I respect you my friend, but this would not work. It would cost everybody too much money, because it would kill conference championship games, with immediate effect. The byes are there to incentivize teams to actually play their conference championship. If that benefit is removed, why play the conference championship game? If you're a team like SMU in this framework, just abdicate the ACC, refuse to play in the game, and keep whatever ranking they had instead of falling down to the final at-large, because even with a win in that ACC championship game, SMU was never getting to as high as fourth, meaning the conference championship (with no bye on the line) would've been an only-lose situation to them. They would've just refused to play it.
Before you say they wouldn't stoop to that level, what makes modern teams different than any of the teams of the past that did this exact thing when the conference championship game became a lose-lose proposition? 2003 Oklahoma not trying very hard in the Big 12 Championship comes to mind. Teams would likely still be contractually obligated to play these games, but there would be starter resting, and opt-out situations, and likely a lot of 66-7 games between one team actually needing the win (in this example, Clemson) and the other team daring the committee to pretend this blowout loss means anything (in this case, SMU).
Perhaps with more established conference-school relationships, this would be less of an issue, but why would Texas care about winning the SEC? Why would SMU care about winning the ACC? Why would Oregon care about winning the B1G? There's no pride there. These teams want to win their conference because there's a reward in the end. It's not like Ohio State trying to win the B1G or Alabama trying to win the SEC, where a conference championship would inherently mean something more.
Therefore, I believe the byes do need to remain attached to the conference championship games. However, the seeds don't. Why don't we just give the byes to the same teams (to keep conference championship games from dying immediately), but seed them according to where they're ordered by the committee? In years like this one, that means giving a bye to the 1, 2, 9, and 11 seeds. From here, just match highest against lowest until you run out of teams. In this season, that would've meant the exact same first round matchups.
We've talked before about how I would prefer a re-seed that intentionally avoids rematches, so this would've created a round two of Oregon-Arizona State, Georgia-Boise State, Texas-Ohio State, and Penn State-Notre Dame, and a round three (assuming Oregon beats Arizona State. The rest of the results are either quite clear or already happened) of Oregon-Notre Dame, Georgia-Ohio State, and if Oregon and Ohio State meet in the finals, that's life. We can't avoid a rematch forever.
The format sucks because it insists on having a bracket (for some reason). That's why. Just eliminate the bracket and do a re-seeding procedure with more sensible ways of seeding the teams, and we don't have to make the playoffs even more bloated (they're way too big already. That was clear as day this season), and we don't have to advocate for the death of conference championship games in the way that you've just done in the above article.
BTW, I would advocate for a two-bye format only if we either abolish the corrupt committee and go to a computer system, or simply make it known from the start that only the B1G and SEC champions are eligible. Elsewise, it will be an embarrassment to the sport when the B1G and SEC *coincidentally* produce the best two teams in the country every year, and this sport needs no more embarrassment.
I was actually really interested in your thoughts about this, Robbie! I know we don't agree much about the sport's postseason, but that's why I love your comments!
Having schools sit out of a conference championship game without the byes was a major concern of mine when making the proposal. This year, it would really benefit a team like Clemson who could snipe a bid to the tournament and would make the Big 12 title game a play in game, but affairs like in the SEC and Big Ten wouldn't have as large of a playoff impact. Because, like you said, those conferences are almost always going to put multiple teams in the playoffs.
You may have convinced me on that point, my friend.
The re-seeding is what I think is realistically going to happen and probably the main solution. I think either one of our ideas - a full re-seed or seeding based on their overall CFP rankings with byes still going to conference champions - would accomplish that. I'm pretty sure that's coming down the pipe for next year and any way we can avoid rematches in the early round is a win to me too.
I know I didn't mention it in the article, but I'm a big proponent of going back to the computer-based BCS system. One problem: it's almost always followed the CFP rankings to a T. The computers would be better and unbiased as much as possible, but the committee has actually done a decent job in their rankings.
That's because two thirds of the BCS formula is the playoff rankings isn't it? Public pressure allowed the BCS to become more and more corrupted by human biases over time. Let's go back to the 1999 BCS formula, and see what results that gives. Either that, or we can just use the computer averages that are one third of the 2013 formula, as the entire thing, and see where that gets us.
I'm a big fan of computers setting the line, because it avoids human biases about playoff participation. In general, humans can be trusted to pick the correct order of things, once given the things, but when you ask them to pick what things to put in order, humans go haywire. This same phenomenon shows up in much more important aspects of society than college football, but it messes up college football a lot.
I think I would advocate (if we must have these bloated playoffs) for a system where computers, in a fashion to be determined at a later date, pick the 12 teams, with no human influence at all. The five highest conference champions, which the computers will order, to prevent any committee shenanigans from seeping into who gets bye positions, plus seven at-larges. Once given the twelve team field, I would leave it to the humans to put these teams in order, pursuant only to the rule that the conference champions must be ranked the same order the computers ranked them, relative to each other.
For instance, using the Congrove Rankings (just for example) on this season would've given us conference champions of Oregon, Georgia, Boise State, Army, and Clemson who MUST be ranked in that order. Here we see why the champions must be ranked by computers, because the committee would rather slit their wrists than give two G-5 byes. This particular ranking didn't like A-State for the same reasons I didn't like them. We're not here to argue about them. They lose out by inches to Clemson. Iowa State would've made it. Anyways.
Moving along to the at-larges, it would've given a pool of Notre Dame, Ohio State, Texas, Indiana, Penn State, SMU, and Tennessee for the humans to order. Like you said. Not much different from what we actually got. The only change with this computer-human hybrid approach would be Army in a straight swap with Arizona State for the 11 seed, due to the computer mandate that they be ranked over Clemson.
Still though, the computers did get (in my opinion, and I believe yours as well, although I forget your rankings at this exact moment) the correct outcome of ranking Army over Arizona State, because they don't care about that nasty word 'American' in the same way the committee does. Computers don't have to honour this mythical 'power conference' nonsense, in the way humans insist on doing.
I feel like even if the changes are minimal, just one change like this every few years (often in favour of the G-5) would make a huge difference to the landscape of the sport. That's the benefit of bringing in computer rankings. Boo hoo for Arizona State. They'll get another chance. I think Army in their place out of the American would've done much more good for the sport.
For another reference, whether this is good or bad, computers don't care about starting QB injuries either, so if we did this exercise last year, it would've given us (in this order) Michigan, Florida State, Washington, Alabama, Texas, James Madison. For the six at-larges, they would've been Georgia, Ohio State, Oregon, Penn State, Missouri, and Ole Miss for the humans to order.
Poor James Madison having to go against Georgia in round one, but at least the Sun Belt would've been there, as opposed to the committee, who liked the C-USA champion Liberty better. Also, the computer mandate in this case means if the committee wanted to rank Florida State low, they would've had to drag all the other conference champions down with them, and their bye would be sacrosanct no matter what, protecting their position from the committee corruption they befell last season.
So yeah. I'm a fan of the way this tends to work in practice. It's generally just a tool to remove certain biases the committee has, and to serve no other real function, as most of the teams in most of the seasons would be the same anyway, but there are some corner cases (like our Arizona State vs Army arguments this season) where bias against the American prevents a deserving team, at least according to Congrove, from going to the playoffs.
I respect you my friend, but this would not work. It would cost everybody too much money, because it would kill conference championship games, with immediate effect. The byes are there to incentivize teams to actually play their conference championship. If that benefit is removed, why play the conference championship game? If you're a team like SMU in this framework, just abdicate the ACC, refuse to play in the game, and keep whatever ranking they had instead of falling down to the final at-large, because even with a win in that ACC championship game, SMU was never getting to as high as fourth, meaning the conference championship (with no bye on the line) would've been an only-lose situation to them. They would've just refused to play it.
Before you say they wouldn't stoop to that level, what makes modern teams different than any of the teams of the past that did this exact thing when the conference championship game became a lose-lose proposition? 2003 Oklahoma not trying very hard in the Big 12 Championship comes to mind. Teams would likely still be contractually obligated to play these games, but there would be starter resting, and opt-out situations, and likely a lot of 66-7 games between one team actually needing the win (in this example, Clemson) and the other team daring the committee to pretend this blowout loss means anything (in this case, SMU).
Perhaps with more established conference-school relationships, this would be less of an issue, but why would Texas care about winning the SEC? Why would SMU care about winning the ACC? Why would Oregon care about winning the B1G? There's no pride there. These teams want to win their conference because there's a reward in the end. It's not like Ohio State trying to win the B1G or Alabama trying to win the SEC, where a conference championship would inherently mean something more.
Therefore, I believe the byes do need to remain attached to the conference championship games. However, the seeds don't. Why don't we just give the byes to the same teams (to keep conference championship games from dying immediately), but seed them according to where they're ordered by the committee? In years like this one, that means giving a bye to the 1, 2, 9, and 11 seeds. From here, just match highest against lowest until you run out of teams. In this season, that would've meant the exact same first round matchups.
We've talked before about how I would prefer a re-seed that intentionally avoids rematches, so this would've created a round two of Oregon-Arizona State, Georgia-Boise State, Texas-Ohio State, and Penn State-Notre Dame, and a round three (assuming Oregon beats Arizona State. The rest of the results are either quite clear or already happened) of Oregon-Notre Dame, Georgia-Ohio State, and if Oregon and Ohio State meet in the finals, that's life. We can't avoid a rematch forever.
The format sucks because it insists on having a bracket (for some reason). That's why. Just eliminate the bracket and do a re-seeding procedure with more sensible ways of seeding the teams, and we don't have to make the playoffs even more bloated (they're way too big already. That was clear as day this season), and we don't have to advocate for the death of conference championship games in the way that you've just done in the above article.
BTW, I would advocate for a two-bye format only if we either abolish the corrupt committee and go to a computer system, or simply make it known from the start that only the B1G and SEC champions are eligible. Elsewise, it will be an embarrassment to the sport when the B1G and SEC *coincidentally* produce the best two teams in the country every year, and this sport needs no more embarrassment.
I was actually really interested in your thoughts about this, Robbie! I know we don't agree much about the sport's postseason, but that's why I love your comments!
Having schools sit out of a conference championship game without the byes was a major concern of mine when making the proposal. This year, it would really benefit a team like Clemson who could snipe a bid to the tournament and would make the Big 12 title game a play in game, but affairs like in the SEC and Big Ten wouldn't have as large of a playoff impact. Because, like you said, those conferences are almost always going to put multiple teams in the playoffs.
You may have convinced me on that point, my friend.
The re-seeding is what I think is realistically going to happen and probably the main solution. I think either one of our ideas - a full re-seed or seeding based on their overall CFP rankings with byes still going to conference champions - would accomplish that. I'm pretty sure that's coming down the pipe for next year and any way we can avoid rematches in the early round is a win to me too.
I know I didn't mention it in the article, but I'm a big proponent of going back to the computer-based BCS system. One problem: it's almost always followed the CFP rankings to a T. The computers would be better and unbiased as much as possible, but the committee has actually done a decent job in their rankings.
That's because two thirds of the BCS formula is the playoff rankings isn't it? Public pressure allowed the BCS to become more and more corrupted by human biases over time. Let's go back to the 1999 BCS formula, and see what results that gives. Either that, or we can just use the computer averages that are one third of the 2013 formula, as the entire thing, and see where that gets us.
I'm a big fan of computers setting the line, because it avoids human biases about playoff participation. In general, humans can be trusted to pick the correct order of things, once given the things, but when you ask them to pick what things to put in order, humans go haywire. This same phenomenon shows up in much more important aspects of society than college football, but it messes up college football a lot.
I think I would advocate (if we must have these bloated playoffs) for a system where computers, in a fashion to be determined at a later date, pick the 12 teams, with no human influence at all. The five highest conference champions, which the computers will order, to prevent any committee shenanigans from seeping into who gets bye positions, plus seven at-larges. Once given the twelve team field, I would leave it to the humans to put these teams in order, pursuant only to the rule that the conference champions must be ranked the same order the computers ranked them, relative to each other.
For instance, using the Congrove Rankings (just for example) on this season would've given us conference champions of Oregon, Georgia, Boise State, Army, and Clemson who MUST be ranked in that order. Here we see why the champions must be ranked by computers, because the committee would rather slit their wrists than give two G-5 byes. This particular ranking didn't like A-State for the same reasons I didn't like them. We're not here to argue about them. They lose out by inches to Clemson. Iowa State would've made it. Anyways.
Moving along to the at-larges, it would've given a pool of Notre Dame, Ohio State, Texas, Indiana, Penn State, SMU, and Tennessee for the humans to order. Like you said. Not much different from what we actually got. The only change with this computer-human hybrid approach would be Army in a straight swap with Arizona State for the 11 seed, due to the computer mandate that they be ranked over Clemson.
Still though, the computers did get (in my opinion, and I believe yours as well, although I forget your rankings at this exact moment) the correct outcome of ranking Army over Arizona State, because they don't care about that nasty word 'American' in the same way the committee does. Computers don't have to honour this mythical 'power conference' nonsense, in the way humans insist on doing.
I feel like even if the changes are minimal, just one change like this every few years (often in favour of the G-5) would make a huge difference to the landscape of the sport. That's the benefit of bringing in computer rankings. Boo hoo for Arizona State. They'll get another chance. I think Army in their place out of the American would've done much more good for the sport.
For another reference, whether this is good or bad, computers don't care about starting QB injuries either, so if we did this exercise last year, it would've given us (in this order) Michigan, Florida State, Washington, Alabama, Texas, James Madison. For the six at-larges, they would've been Georgia, Ohio State, Oregon, Penn State, Missouri, and Ole Miss for the humans to order.
Poor James Madison having to go against Georgia in round one, but at least the Sun Belt would've been there, as opposed to the committee, who liked the C-USA champion Liberty better. Also, the computer mandate in this case means if the committee wanted to rank Florida State low, they would've had to drag all the other conference champions down with them, and their bye would be sacrosanct no matter what, protecting their position from the committee corruption they befell last season.
So yeah. I'm a fan of the way this tends to work in practice. It's generally just a tool to remove certain biases the committee has, and to serve no other real function, as most of the teams in most of the seasons would be the same anyway, but there are some corner cases (like our Arizona State vs Army arguments this season) where bias against the American prevents a deserving team, at least according to Congrove, from going to the playoffs.