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 recommended to expand to 12-team model
- Thread starter Jens1893
- Start date
This. The Pac 12 was always going to end up in a pod system.
But it does make expansion harder, because you almost have to add at least 3 and preferably 4.
Yeah, conferences can keep divisions or go to pods and just change CCG criteria to be top 2 teams regardless of division or pod
A) I like P-5 OOC games
2) Hate that one division could have top three teams in the conf (see UO, UDub, Stanford a few years ago)
d) not sure how pods would help that
iv) in my opinion, there’s too few conferences with too many teams in each.
Everything but the literal 60 minutes of the game is starting suck about college football.
2) Hate that one division could have top three teams in the conf (see UO, UDub, Stanford a few years ago)
d) not sure how pods would help that
iv) in my opinion, there’s too few conferences with too many teams in each.
Everything but the literal 60 minutes of the game is starting suck about college football.
I think it gives teams a more diverse schedule every year while protecting their “rival games.” You’re right that the top 3-4 teams could come from one pod which is okay in my opinion. There are a lot of ways to adjust scheduling within a conference. Pods is just one of them. I’d be okay with any solution but it seems like divisions might soon be done.
You may have noticed that I said that I dont watch anymore (except CU).
You are welcome to formulate your own conclusion.
Seems super risky to even play a CCG now. Just finish the year with 10 conf games for all.
If the SEC drops theirs everyone else will follow suit.
That's some quality bulleting.
Conference championships are big money and will guarantee a CFP spot and likely a Bye. They aren’t going away.
This.
Most years, if you win a P5 championship game, you have an 80% chance at a first round playoff bye.
And, most years, if your conference championship pits highest ranked vs second highest ranked, the loser is still in the playoff, they just don't get a bye.
Conference championship games aren't going anywhere, although they may get rejiggered away from division a vs division b.
And if you are going to expand it to this many teams, then I don't think there is a need for a conference championship. Conference championship games did not exist before the BCS. The conferences (due to the BCS) are set up for championship games. It wasn't like that before the BCS. I think you do either conference championship games and 8 teams, or no conference championship games and 16 teams. I probably prefer conference championship game and 8 teams. But a fourth round and a conference championship game is too many games.
brockbuff
Well-Known Member
What out of conference rivalry games can college football not live without? To me the only ones i can think of involve Notre Dame. To me i wouldn’t set anything up to help ND. 12 team conferences play every team in the conference. I don’t really even need a Conf championship game unless it makes an automatic bid.
A lot of truth in there.
Florida state-florida, Iowa-Iowa state, Georgia-Georgia tech, Clemson-south Carolina to name a few.
brockbuff
Well-Known Member
Those games are only relevant to their respective states. I wouldn’t change my model to cater to Iowa state and Georgia tech who have zero national relevancy.
Same with Miami v FSU.
gone native
Club Member
I prefer more out of conference matchups, although not the approach where teams just look to schedule easy home wins. Playing only in conference would take away a lot of potential exciting matchups every year.
The major conferences should set up more annual games where the teams are somewhat matched on previous season record. I would love to see every PAC12 team play 4 games against well matched ACC, SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 opponents to start each year.
I would prefer that ND has no choice but to join one of the power 5 conferences.
The major conferences should set up more annual games where the teams are somewhat matched on previous season record. I would love to see every PAC12 team play 4 games against well matched ACC, SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 opponents to start each year.
I would prefer that ND has no choice but to join one of the power 5 conferences.
If you are going to remove CCG, then the conferences need to set up so every team plays each other in the regular season. Deciding conference champions based on arbitrary tie breakers instead of on the field, head to head, is dumb.
Just to clarify. You don’t think there should be any OOC games played ever?
So... I'm hearing/seeing that once they get to 8 teams, the idea is to move to neutral sites/bowl games.
Which makes an interesting point:
Would you rather:
be #4, and get a bye into the second round where you face the winner of the #5/#12 game on a neutral site
or
be #5, and get to play the #12 team in your own stadium, in front of your own fans, collect all the stadium revenue, and presuming you win, roll into a neutral site game against #4 with some momentum and confidence?
Which makes an interesting point:
Would you rather:
be #4, and get a bye into the second round where you face the winner of the #5/#12 game on a neutral site
or
be #5, and get to play the #12 team in your own stadium, in front of your own fans, collect all the stadium revenue, and presuming you win, roll into a neutral site game against #4 with some momentum and confidence?
Klatt said he believes both the first round and Quarterfinals should be played on campus, thus guaranteeing 1 game on the campuses of the top 8 seeds. That makes the most sense to me.
I would hate it.
Should be on campus until the championship. Screw the bowls.
It's not what "makes sense" from a competitive standpoint. It's what generates the most money overall, and there are too many "upper tier" bowl games with a lot of money tied to them to just cut them out.
The Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Cotton Bowls are all in the current "playoff" system now, with 3 of them hosting their traditional conference representatives when they're not part of the playoff mix. The revenue from those bowl games is meaningful, and would become much less so if they're hosting #14 vs #24 in a TV weekend that's competing with playoff games.
And, those bowls wield a surprising bit of power in college football as well; they will use that power to stay in the picture.
So...
Do you want to be #4 with a bye heading to a neutral site or #5 with a home game?
You want to be #4 and get a bye into the Quarterfinals, of course. Being the 5 seed still means you have to play the 12th ranked team in the country. It's far from a gimme.