PAC commissioner Larry Scott says missing the playoffs hurts the PAC brand. Also says he would only support 8-team playoff if it had auto-bids for the P5.
Well isn't that special? He would favor a playoff that would guarantee one of his teams gets in, LOL.
Bottom line is, we've seen this before: In 2016 when the Big 12 missed out, they rang the alarm bells. Last year, after the B1G missed out again, Delany of the B1G complained. Now the PAC is talking.
To the credit of the Big 12, they didn't whine about 8 teams, they talked about what they could do to be more competitive in making the 4-team playoff, and they did it. And to Scott's credit, he's not really whining about the 4 team CFP, he does say the PAC needs to get better, only Delany really did that.
But the moral to me is: There IS no general groundswell to move to 8 teams. It's just that whatever conference is left out of that year's four-team playoff grumbles.
https://sports.yahoo.com/commish-pac-12-...49307.html
This whole bowl-playoff idea seems to be gaining some steam. In order to fit the existing NY6 into the model it will require expanding with quarterfinals (an eight team playoff).
Since the P5 wants to ensure they have a champ every year in the system to a NYD bowl like they do now the only way to do that is with autobids. That leaves the G5 out in the cold with the elimination of access bowls so they'll too need an autobid.
Then the question is what do you do with the Independents? If you also made a rule that any undefeated school gets a spot in the playoff that would protect ND, BYU, Liberty (In god we trust) if they go undefeated. It would also protect the G5 in the event there are two undefeated teams.
Four bowls for quarterfinals
Two for semis
Then one title.
NY6 bowls rotate among quarters and semis and bid the title game out.
Try to pair historical host bowls like the Rose with partner leagues where possible.
(12-13-2019 09:51 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ]This whole bowl-playoff idea seems to be gaining some steam. In order to fit the existing NY6 into the model it will require expanding with quarterfinals (an eight team playoff).
Since the P5 wants to ensure they have a champ every year in the system to a NYD bowl like they do now the only way to do that is with autobids. That leaves the G5 out in the cold with the elimination of access bowls so they'll too need an autobid.
Then the question is what do you do with the Independents? If you also made a rule that any undefeated school gets a spot in the playoff that would protect ND, BYU, Liberty (In god we trust) if they go undefeated. It would also protect the G5 in the event there are two undefeated teams.
Indy’s have the at large spots.
(12-13-2019 09:58 AM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 09:51 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ]This whole bowl-playoff idea seems to be gaining some steam. In order to fit the existing NY6 into the model it will require expanding with quarterfinals (an eight team playoff).
Since the P5 wants to ensure they have a champ every year in the system to a NYD bowl like they do now the only way to do that is with autobids. That leaves the G5 out in the cold with the elimination of access bowls so they'll too need an autobid.
Then the question is what do you do with the Independents? If you also made a rule that any undefeated school gets a spot in the playoff that would protect ND, BYU, Liberty (In god we trust) if they go undefeated. It would also protect the G5 in the event there are two undefeated teams.
Indy’s have the at large spots.
ND gets top 8 if undefeated. BYU probably gets there. The others are going to need some help but of course none have come anywhere close to being undefeated.
If UMass or NMSU could go undefeated I think they would be worth including in a playoff. I'd say the same for any undefeated team. I just think its that tough to do for a team out of the lower ranks there is no harm in giving everyone a shot.
(12-13-2019 09:58 AM)1845 Bear Wrote: [ -> ]Four bowls for quarterfinals
Two for semis
Then one title.
NY6 bowls rotate among quarters and semis and bid the title game out.
Try to pair historical host bowls like the Rose with partner leagues where possible.
sorry but they aren't going there. It will be absolutely seeded. Big Ten/Pac 12 aren't getting a possible advantage at all. SEC won't stand for it(and neither would ACC or Big 12). I mean this year if you had that dumb ass idea-
Sugar #1 LSU vs #4 Oklahoma
Rose #2 Ohio St vs #6 Oregon
Orange #3 Clemson vs Memphis
??? #5 Georgia vs #7 Baylor
why in the hell would Georgia and Baylor get that? Why would #3 have a much easier game than #1 or #2? That's just stupid.
Tradition is done with in determining the national championship. Period the end.
Obviously both the B12 and the PAC want auto bids. Neither like being the one fighting for the last spot and getting left out some years
I think auto bids in an 8 game playoff is the way to go. Autobids for the winners of the P5 conference titles. Also, an auto bid for the best G5 should also be included. That leaves 2 spots for wildcards.
I believe we see this by 2025.
(12-13-2019 11:31 AM)Big Frog II Wrote: [ -> ]I think auto bids in an 8 game playoff is the way to go. Autobids for the winners of the P5 conference titles. Also, an auto bid for the best G5 should also be included. That leaves 2 spots for wildcards.
I believe we see this by 2025.
The main problem with autobids is what happens when an 7-5 team upsets a 11-1 team in a conf. champ game, and you have a 25th ranked Pac 12 (for example, not to pick on the Pac 12) in the 8 team playoff, when you have a top 10 SEC team sitting at home, because they lost in championship game.
Of course the Pac 12 wants autobids...they can't produce good enough teams to get in on their own.
Here's a simple solution for you. Get better teams.
(12-13-2019 10:47 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 09:58 AM)1845 Bear Wrote: [ -> ]Four bowls for quarterfinals
Two for semis
Then one title.
NY6 bowls rotate among quarters and semis and bid the title game out.
Try to pair historical host bowls like the Rose with partner leagues where possible.
sorry but they aren't going there. It will be absolutely seeded. Big Ten/Pac 12 aren't getting a possible advantage at all. SEC won't stand for it(and neither would ACC or Big 12). I mean this year if you had that dumb ass idea-
Sugar #1 LSU vs #4 Oklahoma
Rose #2 Ohio St vs #6 Oregon
Orange #3 Clemson vs Memphis
??? #5 Georgia vs #7 Baylor
why in the hell would Georgia and Baylor get that? Why would #3 have a much easier game than #1 or #2? That's just stupid.
Tradition is done with in determining the national championship. Period the end.
Rose Bowl is the only game that you would see any effort to get the B1G-PAC champion matchup. Scrap the SEC-B12 Sugar Bowl matchup, but make sure that either the SEC or B12 hosts that game. Same with the ACC and the Orange Bowl. The Cotton Bowl is more than acceptable as an alternative for the B12 or SEC champ...and the Peach Bowl is an acceptable alternative for the SEC or ACC champ.
It wouldn't be that big of a deal, unless both the B1G and PAC champs are both ranked in the top 4.
For this year specifically, it would look like this:
Sugar Bowl: #1 LSU v. #8 Memphis
Rose Bowl: #2 Ohio State v. #6 Oregon
Orange Bowl: #3 Clemson v. #7 Baylor
Cotton Bowl: #4 Oklahoma v. #5 Georgia
If instead Oregon were ranked #4, slide them into the Cotton Bowl and move Oklahoma in the Rose Bowl.
This year, not a huge difference between Oregon and Baylor, and especially not to disrupt a perfectly fine B1G-PAC matchup for the Rose Bowl.
(12-13-2019 11:47 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 11:31 AM)Big Frog II Wrote: [ -> ]I think auto bids in an 8 game playoff is the way to go. Autobids for the winners of the P5 conference titles. Also, an auto bid for the best G5 should also be included. That leaves 2 spots for wildcards.
I believe we see this by 2025.
The main problem with autobids is what happens when an 7-5 team upsets a 11-1 team in a conf. champ game, and you have a 25th ranked Pac 12 (for example, not to pick on the Pac 12) in the 8 team playoff, when you have a top 10 SEC team sitting at home, because they lost in championship game.
Of course the Pac 12 wants autobids...they can't produce good enough teams to get in on their own.
Here's a simple solution for you. Get better teams.
So you are using a hypothetical worst case scenario because it would put in a worse team than the 3rd or 4th best SEC team?
With auto-bids, bottom line, win your CCG. Then you are in. If not, hope you have a great season to get one of the at-larges. And your chance at an at-large would likely be minimally affected by the upset, anyways.
As far as good enough, if Oregon had taken the Alabama route to scheduling and played San Jose State instead of Auburn (or had one play broke different in that game) they would have been a toss up for the #4 spot.
The current system discourages good OOC matchups, with the emphasis on pure wins, regardless of strength of schedule.
I said it before and I will say it again, if it goes to 8 it will be done the same way as four. Top 8 teams picked by the CFP not confernce champs. Problem is UCF making number 8 strengthens that arguement. If your champ is not in the top 8, they don't need to be there.
Again this is why I like four. It ensures at least one power conference is out. Will CFP force the Rose bowl to move from NYD? How will the semis work, Weekend before Christmas and then NYD/NY6?. Does it compete with the NFL on Sundays? There are a lot of variables to make 8 happen.
(12-13-2019 11:47 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 11:31 AM)Big Frog II Wrote: [ -> ]I think auto bids in an 8 game playoff is the way to go. Autobids for the winners of the P5 conference titles. Also, an auto bid for the best G5 should also be included. That leaves 2 spots for wildcards.
I believe we see this by 2025.
The main problem with autobids is what happens when an 7-5 team upsets a 11-1 team in a conf. champ game, and you have a 25th ranked Pac 12 (for example, not to pick on the Pac 12) in the 8 team playoff, when you have a top 10 SEC team sitting at home, because they lost in championship game.
Of course the Pac 12 wants autobids...they can't produce good enough teams to get in on their own.
Here's a simple solution for you. Get better teams.
The 11-1 team should not have lost. Alternatively, perhaps the 7-5 is actually better... maybe they had a slow start due to injuries or a young roster that matured over the course of the season. We see this in hoops all the time.
People always like to throw out the term "had no business" when it pertains to a G5 school but the fact of the matter a 11-1 team that can't beat a 7-5 team in a CCG "has no business" in the CFP either.
(12-13-2019 11:47 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 11:31 AM)Big Frog II Wrote: [ -> ]I think auto bids in an 8 game playoff is the way to go. Autobids for the winners of the P5 conference titles. Also, an auto bid for the best G5 should also be included. That leaves 2 spots for wildcards.
I believe we see this by 2025.
The main problem with autobids is what happens when an 7-5 team upsets a 11-1 team in a conf. champ game, and you have a 25th ranked Pac 12 (for example, not to pick on the Pac 12) in the 8 team playoff, when you have a top 10 SEC team sitting at home, because they lost in championship game.
Of course the Pac 12 wants autobids...they can't produce good enough teams to get in on their own.
Here's a simple solution for you. Get better teams.
No big deal. The rankings are a beauty contest and are fluid. The committee thought Oregon was the #13 team and Utah was the #5 team, until they actually played. That's part of the problem - it's just how the committee views teams. We use power rankings to determine playoff participants.
A conference champion that pulled off an upset has as good an argument as any that they should be included in a playoff. Then, they would have to prove it on the field in a big bowl game against *arguably* the best team, or at least one of the best teams, in the country.
And, the top-10 runner-up had their chance. Plus, they're only top-10 because of the beauty pageant.
Could you imagine if the NFL, NBA, or MLB used Power rankings to determine only 4 teams for the playoffs? It's nuts.
(12-13-2019 12:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I said it before and I will say it again, if it goes to 8 it will be done the same way as four. Top 8 teams picked by the CFP not confernce champs. Problem is UCF making number 8 strengthens that arguement. If your champ is not in the top 8, they don't need to be there.
But, the system uses an extremely subjective process and moving-target criteria to determine whether a team is ranked in the top-8 or not. That would power would be absolutely abused if the playoff were to expand without autobids. Power brokers that represent institutions that have a direct financial interest in the outcomes that are based on their rankings are deciding how the teams are ranked. Think about that. Hmmmm...should we rank Alabama, Penn State, or UCF in that final #8 spot? I know which one would be thrown out first.
And, if you want it to succeed, you have to attract eyeballs from all over the country.
(12-13-2019 12:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ]Again this is why I like four. It ensures at least one power conference is out. Will CFP force the Rose bowl to move from NYD? How will the semis work, Weekend before Christmas and then NYD/NY6?. Does it compete with the NFL on Sundays? There are a lot of variables to make 8 happen.
Why can't you have one of the quarterfinal games in the Rose Bowl on New Year's Day. That actually fits perfectly!
And, there are two NFL wildcard games on the Saturday immediately after New Year's Day and two NFL divisional playoff games on the following Saturday. You could fit a couple of semifinal games around those schedules, even if the power-brokers determine that Friday or Monday CFP games are preferred. No need to over complicate things.
If they do decide to expand to 8, which at this point I’m not sold on, I think:
A) The playoffs either need to start at home sites the week after CCG’s and keep the rest the same, or
B) The Bowls host the first round on NYD, and then either home sites or neutral sites for the remainder of the playoffs, Final 4 and Finals. If this is the route, I still think it would be awesome for the same city to host the Final 4.
In either case, the Bowls can still have SOME tradition. For instance, Ohio State may still play at the Rose Bowl, just not against a Pac 12. Sugar-SEC, Orange-old Big 8/ACC, Cotton-old SWC teams, etc.
I agree completely with the 5-1-2 model. As far as the argument about a team with a poor record winning their conference and making the playoff... well, they earned it on the field. Anyone who argues against that and isn’t arguing to get rid of auto bids in the basketball or baseball tournaments has a weak stance. I’ll even go further though, if that 7-6 or whatever team ends up winning the national tournament, they’re also the best team in the country and I wouldn’t argue it. About 10 years ago my high school alma mater was 4-4 in the 8th week of the season. They went on to get hot, make the playoffs, and defeat the #1 ranked high school team in the country for the state championship. And you know what? Despite their final 11-4 record, they were the best team in the state. In their case, they had a lot of injuries and offensive issues through half the season but made some adjustments and has some players return which shifted the tables.
(12-13-2019 12:04 PM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 11:47 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 11:31 AM)Big Frog II Wrote: [ -> ]I think auto bids in an 8 game playoff is the way to go. Autobids for the winners of the P5 conference titles. Also, an auto bid for the best G5 should also be included. That leaves 2 spots for wildcards.
I believe we see this by 2025.
The main problem with autobids is what happens when an 7-5 team upsets a 11-1 team in a conf. champ game, and you have a 25th ranked Pac 12 (for example, not to pick on the Pac 12) in the 8 team playoff, when you have a top 10 SEC team sitting at home, because they lost in championship game.
Of course the Pac 12 wants autobids...they can't produce good enough teams to get in on their own.
Here's a simple solution for you. Get better teams.
The 11-1 team should not have lost. Alternatively, perhaps the 7-5 is actually better... maybe they had a slow start due to injuries or a young roster that matured over the course of the season. We see this in hoops all the time.
People always like to throw out the term "had no business" when it pertains to a G5 school but the fact of the matter a 11-1 team that can't beat a 7-5 team in a CCG "has no business" in the CFP either.
Solid point. Only in FBS football does a slow start doom you to no shot at the playoffs.
2012 is a great case in point - Texas A&M lost by 3 to Florida opening week, and also lost in week 6 by 5 to LSU. Beat #1 (and eventual NC) Alabama in Tuscaloosa
Was only #10 in BCS standings before the bowl, but probably was the best team in College Football.
2012 is also a great argument for at least an 8-team playoff (although with only 8, TAMU Likely would not have made it
#1 ND
#2 Alabama
#3 Ohio State (Undefeated)
#4 Florida
#5 Oregon
#7 Kansas State (at 11-1)
#13 Florida State
#16 Northern Illinois
2012 is proof that someone in ranked below 8 in a 16-team field COULD win the NC
(12-13-2019 11:47 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 11:31 AM)Big Frog II Wrote: [ -> ]I think auto bids in an 8 game playoff is the way to go. Autobids for the winners of the P5 conference titles. Also, an auto bid for the best G5 should also be included. That leaves 2 spots for wildcards.
I believe we see this by 2025.
The main problem with autobids is what happens when an 7-5 team upsets a 11-1 team in a conf. champ game, and you have a 25th ranked Pac 12 (for example, not to pick on the Pac 12) in the 8 team playoff, when you have a top 10 SEC team sitting at home, because they lost in championship game.
Of course the Pac 12 wants autobids...they can't produce good enough teams to get in on their own.
Here's a simple solution for you. Get better teams.
I’d be fine making the autobid conditional on not losing 3 or 4 games. That way a weak team can’t sneak in.
(12-13-2019 12:16 PM)YNot Wrote: [ -> ] (12-13-2019 12:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I said it before and I will say it again, if it goes to 8 it will be done the same way as four. Top 8 teams picked by the CFP not confernce champs. Problem is UCF making number 8 strengthens that arguement. If your champ is not in the top 8, they don't need to be there.
But, the system uses an extremely subjective process and moving-target criteria to determine whether a team is ranked in the top-8 or not. That would power would be absolutely abused if the playoff were to expand without autobids. Power brokers that represent institutions that have a direct financial interest in the outcomes that are based on their rankings are deciding how the teams are ranked. Think about that. Hmmmm...should we rank Alabama, Penn State, or UCF in that final #8 spot? I know which one would be thrown out first.
And, if you want it to succeed, you have to attract eyeballs from all over the country.
(12-13-2019 12:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ]Again this is why I like four. It ensures at least one power conference is out. Will CFP force the Rose bowl to move from NYD? How will the semis work, Weekend before Christmas and then NYD/NY6?. Does it compete with the NFL on Sundays? There are a lot of variables to make 8 happen.
Why can't you have one of the quarterfinal games in the Rose Bowl on New Year's Day. That actually fits perfectly!
And, there are two NFL wildcard games on the Saturday immediately after New Year's Day and two NFL divisional playoff games on the following Saturday. You could fit a couple of semifinal games around those schedules, even if the power-brokers determine that Friday or Monday CFP games are preferred. No need to over complicate things.
No reason this can't be the NYD Quarterfinals.
ORANGE 11est
COTTON 230est
ROSE 6est
SUGAR 930est
NYD games with national title implications, just like the old days.
Peach/Fiesta host semifinals.