Replies

I think it’s actually pretty easy to fix the system.

1. Scrap the Conference Championship Games.

2. Only the top four teams in a conference are eligible for the playoffs

3. Instead of the Conference Championship Game, there will be a Conference Play-In game for the top four teams. The #4 seed plays at the #1 seed, and the #3 seed plays at the #2 seed. The winners automatically qualify, and the losers would have to get an at-large bid.

4. As current, seed the teams 1 through 12, if a G5 team is not in the Top 12, the #12 seed will play the top-ranked G5 team, the week before the First Round game, with the winner advancing in the #12 position.

When you looked at the Playoff Rankings, BYU was the #12 team, they would have to play Tulane the week before the First Round Games.

This would virtually solve all of the issues. Now every playoff team would have to play an extra game, and now you get the max number of good teams in the Final 12.

This would virtually solve all of the issues. Now every playoff team would have to play an extra game, and now you get the max number of good teams in the Final 12.

I think you're solution is too complicated and involves playing too many extra games.

Of all the selection criteria the BCS/CFP used, I thought the method used in 2001-2003 was most simple and fair:

25% - Human poll average
25% - Computer poll average (couldn't use computers that applied margin of victory)
25% - Strength of schedule (good for SEC and BIG 10)
25% - Losses

Simple solutions work best. With this method, everyone knows the selection criteria throughout the season, strength of schedule is important, losses are painful in the regular season, and most importantly, this method does not use an incompetent committee that changes its own criteria and rules on the day of selection.