I don't think ANYTHING will happen until a few of things get settled.

The number of conference games each conference plays and the scheduling of FCS opponents to start. I don't care what some people say, the Oregon States and Illinois of the world STILL have more talent and ability than an FCS team. A horrifically bad Illinois team is still a tougher game than a FCS team. Sorry, but that's just the truth. Until all conferences are on equal footing, there will never be agreement on expanding a playoff.

The committee also needs to decide what are the EXACT criteria they'll use to determine the teams. Even if you go with "wild card" teams, there still needs to be objective numbers to determine who "gets in". It can't vary from year to year depending on who's on the committee and which way the wind happens to be blowing.

Even if all this gets settled, there has to be a guaranteed spot/auto-qualifying for the P5 champions. Without that, it's a non-starter.

The College Football Playoff committee got it wrong: Alabama is in on brand loyalty only

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...917333001/

(12-04-2017 09:38 AM)FloridaJag Wrote:  The Bowls don't mean anything.

I agree. But those three will be bringing in better money than the other conference bowlers.

(12-04-2017 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  It’s been more or less quiet on the Ohio State front because the Buckeyes got in at Penn State’s expense last year, and actually lost to them, unlike Alabama (who did not play OSU, of course).

To maximize the CCGs and Cinderella stories, auto-bids should be implemented in the future. The rest of an eight team playoff should be made-up of three wildcards to reward a commendable regular season, I’m not sure a G5 “champ” rule would go over. No changes to the six major bowl games need to be made.

I was the original advocate of a twelve team playoff, but I think that would be years and years away.

To me, it doesn't make conceptual sense to have an automatic G5 entry unless we have 16 teams in the playoffs. With 8 teams, chances are, the 8th best P5 team is better than the best G5 team, and since #8 is also probably a legit title contender, that's too high a price to pay for auto-inclusion. The G5 champ could be eligible for one of the three wild-cards like everyone else.

I understand what you're saying, although I'd personally include the "G5 champ" as an auto-bid. Will that necessarily be the strongest team? No. However, if we're providing auto-bids to each of the P5 champs in an 8-team playoff (and I think that's the *only* real reason why we'd move from 4 to 8 teams), then there's some equity in providing 1 spot to the G5. It also moves quite a bit of emphasis to the P5 conference championship games since there's a world of difference between having 3 at-large bids available to 2 at-large bids. I'm someone that is all for having representation in this format for schools that didn't win their conference along with independents (as I believe teams like this year's Alabama team are definitely playoff-worthy), but I'd like the P5 conference championship games to be as close to de facto elimination games as possible. IMHO, having only 2 at-large spots for grabs compared to 3 at-large spots preserves much of the week-to-week pressure (as you really can't feel safe at all outside of winning your conference) and debate that many people find to be a positive feature in the current 4-team playoff system (yet still having a completely unambiguous on-the-field way for the P5 champs to each get into the playoff without having subjective beauty contests involved).

(12-04-2017 09:49 AM)FloridaJag Wrote:  The College Football Playoff committee got it wrong: Alabama is in on brand loyalty only

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...917333001/

I could buy that if the choice came down to Alabama vs say TCU or even a Washington.

But nobody is a bigger brand than Ohio State, they are right there with Alabama. So "brand" cannot possibly explain it.

No, Alabama was just more deserving. One fewer loss was decisive, and should have been. Plus, the nature of that loss. I mean, could you imagine Alabama losing to Iowa by 30?

That's just impossible.

Consider another possible outcome where Alabama never lost to Auburn, but lost to UGA in the conference final. Pretty darn sure both UGA and Bama are showing up in the bracket again.

There was a way the Big Ten could have found their way into the playoff. Blame Wisconsin falling short. And really, given how beatable Ohio State is, they should have gotten it done.

(12-04-2017 11:24 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Consider another possible outcome where Alabama never lost to Auburn, but lost to UGA in the conference final. Pretty darn sure both UGA and Bama are showing up in the bracket again.

There was a way the Big Ten could have found their way into the playoff. Blame Wisconsin falling short. And really, given how beatable Ohio State is, they should have gotten it done.

I thought the B1G title game went as badly for the B1G as it could possibly have gone. Had Wisconsin won the game, then they'd have made the playoffs. Also, had Ohio State did what they did three years ago, blown Wisconsin out, then Ohio State probably gets in over Alabama.

The worst outcome was what happened - Ohio State wins, but unimpressively.

I think the current system is preposterous, but there is no other option, I fear. 8 simply doesn't work logistically with the CCG and bowl season limitations.

(12-04-2017 12:18 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think the current system is preposterous, but there is no other option, I fear. 8 simply doesn't work logistically with the CCG and bowl season limitations.

So if we go to 8 teams would the point be to dismiss the 9th or 10th best teams stake as national champions?

Does anyone think the 9th or 10th rated CFP team deserve national championship? That is usually a 10-3 P5 team finishing 3rd in its conference.

The distinction is more when it comes to the 3rd, 4th and 5th teams. Include the 3rd and 4th, dismiss the 5th. The 5th squares off against a team rated 7th, 8th, 9th in the CFP further discrediting any national title claim.

(12-04-2017 05:55 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 01:46 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:19 AM)AntiG Wrote:  This year is the perfect case for a 8 team playoff. UCF basically can win the NY6 bowl and claim that they should have a share of the championship since they finished as the only undefeated team in FBS this season, and the B1G has a legit beef for being left out for a team that didn't even win their own division, nevermind conference.

5 P5 champions
1 top G5 champ
2 at-large bids
Seeding order is based on their ranking

1 Clemson (ACC champ)
8 UCF (G5 champ)

4 Alabama (At-large)
5 Ohio State (B1G champ)

3 Georgia (SEC champ)
6 Wisconsin (At-large)

2 Oklahoma (B12 champ)
7 USC (P12 champ)

You basically eliminate the legit controversies with this setup since all 5 power conference champs + top G5 champ gets in. If in the future an indy like ND or Army; or any other G5 champ want in, run the table and get ranked.

How about an 8 team playoff with G5 autobids?

#1 Clemson
#2 Oklahoma
#3 Georgia
AAC Champ UCF
MAC Champ Toledo
MWC Champ Boise
SBC Champ Troy
CUSA Champ FAU

Bring some affirmative action to the sport....

1 Clemson (AQ) vs 16 Troy (AQ)
8 USC (AQ) vs 9 Penn State
4 Alabama vs 13 Boise State (AQ)
5 Ohio State (AQ) vs 12 UCF (AQ)
2 Oklahoma (AQ) vs 15 Toledo (AQ)
7 Auburn vs 10 Miami
3 Georgia (AQ) vs 14 FAU (AQ)
6 Wisconsin vs 11 Washington

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

(12-04-2017 11:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  It’s been more or less quiet on the Ohio State front because the Buckeyes got in at Penn State’s expense last year, and actually lost to them, unlike Alabama (who did not play OSU, of course).

To maximize the CCGs and Cinderella stories, auto-bids should be implemented in the future. The rest of an eight team playoff should be made-up of three wildcards to reward a commendable regular season, I’m not sure a G5 “champ” rule would go over. No changes to the six major bowl games need to be made.

I was the original advocate of a twelve team playoff, but I think that would be years and years away.

To me, it doesn't make conceptual sense to have an automatic G5 entry unless we have 16 teams in the playoffs. With 8 teams, chances are, the 8th best P5 team is better than the best G5 team, and since #8 is also probably a legit title contender, that's too high a price to pay for auto-inclusion. The G5 champ could be eligible for one of the three wild-cards like everyone else.

I understand what you're saying, although I'd personally include the "G5 champ" as an auto-bid. Will that necessarily be the strongest team? No. However, if we're providing auto-bids to each of the P5 champs in an 8-team playoff (and I think that's the *only* real reason why we'd move from 4 to 8 teams), then there's some equity in providing 1 spot to the G5. It also moves quite a bit of emphasis to the P5 conference championship games since there's a world of difference between having 3 at-large bids available to 2 at-large bids. I'm someone that is all for having representation in this format for schools that didn't win their conference along with independents (as I believe teams like this year's Alabama team are definitely playoff-worthy), but I'd like the P5 conference championship games to be as close to de facto elimination games as possible. IMHO, having only 2 at-large spots for grabs compared to 3 at-large spots preserves much of the week-to-week pressure (as you really can't feel safe at all outside of winning your conference) and debate that many people find to be a positive feature in the current 4-team playoff system (yet still having a completely unambiguous on-the-field way for the P5 champs to each get into the playoff without having subjective beauty contests involved).

I like the auto-bids for conference champs because it rewards actual performance on the field and minimizes the influence of subjective opinions in the selection process. I like the G5 auto-bid in an 8 team playoff because it makes the playoff actually accessible to the 50% of FBS that is currently effectively ineligible for the playoff. Basically, such a G5 bid would treat the 65 or so non-P5 schools as a single huge conference. That's a reasonable solution for a long time access issue. It's a nice compromise that solves the difficult issues of trying to compare G5 teams to P5 teams in an era where the two play each other infrequently and schedule SOS varies widely. The reality is the top G5 has generally been a pretty good team and has more often than not shown itself to be a capable top 10 opponent. The Cinderella aspect should provide an intriguing new angle to the CFP.

Go5 isn't ineligible, but they have to do it over multiple years to turn around the perception. You can't have a Cinderella get in there unless they beat a Goliath earlier in the year.

(12-04-2017 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  It’s been more or less quiet on the Ohio State front because the Buckeyes got in at Penn State’s expense last year, and actually lost to them, unlike Alabama (who did not play OSU, of course).

To maximize the CCGs and Cinderella stories, auto-bids should be implemented in the future. The rest of an eight team playoff should be made-up of three wildcards to reward a commendable regular season, I’m not sure a G5 “champ” rule would go over. No changes to the six major bowl games need to be made.

I was the original advocate of a twelve team playoff, but I think that would be years and years away.

To me, it doesn't make conceptual sense to have an automatic G5 entry unless we have 16 teams in the playoffs. With 8 teams, chances are, the 8th best P5 team is better than the best G5 team, and since #8 is also probably a legit title contender, that's too high a price to pay for auto-inclusion. The G5 champ could be eligible for one of the three wild-cards like everyone else.

This gets at the central problem of how to compare the best G5 teams to the best P5 teams. There is absolutely no consensus on how to do it.

Even amongst computer rankings, which are usually a lot more favorable to G5 teams than human poll voters, it's all over the place. Look at the Massey composite of different computer rankings. There's a good consensus on Clemson -- nearly half of those computers rank Clemson 1st, and over 90% rank Clemson 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. There's no consensus on UCF. Four computers rank them 1st; 17 computers rank them below the top 10.

It's the same "what matters most is fewest losses" vs. "only teams with strong schedules belong at the top" argument that sportswriters and fans have been having since at least 1975.

(12-04-2017 01:05 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  You can't have a Cinderella get in there unless they beat a Goliath earlier in the year.

In a level of a sport where one loss can basically lock you out from a title conversation. So, beating Goliath no longer makes that team "Goliath." It makes them irrelevant.

UCF won the AAC in a good year for the AAC. Didn't matter a darn thing.

The deck's stacked against the non-majors.

(12-04-2017 12:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 11:50 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 11:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It has become clear the CFP is not a playoff. It has devolved into the "Big Brand Name College Football Invitational". While I have zero interest in a G5 playoff---I am intrigiued by another option.

What if the G5 approached the NCAA about doing sponsoring the NCAA FBS National Football Championship. The post season event would be run and sponsored by the NCAA and would be open to ALL FBS Conferences. All conference champions are automatic qualifiers. A 10 man selection committee comprised of one representative from each FBS conference would fill in the rest of the 12 team field. Participating schools would earn "credits" for each round of participation (including the finals).

Years ago, the privately owned NIT tournament got the best college basketball teams and crowned the defacto national champion. In those days, the NCAA tournament was an afterthought (basically looked at the way we view the NIT today). The NCAA tournament offered a larger field and the wider participation of the NCAA tournament eventually allowed the NCAA Tournament to become more and more popular--attracting better and better teams. Eventually, the NCAA Tournament surpassed the NIT in popularity and became the determiner of the "real" college basketball champion in most peoples mind.

This year, the potential top seeds of such a NCAA FBS Football National Championship tourney could be Ohio State, USC, and the an undefeated UCF (along with 4 other conference champions). If properly packaged and capitalized, such a tournament might just be worth a heck of a lot of TV money. I could easily see such a more open and inclusive tournament becoming the preferred college football post season model of the American public VERY quickly. At first, the tournment would probably only attract G5 champs and P5 schools not slated to appear in major CFP bowls. Still--it would provide an excellent entertainment dollar and would provide a better post season for many G5 and P5 schools.

The most important difference between this idea and a G5 playoff? Because it is sponsored by the NCAA and open to ALL of FBS, the winner can legitmately call themselves the NCAA FBS National Football Champion.

AC,
Not sure your age but the NCAA made a rule you could not go to another tournament if offered a NCAA bid. Thus destroying the NIT as competition in the early 70's. NCAA should have been nailed for anti-trust but that would be done by football for TV in the 80's. Thus why the NCAA has never been able to control football like it did basketball. When the NIT finally did sue the NCAA, the NCAA bought it because it was likely to lose. To tired to look it up, but as you can guess, I will just be happy to be around in 2024 to see what happens.

Thought it was Al McQuire and Marquette that turned down NCAA for NIT which I believed created the NCAA rule about not being able to turn down the NCAA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Natio...Tournament

That was definitely a BIG factor. That said, the NCAA always had a larger more inclusive field. The NIT expanded for a while to match it--but the NCAA just kept getting bigger. I think NIT started at 6 teams and refused to go larger than 16 until it was too late. (Going off memory so I could be wrong on the exact numbers). Like I said, the NIT concept doesnt even really have to unseat the CFP to be successfull. The concept itself offers a better post season for the G5. Additionally, its larger field and its more equitable (more transparent) structure would probably prompt similar changes in CFP (making the post season for everyone better).

So let's say this happens, what happens if the P5 decide to break off and create Power Colleges Conferences. Keeping the money they make to support only their sports and no longer participate in the support of other schools with their conferences. What does the NCAA and Non-Football schools do? Does the Big East agree to join as a non-football participant for their Basketball Tournament? What happens to all those D1's that depend on their share of the NCAA budget? Lot of that could go away with such a break off. I do see some G5 schools and maybe some independents getting offers. Many non power conferences may not want to lose their money stream. Just another perspective. You keep to seem forgetting it was the NCAA that ruled for violating anti-trust in football not the power schools or conferences in the 80's.

(12-04-2017 12:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  It’s been more or less quiet on the Ohio State front because the Buckeyes got in at Penn State’s expense last year, and actually lost to them, unlike Alabama (who did not play OSU, of course).

To maximize the CCGs and Cinderella stories, auto-bids should be implemented in the future. The rest of an eight team playoff should be made-up of three wildcards to reward a commendable regular season, I’m not sure a G5 “champ” rule would go over. No changes to the six major bowl games need to be made.

I was the original advocate of a twelve team playoff, but I think that would be years and years away.

To me, it doesn't make conceptual sense to have an automatic G5 entry unless we have 16 teams in the playoffs. With 8 teams, chances are, the 8th best P5 team is better than the best G5 team, and since #8 is also probably a legit title contender, that's too high a price to pay for auto-inclusion. The G5 champ could be eligible for one of the three wild-cards like everyone else.

I understand what you're saying, although I'd personally include the "G5 champ" as an auto-bid. Will that necessarily be the strongest team? No. However, if we're providing auto-bids to each of the P5 champs in an 8-team playoff (and I think that's the *only* real reason why we'd move from 4 to 8 teams), then there's some equity in providing 1 spot to the G5. It also moves quite a bit of emphasis to the P5 conference championship games since there's a world of difference between having 3 at-large bids available to 2 at-large bids. I'm someone that is all for having representation in this format for schools that didn't win their conference along with independents (as I believe teams like this year's Alabama team are definitely playoff-worthy), but I'd like the P5 conference championship games to be as close to de facto elimination games as possible. IMHO, having only 2 at-large spots for grabs compared to 3 at-large spots preserves much of the week-to-week pressure (as you really can't feel safe at all outside of winning your conference) and debate that many people find to be a positive feature in the current 4-team playoff system (yet still having a completely unambiguous on-the-field way for the P5 champs to each get into the playoff without having subjective beauty contests involved).

I like the auto-bids for conference champs because it rewards actual performance on the field and minimizes the influence of subjective opinions in the selection process. I like the G5 auto-bid in an 8 team playoff because it makes the playoff actually accessible to the 50% of FBS that is currently effectively ineligible for the playoff. Basically, such a G5 bid would treat the 65 or so non-P5 schools as a single huge conference. That's a reasonable solution for a long time access issue. It's a nice compromise that solves the difficult issues of trying to compare G5 teams to P5 teams in an era where the two play each other infrequently and schedule SOS varies widely. The reality is the top G5 has generally been a pretty good team and has more often than not shown itself to be a capable top 10 opponent. The Cinderella aspect should provide an intriguing new angle to the CFP.

Couple of other things in the CFP era.
I have to wonder how or why the G5 got an autobid in a major bowl? I think it was built upon the success of the BCS period. I recall some P5 rep stating that they earned it from the success of the BCS days. So I have to wonder if the auto-bid to the Access Bowl is a 2 fold thing.

1. To either prove or disprove that a G5 auto-bid is a terrible thing.

2. If it proves the G5's have been winning or competitive in the Access Bowl, then that leads to less of an issue to give the g5 an auto-bid for an 8 team playoff. (Still it is 5 conferences battling for 1 spot where each P5 conference gets an auto-bid.)
So far it has proven worthy even being lowly ranked by the CFP committee.

To help avoid the BCS issue when it was exclusive for certain conferences. CFP learned from the mistakes of the BCS. It got buy in from the G5 with money and a meaningless access slot that created more access slots for the power schools. CFP had some very smart lawyers to do their contract.

(12-04-2017 01:54 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 11:50 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 11:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It has become clear the CFP is not a playoff. It has devolved into the "Big Brand Name College Football Invitational". While I have zero interest in a G5 playoff---I am intrigiued by another option.

What if the G5 approached the NCAA about doing sponsoring the NCAA FBS National Football Championship. The post season event would be run and sponsored by the NCAA and would be open to ALL FBS Conferences. All conference champions are automatic qualifiers. A 10 man selection committee comprised of one representative from each FBS conference would fill in the rest of the 12 team field. Participating schools would earn "credits" for each round of participation (including the finals).

Years ago, the privately owned NIT tournament got the best college basketball teams and crowned the defacto national champion. In those days, the NCAA tournament was an afterthought (basically looked at the way we view the NIT today). The NCAA tournament offered a larger field and the wider participation of the NCAA tournament eventually allowed the NCAA Tournament to become more and more popular--attracting better and better teams. Eventually, the NCAA Tournament surpassed the NIT in popularity and became the determiner of the "real" college basketball champion in most peoples mind.

This year, the potential top seeds of such a NCAA FBS Football National Championship tourney could be Ohio State, USC, and the an undefeated UCF (along with 4 other conference champions). If properly packaged and capitalized, such a tournament might just be worth a heck of a lot of TV money. I could easily see such a more open and inclusive tournament becoming the preferred college football post season model of the American public VERY quickly. At first, the tournment would probably only attract G5 champs and P5 schools not slated to appear in major CFP bowls. Still--it would provide an excellent entertainment dollar and would provide a better post season for many G5 and P5 schools.

The most important difference between this idea and a G5 playoff? Because it is sponsored by the NCAA and open to ALL of FBS, the winner can legitmately call themselves the NCAA FBS National Football Champion.

AC,
Not sure your age but the NCAA made a rule you could not go to another tournament if offered a NCAA bid. Thus destroying the NIT as competition in the early 70's. NCAA should have been nailed for anti-trust but that would be done by football for TV in the 80's. Thus why the NCAA has never been able to control football like it did basketball. When the NIT finally did sue the NCAA, the NCAA bought it because it was likely to lose. To tired to look it up, but as you can guess, I will just be happy to be around in 2024 to see what happens.

Thought it was Al McQuire and Marquette that turned down NCAA for NIT which I believed created the NCAA rule about not being able to turn down the NCAA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Natio...Tournament

That was definitely a BIG factor. That said, the NCAA always had a larger more inclusive field. The NIT expanded for a while to match it--but the NCAA just kept getting bigger. I think NIT started at 6 teams and refused to go larger than 16 until it was too late. (Going off memory so I could be wrong on the exact numbers). Like I said, the NIT concept doesnt even really have to unseat the CFP to be successfull. The concept itself offers a better post season for the G5. Additionally, its larger field and its more equitable (more transparent) structure would probably prompt similar changes in CFP (making the post season for everyone better).

So let's say this happens, what happens if the P5 decide to break off and create Power Colleges Conferences. Keeping the money they make to support only their sports and no longer participate in the support of other schools with their conferences. What does the NCAA and Non-Football schools do? Does the Big East agree to join as a non-football participant for their Basketball Tournament? What happens to all those D1's that depend on their share of the NCAA budget? Lot of that could go away with such a break off. I do see some G5 schools and maybe some independents getting offers. Many non power conferences may not want to lose their money stream. Just another perspective. You keep to seem forgetting it was the NCAA that ruled for violating anti-trust in football not the power schools or conferences in the 80's.

Well--lets be honest--that could happen anyway. The beauty of the NCAA Tournament option is it invites any team from FBS--P5 or G5. The concept of an exclusively G5 playoff (which I am completely against) is far more likely to generate the type split you describe. What Im proposing is essentially an NIT sponsored by the NCAA. The fact is, there is no reason participating in such a post seson football tournament (operating along side the current CFP) wouldnt be more profitable for both the G5 and P5 participants than current post season utilizing secondary non-CFP bowl games (that have shown slowly declining fan attendance). In fact, this secondary tournament might be a good place to test changes and work out bugs before integrating them into the existing CFP.

(12-04-2017 02:05 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  To help avoid the BCS issue when it was exclusive for certain conferences. CFP learned from the mistakes of the BCS. It got buy in from the G5 with money and a meaningless access slot that created more access slots for the power schools. CFP had some very smart lawyers to do their contract.

I dont think the G5 has any intention of suing. Too much to lose in the present system. On the other hand, a split would likely trigger a suit (that might potentially include past cumulative damages since the BCS began), since there would at that point, be nothing to lose for the G5. That said, I suspect that the current structure of the CFP is legally fine---the issue the P5 would likely have is failure to live up to the promises of equity and fairness contained in the contractual document. When teams can win every game on the schedule and not crack the top ten--there is a clear and demonstratable issue with access. That may or may not be a winning argument--but they probably would have a pretty reasonable chance of making that case. The 13 man CFP Selection Committee stacked with virtually all P5 representatives would be very tough to defend in courtroom thats considering issues of fairness, equity, and adherence to the spirit and intent of the contract document. Just saying...the P5 havent done very well of late in court cases that attack the way they conduct their business.

Honestly--an 8 team playoff where the P5 champs are AQ, the top G5 is AQ, and there are 2 wildcards is probably a "settlement" thats far superior to the all the crap that could emerge from a split. The current model isnt that far from being a pretty good system that allows everyone to thrive.

(12-04-2017 01:57 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  It’s been more or less quiet on the Ohio State front because the Buckeyes got in at Penn State’s expense last year, and actually lost to them, unlike Alabama (who did not play OSU, of course).

To maximize the CCGs and Cinderella stories, auto-bids should be implemented in the future. The rest of an eight team playoff should be made-up of three wildcards to reward a commendable regular season, I’m not sure a G5 “champ” rule would go over. No changes to the six major bowl games need to be made.

I was the original advocate of a twelve team playoff, but I think that would be years and years away.

To me, it doesn't make conceptual sense to have an automatic G5 entry unless we have 16 teams in the playoffs. With 8 teams, chances are, the 8th best P5 team is better than the best G5 team, and since #8 is also probably a legit title contender, that's too high a price to pay for auto-inclusion. The G5 champ could be eligible for one of the three wild-cards like everyone else.

I understand what you're saying, although I'd personally include the "G5 champ" as an auto-bid. Will that necessarily be the strongest team? No. However, if we're providing auto-bids to each of the P5 champs in an 8-team playoff (and I think that's the *only* real reason why we'd move from 4 to 8 teams), then there's some equity in providing 1 spot to the G5. It also moves quite a bit of emphasis to the P5 conference championship games since there's a world of difference between having 3 at-large bids available to 2 at-large bids. I'm someone that is all for having representation in this format for schools that didn't win their conference along with independents (as I believe teams like this year's Alabama team are definitely playoff-worthy), but I'd like the P5 conference championship games to be as close to de facto elimination games as possible. IMHO, having only 2 at-large spots for grabs compared to 3 at-large spots preserves much of the week-to-week pressure (as you really can't feel safe at all outside of winning your conference) and debate that many people find to be a positive feature in the current 4-team playoff system (yet still having a completely unambiguous on-the-field way for the P5 champs to each get into the playoff without having subjective beauty contests involved).

I like the auto-bids for conference champs because it rewards actual performance on the field and minimizes the influence of subjective opinions in the selection process. I like the G5 auto-bid in an 8 team playoff because it makes the playoff actually accessible to the 50% of FBS that is currently effectively ineligible for the playoff. Basically, such a G5 bid would treat the 65 or so non-P5 schools as a single huge conference. That's a reasonable solution for a long time access issue. It's a nice compromise that solves the difficult issues of trying to compare G5 teams to P5 teams in an era where the two play each other infrequently and schedule SOS varies widely. The reality is the top G5 has generally been a pretty good team and has more often than not shown itself to be a capable top 10 opponent. The Cinderella aspect should provide an intriguing new angle to the CFP.

Couple of other things in the CFP era.
I have to wonder how or why the G5 got an autobid in a major bowl? I think it was built upon the success of the BCS period. I recall some P5 rep stating that they earned it from the success of the BCS days. So I have to wonder if the auto-bid to the Access Bowl is a 2 fold thing.

1. To either prove or disprove that a G5 auto-bid is a terrible thing.

2. If it proves the G5's have been winning or competitive in the Access Bowl, then that leads to less of an issue to give the g5 an auto-bid for an 8 team playoff. (Still it is 5 conferences battling for 1 spot where each P5 conference gets an auto-bid.)
So far it has proven worthy even being lowly ranked by the CFP committee.

Interesting points.

The right 4 got picked, Buckeyes got beat down by Iowa.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk