http://www.yosefscabin.com/forum/
The conference champion piece is ridiculous in my opinion. Let’s say that somehow Pitt knocks off Clemson in the ACC title game and is 9-4 with a loss to UNC but a crazy upset winner in the championship, is that really a legit playoff team? Why get rewarded for being in a conference with a bad division? I realize where this thread is headed but could not resist.
Then why have conference championship games? If they don't mean anything except the possibility of knocking the better team out of the playoff? Eliminate them and add in another bye week.bigdaddyg wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 3:15 pmThe conference champion piece is ridiculous in my opinion. Let’s say that somehow Pitt knocks off Clemson in the ACC title game and is 9-4 with a loss to UNC but a crazy upset winner in the championship, is that really a legit playoff team? Why get rewarded for being in a conference with a bad division? I realize where this thread is headed but could not resist.
Yes to this. Gives the G5 squads something more to play for, keeps the integrity for the P5s. If you lose your Conference title, you need to hope that your schedule was good enough to get an at large. An 8 team playoff is the only valid way to do it right now to give those deserving an honest shot. I do not think UCF would be a quality contender this year, but definitely would have made a little noise in an 8 team playoff last season.
My idea is close to this but with a tweak. I know Unlikely, but I would do away with the at-large & institute a ‘must be conference champ’ criteria. All P5 champions in, then top 3 rated G5 conference champions. This gives the G5 a legit fighting chance & encourages playing tougher schedules. If just 1 G5 gets in, we will always be paired against the #1 seed.appstatealum wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:27 pmYes to this. Gives the G5 squads something more to play for, keeps the integrity for the P5s. If you lose your Conference title, you need to hope that your schedule was good enough to get an at large. An 8 team playoff is the only valid way to do it right now to give those deserving an honest shot. I do not think UCF would be a quality contender this year, but definitely would have made a little noise in an 8 team playoff last season.
How do you factor Notre Dame into all of this?AppDawg wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:06 amMy idea is close to this but with a tweak. I know Unlikely, but I would do away with the at-large & institute a ‘must be conference champ’ criteria. All P5 champions in, then top 3 rated G5 conference champions. This gives the G5 a legit fighting chance & encourages playing tougher schedules. If just 1 G5 gets in, we will always be paired against the #1 seed.appstatealum wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:27 pmYes to this. Gives the G5 squads something more to play for, keeps the integrity for the P5s. If you lose your Conference title, you need to hope that your schedule was good enough to get an at large. An 8 team playoff is the only valid way to do it right now to give those deserving an honest shot. I do not think UCF would be a quality contender this year, but definitely would have made a little noise in an 8 team playoff last season.
I say if a Clemson loses to a Pitt in CCG, then they are SOL. They lost in a single elimination round. Everyone knows the rules going in.
Regular Season - Round 1
CCG’s - Round 2
Elite 8 - Round 3
Final 4 - Round 4
Natty C - Round 5
Force them to join the ACC... none of this right foot in BS.AppSt94 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:12 amHow do you factor Notre Dame into all of this?AppDawg wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:06 amMy idea is close to this but with a tweak. I know Unlikely, but I would do away with the at-large & institute a ‘must be conference champ’ criteria. All P5 champions in, then top 3 rated G5 conference champions. This gives the G5 a legit fighting chance & encourages playing tougher schedules. If just 1 G5 gets in, we will always be paired against the #1 seed.appstatealum wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:27 pmYes to this. Gives the G5 squads something more to play for, keeps the integrity for the P5s. If you lose your Conference title, you need to hope that your schedule was good enough to get an at large. An 8 team playoff is the only valid way to do it right now to give those deserving an honest shot. I do not think UCF would be a quality contender this year, but definitely would have made a little noise in an 8 team playoff last season.
I say if a Clemson loses to a Pitt in CCG, then they are SOL. They lost in a single elimination round. Everyone knows the rules going in.
Regular Season - Round 1
CCG’s - Round 2
Elite 8 - Round 3
Final 4 - Round 4
Natty C - Round 5
Not bad. I would certainly like it, but the big boys will never go for it. That's why I think the atleast one guaranteed G5 spot is more realistic. The degrees of seperation are certainly getting smaller between G5 and P5, but they will do whatever they can to keep G5 out.AppDawg wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:06 amMy idea is close to this but with a tweak. I know Unlikely, but I would do away with the at-large & institute a ‘must be conference champ’ criteria. All P5 champions in, then top 3 rated G5 conference champions. This gives the G5 a legit fighting chance & encourages playing tougher schedules. If just 1 G5 gets in, we will always be paired against the #1 seed.appstatealum wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:27 pmYes to this. Gives the G5 squads something more to play for, keeps the integrity for the P5s. If you lose your Conference title, you need to hope that your schedule was good enough to get an at large. An 8 team playoff is the only valid way to do it right now to give those deserving an honest shot. I do not think UCF would be a quality contender this year, but definitely would have made a little noise in an 8 team playoff last season.
I say if a Clemson loses to a Pitt in CCG, then they are SOL. They lost in a single elimination round. Everyone knows the rules going in.
Regular Season - Round 1
CCG’s - Round 2
Elite 8 - Round 3
Final 4 - Round 4
Natty C - Round 5
This is exact model I would go with and ONLY one with a REASONABLE shot for a G-5. Diesel, with you being in the industry, what do you hear and believe is the likelihood of this set up?
All of the national pundits that we've had on have said "we need a few more years of the 4 team setup to really know what we have" which, in some ways *IS* true. But that's what it will take...about half a dozen Matt Murschels or Brett McMurphys talking about how the system is unfairly stacked and a CFP buster like UCF beating on the door every single year.
Truth bites sometimes......but I love a realist....by the same token I like the level of challenge we are at now vs the old FCS days.ericsaid wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:35 pmUnfortunately, College Football, especially in the G5, leaves little to no room for error to accomplish something out of the ordinary. The fact that is takes lottery type odds to have a UCF type season for our level versus a 2-loss team being considered for a 4 team playoff is a joke.
That doesn't work financially. The G5's need the big paychecks.
It doesn't, but neither would half the P-5 schools with all the extra losses on their schedule due to playing each other work. The bottom 2/3's of P-5's would be "demanding" a fairer shake against the Alabamas of the world. It exposes the reality of the haves and have nots, I guess you could say.