I would make Dale Steele the official coin flipper for the final 3 games.

Kinda like Frank Fallon and the Final 4.

- BUmma

well, given what they have done so far, there is a clear ranking system in place which is based off of the number wins, the number of losses, and whether someone has one a conference title game, and that seems more fair and equitable than virtually any other system that they could put in place. Basically, even though the talking heads on tv and the CFP committee spends tons of time talking about various metrics, those metrics really haven't mattered.

The Big 12 was left out in 2014 because there was a 12-1 P5 conference champion available. If Ohio State had had 2 losses, it would not have been in, and this rule was also shown when 2015 11-1 Oklahoma made it when the PAC12 champ had 2 losses.

Ohio State made it in 2016 because it was 11-1 and there was no 12-1 (or better) P5 conference champion available for that slot.

Alabama made it in 2017 because it was 11-1 and there was no 12-1 (or better) P5 conference champion available for that slot.

Basically, based on the prior results of the CFP, if the final 8 teams are the below teams with their associated records (in no order), fans would know who is going to make the CFP:
Alabama 13-0 w/SEC title
Clemson 13-0 w/ACC title
Oklahoma 12-1 w/Big 12 title
Michigan 12-1 w/B1G title
Notre Dame 11-1
Washington 11-2 w/PAC12 title
Georgia 11-2
Texas 11-2

As an Alabama fan and season ticket holder I am biased. But if you didn't think they belonged last year.....? The committee picks the 4 best teams. Not the 4 best records.

PacificBear said:

---

As an Alabama fan and season ticket holder I am biased. But if you didn't think they belonged last year.....? The committee picks the 4 best teams. Not the 4 best records.

---

I am an LSU fan so equally biased, but how do you define "best"?

Obviously in hindsight y'all won and so you can say that the committee was correct in their decision. But I don't think that they were justified in making that decision given the facts at the time. Honestly, were y'all the best in the league? Most weekends it seemed like it. But how do you prove that without the very biased "eye test"? You need stats, conference titles, and strength of schedules. Then there was that Auburn game. Not a huge fluke, no huge mistakes and no terrible refs. It wasn't an early loss either. It was near the end of the season when the team should be playing their best, unless otherwise affected by injuries.

I think that solidifies the head-to-head decision. And they were the best team you played. Your second best game was (8-4) LSU, who ended up losing to notre dame that bowl season. In other words, Bama lost to the only team that was comparable to their talent level. Plus I think the lack of a conference championship title is a much larger detriment to team resume than what they apparently think. That adds another game matched up with the toughest (or one of the toughest for divided conferences) teams in your conference, so to have that extra game, and to have it as a win should matter significantly more than what they decided.

(Edit: I also think it's unfair that UGA had to play an extra game against a very good Auburn, which increased chances of injury before playoff games, and Bama was given a free bye week. What did they do to deserve that? The only good team they played was the team who beat them..)

There was no perfect choice for spot 4 that year, but I think an Ohio St, USC, or UCF would have been a more justified choice in what they claim matters.

Either way, looking forward to the game on 11/3. Y'alls offense looks ridiculous, hoping the tigers can show up and make it interesting.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

well, given what they have done so far, there is a clear ranking system in place which is based off of the number wins, the number of losses, and whether someone has one a conference title game, and that seems more fair and equitable than virtually any other system that they could put in place. Basically, even though the talking heads on tv and the CFP committee spends tons of time talking about various metrics, those metrics really haven't mattered.

The Big 12 was left out in 2014 because there was a 12-1 P5 conference champion available. If Ohio State had had 2 losses, it would not have been in, and this rule was also shown when 2015 11-1 Oklahoma made it when the PAC12 champ had 2 losses.

Ohio State made it in 2016 because it was 11-1 and there was no 12-1 (or better) P5 conference champion available for that slot.

Alabama made it in 2017 because it was 11-1 and there was no 12-1 (or better) P5 conference champion available for that slot.

Basically, based on the prior results of the CFP, if the final 8 teams are the below teams with their associated records (in no order), fans would know who is going to make the CFP:
Alabama 13-0 w/SEC title
Clemson 13-0 w/ACC title
Oklahoma 12-1 w/Big 12 title
Michigan 12-1 w/B1G title
Notre Dame 11-1
Washington 11-2 w/PAC12 title
Georgia 11-2
Texas 11-2

---

Fair enough, those are good points.

I will say, I don't think there should ever be two teams from the same conference in the four spots. I think that's what makes the process so sloppy and this is where bias is introduced. They assumed in 2017 that an 11-1 Bama who didn't have a major test in the SEC championship game was better than the other P5 champions. They had just lost the week prior to that game. Who is to say that they wouldn't lose again? How is it fair to give them an extra week of preparation, rest, injury recovery when Georgia, whose only loss was to the team who beat alabama, had to face off in a tough SEC game. Not sure how that's justified. If you go strictly off record, then UCF is more deserving. Otherwise, you are simply assuming that the SEC is the better conference without giving other conferences a chance to disprove that.

If CFP remains a four-team show, I would love to see it as an inter-conference matchup every year where conference bias does not exclude other championship teams, especially P5 teams.

I think the logical thing is to do it like hoops as I mentioned above. 8 teams consisting of 5 P5 champs and 3 at large. I'm actually fine with it being a little bigger with even more at large.

If the above just cant be done without contamination by human bias as has been suggested then go back to the BCS system but instead of a play off of two the top 8 are a play off, whoever the top 8 are.

PartyBear said:

---

I think the logical thing is to do it like hoops as I mentioned above. 8 teams consisting of 5 P5 champs and 3 at large. I'm actually fine with it being a little bigger with even more at large.

If the above just cant be done without contamination by human bias as has been suggested then go back to the BCS system but instead of a play off of two the top 8 are a play off, whoever the top 8 are.

---

Agreed, 8 team is by far best option. I'm not sure why there hasn't been more momentum toward this direction yet. As far as ESPN is concerned, you involve more fan bases from more diverse areas. And they all have a shot at dethroning the kings of CFB. This easily increases revenue. The only thing is figuring out how to plan and schedule it out, since that would essentially equal an NFL season for playoff-bound teams.

FWIW, found this article from this past January. Maybe ESPN will surprise us with a logical decision.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/why-an-eight-team-college-football-playoff-could-come-to-pass-sooner-than-we-expect/

Agree with OP.
Eight teams would be best.
If it has to remain four, then they should only be conference champions.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Dia del DougO said:

---

The BCS as garbage.

Anything based on polls is garbage.

---

Agreed to a certain extent since there is no way to fully remove preseason/recruiting bias.

The CFP has honestly been the closest thing to an objective evaluation of teams, as the CFP has established a hierarchy so far:
1. 13-0 w/conference title
2. 12-1 w/conference title
3. 11-1
4. ? (possibly 12-1 w/o conference title)
That provides a clear picture as to what a team needs to achieve in order to make the final four. Basically, if a team is not 13-0, whether or not they get in depends on what happens with other teams.

---

You need to add P5 in front of all of those or UCF would have a big complaint.

NFL has 32 teams and 12 teams make the playoffs. It's silly that only 4 teams make the NCAA playoffs with over 100 FBS schools and 60+ P5 schools.

64 team playoff. Works for round ball. So what if the regular season is only seven weeks long...

I also like 8 teams, but I think the 8 spots should go to the 8 best teams regardless of conference or power 5 affiliation. Doing that would hopefully encourage interconference matchups throughout the season so that conferences could better be evaluated against the others.

I don't think 5 spots should automatically be given to the P5 champs since a 3+ loss team can very conceivably win a conference championship with a conference playoff. Plus, if all you have to do is win your conference, I think it would encourage teams to play cupcakes in the out of conference schedule since those games would be meaningless.

This year's Alabama team is at least 2 TDs better than anyone else. Winning at death valley this year is probably a L for anyone other than Alabama. Their offense this year is ridiculous. They're pulling their starters early in the second half and still boat racing everyone. Granted, they haven't played an elite team yet, but they're destroying a pretty decent slate. I don't think there are any elite teams this year unfortunately . . . other than Alabama.

Just to put it simply: there is NO WAY to know who the best x number of teams are. 120 teams play 12 games. Hardly any really cross major conferences. Saying we can be sure Alabama is the best team this year is just absurd. Heck, their schedule so far is barely better than UCF's. So why should I be convinced they are great.

Bottom line:you should have to earn your ticket on the field. That's why conference champs should be the standard

TechDawgMc said:

---

Just to put it simply: there is NO WAY to know who the best x number of teams are. 120 teams play 12 games. Hardly any really cross major conferences. Saying we can be sure Alabama is the best team this year is just absurd. Heck, their schedule so far is barely better than UCF's. So why should I be convinced they are great.

Bottom line:you should have to earn your ticket on the field. That's why conference champs should be the standard

---

When UCF beats Ole Miss in Oxford 62-7, dismantles Mizzu who is good this year (beat Purdue at Purdue - who we all know beat Ohio State), and destroys A&M who is good this year, we can compare them. It's not just winning, it's whether the games are the least bit competitive. Alabama's 2nd team is playing almost as much as it's first team. I concede Louisville is down this year and that Alabama hasn't played LSU or Georgia yet, but I think this Alabama team may be the best one they've had in a while just because the offense is so good.

TechDawgMc said:

---

Just to put it simply: there is NO WAY to know who the best x number of teams are. 120 teams play 12 games. Hardly any really cross major conferences. Saying we can be sure Alabama is the best team this year is just absurd. Heck, their schedule so far is barely better than UCF's. So why should I be convinced they are great.

Bottom line:you should have to earn your ticket on the field. That's why conference champs should be the standard

---

I personally agree and will always think that only conference champs should get in (unless expanded to 8). I think it gives more value to the conference title which has really lost its value since 2014. However, I will say that someone I was talking with did give a good counterargument to that- it could actually end up devaluing record and schedule if there are big upsets in the championship game, like an undefeated team losing to a three or even four loss team. This of course likely would never occur in a round robin big 12, but could be likely ever now and then in divided conferences.
Basically the counterargument would be, did the conference champ in that scenario earn the title or just play a surprisingly good game in the championship?
I still think that's the way it should be, because upsets are just part of college football and that's what makes games exciting. You have to win to get in.

Chuckroast said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Just to put it simply: there is NO WAY to know who the best x number of teams are. 120 teams play 12 games. Hardly any really cross major conferences. Saying we can be sure Alabama is the best team this year is just absurd. Heck, their schedule so far is barely better than UCF's. So why should I be convinced they are great.

Bottom line:you should have to earn your ticket on the field. That's why conference champs should be the standard

---

When UCF beats Ole Miss in Oxford 62-7, dismantles Mizzu who is good this year (beat Purdue at Purdue - who we all know beat Ohio State), and destroys A&M who is good this year, we can compare them. It's not just winning, it's whether the games are the least bit competitive. Alabama's 2nd team is playing almost as much as it's first team. I concede Louisville is down this year and that Alabama hasn't played LSU or Georgia yet, but I think this Alabama team may be the best one they've had in a while just because the offense is so good.

---

The problem is defining 'best'. It invites the same bias found in the current committee CFP rankings.

SEC teams start the year, every year, over ranked and play nobody. They beat each other. But, their their losses are to other ranked (artificially overranked at the start of the year) SEC teams so losses don't hurt them as bad.

Teams in other conferences don't enjoy the same over ranking (with a few exceptions) so the perception of their losses are exaggerated compared to SEC losses.

Dillydilly1845 said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

Just to put it simply: there is NO WAY to know who the best x number of teams are. 120 teams play 12 games. Hardly any really cross major conferences. Saying we can be sure Alabama is the best team this year is just absurd. Heck, their schedule so far is barely better than UCF's. So why should I be convinced they are great.

Bottom line:you should have to earn your ticket on the field. That's why conference champs should be the standard

---

I personally agree and will always think that only conference champs should get in (unless expanded to 8). I think it gives more value to the conference title which has really lost its value since 2014. However, I will say that someone I was talking with did give a good counterargument to that- it could actually end up devaluing record and schedule if there are big upsets in the championship game, like an undefeated team losing to a three or even four loss team. This of course likely would never occur in a round robin big 12, but could be likely ever now and then in divided conferences.
Basically the counterargument would be, did the conference champ in that scenario earn the title or just play a surprisingly good game in the championship?
I still think that's the way it should be, because upsets are just part of college football and that's what makes games exciting. You have to win to get in.

---

The problem I have with automatic bids is that you are automatically rewarding the P5 conferences. It may only be P4 in a few more years. There are years when it is self evident that the PAC 10 does not have a team worthy of a playoff spot. If the field was large like the NCAA basketball tourney, I would agree to let the conference champions in, but the football playoffs are small, and I believe the most worthy teams should be selected. I would love to see a conference championship remain a very important benchmark but also a lot of required inter conference play and perhaps the use of an unbiased formula like we had for a few years to help sort it out.

Quote:

---

The problem I have with automatic bids is that you are automatically rewarding the P5 conferences. It may only be P4 in a few more years. There are years when it is self evident that the PAC 10 does not have a team worthy of a playoff spot. If the field was large like the NCAA basketball tourney, I would agree to let the conference champions in, but the football playoffs are small, and I believe the most worthy teams should be selected. I would love to see a conference championship remain a very important benchmark but also a lot of required inter conference play and perhaps the use of an unbiased formula like we had for a few years to help sort it out.

---

I'm always assuming in these conversations that the field needs to be expanded. I'm for 12 teams, not even just 8. So that would take care of your objection there. Of course, you probably wouldn't like that I want all the conference champs in.

Still, it's not always self-evident. While I might tend to agree that this year's Alabama team is especially good (despite their poor schedule), I don't think it was true last year. And Bama's loss, which meant they didn't even win their division, was to a team that didn't even win the SEC championship. Based on what the on the field performance said, you could question whether Bama was even the second best team in the conference. Now, granted, other teams were also questionable, but I'm still more inclined to reward teams that proved something on the field rather than just saying "well, their the best team" when there's simply no way to know that when we have so little statistically meaningful data.

Tell the Sunbelt and the MAC to move down to 1-AA. Take the eight conference champs and four at-larges. Tell the schools that if they want an at large berth, they better have won a couple of really good OOC games along the way. We'd get better OOC games (no real penalty if you win your conference) and have a legitimate way to define a championship won on the field rather than in a beauty contest.

I think it's pretty much impossible to completely eliminate bias when you have such a few amount of teams being considered. And that's why I think conference championships should matter- essentially that winning team should be the best from that region/conference, and therefore the playoffs would function as a conference showdown. I think this keeps fan bases from all around happy and more interested in the playoffs as a whole vs selecting multiple teams from the same conference based on the "eye test". b

Aberzombie had a good point earlier in the thread about the playoff committee actually being more unbiased than the BCS. I initially disagreed, but after digging more into how the BCS was calculated, I can actually see why some would see the CFP as more objective.

Essentially, the BCS was 1/3 algorithm compiling undisclosed team statistics (so no one knew what exactly was being calculated), and 2/3 weighted average of poll standings. Polls are just as subjective as anything out there, so I was surprised to find out that polls were such a major determinant in that system.

But anyway, I can see why you wouldn't like the conf champ requirement in a four-team system, but why not in an eight team system? That way every conf gets a bid and there's still three at-large bids for either non-P5 or your bama, ohio state, etc. More competition, more national interest, more chances to dethrone the powerhouse teams, and more money for ESPN. It's a win-win-win-win scenario

If P5 conference champs were provided auto-bids to the CFP, that would guarantee that a 2-3 loss champion (i.e. Wisconsin won the B1G with 5 pre-bowl losses in 2012 - granted Penn State and Ohio State were not eligible) would routinely get in over a 1 loss non-division winner, and that occurrence would cause the conversation to circle back to where the philosophical disagreement is - if a team loses 2 (or more) games but wins its' conference, does it deserve to be in the CFP over a team that has only lost 1 game?

On one hand, teams only play 12 (or 13 if they either participate in a conference title game or if they play at Hawaii or 14 if both) games prior to bowl season, and, of those games, there are only a few truly elite opponents on any given schedule, so if a team loses to more than one opponent on its schedule, is it really that good?

On the other hand, there are very few non-conference games in any given season, and, as a result, it's difficult to compare teams across conference, however, if a team can win a conference, it should be viewed as a significant achievement as it definitively designates that team as being better than the rest of the teams in its conference. Should a team that could not accomplish that feat be given a shot at the title over someone who did?

There is no "right" answer there, although the CFP appears to have made its' stance on that clear.

I wouldn't have an issue with a 2-loss team getting in the pre-game favorite, particularly if strength of schedule is better for that 2 loss team and/or if their losses were early in the year. A 3-loss team makes it a little interesting, but I don't think that necessarily changes my opinion about it being the best option.
I think it would make conference championship games a LOT more important and interesting.

Leave it alone. Reward those who schedule better and do what is asked to entertain college football fans.

But here's the thing: once programs reach elite status, they have no incentive for difficult schedules, as evidenced by bama's schedule this year. LSU is their only tough game. Meanwhile LSU played then #8 Miami, then #2 Georgia, then #20 Florida, and then #20 Mississippi state. (Then meaning at the time of game)

Once your program becomes a consistent top 5 preseason favorite, then why schedule games where you could lose? All you have to do is win out. While others have to prove themselves with tougher schedules, you just have to coast.

Edit: bama plays miss st also, so that game is at least comparable to LSU's schedule

My perfect system:
- 8 teams
- P5 champs get in, with a caveat that the conference champ must meet a certain threshold (say top 20 in CFP rankings), so as to prevent some random 5-loss team getting in by winning a bad division and then an upset in a conf. championship game
- Highest ranked G-5 champ gets in (again meeting the threshold above)
- Remaining spots for at large
- 1st round at top-4 teams' home stadium (so as to continue the value of every regular season match up and rivalry; lose and you may have to play in Tuscaloosa in the first round of the playoffs)
-semis and championship games played in rotating bowls (as is the case now).

Nick Nolte said:

---

My perfect system:
- 8 teams
- P5 champs get in, with a caveat that the conference champ must meet a certain threshold (say top 20 in CFP rankings), so as to prevent some random 5-loss team getting in by winning a bad division and then an upset in a conf. championship game
- Highest ranked G-5 champ gets in (again meeting the threshold above)
- Remaining spots for at large
- 1st round at top-4 teams' home stadium (so as to continue the value of every regular season match up and rivalry; lose and you may have to play in Tuscaloosa in the first round of the playoffs)
-semis and championship games played in rotating bowls (as is the case now).

---

Good post. As I said before, winning a conference championship should carry a lot of weight, but it shouldn't make a bid automatic simply because of outlier situations that can arise. Last year's UCF would be a much worthier participant than last year's PAC 10 champ. Certain pre Big 12 TCU teams are other examples.

What if the 3 best teams in the country one year just happen to be in the same conference? Let's say 3 SEC or Big 12 teams won out of conference games against Ohio State, Stanford, and Clemson . . . and simply got eliminated from a conference championship because of the strength of their own conference. Should the two teams that lost out have to take a backseat to a 1 or 2 loss Ohio State, Clemson, or Stanford team that wins their conference?

The goal should be to reward the best teams and not simply reward 5 select conferences. Bias is an issue, and the blue bloods get the benefit of the doubt every year. Not sure what the best solutions are to eliminate bias other than to require significant inter conference play to help better demonstrate how conferences stack up against each other.

Split the FBS.

Have 8 conferences of 8 teams each in upper FBS. Conference winners advance.

Have a separate lower FBS playoff system. Best lower FBS school(s) can opt to replace bottom dwelling upper FBS school.

Keeps upper schools from sluffing and lower schools with hope.

I think significantly increased interconference play is unrealistic to expect under the current system. Too much money, interest, tradition, and decade-ahead scheduling functionally block something like that from occurring. So I would argue that it would likewise be unrealistic to definitely know which teams are better than others by the time playoffs come. I also am a huge fan of conferences. It builds traditions and rivalries, and CFB would be a lot less fun without that.

I, along with ESPN I imagine, would never want 3 teams from the same conference in the playoff. Viewership would tank if that were to occur. Plus, if you take the champ team, and maybe the runner up in certain scenarios, then you have two great teams from the conference competing for that title.

I also don't think that any conference is dominant enough to deserve that many bids. People automatically assume that SEC is the best conference, but look at the results below. Plus, OU almost beat UGA in overtime, who almost beat Bama in the national champ in 2017. No conference is invincible and deserving of more spots.
2014- Big 10
2015 - SEC
2016 - AAC
2017 - SEC

What if down the road a Big 12 champ has multiple conferences losses because of the round robin schedule and loses out to an SEC east team because they are perceived to be better? I see your point about letting in a weaker opponent into the playoff, but then that team will simply get beaten, and that's that. No one could complain under an autobid process, because those are the rules and everyone knows how to get there. People can complain under the current system because there aren't enough spots nor enough clarification on what factors are most valued.

I'll end with this: There aren't many years in CFB anyway where you can see eight possible national champions. Usually that list stops at about five or six. So I don't see any issue in an autobid system where you have three remaining left to give out to G5 or runner up teams.

Dillydilly1845 said:

---

I think significantly increased interconference play is unrealistic to expect under the current system. Too much money, interest, tradition, and decade-ahead scheduling functionally block something like that from occurring. So I would argue that it would likewise be unrealistic to definitely know which teams are better than others by the time playoffs come. I also am a huge fan of conferences. It builds traditions and rivalries, and CFB would be a lot less fun without that.

I, along with ESPN I imagine, would never want 3 teams from the same conference in the playoff. Viewership would tank if that were to occur. Plus, if you take the champ team, and maybe the runner up in certain scenarios, then you have two great teams from the conference competing for that title.

I also don't think that any conference is dominant enough to deserve that many bids. People automatically assume that SEC is the best conference, but look at the results below. Plus, OU almost beat UGA in overtime, who almost beat Bama in the national champ in 2017. No conference is invincible and deserving of more spots.
2014- Big 10
2015 - SEC
2016 - AAC
2017 - SEC

What if down the road a Big 12 champ has multiple conferences losses because of the round robin schedule and loses out to an SEC east team because they are perceived to be better? I see your point about letting in a weaker opponent into the playoff, but then that team will simply get beaten, and that's that. No one could complain under an autobid process, because those are the rules and everyone knows how to get there. People can complain under the current system because there aren't enough spots nor enough clarification on what factors are most valued.

I'll end with this: There aren't many years in CFB anyway where you can see eight possible national champions. Usually that list stops at about five or six. So I don't see any issue in an autobid system where you have three remaining left to give out to G5 or runner up teams.

---

Good points. I'm just not sure where college football is headed from a realignment standpoint, and it just seems unfair to reward certain conferences that have the ability to select who participates in their conference. I agree that it is unlikely that a weak conference champ will win it all, but it will be just as unfair under a new system if a 3 loss conference champ gets in ahead of an undefeated UCF.

Dillydilly1845 said:

---

I personally disagree. In recent years Bama has definitely had the edge, but in 2014 they only won in OT at LSU. 2012, only won 21-17 at LSU. Back it up a few more years and LSU had five consecutive wins from 2003-2007 and also in 2010 and 2011.

If only going by the past 3 years, yeah bama has won convincingly against the tigers regardless of venue, but only one of those games was played in Death Valley.
This team seems to have a special energy this year and the environment that night will be crazy. I'm expecting a bama win, but am hoping for LSU to make things interesting this year and push for a CFP change.

---

I told ya so !