Minor things that annoy you-sports edition

[1995hoo]

* Power 5 schools who schedule FCS opponents, and the fact that those games count

Any Power 5 school that schedules FCS opponents should be ineligible for the championship.

Meh. I don't mind if a Power 5 school plays one I-AA opponent. The reason is that often (not always, but often) the I-AA opponent is likely to be a local school and the big payday they get for agreeing to come play at the I-A venue is a big financial boost for their athletic department. I see the benefit of allowing that. Frankly, I'd rather see UVA play a local I-AA opponent like William & Mary than a relatively unknown program from somewhere far away that got chosen just because they're a I-A opponent (examples of some of those kind of programs we've played over the years: San Jose State, Western Michigan, and Buffalo).

I recall the bowl eligibility rules used to be more restrictive as to games against I-AA opponents than they are now, and I don't think that was a bad thing at all, but I guess it has to be that way given the proliferation of bowl games. They have to fill the spots somehow.

[SP Cook]

While we are on the subject of FBS and FCS, those terms bother me.  They should have kept I-A (which are the schools that go to bowls, now called FBS, or football bowl subdivision) and I-AA (which have a 24 team playoffs, FCS, or football championship subdivision).  Nobody know what FBS and FBS stand for.  Just use I-A and I-AA.

As to who plays who, the only team that does not play I-AA programs is Notre Dame.  I have no problem with a team playing one I-AA per year.  The $$ earned can pay for the entire program at the I-AA for multiple years.

[Max Rockatansky]

While we are on the subject of FBS and FCS, those terms bother me.  They should have kept I-A (which are the schools that go to bowls, now called FBS, or football bowl subdivision) and I-AA (which have a 24 team playoffs, FCS, or football championship subdivision).  Nobody know what FBS and FBS stand for.  Just use I-A and I-AA.

As to who plays who, the only team that does not play I-AA programs is Notre Dame.  I have no problem with a team playing one I-AA per year.  The $$ earned can pay for the entire program at the I-AA for multiple years.

Football Bowl Subdivision which sounds like a suburban neighborhood rather than a sports league. 

[tchafe1978]

What bothers me is why every level of football can have a real playoff except for FBS. FCS, D-II, and D-III all have real playoffs with a real champion won on the field. Not some hand picked favorites to play for a mythical championship. What we have now is better that the BCS or when the champion was just the most voted team to be #1, but it isn't a real playoff until it includes at least the champions of all FBS conferences, Group of 5 conferences included. But there is too much money to be made with the 30 or however many bowl games there are. If we don't want to get rid of all those other meaningless bowl games, make them the site of the playoff games at round of the playoffs. FBS football is the only sport that doesn't really crown a true champion on the field.

[kphoger]

People who hate a certain sports team just because that team wins a lot.

When I was younger, both the Dallas Cowboys and the New York Yankees fit this description.  Recently, it's the New England Patriots.

[NWI_Irish96]

What bothers me is why every level of football can have a real playoff except for FBS. FCS, D-II, and D-III all have real playoffs with a real champion won on the field. Not some hand picked favorites to play for a mythical championship. What we have now is better that the BCS or when the champion was just the most voted team to be #1, but it isn't a real playoff until it includes at least the champions of all FBS conferences, Group of 5 conferences included. But there is too much money to be made with the 30 or however many bowl games there are. If we don't want to get rid of all those other meaningless bowl games, make them the site of the playoff games at round of the playoffs. FBS football is the only sport that doesn't really crown a true champion on the field.

LSU just beat the #4 team by 35 and the #3 team by 17.   Did we really need an additional round so that LSU could have beaten the #8 team by 50?  The PAC-12 champs lost to the SEC's 4th best team and the AAC Champs lost to the Big Ten's 3rd best team.  We didn't need those teams in an expanded playoff to know that LSU was a legitimate champion.

Yes, the FCS Championship includes more teams, but it's been won by one of the top 4 seeds for 9 years running.

[webny99]

People who hate a certain sports team just because that team wins a lot.

... Recently, it's the New England Patriots.

Hopefully, fans of divisional opponents are exempt. 

[kphoger]

People who hate a certain sports team just because that team wins a lot.

... Recently, it's the New England Patriots.

Hopefully, fans of divisional opponents are exempt. 

Rooting against the ones you're team is actually playing at the time is one thing.  Hating a team in general, simply because they're good at the sport and therefore win a lot of games, is another thing.

[texaskdog]

What bothers me is why every level of football can have a real playoff except for FBS. FCS, D-II, and D-III all have real playoffs with a real champion won on the field. Not some hand picked favorites to play for a mythical championship. What we have now is better that the BCS or when the champion was just the most voted team to be #1, but it isn't a real playoff until it includes at least the champions of all FBS conferences, Group of 5 conferences included. But there is too much money to be made with the 30 or however many bowl games there are. If we don't want to get rid of all those other meaningless bowl games, make them the site of the playoff games at round of the playoffs. FBS football is the only sport that doesn't really crown a true champion on the field.

No kidding everyone is horrified and the 2nd level has TWENTY teams.  With 65 teams, having 8 in a playoff is reasonable.  NFL teams get in the playoffs with as many as EIGHT losses and people don't lose their mind.  I'm all for some tougher schedule and an 8 team playoff where the top 8 teams have a few losses. 

And I don't see why the big schools need to spend their money paying the small schools for squash matches.  Why not just play a tough game and not pay anyone.

[Alps]

What bothers me is why every level of football can have a real playoff except for FBS. FCS, D-II, and D-III all have real playoffs with a real champion won on the field. Not some hand picked favorites to play for a mythical championship. What we have now is better that the BCS or when the champion was just the most voted team to be #1, but it isn't a real playoff until it includes at least the champions of all FBS conferences, Group of 5 conferences included. But there is too much money to be made with the 30 or however many bowl games there are. If we don't want to get rid of all those other meaningless bowl games, make them the site of the playoff games at round of the playoffs. FBS football is the only sport that doesn't really crown a true champion on the field.

LSU just beat the #4 team by 35 and the #3 team by 17.   Did we really need an additional round so that LSU could have beaten the #8 team by 50?  The PAC-12 champs lost to the SEC's 4th best team and the AAC Champs lost to the Big Ten's 3rd best team.  We didn't need those teams in an expanded playoff to know that LSU was a legitimate champion.

Yes, the FCS Championship includes more teams, but it's been won by one of the top 4 seeds for 9 years running.

Some years are less cut and dried. Look back at past selections - this was a rare year when it was easy to pick the top 4. An intuitive system: Winner of each Power 5 conference + top ranked Group of 5 + any remaining undefeated teams (Notre Dame or Group of 5). 8 team playoff, fill the last 1-2 spots with remaining top ranked teams if any.

[Max Rockatansky]

What bothers me is why every level of football can have a real playoff except for FBS. FCS, D-II, and D-III all have real playoffs with a real champion won on the field. Not some hand picked favorites to play for a mythical championship. What we have now is better that the BCS or when the champion was just the most voted team to be #1, but it isn't a real playoff until it includes at least the champions of all FBS conferences, Group of 5 conferences included. But there is too much money to be made with the 30 or however many bowl games there are. If we don't want to get rid of all those other meaningless bowl games, make them the site of the playoff games at round of the playoffs. FBS football is the only sport that doesn't really crown a true champion on the field.

LSU just beat the #4 team by 35 and the #3 team by 17.   Did we really need an additional round so that LSU could have beaten the #8 team by 50?  The PAC-12 champs lost to the SEC's 4th best team and the AAC Champs lost to the Big Ten's 3rd best team.  We didn't need those teams in an expanded playoff to know that LSU was a legitimate champion.

Yes, the FCS Championship includes more teams, but it's been won by one of the top 4 seeds for 9 years running.

If anything it would benefit the NCAA to get 8 teams involved just for the excitement it would draw.  Seeing the same set of teams in a four team playoff is kind of boring, why not at least open the door to a big upset akin to the NCAA Basketball tournament?  Really even a 12 team playoff wouldn't be so out of line if the bowls were completely dropped, it certainly would smooth out the post season schedule.

[Bruce]

TV went off last night so I had to turn it back on and for some reason wound up on a station with NO COMMENTATORS!  It was wonderful.  I like the crowd noise without the constant babbling.

Some generic broadcasts for foreign soccer leagues do allow you to switch off commentary. They even ditch the halftime show in favor of showing the stands empty out for concessions.

[NWI_Irish96]

What bothers me is why every level of football can have a real playoff except for FBS. FCS, D-II, and D-III all have real playoffs with a real champion won on the field. Not some hand picked favorites to play for a mythical championship. What we have now is better that the BCS or when the champion was just the most voted team to be #1, but it isn't a real playoff until it includes at least the champions of all FBS conferences, Group of 5 conferences included. But there is too much money to be made with the 30 or however many bowl games there are. If we don't want to get rid of all those other meaningless bowl games, make them the site of the playoff games at round of the playoffs. FBS football is the only sport that doesn't really crown a true champion on the field.

LSU just beat the #4 team by 35 and the #3 team by 17.   Did we really need an additional round so that LSU could have beaten the #8 team by 50?  The PAC-12 champs lost to the SEC's 4th best team and the AAC Champs lost to the Big Ten's 3rd best team.  We didn't need those teams in an expanded playoff to know that LSU was a legitimate champion.

Yes, the FCS Championship includes more teams, but it's been won by one of the top 4 seeds for 9 years running.

Some years are less cut and dried. Look back at past selections - this was a rare year when it was easy to pick the top 4. An intuitive system: Winner of each Power 5 conference + top ranked Group of 5 + any remaining undefeated teams (Notre Dame or Group of 5). 8 team playoff, fill the last 1-2 spots with remaining top ranked teams if any.

The unintended consequence of having that system is that you'll have the top teams playing even more creampuff schedules than they do now.  Group of 5 teams will be playing all their nonconference games against FCS opponents just to increase their chances of being undefeated.  The only way I would approve of expanding the playoff to 8 teams is to impose the following conditions.

1) To be eligible for the playoff, you must play at least 12 FBS opponents.  An exception can be made for a team that scheduled 12 FBS opponents but had one game cancelled due to weather.

2) For a Power 5 team or ND to be eligible for the playoff, you must play at least 10 other Power 5/ND teams.  Again an exception can be made for a game cancelled due to weather.

[texaskdog]

What bothers me is why every level of football can have a real playoff except for FBS. FCS, D-II, and D-III all have real playoffs with a real champion won on the field. Not some hand picked favorites to play for a mythical championship. What we have now is better that the BCS or when the champion was just the most voted team to be #1, but it isn't a real playoff until it includes at least the champions of all FBS conferences, Group of 5 conferences included. But there is too much money to be made with the 30 or however many bowl games there are. If we don't want to get rid of all those other meaningless bowl games, make them the site of the playoff games at round of the playoffs. FBS football is the only sport that doesn't really crown a true champion on the field.

LSU just beat the #4 team by 35 and the #3 team by 17.   Did we really need an additional round so that LSU could have beaten the #8 team by 50?  The PAC-12 champs lost to the SEC's 4th best team and the AAC Champs lost to the Big Ten's 3rd best team.  We didn't need those teams in an expanded playoff to know that LSU was a legitimate champion.

Yes, the FCS Championship includes more teams, but it's been won by one of the top 4 seeds for 9 years running.

Some years are less cut and dried. Look back at past selections - this was a rare year when it was easy to pick the top 4. An intuitive system: Winner of each Power 5 conference + top ranked Group of 5 + any remaining undefeated teams (Notre Dame or Group of 5). 8 team playoff, fill the last 1-2 spots with remaining top ranked teams if any.

The unintended consequence of having that system is that you'll have the top teams playing even more creampuff schedules than they do now.  Group of 5 teams will be playing all their nonconference games against FCS opponents just to increase their chances of being undefeated.  The only way I would approve of expanding the playoff to 8 teams is to impose the following conditions.

1) To be eligible for the playoff, you must play at least 12 FBS opponents.  An exception can be made for a team that scheduled 12 FBS opponents but had one game cancelled due to weather.

2) For a Power 5 team or ND to be eligible for the playoff, you must play at least 10 other Power 5/ND teams.  Again an exception can be made for a game cancelled due to weather.

Stop letting schools set their own schedules.  3 non conference games should be against comparable teams.  LSU, Ohio State, OU, Clemson all playing each other next year would be amazing.

Another pet peeve as we're hearing about spying: baseball in general.  It used to be fun when I watched early 80s, and it was probably better before that, and far worse now.  zzzzz

[texaskdog]

What bothers me is why every level of football can have a real playoff except for FBS. FCS, D-II, and D-III all have real playoffs with a real champion won on the field. Not some hand picked favorites to play for a mythical championship. What we have now is better that the BCS or when the champion was just the most voted team to be #1, but it isn't a real playoff until it includes at least the champions of all FBS conferences, Group of 5 conferences included. But there is too much money to be made with the 30 or however many bowl games there are. If we don't want to get rid of all those other meaningless bowl games, make them the site of the playoff games at round of the playoffs. FBS football is the only sport that doesn't really crown a true champion on the field.

LSU just beat the #4 team by 35 and the #3 team by 17.   Did we really need an additional round so that LSU could have beaten the #8 team by 50?  The PAC-12 champs lost to the SEC's 4th best team and the AAC Champs lost to the Big Ten's 3rd best team.  We didn't need those teams in an expanded playoff to know that LSU was a legitimate champion.

Yes, the FCS Championship includes more teams, but it's been won by one of the top 4 seeds for 9 years running.

If anything it would benefit the NCAA to get 8 teams involved just for the excitement it would draw.  Seeing the same set of teams in a four team playoff is kind of boring, why not at least open the door to a big upset akin to the NCAA Basketball tournament?  Really even a 12 team playoff wouldn't be so out of line if the bowls were completely dropped, it certainly would smooth out the post season schedule.

It all stems from starting out in radio.  They constantly have to talk to tell you what is going on.  Why do we go to games and feel we don't need running commentary but on TV we're so stupid we need someone to explain what we're seeing.  Would not shock me at all if 30 years from now no commentators was the norm.

[hotdogPi]

What bothers me is why every level of football can have a real playoff except for FBS. FCS, D-II, and D-III all have real playoffs with a real champion won on the field. Not some hand picked favorites to play for a mythical championship. What we have now is better that the BCS or when the champion was just the most voted team to be #1, but it isn't a real playoff until it includes at least the champions of all FBS conferences, Group of 5 conferences included. But there is too much money to be made with the 30 or however many bowl games there are. If we don't want to get rid of all those other meaningless bowl games, make them the site of the playoff games at round of the playoffs. FBS football is the only sport that doesn't really crown a true champion on the field.

LSU just beat the #4 team by 35 and the #3 team by 17.   Did we really need an additional round so that LSU could have beaten the #8 team by 50?  The PAC-12 champs lost to the SEC's 4th best team and the AAC Champs lost to the Big Ten's 3rd best team.  We didn't need those teams in an expanded playoff to know that LSU was a legitimate champion.

Yes, the FCS Championship includes more teams, but it's been won by one of the top 4 seeds for 9 years running.

If anything it would benefit the NCAA to get 8 teams involved just for the excitement it would draw.  Seeing the same set of teams in a four team playoff is kind of boring, why not at least open the door to a big upset akin to the NCAA Basketball tournament?  Really even a 12 team playoff wouldn't be so out of line if the bowls were completely dropped, it certainly would smooth out the post season schedule.

It all stems from starting out in radio.  They constantly have to talk to tell you what is going on.  Why do we go to games and feel we don't need running commentary but on TV we're so stupid we need someone to explain what we're seeing.  Would not shock me at all if 30 years from now no commentators was the norm.

If they get rid of their commentary, they'll lose a small part of their advertising money. I remember in baseball there was the "Amica strike zone" or something similar. (The advertisements that go with the commentary are all visual, not spoken.)

[texaskdog]

What bothers me is why every level of football can have a real playoff except for FBS. FCS, D-II, and D-III all have real playoffs with a real champion won on the field. Not some hand picked favorites to play for a mythical championship. What we have now is better that the BCS or when the champion was just the most voted team to be #1, but it isn't a real playoff until it includes at least the champions of all FBS conferences, Group of 5 conferences included. But there is too much money to be made with the 30 or however many bowl games there are. If we don't want to get rid of all those other meaningless bowl games, make them the site of the playoff games at round of the playoffs. FBS football is the only sport that doesn't really crown a true champion on the field.

LSU just beat the #4 team by 35 and the #3 team by 17.   Did we really need an additional round so that LSU could have beaten the #8 team by 50?  The PAC-12 champs lost to the SEC's 4th best team and the AAC Champs lost to the Big Ten's 3rd best team.  We didn't need those teams in an expanded playoff to know that LSU was a legitimate champion.

Yes, the FCS Championship includes more teams, but it's been won by one of the top 4 seeds for 9 years running.

If anything it would benefit the NCAA to get 8 teams involved just for the excitement it would draw.  Seeing the same set of teams in a four team playoff is kind of boring, why not at least open the door to a big upset akin to the NCAA Basketball tournament?  Really even a 12 team playoff wouldn't be so out of line if the bowls were completely dropped, it certainly would smooth out the post season schedule.

It all stems from starting out in radio.  They constantly have to talk to tell you what is going on.  Why do we go to games and feel we don't need running commentary but on TV we're so stupid we need someone to explain what we're seeing.  Would not shock me at all if 30 years from now no commentators was the norm.

If they get rid of their commentary, they'll lose a small part of their advertising money. I remember in baseball there was the "Amica strike zone" or something similar. (The advertisements that go with the commentary are all visual, not spoken.)

it evens out, hear what they want to pay romo?

[Big John]

When a commentator says "nothing but green grass ahead" when the game is on artificial turf.

[hbelkins]

People who hate a certain sports team just because that team wins a lot.

... Recently, it's the New England Patriots.

Hopefully, fans of divisional opponents are exempt. 

Rooting against the ones you're team is actually playing at the time is one thing.  Hating a team in general, simply because they're good at the sport and therefore win a lot of games, is another thing.

"Front-runners" annoy me. That is, people who pile on the bandwagon of a certain team or individual just because they are successful. Their fans tend to be obnoxious.

It's one reason I never cared for Jeff Gordon. I started watching NASCAR when Gordon's career was young, and Dale Earnhardt's was nearing its untimely end. I started out liking Gordon, but the more I was exposed to his fans, the less I liked him. They turned me completely against him.

Also, fans who jump off the bandwagon of their traditional teams for the next hot flavor, especially if their old faithful team is struggling. I used to work with someone who was a huge Reds fan, but when things started going downhill late in Dusty Baker's tenure, he jumped ship to the Cubs because they were on the rise.

As a corollary, fans who don't support their local teams and instead root for distant franchises. I blame Ted Turner for that. This area has always been Reds Country, but a whole lot of kids grew up seeing more Braves games on WTBS than they did Reds games on national TV, or whatever loose network of local TV affiliates the Reds could cobble together.

And, as mentioned in another thread, people who automatically root for teams in their conference when their team isn't playing. Saw something in my FB memories the other day that sums it up pretty well, although not applicable this year: "Rooting for Alabama because they're in the SEC is like rooting for Satan because he's in the Bible."

[NWI_Irish96]

People who hate a certain sports team just because that team wins a lot.

... Recently, it's the New England Patriots.

Hopefully, fans of divisional opponents are exempt. 

Rooting against the ones you're team is actually playing at the time is one thing.  Hating a team in general, simply because they're good at the sport and therefore win a lot of games, is another thing.

"Front-runners" annoy me. That is, people who pile on the bandwagon of a certain team or individual just because they are successful. Their fans tend to be obnoxious.

It's one reason I never cared for Jeff Gordon. I started watching NASCAR when Gordon's career was young, and Dale Earnhardt's was nearing its untimely end. I started out liking Gordon, but the more I was exposed to his fans, the less I liked him. They turned me completely against him.

Also, fans who jump off the bandwagon of their traditional teams for the next hot flavor, especially if their old faithful team is struggling. I used to work with someone who was a huge Reds fan, but when things started going downhill late in Dusty Baker's tenure, he jumped ship to the Cubs because they were on the rise.

As a corollary, fans who don't support their local teams and instead root for distant franchises. I blame Ted Turner for that. This area has always been Reds Country, but a whole lot of kids grew up seeing more Braves games on WTBS than they did Reds games on national TV, or whatever loose network of local TV affiliates the Reds could cobble together.

And, as mentioned in another thread, people who automatically root for teams in their conference when their team isn't playing. Saw something in my FB memories the other day that sums it up pretty well, although not applicable this year: "Rooting for Alabama because they're in the SEC is like rooting for Satan because he's in the Bible."

I don't like front-runners/bandwaggoners either, but I don't stop liking someone because of them.  I grew up 20 miles from and then went to Notre Dame, and I didn't stop liking them no matter how many annoying fans they had.

Similarly, I liked Jeff Gordon because he is from Indiana and didn't stop liking him because of annoying fans.

Also, I'll never ditch my first love teams, but I do think it's fine to have a secondary interest for when my primary teams are awful.  The Bears have been terrible most of this century, so I've followed the Colts.  Similarly, the White Sox have been pretty bad for a decade so I've followed the Nationals.  I'm never ditching my local teams but I find other teams to keep my interest until they're good again.

[texaskdog]

I really don't like the Viking fans and embraced the Cowboys when I was 8.  When I was 37 I moved to Texas!  It's not easy liking out of town teams so don't hate on people for it.  Sometimes you just get tired of your crappy hopeless franchise e.g. the Browns.

My wife hates Jeff Gordon and my mom loves him.  King of the Hill had a great episode on Nascar.

I hate "frontrunner" when it comes to the Heisman.  Once you have a bad week, you're out whereas early bad weeks are forgiven.  When you have a "Heisman frontrunner" before the season starts that's like picking your mvp before one game is played. 

[kphoger]

HB:

It makes more sense to me for people to start cheering for a team that's winning a lot.  Forget about your emotional attachment to this team or that team for a minute, and ask yourself:  doesn't it make sense to cheer for a team that plays well?  If "your" team stops playing well, isn't it understandable to lose your enthusiasm for them?

If my favorite band stops producing music I like, then why should I keep buying their albums?  If my favorite TV series replaces the best actors and writers with mindless drivel and lackluster acting, then why should I keep watching it?  Similarly, if my favorite sports team stops playing their sport well, then why should I keep supporting them?

As for cheering for faraway teams rather than your local team...  For me...  Unless I personally know someone on the team, then I'm watching the sport for the sake of the game, not for the sake of the city.

[texaskdog]

HB:

It makes more sense to me for people to start cheering for a team that's winning a lot.  Forget about your emotional attachment to this team or that team for a minute, and ask yourself:  doesn't it make sense to cheer for a team that plays well?  If "your" team stops playing well, isn't it understandable to lose your enthusiasm for them?

If my favorite band stops producing music I like, then why should I keep buying their albums?  If my favorite TV series replaces the best actors and writers with mindless drivel and lackluster acting, then why should I keep watching it?  Similarly, if my favorite sports team stops playing their sport well, then why should I keep supporting them?

As for cheering for faraway teams rather than your local team...  For me...  Unless I personally know someone on the team, then I'm watching the sport for the sake of the game, not for the sake of the city.

I agree, if your favorite TV show stinks, stop watching.  If your team stinks and everyone keeps supporting them there is no huge incentive to win.

[Alps]

What bothers me is why every level of football can have a real playoff except for FBS. FCS, D-II, and D-III all have real playoffs with a real champion won on the field. Not some hand picked favorites to play for a mythical championship. What we have now is better that the BCS or when the champion was just the most voted team to be #1, but it isn't a real playoff until it includes at least the champions of all FBS conferences, Group of 5 conferences included. But there is too much money to be made with the 30 or however many bowl games there are. If we don't want to get rid of all those other meaningless bowl games, make them the site of the playoff games at round of the playoffs. FBS football is the only sport that doesn't really crown a true champion on the field.

LSU just beat the #4 team by 35 and the #3 team by 17.   Did we really need an additional round so that LSU could have beaten the #8 team by 50?  The PAC-12 champs lost to the SEC's 4th best team and the AAC Champs lost to the Big Ten's 3rd best team.  We didn't need those teams in an expanded playoff to know that LSU was a legitimate champion.

Yes, the FCS Championship includes more teams, but it's been won by one of the top 4 seeds for 9 years running.

Some years are less cut and dried. Look back at past selections - this was a rare year when it was easy to pick the top 4. An intuitive system: Winner of each Power 5 conference + top ranked Group of 5 + any remaining undefeated teams (Notre Dame or Group of 5). 8 team playoff, fill the last 1-2 spots with remaining top ranked teams if any.

The unintended consequence of having that system is that you'll have the top teams playing even more creampuff schedules than they do now.  Group of 5 teams will be playing all their nonconference games against FCS opponents just to increase their chances of being undefeated.  The only way I would approve of expanding the playoff to 8 teams is to impose the following conditions.

1) To be eligible for the playoff, you must play at least 12 FBS opponents.  An exception can be made for a team that scheduled 12 FBS opponents but had one game cancelled due to weather.

2) For a Power 5 team or ND to be eligible for the playoff, you must play at least 10 other Power 5/ND teams.  Again an exception can be made for a game cancelled due to weather.

I endorse your proposal.

[ilpt4u]

The unintended consequence of having that system is that you'll have the top teams playing even more creampuff schedules than they do now.  Group of 5 teams will be playing all their nonconference games against FCS opponents just to increase their chances of being undefeated.  The only way I would approve of expanding the playoff to 8 teams is to impose the following conditions.

1) To be eligible for the playoff, you must play at least 12 FBS opponents.  An exception can be made for a team that scheduled 12 FBS opponents but had one game cancelled due to weather.

2) For a Power 5 team or ND to be eligible for the playoff, you must play at least 10 other Power 5/ND teams.  Again an exception can be made for a game cancelled due to weather.

Since all P5 Conferences play at least 8 Regularly Scheduled Conference games, and have a Championship game, that is at least 9 P5 games against other members of your conference, with at least 8 different opponents, as Championship games can be repeat opponents

The way I read 2), is not just 10 games vs others in the P5, but 10 unique opponents. Assuming the Conference Title game is not a Rematch, many of the P5 Conferences already do this...SEC is sticking to 8 SEC games and the Big 12 has to have a repeat Title Game opponent since they play a Round Robin Football schedule. Pretty sure Big Ten, ACC, and Pac 12 are already here