of the winners of the Big 10, Pac 10, SEC, ACC and Big 12, + 3 at large bids.

Why they haven't done this is beyond me. Huge $ to be made.

The other way to fix CFB is to ban Saban and/or Alabama from participation. They've ruined the sport for years now by being too damn dominant. Seriously - didn't you all know who would win the 2018 championship after watching Tua play in the second half of the 2017 championship? For the 1st time ever, Alabama has a really good QB? Terrifying.

 

[RLCookie]

Here's my playoff recommendation. Conference Championships are Round 1. There is also one additional game played that weekend with the next 2 highest ranked teams set to square off. Here's how it would more than likely shake out this season.

Round 1 Played 12/1
Alabama vs Georgia
Clemson vs Pitt
Notre Dame vs UCF
Oklahoma vs Texas
Ohio State vs Northwesern
Washington vs Utah

After these games are played the winners are then seeded 1-6. The top 2 seeds get a bye for this week and 3 plays 6 and 4 plays 5.

Assuming no upsets.

Round 2 12/8 -
Pick two bowls to host these games.
They could change from year to year.

Alabama and Clemson get the bye.

Notre Dame vs Washington
Oklahoma vs Ohio State

The Semifinal and Final would follow the current format.

Teams that were eliminated in Rounds 1 and 2 would still be bowl eligible.

This system would add 3 games to the current schedule.
One additional game during conference championship week.
Two additional games the following week for 4 teams.
Bowl selections could still be made after Championship week.
The losers in Round 2 would be and automatic bowl match-up.

 

[ras5051]

I knew when a playoff was put in place, there was always going to be complaining. If it expands to 8 teams, people are going to complain that the number 9 team was left out.

 

[wilbury]

4 teams is plenty and it won't be changed anytime soon.

Conference championships don't matter. It's almost a worthless game. Do you think that OSU vs. NW and Clemson vs. Pitt is really deciding the conference championship?

If you really want more than 4 teams to matter, then use the conference championship but completely change the way it's determined. Eliminate all divisions, play more of a round robin and then play off the top two teams at the end (pick them however you like). Them make the conference championship a prerequisite to getting into the final four playoff.

Teams like UCF have no business in the playoff and shouldn't be offered a seat. If you want in, join a power 5 conference and play a real conference schedule.

 

[2020 is Our Year]

[QUOTE="NewEra 2014, post: 3831357, member: 10088]

Where the committee previously screwed up was making conference championships not matter. By removing that perfectly definable selection criterion, the committee eliminated what effectively could have served as a first round of a playoff.

THIS! It is impossible to pick the four best teams among 100+ when there era only twelve games on each schedule. Why not let the conferences do triage for us, and just pick the best four conference champions (if you really have to stick with only four teams)?[/QUOTE]

****************
Because it is very possible for 2 of the top 4 teams or even 3 of the top 4 team to be in one conference. Picking the best 4 champions really doesn't make sense. And, as much as I hate ND, it would eliminate them which doesn't make any sense.

 

[2020 is Our Year]

Here's my playoff recommendation. Conference Championships are Round 1. There is also one additional game played that weekend with the next 2 highest ranked teams set to square off. Here's how it would more than likely shake out this season.

Round 1 Played 12/1
Alabama vs Georgia
Clemson vs Pitt
Notre Dame vs UCF
Oklahoma vs Texas
Ohio State vs Northwesern
Washington vs Utah

After these games are played the winners are then seeded 1-6. The top 2 seeds get a bye for this week and 3 plays 6 and 4 plays 5.

Assuming no upsets.

Round 2 12/8 -
Pick two bowls to host these games.
They could change from year to year.

Alabama and Clemson get the bye.

Notre Dame vs Washington
Oklahoma vs Ohio State

The Semifinal and Final would follow the current format.

Teams that were eliminated in Rounds 1 and 2 would still be bowl eligible.

This system would add 3 games to the current schedule.
One additional game during conference championship week.
Two additional games the following week for 4 teams.
Bowl selections could still be made after Championship week.
The losers in Round 2 would be and automatic bowl match-up.

So, Alabama and George get screwed because they play in the same conference? While others get a cupcake first game? The fact this enables Washington or Utah to go to the second round but one of Georgia/Bama is automatically out makes it flawed.

 

[OzLion]

So, Alabama and George get screwed because they play in the same conference? .....

Did Alabama or Georgia play any contenders from outside their conference this year? We don't have the actual data to know how Georgia compares to, say, Ohio State or Oklahoma.

 

[PSUSignore]

Alabama won ever game by 20+. Do you realize how unreal that is?

I read that Bama is the first team since 1888 to win their first 12 games, all by 20+ points. Incredible. It's Bama's world, we're all just living in it.

 

[2020 is Our Year]

Did Alabama or Georgia play any contenders from outside their conference this year? We don't have the actual data to know how Georgia compares to, say, Ohio State or Oklahoma.

Because I've watched football even once in my life. Georgia >>>>>>>> Ohio State & OU. But, let's pretend they're not. With the 12 teams you have at worst they're 6th? You're requiring 1 to play 6 while Washington is playing Utah. That's not fair to Alabama or Georgia. Essentially Clemson, Notre Dame and Ohio State basically get a bye (yes, upsets can happen) while Georgia and Bama have a tough game. There's no "LOGIC" involved here which is the topic of the thread. Now, if you want to seed those 12 teams and create a playoff I'd be on board with that but it still is far from perfect because you could just take the top 12 teams including P5 conference winners and top G5 conf champ.

I truly believe you guys all want "conference champions" because of 2016 when it doesn't make any sense. If we go 11-1 next year with only a 1 point loss to an undefeated Ohio State next year you better believe you and everyone else will want us in the playoff and, in theory, we absolutely should be. A conference title means nothing if all conferences aren't created equal.

 

[nittnee]

THIS! It is impossible to pick the four best teams among 100+ when there era only twelve games on each schedule. Why not let the conferences do triage for us, and just pick the best four conference champions (if you really have to stick with only four teams)?

****************
Because it is very possible for 2 of the top 4 teams or even 3 of the top 4 team to be in one conference. Picking the best 4 champions really doesn't make sense. And, as much as I hate ND, it would eliminate them which doesn't make any sense.[/QUOTE]

So, every other sport on the planet has it wrong except college football? Why even have conferences?

 

[PSUSignore]

There really is no way to pick the top 4 systematically and by keeping the same pre-defined criteria every season while also ensuring that the chosen 4 also appear to be the 4 best teams in the country. It's impossible to accomplish both of those goals considering the vast variety in conferences and schedules played. As a result, the committee leans more to trying to find the 4 best teams each year which lends itself to variable criteria and the inability to have a fixed set of criteria at the start of the season that teams can work towards in order to be selected.

 

[NewEra 2014]

****************
Because it is very possible for 2 of the top 4 teams or even 3 of the top 4 team to be in one conference. Picking the best 4 champions really doesn't make sense. And, as much as I hate ND, it would eliminate them which doesn't make any sense.

So, every other sport on the planet has it wrong except college football? Why even have conferences?[/QUOTE]

nitnee, we have to keep in mind that the poster named 2020 is Our Year is a troll. I'm sure I will be putting him on ignore (again) soon, because he destroys threads on a consistent basis.

I am with you. If there are 100 teams and only 12 games played by each team, they are going to play dissimilar schedules. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR COMPARISON. So conferences do make sense in CFB, and 2020 and his buddies at ESPN have no idea if one conference is better than another. They just have the "eye test", which has jacked up the CFB postseason for decades.

 

[2020 is Our Year]

So, every other sport on the planet has it wrong except college football? Why even have conferences?

Name another sport that only includes conference champions? There isn't one. College football has it dead wrong. All champions should be included but there also needs to be at large teams. All other levels acknowledge the second place team is sometimes better than the first place team in a lesser conference. This is why we need the FCS mode.

You guys realize none of you have said you want all conference champions included but yet you want the conference title to mean something. There's no LOGIC there.

 

[RLCookie]

Name another sport that only includes conference champions? There isn't one. College football has it dead wrong. All champions should be included but there also needs to be at large teams. All other levels acknowledge the second place team is sometimes better than the first place team in a lesser conference. This is why we need the FCS mode.

You guys realize none of you have said you want all conference champions included but yet you want the conference title to mean something. There's no LOGIC there.

The system I proposed does include conference champions. I understand your argument about Alabama and Georgia. Take a look at Alabama's regular season schedule compared to some of the rest. There is no way to truly get parity. It's just not going to happen.

I always hear they don't want to do away if the conference championship games, they want to limit the number of games played in the post season, they want everyone to have an opportunity to get in, and they don't want to do away with the bowl games.

What I'm proposing does all of that.