CFP "re-seeding" - good idea?

[blion72]

this is one of the more talked about items re this year's CFP games. The argument goes that you want the top team to have the easiest path to championship, which seems logical. so far the example that gets picked on is that Oregon (#1) has tougher route than Penn State (ranked #4 and seeded #6).

Oregon is playing OSU (#6 rank and #8 seed) and Penn State is playing Boise State (#9 rank and #3 seed). The seeds were all based on the byes given to league champions. If they hold the seed #, then Oregon has the best path as they are playing the LOWEST seed left, which is Ohio State. By that measure, Oregon is already getting what reseeding would produce, unless they are going to use the rankings. is sounds like some people are assuming that is is not only reseeding but re-ranking of remaining teams.

 

[ClarkstonMark]

don't give two ****** conference champs byes, seed properly from the start, and you don't have this "problem"

 

[BobPSU92]

Why worry about it? How many years of ”college” football () do we really have left?

 

[Bones80]

I sort of like the way it played out. Round one cleared out the pretenders. I like the best P4/G5 conference champs getting a bye. Otherwise conference races would be meaningless. BIG and SEC champs are most likely going to be seeded 1 and 2. BIG and SEC runners up are most likely going to be seeded 5 and 6. No problem with that especially considering SEC bias. If you’re not a top 8 team you really have nothing to complain about if you have to travel for R1 or if you’re a 3 loss team and you miss out. BIG and SEC are regularly going to fill 7-8 slots. That leaves 5/4 for the rest. Can’t argue with that. Would like to see portal schedule change until after playoffs. I understand it interferes with the academic calendar but “playing school “ has been a complete myth for some time.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Definitely should be reseeding based on each team's CFP Ranking...can still give the first round byes to those 2 conference champs, but the current method is creating too much imbalance. And I'd guess that this is the change that we'll see for next season.

 

[Nits1989]

I like it very much the way it is.

 

[doctornick]

I saw an interesting compromise that left the 4 conference champs with getting byes but arranged the quarterfinal matchups based on the rankings (instead of automatically giving the teams with byes the top seeds)

So the matchups for this year would have been:

Rose: #1 Oregon vs #12 Arizona St
Sugar: #2 Georgia vs #9 Boise St
Peach: #3 Texas (or Clemson) vs #6 Ohio St (or Tenn)
Fiesta: #4 PSU (or SMU) vs #5 Notre Dame (or Indiana)

This keeps the bye reward for winning your conference but provides more appropriate matchups. I think it helps for travel/ticket sales to not reseed but just go with the seed of the highest teams to determine matchups.

there’s nothing that says that the teams getting bye need to play teams without byes.

 

[LionJim]

I saw an interesting compromise that left the 4 conference champs with getting byes but arranged the quarterfinal matchups based on the rankings (instead of automatically giving the teams with byes the top seeds)

So the matchups for this year would have been:

Rose: #1 Oregon vs #12 Arizona St
Sugar: #2 Georgia vs #9 Boise St
Peach: #3 Texas (or Clemson) vs #6 Ohio St (or Tenn)
Fiesta: #4 PSU (or SMU) vs #5 Notre Dame (or Indiana)

This keeps the bye reward for winning your conference but provides more appropriate matchups. I think it helps for travel/ticket sales to not reseed but just go with the seed of the highest teams to determine matchups.

there’s nothing that says that the teams getting bye need to play teams without byes.

Good post, thought provoking. Thanks.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I don’t like re-seeding. Honestly at this point, let the two big conferences (Big10000 and SEC) have four team playoffs in their conferences and the winners of those play in a championship game.