Which Post Season Format Do You Prefer?

Based on the final regular season rankings I've come up with several possible post season formats. I will explain each. First the playoff scenarios:


CF Playoffs 2014.PNG

4 Team Playoff: We all know what the 4 team playoff looks like.



8 Team Playoff: I took the top 8 from the Playoff Committee's rankings. Pretty straight forward.



16 Team Playoff: I took the 10 conference champions using the Playoff Committee's rankings if available and the Sagarin rankings if not. The remaining 6 at large slots went to the highest ranking from the Playoff rankings. I know a lot of people will say that teams like Northern Illinois and Georgia Southern have no business being in the playoff picture, but I do like that it gives the top seeded teams a "reward" for being a top seed and literally all teams at the beginning of the season have "access" to the playoff/championship, something you can't say about the 4 & 8 team playoffs. And it kinda gives it a NCAA feel with some Cinderellas.


CF Playoffs 2014 Div II Format.PNG

Div II Format 24 Team Playoff:This is the 24 team format that Div II uses with the 1/2 seeds getting a first round bye. I used the Playoff rankings.

And now to the non-playoff options. Really, the most fair way to determine a champion is if everyone has the exact same schedule. I lived in England for 6 years and the English Premier League (EPL) format to determine a champion really grew on me.


CF 2014 EPL Part I.PNG
CF 2014 EPL Part II.PNG

EPL (one division):This would create 5 "leagues" of 13 teams each so that they play 12 games like they do now. In the Premier League, you play everyone once and the team with the best record is the champion. No disputes and no need for a playoff. The bottom 3 teams would be relegated to the next lower league. Each of the lower leagues will also have 3 teams that get promoted. I started using the Playoff rankings then finished off using Sagarin rankings. BYU would be in League 2 (#4 out of 5 leagues).


CF 2014 EPL East West.PNG

EPL (east/west divisions): Similar to the last concept except divided into East/West regions. This would make for much easier travelling. Each division would only play their own division during the regular season and then match-up against their same placed team from the other division in a bowl type game. The #1s in East/West face-off for the championship. Separate promotions/relegations for East/West. BYU would be in the Championship League with the chance to promote into the Premier League.

I like the 4-team playoff. I like the heightened stakes for everyone and the pressure on everyone to win every game and win bit.



I think expanding to 8 or more reduces the drama that made this season so compelling. With 8 teams, #1 Bama can mail it in for the SEC Championship and know it still gets to dance, thobeit at a lower seed, which doesn't mean much with the bowl-tie ins etc.



Keep it at four, say I.

I like this top four better than two, but I think a six team playoff with a play-in game is ideal. The play in game would be in early December and match the sixth seed vs. the highest ranked top 25 non-power conference team. The top two seeds would get a bye.



Then three would play winner of play in game and four would play five.



This is what it would look like this year:



1. Alabama bye

2. Oregon bye

3. Florida State v. Winner of 6. TCU and Boise State (Top 25 non-power conference team)

4. Ohio State v. 5. Baylor

I actually prefer the old Bowl system.

The problem with relegation in collegiate sports is that your team always changes at the end of the season, and so a fantastic, senior-laden team may languish in the lower league, winning a promotion for next year's group but not having a shot at the glory themselves.



I'd prefer something like this: The first 9 weeks of the season are conference play. Use them however you wish to determine your champion and the rankings of each member. If teams want to play an out of conference rival, go for it, but don't get crazy with 2 or 3.



The next 4 weeks, the top 40 teams are seeded placed into 8 5 team groups, and play round robin with a bye, with the top seed picking first which two they want at home first and when the bye is, then the second seed, etc. Group winners advance to an 8-team playoff. The other 32 teams go to bowl games, with empty slots selected from the tops teams emerging from the group play of the second 40 teams. Teams not in the top 80 would not be bowl eligible, but they would also round out their OOC schedules with group play against teams they can actually compete against.



In order to make all of the group play meaningful, the number of teams each conference gets into the top tier group stage would be determined by the performance of the conference in previous OOC group play over the last 4 years. If your conference over-performs relative to its seeding, you get more bids, and vice versa. With 40 slots available, every conference could be guaranteed 1 without anybody else complaining, and we would have an objective measurement of how good the SEC or any other conference really is,



When you have a large number of teams relative to the number of games in a season, this is the best format at sifting out the best teams and giving you a true champion. The SOS debate would be moot; if you win, you will play the best teams and have an opportunity to beat them. Everyone has access to the title game. Every conference game means something. All OOC games will be decent match-ups and mean something. We'll finally be able to determine which conferences are underrated and which ones are overrated. 80 games matching up top 40 teams in November will make for some awesome football and a great build up to the knockout round. And the title game winner will have played the same number of games as this year's winner. If CCG games are involved, it may go to 16, but it's really up to the conferences to determine their winners in 9 weeks.

ABYUFAN wrote:
I actually prefer the old Bowl system.

BCS bowl system or old school bowl system (like when BYU won the national championship)?

redneckjedi wrote:
The problem with relegation in collegiate sports is that your team always changes at the end of the season, and so a fantastic, senior-laden team may languish in the lower league, winning a promotion for next year's group but not having a shot at the glory themselves.



I'd prefer something like this: The first 9 weeks of the season are conference play. Use them however you wish to determine your champion and the rankings of each member. If teams want to play an out of conference rival, go for it, but don't get crazy with 2 or 3.



The next 4 weeks, the top 40 teams are seeded placed into 8 5 team groups, and play round robin with a bye, with the top seed picking first which two they want at home first and when the bye is, then the second seed, etc. Group winners advance to an 8-team playoff. The other 32 teams go to bowl games, with empty slots selected from the tops teams emerging from the group play of the second 40 teams. Teams not in the top 80 would not be bowl eligible, but they would also round out their OOC schedules with group play against teams they can actually compete against.



In order to make all of the group play meaningful, the number of teams each conference gets into the top tier group stage would be determined by the performance of the conference in previous OOC group play over the last 4 years. If your conference over-performs relative to its seeding, you get more bids, and vice versa. With 40 slots available, every conference could be guaranteed 1 without anybody else complaining, and we would have an objective measurement of how good the SEC or any other conference really is,



When you have a large number of teams relative to the number of games in a season, this is the best format at sifting out the best teams and giving you a true champion. The SOS debate would be moot; if you win, you will play the best teams and have an opportunity to beat them. Everyone has access to the title game. Every conference game means something. All OOC games will be decent match-ups and mean something. We'll finally be able to determine which conferences are underrated and which ones are overrated. 80 games matching up top 40 teams in November will make for some awesome football and a great build up to the knockout round. And the title game winner will have played the same number of games as this year's winner. If CCG games are involved, it may go to 16, but it's really up to the conferences to determine their winners in 9 weeks.

Interesting. I don't think that I've heard anything quite like it before.

byufan4ever wrote:

I actually prefer the old Bowl system.

BCS bowl system or old school bowl system (like when BYU won the national championship)?

The latter

I think the only fair playoff is 24 teams. Every conference champion gets in with at large bids filling in the rest of the bracket. 1st week the bottom 16 play while the top 8 get a bye. Then we go from there. To save travel money, we could have the higher seeded teams host a first round game and then go to the bowls to play the rest of the playoffs.

With so many teams, many of them have no chance to play against even similar competition, making most rankings guesses at best. I support a 16-team playoff with every conference champ and six at-large spots. The whole fun of playoffs is the chance of an upset, the underdog, the Cinderella team.



And let's not get into excuses here, every other level of college football pulls off bigger playoffs without a problem.

I'm partial to the 10-team CFP, with automatic bids for at least the top 7 conference champs and up to 3 at large bids.



The reason I like this format is because it requires meaningful football games during the entire month of December and broadens access, which makes the regular season and conference championships more meaningful for more teams. It includes teams from all regions of the country. It preserves the current bowl structure, without penalizing the best teams' fan bases with over-burdensome travel. It would also bring in tons of $$$$$ - I don't get any of it, so that's not my main focus, but it would definitely help sell it to Delaney, Slive, Scott, and Swofford.



The champion autobids would not be P5 or G5 specific and the selection committee would still have the same focus and tie-breaker preferences for conference championships, head-to-head, and SOS for ranking the teams.



ROUND 1 is like the NCAA tournament's Play-In Round - you have 8-seed and 7-seed play-in games. The 8-seed game would pair up the last two autobid conference champions. The 7-seed game would pair up the last two at large participants. (although you could craft some rules to let more conference champs in, if you miraculously had a bunch of champs in the top 10 or so).



Initially, these games would be held at the home field of the higher seed. Eventually, you may be able to hold a neutral-site double-header - similar to the NCAA tourney's games in Dayton. College football fans would attend just to see some good, meaningful football the second weekend of December.



There could be a pre-determined bowl game destination for the two Round 1 losers.



ROUND 2 (Quarterfinals) rewards the top four highest ranked teams with HOME FIELD games the weekend or Monday night before Christmas (depending upon which day of the week Christmas falls in a given year). The 8-seed winner plays at #1, the 7-seed winner plays at #2, #6 seed plays at #3, and #5 seed plays at #4.



The home field games give a nice advantage to the top four seeds. This will help to enhance the stakes of the regular season and conference championships. It will also help to ensure that the stadiums are full and minimize travel costs for the top four fan bases - whose teams are most likely to advance in the playoffs.



The #1 seed's matchup against the 8-seed winner provides a really nice reward - what should be a very winnable HOME playoff game. But, it also provides the nice Cinderella factor.



The SEMI-FINAL ROUND would simply spill into the current CFP format, with Round 2 winners playing in the rotating CFP/NY6 bowl games, based on geographical preference for the highest two remaining seeds.



The other non-playoff NY6 bowls will host the four Round 2 losers and other teams/conferences under contract with the NY6 bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange). Any vacancies are filled based on the selection committee's rankings.



Here's what the 10-Team CFP would look like in 2014:



ROUND 1 - Play-In

December 13, 2014

8-Seed game: (NR) Marshall (C-USA) at #20 Boise St. (MWC), in Boise, ID

7-Seed game: #8 Michigan St. (at large) at #7 Mississippi St. (at large), in Starkville, MS



[Round 1 losers play in TBD bowl games in late December. It could be that you have the NEXT conference champ (that was left out of the CFP, ie, Memphis) play the 8-seed loser and the NEXT highest ranked team (ie, #9) play the 7-seed loser]



ROUND 2 - Quarterfinals

December 19-20, 2014

8-Seed winner at #1 Alabama (SEC), in Tuscaloosa, AL

7-Seed winner at #2 Oregon (PAC 12), in Eugene, OR

#6 TCU (at large) at #3 Florida St. (ACC), in Tallahassee, FL

#5 Baylor (Big 12) at #4 Ohio St. (B1G), in Columbus, OH



SEMI-FINAL ROUND

January 1, 2015



Sugar and Rose Bowls: Round 2 Winners



[NY6 Bowls -

Orange: ACC v. Big Ten/SEC/ND - based on selection committee rankings

Fiesta, Cotton, Peach: TBD based on Round 2 losers and selection committee rankings]



NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP

January 12, 2015

Semi-Final winners in Arlington, Texas



The participants would have won at least 2 playoff games - which helps to justify that the winner of this game is a true national champion.

Personally, I'd like to see an 8 team playoff. Get into the top 8 and you're in. BSU, Utah, and TCU have all been able to end the season as a top 8 team on multiple occasions from outside the power 5. A 16 team playoff with no regard for conference would be fine with me too. Seed them and let em go.



If it's an 8 team playoff, I'd modify the bowl situation where there are no tie-ins and each bowl eligible team (7 or 8 wins would be eligible, not 6) can contract with another team and a bowl to have an exhibition game.



This year, for example, the top 8 teams are playing in the playoffs, but BYU and Utah contract with the Las Vegas Bowl to play in that game. Play the bowl games Monday through Thursdays during bowl season and have the playoff games on Friday's and Saturday's.

As long as everyone controls their own destiny (If you never lose you will be the NC by the end of the year) I'm down for any format. You have nobody to blame but yourself.



The worst thing about the BCS compared to the old system is after the regular season they didn't consider bowl performance. (Calling it the worst thing might be an overstatement.) If the 2 teams in the National Championship stunk it up and a team in the 3-4 game was off the charts (think OSU/Wisc) that 3-4 team had no chance to jump the 1-2. They'd ignore around 15% of the season.