Smoke your cigars and enjoy the band while you can....

[CHONGS]

ChiPOTLE would be great for this.  No preseason ranking was used at all.

[KITNfury]

There are no rules.  Guidelines at best.  There simply is no reason to use "judgment"  for sports that compete against each other in a field of play.  Like has been said,  the conference schedule is a tournament of sorts.  It is there to determine who that conference declares as "the best".  And whether someone's opinion turns out to be right,  using subjective measure like "eyeball test"  or whatever makes the current playoff a joke.  It's way better than what the history of Cfb has provided us,  but still a joke. 

There simply is no strong argument to let each conference present their "best"  (however they determine that team is)  to be included in the championship picture.  I'd let the G5 decide on their own how they decide who their best is.  Then let a committee pick the other 2 teams.  And there will undoubtedly be teams that feel snubbed,  but they could have won their conference and didn't,  so too bad so sad.

So go ahead and make OOC equivalent to the NFL preseason then?  That's certainly an option, but it sounds boring AF. 

Your conference record should not weigh into the equation anymore than you OOC should.  That's how CFB works.  It's how it's always worked.  Winning the conference has always been a prize in and of itself.

You don't think that OOC games would be incredibly important when deciding between the 2 at larges?

And besides,  the OOC means virtually nothing except for maybe 10 teams w/ legit final 4 aspirations (roughly the same amount of teams that would be qualified for an at large) .  It's a wash IMO, and encourages more intriguing match ups because all is not lost if you drop an OOC game.  But they still absolutely matter.

[DQ12]

There are no rules.  Guidelines at best.  There simply is no reason to use "judgment"  for sports that compete against each other in a field of play.  Like has been said,  the conference schedule is a tournament of sorts.  It is there to determine who that conference declares as "the best".  And whether someone's opinion turns out to be right,  using subjective measure like "eyeball test"  or whatever makes the current playoff a joke.  It's way better than what the history of Cfb has provided us,  but still a joke. 

There simply is no strong argument to let each conference present their "best"  (however they determine that team is)  to be included in the championship picture.  I'd let the G5 decide on their own how they decide who their best is.  Then let a committee pick the other 2 teams.  And there will undoubtedly be teams that feel snubbed,  but they could have won their conference and didn't,  so too bad so sad.

So go ahead and make OOC equivalent to the NFL preseason then?  That's certainly an option, but it sounds boring AF. 

Your conference record should not weigh into the equation anymore than you OOC should.  That's how CFB works.  It's how it's always worked.  Winning the conference has always been a prize in and of itself.

You don't think that OOC games would be incredibly important when deciding between the 2 at larges?

And besides,  the OOC means virtually nothing except for maybe 10 teams w/ legit final 4 aspirations (roughly the same amount of teams that would be qualified for an at large) .  It's a wash IMO, and encourages more intriguing match ups because all is not lost if you drop an OOC game.  But they still absolutely matter.

Oh, sure.  In an 8 team model i agree with you.  5 conference champs, 2 at large, 1 G5.  100%.

The more I think about it though, I think 8 may be too many.  A 3 loss team has no business competing for a national title, and I think that could happen pretty often in an 8 team format.

[catastrophe]

So go ahead and make OOC equivalent to the NFL preseason then?  That's certainly an option, but it sounds boring AF. 

There are still two at large spots for a chance to play for the Natty, just like there were in the BCS days. Why would that be any more boring? The OOC would turn into nothing but a chance to resume build in case you fail to win a tough conference. Do you seriously think teams would schedule LESS exciting OOC games than they do currently?

[Rage Against the McKee]

There are no rules.  Guidelines at best.  There simply is no reason to use "judgment"  for sports that compete against each other in a field of play.  Like has been said,  the conference schedule is a tournament of sorts.  It is there to determine who that conference declares as "the best".  And whether someone's opinion turns out to be right,  using subjective measure like "eyeball test"  or whatever makes the current playoff a joke.  It's way better than what the history of Cfb has provided us,  but still a joke. 

There simply is no strong argument to let each conference present their "best"  (however they determine that team is)  to be included in the championship picture.  I'd let the G5 decide on their own how they decide who their best is.  Then let a committee pick the other 2 teams.  And there will undoubtedly be teams that feel snubbed,  but they could have won their conference and didn't,  so too bad so sad.

So go ahead and make OOC equivalent to the NFL preseason then?  That's certainly an option, but it sounds boring AF. 

Your conference record should not weigh into the equation anymore than you OOC should.  That's how CFB works.  It's how it's always worked.  Winning the conference has always been a prize in and of itself.

You don't think that OOC games would be incredibly important when deciding between the 2 at larges?

And besides,  the OOC means virtually nothing except for maybe 10 teams w/ legit final 4 aspirations (roughly the same amount of teams that would be qualified for an at large) .  It's a wash IMO, and encourages more intriguing match ups because all is not lost if you drop an OOC game.  But they still absolutely matter.

Oh, sure.  In an 8 team model i agree with you.  5 conference champs, 2 at large, 1 G5.  100%.

The more I think about it though, I think 8 may be too many.  A 3 loss team has no business competing for a national title, and I think that could happen pretty often in an 8 team format.

The 3 loss team would be seeded 8, though. If they could run that gauntlet, it would be pretty hard to say they are not deserving.

[catastrophe]

I mean, is anyone sitting around pissed off when some crappy team that squeaked into the NCAA tournament by winning its conference tournament makes a deep run? 8 teams is the right number. I've always advocated for that and I'll never advocate for more (unless KSU ends up in a non-P5 conference).

[DQ12]

There are no rules.  Guidelines at best.  There simply is no reason to use "judgment"  for sports that compete against each other in a field of play.  Like has been said,  the conference schedule is a tournament of sorts.  It is there to determine who that conference declares as "the best".  And whether someone's opinion turns out to be right,  using subjective measure like "eyeball test"  or whatever makes the current playoff a joke.  It's way better than what the history of Cfb has provided us,  but still a joke. 

There simply is no strong argument to let each conference present their "best"  (however they determine that team is)  to be included in the championship picture.  I'd let the G5 decide on their own how they decide who their best is.  Then let a committee pick the other 2 teams.  And there will undoubtedly be teams that feel snubbed,  but they could have won their conference and didn't,  so too bad so sad.

So go ahead and make OOC equivalent to the NFL preseason then?  That's certainly an option, but it sounds boring AF. 

Your conference record should not weigh into the equation anymore than you OOC should.  That's how CFB works.  It's how it's always worked.  Winning the conference has always been a prize in and of itself.

You don't think that OOC games would be incredibly important when deciding between the 2 at larges?

And besides,  the OOC means virtually nothing except for maybe 10 teams w/ legit final 4 aspirations (roughly the same amount of teams that would be qualified for an at large) .  It's a wash IMO, and encourages more intriguing match ups because all is not lost if you drop an OOC game.  But they still absolutely matter.

Oh, sure.  In an 8 team model i agree with you.  5 conference champs, 2 at large, 1 G5.  100%.

The more I think about it though, I think 8 may be too many.  A 3 loss team has no business competing for a national title, and I think that could happen pretty often in an 8 team format.

The 3 loss team would be seeded 8, though. If they could run that gauntlet, it would be pretty hard to say they are not deserving.

A 3 loss team shouldn't have the opportunity though.  If you lose 3 games, you should be damned that season.  IMO.

For example, USC very well could be playing the best football in the country right now, but they lost three times, so screw them.  Alabama shouldn't have to mess around with a 3-loss USC and risk a flukey upset.  This isn't the basketball tournament and there shouldn't be CFB cinderellas. You play 12 or 13 games during the regular season and each one is VERY important because if you lose one, you put your entire season at risk.  If you lose two, you can pretty much forget about it -- time to work towards a different goal. 

I really like that aspect about CFB because when you're near the top, each week is dramatic and high stakes.  Letting 3 loss teams salvage their season by competing (or winning) a national title takes away from that.

At the top of CFB it's zero-sum.  Every game you add to the post-season diminishes the importance of regular season games -- the rewards for winning them and the penalties of losing them. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

There are no rules.  Guidelines at best.  There simply is no reason to use "judgment"  for sports that compete against each other in a field of play.  Like has been said,  the conference schedule is a tournament of sorts.  It is there to determine who that conference declares as "the best".  And whether someone's opinion turns out to be right,  using subjective measure like "eyeball test"  or whatever makes the current playoff a joke.  It's way better than what the history of Cfb has provided us,  but still a joke. 

There simply is no strong argument to let each conference present their "best"  (however they determine that team is)  to be included in the championship picture.  I'd let the G5 decide on their own how they decide who their best is.  Then let a committee pick the other 2 teams.  And there will undoubtedly be teams that feel snubbed,  but they could have won their conference and didn't,  so too bad so sad.

So go ahead and make OOC equivalent to the NFL preseason then?  That's certainly an option, but it sounds boring AF. 

Your conference record should not weigh into the equation anymore than you OOC should.  That's how CFB works.  It's how it's always worked.  Winning the conference has always been a prize in and of itself.

You don't think that OOC games would be incredibly important when deciding between the 2 at larges?

And besides,  the OOC means virtually nothing except for maybe 10 teams w/ legit final 4 aspirations (roughly the same amount of teams that would be qualified for an at large) .  It's a wash IMO, and encourages more intriguing match ups because all is not lost if you drop an OOC game.  But they still absolutely matter.

Oh, sure.  In an 8 team model i agree with you.  5 conference champs, 2 at large, 1 G5.  100%.

The more I think about it though, I think 8 may be too many.  A 3 loss team has no business competing for a national title, and I think that could happen pretty often in an 8 team format.

The 3 loss team would be seeded 8, though. If they could run that gauntlet, it would be pretty hard to say they are not deserving.

A 3 loss team shouldn't have the opportunity though.  If you lose 3 games, you should be damned that season.  IMO.

USC very well could be playing the best football in the country right now, but they lost three times, so screw them.  Alabama shouldn't have to mess around with a 3-loss USC and risk a flukey upset.  This isn't the basketball tournament and there shouldn't be CFB cinderellas. You play 12 or 13 games during the regular season and each one is VERY important because if you lose one, you put your entire season at risk.  If you lose two, you can pretty much forget about it -- time to work towards a different goal. 

I really like that aspect about CFB because when you're near the top, each week is dramatic and high stakes.  Letting 3 loss teams salvage their season by competing (or winning) a national title takes away from that.

Well, USC didn't win the PAC 12, so that is moot. CCGs are really the only thing that makes a 3 loss champ somewhat likely, but there isn't a good way to get rid of them if we are going to have large conferences where you only play about half of the other teams in any given year.

I don't like how we put the teams we think are the best against each other every year in college football. It would be a lot better if every team had a clear defined path that enabled them to reach the playoffs if they can take care of business against their schedule. It would certainly make things a lot more interesting. What was the point of even watching the Big 10 Championship game? Most of America had no reason to tune in to OU/OSU, either.

[Panjandrum]

There are no rules.  Guidelines at best.  There simply is no reason to use "judgment"  for sports that compete against each other in a field of play.  Like has been said,  the conference schedule is a tournament of sorts.  It is there to determine who that conference declares as "the best".  And whether someone's opinion turns out to be right,  using subjective measure like "eyeball test"  or whatever makes the current playoff a joke.  It's way better than what the history of Cfb has provided us,  but still a joke. 

There simply is no strong argument to let each conference present their "best"  (however they determine that team is)  to be included in the championship picture.  I'd let the G5 decide on their own how they decide who their best is.  Then let a committee pick the other 2 teams.  And there will undoubtedly be teams that feel snubbed,  but they could have won their conference and didn't,  so too bad so sad.

So go ahead and make OOC equivalent to the NFL preseason then?  That's certainly an option, but it sounds boring AF. 

Your conference record should not weigh into the equation anymore than you OOC should.  That's how CFB works.  It's how it's always worked.  Winning the conference has always been a prize in and of itself.

You don't think that OOC games would be incredibly important when deciding between the 2 at larges?

And besides,  the OOC means virtually nothing except for maybe 10 teams w/ legit final 4 aspirations (roughly the same amount of teams that would be qualified for an at large) .  It's a wash IMO, and encourages more intriguing match ups because all is not lost if you drop an OOC game.  But they still absolutely matter.

That's the point.  OU should be lauded for the schedule they played.  If I'm a fan, that's what I want to see them play.

In terms of this year, if we had 8 teams, the conference title is a safety net for OU.  If they're Ohio St., then they are rewarded for their schedule and quality.  So is Michigan.  There's even room for a Cinderella in WMU.  Or, if you feel so compelled, add another team like USC.  Or give Wisconsin or WVU a crack at it.

This year, if OU lost to Houston, Ohio St., and then went 9-0 and lost a conference title game against WVU or OSU after beating them the first time, it would be a question about who gets in between, say, WVU or OU.  But the end result would be a 10-3 vs. 11-2 team with really nice looking resumes.

[Panjandrum]

At the end of the day, eight teams pretty much gives you everything you want.  Based on the top 8 in 2014 and 2015, it covered all major criteria:

* Denotes conf. champ

2015:
1) Clemson*
2) Alabama*
3) Michigan St.*
4) Oklahoma*
5) Iowa
6) Stanford*
7) Ohio St.
8) Notre Dame

2014:
1) Alabama*
2) Oregon*
3) Florida St.*
4) Ohio St.*
5) Baylor*
6) TCU*
7) Mississippi St.*
8) Michigan St.*

No teams had more than two losses.  This is the first year where we'd have a three loss team in the top 8.

I mean, I'm not sure that you have a system that would be more fair than that.

[KITNfury]

At the end of the day, eight teams pretty much gives you everything you want.  Based on the top 8 in 2014 and 2015, it covered all major criteria:

* Denotes conf. champ

2015:
1) Clemson*
2) Alabama*
3) Michigan St.*
4) Oklahoma*
5) Iowa
6) Stanford*
7) Ohio St.
8) Notre Dame

2014:
1) Alabama*
2) Oregon*
3) Florida St.*
4) Ohio St.*
5) Baylor*
6) TCU*
7) Mississippi St.*
8) Michigan St.*

No teams had more than two losses.  This is the first year where we'd have a three loss team in the top 8.

I mean, I'm not sure that you have a system that would be more fair than that.

The only way to make it more "fair"  would to clearly define a G5's path.  However,  that becomes extremely tricky and possibly could be refined in coming years.  What you,  I,  and others are proposing are miles better than any chance they have now (which is basically zero).

But any power conference simply could not whine about not making it regardless if they felt they are better than team x that got one of the 2 at large spots.  You knew what you had to do to earn your spot,  you either won the games or you didn't.  Nobody to blame. 

[catastrophe]

This is my second-favorite thing about the 8-team format (after better OOC games): you can instantly shut down any P5 team from whining about how they didn't get it.  "Hey, you had a clear, objective way to do it and you just didn't."

[catastrophe]

Come to think of it, that's probably why ESPN seems so anti-expansion.  They live off butt hurt.

[MakeItRain]

KSU could get in with 2 losses if they could show they were an elite program more than once every 15 years.

That shouldn't matter,  but I think you know that.

It doesn't matter, K-State fan gotta K-State fan

[michigancat]

KSU could get in with 2 losses if they could show they were an elite program more than once every 15 years.

That shouldn't matter,  but I think you know that.

It doesn't matter, K-State fan gotta K-State fan

I'm taking the approach that no one is picking on KSU. If we're good enough, we're in. Unfortunately, "good enough" encompasses more than one year to the voters.

[MakeItRain]

KSU could get in with 2 losses if they could show they were an elite program more than once every 15 years.

That shouldn't matter,  but I think you know that.

It doesn't matter, K-State fan gotta K-State fan

I'm taking the approach that no one is picking on KSU. If we're good enough, we're in. Unfortunately, "good enough" encompasses more than one year to the voters.

Voters don't determine the playoff spots, it's a completely different mindset and process.

[michigancat]

KSU could get in with 2 losses if they could show they were an elite program more than once every 15 years.

That shouldn't matter,  but I think you know that.

It doesn't matter, K-State fan gotta K-State fan

I'm taking the approach that no one is picking on KSU. If we're good enough, we're in. Unfortunately, "good enough" encompasses more than one year to the voters.

Voters don't determine the playoff spots, it's a completely different mindset and process.

you can call them whatever you want but they are still humans and will be influenced by a multitude of factors, including preseason rankings.

[DQ12]

Voters don't determine the playoff spots, it's a completely different mindset and process.

you can call them whatever you want but they are still humans and will be influenced by a multitude of factors, including preseason rankings.

There's no evidence of this whatsoever.

[michigancat]

Voters don't determine the playoff spots, it's a completely different mindset and process.

you can call them whatever you want but they are still humans and will be influenced by a multitude of factors, including preseason rankings.

There's no evidence of this whatsoever.

There's no evidence that human decisions are influenced by a multitude of factors?

[DQ12]

Voters don't determine the playoff spots, it's a completely different mindset and process.

you can call them whatever you want but they are still humans and will be influenced by a multitude of factors, including preseason rankings.

There's no evidence of this whatsoever.

There's no evidence that human decisions are influenced by a multitude of factors?

There's no evidence of the CFP committee basing their decision on any metric other than teams' resumes in any given season.

Maybe they will sometime in the future and K-State or Iowa or Arkansas or Arizona or whoever will get wrongfully screwed, but it hasn't happened yet.

[michigancat]

Voters don't determine the playoff spots, it's a completely different mindset and process.

you can call them whatever you want but they are still humans and will be influenced by a multitude of factors, including preseason rankings.

There's no evidence of this whatsoever.

There's no evidence that human decisions are influenced by a multitude of factors?

There's no evidence of the CFP committee basing their decision on any metric other than teams' resumes in any given season.

Maybe they will sometime in the future and K-State or Iowa or Arkansas or Arizona or whoever will get wrongfully screwed, but it hasn't happened yet.

There's no evidence that a teams' resume in a given season precludes preseason/early season rankings from consideration. There's no evidence of anything either way. And even if they weren't conscious of the preseason ranking influence, it's still there.

It also would have been entirely reasonable for 2014 TCU to start in the top 5 and end up in the CFP with the same record if OSU or Oregon had started the season unranked.

[MakeItRain]

KSU could get in with 2 losses if they could show they were an elite program more than once every 15 years.

That shouldn't matter,  but I think you know that.

It doesn't matter, K-State fan gotta K-State fan

I'm taking the approach that no one is picking on KSU. If we're good enough, we're in. Unfortunately, "good enough" encompasses more than one year to the voters.

Voters don't determine the playoff spots, it's a completely different mindset and process.

you can call them whatever you want but they are still humans and will be influenced by a multitude of factors, including preseason rankings.

That would esessentially require an entire committee of people to devalue all of the work they do evaluating the teams. Rankings, especially preseason rankings, have little to no evaluation at all. Phil Steele is the only person I know who uses evaluation of spring football to make a preseason ranking. The committee doesn't convene until October, its safe to say for the most part the preseason polls have lost, at least some, significance.

[michigancat]

KSU could get in with 2 losses if they could show they were an elite program more than once every 15 years.

That shouldn't matter,  but I think you know that.

It doesn't matter, K-State fan gotta K-State fan

I'm taking the approach that no one is picking on KSU. If we're good enough, we're in. Unfortunately, "good enough" encompasses more than one year to the voters.

Voters don't determine the playoff spots, it's a completely different mindset and process.

you can call them whatever you want but they are still humans and will be influenced by a multitude of factors, including preseason rankings.

That would esessentially require an entire committee of people to devalue all of the work they do evaluating the teams. Rankings, especially preseason rankings, have little to no evaluation at all. Phil Steele is the only person I know who uses evaluation of spring football to make a preseason ranking. The committee doesn't convene until October, its safe to say for the most part the preseason polls have lost, at least some, significance.

preseason rankings have a significant impact on mid October rankings. You are correct they are less significant to the committee but there will always be lingering effects.

[DQ12]

I don't care to take the time to do the research on this to confirm, but i'd hypothesize that rusty has it backwards: that the CFP poll influences the AP and coaches -- not the other way around

[michigancat]

I don't care to take the time to do the research on this to confirm, but i'd hypothesize that rusty has it backwards: that the CFP poll influences the AP and coaches -- not the other way around

I'm 100% sure it goes both ways. I also do not care to take the time to do the research.