Interesting article by Dan Wetzel re playoffs changes he thinks would work

Q: With no CG who would have gone from the SEC this year???

A: Auburn.

Are you happy with that?

OK. I didn't read the article but did he have a formula that he used or is he just coming up with these teams in hindsight?

Miami would probably have not liked that idea.....and neither would have Ohio State.....in hindsight they would have had a point.

btw.....I would like an 8 game playoff too.


Edit: I went back and read his article. The problem I see is that the Conference Championship games were designed to also help overcome the unequal play across divisions within a conference so that the truly strongest team in a conference got in. Again, this year Wisconsin was undefeated, had a poor SOS and got beat in the Conf. Championship game.....but using his ideas they would have been in amongst the 8 teams and not Ohio State.

And again, why did he arbitrarily leave Miami out.....they were one loss, top 8 prior to the ACC Championship game?

No Ohio State, I can live with that

No. 9-12 would have a reason to argue they should have been in. It never stops. Bama will win the championship and shut all this talk up about how they don't deserve to be there.

69-0 in the last two years of playoffs. That's the score of the Rest v. The Big Ten. Just stop it.

quote:

---

Conference Championship games were designed to also help overcome the unequal play across divisions within a conference so that the truly strongest team in a conference got in

---

That’s a grossly over romantized view. CCG were really designed for extra revenue. Many times they are unnecessary. Of the P5 only the ACC didn’t have a clear champ based on the regular season. Clemson and Miami ties but didn’t play. In an ideal world they could do it if necessary, alas that would never happen. With Wisconsin I get they had an easy schedule that’s a problem with the B1G divisions, I thought it was better before, without the stupid Leaders and Legends names I don’t get peoples obsession sometimes geographic correctness.

quote:

---

quote: Conference Championship games were designed to also help overcome the unequal play across divisions within a conference so that the truly strongest team in a conference got in That’s a grossly over romantized view. CCG were really designed for extra revenue. Many times they are unnecessary. Of the P5 only the ACC didn’t have a clear champ based on the regular season. Clemson and Miami ties but didn’t play. In an ideal world they could do it if necessary, alas that would never happen. With Wisconsin I get they had an easy schedule that’s a problem with the B1G divisions, I thought it was better before, without the stupid Leaders and Legends names I don’t get peoples obsession sometimes geographic correctness.

---

And I think that's the problem that a CCG addresses. Admittedly, I would like the P5s to do away with the CCGs for the reasons stated in the article. That said, the SEC could have the same problem as the Big 10 this year. Conceivably, in a Georgia down year and a good Mizzou year, Mizzou could go undefeated in the SEC having beaten only the entire weak SEC East, Arkansas, and SEC West teams not named Alabama, Auburn, or LSU. The other option, I suppose, would be to force the teams to cut out two of the rent-a-win games in exchange for two other conference opponents???

quote:

---

No. 8 UCF at No. 1 Clemson
No. 7 USC at No. 2 Auburn
No. 6 Georgia at No. 3 Oklahoma
No. 5 Alabama at No. 4 Wisconsin"

---

Exactly

Playing the extra game hurt Wisconsin, Auburn and Miami possibly TCU? Alabama gets rewarded for not playing in a conference championship game and coming out 3rd in SEC.

quote:

---

He includes playing the semifinals on campus, eliminating conference championship games since some of those don't matter anyway, and having an 8 team playoff.

---

Seeing as the conference championship games (at least some of them) are big money-makers and good PR for the conferences, I don't see them being phased-out en masse.

I think a more realistic plan for an 8-team playoff would be keeping the P5 conference championship games (structuring the Big 12 similar to the way it used to be), with the winners getting an automatic berth in the playoffs. The other 3 spots would be at-large spots chosen by the committee with any team in the top 6 of the CFP rankings getting an auto-bid, if they weren't already a conference champ. The committee would also be in charge of seeding the 8 teams.

Your playoff this year would probably be:

Clemson vs. USC
Oklahoma vs. Auburn
Georgia vs. Wisconsin
Alabama vs. Ohio State

no. Conference championships are fantastic events. Whether teams get into the playoff, winning a conference is a massive accomplish, treasured by all.

Of course, the most simple and fair approach seems to be an 8 team playoff, with the P5 conf champs getting an automatic bid, plus 3 at-large chosen by the committee. Very similar to the way March Madness is done. Would be simple to implement.

I don't really care much about the non-P5 conference teams, even though there are usually some feel-good stories there (Boise, No. Illinois, UCF, etc.). But those teams aren't a legit threat to win multiple games in a playoff scenario against elite competition.

Another poster suggested (and I'm fine with it) to form an upper and lower FBS division. The upper is the P5 conference teams and the lower is all other FBS teams. Each division can have their own playoff, with the bowls still intact, and used in the playoff games.