As mentioned in another comment on a different thread I do my own rankings each year. My biggest complaint with the playoff is the committee and the human element. I hate that as bias will always be a factor. Even in my own rankings I believe there is some bias to how I rank. But I wish there was a set of rules or understanding as to what teams need to do each year to get into the playoff. The committee does not set any precedent from year to year because they fit their narrative for whatever teams they want. Being only 4 teams there will still be complaints but with a set of rules you know who and what teams will be considered. So with a 4 team playoff and the way I rank I essentially am choosing between 7 teams each year and that is it. This is why when the playoff was first brought up I wanted 8 teams with the power 5 champs in, the best of group of 5 in, and 2 at larges. That is the max I believe you go before you significantly water down the regular season. Plus that gives everyone a chance to take care of business on the field and still have a chance. Anyway my rules are below:
1. Record (Power 5 must be a conference champion)
2. OPP Winning %
3. OPP w/ Winning Records
*Outside of power 5 must be a conference champ, have a better record, AND a better OPP winning % to jump a power 5 school
**Independents must have an equal record with a better OPP win % and must schedule a minimum of 8 power 5 teams to jump a power 5 conference champ (This would be 9 but conferences have different rules with 8 being the lowest).
-Independents who have not scheduled 8 power 5 teams are subject to the non power 5 rule
Chris Brown tweeted an article about how the playoff committee has muddled even further the best 4 vs. the most deserving. He stated how a playoff or tournament does not decide the best team in a season. He used the same example I use with my friends in regards to the 2007 Patriots being one of the best teams but were upset by the Giants for one game. The universal feeling though is that is fair to crown the Giants as champs as they have a designed system with a set of rules that everyone understands and complies with. There is no subjectivity to it. Win your division or be a wild card team according to the set parameters and you can compete for a championship. I want college football to get as close to that without watering down a significant portion of the season. I think 8 accomplishes that.
My rankings are below but another thing I wanted to bring up is that I wish the NCAA and committee would not only make universal rules of understanding but place rules across the college landscape instead of having conferences guessing what to do to best get into the playoff.
I love what the Big 12 did with having no divisions and pairing the best two conference teams in the championship game. If that was made universal across all conferences then deem the conference champion as the playoff nominee for each conference. Yes, conferences are not equal but that is cyclical and I go back to the cliche of life is not fair. If you know the rules then at least you can have a better acceptance of the outcomes knowing you did not do what is necessary to win. If winning the conference is the priority for all than you can schedule tough out of conference games and know you still have a chance. Marquee games would better prepare you for the conference slate too. Schedule Texas, Notre Dame, and USC. Test your team knowing you may be out as an at large bid with that tough slate but you would be tested going into your conference slate. Even if not that tough of slate making conference championships a priority would lead to better scheduling outside of conference. Really good group of 5 teams would not longer be looked at as a lose-lose situation knowing a conference title gets you where you want to be still.
Another universal rule I would enjoy is slating how many conference vs non-conference games are played. Dictate 8 or 9 conference games for all. I lean more towards 9 with conferences growing a ton. 9 conference games and no divisions does not screw up scheduling. It is not hard to set predetermined rivalry games for each team (say 3 set games every year per team) and rotate the rest of the teams. Someone at SB Nation had a good read on this exact topic. Ohio State could play Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State every year. Someone like Tennessee could play Alabama, Florida, and Vanderbilt every year. The BIG did this with 11 teams as you would not play 2 teams for 2 years. Then they would rotate in the schedule after that. The logistics of scheduling is not hard once you figure out what the set games would be for each conference team and rotate the rest.
It would be nice if they dictated that each team is required to not play any FCS teams at all while scheduling a minimum of at least 1 power 5 opponent as well. This would eliminate "Chicken Shit" Saturday in November for the SEC. As long as you schedule group of 5 teams and at least one power 5 team I can live with that.
As for independents and group of 5 teams go it depends on the playoff structure. I think independents are fine as long as they have a schedule comparable to power 5 teams. If not they would be subject to Group of 5 parameters like I listed above. My rules are more so for a 4 team playoff. So if it is just 4 I think a nice universal rule for independents would be they could jump a power 5 school as long as they have the same amount of power 5 opponents. If the NCAA/Committee implemented a 9 game conference schedule across the board and one out of conference power 5 opponent then an independent would need to play 10 power 5 teams to be considered as a power 5 conference equal. Then if they have a better record they would leap frog a power 5 champ in my system. If they have the same record their opponent winning percentage would determine who is ranked higher. If they were to schedule less than 10 power 5 teams they would be treated as a group of 5 team. Meaning in my system they would need to have a better record AND better opponent winning percentage to leap frog a power 5 conference champion. Now if the system switches to an 8 team playoff things change a bit. In an 8 team playoff I would have all 5 conference champs, best from the group of 5, and then the 2 at larges. I have yet to think of tie breakers for how the at larges would be considered. Maybe record and then opponent win percentage. Independents would still be subject to how they scheduled when compared against teams from power 5 conferences for the at large spots.
Apologies for the novel but college football is awesome and I am constantly wondering how to improve the selection process for it's champion as this is the only sport that incites this much outrage at the end of the season. The more we can eliminate committees and subjectivity from people it would help. Making things more universal across conferences, setting guidelines for independents and group of 5 opponents, and in my opinion making it 8 teams with home field advantage feeding into the bowl semi finals would be epic. Curious what others thought on the matter.
