bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,967
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3320
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
RE: CBS Sports/CFP expected to keep format for expanded 12-team bracket going forward
(09-26-2023 01:20 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote: (09-26-2023 01:09 PM)bullet Wrote: (09-26-2023 12:07 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote: (09-26-2023 09:21 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (09-26-2023 09:03 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote: I know I've beat this drum a lot, but I'll still beat it. I still think we should end up with a 5+10 (4+6) format where we have the top 5 champs + top 4 CCG losers + 6 at-large. Adds an additional round and layer of the CFP without the risk of team playing 18 games in a season (excludes teams playing @ Hawaii, but will already be the case with 6+6) since the top 4 champs get a double bye to the quarterfinals, the 5th champ (persumably G5 champ) and 4 CCG losers (5-9 seeds) get a single bye since they played in a CCG, and the top 6 at-large play a play-in game (10-15 seeds) while leaving a standalone slot for Army-Navy, who likely only makes the CFP as a G5 champion.
To me, it just makes way too much sense for all parties involved. I don't mind staying at 6+6 for a year or 2 to playout the current contract, but I think the P4 will want to trade in 1 autobid for at least 4 at-large spots in 2026. This format keeps CCGs relevant and adds incentive for conference semis for the top 4, if they desire (I think we can learn more after 2024). It avoids cannibalizing playoff games and expanding the season beyond what 6+6 will do. G5 still gets a spot and maybe a home game. ND still has 6 at-larges with a strong shot at a home game, and in the event ND is ranked top while seeded 10th, it keep ND from meeting the other top 2 ranked team before the championship game (a neat, unintended consequence of this format).
Once again, I think people are concentrating too much on the playoff field itself and not enough on the impact on the regular season and CCGs.
To me, just allowing the CCG losers to get into the playoff automatically (effectively an automatic mulligan for everyone) devalues the CCGs way too much. Sure, there are going to be a lot of years where many or even all of the P4 CCG losers are likely to get in as at-larges, but not having a *guaranteed* safety net is a huge deal in how a viewer watches that game.
We’re also getting into hypotheticals that get talked a lot on message boards (such as the concept of conference semifinals) that haven’t gotten any traction in the “real world” at all. Personally, I’d love to see conference semifinals, but I’ve never seen a single person in the powers that be ever suggest that it’s a possibility.
IMHO, the 6+6 (or future 5+7) format is clear, concise, provides logical incentives (e.g. a bye for the top 4 conference champs that inherently needed to win an additional high stakes CCG), fits into the available TV windows (a major practical issue due to NFL conflicts and how TV networks *don’t* want playoff games during Christmas week), and can be explained to a third grader.
Like I’ve said, the format is the easiest part of all of this to resolve. Instead, the real fight is about the money. The Big Ten and SEC are going to be coming for more of the G5’s share (and they’re going to do it on the NCAA Tournament side, too).
Yeah, I can see where my format is riding on the CCG loser being in the top 8-12. I wouldn't put it past the ACC's CCG loser being ranked 20th. Conference semis could help, but as you said, not a guarantee to happen. Further reflecting on it, I think my proposal is vulnerable to assumptions. Another thing I hadn't considered with alternate proposals (and something that's not really being talked about) is we have lost all our previous data available to use thanks to realignment (as chaotic, exciting, and tragic as it was).
When the 6+6 format was proposed and later approved, we could go back to at least 2013, and even as far back as 1998, to see how that format would've looked (and that's how I considered previous proposals), but when the PAC (as we know it) dies after this season, we lose all of that because we don't fully know how a P4+G5 season will play out unlike a P5+G5/6. Sure, we can assume based on current rankings and future realignment, but Team X isn't playing in Conference Z, they're still in Conference Y, thus a flawed comparison. 2024 will be our 1st true data point now unless we want to compare this season's current realignment to the 6+6 format, and even then, it'll a very small sample size.
In defense of my format, it didn't use Christmas week for the CFP, but rather helped better bridge the gap between the regular season and CFP and followed the 6+6 format from there (utilizing Army-Navy week). I think it follows KISS pretty well (obviously not as effective as 6+6 does), but could be guilty of TMI for a 3rd grader. I think it's fair to say for my proposal, it's better to wait on data for now and see how the next decade plays out (using the 6+6/5+7 formats) and at best, can be something considered down the road and at worst, DOA like 99.9% of message board proposals.
The 16 team SEC & Big 12, 17 team ACC and 18 team Big 10 do make it really hard to see how things would have looked. The schedules everyone plays are different and divisions are going away.
It's not so much going divisionless that's the issue. You could do what the PAC did dropping divisions, but keeping the schedule as is and take the top 2 for the CCG instead of the 2 division winners. It's the 10 PAC schools leaving for 3 conferences while the PAC-2 is in limbo while OUT joins the SEC that makes it tough.
They are all factors. By playing a different schedule, I was referring to the Pac 12-2 and OUT being in different conferences.
|
|