I'm just gonna say, you could post a story about what color the practice helmets are right now (blue) and I'd eat it up. I've got a problem, I think......
Then two playoff games. Rotate these around. Or do regional home field. Indianapolis. Phoenix. Atlanta.
Then a national championship game. At Lambeau Field. :D
Winning a conference matters.
Tradition matters.
Determining a national champion via reasonable effort matters.
And it still leaves notre dame an opportunity to get in and get slaughtered every year, if you must. No automatic tie ins otherwise. Just be at the top of the pile.
Since a conference champion doesn't have to be in the top 8, this would provide the media something to do.
While it can be argued that the 5th or 6th or 7th ranked team in the country could win it all, teams outside the top 10 are a hard sell. So an 8 team playoff captures all conference winners and other strong teams. Pulling in historical tie-ins restores tradition and provides parity such that all conferences are allowed to reap the financial benefits. Obviously certain rules would have to be established that would inevitably leave some people dissatisfied. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can please quite a few more than we are now.
I will use the 2019 season since last year was a poopshow:
Rose: #13 Oregon vs #1 OSU
Sugar: #2 LSU vs #7 Baylor
Orange: #3 Clemson vs #5 Utah
Cotton: #6 Oklahoma vs #4 Georgia
I used the college football playoff rankings, which are questionable. These match-ups would potentially be different after the championship week, but these would be 4 very palatable games.
Cal fans: While I am sure that we would all love to see a playoff system that opens things up a bit (I'm getting tired of the usual suspects; Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State) with an expanded playoff and more teams, how do we compensate for the added wear and tear on players? Do we have fewer conference games? Fewer body-bag games? Is it right to even ask players to subject themselves to even more stress? In addition, as life-long Cal fans, shouldn't we be realistic about what we can do in football? When we have good teams, they are usually good enough to maybe compete for a Pac-12 title, not a national championship.
None of these proposals would result in a season more than 1 game longer than what FCS already has. I'm not that worried about wear and tear on players.
I like 16, but I would make it like basketball and give every conference an auto-bid. That means the reward for getting a top 3 seed is a probably pretty easy first-round match, but it also means that every program in the country at least has a path to get to the big dance. Most of them would get crushed, but it would also leave the door open for one of those programs to have a Gonzaga-like rise after making the tournament a bunch of times and maybe scoring some upsets. The rest of the at-large spots are selected by a committee who also seeds the bracket, again just like basketball.
Last year, it would have looked like this:
1 Alabama (11-0, SEC Champ)
16 UAB (6-3, C-USA Champ)
8 Cincinnati (9-0, AAC Champ)
9 Georgia (7-2, at-large)
5 Texas A&M (8-1, at-large)
12 Coastal Carolina (11-0, Sun Belt Champ)
4 Notre Dame (10-1, at-large)
13 San Jose State (7-0, MWC Champ)
6 Oklahoma (8-2, Big 12 Champ)
11 Indiana (6-1, at-large)
3 Ohio State (6-0, Big 10 Champ)
14 Oregon (4-2, Pac-12 Champ)
7 Florida (8-3, at-large)
10 Iowa State (8-3, at-large)
2 Clemson (10-1, ACC Champ)
15 Ball State (6-1, MAC Champ)
It's a little weird, because in a normal year the Pac-12 champ would not be as low as 14 (and that is not an easy game for Ohio St). But otherwise this gives a good idea of what that might look like.
Or, yes, as others have said, just go back to the bowls. But as it seems like the general preference is for a playoff, we should give everyone a legitimate shot.
Agree with Terrence, eliminate the playoffs and go back to the bowl season which was fun. And allowed for arguments all offseason, until the fall. Other than that, 8 teams make more sense. Do we really need to watch Sisters of the Poor from the G5 playing Alabama in a first round game? Will anyone watch care or even watch? (for the record, I predicted the issues of the 4 game playoff way back when it started; the issues were just common sense for all to see.)
Playoffs are destroying college football and need to stop. And I am not just saying this because Cal and the Pac-12 have much less upside.
Extra games in NFL stadiums are killing the spirt of college football. We are subjecting "student-athletes" to even more injuries and concussions. Recruiting becomes (somehow) even more of a sham.
I want ten regular season games on campus. Pac-12 and Big 10 winners to the Rose Bowl. Done.
But we "need" a clear national champion. Why? I don't.
But this "increases" revenues. The drive for more money is never-ending, and ADs will always "need" more money, but why? For the benefit of TV networks, high-paid administrators and coaches?
But March Madness is great. Yes, so keep that going, and make it 128! But we do not need to watch national quarterfinals from Arlington that have in-depth media promotions on a 19-year-old kid from an SEC school and his amazing fatherly figure coach
A lot of that extra playoff revenue does keep a lot of non-revenue Cal sports afloat. Returning to an older model would almost certainly ensure cuts across the board, so that is the downstream impact of moving the other way.
Actually my preference (to be clear) is to have no playoffs and return to the single bowl game tradition. In our case the Rose against the Big 10 champion. However, if we must have playoffs then 16 would be OK with me because 1 or 2 power 5 teams would be in the hunt for national titles. Otherwise, it's going to always be the perennial powerhouse teams from the south and midwest (e.g., THE Ohio State University)
I'm just gonna say, you could post a story about what color the practice helmets are right now (blue) and I'd eat it up. I've got a problem, I think......
Eight team playoff.
Maintain traditional tie ins.
Rose = PAC vs B1G 10 (14) in Pasadena
Sugar = SEC vs AT LRG in New Orleans
Orange = ACC vs AT LRG in Miami
Cotton = BIG 12 (10) vs AT LRG in Dallas
Then two playoff games. Rotate these around. Or do regional home field. Indianapolis. Phoenix. Atlanta.
Then a national championship game. At Lambeau Field. :D
Winning a conference matters.
Tradition matters.
Determining a national champion via reasonable effort matters.
And it still leaves notre dame an opportunity to get in and get slaughtered every year, if you must. No automatic tie ins otherwise. Just be at the top of the pile.
Since a conference champion doesn't have to be in the top 8, this would provide the media something to do.
While it can be argued that the 5th or 6th or 7th ranked team in the country could win it all, teams outside the top 10 are a hard sell. So an 8 team playoff captures all conference winners and other strong teams. Pulling in historical tie-ins restores tradition and provides parity such that all conferences are allowed to reap the financial benefits. Obviously certain rules would have to be established that would inevitably leave some people dissatisfied. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can please quite a few more than we are now.
I will use the 2019 season since last year was a poopshow:
Rose: #13 Oregon vs #1 OSU
Sugar: #2 LSU vs #7 Baylor
Orange: #3 Clemson vs #5 Utah
Cotton: #6 Oklahoma vs #4 Georgia
I used the college football playoff rankings, which are questionable. These match-ups would potentially be different after the championship week, but these would be 4 very palatable games.
ACTUALLY LET'S JUST BURN THE NCAA TO THE GROUND.
I favor Erik Johannessen's 4 auto plus 8 qualifiers idea. A slight expansion that lets a lot of underdogs get a shot at an upset and a cinderella run.
Cal fans: While I am sure that we would all love to see a playoff system that opens things up a bit (I'm getting tired of the usual suspects; Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State) with an expanded playoff and more teams, how do we compensate for the added wear and tear on players? Do we have fewer conference games? Fewer body-bag games? Is it right to even ask players to subject themselves to even more stress? In addition, as life-long Cal fans, shouldn't we be realistic about what we can do in football? When we have good teams, they are usually good enough to maybe compete for a Pac-12 title, not a national championship.
None of these proposals would result in a season more than 1 game longer than what FCS already has. I'm not that worried about wear and tear on players.
Any format that gets Cal into the playoffs.
64 teams!!!
I like 16, but I would make it like basketball and give every conference an auto-bid. That means the reward for getting a top 3 seed is a probably pretty easy first-round match, but it also means that every program in the country at least has a path to get to the big dance. Most of them would get crushed, but it would also leave the door open for one of those programs to have a Gonzaga-like rise after making the tournament a bunch of times and maybe scoring some upsets. The rest of the at-large spots are selected by a committee who also seeds the bracket, again just like basketball.
Last year, it would have looked like this:
1 Alabama (11-0, SEC Champ)
16 UAB (6-3, C-USA Champ)
8 Cincinnati (9-0, AAC Champ)
9 Georgia (7-2, at-large)
5 Texas A&M (8-1, at-large)
12 Coastal Carolina (11-0, Sun Belt Champ)
4 Notre Dame (10-1, at-large)
13 San Jose State (7-0, MWC Champ)
6 Oklahoma (8-2, Big 12 Champ)
11 Indiana (6-1, at-large)
3 Ohio State (6-0, Big 10 Champ)
14 Oregon (4-2, Pac-12 Champ)
7 Florida (8-3, at-large)
10 Iowa State (8-3, at-large)
2 Clemson (10-1, ACC Champ)
15 Ball State (6-1, MAC Champ)
It's a little weird, because in a normal year the Pac-12 champ would not be as low as 14 (and that is not an easy game for Ohio St). But otherwise this gives a good idea of what that might look like.
Or, yes, as others have said, just go back to the bowls. But as it seems like the general preference is for a playoff, we should give everyone a legitimate shot.
Agree with Terrence, eliminate the playoffs and go back to the bowl season which was fun. And allowed for arguments all offseason, until the fall. Other than that, 8 teams make more sense. Do we really need to watch Sisters of the Poor from the G5 playing Alabama in a first round game? Will anyone watch care or even watch? (for the record, I predicted the issues of the 4 game playoff way back when it started; the issues were just common sense for all to see.)
No, no, no....
Playoffs are destroying college football and need to stop. And I am not just saying this because Cal and the Pac-12 have much less upside.
Extra games in NFL stadiums are killing the spirt of college football. We are subjecting "student-athletes" to even more injuries and concussions. Recruiting becomes (somehow) even more of a sham.
I want ten regular season games on campus. Pac-12 and Big 10 winners to the Rose Bowl. Done.
But we "need" a clear national champion. Why? I don't.
But this "increases" revenues. The drive for more money is never-ending, and ADs will always "need" more money, but why? For the benefit of TV networks, high-paid administrators and coaches?
But March Madness is great. Yes, so keep that going, and make it 128! But we do not need to watch national quarterfinals from Arlington that have in-depth media promotions on a 19-year-old kid from an SEC school and his amazing fatherly figure coach
A lot of that extra playoff revenue does keep a lot of non-revenue Cal sports afloat. Returning to an older model would almost certainly ensure cuts across the board, so that is the downstream impact of moving the other way.
I'd also have much less of a problem with it if they're paid like professionals for the risk.
My vote would be to maximize the fun and have 16 teams!
Actually my preference (to be clear) is to have no playoffs and return to the single bowl game tradition. In our case the Rose against the Big 10 champion. However, if we must have playoffs then 16 would be OK with me because 1 or 2 power 5 teams would be in the hunt for national titles. Otherwise, it's going to always be the perennial powerhouse teams from the south and midwest (e.g., THE Ohio State University)