What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

CFP expanding to 8 teams before 2026 - CBS Sports

It’s like you’ve never been to a Super Bowl party and gone to work hung over the next day...
Quite a big difference between a game at 4 pm on a Sunday and 6:30 on a Monday night but okay. No one throws college football parties for the championship but most people do so for the super bowl. I have also stated quite a bit that I would prefer the super bowl moving to Saturday or Presidents’ Day weekend.
 
Disagree, top 8 teams regardless of conference.
If you want the regular season to mean something, you want to encourage more meaningful matchups, and if you want conferences to still maintain their flexibility, then you have to go with conference champions as auto bids. The other 3 can be at large bigs that have priority to go to G5 schools or independents. Any other arrangement will devalue the importance of the regular season and make the selection subject to bias and perception.
 
You absolutely have to give props to conference champions for the top 5 conferences, and I can't understand how anyone can think otherwise. As stated, the other 3 spots can go to the next 3 deserving whether they be an undefeated G5 or the runner up in the strongest conferences.
 
If you want the regular season to mean something, you want to encourage more meaningful matchups, and if you want conferences to still maintain their flexibility, then you have to go with conference champions as auto bids. The other 3 can be at large bigs that have priority to go to G5 schools or independents. Any other arrangement will devalue the importance of the regular season and make the selection subject to bias and perception.
I want the 8 top teams. If a P5 conference gets blanked, they will work to improve the regular-season the next year.
 
I hate this auto bid for P5 champs BS. So if an 8-4 team wins the Big XII title game, you want them in?
Yes...BTW IMO your point is specious...when was the last time any team won a P5 Champ with 8 wins? My guess is never. I like the idea of having conf championships honored w an auto bid. And throwing the G5 a bone appeals to me too. But I’m sure the NCAA will ignore all suggestions and come up with some kind of clusterfvck. Lol.
 
I want the 8 top teams. If a P5 conference gets blanked, they will work to improve the regular-season the next year.
That ignores is the current disparity in scheduling philosophy between the conferences, nevermind individual schools. Why should Notre Dame, USC, Stanford, and others be punished for scheduling difficult road games across the country while another team is rewarded for playing nobodies or only playing at home. The current system overweights losses and undervalues good wins. When a late season blowout win at home over Mercer is considered better than having a true road loss to an upper tier P5 program, them you have a problem and that is where we are at. If you want to take the best 5 teams, then we should set up a point system. Wins at home against P5 schools are worth 3 points, against G5 at home 1, FCS 0. P5 on the road win 5, lose 1, true nuetral site win 4, lose 0. G5 neutral site win 2, lose -1. G5 road win 3, lose 0. FCS win anywhere is 0, lose is -10.

G5 schools would be rewarded more for playing P5 wins and get more credit for their G5 games. FCS punishment would remain though. Set P5 wins at 7, 5, and 4 for road, neutral, and away. P5 losses at 2, 1, and 0. G5 wins at 4, 2, and 1. G5 losses at 1, 0, -1.
 
That ignores is the current disparity in scheduling philosophy between the conferences, nevermind individual schools. Why should Notre Dame, USC, Stanford, and others be punished for scheduling difficult road games across the country while another team is rewarded for playing nobodies or only playing at home. The current system overweights losses and undervalues good wins. When a late season blowout win at home over Mercer is considered better than having a true road loss to an upper tier P5 program, them you have a problem and that is where we are at. If you want to take the best 5 teams, then we should set up a point system. Wins at home against P5 schools are worth 3 points, against G5 at home 1, FCS 0. P5 on the road win 5, lose 1, true nuetral site win 4, lose 0. G5 neutral site win 2, lose -1. G5 road win 3, lose 0. FCS win anywhere is 0, lose is -10.

G5 schools would be rewarded more for playing P5 wins and get more credit for their G5 games. FCS punishment would remain though. Set P5 wins at 7, 5, and 4 for road, neutral, and away. P5 losses at 2, 1, and 0. G5 wins at 4, 2, and 1. G5 losses at 1, 0, -1.
Your general point is a great one, but under no scenario is playing Kansas the same as playing OU, which completely undermines your attempt at a point system where any old P5 school is worth x points.
 
I don’t like it. My belief is that the 4 game playoff is absolutely perfect and this is just a money grab. In the last 3 Year’s we have had some of the most exciting semi and finals of all time. More isn’t always better. The reason that I watch the semifinal games each year are because there’s only two of them, they’re on the same day (a day people are home and mainly captive, btw), and they’re highly consequential.

Moving to 8 teams pushes beyond the saturation point. It just creates too much football in December and January.
 
Single elimination, short-series tournaments do a poor job of selecting the "best team" or of selecting the team with the "best season".

Playoffs do a fantastic job at selecting the team who gets hot at the end of the year.

The more teams that make the playoffs, the more true this becomes. Expanding playoffs cheapens the regular season.

Review the last 20 NCAA hoops tourney champs and the last 20 SuperBowl champs -- about 50% of the time they select the best team. If that's what you want for college football, then, by all means, you should advocate for playoff expansion. If you want the best team selected, or the team with the best season selected, single elimination playoffs are not the answer.
 
Please go back to the traditional bowl system. There is never an indisputable best team in college football...unless you build a playoff system that dumps all talent and resources into a few programs.
Cat is out of that bag. And you're wrong, there is often an undisputed best team. But no playoff system guarantees the best team wins in any sport. Sometimes they have an off day while the opponent plays lights out.
 
Your general point is a great one, but under no scenario is playing Kansas the same as playing OU, which completely undermines your attempt at a point system where any old P5 school is worth x points.
The average G5 conference foe is so much weaker it's comparing apples and oranges to the P5 schedules.
 
By the committee basically telling us this year that conference titles do not matter, I think they have pretty much guaranteed we see an expansion and restructuring of the playoff structure.
 
By the committee basically telling us this year that conference titles do not matter, I think they have pretty much guaranteed we see an expansion and restructuring of the playoff structure.
I wouldn't really listen to them. 3/4 won their conference and they have used the conference champion thing in the past. The committee doesn't like to lock itself into anything. They use whatever criteria they want that will explain their picks the best, that is why it changes so much every year.
 
Your general point is a great one, but under no scenario is playing Kansas the same as playing OU, which completely undermines your attempt at a point system where any old P5 school is worth x points.
The average G5 conference foe is so much weaker it's comparing apples and oranges to the P5 schedules.
tenor.gif
 
That ignores is the current disparity in scheduling philosophy between the conferences, nevermind individual schools. Why should Notre Dame, USC, Stanford, and others be punished for scheduling difficult road games across the country while another team is rewarded for playing nobodies or only playing at home. The current system overweights losses and undervalues good wins. When a late season blowout win at home over Mercer is considered better than having a true road loss to an upper tier P5 program, them you have a problem and that is where we are at. If you want to take the best 5 teams, then we should set up a point system. Wins at home against P5 schools are worth 3 points, against G5 at home 1, FCS 0. P5 on the road win 5, lose 1, true nuetral site win 4, lose 0. G5 neutral site win 2, lose -1. G5 road win 3, lose 0. FCS win anywhere is 0, lose is -10.

G5 schools would be rewarded more for playing P5 wins and get more credit for their G5 games. FCS punishment would remain though. Set P5 wins at 7, 5, and 4 for road, neutral, and away. P5 losses at 2, 1, and 0. G5 wins at 4, 2, and 1. G5 losses at 1, 0, -1.
The way to do it properly is to eliminate emotions. Go with an average of 8 computer rankings that give emphasis for strength of schedule and deduct for patsies. No guarantees, no AP or coaches polls, no ESPN power rankings and biggest of all, NO playoff committee.
 
Short of conference realignment that leads to 4 16 team super conferences, give me an 8 team playoff. 5 P5 Champs and 3 at large. Perhaps include some kind of qualifier that if a non P5 team finishes in the top 10, they get in. That allows the independents and the G5 a path to the playoff. This maintains the meaningfulness of the conference schedule, while also emphasizing your OOC schedule, because your season could be saved based on your overall resume.

This year could have been:

Rose Bowl: USC vs OSU
Cotton Bowl: OU vs Wiscy
Peach Bowl: UGA vs Clemson
Sugar Bowl: Bama vs Auburn

Fiesta Bowl: Winner of Rose and Cotton bowls
Orange Bowl: Winner of Peach and Sugar bowls

The only game of those 6 that would suck from a national perspective would be the Orange Bowl. However, for the region, it would be huge.
 
The way to do it properly is to eliminate emotions. Go with an average of 8 computer rankings that give emphasis for strength of schedule and deduct for patsies. No guarantees, no AP or coaches polls, no ESPN power rankings and biggest of all, NO playoff committee.
If the criteria for ranking teams is clearly defined and transparent, count me in.
 
Short of conference realignment that leads to 4 16 team super conferences, give me an 8 team playoff. 5 P5 Champs and 3 at large. Perhaps include some kind of qualifier that if a non P5 team finishes in the top 10, they get in. That allows the independents and the G5 a path to the playoff. This maintains the meaningfulness of the conference schedule, while also emphasizing your OOC schedule, because your season could be saved based on your overall resume.

This year could have been:

Rose Bowl: USC vs OSU
Cotton Bowl: OU vs Wiscy
Peach Bowl: UGA vs Clemson
Sugar Bowl: Bama vs Auburn

Fiesta Bowl: Winner of Rose and Cotton bowls
Orange Bowl: Winner of Peach and Sugar bowls

The only game of those 6 that would suck from a national perspective would be the Orange Bowl. However, for the region, it would be huge.
Gross
 
If you did Thanksgiving for the final week of the regular season as it is right now and had the 16-team playoff like I laid out:

Last regular season game is always the last weekend in November.
1st round (conference semis) is always the first weekend in December.
2nd round (conference championships) is always the second weekend in December.
3rd round (national semis) could give a break for final exams and be played on New Year's Day.
4th round (national championship) would be then offset like this year to avoid being on the same day as the NFL playoff wildcard round.
I always thought we were headed towards something like this. The interesting thing to me is that the article about TV revenue requiring cross regional games blows it up. I think want they want the 1st several rounds to be UGa vs UW and PSU vs OU, not Conference semi's and CCG's within a region.

This goes total counter to my assumption that mega-conferences were a gimme in our future.
 
Single elimination, short-series tournaments do a poor job of selecting the "best team" or of selecting the team with the "best season".

Playoffs do a fantastic job at selecting the team who gets hot at the end of the year.

The more teams that make the playoffs, the more true this becomes. Expanding playoffs cheapens the regular season.

Review the last 20 NCAA hoops tourney champs and the last 20 SuperBowl champs -- about 50% of the time they select the best team. If that's what you want for college football, then, by all means, you should advocate for playoff expansion. If you want the best team selected, or the team with the best season selected, single elimination playoffs are not the answer.
Yep. NBA is the only sport where I think that an indisputable “best team that season” champ is crowned. Those 7-game playoff series are tiresome, though, in the early rounds.

MLB tries to do the same, but playoff baseball’s winning formula is different than the regular season formula.

In hockey, it can come down to a goalie on a lesser team getting super hot at the right time. Same with NFL with a QB.

College football, between not having balanced schedules and only 4 playoff teams from 129 selected by a committee... and then single elimination, it’s better than it was when the media voted to determine a champ but it’s still lacking.

CBB is always a great team that wins because winning 6 in a row against the best & hottest teams is a gauntlet that weeds teams out even with all the upsets. But single elimination does mean a lot of results where the lesser team wins on that given day.
 
The way to do it properly is to eliminate emotions. Go with an average of 8 computer rankings that give emphasis for strength of schedule and deduct for patsies. No guarantees, no AP or coaches polls, no ESPN power rankings and biggest of all, NO playoff committee.
If your point really is to remove emotion, seeding the conference chanps also works.
 
Ugh, the alleged politicking, endless arguments about who is best, the vagaries of the championship determination are what makes the CFB a Mythical National Title. If you want to pursue some notion of alleged fairness, head to head play, and render the regular season practically meaningless, go watch the NFL. There they have a Mechanical National Champion if you will.

For me, dump about a third of the bowls, dump the G5 conferences into a different division and continue as before. Nobody gives a crap about non-legacy (read legacy as P5 schools) schools that pop up on the radar once every 20 years. Yes, I am looking at you Boise, Hawaii, Memphis and UCF. Let the G5 go have a National Championship of their own.

The day CFB looks like the NFL, and it is a good part of the way there, is the day I find something else to watch.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top