[dabigv13]

I think the argument the 9th team has is less than the argument the 5th team may have. Just like there is controversy about the last team out for the NCAA MBB tourney, but no one really thinks that team has a great chance to win.

As soon as they started talking playoffs, I always figured it should be 8. I'd prefer we just go back to the Pac 10, no CCGs, and a B10-P10 Rose Bowl and the polls can sort it out in the end, but I guess that's less profitable.

If 8 is more profitable, I'm sure we'll end up there at some point.

[dabigv13]

I think the argument the 9th team has is less than the argument the 5th team may have. Just like there is controversy about the last team out for the NCAA MBB tourney, but no one really thinks that team has a great chance to win.

As soon as they started talking playoffs, I always figured it should be 8. I'd prefer we just go back to the Pac 10, no CCGs, and a B10-P10 Rose Bowl and the polls can sort it out in the end, but I guess that's less profitable.

If 8 is more profitable, I'm sure we'll end up there at some point.

[Goose]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=18462.msg220062#msg220062 date=1514784346]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18462.msg220060#msg220060 date=1514783994]
I’d do a six team playoff.  Five P5 conference champions and top G5 team.  The conference championship would thus be like a play-in game.  You don’t win your conference championship?  Tough.  You don’t win your division?  Too bad.  You don’t belong to a conference? Maybe tha would make it a good time to join one.

BC

Cool, but what is the advantage of 6 vs 8? It takes the same time to play it out, and 8 allows teams to not join a conference or lose a conference championship if they are willing to take "luck of the draw" in the remaining 3 positions.
[/quote]

First, I consider forcing teams to join a conference to be a feature, not a bug.  Second, in essence this makes it a twelve team playoff, since the conference championships in function as a third playoff round.  Third, it makes every conference game matter, since (hypothetically) if you lay an egg against Auburn, you don’t get in, even if you are Alabama.  Fourth, it prevents the national championship from featuring two teams from the same conference.  Fifth, it prevents three OMG SEC teams from going to the playoffs.  And sixth, it does give the best two teams a bye, so it reduces the chances a freak win by the eighth seed, or a team that just gets hot during the playoffs.

BC
[/quote]
OK, I fully understand your points. However, I don't agree that losing your conference championship should ipso facto disqualify you from the national championship. You have a higher bar to qualify, because you have to get selected by a committee, but you still may deserve a shot. You may have lost to a two loss team because of a bad call, for example. Also, it isn't necessarily bad that two teams from the same conference play for the National Championship, if that is what the results produce. We may not like the SEC, but if they can win through, they should have the opportunity. I must also say that I do consider forcing a team to join a conference to be a bug, but that is probably a minor point. It shouldn't be the Larry Scott's of the world or nothing. 

[Goose]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=18462.msg220062#msg220062 date=1514784346]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18462.msg220060#msg220060 date=1514783994]
I’d do a six team playoff.  Five P5 conference champions and top G5 team.  The conference championship would thus be like a play-in game.  You don’t win your conference championship?  Tough.  You don’t win your division?  Too bad.  You don’t belong to a conference? Maybe tha would make it a good time to join one.

BC

Cool, but what is the advantage of 6 vs 8? It takes the same time to play it out, and 8 allows teams to not join a conference or lose a conference championship if they are willing to take "luck of the draw" in the remaining 3 positions.
[/quote]

First, I consider forcing teams to join a conference to be a feature, not a bug.  Second, in essence this makes it a twelve team playoff, since the conference championships in function as a third playoff round.  Third, it makes every conference game matter, since (hypothetically) if you lay an egg against Auburn, you don’t get in, even if you are Alabama.  Fourth, it prevents the national championship from featuring two teams from the same conference.  Fifth, it prevents three OMG SEC teams from going to the playoffs.  And sixth, it does give the best two teams a bye, so it reduces the chances a freak win by the eighth seed, or a team that just gets hot during the playoffs.

BC
[/quote]
OK, I fully understand your points. However, I don't agree that losing your conference championship should ipso facto disqualify you from the national championship. You have a higher bar to qualify, because you have to get selected by a committee, but you still may deserve a shot. You may have lost to a two loss team because of a bad call, for example. Also, it isn't necessarily bad that two teams from the same conference play for the National Championship, if that is what the results produce. We may not like the SEC, but if they can win through, they should have the opportunity. I must also say that I do consider forcing a team to join a conference to be a bug, but that is probably a minor point. It shouldn't be the Larry Scott's of the world or nothing. 

[BostonCard]

So why if you lose in your conference championship game do you potentially deserve another shot, but if you lose in the playoff semifinal game, even if it is because of a bad call, then you are done.  If you look at the conference championships as just one more playoff round, then it might be easier to get behind my idea of “conference champions or nothing”.

Even better, reorganize college football into 4 16-team conferences, and have an eight team playoff, with each division winner playing in a conference final/national quarterfinal, then have the PAC-16 play the 16 team BigTen in the Rose Bowl for one semi-final, while the SEC and ACC champs square off in the Sugar or Orange Bowl.  The winners then play in the National Championship.

BC

[BostonCard]

So why if you lose in your conference championship game do you potentially deserve another shot, but if you lose in the playoff semifinal game, even if it is because of a bad call, then you are done.  If you look at the conference championships as just one more playoff round, then it might be easier to get behind my idea of “conference champions or nothing”.

Even better, reorganize college football into 4 16-team conferences, and have an eight team playoff, with each division winner playing in a conference final/national quarterfinal, then have the PAC-16 play the 16 team BigTen in the Rose Bowl for one semi-final, while the SEC and ACC champs square off in the Sugar or Orange Bowl.  The winners then play in the National Championship.

BC

[CompSci87]

So why if you lose in your conference championship game do you potentially deserve another shot, but if you lose in the playoff semifinal game, even if it is because of a bad call, then you are done.  If you look at the conference championships as just one more playoff round, then it might be easier to get behind my idea of “conference champions or nothing”.

That's how I look at it, FWIW.

[CompSci87]

So why if you lose in your conference championship game do you potentially deserve another shot, but if you lose in the playoff semifinal game, even if it is because of a bad call, then you are done.  If you look at the conference championships as just one more playoff round, then it might be easier to get behind my idea of “conference champions or nothing”.

That's how I look at it, FWIW.

[CowboyIndian]

it isn't necessarily bad that two teams from the same conference play for the National Championship, if that is what the results produce.

[glow=red,2,300]If those results are brought about by an inequitable system wherein those two participants played one fewer in-conference game and a trio of high school teams to get there, then, yes, it is bad.[/glow]

We may not like the SEC, but if they can win through, they should have the opportunity.

([glow=red,2,300]See above...which also applies to ACC teams, just slightly less so. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that 3 of the 4 teams in the race this year were from those two conferences). This is a committee problem of bowing to the $EC.[/glow]



I must also say that I do consider forcing a team to join a conference to be a bug, but that is probably a minor point. It shouldn't be the Larry Scott's of the world or nothing.

[CowboyIndian]

it isn't necessarily bad that two teams from the same conference play for the National Championship, if that is what the results produce.

[glow=red,2,300]If those results are brought about by an inequitable system wherein those two participants played one fewer in-conference game and a trio of high school teams to get there, then, yes, it is bad.[/glow]

We may not like the SEC, but if they can win through, they should have the opportunity.

([glow=red,2,300]See above...which also applies to ACC teams, just slightly less so. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that 3 of the 4 teams in the race this year were from those two conferences). This is a committee problem of bowing to the $EC.[/glow]



I must also say that I do consider forcing a team to join a conference to be a bug, but that is probably a minor point. It shouldn't be the Larry Scott's of the world or nothing.

[Goose]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=18462.msg220070#msg220070 date=1514790907]

it isn't necessarily bad that two teams from the same conference play for the National Championship, if that is what the results produce.

[glow=red,2,300]If those results are brought about by an inequitable system wherein those two participants played one fewer in-conference game and a trio of high school teams to get there, then, yes, it is bad.[/glow]

We may not like the SEC, but if they can win through, they should have the opportunity.

([glow=red,2,300]See above...which also applies to ACC teams, just slightly less so. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that 3 of the 4 teams in the race this year were from those two conferences). This is a committee problem of bowing to the $EC.[/glow]



I must also say that I do consider forcing a team to join a conference to be a bug, but that is probably a minor point. It shouldn't be the Larry Scott's of the world or nothing.

[/quote]
It is true that the conferences aren't equal. Even we all played the same number of conference games, they wouldn't be equal. I love the years we don't play Utah, because they are hard for us to beat, historically. Some years the B1G is good, other years, not so much. This is also true in the NFL. The AFC South for example. You are correct that the differences in scheduling policy creates a built-in advantage for the SEC, which the committee should punish, but generally does not. However, that is just another imperfection in a very imperfect system. If we could get the committee down to 3 choices of the 8, that would help. But, no matter what is done, the idea of a true "national champion" is a  chimera. I think we all know that, but would at least like to have a system with more credibility than the current one.

[Goose]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=18462.msg220070#msg220070 date=1514790907]

it isn't necessarily bad that two teams from the same conference play for the National Championship, if that is what the results produce.

[glow=red,2,300]If those results are brought about by an inequitable system wherein those two participants played one fewer in-conference game and a trio of high school teams to get there, then, yes, it is bad.[/glow]

We may not like the SEC, but if they can win through, they should have the opportunity.

([glow=red,2,300]See above...which also applies to ACC teams, just slightly less so. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that 3 of the 4 teams in the race this year were from those two conferences). This is a committee problem of bowing to the $EC.[/glow]



I must also say that I do consider forcing a team to join a conference to be a bug, but that is probably a minor point. It shouldn't be the Larry Scott's of the world or nothing.

[/quote]
It is true that the conferences aren't equal. Even we all played the same number of conference games, they wouldn't be equal. I love the years we don't play Utah, because they are hard for us to beat, historically. Some years the B1G is good, other years, not so much. This is also true in the NFL. The AFC South for example. You are correct that the differences in scheduling policy creates a built-in advantage for the SEC, which the committee should punish, but generally does not. However, that is just another imperfection in a very imperfect system. If we could get the committee down to 3 choices of the 8, that would help. But, no matter what is done, the idea of a true "national champion" is a  chimera. I think we all know that, but would at least like to have a system with more credibility than the current one.