If you really believe in a PLAY-OFF why wouldn't you only consider Conf Champs?

[IAHokie]

I consider navigating the regular season to get to the conf champ game as step one of the playoff, winning your conf champ game is step 2 of the playoff, winning the semifinal BCS game is step 3, and winning the BCS championship is step 4 of the path to the MNC.
This scenario keeps the regular season and conference championship games relevant and actually makes them critical. Isn't that one part of college football that we love?
Let's say we have an 8 team play-off & the number one team gets knocked out in round one. We don't say wait a minute, the number one team has to be in the final 4, so we toss one of the other teams out & replace it with #1. If a number #1 thru 4 team can't win their conference then I say too bad.
Let's also consider the scenario of 4 mega conferences. You'd have to assume the four champions would meet in a play-off regardless of ranking. Why wouldn't we do the same now - of course you'd have to use rankings currently to pick the best 4 conference champions.
I think rankings are a lot of speculation. Winning your division & conf championship game is not.

[BUGGZY]

I consider navigating the regular season to get to the conf champ game as step one of the playoff, winning your conf champ game is step 2 of the playoff, winning the semifinal BCS game is step 3, and winning the BCS championship is step 4 of the path to the MNC.
This scenario keeps the regular season and conference championship games relevant and actually makes them critical. Isn't that one part of college football that we love?
Let's say we have an 8 team play-off & the number one team gets knocked out in round one. We don't say wait a minute, the number one team has to be in the final 4, so we toss one of the other teams out & replace it with #1. If a number #1 thru 4 team can't win their conference then I say too bad.
Let's also consider the scenario of 4 mega conferences. You'd have to assume the four champions would meet in a play-off regardless of ranking. Why wouldn't we do the same now - of course you'd have to use rankings currently to pick the best 4 conference champions.
I think rankings are a lot of speculation. Winning your division & conf championship game is not.

with smaller conferences, i would agree. USC-e went 5-0 in the SEC east last year and didn't win the division because they had 2 cross-division losses. uga arguably had a much easier cross-over schedule than USC-e and won all 3 of them. so even though uga was 4-1 in division and lost to usc-e, they won the division.

my point is, schedule imbalance both within leagues and across leagues would be a good reason to leave the door cracked for an at-large. i think conf champs should be given preference and that the playoff should be based on that premise, but the door shouldn't be completely closed for a deserving at-large IMO. Alabama would have qualified as deserving last year, IMO.

[IAHokie]

with smaller conferences, i would agree. USC-e went 5-0 in the SEC east last year and didn't win the division because they had 2 cross-division losses. uga arguably had a much easier cross-over schedule than USC-e and won all 3 of them. so even though uga was 4-1 in division and lost to usc-e, they won the division.

my point is, schedule imbalance both within leagues and across leagues would be a good reason to leave the door cracked for an at-large. i think conf champs should be given preference and that the playoff should be based on that premise, but the door shouldn't be completely closed for a deserving at-large IMO. Alabama would have qualified as deserving last year, IMO.

Agree, I wouldn't be opposed to a way to work one at large into the playoff.

[Freddyburg Hokie]

Agree, I wouldn't be opposed to a way to work one at large into the playoff.

I have no problem with at-larges in the playoff, but not at the expense of legitimate conference champions. My proposal, if you *have* to limit it to four teams, would be to take the top 4 conference champions in the top 6. If there are only three, then you take an at-large.

However, the top 5 conference champions and 3 at-larges would work fine for me as well. =^)

[East Cobb Hokie]

I'm in favor of a calculated ranking, with major calculation credit for:

1. Playing in conference CG.
2. Winning Conf CG

with smaller conferences, i would agree. USC-e went 5-0 in the SEC east last year and didn't win the division because they had 2 cross-division losses. uga arguably had a much easier cross-over schedule than USC-e and won all 3 of them. so even though uga was 4-1 in division and lost to usc-e, they won the division.

my point is, schedule imbalance both within leagues and across leagues would be a good reason to leave the door cracked for an at-large. i think conf champs should be given preference and that the playoff should be based on that premise, but the door shouldn't be completely closed for a deserving at-large IMO. Alabama would have qualified as deserving last year, IMO.

[Hokie CPA]

I'm in favor of a calculated ranking, with major calculation credit for:

1. Playing in conference CG.
2. Winning Conf CG

You mean like, maybe a point system which awards each team 1 point for every win, 1 point for winning their division (playing in the title game), maybe 2 points for winning the conference championship, and points for ending the year in the top 5 (5 points for a #1 ranking, 4 points for #2 and so on)? Something like that? Such a system last year would have given us a playoff #1 LSU, #2 Oklahoma State, #3 Oregon and #4 Alabama. Three conference champs and an at-large.

I suppose that could be tolerable, but I still don't think a team that fails to win its conference should have a shot at a national championship. That's just my feeling on it though. I will forever scoff at Bama's 2011 national title because they didn't even win the SEC West, much less the SEC. It's a tainted tile any way you slice it. Had Oklahoma State got the title shot they'd earned then regardless of the winner, it would have been an indisputable national championship. Either LSU would have been undefeated and national champs or LSU and Oklahoma State would have both finished with one loss and Oklahoma State would have had a head to head win for the title. Alabama would have also had only won loss, but it would have been at home to LSU and any claim to a title would have been rightfully ridiculed. Keep it between the conference champs, I say.

[BUGGZY]

You mean like, maybe a point system which awards each team 1 point for every win, 1 point for winning their division (playing in the title game), maybe 2 points for winning the conference championship, and points for ending the year in the top 5 (5 points for a #1 ranking, 4 points for #2 and so on)? Something like that? Such a system last year would have given us a playoff #1 LSU, #2 Oklahoma State, #3 Oregon and #4 Alabama. Three conference champs and an at-large.

I suppose that could be tolerable, but I still don't think a team that fails to win its conference should have a shot at a national championship. That's just my feeling on it though. I will forever scoff at Bama's 2011 national title because they didn't even win the SEC West, much less the SEC. It's a tainted tile any way you slice it. Had Oklahoma State got the title shot they'd earned then regardless of the winner, it would have been an indisputable national championship. Either LSU would have been undefeated and national champs or LSU and Oklahoma State would have both finished with one loss and Oklahoma State would have had a head to head win for the title. Alabama would have also had only won loss, but it would have been at home to LSU and any claim to a title would have been rightfully ridiculed. Keep it between the conference champs, I say.

this sounds like a pretty good idea. since i have strong feelings about scheduling FCS schools, maybe something like this:

FBS Win: 2
FCS Win: 1
FBS Loss: 0
FCS Loss: -1
Division Champ: 2 (yes, Big12 would have to forfeit these 2 points EVERY year)
Conference Champ: 3
Top 5 bonus: (5 for #1 - 1 for #5)
Quality Win Bonus: 1 (counts for any team in FINAL top 15 you beat)
Quality Loss Bonus: .5 (counts for any team in FINAL top 15 you lost to)

Those last 2 are my way of trying to encourage better OOC scheduling, but maybe i'm being greedy!

[Hokie CPA]

this sounds like a pretty good idea. since i have strong feelings about scheduling FCS schools, maybe something like this:

FBS Win: 2
FCS Win: 1
FBS Loss: 0
FCS Loss: -1
Division Champ: 2 (yes, Big12 would have to forfeit these 2 points EVERY year)
Conference Champ: 3
Top 5 bonus: (5 for #1 - 1 for #5)
Quality Win Bonus: 1 (counts for any team in FINAL top 15 you beat)
Quality Loss Bonus: .5 (counts for any team in FINAL top 15 you lost to)

Those last 2 are my way of trying to encourage better OOC scheduling, but maybe i'm being greedy!

I like it! Although you might have to give an independent maybe 2.5 points to accomodate there independence. They shouldn't get as many points as a conference champ, but there needs to be an adjustment since conference championship game winners will get a 5 point bonus. Maybe give independents a 2.5 point bonus and the Big XII champ a 1.5 point bonus?

Somebody crunch the numbers! How many points would each team in, say, the top 15 have at the end of last season? How close would it have been in naming 4 playoff participants? 8? What would the breakdown have been vis a vis conference champs vs at-large bids?

[BUGGZY]

I like it! Although you might have to give an independent maybe 2.5 points to accomodate there independence. They shouldn't get as many points as a conference champ, but there needs to be an adjustment since conference championship game winners will get a 5 point bonus. Maybe give independents a 2.5 point bonus and the Big XII champ a 1.5 point bonus?

Somebody crunch the numbers! How many points would each team in, say, the top 15 have at the end of last season? How close would it have been in naming 4 playoff participants? 8? What would the breakdown have been vis a vis conference champs vs at-large bids?

ok, so maybe i need to tweak it a bit since Clemson would have gotten in using that point system! but i still like the concept

points.JPG

[Hokie CPA]

ok, so maybe i need to tweak it a bit since Clemson would have gotten in using that point system! but i still like the concept

points.JPG

I thought you were going to give 2 points for a I-A win, not 1. Try that. I think you'll get Clemson and Alabama tied, and I would defer to the conference champ in that case, but others would defer to the bogus #2 ranking.