I agree, Josh. 6 and 8 both accomplish what I'd like to see. I'm just not sure it's right to give two teams Byes. Team 3 might have just as impressive resume as 1 or 2 (we see it all the time), but be at a huge disadvtage.


In one sense I like rewarding the top two teams, but it could really handicap teams with equally impressive resumes. I'd have to think about the trade off some more.

---

I agree, Josh. 6 and 8 both accomplish what I'd like to see. I'm just not sure it's right to give two teams Byes. Team 3 might have just as impressive resume as 1 or 2 (we see it all the time), but be at a huge disadvtage.


In one sense I like rewarding the top two teams, but it could really handicap teams with equally impressive resumes. I'd have to think about the trade off some more.

 

Maybe, but if you use this year as an example its pretty simple.  If the playoffs started today, it would be Miss St and FSU.  The two undefeated teams that would deserve it the most.  It's not like that every year, but I think you can typically pick out the top two....and if you can't and #3 is mad about it, go prove it on the field.

---

Before the committee system was implemented my favorite idea was a six team playoff structured as follows.

 

Conference champions of the three toughest conferences determined by the average BCS rating of the top half of the conference. (Because whether Vanderbilt or Wake Forest stink more shouldn't matter for a playoff)

 

Three at-large bids.

 

Two teams get a bye and the first two games are played at the colleges, not at bowl sites. So #1-4 each get one home playoff game.

 

Obviously we'd have to change that up now with the BCS being defunct, but it's not that hard to come up with an objective measure for conference strength. I'd even be happy doing it by committee if they did it before the conference championship games.

 

For example this year, by any measure I think you'd find that the SEC, Big 12, and PAC 12 have the toughest upper half of their conference. So we'd have SEC Champ, Big 12 Champ, and PAC 12 champ. Even if it was a 2-3 loss Missouri team for example. That way a lot of teams are in it a lot longer. Also good for ratings because now FSU fan cares even more about VT vs. Ohio State at the beginning of the year. At large teams this year would likely be FSU, a second SEC team, and the Michigan State v. Ohio State winner or Notre Dame.

 

The main purpose behind this system however, was not necessarily fairness, but to encourage tougher out of conference scheduling. If you're Alabama, if you win your conference, you're in pretty much every year. However, on those years when you don't win your conference, you need some quality wins OOC to make up for losses in conference. Therefore, teams from the top conferences are incentivized to schedule tougher OOC games.

---

Before the committee system was implemented my favorite idea was a six team playoff structured as follows.

 

Conference champions of the three toughest conferences determined by the average BCS rating of the top half of the conference. (Because whether Vanderbilt or Wake Forest stink more shouldn't matter for a playoff)

 

Three at-large bids.

 

Two teams get a bye and the first two games are played at the colleges, not at bowl sites. So #1-4 each get one home playoff game.

 

Obviously we'd have to change that up now with the BCS being defunct, but it's not that hard to come up with an objective measure for conference strength. I'd even be happy doing it by committee if they did it before the conference championship games.

 

For example this year, by any measure I think you'd find that the SEC, Big 12, and PAC 12 have the toughest upper half of their conference. So we'd have SEC Champ, Big 12 Champ, and PAC 12 champ. Even if it was a 2-3 loss Missouri team for example. That way a lot of teams are in it a lot longer. Also good for ratings because now FSU fan cares even more about VT vs. Ohio State at the beginning of the year. At large teams this year would likely be FSU, a second SEC team, and the Michigan State v. Ohio State winner or Notre Dame.

 

The main purpose behind this system however, was not necessarily fairness, but to encourage tougher out of conference scheduling. If you're Alabama, if you win your conference, you're in pretty much every year. However, on those years when you don't win your conference, you need some quality wins OOC to make up for losses in conference. Therefore, teams from the top conferences are incentivized to schedule tougher OOC games.

 

That's very interesting. Personally, I think that getting a bye and home field advantage is way too "rewarding". A team that has to travel back-to-back weeks and play against a team who had an extra week of rest/preparation is stacking the deck against them. Even if the 5 or 6 seed was the best team in the country, the odds of winning the championship are incredibly low.

 

Also, you'd absolutely HAVE to re-seed 1 through 6 after the bids are earned. If you give seeds 1 through 3 to conference champions from the #1, #2, and #3 conferences then you'd run into some major problems.

---

That's very interesting. Personally, I think that getting a bye and home field advantage is way too "rewarding". A team that has to travel back-to-back weeks and play against a team who had an extra week of rest/preparation is stacking the deck against them. Even if the 5 or 6 seed was the best team in the country, the odds of winning the championship are incredibly low.

 

Also, you'd absolutely HAVE to re-seed 1 through 6 after the bids are earned. If you give seeds 1 through 3 to conference champions from the #1, #2, and #3 conferences then you'd run into some major problems.

Incredibly low? Not a chance six would have just as good a shot to beat one as one beating six.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

It's exactly the NFL model as far as home field advantage. And how many wildcards have made it to the Superbowl? If the #5 or #6 seed is actually on the level of the top seeds, it can be done.

 

And yes, I didn't make clear that the seeds aren't determined by how they got in but by the actual strengths of the teams.

---

It's exactly the NFL model as far as home field advantage. And how many wildcards have made it to the Superbowl? If the #5 or #6 seed is actually on the level of the top seeds, it can be done.

 

And yes, I didn't make clear that the seeds aren't determined by how they got in but by the actual strengths of the teams.

The stumbling block is the NCAA and the Bowl systems. They're just a tab bit crooked. If they aren't getting their piece (huge piece) of the pie then the scenario wouldn't fly. But I like yours posed.

 

I think even better would be to just make it 8. No byes, just start with the national quarters

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

It's exactly the NFL model as far as home field advantage. And how many wildcards have made it to the Superbowl? If the #5 or #6 seed is actually on the level of the top seeds, it can be done.

 

And yes, I didn't make clear that the seeds aren't determined by how they got in but by the actual strengths of the teams.

 

Home field advantage is not as big of an advantage in the NFL as it is in college football and that is proven by statistics. It's pretty obvious when you think about it:

1. College football stadiums are usually significantly larger.

2. College football fanbases are usually much more passionate and loud.

3. NFL players are paid professionals. College players are 18-22 year old kids and are much more likely to be rattled.

 

 

Incredibly low? Not a chance six would have just as good a shot to beat one as one beating six.

 

Have you ever taken a probability course? Even if all factors were equal and everyone had a 50% chance in every game, winning three straight (what the 6 seed would need to do) has a 12.5% chance of happening. Winning two straight (what the 1 seed would need to do), has a 25% chance of happening.

 

The thing is, it isn't a 50/50 chance. Even if the two teams were identical, the home team is the favorite. This is pretty obvious and is the reason why bookies give 3 to 4 points to the Home team. If the spread was 0 on a neutral site, the spread would be ~3.5 points at home. A fair assessment would be: All other things being equal, the home team has a 60% of winning.

 

So, now, even if the teams were identical, you'd have these odds for the #6 seed and #1 seed:

#6.. Game 1: 40% (road). Game 2: 40% (road). Game 3: 50% (neutral). Total probability.... 8%.

#1.. Game 1: 60% (home). Game 2 50% (neutral). Total probability.... 30%

 

And THEN you have to factor in the bye week. Coming off a bye week is roughly a 5% increase in win probability. That brings us to:

#6.. Game 1: 40% (road). Game 2: 35% (road). Game 3: 50% (neutral). Total probability.... 7%.

#1.. Game 1: 65% (home). Game 2 50% (neutral). Total probability.... 32.5%

 

 

That is a huge difference for teams that are identical in every other facet.

---

Home field advantage is not as big of an advantage in the NFL as it is in college football and that is proven by statistics. It's pretty obvious when you think about it:

1. College football stadiums are usually significantly larger.

2. College football fanbases are usually much more passionate and loud.

3. NFL players are paid professionals. College players are 18-22 year old kids and are much more likely to be rattled.

 

 

 

Have you ever taken a probability course? Even if all factors were equal and everyone had a 50% chance in every game, winning three straight (what the 6 seed would need to do) has a 12.5% chance of happening. Winning two straight (what the 1 seed would need to do), has a 25% chance of happening.

 

The thing is, it isn't a 50/50 chance. Even if the two teams were identical, the home team is the favorite. This is pretty obvious and is the reason why bookies give 3 to 4 points to the Home team. If the spread was 0 on a neutral site, the spread would be ~3.5 points at home. A fair assessment would be: All other things being equal, the home team has a 60% of winning.

 

So, now, even if the teams were identical, you'd have these odds for the #6 seed and #1 seed:

#6.. Game 1: 40% (road). Game 2: 40% (road). Game 3: 50% (neutral). Total probability.... 8%.

#1.. Game 1: 60% (home). Game 2 50% (neutral). Total probability.... 30%

 

And THEN you have to factor in the bye week. Coming off a bye week is roughly a 5% increase in win probability. That brings us to:

#6.. Game 1: 40% (road). Game 2: 35% (road). Game 3: 50% (neutral). Total probability.... 7%.

#1.. Game 1: 65% (home). Game 2 50% (neutral). Total probability.... 32.5%

 

 

That is a huge difference for teams that are identical in every other facet.

 

I think this is pretty obvious to everyone.  This would be called the advantage of having a better season.

 

Regardless, you'll never get home field.  You will have to spread it out to the current bowls.

---

I think this is pretty obvious to everyone.  This would be called the advantage of having a better season.

 

Regardless, you'll never get home field.  You will have to spread it out to the current bowls.

 

Right, but sometimes the difference between the 2nd best season and 3rd or 5th best season is minimal if anything. Giving home field advantage and a bye to a team is a huge advantage despite there being little to no difference in regular season results.

---

I guess I disagree about the difference in the second and fifth best seasons. It's seldom clear midseason, but by season's end there are usually one, two, or three teams that stand out to me as the best/most deserving.

---

It's exactly the NFL model as far as home field advantage. And how many wildcards have made it to the Superbowl? If the #5 or #6 seed is actually on the level of the top seeds, it can be done.

 

And yes, I didn't make clear that the seeds aren't determined by how they got in but by the actual strengths of the teams.

 

I pointed out that home field advantage is a bigger factor at the NCAA level. Even knowing that, let's look at the NFL numbers.

 

• Since the 1990 expansion to two wild card teams, there have been 24 Super Bowls.
  
• Of those 48 Super Bowl teams, 36 had a first round bye.
  
• Of those 48 Super Bowl teams, 3 were Wild Card teams.
  
• In the 1st round of the NFL playoffs, the home team is 62-34.
  

---

 

I pointed out that home field advantage is a bigger factor at the NCAA level. Even knowing that, let's look at the NFL numbers.

 

• Since the 1990 expansion to two wild card teams, there have been 24 Super Bowls.
  
• Of those 48 Super Bowl teams, 36 had a first round bye.
  
• Of those 48 Super Bowl teams, 3 were Wild Card teams.
  
• In the 1st round of the NFL playoffs, the home team is 62-34.
  

 

 

Well congratulations on having a better season.  You are all for not having 8 or 16 teams because some may be undeserving, shouldn't the most deserving receive an advantage for what they've done during the season?

---

I guess I disagree about the difference in the second and fifth best seasons. It's seldom clear midseason, but by season's end there are usually one, two, or three teams that stand out to me as the best/most deserving.

 

Ok, so 2012... who do you give the byes to? 12-0 Notre Dame for sure. 12-0 Ohio St., probably too, right?

 

Alabama was easily the best team in 2012 and was rightfully crowned National Champion. If this was the system, we might have had entirely different results. Not only would Alabama have had to beat Oregon, but they would then have to play a rested Ohio St. team, in Columbus, who had an entire extra week to prepare. Meanwhile, an inferior Ohio St. team who had a marginally (at best) better season, gets a week off and gets to play at home.

---

Well congratulations on having a better season.  You are all for not having 8 or 16 teams because some may be undeserving, shouldn't the most deserving receive an advantage for what they've done during the season?

 

My goal is and has been to crown the best team in college football. When you stack the deck in favor of the #1 and #2 seeds, you risk screwing over the actual best team in college football. A slight advantage? Sure. That's fine. Having home field advantage and a bye week is way too steep.

 

I mean, you guys support a 4 game playoff over the BCS system of #1 vs #2, right? Why?? Because #3 often has an extremely strong case to be in the top 2. So, knowing that, why would you support stacking the deck against #3? It doesn't make sense.

---

Actually I believe Ohio State was ineligible for the postseason that year. And of course some years the #2 and #3 teams are very close. That's part of the drama competing for that top 2 seed. The #5 team is generally not that close to the #2 seed however. I'm not as interested in creating a perfectly fair system as I am creating one where the teams that deserve a chance, have a chance, without taking away the drama I love about competing for those top spots.

 

The difference between #2 and #3 or between #4 and #5 should matter a lot. Otherwise that's when you're devaluing the regular season.

---

Home field advantage is not as big of an advantage in the NFL as it is in college football and that is proven by statistics. It's pretty obvious when you think about it:

1. College football stadiums are usually significantly larger.

2. College football fanbases are usually much more passionate and loud.

3. NFL players are paid professionals. College players are 18-22 year old kids and are much more likely to be rattled.

 

 

 

Have you ever taken a probability course? Even if all factors were equal and everyone had a 50% chance in every game, winning three straight (what the 6 seed would need to do) has a 12.5% chance of happening. Winning two straight (what the 1 seed would need to do), has a 25% chance of happening.

 

The thing is, it isn't a 50/50 chance. Even if the two teams were identical, the home team is the favorite. This is pretty obvious and is the reason why bookies give 3 to 4 points to the Home team. If the spread was 0 on a neutral site, the spread would be ~3.5 points at home. A fair assessment would be: All other things being equal, the home team has a 60% of winning.

 

So, now, even if the teams were identical, you'd have these odds for the #6 seed and #1 seed:

#6.. Game 1: 40% (road). Game 2: 40% (road). Game 3: 50% (neutral). Total probability.... 8%.

#1.. Game 1: 60% (home). Game 2 50% (neutral). Total probability.... 30%

 

And THEN you have to factor in the bye week. Coming off a bye week is roughly a 5% increase in win probability. That brings us to:

#6.. Game 1: 40% (road). Game 2: 35% (road). Game 3: 50% (neutral). Total probability.... 7%.

#1.. Game 1: 65% (home). Game 2 50% (neutral). Total probability.... 32.5%

 

 

That is a huge difference for teams that are identical in every other facet.

There's no reason to go to a 6 or 8 team playoff then, waste of time.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

Actually I believe Ohio State was ineligible for the postseason that year. And of course some years the #2 and #3 teams are very close. That's part of the drama competing for that top 2 seed. The #5 team is generally not that close to the #2 seed however. I'm not as interested in creating a perfectly fair system as I am creating one where the teams that deserve a chance, have a chance, without taking away the drama I love about competing for those top spots.

 

The difference between #2 and #3 or between #4 and #5 should matter a lot. Otherwise that's when you're devaluing the regular season.

 

Right, they had a post-season ban, but the scenario happened and is obviously realistic.

 

I'm not for devaluing the regular season. Alabama had a phenomenal 2012, going 12-1 and won the best conference in the country. Their season was arguably better than Ohio St. who went 12-0, but played in a much weaker conference. Picking one better season over the other is a coin flip. It doesn't make sense to significantly stack the cards in Ohio St.'s favor if your goal is to crown the best team in the country.

---

There's no reason to go to a 6 or 8 team playoff then, waste of time.

 

Sure there is. To make sure that a team with a legitimate case for best team in the country doesn't get screwed out of being crowned best team in the country.

---

My goal is and has been to crown the best team in college football. When you stack the deck in favor of the #1 and #2 seeds, you risk screwing over the actual best team in college football. A slight advantage? Sure. That's fine. Having home field advantage and a bye week is way too steep.

 

I mean, you guys support a 4 game playoff over the BCS system of #1 vs #2, right? Why?? Because #3 often has an extremely strong case to be in the top 2. So, knowing that, why would you support stacking the deck against #3? It doesn't make sense.

 

At some point you have to stop it though.  If you're saying 16 is too much, why isnt 8?  Realistically its very rare that 7 or 8 should really be in the conversation.  Most likely they encountered 1-6 at some point or at least crossed paths with someone they played.  

 

If FSU and Miss St go undefeated, they should have an advantage in the postseason.

---