Conference Championship Games in a 16 team playoff
I've been reviewing the past four years worth of CFP rankings and with all the talk of expansion, Harbaugh favors 16 teams, I think we should revisit conference championship games if we want to go above 8 teams. In the four years of the playoff only 5 conference title game losers have not finished in the top 16 final CFP poll. 2014 Wisconsin, 2015 Florida and USC, 2016 Florida and Virginia Tech. So I ask the board, what is the motivation to play these games if 85% of the participants are going to make the playoff no matter what the outcome?
If the playoff expands to 16 teams then about only 1 conference championship game a year is going to have playoff implications for a participant in that game, but both teams risk injury while non title game participants in the top 16 are locked in and get an extra week at home to rest. What is the benefit of playing if the goal is to win the playoff?
December 5th, 2017 at 1:19 PM ^
8 or 16. I like the idea of a winning your conference gets you in. I don't like humans deciding who is in and who isn't.
Also, I forget teams in conferences like the Sunbelt or Conference USA exist. These teams have no place at the table in the current playoff structure yet technically they are in the same division.
December 5th, 2017 at 1:22 PM ^
I disagree with Harbaugh and think 8 is a good number. 8 gets an undefeated UCF in this year and most years. It also allows you to have the first round on campus and then the second round as the bowls (first round losers could go to other bowls).
As degraded as the CCG has become, it is the only way to determine a conference champion in conferences with divisions.
December 5th, 2017 at 1:27 PM ^
With 14-team conferences and unbalanced divisions, there is never going to be a fair way to determine a "true" champion. Just let the teams play 9-games against conference competition and let the rankings sort it out. I actually like Dan Wetzel's idea in the column posted above.
December 5th, 2017 at 3:34 PM ^
UCF is undefeated and only ranked 12?
December 5th, 2017 at 1:24 PM ^
The clearer it becomes that the consolidation of power schools into 5 conferences was really stupid.
I'd be fine with 6 as a compromise because 8 is just absurd to me. We've never in the history of the sport had 8 teams who were truly deserving of the national title. We've rarely had more than 2-3. But if it's easier politically for everyone to do autobids for the power 5 conference champions plus 1 at large, I can live with that.
Also every conference should do away with divisons ASAP.
December 5th, 2017 at 1:35 PM ^
I can't ever imagine the CFB going to 16 teams. Despite all the chatter on message boards and by the media, I question how much of a real push there is by the actual decision-makers to expand to 8.
December 5th, 2017 at 1:40 PM ^
8 teams is possible with keeping the bowl system intact. 16 teams would most likely be the end of the bowl system unless playoff losers went on to play in bowl games.
December 5th, 2017 at 1:43 PM ^
I think 8 would be great, the P5 champions, plus the highest ranked non-p5 team, and two at large teams. How you determine the two at large teams would be up for debate.
December 5th, 2017 at 1:49 PM ^
This isn't hard: You either need a 6 or 8 team playoff with the same number of conferences and the winners of each conference in the playoff.
December 5th, 2017 at 2:00 PM ^
I see little reason for even an 8-team playoff, much less 16. Having 16 would pretty much eliminate the attraction of the bowl-game-as-vacation-destination concept. Attendance would be terrible, not to mention it would take a month to play all of those rounds. And for what? To have some 3-loss team that gets lucky by say, avoiding injuries after 15 games, get a National Championship dropped in its lap? No thanks.
I'm fine with a 4 team playoff, as long as it manages to capture all of the teams that have a rationale going in to be one of the top two teams playing in the final game. There's rarely been more than 4 teams in any year that could make such a claim (only twice since 1998). So far in the CFP era, there hasn't been any team left out that had a reasonable argument to being one of the top two teams. That's the ultimate purpose of the CFP: to pit the best two teams against each other in the final. It's overkill to create a pool of 8 (or even 6) to be able do that, especially with the Committee.
Furthermore, the Committee will always say it's their mission to "select the four very best teams", but that's just the polite, politically correct way of saying, "select all the teams that might be considered one of the two best, and beyond that, who gives a shit?"
December 5th, 2017 at 2:22 PM ^
I'll just point out that I'm not advocating a 16 team playoff, Harbaugh is. To me 4 is good. Not every P5 champion is worthy of playing for a national title. 8 probably pleases the most people though.
December 5th, 2017 at 1:57 PM ^
1-3 get a "bye." 4 plays 5 in a de facto play-in game. Additionally...
* All five Conference Championship Games would essentially be playoff games as well.
* Notre Dame would be forced to join a conference, which would piss them off.
* Since non-conference losses kinda/sorta wouldn't matter, you'd most likely see an upswing in marquee non-conference games.
It's a win-win-win.
December 5th, 2017 at 2:01 PM ^
There are two reasons that people have cited against a 16 team format that I just don't understand. 1) Devalues regular season games and 2) Devalues the other bowls.
Devalues Regular Season: I just don't get it, if anything it puts more value on the regular season games because teams would still have to fight to try and be ranked 16 at the end of the season. If anything it brings more value to the regular season becuase teams who otherwise would be out it are still in it at the end trying to claim one of those last spots in.
Devalues Other Bowls: How? The first two rounds of the 16 team playoff would happen when other bowls haven't even started yet. Then the last two rounds go on as they already do. If you're concerned about matchups, let me ask you this...are you planning on watchng this year's Outback Bowl? Becuase if you are then you're watching two teams in Michigan and South Carolina who otherwise wouldn't be in the 16 team playoff. And let's face it, we would all watch the other bowls the same as we currently do now. Whether you actually watch them or not.
December 5th, 2017 at 2:36 PM ^
Devalues Regular Season: I just don't get it, if anything it puts more value on the regular season games because teams would still have to fight to try and be ranked 16 at the end of the season. If anything it brings more value to the regular season becuase teams who otherwise would be out it are still in it at the end trying to claim one of those last spots in.
I want to be nice here. I can understand, if not agree, if someone thinks that the cost of devaluing the regular season is worth the benefit of 16 games. But to not see how it devalues the regular season is to fundamentally fail to understand college football.
Let's take Michigan-Ohio State, judged by ESPN to be the greatest rivalry amongst all sports in the 20th century. Why is it great? Because both teams are perennially good and there is a lot at stake in the games they play. Why did last year hurt so much? Yeah, losing to OSU stinks. But so does missing a spot in the playoff. Why is 1997 listed at or near the top of the list of favorite moments by every Michigan fan who attended? Because the game had huge stakes involved.
The regular season matters because losing actually does significant damage to a team's season. Losing stinks; winning is all the more sweet.
The games matter because the outcomes matter. One huge play can turn an entire season. It's dramatic theater for a few hours every Saturday afternoon. And it is hugely devalued if there is a 16-team playoff.
December 5th, 2017 at 4:11 PM ^
I would add that this season provides an excellent example too: OSU's embarassing loss to Iowa. The reason OSU is not in the playoffs this year is mostly because of this loss. They could easily have survived a very early loss to another playoff team, but not the Iowa game. This game counted. With a 6- or 8- or heaven-forbid 16-team playoff OSU would have been in the playoffs.
December 5th, 2017 at 2:06 PM ^
I'd be down with 6 or 8, but only if the quarterfinal games are played on campus. 16 (and even 8 to some degree) means you lose what is the single greatest strength of the sport - every game counts.
December 5th, 2017 at 2:37 PM ^
16 teams would be the most exciting system, since otherwise meaningless games late in the season would take on added importance as P5 teams jostle for at large bids while G5 title games would be play in games. It would however devalue the regular season and also involve some very undeserving teams.
Questions to consider:
Do you give autobids to every league? (10 autobids, 6 at large). I don't think you can. The MAC, CUSA and Sun Belt are FCS leagues playing at the FBS level. Even the American and Mountain West lag well behind the much derided SEC East and B1G West. Why should these league champions be included over middle tier P5 teams, who would likely go undefeated if they played in these leagues?
If you don't give autobids to every league (5 autobids for the P5, 11 at large), you start to include some pretty underwhelming teams when you start awarding the at large bids even if you give one bid to the highest rated G5 team (this year UCF). Washington, Stanford, and Notre Dame would all likely receive at large bids. Michigan State, LSU, Washington State and Oklahoma State, would be among the teams vying for the final at large bids. Even among the teams that would receive the first at large bids (Alabama, Wisconsin, Auburn, Penn State, Miami) there are questions.
That's why 8 teams is ideal in my view (5 auto, 2 at large, 1 for the highest rated G5 team). You make it possible but not a guarantee for a MAC, CUSA, or Sun Belt to get in. You remove the subjectivess from the decision (win a P5 league and you are in). And you maintain two spots for worthy non champion P5 teams.
December 5th, 2017 at 3:59 PM ^
1. The Power 5 conferences continue to have their Conference Championship Games 9 days after Thanksgiving.
2. The other 5 conferences have their Championship Games 2 days after Thanksgiving.
3. The 5 champions from (2) PLUS a wildcard team play 3 games 9 days after Thanksgiving. These 6 teams are seeded to determine the match-ups. This wildcard gives independent teams (e.g., Notre Dame) access to the playoff.
4. The 8 winners from the games 9 days after Thanksgiving move on to the Quarterfinals. The 8 teams are seeded for the match-ups. But with the caveat that if one of those 8 teams was "the wildcard" AND came from a Power 5 conference, they are automatically seeded 8th. If "the wildcard" is an independent team (Notre Dame), they're seeded ordinarily.
This would have resulted in the same Power 5 Championship Games (doubling up as 1st round playoff games) last Saturday, plus 3 more playoff games: (6) Troy @ (1) Alabama, (5) Toledo @ (2) UCF, and (4) FAU @ (3) Boise State.
If the home teams won the 3 above games, we would have then re-seeded for the QF per the rules above: (8) Alabama @ (1) Clemson, (7) Boise State @ (2) Oklahoma, (6) UCF @ (3) Georgia, and (5) USC @ (4) Ohio State.
It's not a perfect proposal, but I don't really hate this idea either. Everyone has access. Including teams that miss their conference Championship game, but there's only a spot for 1 team like this and they are pretty strongly penalized (the automatic 8 seed) for the QF and SF.
December 5th, 2017 at 4:36 PM ^
I totally thought you were arguing for folding the conference championships into the first round of the playoffs. I think that is an awesome idea. There is then 6 at large spots, which should cover the UCFs of the year.