I voted 5-1-2 mainly because I think it's the most viable thing and keeps the bowl system in place. The ideal contact for the G5 would be a set spot in the playoff plus a set bid in the NY6. Basically the top G5 champ goes to the playoff and the second G5 champ goes to a NY6 bowl. (Unless you want it based on rankings for the G5)

I would rather have a 5-5-6.

(05-18-2021 01:52 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  I would rather have a 5-5-6.

That isn’t going to happen.

Straight 8. No autobids.

(05-18-2021 01:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-18-2021 11:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-18-2021 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-18-2021 09:01 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  I would go with 5-1-2.

I guess the 5-1-6 will generate more revenue and include more teams. But the cons are too fundamental to ignore whether you’re a P5 or G5 school:

1. One more week to play compared ro 5-1-2, most likely in December
2. Potential 17 games (it used to be 13 games MAX including a CG and bowl game)
3. Bowls would lobby hard against 12 team or larger playoff
4. College presidents may not agree with too significant changes

As for G5 teams, do you really think they would get a second bid under the 5-1-6? See GoBuckeyes1047’s analysis below. They would have gotten ZERO additional bid over the last seven years under the 5-1-6 compared to the 5-1-2. And their team will NOT get a bye under the 5-1-6. Why would they vote for the 5-1-6?

Conference Bids - 4 Team, 8, 12 (CFP/BCS):
Big Ten - 5/5, 12/12, 20/20
SEC - 8/8, 12/13, 19/20 (SEC was 1 bid conference in 2015 and 2016)
ACC - 8/8, 8/8, 12/12 (including ND in 2020)
Big 12 - 4/4, 9/8, 12/11
PAC-12 - 2/2, 7/7, 12/11
AAC - 0/0, 5/5, 5/5
ND - 2/2, 2/2, 3/3 (1 in ACC in 2020)
MAC - 0/0, 1/1, 1/1
MWC - 0/0, 1/1, 1/1
SBC - 0/0, 0/0, 0/1
C-USA - 0/0, 0/0, 0/0
Other Ind. - 0/0, 0/0, 0/0

Well using the "bolded" logic, no G5 should vote for 5-1-2 either, because the overwhelming benefits of that would go to the AAC, helping them with their "P6" campaign, which harms the rest of the "G" conferences.

I know if I was the dictator of any "G" conference but the AAC, I would not vote for a guaranteed G5 autobid.

Your usually pretty logical---but not this time. Besides, G5 voting history on these types of votes says otherwise. CUSA, the MAC, and the Sumbelt had NEVER placed a single team in a BCS bowl (BCS Busting was a WAC/MW phenomenon)---yet all these G5 conferences voted for the guaranteed G5 slot in the access bowl. Why? Because even though those conferences had never produced a BCS buster---they knew they would eventually produce a team that would grab that slot at some point. Sure enough---the MAC won it just a few years in. Heck, it was the MW (not the AAC) that won the G5 access bowl slot in the very first year. So yes, the AAC might dominate---but nearly a third of the time the AAC does NOT win. In other words----any G5 can win that playoff slot in any given year.

The reality? Right now---NO G5 is going to the playoff. At least in a 5-1-2 a legit possibility exists for a team from any G5 conference to make the playoff.....and thats a HUGE improvement for the entire G5.

I would say that back in 2012, when the CFP NY6 bid was developed, it was by no means clear that the AAC was going to dominate that bid, so conferences like CUSA and the SBC and MAC could hold out optimistic hope that they would be very competitive for it. The MW had every reason to think Boise would get the bid as much if not more than anyone.

IMO, the past seven years has shown that this is unrealistic. Hence, if I were a dictator of one of the other "Gs" I would insist on an auto-bid for every G5 conference, or none at all.

Note that I am not predicting that the other G5 will adopt my posture. Hope springs eternal, and the other Gs may well view the situation the way you look at it.

But if I were a G5 leader I would not be persuaded.

Seriously? I'd remind you at the time of the vote Boise, SDSU, and Louisville were all expected to be part of the AAC (which was actually still the Big East at the time). Most every sports writer around indicated the bid was essentially a gift to the Big East, which had lost their auto-bid to a NYD Bowl---and was widely expected to dominate the newly created G5 slot. It was a very commonly held opinion in the press.

With the defection of West Virginia and the future departures of Syracuse and Pittsburgh, the Big East was in danger of losing its AQ status under the current BCS format. Under the new system, the Big East will be perennial favorite to grab a BCS berth — especially after expansion adds Boise State, Houston, Memphis, Central Florida, SMU and San Diego State in 2013 and Navy in 2015.

https://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-men...story.html

(05-18-2021 03:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-18-2021 01:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-18-2021 11:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-18-2021 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-18-2021 09:01 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  I would go with 5-1-2.

I guess the 5-1-6 will generate more revenue and include more teams. But the cons are too fundamental to ignore whether you’re a P5 or G5 school:

1. One more week to play compared ro 5-1-2, most likely in December
2. Potential 17 games (it used to be 13 games MAX including a CG and bowl game)
3. Bowls would lobby hard against 12 team or larger playoff
4. College presidents may not agree with too significant changes

As for G5 teams, do you really think they would get a second bid under the 5-1-6? See GoBuckeyes1047’s analysis below. They would have gotten ZERO additional bid over the last seven years under the 5-1-6 compared to the 5-1-2. And their team will NOT get a bye under the 5-1-6. Why would they vote for the 5-1-6?

Conference Bids - 4 Team, 8, 12 (CFP/BCS):
Big Ten - 5/5, 12/12, 20/20
SEC - 8/8, 12/13, 19/20 (SEC was 1 bid conference in 2015 and 2016)
ACC - 8/8, 8/8, 12/12 (including ND in 2020)
Big 12 - 4/4, 9/8, 12/11
PAC-12 - 2/2, 7/7, 12/11
AAC - 0/0, 5/5, 5/5
ND - 2/2, 2/2, 3/3 (1 in ACC in 2020)
MAC - 0/0, 1/1, 1/1
MWC - 0/0, 1/1, 1/1
SBC - 0/0, 0/0, 0/1
C-USA - 0/0, 0/0, 0/0
Other Ind. - 0/0, 0/0, 0/0

Well using the "bolded" logic, no G5 should vote for 5-1-2 either, because the overwhelming benefits of that would go to the AAC, helping them with their "P6" campaign, which harms the rest of the "G" conferences.

I know if I was the dictator of any "G" conference but the AAC, I would not vote for a guaranteed G5 autobid.

Your usually pretty logical---but not this time. Besides, G5 voting history on these types of votes says otherwise. CUSA, the MAC, and the Sumbelt had NEVER placed a single team in a BCS bowl (BCS Busting was a WAC/MW phenomenon)---yet all these G5 conferences voted for the guaranteed G5 slot in the access bowl. Why? Because even though those conferences had never produced a BCS buster---they knew they would eventually produce a team that would grab that slot at some point. Sure enough---the MAC won it just a few years in. Heck, it was the MW (not the AAC) that won the G5 access bowl slot in the very first year. So yes, the AAC might dominate---but nearly a third of the time the AAC does NOT win. In other words----any G5 can win that playoff slot in any given year.

The reality? Right now---NO G5 is going to the playoff. At least in a 5-1-2 a legit possibility exists for a team from any G5 conference to make the playoff.....and thats a HUGE improvement for the entire G5.

I would say that back in 2012, when the CFP NY6 bid was developed, it was by no means clear that the AAC was going to dominate that bid, so conferences like CUSA and the SBC and MAC could hold out optimistic hope that they would be very competitive for it. The MW had every reason to think Boise would get the bid as much if not more than anyone.

IMO, the past seven years has shown that this is unrealistic. Hence, if I were a dictator of one of the other "Gs" I would insist on an auto-bid for every G5 conference, or none at all.

Note that I am not predicting that the other G5 will adopt my posture. Hope springs eternal, and the other Gs may well view the situation the way you look at it.

But if I were a G5 leader I would not be persuaded.

Seriously? I'd remind you at the time of the vote Boise, SDSU, and Louisville were all expected to be part of the AAC (which was actually still the Big East at the time).

You're right, I forgot that the format with the NY6 bid was decided on when Louisville and Rutgers were still in the Big East and Boise was still on board.

But I still draw the same conclusion: The other "G" would be silly to agree to a general G5 autobid that will likely be dominated by the AAC. If they had any illusions about that in 2012, the past seven years should have dissipated them.

Again, not predicting they will look at it that way, as you note, they didn't in 2012. But if I was running a G5 conference other than the AAC, I would balk at the same kind of arrangement in an expanded playoffs.

I don't think they will use P5 and G5 designations. I would think it would go up to eight Conference Champs will make it if they are in say top 15 and unfilled positions will be filled by wildcard teams.

(05-18-2021 01:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-18-2021 01:23 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Can someone explain the X-Y-Z shorthand?

You mean as in 5-1-2 means an autobid for each of the P5 conferences, 1 autobid for the G5 collectively, and 2 at large bids?

Understood.

Not only do I not see any possible advantage the 5-1-2 has over the 5-1-6 for the G5, I'd take it a step farther. I think too much we assume the FBS has 2 castes, the P5 and G5, but I would argue that's an oversimplification.

I would tier the FBS like this:
1. Blue Bloods
2. SEC and B1G schools that aren't blue bloods.
3. All other P5s.
4. The AAC
5. The "G4"

I think there's a tendency to assume tier 1 is the Power 5 but most of the P5 are not Alabama and Ohio State and often won't have interests that align with the major programs.

Obviously if you're Alabama or Ohio State you don't want to have your star running back injured playing some G5 team in the round of 8, but most of the P5 IMO realizes to get on the big stage and not just on the non-CFP NY6 they need an expansion.

I would also argue less preparation time for playoff games is a good thing for G5s and most P5s and would reduce the lack of parity that can hurt and probably is already hurting CFB's popularity.

(05-18-2021 01:40 PM)46566 Wrote:  I voted 5-1-2 mainly because I think it's the most viable thing and keeps the bowl system in place. The ideal contact for the G5 would be a set spot in the playoff plus a set bid in the NY6. Basically the top G5 champ goes to the playoff and the second G5 champ goes to a NY6 bowl. (Unless you want it based on rankings for the G5)

If playoffs expand to 8, I do not think there will be any more "NY6" bowls. The major bowls will be folded in to the playoffs, and after that there will just be minor bowls.

E.g., in any given year, four of the current NY6 host the QFs, the other two host the semifinals, and then there is a separate national title game.

Other than that, there will just be the minor bowls.

The correct answer, if you're a G5 coach or AD, is that you want the format with the most teams in the playoff. Simple math. 12 > 8. In the short term it provides more opportunities for at-large teams. More importantly, for the long term, the larger the next playoff is, the closer you are to an even larger playoff that might include autobids for every G5 conference. That autobid nirvana will not be there in a 12 team format, but at 24 teams it would be, and maybe even at some number between 16 and 24.

(05-19-2021 04:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-18-2021 01:40 PM)46566 Wrote:  I voted 5-1-2 mainly because I think it's the most viable thing and keeps the bowl system in place. The ideal contact for the G5 would be a set spot in the playoff plus a set bid in the NY6. Basically the top G5 champ goes to the playoff and the second G5 champ goes to a NY6 bowl. (Unless you want it based on rankings for the G5)

If playoffs expand to 8, I do not think there will be any more "NY6" bowls. The major bowls will be folded in to the playoffs, and after that there will just be minor bowls.

E.g., in any given year, four of the current NY6 host the QFs, the other two host the semifinals, and then there is a separate national title game.

Other than that, there will just be the minor bowls.

I don't know if the Ny6 would want their games completely eliminated. Though I don't know if the PAC 12 2 or 3 ranked team against a Big Ten 2-3 ranked team would draw rankings in non semi final years. I personally would like higher ranked teams to host the first round quarterfinal games. FCS seem to be able to do that I would assume FBS could do at least that. About the only requirement to the QF would be conference mates can't be matched together in QF.

Prefer 5-(2)-2 ... an 5-1-2 except with a Go5 play-in game on Army/Navy gameday. It's better exposure than the game against the 5, 6, or 7 seed, and as a de-facto Go5 championship game (in the old BCS one-and-done style), it is guaranteed to have a Go5 winner in the first game in the CFP.

Regarding a comment above, they won't CALL them the P5 and Go5, they will call them the "autonomy FBS football conferences" and "all other FBS football conferences", or the "contract bowl FBS football conferences" and "all other FBS football conferences". The Go5 is when "all other FBS conferences" negotiate as a group for the CFP contract round.

(05-19-2021 11:16 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Prefer 5-(2)-2 ... an 5-1-2 except with a Go5 play-in game on Army/Navy gameday. It's better exposure than the game against the 5, 6, or 7 seed, and as a de-facto Go5 championship game (in the old BCS one-and-done style), it is guaranteed to have a Go5 winner in the first game in the CFP.

Regarding a comment above, they won't CALL them the P5 and Go5, they will call them the "autonomy FBS football conferences" and "all other FBS football conferences", or the "contract bowl FBS football conferences" and "all other FBS football conferences". The Go5 is when "all other FBS conferences" negotiate as a group for the CFP contract round.

I agree that if there has to be a G5 autobid, there should be a play-in game between the top two G5 champs. That will mean that an AAC near-monopoly will still give the other G5 a good shot at having a "path" to the playoffs.

5-(2)-2 is mutual assured destruction. The G5 teams have to play a game while their opponent gets to rest.

To me, it just feels like pettiness among the MWC/C-USA/SBC/MAC over the fact that the AAC is generally better than them.

(05-20-2021 08:41 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  5-(2)-2 is mutual assured destruction. The G5 teams have to play a game while their opponent gets to rest.

To me, it just feels like pettiness among the MWC/C-USA/SBC/MAC over the fact that the AAC is generally better than them.

IMO it is a good thing. First, it would make the playoffs much more inclusive for the G5 by having two champs in the mix. Second, it would ameliorate the bias that the AAC has over the rest of the G5, much in the way the P5 has a bias over the AAC and the G5. E.g., last year, going in to the bowls, Cincy was consistently ranked well ahead of Coastal Carolina in the CFP rankings, even though Coastal's resume was probably stronger.

Third, it would compensate for the fact that the G5 path to the playoffs is easier, because G5 SOS are typically much weaker. If the G5 is going to get an "affirmative action" type bid, then it ought to be earned more.

So I see nothing but good from a play-in game, and I bet the G5 as a whole would approve.

(05-20-2021 08:41 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  5-(2)-2 is mutual assured destruction. The G5 teams have to play a game while their opponent gets to rest.

How so? In the NFL teams that played a Wild Card game regularly beat a team that had a bye. I know playoffs have changed now but some years you even had two of the four teams with a bye LOSE their first game.

(05-20-2021 08:41 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  5-(2)-2 is mutual assured destruction. The G5 teams have to play a game while their opponent gets to rest.

To me, it just feels like pettiness among the MWC/C-USA/SBC/MAC over the fact that the AAC is generally better than them.

It would be hypocritical for the AAC to complain that their undefeated teams don't seem to get any real consideration for the CFP while also insisting their teams get deference for the NY6 over a Sun Belt team when said Sun Belt team has better wins and (on this particular season) there's no real difference between the AAC and Sun Belt except at the bottom.

The only workable solution for the conundrum of who gets in the CFP between a 1-loss P5 and an undefeated G5 is to expand the playoff. It's not fair to leave out a team like 2017 UCF and it's not fair to let a G5 get in over a P5 if their only loss is to some other team in the CFP.

If you only have 1 G5 rep you run into basically the same issue. That's why I advocate 10 autobids. If that's not palatable I think you're stuck having a play-in between the 2 best G5 teams to be fair.

(05-20-2021 09:42 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 08:41 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  5-(2)-2 is mutual assured destruction. The G5 teams have to play a game while their opponent gets to rest.

To me, it just feels like pettiness among the MWC/C-USA/SBC/MAC over the fact that the AAC is generally better than them.

It would be hypocritical for the AAC to complain that their undefeated teams don't seem to get any real consideration for the CFP while also insisting their teams get deference for the NY6 over a Sun Belt team when said Sun Belt team has better wins and (on this particular season) there's no real difference between the AAC and Sun Belt except at the bottom.

Yes, I think last year illustrated that. Going in to the bowls, Coastal had two more wins than Cincy, 11-0 compared to 9-0, and arguably better wins as well, and yet Cincy was always comfortably well ahead of them in the CFP.

This shows that the CFP has has a reputational preference for the AAC over other G5 similar to the preference the CPF has for P5 over the AAC and other G5. Now granted, this bias is usually earned in the sense that it is based on past performance and on SOS. But still, if we're going to give the G5 an autobid on that basis, the same logic should apply within the G5 as well.

For that reason, a play-in game among the top two G5 champs seems like a good idea. I don't think we need more, as it is extremely unlikely that there will be three G5 champs who are comparable to each other.

(05-20-2021 09:42 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 08:41 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  5-(2)-2 is mutual assured destruction. The G5 teams have to play a game while their opponent gets to rest.

To me, it just feels like pettiness among the MWC/C-USA/SBC/MAC over the fact that the AAC is generally better than them.

It would be hypocritical for the AAC to complain that their undefeated teams don't seem to get any real consideration for the CFP while also insisting their teams get deference for the NY6 over a Sun Belt team when said Sun Belt team has better wins and (on this particular season) there's no real difference between the AAC and Sun Belt except at the bottom.

The only workable solution for the conundrum of who gets in the CFP between a 1-loss P5 and an undefeated G5 is to expand the playoff. It's not fair to leave out a team like 2017 UCF and it's not fair to let a G5 get in over a P5 if their only loss is to some other team in the CFP.

If you only have 1 G5 rep you run into basically the same issue. That's why I advocate 10 autobids. If that's not palatable I think you're stuck having a play-in between the 2 best G5 teams to be fair.

You note "there's no real difference between the AAC and Sun Belt except at the bottom." Many fans of AAC programs make the same argument when they compare the AAC to the Pac-12.

The "real difference" is in resources (fan bases, budgets, coaches salaries, TV contract, etc.). In that respect, the AAC is superior to the Sun Belt just as the Pac-12 is superior to the AAC.

So much of college football "power" is about resources and not on the field results. It's unfair in some respects. But it's the reality.

And that is why some AAC fans don't want a play-in game. They feel the American has earned its perceived status as the "best of the G5" (in terms of a combo of resources and results) and, as such, is worthy of any preferential treatment it might receive.

I am a fan of Cincinnati, Memphis and Middle Tennessee State, so I try to stay neutral in the "AAC vs. other four G5 debate." I respect the Belt in football. A very good league.

Why are they trying to re-invent the wheel. And why do people say it's too many games and too many teams?

LOL

FCS has been doing it since 1978 and it works perfect for them. Modify it so that the games are played as a bowl game. Teams left out of the playoff can play in other low level bowl games. It's not Rocket Science SMH

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-need-know