Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

Happy it's not expanding further, but annoying that they can't agree on basic changes to improve the format. I just kind of skimmed the article, but I assume that also includes changes to the schedule to reduce time in between games. Moving the quarterfinals to campus seems so easy, but I'm sure that's a money thing with the bowls. The B1G continuing to push for 24 teams is embarrassing and dumb. I hate the general push in sports to always include more teams in playoffs.

droop10 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 2:14 pm Happy it's not expanding further, but annoying that they can't agree on basic changes to improve the format. I just kind of skimmed the article, but I assume that also includes changes to the schedule to reduce time in between games. Moving the quarterfinals to campus seems so easy, but I'm sure that's a money thing with the bowls. The B1G continuing to push for 24 teams is embarrassing and dumb. I hate the general push in sports to always include more teams in playoffs.

Agreed, 12 is fine.

What's funny is expanding the playoffs is low on the list for me. What's far more important is:
-Starting playoffs much sooner and not letting 20-30 days to pass
-Moving quarterfinals to campus instead of bowl locations
-Ignoring Championship game results (aka help conferences nuke them)

But none of these are addressed, meh.

UOducksTK1 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 2:24 pm

droop10 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 2:14 pm Happy it's not expanding further, but annoying that they can't agree on basic changes to improve the format. I just kind of skimmed the article, but I assume that also includes changes to the schedule to reduce time in between games. Moving the quarterfinals to campus seems so easy, but I'm sure that's a money thing with the bowls. The B1G continuing to push for 24 teams is embarrassing and dumb. I hate the general push in sports to always include more teams in playoffs.

Agreed, 12 is fine.

What's funny is expanding the playoffs is low on the list for me. What's far more important is:
-Starting playoffs much sooner and not letting 20-30 days to pass
-Moving quarterfinals to campus instead of bowl locations
-Ignoring Championship game results (aka help conferences nuke them)

But none of these are addressed, meh.

Agree. Some other items to change:

1- Remove conf championship games
2- Add one regular season game
3- Limit playoffs to 8 teams.
4- Remove any "automatic" bids or seeding
5- Have the rankings be determined by the coaches.

dd10snoop28 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 2:29 pm Agree. Some other items to change:

1- Remove conf championship games
2- Add one regular season game
3- Limit playoffs to 8 teams.
4- Remove any "automatic" bids or seeding
5- Have the rankings be determined by the coaches.

Controversial take...I support removing rankings from humans altogether and going back to a BCS model to determine the at large teams that make the playoffs. I recall the frustrations over the BCS in the past, but again, that was a byproduct of how limiting it was with only 2 teams having a chance to play for the championship. I don't really care for the argument if you're complaining about a computer model ranking you 12th or 13th. Don't lose enough games to make it an issue. Remove the human element from the rankings as much as possible. I think there would be too much bias involved with rankings being determined by the coaches. They'd be pushing for teams in their conference to make it in, so the conference generates more revenue.

I don't think what ranking system being used is that big of a deal. If you really wanna make playoffs lose 1 game or less. As soon as you have 2 losses, it's a crapshoot no matter what system you choose. And someone will always be made regardless.

I think the problem with rankings is we don’t have any data to actually compare the quality of each conference. You have P4 teams (including Big Ten) that can just schedule one FCS and two G6 teams. I think conference champ games should be removed, every team plays 13 games, 9 conference, 4 non-conference. And of those 4, you can have 1 FCS and 1 G6 opponent in the first two weeks of the season. (NFL has preseason, give P4 teams a warmup game or two, and we’ll have some fun FCS and G6 upsets). Then week 3 is P4 vs P4, then in week 12 or the second to last week of the season, have it be P4 vs P4 again, that way going into the playoffs the committee has a better idea of how good each conference truly is. Instead of Bama vs the Citadel in November, imagine Bama vs Oregon, or Texas vs Miami, or Iowa vs Texas Tech (just naming random matchups). That would be exciting for fans and would help give the committee data for when they select the final playoffs spots to hopefully keep them from great over-valuing a conference they way they did with the SEC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No matter how you slice it, there is always going to be complaints on how the rankings are determined:

-Computers will have bias based on who programs it.
-Media is dumb.
-"Committes" are in it for the $, and are also dumb (see FSU debacle two years ago and the ridiculous weekly interviews with the head of the CFP), and usually have non-football people on it.

Coaches may not have time to watch games, but I think they are more qualified than any of the parties above. Additionally, it will remove a lot of the controversy re: bias.

droop10 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 2:38 pm

dd10snoop28 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 2:29 pm Agree. Some other items to change:

1- Remove conf championship games
2- Add one regular season game
3- Limit playoffs to 8 teams.
4- Remove any "automatic" bids or seeding
5- Have the rankings be determined by the coaches.

Controversial take...I support removing rankings from humans altogether and going back to a BCS model to determine the at large teams that make the playoffs. I recall the frustrations over the BCS in the past, but again, that was a byproduct of how limiting it was with only 2 teams having a chance to play for the championship. I don't really care for the argument if you're complaining about a computer model ranking you 12th or 13th. Don't lose enough games to make it an issue. Remove the human element from the rankings as much as possible. I think there would be too much bias involved with rankings being determined by the coaches. They'd be pushing for teams in their conference to make it in, so the conference generates more revenue.

The problem is that doesn't remove humans at all, it actually just limits to even less humans making the decision on their own. First by the human designing/adjusting the computer models, and then the human(s) deciding which models to use. It then allows it be presented as human free and obfuscate any responsibility.

pudgejeff wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 5:49 pm

droop10 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 2:38 pm

dd10snoop28 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 2:29 pm Agree. Some other items to change:

1- Remove conf championship games
2- Add one regular season game
3- Limit playoffs to 8 teams.
4- Remove any "automatic" bids or seeding
5- Have the rankings be determined by the coaches.

Controversial take...I support removing rankings from humans altogether and going back to a BCS model to determine the at large teams that make the playoffs. I recall the frustrations over the BCS in the past, but again, that was a byproduct of how limiting it was with only 2 teams having a chance to play for the championship. I don't really care for the argument if you're complaining about a computer model ranking you 12th or 13th. Don't lose enough games to make it an issue. Remove the human element from the rankings as much as possible. I think there would be too much bias involved with rankings being determined by the coaches. They'd be pushing for teams in their conference to make it in, so the conference generates more revenue.

The problem is that doesn't remove humans at all, it actually just limits to even less humans making the decision on their own. First by the human designing/adjusting the computer models, and then the human(s) deciding which models to use. It then allows it be presented as human free and obfuscate any responsibility.

I think it actually does the opposite. Large components* of the BCS formula were the AP and Coaches polls, which represent a much broader swath of people than the limited selection committee.

One solution on the issue of OOC games is to remove them from counting for season record. Pad your schedule with cupcakes, it doesn't give you cheap W's for your record. Removes risk for playing a high quality opponent preseason and gives the fans a better product on the field.

droop10 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 2:38 pm

dd10snoop28 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 2:29 pm Agree. Some other items to change:

1- Remove conf championship games
2- Add one regular season game
3- Limit playoffs to 8 teams.
4- Remove any "automatic" bids or seeding
5- Have the rankings be determined by the coaches.

Controversial take...I support removing rankings from humans altogether and going back to a BCS model to determine the at large teams that make the playoffs.

Are you serious with this?

Rankings:
1. Georgia
2. Alabama
3. Ohio State
4. Ole Miss
5. Miami
6. Texas
7. LSU
8. Indiana
9. Tennessese
10. Texas A&M

Notice a trend here? Yea, the SEC loves your idea.

QuackininBama wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 7:51 pm

droop10 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 2:38 pm

dd10snoop28 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 2:29 pm Agree. Some other items to change:

1- Remove conf championship games
2- Add one regular season game
3- Limit playoffs to 8 teams.
4- Remove any "automatic" bids or seeding
5- Have the rankings be determined by the coaches.

Controversial take...I support removing rankings from humans altogether and going back to a BCS model to determine the at large teams that make the playoffs.

Are you serious with this?

Rankings:
1. Georgia
2. Alabama
3. Ohio State
4. Ole Miss
5. Miami
6. Texas
7. LSU
8. Indiana
9. Tennessese
10. Texas A&M

Notice a trend here? Yea, the SEC loves your idea.

Which arbitrary computer rankings did you use? For context using the old BCS formula, the pre-playoff rankings would have looked like this: https://www.on3.com/news/bcs-formula-ad ... ntroversy/

Doesn’t seem all that different, does it? Basically ND would have replaced Miami if you still used the current method of deciding teams based on conference champs and using the BCS for at large.

StevensTechU wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 5:59 pm

pudgejeff wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 5:49 pm

droop10 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 2:38 pm

dd10snoop28 wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 2:29 pm Agree. Some other items to change:

1- Remove conf championship games
2- Add one regular season game
3- Limit playoffs to 8 teams.
4- Remove any "automatic" bids or seeding
5- Have the rankings be determined by the coaches.

Controversial take...I support removing rankings from humans altogether and going back to a BCS model to determine the at large teams that make the playoffs. I recall the frustrations over the BCS in the past, but again, that was a byproduct of how limiting it was with only 2 teams having a chance to play for the championship. I don't really care for the argument if you're complaining about a computer model ranking you 12th or 13th. Don't lose enough games to make it an issue. Remove the human element from the rankings as much as possible. I think there would be too much bias involved with rankings being determined by the coaches. They'd be pushing for teams in their conference to make it in, so the conference generates more revenue.

The problem is that doesn't remove humans at all, it actually just limits to even less humans making the decision on their own. First by the human designing/adjusting the computer models, and then the human(s) deciding which models to use. It then allows it be presented as human free and obfuscate any responsibility.

I think it actually does the opposite. Large components* of the BCS formula were the AP and Coaches polls, which represent a much broader swath of people than the limited selection committee.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not in support of the current way they do things. Just hate when people think computer models are a way to remove human involvement.

QuackininBama wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 7:51 pm Are you serious with this?

Rankings:
1. Georgia
2. Alabama
3. Ohio State
4. Ole Miss
5. Miami
6. Texas
7. LSU
8. Indiana
9. Tennessese
10. Texas A&M

Notice a trend here? Yea, the SEC loves your idea.

If you used the BCS rankings to determine last years playoff, the B1G would have gotten the 1, 2 and 4 seeds and the only team left out would have been Miami in favor of Notre Dame.

So to be clear, this list of yours is not serious in any way.