.
Here's a proposal for a 16-team playoff system with 6 at-large teams and 10 conference champs. Wonder what kind of opinions readers will have about this.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A 10+6 type of playoff system - - in which the conference championship games would function as "play-in games" - - would have many advantages:
1.
All 20 teams that qualify to play in the conference championship games would also be competing for the national championship - - which would make them even more exciting than they already are.
2.
In addition to the 10 conference champs, there would be 6 at-large teams selected based on their final CFP rankings (10+6).
3. Theoretically, if none of the 6 at-large teams played in (and lost) a CCG game, as many as 26 teams could participate in the playoffs in a given year.
---The option would exist to either eliminate the losers of the CCG games from the playoffs, or to allow them to qualify for an "at-large" bid if they're ranked highly enough in the final CFP rankings.
4. Even if the selection procedures were to result in all 6 at-large teams having played in (and lost) their CCG games, there would still be an absolute minimum of 20 playoff teams in any given year.
5.
Somewhere between 20 and 26 teams per season would compete for the national championship, depending on the selection procedures (and on whether or not losing a CCG would eliminate a team from the playoffs).
6. This would mean that far more CFB fans around the country would see their teams competing for the national championship every year than would be the case if there were a 12- or 16-team playoff system.
---Compared to a 12-team playoff, twice as many teams would be participating in the playoffs in any given year.
7.
There would be no "bye games," so the system would be much fairer than a system that gives the advantage of a bye to the top ranked teams.
8.
The system would also be much fairer than a 12- (e.g., 6+6) or 16-team (e.g., 6+10) playoff
because every team that either qualifies for a CCG or finishes in the top 10 of the final CFP rankings would have an opportunity to compete for the national championship during the post-season.
9.
Nevertheless, those who would prefer a 16-team playoff after conference championship week would get exactly that- - since only 16 teams would be competing in the playoffs after CCG week.
It would be a 16-team playoff system, but since the CCG games would function as "play-in games," 20+ teams would get a chance to play for the national championship each year.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Here's how such a system would have functioned in 2022:
- The 10 conference champs (AQ) that would have advanced to the "Sweet 16" would have been:
.
---Georgia, Clemson, Michigan, TCU, USC, Tulane, UTSA, Troy, Toledo, & Fresno
.
- The 6 at-large teams (if selected according to the CFP rankings) would have been:
.
---Ohio State, Alabama, Tennessee, Utah, Kansas State, & Penn State
.
- Seven teams (Purdue, UNC, Boise, UCF, USA, Ohio & UNT) would have been eliminated by virtue of losing their CCGs (i.e., play-in games).
.
- The "Sweet 16" matchups would have been determined by the team's final seedings.
.
- The top 4 ranked teams (Georgia, Michigan, TCU, and Ohio State) would have played the four lowest-seeded G5 conference champions in round 1.
.
- The four other round 1 games (determined by CFP rankings) would have been: (#5) Alabama vs. (#16) Tulane, (#6) Tennessee vs. (#11) Penn St., (#7) Clemson vs. (#10) USC, and (#8) Utah vs. (#9) KSU.
.
- If the more highly-seeded teams won their first round (Sweet 16) games, these would have been the quarterfinal games:
#1 Georgia vs. #8 Utah
#2 Michigan vs. #7 Clemson
#3 TCU vs. #6 Tennessee
#4 Ohio St. vs. #5 Alabama
.
- A total of 23 teams (the 16 first-round teams plus the 7 teams that lost their CCG games) would have competed for the national championship, either by qualifying for the playoffs or by competing in a play-in (CCG) game.
.
Some people may not think that a 10+6 playoff system would be approved by the P5 conferences, but that needn't have any bearing on the poll question.
In the poll, please indicate which system YOU would prefer - - not which system you think is most likely to be chosen.
NCAA has a rule that for a championship no more than half of the berths go to AQ, otherwise play-ins are required.
So for a 16-team playoff, there would 6 AQ, 4 AQ in play-in, and 8 at-large (Note: basketball is an exception to this rule).
Because of the longer-range planning needed in football, the four play-in conferences would be designated in advance:
Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA, Mountain West. The play-in would be played the same weekend of the CCG. If these conferences wanted a CCG, it would be played Thanksgiving weekend along with flex games.
(01-06-2023 11:51 PM)jimrtex Wrote: [ -> ]NCAA has a rule that for a championship no more than half of the berths go to AQ, otherwise play-ins are required.
So for a 16-team playoff, there would 6 AQ, 4 AQ in play-in, and 8 at-large (Note: basketball is an exception to this rule).
Because of the longer-range planning needed in football, the four play-in conferences would be designated in advance:
Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA, Mountain West. The play-in would be played the same weekend of the CCG. If these conferences wanted a CCG, it would be played Thanksgiving weekend along with flex games.
That's very interesting!
However, it isn't 100% clear. What would "6 AQ, 4 AQ in play-in, and 8 at-large" mean, exactly?
Are you saying that the 4 lowest-ranked G5 conference champs would have to play two play-in games (in 2022, these would be, for example, Fresno vs. UTSA, and Troy vs. Toledo), with the winners (e.g., UTSA and Troy) getting two of the 16 playoff slots?
Also, another question - - is there a link or a source for the "rule that for a championship no more than half of the berths go to AQ, otherwise play-ins are required" ?
It wouldn't matter even if there is an NCAA rule about at-large spots. This is the CFP, which exists outside of NCAA rules.
(01-07-2023 01:39 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]It wouldn't matter even if there is an NCAA rule about at-large spots. This is the CFP, which exists outside of NCAA rules.
Not necessarily. That may have been true of the 4-team CFP system, but we're heading into a new CFP system, and the NCAA rules could theoretically be adopted for a 16-team CFP.
.
Interestingly, a huge majority of poll respondents so far have voted for an 8+8 type of playoff system.
About point #8 above, I do not believe a 10+6 system would be fairer than 6+6 or 6+10 (or really, any of the other systems listed) because the conferences are not structurally equal. IMO, it is not fair that say a Sun Belt team has a "dedicated path" to the playoffs that can be achieved by beating only other Sun Belt teams, when say Big 12 teams play in a structurally more difficult conference. In that sense, that makes CFB far different than say the NFL, MLB, NBA etc. where, even though in any given year one division might be weaker or stronger than another, over time they are all essentially equal.
Now, it is true that in CBB, every team does have that same kind of "path" to the NCAA tournament - a SWAC team can make the big dance by beating nothing but other SWAC teams, even though structurally the Big 12 is much stronger - but that is mitigated by the fact that there are so many at large bids available in the big dance that any Big 12 team with even the slightest chance of winning the title will make the tournament anyway. But with just six at-large in a 10+6 CFB playoff, that would not be the case. If I understand correctly, for 2022, 10+6 would have teams like Toledo, Fresno, UTSA and Troy making the playoffs while teams like LSU, Washington, FSU and Oregon sat at home, which makes no sense to me.
So IMO, 10+6 is the least, not most, fair.
BTW, unless I misunderstand, you have TCU and Kansas State categorized incorrectly - Kansas State would have been AQ as the Big 12 champ, TCU would have qualified as at-large, no? Also, you have USC as a conference champ when Utah won the PAC 12.
I know the Sun Belt would probably be included in an 8+8, but I remember when the Sun Belt was 10th out of 10, about a decade ago.
For that reason, my ideal option would either be 10+6 or 10+14. Including all 10 champions is the most fair system. It gives everyone a chance at a national championship. All we want is a path to the title, regardless of how "realistic" it might seem to people who aren't fans of the underdog.
Including the "highest ranked G5 champion" is not a true path to the title for all conferences. In my opinion, Tulane (12-2), Troy (12-2), and UTSA (11-3) all have enough merit to earn a place in a hypothetical expanded CFP this season, as conference champions.
6+10.
First, the P5 isn’t expanding the playoff just to give the 4 additional slots to G5 leagues, so we can just throw 10+6 out the window from the start no matter how much some people here want it.
Second, the TV networks aren’t paying billions of dollars for the additional playoff games to consist of more matchups that are the same as the lowly-rated early-September P5 vs. G5 games.
The G5 got a dedicated slot with the top 6 conference champs provision and I thought that was totally fair. They were quite fortunate to be able to get that provision. Anything more than that is going to get massive pushback from the entities that matter here - namely the P5 and TV networks.
Any expansion of the playoff to 16 is about turning the teams that would have been going to the best non-NY6 bowls into playoff teams and those are ALL P5 teams (and largely Big Ten and SEC teams). I’m fairly certain any expansion of the playoff (which I don’t think is a great idea in the first place) would be entirely about more at-large bids.
6+10.
The more at large bids, the better.
8 teams is plenty - there is a big drop off after 7-9 teams.
The auto conf champ bid is an absolute deal breaker. Sorry but the power 5 plus AAC are just far superior to the other 4 conferences and those are essentially a version of body bag playoff games. No thank you.... If one of the G5 earns a spot they get in with 8 teams.
No matter how many teams you choose #5 or #9 or #17 are always going to bich because they think they should have made it.
I do like the idea of an 8 team playoff but absolutely NO AUTO BIDS. Best 8 play for the NC - PERIOD. The everybody gets a trophy stuff is BS.
This mythical rule about auto/at large ratios does not exist. I have no idea why people continue saying it does. Note how they always disappear when asked to cite the rulebook?
If it expands to 16, how can you justify not giving all G5 an autobid? Can you name *any* other college sport with autobids that doesn't give them to all conferences? If it stays 15+1 it's just going to be both division champs from each P5 + ND + next 4 SEC/B1G. Conf champ game just became redundant.
(01-07-2023 12:41 PM)clunk Wrote: [ -> ]This mythical rule about auto/at large ratios does not exist. I have no idea why people continue saying it does. Note how they always disappear when asked to cite the rulebook?
If it expands to 16, how can you justify not giving all G5 an autobid? Can you name *any* other college sport with autobids that doesn't give them to all conferences? If it stays 15+1 it's just going to be both division champs from each P5 + ND + next 4 SEC/B1G. Conf champ game just became redundant.
Nope, it's just football.
I prefer a straight system of the Top 4, 12, 16, whatever.
(01-07-2023 12:02 AM)Milwaukee Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2023 11:51 PM)jimrtex Wrote: [ -> ]NCAA has a rule that for a championship no more than half of the berths go to AQ, otherwise play-ins are required.
So for a 16-team playoff, there would 6 AQ, 4 AQ in play-in, and 8 at-large (Note: basketball is an exception to this rule).
Because of the longer-range planning needed in football, the four play-in conferences would be designated in advance:
Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA, Mountain West. The play-in would be played the same weekend of the CCG. If these conferences wanted a CCG, it would be played Thanksgiving weekend along with flex games.
That's very interesting!
However, it isn't 100% clear. What would "6 AQ, 4 AQ in play-in, and 8 at-large" mean, exactly?
Are you saying that the 4 lowest-ranked G5 conference champs would have to play two play-in games (in 2022, these would be, for example, Fresno vs. UTSA, and Troy vs. Toledo), with the winners (e.g., UTSA and Troy) getting two of the 16 playoff slots?
Also, another question - - is there a link or a source for the "rule that for a championship no more than half of the berths go to AQ, otherwise play-ins are required" ?
31.3.4.6.1
There are two goals of the rule. First, inclusion. All conference champions are in the tournament field, or at least have an opportunity to play in to the tournament field. Two, integrity and quality. Half of the tournament field is reserved for at-large teams who qualify based on merit.
Note that this has an exclusion for football. The concern with any football playoff is the length of playing season since you can't play more than once per week. You really shouldn't subject students to extended seasons that conflict with finals unless you can make a lot of $$$.
DI-AA (FCS) playoffs had extended to 16 teams in 1986, but did not formally have AQ's until 2005. In 2005, there were 15 conferences. Two abstained (Ivy and SWAC). Eight were given AQ's. The other five: Big South, Great West, MAAC, NEC, and Pioneer could be invited.
Cal Poly (Great West) received at-large bids in 2005 and 2008. Coastal Carolina (Big South) received an at-larger berth in 2006. NDSU could have received berths in 2006 and 2007, but they were still in transition from DII. Liberty (Big South) in 2008 and 2009 missed out because of a weak schedule.
The MAAC dropped football sponsorship before the 2008 season. For the 2009 championship the rules for qualifying from one of the four invitation leagues was formalized to (a) 8 DI wins; (b) two wins over teams from AQ leagues; and rated in the Top 16.
In 2010, the field was expanded to 20 teams, which resulted in 10 AQ's, with the Big South (Coastal Carolina) and NEC (Robert Morris) gaining AQ's. The Great West, which only had 5 teams, and the Pioneer (DIII refugees) did not have any teams.
In 2012, the Great West disbanded for football with four schools moving to the Big Sky and South Dakota shifting to the MVFC. This left the Pioneer as the only non-AQ league other than the abstaining Ivy League and SWAC.
The playoff field expanded to 24 teams in 2014. This meant that the Pioneer League could have an AQ, since the Ivy League and SWAC did not use their berths.
In 2015 the MEAC withdrew their champion from the playoffs to play against the SWAC champion in the Celebration Bowl. A MEAC team can still qualify as an at-large team. In 2016, NCA&T as the second place team in the MEAC was an at-large team in the FCS playoffs.
In the 2020 (Spring 2021) season, the playoff was reduced to 16 teams. 10 berths were given to AQ conferences. With fewer interconference games, it would be difficult justify having more at-large qualifiers without OOC games.
In 2021 the ASUN+WAC were given an AQ (11th). It may have helped that Sam Houston was the defending national champion.
In 2022, there were 14 FCS conferences, including the ASUN-WAC challenge. But three conferences decline their AQ, so the other 11 can be accommodated in a 24-team field.
In 2023, the Big South will merge into the OVC. This will result in 10 AQ and 14 at-large teams. In 2022, the Big Sky and CAA each had four at-large teams in addition to their AQ. Three of the four semifinalists were at-large selections.
Personally, I would like to see a 7-9 setup. It would give everyone realistic access. Also, it would allow for two really strong (potentially undefeated) MW and AAC champs to both get in. (I don't trust a MAC, C-USA, or Sun Belt to be competitive in the CFP). I don't want to see a 10-6 setup. A 7-5 C-USA team could get in and that would be a disaster and nullify the regular season.
I think I'll like the 12 team model. Why would we be looking to expand it before we've even seen it in action. I'd like to see it play out for a few seasons before trying to tweak it.
(01-08-2023 09:45 PM)jimrtex Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2023 12:02 AM)Milwaukee Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2023 11:51 PM)jimrtex Wrote: [ -> ]NCAA has a rule that for a championship no more than half of the berths go to AQ, otherwise play-ins are required.
So for a 16-team playoff, there would 6 AQ, 4 AQ in play-in, and 8 at-large (Note: basketball is an exception to this rule).
Because of the longer-range planning needed in football, the four play-in conferences would be designated in advance:
Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA, Mountain West. The play-in would be played the same weekend of the CCG. If these conferences wanted a CCG, it would be played Thanksgiving weekend along with flex games.
That's very interesting!
However, it isn't 100% clear. What would "6 AQ, 4 AQ in play-in, and 8 at-large" mean, exactly?
Are you saying that the 4 lowest-ranked G5 conference champs would have to play two play-in games (in 2022, these would be, for example, Fresno vs. UTSA, and Troy vs. Toledo), with the winners (e.g., UTSA and Troy) getting two of the 16 playoff slots?
Also, another question - - is there a link or a source for the "rule that for a championship no more than half of the berths go to AQ, otherwise play-ins are required" ?
31.3.4.6.1
<snip>
31.3.4.6.1 does not say no more than half of berths go to AQ. Far from it. Not only is football explicitly exempted, it says
at least half of the the field goes to AQ conferences. Not AQ conference champs, to members of those conferences. Lacrosse is not exempted, men's has 10 AQ 8 AL and women's 15 AQ 14 AL. For ratios the other way, just one example is men's soccer. 23/25, again not an exempt sport.
There is no rule restricting AQ/AL ratio, and the rule you referenced does not say what you think it does.
(01-08-2023 11:27 PM)clunk Wrote: [ -> ] (01-08-2023 09:45 PM)jimrtex Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2023 12:02 AM)Milwaukee Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2023 11:51 PM)jimrtex Wrote: [ -> ]NCAA has a rule that for a championship no more than half of the berths go to AQ, otherwise play-ins are required.
So for a 16-team playoff, there would 6 AQ, 4 AQ in play-in, and 8 at-large (Note: basketball is an exception to this rule).
Because of the longer-range planning needed in football, the four play-in conferences would be designated in advance:
Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA, Mountain West. The play-in would be played the same weekend of the CCG. If these conferences wanted a CCG, it would be played Thanksgiving weekend along with flex games.
That's very interesting!
However, it isn't 100% clear. What would "6 AQ, 4 AQ in play-in, and 8 at-large" mean, exactly?
Are you saying that the 4 lowest-ranked G5 conference champs would have to play two play-in games (in 2022, these would be, for example, Fresno vs. UTSA, and Troy vs. Toledo), with the winners (e.g., UTSA and Troy) getting two of the 16 playoff slots?
Also, another question - - is there a link or a source for the "rule that for a championship no more than half of the berths go to AQ, otherwise play-ins are required" ?
31.3.4.6.1
<snip>
31.3.4.6.1 does not say no more than half of berths go to AQ. Far from it. Not only is football explicitly exempted, it says at least half of the the field goes to AQ conferences. Not AQ conference champs, to members of those conferences. Lacrosse is not exempted, men's has 10 AQ 8 AL and women's 15 AQ 14 AL. For ratios the other way, just one example is men's soccer. 23/25, again not an exempt sport.
There is no rule restricting AQ/AL ratio, and the rule you referenced does not say what you think it does.
Let's quote 31.3.4.6.1 so we can see what it actually says, and not what you might imagine it might say:
2022-23 NCAA Division I Manual 31.3.4.6.1 Wrote:31.3.4.6.1 Team Sports Other Than Men's Basketball. In team sports, per Bylaw 31.3.4.5-(a), excluding football and any team sport in which automatic qualification is not offered, the sport committee must award, if a sufficient number of applications for automatic qualification exist, at least 50 percent of the championship field to conferences that meet automatic-qualification criteria and provide play-in criteria. In sports other than men's volleyball, men's water polo and women's water polo, the remaining 50 percent of the championship field shall be reserved for at-large teams. It will be the responsibility of the applicable sport oversight committee or the Competition Oversight Committee to determine if a conference play-in to a championship field is to be administered by the NCAA championships staff or by the member conferences
The approved field size for Men's Lacrosse is 16. For 2022 there were 10 AQ conferences (note: ACC only has five lacrosse playing members, and does not have an AQ. Virginia qualified as an at-large for 2022). Teams from the AME, ASUN, CAA, and MAAC had to participate in a play-in rounds. The play-in teams were selected based on individual ratings among the 10 AQ schools).
For 2023 there will be 9 AQ conferences, due to the sponsorship by the A-10 of lacrosse, and the ensuing realignment which eliminated SoCon and NEC lacrosse. This will reduce the play-in to one match.
See:
Competition Oversight Committee Reports for October 2021 and August 2022
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committ...Report.pdf
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committ...Report.pdf
The tournament field for men's soccer is 48. In 2022, there were 23 AQ. 23 is less than 50% of 48. Thus there was not a "sufficient number of applications for automatic qualification".