UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

I would keep the current playoff committee and still have them rank teams weekly. IMO 8 teams would be broken down something along the lines of:

Each of the 5 power conferences gets an automatic bid. The conference champion does not get the automatic bid but rather the highest ranked team from the conference as determined by the CFB playoff committee. This would eliminate 3 and 4 loss teams that happen to win their conference championships in a down league year.

The highest ranked team from the Group of 5 if ranked in the top 12 by the playoff committee.

Two At Large Teams (Three if the Group of 5 team is outside the playoff committee's top 12).

Don't all of them play in the exact same division?

If Washington beats Utah. Washington is the highest ranked Pac 12 team. It would also mean that Michigan would almost certainly get the Big 10 auto-bid if Northwestern beats OSU, . . which seems pretty shitty since they lost twice and got de-pants by the Bucks just last week. Oklahoma is probably a lock going into Saturday . . . they could lose to UT and still be ranked ahead of them. then OU is in the playoff having lost twice to UT. If UT beats them and moves ahead of OU, then you've got three-loss UT with an auto-bid. I'm just not a fan of automatic bids for conferences or conference champions. Too likely it will result in a less deserving team getting a spot over a clearly more deserving team.

What happens if Pitt and Northwestern Win. There would be a 4 and 5 loss team in the playoffs. Expanding to 6 or 8 and guaranteeing the conference champion gets in would essentially make the regular season meaningless. There would be no incentive to schedule non-conference teams that are either quality or even in the FBS. This would lead to Notre Dame struggling to find quality opponents to schedule, forcing them to join a conference as they would be left out without a quality schedule. The committee would be more apt to put a UCF team in over Notre Dame due to the SOS and the extra win in the Conference Championship.

The NFL does it and no one seems to have a problem with it. If there are conferences, then the titles have to mean something. I think having 8 in is a good solution and it only adds one game to the equation. Quarterfinal round is at higher seed's home field with semi's sliding into the existing bowl schedule.

Conference Championships still make the regular season meaningful. You don't have to seed them 1 through 5. You could still have the committee doing the rankings but they would have to get serious about the importance of quality OOC games in the rankings since conference championships would no longer be a factor. For example, if NW won this year, seed them 8 and make them play Alabama at home. You could also have a fall back out,i.e., a team has to be ranked in the Top 12 to be included. It actually makes quality OOC games more viable since you don't have to worry about playing, and losing to, a good team if you can win your conference. You could also have a fall back out, i.e.,a team has to be ranked in the Top 12 to be included.

(no message)

You've raised some valid points, but just because the NFL has it set that way doesn't make it right. Fans still complain when a 7-9 team is not deserving of being in the playoffs. In fact I heard some broadcaster's complaining about it on the radio this weekend.

I still don't believe an 8-5 Northwestern team would deserve to get in the playoffs over 12-0 UCF, a 9-2 Army, 10-2 Boise St, or a 10-2 Utah St. If that were to happen, you can believe that Michigan and Ohio State Fans would be complaining insistently, as they always do. If you have to put the caveat of top 12, I believe that it would do as I said previously, and erode the importance of the conference championship.

Although this is not perfect, I think the current way is the best way to ensure that the sample size is small enough to make it matter ensuring quality games, and not take away from the bowl games.

It actually increases the importance of the conference championships. The current system already makes allowances for the importance of conference championships but this year there is a good possibility that only 2 of the 5 conference get represented.

Hey, a 9-4 NW getting in (not sure where you get 8-5) doesn't bother me in the least over the teams you mentioned. I doubt those teams would be quite as successful as their current records if they played a Power 5 conference schedule so I don't hold those teams in as high regard as you do. Even a down BIG10 in 2018 is legions beyond the conferences those teams play in. btw, I only suggested the top 12 (maybe 15) rating as an idea. I suspect it would rarely come into play but as least it is a safeguard. For example, this year it is highly doubtful that either Pitt or NW is going to be within 20 points of the Clemson or OSU.

Funny thing is, a team like UCF has a better chance of getting in with an 8 team playoff with auto ins because no conference can have a beef if theoretically their "best" team is in. And teams like UCF(whose 12-0 is a testament to their weakness of their schedule, not their quality) might actually get to play some better OOC teams if the Power5 teams aren't afraid of that one quality OOC loss (i.e. like Michigan if they hadn't swallowed their dick).

(no message)

(no message)

It's a big payday, huge exposure and a loss wouldn't hurt their chances at making the playoffs. Right now there is zero incentive for Bama to schedule ND during the regular season.

These would be nothing more than scrimmages to prepare for your conference games.

If you can't win your conference, SOS would be the determining factor of getting in. The best way to do that is by scheduling quality OOC teams. Playing Citadel, or the like, doesn't help anymore while playing UCF, or ND, does. Washington State would be better off playing UCF (than EWU or SJSU) because a win would really boost their ranking and a loss wouldn't hurt them.

Perfect example this year is Michigan where losses to OSU and ND would almost ensure that they are one of the top 8 over virtually any other school including a 13-0 UCF who plays virtually nobody. In addition, UCF, or other teams with like ambitions, would have an easier time scheduling high quality Power5 teams because a loss to UCF wouldn't doom a team to being left out if they didn't win the conference as well as gain them some credibility even in a 'quality' loss. Just like a 10-2 Michigan ought to be a shoo in, any other team that had two losses if one of those losses was to a 13-0 UCF would have a strong argument to be left in.

(no message)

Unless you are privy to something happening behind the scene, the current CFP contract w/ ESPN runs through 2025.

An expanded playoff renders this past weekend's OSU-Michigan contest as just another game with minimal impact. Michigan only dropped to 7. Both are in. Losing by 29 to a .500 team? No problem, you're in. Let's just award orange slices and participation trophies while we're at it.

Almost every sport awards playoff spots to the conference/division champs. It's not based on the "Best" teams necessarily. There is no valid reason that this can't work. It actually would have made the Michigan OSU game more important. Winning your conference would actually mean something.

The contract with ESPN could easily be restructured. There would be far more money to go around with an 8 team playoff vs the current system.

Thankfully, D1 college football is not like any other sport. The regular season actually matters, a lot.

Again, this amounts to a participation trophy. Not every conf champ deserves to be in. Washington has no business being awarded a seat at the table.

Only elite teams allowed in.

That's the format. Sounds great.

You want the best of the best. The point of conferences is to share costs versus make it to the playoffs. Without Conferences, a lot of schools would no longer have football programs.

The Power 5 conferences will make sure they are guaranteed a spot. Leaving 3 at large bids. Rather than the current 4.

They can guarantee a spot to a non Power 5 school.

ND was 4-8. UCF hadn't arrived yet. Western Michigan was the highest rated non-Power 5 school at the end of the year.

They were the obvious standout with a record and ranking in line with other non-Power 5 teams to make a big bowl game.

UCF was only ranked #10 last year entering its bowl game. Hawaii was #10 entering the 2008 Sugar Bowl. Boise State was #9 entering the 2007 Fiesta Bowl.

Not sure what your point is supposed to be with this. That #12 W. Michigan belonged in a 6-team playoff ahead of most of the teams ranked ahead of them?

A 13-0, 12th-ranked team from the MAC is very similar to a 13-0, 10th-ranked team from the American East. UCF beat #7 Auburn by a TD in a New Year's Six bowl game while WM lost to #8 Wisconsin by a TD in a NYS bowl game. I don't think WM was any less deserving of consideration than UCF was and is.

A six-team playoff is silly regardless since it requires an extra week of games and there'd by no reason to cap the playoff at six rather than eight. But I think an undefeated champion from a non-Power 5 conference that meets a certain ranking threshold (that's not necessarily eighth or better) automatically getting a spot in an eight-team playoff would be a good thing.

UCF is kind of a special case now because they are on a 21-game win streak and beat Auburn during that streak. The 2016 Western Michigan team isn't in that neighborhood. The closest thing they had to a good win in '16 was over 7-6 Northwestern. Even just looking at UCF's credentials at the end of last season, before the bowl win over Auburn, they finished out by beating #22 and then #16 on consecutive weeks. Western Michigan finished the 2016 regular season without having played a ranked opponent, let alone having beaten one. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that if you guarantee a playoff spot to "one non-power 5 team," as proposed, you are going to end up with an undeserving team most years unless ND has a great season. It would be a good situation for ND, because ND would be in almost every year it could win 9 games -- and would maybe have a shot some years at 8-4. But it would be a hoax to put them in just because they were the highest rated "non-power 5 team." Western Michigan did not belong in an 8 team playoff in 2016. And they certainly shouldn't have been guaranteed a spot by virtue of being the highest ranked non-power 5 team.

At the very least, though UCF was/is the better team.

WMU won at Northwestern, a team that went bowling, barely lost at #6 Ohio State and finished #35 in the Sagarin ratings. It also hammered Illinois, who wasn't good, but WMU did what a good team is supposed to do in that situation even as a MAC school playing on the road in the Big 10.

UCF did have those back-to-back Top 25 wins against South Florida and Memphis, but those teams built their national rankings on the same middling American East schools by piling up mostly unimpressive wins. The AE is better than the MAC, but Memphis's best wins were over a couple six or seven-win teams, two of which were ranked at the time only to freefall well out of any ranking consideration; South Florida's only victory against a team better than 6-6 last season came against Stony Brook, an FCS school. Memphis finished #32 in Sagarin while USF was #41.

UCF was and is really good, but I don't think what they did in the regular season last year was notably better than what WMU did the season before, and both played really competitive New Year's Six games. WMU finished the season #21 in Sagarin after the Wisconisn loss; UCF finished #13 after the Auburn win. I'd assume they were even closer to the same spot before playing their respective bowl games.

I'm just for including teams like 2016 WMU, 2017/18 UCF, etc. in NYS bowl games and, if there is one, an expanded playoff. I don't think there should be a guaranteed spot for the best non-Power 5 team, but there should be if the best of that litter meets a certain threshold (undefeated and/or ranked #XX or better, etc.). I don't think it's bad for college football or competitive balance to give credit and exposure to teams and conferences like these.

The suggestion was that there should be a guaranteed spot in the playoff for the top rated non-Power 5 team. That’s stupid. In pointing out how stupid it is, I mentioned that in a year where ND isn’t great and there isn’t a special case like UCF, the guaranteed spot would go to a completely undeserving team, like Western Michigan in ‘16, and would basically be a hoax. But, yes, UCF in’17 wasn’t playoff worthy either, while having a better case than WMU. I wasn’t referring to UCF ‘17 in my original post, however. They are a special case NOW because they beat Auburn in the bowl last year and still haven’t lost — they own the longest winning streak in the nation by far. They are a more credible selection in’18. That’s all I was getting at. If you guarantee a spot to the top rated non-Power 5 team, some years you’ll get a deserving ND, some year’s you’ll get a historic UCF, some years you’ll get an underwhelming UCF, and some year’s you’ll get complete crap . . . like a Western Michigan that didn’t play a single ranked opponent . . . or worse. And WMU ‘16 was demonstrably less deserving than UCF ‘17, despite your best efforts to spin that. Same ballpark? Ok. One played and beat ranked opponents, while one had a best win over a 7-6 team. But, okay. Whatever. Ultimately the point is that neither belonged in the playoff, and the suggestion of guaranteeing a playoff spot to the top ranked non-Power 5 team couldn’t be more stupid.

From my last post:

"I'm just for including teams like 2016 WMU, 2017/18 UCF, etc. in NYS bowl games and, if there is one, an expanded playoff. I don't think there should be a guaranteed spot for the best non-Power 5 team, but there should be if the best of that litter meets a certain threshold (undefeated and/or ranked #XX or better, etc.)."

So I don't think an eight-team playoff should automatically have a non-Power 5 spot, but I do think that a NP5 team should get an auto spot if it meets a strict threshold/criteria such as being ranked in the Top [pick a number].

It's pretty silly to say 2017 UCF didn't belong in an eight-team playoff last year considering it beat Auburn, who was #7 in the final CFP rankings and entered the SEC Championship Games ranked #2. UCF five one-loss teams, five two-loss teams and a three-loss team in the final CFP rankings. It then beat an Auburn team everyone was fine having in the CFP with two losses.

(no message)

If conference champs are in, they don't have to be in the top 8.

So if it magically ended today, Washington at 11 is in.

The playoff would look like:

Bama - sec winner
Clemson - acc winner
OU - Big 12 winner
OSU - BIG 10 winner
Wash - Pac 12 winner

ND - At large - ranked 3rd
UGA - At large - ranked 4th
Michigan - At Large - ranked 7th

So UCF at 8 would be left out.

And this is a weird year because Bama and Clemson have been chalk. In years with more parity, ND would have lots of issues getting in.

. . . two-loss teams would be in the playoff, including UM. With a possibility of a three-loss team. Florida is currently lurking at #9. And the Pac 12 champ will have three losses this year. Expanded playoffs solve the problem of the fight over four spots, but it ain't a cure all.

(no message)

Award conference champs plus one at large from non-power 5 team. Or expand to eight and have 2 more at large. Who cares if people cry. It is what it is.

And Northwestern would be in if they win Saturday. I don't know. Not sure how making conference champions automatically in makes "conference championships irrelevant." And I think it leads to some unwanted results. With the 6 format this year, Texas has a clearer path than ND.

(no message)

How does that work? Most conferences expanded precisely so they could create two divisions that would determine two qualifying teams for a conference championship game. I guess Washington would be in this year for the Pac 12 at 9-3 by virtue of a head-to-head tie breaker with 9-3 Utah. Okay. You still have freakin' 9-3 Washington in the playoff. While Georgia, for example, misses out. That's great. And what would you have done about the SEC last year? Three teams from two divisions finished with identical records (Auburn, Alabama, and Georgia). Who is that conference champ without the conference championship game?

(no message)

The ACC has fourteen. They can't all play each other every year. That's a mess waiting to happen. Even more manageable 12 team conferences (Big 10 and Pac 12) won't all play each other either, unless non-conference games are simply eliminated. And it will invariably lead to the nonsensical result of lesser teams getting in over better teams that simply played in the same conference as the best team, or worse lost a coin toss or something -- such as an 11-1 UGA being left out of a playoff in favor of a three-loss Pac 12 co-champ like Washington this year. It's a bad idea. A really bad idea.

(no message)

(no message)

They did it for decades with no problem.

The more teams, the fewer head-to-heads and the more likely there are teams with identical records who didn't play each other. And the landscape was so different. Christ, in the Big 10 in the old days you knew it was just going to come down to Ohio State/Michigan most years. In the Big 8, Nebraska/Oklahoma. It was easier. Conference expansion and divisions was designed to make determining a champion easier in an era with scholarship limits and more parity. And like I said, the future is now. Everything has evolved into the current paradigm, which includes conference championships. How is that genie going back in the bottle? The answer is: it isn't. And, again, the idea of determining a champion in a 14 team conference without divisions is just one problem. You are still talking about a circumstance where a three-loss co-champ from the Pac 12 gets in over an 11-1 Georgia team that is easily one of the top four teams in the country. It's a bad idea. .

(no message)

Conferences are so large now because two-divisions makes it manageable. With more teams in conferences,(like 14) without divisions and a chance to pit division winners against each other at the end, the chances of teams not playing each other and ending up with identical records goes way up. So you end up with, for example, three really good SEC teams having one loss and it is basically decided by a coin toss. Meanwhile, in a down year in the Pac 12 a middling three-loss co-champ gets in. You really don't see the problem? You really don't see how UGA missing out and UW getting in this year is a shit show? Or Western Michigan getting in over a team that had the bad luck of being in the same conference as Clemson or Alabama, but was worlds better than the Cinderella Broncos? It's a bad idea. Sorry. It just is.

Win your Conference to get in. 2 at large bids for the teams that are clearly good enough. One at large outside the Power 5. Easy peasy.

Nothing stays the same. BCS, CFP, conference realignment, conference championship games. None of that existed all that long ago. It will change again and it won't be perfect. Just like it isn't perfect now.

That doesn't mean they'd want to give up on their own championship games. Especially the big conferences which would have unmanageable single divisions of up to 14 teams. Eliminating the conference championship games in no way is part-and-parcel with the idea of auto-bid for a conference champ. You are just throwing elimination of conference championships out there as your preference. The most likely way it would play out if auto-bids were given to the Power 5 champs would be in connection with the conference championship games. The conferences have aligned themselves specifically to have two divisions and a championship game. There is no reason to eliminate that. You mentioned the Big 10 had 11 schools for awhile. What happened with that? THEY ADDED ANOTHER TEAM TO SPLIT INTO DIVISIONS. That future is now. So unless the conferences are going to start eliminating teams, this is an awful pipe dream.