CSNbbs

(05-01-2023 09:39 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...g-forward/

...and vice versa.

: )

(05-01-2023 09:39 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...g-forward/

I can't listen to audio right now. Is he talking about SEC and Big TEn gaining strength, so they'll get more at-larges and the PAC, Big 12 champs will get fewer top seeds

Or

Is he questioning whether the 6 + 6 structure is politically sustainable if the PAC loses schools to the Big 12?

(05-01-2023 12:27 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2023 09:39 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...g-forward/

I can't listen to audio right now. Is he talking about SEC and Big TEn gaining strength, so they'll get more at-larges and the PAC, Big 12 champs will get fewer top seeds

Or

Is he questioning whether the 6 + 6 structure is politically sustainable if the PAC loses schools to the Big 12?

Main points

• All conference not created equal
• Autobids not necessary because Conference Champions are ranked high anyway
• Conferences like the Pac-12 are going to be weaker because their replacing schools like UCLA/USC with teams like San Diego State
• Conference realignment will weaken conferences
  

(05-01-2023 05:15 PM)Glenn360 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2023 12:27 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2023 09:39 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...g-forward/

I can't listen to audio right now. Is he talking about SEC and Big TEn gaining strength, so they'll get more at-larges and the PAC, Big 12 champs will get fewer top seeds

Or

Is he questioning whether the 6 + 6 structure is politically sustainable if the PAC loses schools to the Big 12?

Main points

• All conference not created equal
• Autobids not necessary because Conference Champions are ranked high anyway
• Conferences like the Pac-12 are going to be weaker because their replacing schools like UCLA/USC with teams like San Diego State
• Conference realignment will weaken conferences
  

Thanks. I think that 6 autobids are pretty important to the PAC 12, because there are going to be plenty of years where the PAC 12 champ isn't top 10.

I wonder if the SEC and Big Ten are still okay with 6 autobids if 2 of those autobids are "charity cases" knocking out a 9-3 Big Ten or SEC squad.

(05-01-2023 05:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2023 05:15 PM)Glenn360 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2023 12:27 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2023 09:39 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...g-forward/

I can't listen to audio right now. Is he talking about SEC and Big TEn gaining strength, so they'll get more at-larges and the PAC, Big 12 champs will get fewer top seeds

Or

Is he questioning whether the 6 + 6 structure is politically sustainable if the PAC loses schools to the Big 12?

Main points

• All conference not created equal
• Autobids not necessary because Conference Champions are ranked high anyway
• Conferences like the Pac-12 are going to be weaker because their replacing schools like UCLA/USC with teams like San Diego State
• Conference realignment will weaken conferences
  

Thanks. I think that 6 autobids are pretty important to the PAC 12, because there are going to be plenty of years where the PAC 12 champ isn't top 10.

I wonder if the SEC and Big Ten are still okay with 6 autobids if 2 of those autobids are "charity cases" knocking out a 9-3 Big Ten or SEC squad.

more likely they'll knock out the 2nd place ACC team.

(05-02-2023 07:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2023 05:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2023 05:15 PM)Glenn360 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2023 12:27 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2023 09:39 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...g-forward/

I can't listen to audio right now. Is he talking about SEC and Big TEn gaining strength, so they'll get more at-larges and the PAC, Big 12 champs will get fewer top seeds

Or

Is he questioning whether the 6 + 6 structure is politically sustainable if the PAC loses schools to the Big 12?

Main points

• All conference not created equal
• Autobids not necessary because Conference Champions are ranked high anyway
• Conferences like the Pac-12 are going to be weaker because their replacing schools like UCLA/USC with teams like San Diego State
• Conference realignment will weaken conferences
  

Thanks. I think that 6 autobids are pretty important to the PAC 12, because there are going to be plenty of years where the PAC 12 champ isn't top 10.

I wonder if the SEC and Big Ten are still okay with 6 autobids if 2 of those autobids are "charity cases" knocking out a 9-3 Big Ten or SEC squad.

more likely they'll knock out the 2nd place ACC team.

Maybe. Good point. I've been wondering about this since it was announced. If we ever get to a P2, with the PAC and even the ACC broken apart, then I can't imagine the current criteria being acceptable to the networks, let alone the BIG and SEC. I suppose they could solve this by adding an additional requirement that the six top ranked conference champs make it as long as they are rated in the top 10 or 15. Would ensure that only ranked teams are included.

(05-02-2023 07:36 AM)NotoriousOne Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2023 07:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2023 05:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2023 05:15 PM)Glenn360 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2023 12:27 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]I can't listen to audio right now. Is he talking about SEC and Big TEn gaining strength, so they'll get more at-larges and the PAC, Big 12 champs will get fewer top seeds

Or

Is he questioning whether the 6 + 6 structure is politically sustainable if the PAC loses schools to the Big 12?

Main points

• All conference not created equal
• Autobids not necessary because Conference Champions are ranked high anyway
• Conferences like the Pac-12 are going to be weaker because their replacing schools like UCLA/USC with teams like San Diego State
• Conference realignment will weaken conferences
  

Thanks. I think that 6 autobids are pretty important to the PAC 12, because there are going to be plenty of years where the PAC 12 champ isn't top 10.

I wonder if the SEC and Big Ten are still okay with 6 autobids if 2 of those autobids are "charity cases" knocking out a 9-3 Big Ten or SEC squad.

more likely they'll knock out the 2nd place ACC team.

Maybe. Good point. I've been wondering about this since it was announced. If we ever get to a P2, with the PAC and even the ACC broken apart, then I can't imagine the current criteria being acceptable to the networks, let alone the BIG and SEC. I suppose they could solve this by adding an additional requirement that the six top ranked conference champs make it as long as they are rated in the top 10 or 15. Would ensure that only ranked teams are included.

If it gets to that point, they just have fewer autobids.

If the PAC loses Washington and Oregon before the next CFP is signed, it's hard for me to see "6 conference champs plus 6 at-large" as the system. If the ACC gets torn apart, then it's hard to see 4 conference champs getting byes.

(05-02-2023 08:08 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2023 07:36 AM)NotoriousOne Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2023 07:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2023 05:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2023 05:15 PM)Glenn360 Wrote: [ -> ]Main points

• All conference not created equal
• Autobids not necessary because Conference Champions are ranked high anyway
• Conferences like the Pac-12 are going to be weaker because their replacing schools like UCLA/USC with teams like San Diego State
• Conference realignment will weaken conferences
  

Thanks. I think that 6 autobids are pretty important to the PAC 12, because there are going to be plenty of years where the PAC 12 champ isn't top 10.

I wonder if the SEC and Big Ten are still okay with 6 autobids if 2 of those autobids are "charity cases" knocking out a 9-3 Big Ten or SEC squad.

more likely they'll knock out the 2nd place ACC team.

Maybe. Good point. I've been wondering about this since it was announced. If we ever get to a P2, with the PAC and even the ACC broken apart, then I can't imagine the current criteria being acceptable to the networks, let alone the BIG and SEC. I suppose they could solve this by adding an additional requirement that the six top ranked conference champs make it as long as they are rated in the top 10 or 15. Would ensure that only ranked teams are included.

If it gets to that point, they just have fewer autobids.

If the PAC loses Washington and Oregon before the next CFP is signed, it's hard for me to see "6 conference champs plus 6 at-large" as the system. If the ACC gets torn apart, then it's hard to see 4 conference champs getting byes.

If the PAC falls, I could see a format where the P4 champs get a bye to the quarterfinals, the P4 CCG losers and top G5 representative (maybe have the top 2 G5 RS champs play each other for the bid) get a bye to the 1st round, and the have 6 at-large play to enter the 12 team field. Expands the CFP to 15-16 teams with 5-6 champs participating, still dominated by the Power conferences, maintain 6 at-large spots for ND to qualify, and keeps the maximum games played at 17 in a season.

The alternative is the Power conferences maintain the top 6 conference champs for a weakened PAC or 2nd G5 champ in exchange for an additional 2 at-large slots that can provide a play-in round for the bottom 4 at-large teams not playing in CCGs played Army-Navy week. With some CCGs serving as play-in games because of the autobid for champs, it provides the feel of a 16 team CFP without actually expanding to 16 and maintain the maximum games of 17 in a season.

(05-02-2023 08:37 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2023 08:08 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2023 07:36 AM)NotoriousOne Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2023 07:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-01-2023 05:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks. I think that 6 autobids are pretty important to the PAC 12, because there are going to be plenty of years where the PAC 12 champ isn't top 10.

I wonder if the SEC and Big Ten are still okay with 6 autobids if 2 of those autobids are "charity cases" knocking out a 9-3 Big Ten or SEC squad.

more likely they'll knock out the 2nd place ACC team.

Maybe. Good point. I've been wondering about this since it was announced. If we ever get to a P2, with the PAC and even the ACC broken apart, then I can't imagine the current criteria being acceptable to the networks, let alone the BIG and SEC. I suppose they could solve this by adding an additional requirement that the six top ranked conference champs make it as long as they are rated in the top 10 or 15. Would ensure that only ranked teams are included.

If it gets to that point, they just have fewer autobids.

If the PAC loses Washington and Oregon before the next CFP is signed, it's hard for me to see "6 conference champs plus 6 at-large" as the system. If the ACC gets torn apart, then it's hard to see 4 conference champs getting byes.

If the PAC falls, I could see a format where the P4 champs get a bye to the quarterfinals, the P4 CCG losers and top G5 representative (maybe have the top 2 G5 RS champs play each other for the bid) get a bye to the 1st round, and the have 6 at-large play to enter the 12 team field. Expands the CFP to 15-16 teams with 5-6 champs participating, still dominated by the Power conferences, maintain 6 at-large spots for ND to qualify, and keeps the maximum games played at 17 in a season.

That's a lot of games, and it's not at all clear where you fit them on the national sports calendar.

Quote:The alternative is the Power conferences maintain the top 6 conference champs for a weakened PAC or 2nd G5 champ in exchange for an additional 2 at-large slots that can provide a play-in round for the bottom 4 at-large teams not playing in CCGs played Army-Navy week. With some CCGs serving as play-in games because of the autobid for champs, it provides the feel of a 16 team CFP without actually expanding to 16 and maintain the maximum games of 17 in a season.

Or the alternative is 4 autobids, or 5.

People are so resistant to simple solutions

The only argument that has any traction is if Notre Dame is #1 and is seeded 5th because it can't occupy the top 4 seeds as an independent.

If Notre Dame goes on a dynasty run with multiple #1 regular seasons but continually gets seeded 5th, then I can see the current CFP structure falling apart.

(05-02-2023 08:49 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote: [ -> ]The only argument that has any traction is if Notre Dame is #1 and is seeded 5th because it can't occupy the top 4 seeds as an independent.

If Notre Dame goes on a dynasty run with multiple #1 regular seasons but continually gets seeded 5th, then I can see the current CFP structure falling apart.

Yeah... ND is never going to be a dynasty... tOSU can't even win multiple NCs in the same relative window. That's the least of the CFPs worries. The priority should be granting access and which conferences should retain AQ status at least in name only.

(05-02-2023 08:48 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2023 08:37 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2023 08:08 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2023 07:36 AM)NotoriousOne Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2023 07:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]more likely they'll knock out the 2nd place ACC team.

Maybe. Good point. I've been wondering about this since it was announced. If we ever get to a P2, with the PAC and even the ACC broken apart, then I can't imagine the current criteria being acceptable to the networks, let alone the BIG and SEC. I suppose they could solve this by adding an additional requirement that the six top ranked conference champs make it as long as they are rated in the top 10 or 15. Would ensure that only ranked teams are included.

If it gets to that point, they just have fewer autobids.

If the PAC loses Washington and Oregon before the next CFP is signed, it's hard for me to see "6 conference champs plus 6 at-large" as the system. If the ACC gets torn apart, then it's hard to see 4 conference champs getting byes.

If the PAC falls, I could see a format where the P4 champs get a bye to the quarterfinals, the P4 CCG losers and top G5 representative (maybe have the top 2 G5 RS champs play each other for the bid) get a bye to the 1st round, and the have 6 at-large play to enter the 12 team field. Expands the CFP to 15-16 teams with 5-6 champs participating, still dominated by the Power conferences, maintain 6 at-large spots for ND to qualify, and keeps the maximum games played at 17 in a season.

That's a lot of games, and it's not at all clear where you fit them on the national sports calendar.

As it stands now, CCGs where it is now.

The 3 games for the 6 at-large teams would be 2nd weekend in December and still have a slot for Army-Navy.

Those 3 winners meet the G5 representative and 4 P4 CCG losers the following week.

4 winners play the 4 P4 champs in the quarterfinals around New Years, then it's how the CFP shakes out scheduling wise.

This format also opens the opportunity for the at least the B1G and SEC to incorporate semifinals Thanksgiving weekend as part of each conference's 9th or 10th conference game and provide teams a better chance of a championship (finishing 4th in a 16-20 team conference vs. 2nd in a 12-16 team conference or 1st in a 6-8 team division. Also a win in the semis earns you a spot in the CFP.

Shifting the season up a week to Week 0 would move the quarterfinals to the 3rd weekend of December on campuses, semis New Year Day, championship as currently is.

Quote:The alternative is the Power conferences maintain the top 6 conference champs for a weakened PAC or 2nd G5 champ in exchange for an additional 2 at-large slots that can provide a play-in round for the bottom 4 at-large teams not playing in CCGs played Army-Navy week. With some CCGs serving as play-in games because of the autobid for champs, it provides the feel of a 16 team CFP without actually expanding to 16 and maintain the maximum games of 17 in a season.

Or the alternative is 4 autobids, or 5.

People are so resistant to simple solutions

Just saying that the Power conferences could use 6th autobid as leverage if they don't want to deal with the headaches, which is legal side of changing the CFP format, aka not get sued, which is why we have the 6+6 format. This format can also be used as an excuse to say we care about player safety while making even more money. Yes, it's not super simple like a 6+6 CFP, but I've proposed more complicated versions of this and trimmed it down to as simple as I can.

(05-02-2023 09:31 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2023 08:48 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2023 08:37 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2023 08:08 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2023 07:36 AM)NotoriousOne Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe. Good point. I've been wondering about this since it was announced. If we ever get to a P2, with the PAC and even the ACC broken apart, then I can't imagine the current criteria being acceptable to the networks, let alone the BIG and SEC. I suppose they could solve this by adding an additional requirement that the six top ranked conference champs make it as long as they are rated in the top 10 or 15. Would ensure that only ranked teams are included.

If it gets to that point, they just have fewer autobids.

If the PAC loses Washington and Oregon before the next CFP is signed, it's hard for me to see "6 conference champs plus 6 at-large" as the system. If the ACC gets torn apart, then it's hard to see 4 conference champs getting byes.

If the PAC falls, I could see a format where the P4 champs get a bye to the quarterfinals, the P4 CCG losers and top G5 representative (maybe have the top 2 G5 RS champs play each other for the bid) get a bye to the 1st round, and the have 6 at-large play to enter the 12 team field. Expands the CFP to 15-16 teams with 5-6 champs participating, still dominated by the Power conferences, maintain 6 at-large spots for ND to qualify, and keeps the maximum games played at 17 in a season.

That's a lot of games, and it's not at all clear where you fit them on the national sports calendar.

As it stands now, CCGs where it is now.

The 3 games for the 6 at-large teams would be 2nd weekend in December and still have a slot for Army-Navy.

Those 3 winners meet the G5 representative and 4 P4 CCG losers the following week.

4 winners play the 4 P4 champs in the quarterfinals around New Years, then it's how the CFP shakes out scheduling wise.

This format also opens the opportunity for the at least the B1G and SEC to incorporate semifinals Thanksgiving weekend as part of each conference's 9th or 10th conference game and provide teams a better chance of a championship (finishing 4th in a 16-20 team conference vs. 2nd in a 12-16 team conference or 1st in a 6-8 team division. Also a win in the semis earns you a spot in the CFP.

Shifting the season up a week to Week 0 would move the quarterfinals to the 3rd weekend of December on campuses, semis New Year Day, championship as currently is.

Quote:The alternative is the Power conferences maintain the top 6 conference champs for a weakened PAC or 2nd G5 champ in exchange for an additional 2 at-large slots that can provide a play-in round for the bottom 4 at-large teams not playing in CCGs played Army-Navy week. With some CCGs serving as play-in games because of the autobid for champs, it provides the feel of a 16 team CFP without actually expanding to 16 and maintain the maximum games of 17 in a season.

Or the alternative is 4 autobids, or 5.

People are so resistant to simple solutions

Just saying that the Power conferences could use 6th autobid as leverage if they don't want to deal with the headaches,

Then just stick with 6+6, and live with two "charity spots".

Quote:which is legal side of changing the CFP format, aka not get sued, which is why we have the 6+6 format. This format can also be used as an excuse to say we care about player safety while making even more money.

?!?!?!?
Not sure how adding another set of games between the CCGs and the 5 vs 12 round says "we care about player safety"

Quote: Yes, it's not super simple like a 6+6 CFP, but I've proposed more complicated versions of this and trimmed it down to as simple as I can.

Seems like a you problem, not a Sankey-Petitti problem.

CFP will go down as...

SEC will have 4
B10 will have 4
B12 will have 1
ACC will have 1
PAC will have 1
G5 will have 1

It's a scam!

(05-02-2023 09:51 AM)GreenBison Wrote: [ -> ]CFP will go down as...

SEC will have 4
B10 will have 4
B12 will have 1
ACC will have 1
PAC will have 1
G5 will have 1

It's a scam!

Works as designed.

(05-02-2023 09:51 AM)GreenBison Wrote: [ -> ]CFP will go down as...

SEC will have 4
B10 will have 4
B12 will have 1
ACC will have 1
PAC will have 1
G5 will have 1

It's a scam!

maybe so, but my symoathy for the 9-3 SEC or B1G team who gets bounced for an 8-4 PAC champ is limited

(05-02-2023 09:51 AM)GreenBison Wrote: [ -> ]CFP will go down as...

SEC will have 4
B10 will have 4
B12 will have 1
ACC will have 1
PAC will have 1
G5 will have 1

It's a scam!

FIFY

SEC will have 4
B10 will have 3
Notre Dame
B12 will have 1
ACC will have 1
PAC will have 1
G5 will have 1

All of the above will be moot when pay for play happens and a separate upper tier is created. Then the 12 spots will have 3 conference champs and the best at large along with those 3 will get a bye. Only the upper tier will compete. I think they knew this when they agreed to set it up. The promised inclusion will disappear with tiers created by pay for play and level of investment.

Should it happen as set up, the teams that shouldn't be there will get blown out in the first round and the round of 8 will be more what it is supposed to be competitively. I think the final four (semis) will be good television.

(05-02-2023 10:28 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2023 09:51 AM)GreenBison Wrote: [ -> ]CFP will go down as...

SEC will have 4
B10 will have 4
B12 will have 1
ACC will have 1
PAC will have 1
G5 will have 1

It's a scam!

FIFY

SEC will have 4
B10 will have 3
Notre Dame
B12 will have 1
ACC will have 1
PAC will have 1
G5 will have 1

I think that this will be the case most years, although much is to be determined by their record (obviously). They will be in about 1/2 the time if I were to guess... but it should be pointed out that historically they have had periods when they were far from "great".

If they are in the playoffs 1/3 of the time or better, they will likely have no reason to ever join a conference. Interestingly, this could also wind up saving the PAC and ACC, especially should those two conferences eventually merge and Notre Dame has a scheduling agreement with them.

I also wonder what will happen when it comes to G5 realignment as a result of the playoff.