# The Real CFP for PBH



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

So PBH has outlined my biggest complaint in sports - the joke that is the College Football Playoff (CFP). Here is what will happen when you all appoint me as king of this land: 

1- Remove the 12th regular season game, going back to 11 games for every school. 

2- All conferences play 8 conference games, and 3 non-conference games. 

3- Every conference plays a conference championship game to declare their conference champ. 

4- The CFP is expanded to 16 teams. Teams are seeded the same way they do now with a selection committee rating the teams in the playoff from 1-16. 

5- Every conference champ is automatically in the playoff, so there are 10 automatic bids. 

6- Selection committee selects the 6 highest ranked remaining teams to be at-large bids, with a max of 2 at-large teams from one conference. (too much bias in these selections can creep in) 

7- First two rounds are held at the higher ranked team's home stadium. The semifinal and final utilizes a rotation of the current "big" bowl games. 

8- Conference can work whatever ties to other bowl games that they want to arrange. Those bowl games become no more meaningless than they are today, and allows other teams to play one more game and get those extra practices in for the players development. 

People say they care too much about money to do this, but this scenario would produce exponentially more money than the current system is producing. This is about perceived power, not money. In this scenario every single team controls their own destiny, every single team has a chance. If you are left out, it is because you did not handle your business. Yes, there will be controversy over who is that 6th team that gets in, but I don't care. Handle your business, win your conference, and you're in. 

Make this happen, and college football will overtake the NFL in supremacy for sports in America. 

Vanilla for King!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm good with that. I'd be good with an 8 team play-off, with the conference champs from the big 5 a guaranteed spot, 6th spot to highest rank group of 5, and 2 at large. The point being to me - how big do you need to go to ensure that you have captured the best team in the country. 8 would do that. With the 16 team deal this year, you literally would have 3 loss team from Conference USA, 5 loss team from MAC, and 3 loss team from Pac 12. Any team that loses 3 times in the regular season has proven that they are not the best team, or even in the discussion. Let alone 5 loss teams. Really, I can argue against the 4 team play-off as not being fair, but really, does anyone really think that there is a team that got left out that really could be the best team in the country? The only team that got left out this year that could be argued is undefeated UCF. And they just aren't part of the Cool Kids Club. An 8 team would at least include them, so that would be a step up. But I see no compelling argument to include Ohio State or Georgia which seem to be the schools people like to argue for. Both proved on the field that they are not the best team in the country. That simple. They had their chances.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Why are we insisting on picking who the best teams are based upon everything but playing it out on the field? 

I'm tired of just accepting what a group of power brokers or ESPN tells me should be the way, why not settle it on the field? 

I am watching a Jimmy V special as I type this in my hotel room (it sucks getting sick and throwing up all day on a work trip...) I wonder how many people would have said that NC State was a better team than Houston based upon analyzing the 1983 regular season? Or that Duke was better than UNLV in 1991? Or Villanova over Georgetown in 1985? Or James Madison rolling to the Final Four as an 11 seed? Or UMBC finally cementing a 16-1 upset for the first time ever? 

Let's decide who is the best on the field, not in analytics or in dark rooms with powerful political influence. Just settle it on the field. That should not be too much to ask.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I get all of that. And I agree. But UMBC didn't win the tournament. And in hoops, the lowest seeded team to win it was an 8 seed with Villanova over Georgetown. But basketball also has 347 division 1 teams that play 30 game seasons. That tournament may have occasional upsets, but the final 4 teams almost always come out of the top 16 seeds in most years, and top 32 seeds on occasion. So including 32 teams virtually guarantees that the best team is in the tournament.

In football, that has 129 D-1 teams, will a 16 team play-off give you any further assurance that the best team is included? Or can that be accomplished with an 8 team play-off? Really, the 4-team thing has been an improvement over the 2 team that used to be. 8 team would make sure that the major conference champs would all be included. But taking it bigger just dilutes things. A 16 team format would have put a 5 loss Northern Illinois in there this year. Those five losses on the field show that they are not the best team. I'm 100% in on proving it on the field. But part of proving includes the regular season too. But that's just me. 

In the mean time, it gives us something to talk about.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

If you're comfortable keeping a system where the majority of the teams in D1 don't control their own destiny, then you can be comfortable with an 8 team playoff. I am not comfortable with that, and therefore think the 8 team playoff is only slightly better than the 4 team playoff, yet still woefully inadequate.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Fair enough.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Vanilla - you get my vote!

Additionally, if you were king of this land, how would you handle the hunt expo, the WB, $FW, and archers wanting to change the limited entry elk hunt dates?!?!? 

Maybe this is the wrong thread for those questions ...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

CPAjeff said:


> Vanilla - you get my vote!
> 
> Additionally, if you were king of this land, how would you handle the hunt expo, the WB, $FW, and archers wanting to change the limited entry elk hunt dates?!?!?
> 
> Maybe this is the wrong thread for those questions ...


Expo can continue, but they get no tags. They all go back to the public draw.

Wildlife Board will be staffed by people that actually know what they are talking about, and not just SFW plants to do their bidding.

SFW will be forced to actually work for their money, and maybe will have internal incentives to spend the money a little more wisely, and focus on our wildlife instead of trophy hunts only.

Archery hunts will be banned in Utah, just to prove a point to minority special interest groups trying to screw over every one else. In 3 years I will reinstate them, but only if they are on their best behavior and show true penance for their previous actions. The wildlife calendars will only change if there is a biological reason to do so. Growing more 400 inch bulls for SFW to sell off is not a biological reason, as decreed in my first speech as king.

Ooops, I got distracted. Sorry. Back to college football.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Expo can continue, but they get no tags. They all go back to the public draw.
> 
> Wildlife Board will be staffed by people that actually know what they are talking about, and not just SFW plants to do their bidding.
> 
> ...


Preach!, or should I say decree! Now, please include something to complete and settle the stream access issue once and for all too.

As for the college playoff, 8 is the minimum amount that I would consider "fair". 16 would be great but at that point the argument of opponents that it extends the season too long becomes plausible.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Catherder said:


> Preach!, or should I say decree! Now, please include something to complete and settle the stream access issue once and for all too.


Haha! That would be fixed before I even sit on the throne the first time!



Catherder said:


> As for the college playoff, 8 is the minimum amount that I would consider "fair". 16 would be great but at that point the argument of opponents that it extends the season too long becomes plausible.


Nobody is complaining that Weber State's season is too long in the 16 team playoff they are currently scheduled to play. Or the 14 team playoff D2 is playing. Of the 16 team playoff they're playing in D3. You get the point. I can break down every argument against a real playoff. I've obsessed about this for 10+ years!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> Wildlife Board will be staffed by people that actually know what they are talking about, ...


You mean put this back in the hands of the biologists?

I'm in!


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> You mean put this back in the hands of the biologists?
> 
> I'm in!


Biologists on the Wildlife Board? Now that is just silly talk. ;-)


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Biologists on the Wildlife Board? Now that is just silly talk. ;-)


you guys all remember voting on this initiative, right? it passed, and we now have a RAC system with a member public WB.

Sometimes you get exactly what you ask for. Remember that next time you vote for something.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> you guys all remember voting on this initiative, right? it passed, and we now have a RAC system with a member public WB.
> 
> Sometimes you get exactly what you ask for. Remember that next time you vote for something.


Uh, no. I think I was a d#*& Nevadan at the time. Don't blame me.

Isn't the current Wildlife Board format just an extension of the old "Board of Big Game Control" that Utah has used for a very long time?

It is true that the RAC system is a newer construct.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

So we want biologists and the public to decide who the college football champion should be? I am so confused.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> So we want biologists and the public to decide who the college football champion should be? I am so confused.


No way! The WB is probably packed with (SFW) cougarfans. Not fair. ;-)

If the WB/SFW was in charge of of picking the football playoff participants, it would be based on the schools um, contribution amount and not the relative merits on the field.

Kind of like the Expo contract and RMEF. :shock:


----------

