• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

How to (properly) fix/tweak the CFP

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Winnersville

Situational Stopper
Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
768
Reaction score
399
Points
63
Hey guys. Hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving! As you probably know by now, the top four teams were chosen to be in the first ever CFP. Now even though it was all smiles as Ohio State got in, this did not come with criticism and controversy. With one year now under its belt, there's a few changes people want to see. I have been thinking of ways to tweak it since it was first announced. Eventually, some will be made. Here is my solution for this issue, which I think is a very realistic solution that everyone can be happy about.

Eventually, I see the power 5 conferences (ACC, SEC, B1G, XII, and PAC) seperating from the rest of the 1-A and creating their own, seperate sub-division (this is almost inevitable as P5 schools have criticized how easy it is to get into Division 1 now a days and have already been granted autonomy from NCAA): Division 1 CFP Football. Now I'm not going to discuss which, if any, teams would move to power 5 conferences (probably would be a select few from the American Conference, independence, or Mountain West) and become full-time members (I'm looking at you, Notre Dame) for this.

With this, as of now, you would have the 65 schools in P5 conferences apart of this. Teams that are left behind can merge with 1-AA FCS if you choose so. CFP teams could still play these teams for OOC games. You would play your traditional 12-game schedule with your byes but every conference would have a championship game now, elminating what some think is a problem in the Big 12. To decide a TRUE national champion, there would be an 8-team playoff. This would concist of your 5 undisputed conference champions along with 3 at-large spots given to the 3 highest-ranked teams that are not conference champions and would start 10-14 days following conference championship games. Each game site location leading up to the title game would be nice, neutral-site venues that could be bid on, making some money off of this. Each playoff game would be played on a Thursdasy (may get rid of this day, not sure), Friday, or Saturday and the title game would be played on a Monday (like it was in BCS). Similar to what they did in the BCS days, the CFP National Championship game venue would roatate among these listed bowls below (the bowl game at these sites would also take place if it's hosting the title game). There would be a 2-week break in between the Final Four and the title game. There would also be your 6 major bowl games (Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar, Peach, and Orange) that would take place and feature the highest ranked teams that didn't make it into the CFP Playoff. These games could take place on their tradidtional New Year's Eve/Day slots or during the 2-week layoff for the title game. There would be no other bowls besides these 6. If you don't make it into the playoffs or one of those bowl games, you're off to basketball season.

2 reasons why I chose 8 teams in playoff instead of 16. 1: The point of being in the playoff is that you can make a legitimate case for being the #1 team in the country. Once you get into the double digits and teens there are fewer, if any, teams that could make a case for being the best. 2: With 16 teams being in the playoffs, there's a good chance you would start to have teams that aren't even in the Top 25 (barely missing the cut) making into these bowls. Having 8 teams would be the best of both worlds, having an ideal amount of teams in the playoffs while have good, ranked teams playing in the major bowls.

With this, teams/conferences can still keep current TV deals (besides bowls that are going away, but ESPN would most likely get rights to playoffs so they wouldn't be too upset) and no legal action would have to be taken into effect (as of my knowledge). I'd love to see some feedback from what you guys think of this format, maybe even discuss what you guys had in mind.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AZ_
The only way your format will work is with the first round of games taking place in the higher ranked team's home stadium.

Three neutral site games is a loser for the players, the schools and the fan base.

Even a school the size of OSU won't travel for three consecutive neutral site games around the holidays, the university is already lashing out at the NCAA because they won't fund travel for families to two potential neutral site games this season.

They'll never get to 16 in my lifetime, of that I'm sure.
 
The only way your format will work is with the first round of games taking place in the higher ranked team's home stadium.

Three neutral site games is a loser for the players, the schools and the fan base.

Even a school the size of OSU won't travel for three consecutive neutral site games around the holidays, the university is already lashing out at the NCAA because they won't fund travel for families to two potential neutral site games this season.

They'll never get to 16 in my lifetime, of that I'm sure.

Yes, that's a great point/idea. I could definitely see the quarterfinals taking place at the higher seed's venue. You can make an argument to them that after finishing as one of the top teams in the country for that season, they deserve an extra home game. That leaves two neutral-site games to bid on. May actually work, with the demand going up since the supply going down. I think everyone would be OK with that.
 
I think the most likely scenario for expansion is a six team field, with the top two teams getting a bye and the first round taking place at their higher seeded university.
 
I think the best is you make 4 conferences. 4 conference champs, 4 team playoff.
 
Six teams for me.

Reward the top 2 teams (BCS type element)

I was thinking conference champs with a wildcard. But that might not be enough flexibility.

Therefore, I could also see just the top 6 teams. I think at least 4 of them would be conference champs anyways.
 
I also can see 6 teams. Same format, but first round is a bye with 1st round at highest seed home site.
 
I like where people are taking it regarding 6 teams. This could easily fit the new system I am envisioning and it would be rewarding 2 ways (one with bye and another with home game). If you do 6 teams, though, I'd almost see it being impossible to have AQ's to P5 winners due to limited spots available after that, like Soar said. And cavsfan1985, in theory that is a great idea. You could even have mini conference tournaments to decide winner. In practice, It'd be hard to pull off. If that were to happen I think the XII would most likely be dissolved (like it almost was a few years ago during realignment). You'd also have SEC fans complaining how their left out team is better than any of the teams in the playoff. But heck with them ;)
 
I think 6 teams or 8 teams would properly fix the current situation.
 
But let me ask you guys this: why do you prefer a 6 team playoff over 8 team? Just want to get your guy's opinions on this.
 
But let me ask you guys this: why do you prefer a 6 team playoff over 8 team? Just want to get your guy's opinions on this.

I just think it waters it down too much.

I like the idea of rewarding the top two teams on some level.

As an aside, I'm not sure expansion is such a slam-dunk idea yet. Lots of politics at play.

The other conferences might want the Big 12 to conform rather than expand the playoff. By expanding the playoff, the Big 12 doesn't really need a conference championship game. It might actually increase their odds at having more teams in the playoff.

ACC might want to try and force ND to fully join their conference. Right now it appears ND is at a disadvantage. Expanding the playoff takes pressure off ND to conform.

Other schools who want in the Power 5 might put pressure on other conferences to try and force the Big 12 to conform. BYU comes to mind.

So I think 4 teams sticks around for awhile.
 
Last edited:
Prefer 8, 6 is okay. But no more than 8.
 
I just think it waters it down too much.

I like the idea of rewarding the top two teams on some level.

As an aside, I'm not sure expansion is such a slam-dunk idea yet. Lots of politics at play.

The other conferences might want the Big 12 to conform rather than expand. By expanding, the Big 12 doesn't really need a conference championship game it might actually increase their odds at having more teams in the playoff.

ACC might want to try and force ND to fully join their conference. Right now it appears ND is at a disadvantage. Expansion takes pressure off ND to conform.

Other schools who want in the Power 5 might put pressure on other conferences to try and force the Big 12 to conform. BYU comes to mind.

So I think 4 teams sticks around for awhile.
Yes I think I read something where if this were to go through ND would be forced to join full-time if they want to be apart of this. You also bring up some good points.
 
I like 8. 5 champs from P5. 1 auto bid from highest ranked non power 5 champ. 2 Wild Cards. 1st round campus sites. Semis and Finals at Bowl sites. This year would've had Bama, Oregon, FSU, OSU, Baylor, TCU, Mississippi St. and Boise.

Keeps the regular season meaningful. Even a team like Bama or FSU or Oregon who likely would've had a spot locked up heading into championship week, would still desperately wanted to have a 1st round home game.
 
8 is where I'm at. It's enough that you almost never will have a legitimate question as to whether or not you actually got the best teams in the field. This year, whoever wins the playoff, you'll never really know if that team is better than Baylor or TCU.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top