(12-26-2018 09:48 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-25-2018 08:39 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-25-2018 07:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-25-2018 01:06 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The AAC we pretty much agree is the best G5 conference and best positioned to take advantage of the access bowl.

But I don't agree with the idea the AAC's success is at a detriment to the G4.

1) AAC becomes a P6. G4 get to split the access bowl among themselves.

If the AAC becomes a P6, then the rest of the G4 has less power (the P group wouldn't need them to pass any non-autonomy rules) and would become further stigmatized as inferior. That perception would ripple through TV negotiations, bowls, everything. It would be a disaster for the remaining G4, IMO.

How could it be any worse than it is now? Think about the benefits.

-With the AAC out the G4 can do even more cooperation than what they doing now. Chance for a national G4 TV deal is possible.

IMO there is no way the playoff will be modified so as to include the AAC champ AND another G5 spot in the NY6 bowls. If the G5 get an auto-bid to the playoffs, that will be the only NY6 bowl guarantee it has. So no other G4 will benefit with easier access to the big bowls.

If they decide to elevate the AAC to a P6 that is what they will have to do.

I don't think there is anyway around not giving the G4 an access bowl politically.

Sorry if I implied otherwise, but I don't think the AAC will ever be formally elevated to Power/Autonomy status by the P5. But dominating a G5 auto-bid spot would accomplish their goal of being viewed as Power league publicly, what P6 seems to be about, and would boost the AAC substantially over the other G conferences in terms of revenue and recruiting. It would solidify the second-class status of the others.

There is no way the P5 will ever give the Gs both a playoff auto-bid and an auto-bid to whatever NY6 bowls aren't in the playoffs, will never happen.

(12-27-2018 09:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 09:48 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-25-2018 08:39 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-25-2018 07:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If the AAC becomes a P6, then the rest of the G4 has less power (the P group wouldn't need them to pass any non-autonomy rules) and would become further stigmatized as inferior. That perception would ripple through TV negotiations, bowls, everything. It would be a disaster for the remaining G4, IMO.

How could it be any worse than it is now? Think about the benefits.

-With the AAC out the G4 can do even more cooperation than what they doing now. Chance for a national G4 TV deal is possible.

IMO there is no way the playoff will be modified so as to include the AAC champ AND another G5 spot in the NY6 bowls. If the G5 get an auto-bid to the playoffs, that will be the only NY6 bowl guarantee it has. So no other G4 will benefit with easier access to the big bowls.

If they decide to elevate the AAC to a P6 that is what they will have to do.

I don't think there is anyway around not giving the G4 an access bowl politically.

Sorry if I implied otherwise, but I don't think the AAC will ever be formally elevated to Power/Autonomy status by the P5. But dominating a G5 auto-bid spot would accomplish their goal of being viewed as Power league publicly, what P6 seems to be about, and would boost the AAC substantially over the other G conferences in terms of revenue and recruiting. It would solidify the second-class status of the others.

There is no way the P5 will ever give the Gs both a playoff auto-bid and an auto-bid to whatever NY6 bowls aren't in the playoffs, will never happen.

Remember the year of the coach in the AAC a couple of years ago when Memphis, Houston, Temple all spent 3-4 million to try to retain their head coaches? It didn't work. They left anyways.

The AAC was not able to build on that 2015-2016 momentum and become equal to the 5th best power conference in the polls. The P6 campaign was started when the AAC had momentum but has fallen flat.

Take a North Texas they are recruiting well. All they have to do is go undefeated on a CUSA schedule where as all it takes is one loss in AAC play or an upset in the championship game to derail it for the AAC.

With the old Big East, every single program would recruit a Top 30, 40, 50, 60 class. While UCF/USF give it a nice top, the AAC has 5 classes this year rated below 75 and 3 classes rated below 100. The bottom AAC schools are taking a lot of losses.

The same thing happened with the MWC. When it was formed everyone had a Top 80 class then it became hallowed out with BYU, TCU and Utah dominating everyone else.

The SBC and CUSA programs are seeing a huge boost in recruiting relative to what they could have done 5-10 years ago. This is a bigger story than the AAC which has bounced off its ceiling IMO.

Quote:If they decide to elevate the AAC to a P6 that is what they will have to do.

I agree with Kittonhead -- they won't. It'd be silly holding one's breath thinking that'd happen. The P5 will take teams from the G5, notably MW & AAC, but the AAC will not go P. There is no basis for thinking that's has a probability worth considering. The only evidence goes against that to cement them in G5.

Quote:There is no way the P5 will ever give the Gs both a playoff auto-bid and an auto-bid to whatever NY6 bowls aren't in the playoffs, will never happen.

The NCAA will not give an Unconditional auto-bid to a G5 in an 8-team playoff. Going from G4->G5 with an extra and strong G-level conference (AAC), made them give an unconditional auto-bid to an expansive 10->12 teams in the BCS/NY. Reverting backwards to 8 slots -- even before 10 teams where it was Highly Conditional for the G-conferences -- they're not going to Unconditionally let them in. :)

And with an 8-team playoff, there won't be any REAL "BCS/NY" bowls. They'll basically try and glorify the current non-BCS-level NY bowl + have a couple others amped up -- and sure, put the Top G5 who didn't make it, in there. It wouldn't make as much money as a "BCS" bowl, but it's better than the 2nd-best G5's bowl now.

I *could* see an appeasement to the G5, where if they DO get a Top G5 in the 8-team playoff (ranked close enough to 8) every once in a while -- that they'd STILL give the Top G5 who does Not make the playoff an "upper level" bowl outside the playoffs. But again, those bowls aren't Grand. They'd instead just be Good.

The problem people tend to ignore about the understandable idea of not giving the Top G5 an Unconditional Spot in a mere 8-team playoff scheme is this: What's LESS understandable than actually giving them one regardless of ranking, is giving a P5 Champ one unconditionally, regardless of ranking -- when the G5 Champ is ranked higher, and but both not-so-high! Or Year 1, undefeated #14 Fresno gets left out, and Year 2 P12 Champ Utah on an upset wins it ranked #15.

There's a CLEAR problem that WILL IN FACT OCCUR, given enough years (and we're not talking multiple decades) -- where it becomes Clear that TV audience+popularity > rank. Not for bowls, which is arguable but accepted -- but for AN ACTUAL PLAYOFF FOR THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

Is there any other sport where a conference champion of a higher rank does Not get in, while a conference champ ranked lower Does get in, due to it's conference? And NOT necessarily in the same year?

Even if you had "G5 Conf Champ who's ranked below #8 gets in IF ranked over a P5 Champ" -- that still doesn't fully hold water. Again, one thing for bowls, but not for ACTUAL NAT CHAMP PLAYOFFS. Because that G5 could be #12-16 consistently, and that P5 Champ could once in a while. The first one rarely gets in, the other one always does.

That's why you need a concrete rank-limit drawn for ALL conference champs to get an auto-bid.

Saban arguing that expanding the playoff will further diminish non-playoff bowls is a joke. Guys are already sitting out of the Peach and Sugar bowls. Those are MAJOR bowls. Once the BCS national championship game came into play it diminished all other bowls.

What expanding the playoff will do is increase the importance of bowls if they are the first round games!

Sugar Bowl - Alabama vs. UCF/Washington (depends on P5 auto-bids)
Cotton Bowl - Oklahoma vs. Georgia

Orange Bowl - Clemson vs. Michigan
Rose Bowl - Notre Dame vs. Ohio State

Other Playoff Bowls outside of rotation:

Peach Bowl - Florida vs. Texas
Fiesta Bowl - Washington/UCF vs. LSU

(12-27-2018 07:55 PM)esayem Wrote:  Saban arguing that expanding the playoff will further diminish non-playoff bowls is a joke. Guys are already sitting out of the Peach and Sugar bowls. Those are MAJOR bowls. Once the BCS national championship game came into play it diminished all other bowls.

What expanding the playoff will do is increase the importance of bowls if they are the first round games!

Sugar Bowl - Alabama vs. UCF/Washington (depends on P5 auto-bids)
Cotton Bowl - Oklahoma vs. Georgia

Orange Bowl - Clemson vs. Michigan
Rose Bowl - Notre Dame vs. Ohio State

Other Playoff Bowls outside of rotation:

Peach Bowl - Florida vs. Texas
Fiesta Bowl - Washington/UCF vs. LSU

There isn't going to be any expansion of the playoffs anytime soon. There's too much up in the air that has to be settled first of which the Alston case is probably the biggest hurdle.

Quote:Saban arguing that expanding the playoff will further diminish non-playoff bowls is a joke.

It is. If you were to tell Saban in 2003 that we were going to have 4-team playoff, and have an extra "BCS" bowl -- AND add many extra bowls where 6-6 teams got in -- he'd think it'd be one big laughing stock. :)

Some people are too wrapped up in tradition. Now, granted, an 8-team playoff will swallow up all the "big bowls" -- although there'll be just as many with (50%) less teams (4+2=6). That said, I don't think people sitting out for 1 game is going to be crazy. I can see more guys who aren't all super-special leaving a Season Early because they'll at least make the draft, to avoid injury, sure. But for 1 game, it'll have it's max, IMO. After all, there's many guys who Want that extra game in the spotlight to go from blah-pick to higher pick, or possibly no pick to a pick.

Quote:Sugar Bowl - Alabama vs. UCF/Washington (depends on P5 auto-bids)
Cotton Bowl - Oklahoma vs. Georgia

Orange Bowl - Clemson vs. Michigan
Rose Bowl - Notre Dame vs. Ohio State

An 8-team playoff would virtually surely nix UM and put UCF & Washington both in. If not, doing so in it's theory which is only what they're going to be looking at for at least the next few years (as said, it's not cumming along tomorrow) -- they can predict a big out-cry on that. Their focus is going to be on complaints/problems in one setup vs the next. Undefeated Conference winner over a team with 2L who didn't even get to play in their Conf Champ game and got Blown out by their Conf Champ who lost to a 6-6 team (who lost to EMU)? Too many people would cry foul on that structure. The LAST thing they'd want to do is make pressure on expanding it to 12 or 16. Nixing a Clear non-conf champ who's ranked #7 or #8 is an easy call when Conf Champs #8 & #9 are right there.

In many sports' playoffs given the # of teams in a playoff & given the # of teams in said sport, and ability to play each other -- there will be teams making the bottom seeds in which you can make clear arguments that the ones below the bottom are at least a bit better. That's usually due to the arguably "lesser" team just short in opinionated ranking winning something that the other didn't (subdivision, division, conference, particular teams within, etc). The focus isn't on the exactness in terms of rank of the lowest, but who earned. Above the lowest is more on rankings to make sure those go in.

(12-27-2018 07:55 PM)esayem Wrote:  What expanding the playoff will do is increase the importance of bowls if they are the first round games!

Yes, if the Bowls that are going to be first round games accept moving to earlier in the calendar except when they are semi-final games, as the price of continuing to be relevant, that fits.

Obviously that creates room on NY for a "NY6" but the top bowls would be in a rotation of QF/QF/SF with moving time slots and the "NY6" would be two of the six big bowls when they are semi-finals plus four next step down bowls for NY content.

Whether enough of the barnacles can be scraped off the hull of the Rose Bowl to allow the Rose Bowl to be towed away from its encrusted position in New Year's to a berth earlier in bowl season ... for 2/3 of the cycle, no less ... I just don't know. If it can be done, whether it can be done in a mere six years ... I just don't know.

(12-27-2018 08:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-27-2018 07:55 PM)esayem Wrote:  Saban arguing that expanding the playoff will further diminish non-playoff bowls is a joke. Guys are already sitting out of the Peach and Sugar bowls. Those are MAJOR bowls. Once the BCS national championship game came into play it diminished all other bowls.

What expanding the playoff will do is increase the importance of bowls if they are the first round games!

Sugar Bowl - Alabama vs. UCF/Washington (depends on P5 auto-bids)
Cotton Bowl - Oklahoma vs. Georgia

Orange Bowl - Clemson vs. Michigan
Rose Bowl - Notre Dame vs. Ohio State

Other Playoff Bowls outside of rotation:

Peach Bowl - Florida vs. Texas
Fiesta Bowl - Washington/UCF vs. LSU

There isn't to be any expansion of the playoffs anytime soon. There's too much up in the air that has to be settled first of which the Alston case is probably the biggest hurdle.

From what I read JR, even after the verdict, we are two to three appeals for being finished with Alston and there is too much money at stake for the schools to ever give up.
Since ESPN owns the rights to almost everything involved, when the numbers get worked out in their favor, we will be moving to an expanded playoff.

(12-27-2018 04:30 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  The NCAA will not give an Unconditional auto-bid to a G5 in an 8-team playoff.

The NCAA will have nothing to do with it.

That said, I largely agree with the rest of your post about the problem of unconditional auto-bids for anyone, P5 or G5. But IMO, the problem is best solved by not having autobids and instead using just rankings - straight 8.

(12-27-2018 07:55 PM)esayem Wrote:  Saban arguing that expanding the playoff will further diminish non-playoff bowls is a joke. Guys are already sitting out of the Peach and Sugar bowls. Those are MAJOR bowls. Once the BCS national championship game came into play it diminished all other bowls.

What expanding the playoff will do is increase the importance of bowls if they are the first round games!

Sugar Bowl - Alabama vs. UCF/Washington (depends on P5 auto-bids)
Cotton Bowl - Oklahoma vs. Georgia

Orange Bowl - Clemson vs. Michigan
Rose Bowl - Notre Dame vs. Ohio State

Other Playoff Bowls outside of rotation:

Peach Bowl - Florida vs. Texas
Fiesta Bowl - Washington/UCF vs. LSU

Deandre baker sitting out sugar. He is Georgia,s Thorpe winner

(12-28-2018 05:26 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-27-2018 07:55 PM)esayem Wrote:  What expanding the playoff will do is increase the importance of bowls if they are the first round games!

Yes, if the Bowls that are going to be first round games accept moving to earlier in the calendar except when they are semi-final games, as the price of continuing to be relevant, that fits.

Obviously that creates room on NY for a "NY6" but the top bowls would be in a rotation of QF/QF/SF with moving time slots and the "NY6" would be two of the six big bowls when they are semi-finals plus four next step down bowls for NY content.

Whether enough of the barnacles can be scraped off the hull of the Rose Bowl to allow the Rose Bowl to be towed away from its encrusted position in New Year's to a berth earlier in bowl season ... for 2/3 of the cycle, no less ... I just don't know. If it can be done, whether it can be done in a mere six years ... I just don't know.

I think you keep the first round on or around NYD and play the semis a week or so later. Winning two bowls games in a season would be ridiculous and fan travel would be too difficult. I like Frank the Tank’s idea of semis on-campus.

Quote:The NCAA will have nothing to do with it.

The NCAA will have nothing to do with the FBS playoff scheme?

Quote:I largely agree with the rest of your post about the problem of unconditional auto-bids for anyone, P5 or G5. But IMO, the problem is best solved by not having autobids and instead using just rankings - straight 8.

I don't. Skipping a conference winner or two at #9 & #10 for extra SEC & B1G teams would send too many people spinning.

In a playoff scheme, I think the first step is to eliminate clear disasters. Then eliminating too much WTF that can happen once in a good while.

The unconditional auto-bid for any P5 Champ is a bad thing for an Actual Playoff because once in a good while, they may be ranked too far away from #8. Add to that, G5 Champs even closer to #8 won't be allowed in.

But solving this by saying Conf Championships don't count as a "step" at all in the greater scheme of the road to the Playoffs, IMO, would present a problem as well. That Would put a dent in Conf Championships (they'd be for particular rank-chasing, IF applicable; otherwise loses a lot of meaning).... because no Conf Champ bowls will exist, aside from the CUSA vs MAC Champ games that unofficially come about these days. You'd be playing for less. It doesn't help your cause to make it anywhere.

My Viewpoint:
Right now the # of slots (4) doesn't even cover half the # of conferences, so, yes, pure rank. But once the # of slots cover a majority of conferences, it should play a role. Once the # of slots cover the # of conferences -- and then some, due to lower conferences -- then you include them all.

IMO, your pure-rank scheme, if one were to apply it, would be more fitting in the NFL than college. I think rank becomes more questionable as The solidified "earned" position, the more teams there are VS games played.

Since the # of slots covers a majority of the conferences, you should have it play a role when you get to 8 teams on the bottom slots.

I think fans across the country, a litmus test of what's best, would be more happy down the line if the #5 & #6 of at-larges were in, but the #7 & #8 at-larges were trumped by #9-#not-far-down who were Conf Champs, as #7 & #8 failed to do so and the ranking is so close.

If there many more conferences (and yeah, teams) -- I would agree that one should push away Conf Championship, and just go by rank if it's just 8-team playoff. That said, even in a straight-8 format, I would still keep another exception. I would want to prevent too many teams from the 8-team playoff from being from the same conference. Top 4 -- OK, doesn't matter. But instead of the bottom two seeds being trumped by Conf Champs, IMO, it'd still be best for them to be potentially trumped by getting a team from somewhere else who doesn't have conference representation, and is ranked directly below. It'd all vary by how many #7/8 already have in there, as you wouldn't nix a 2nd team from the same conference for the sake of "over population". But you would a 3rd or 4th.

(12-23-2018 10:25 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  That "unified" G5 spot is going to be monopolized by the AAC and MWC.

Perhaps if we choose to exaggerate the situation.

Quote: It would mean that a decent AAC team has a 1 in 24 shot - not 1 in 65.

See? Exaggerated ... if a decent AAC team has a 1 in 24 shot, and there are 6 decent teams in the conference, that's a 25% chance of the AAC filling the spot. I actually think that is understating the odds for a decent AAC team.

Quote: I can make a case where the SB/CUSA/MAC should NOT be voting for 5-1-2 with a G5 spot. The AAC and MW will eventually separate from the other 3 in such a situation.

Some members of the AAC and/or MWC may well separate from the other 3 in that situation, by virtue of getting an invite into the most damaged P5 conference after the next round of realignment. But that won't pull the AAC or MWC as a whole ahead of everyone else.

Quote: As a matter of fact, teams like Tulane and Houston would have decent CFP odds - and probably better odds than Maryland and Purdue from the the Big Ten.

Houston, if they have a decent team. If there is such a circular firing squad in the AAC that Tulane ends up as champion, the AAC is not going to have the top Go5 school that year.

What did the Auburn / Purdue game tell us ?

1. Auburn obviously got up for the game this year.
(remember last year Auburn was not motivated to play UCF in the
Peach Bowl because they were not in the 4 team playoff.)

So you can eliminate those talking points in the future as the Music
City Bowl is a much lessor bowl to get up for than the Peach bowl.

2. If Purdue had been a team from a G5 conference all we would hear
would be: See the G5 teams can't compete as Auburn from the Big SEC
boat raced them out of the stadium.

Oh; but wait Purdue is out of the power 5, Big 10 Conference and beat ohio state.

#Fair Playoff for all FBS schools.

If we expand all FBS schools should have a path to the playoff.

(12-27-2018 04:30 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:If they decide to elevate the AAC to a P6 that is what they will have to do.

I agree with Kittonhead -- they won't. It'd be silly holding one's breath thinking that'd happen. The P5 will take teams from the G5, notably MW & AAC, but the AAC will not go P. There is no basis for thinking that's has a probability worth considering. The only evidence goes against that to cement them in G5.

Quote:There is no way the P5 will ever give the Gs both a playoff auto-bid and an auto-bid to whatever NY6 bowls aren't in the playoffs, will never happen.

The NCAA will not give an Unconditional auto-bid to a G5 in an 8-team playoff. Going from G4->G5 with an extra and strong G-level conference (AAC), made them give an unconditional auto-bid to an expansive 10->12 teams in the BCS/NY. Reverting backwards to 8 slots -- even before 10 teams where it was Highly Conditional for the G-conferences -- they're not going to Unconditionally let them in. :)

And with an 8-team playoff, there won't be any REAL "BCS/NY" bowls. They'll basically try and glorify the current non-BCS-level NY bowl + have a couple others amped up -- and sure, put the Top G5 who didn't make it, in there. It wouldn't make as much money as a "BCS" bowl, but it's better than the 2nd-best G5's bowl now.

I *could* see an appeasement to the G5, where if they DO get a Top G5 in the 8-team playoff (ranked close enough to 8) every once in a while -- that they'd STILL give the Top G5 who does Not make the playoff an "upper level" bowl outside the playoffs. But again, those bowls aren't Grand. They'd instead just be Good.

The problem people tend to ignore about the understandable idea of not giving the Top G5 an Unconditional Spot in a mere 8-team playoff scheme is this: What's LESS understandable than actually giving them one regardless of ranking, is giving a P5 Champ one unconditionally, regardless of ranking -- when the G5 Champ is ranked higher, and but both not-so-high! Or Year 1, undefeated #14 Fresno gets left out, and Year 2 P12 Champ Utah on an upset wins it ranked #15.

There's a CLEAR problem that WILL IN FACT OCCUR, given enough years (and we're not talking multiple decades) -- where it becomes Clear that TV audience+popularity > rank. Not for bowls, which is arguable but accepted -- but for AN ACTUAL PLAYOFF FOR THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

Is there any other sport where a conference champion of a higher rank does Not get in, while a conference champ ranked lower Does get in, due to it's conference? And NOT necessarily in the same year?

Even if you had "G5 Conf Champ who's ranked below #8 gets in IF ranked over a P5 Champ" -- that still doesn't fully hold water. Again, one thing for bowls, but not for ACTUAL NAT CHAMP PLAYOFFS. Because that G5 could be #12-16 consistently, and that P5 Champ could once in a while. The first one rarely gets in, the other one always does.

That's why you need a concrete rank-limit drawn for ALL conference champs to get an auto-bid.

What are you talking about? With Auto-bids, every P5 champ will be in and the top G5 champ will be in. So, in what sport do division or conference champs NOT get in. Rank is subjective. Making the right play, at the right time, and winning when its all on the line is literally the definition of a conference champion. There would still be two wildcards to give high ranking deserving teams a SECOND chance to get in after they FAILED to win their conference championship. Nobody is going care if a team is left out because they couldnt even prove they were the best team in their own conference (or even division in some cases)--and then FAILED to convince the even the ice skating judges that they were one of the 2 best teams not automatically in the playoff.

(12-27-2018 04:30 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  The NCAA will not give an Unconditional auto-bid to a G5 in an 8-team playoff.

I don't think so, either.

As far as clout from support for a change in the Division 1 By-Laws, if things have trended enough for support that 3 of 5 A5 conferences support it (enough for 3x2+5 to be a majority of 5x2+5) ... it is just a matter of patience until it is 4 of 5 A5 conferences that support it. Getting it done quicker might be worth something, but not that much.

And as far as protection against the CFP contract being an agreement in restraint of trade, the A5 could argue that the at-large spots formally are open to the Go5. Now, IANDL (I Aint No Damn Lawyer), and their lawyers will tell them how strong that argument is, but if it's a little shaky ... and the "Best of Go5 champions" spot in the original CFP contract at least suggests it might be a little shaky ... surely a ranking-hurdle{+} as in the BCS bowls would firm it up without giving such a valuable spot away to what might in some years be a 21st-best FBS school.

{+ That is, something along the lines of whether best of Go5 champions ranked 12th or higher, 16th or higher, or "if ranked higher than an A5 autobid champion".}

(12-28-2018 01:14 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:The NCAA will have nothing to do with it.

The NCAA will have nothing to do with the FBS playoff scheme?

Quote:I largely agree with the rest of your post about the problem of unconditional auto-bids for anyone, P5 or G5. But IMO, the problem is best solved by not having autobids and instead using just rankings - straight 8.

I don't. Skipping a conference winner or two at #9 & #10 for extra SEC & B1G teams would send too many people spinning.

In a playoff scheme, I think the first step is to eliminate clear disasters. Then eliminating too much WTF that can happen once in a good while.

The unconditional auto-bid for any P5 Champ is a bad thing for an Actual Playoff because once in a good while, they may be ranked too far away from #8. Add to that, G5 Champs even closer to #8 won't be allowed in.

But solving this by saying Conf Championships don't count as a "step" at all in the greater scheme of the road to the Playoffs, IMO, would present a problem as well. That Would put a dent in Conf Championships (they'd be for particular rank-chasing, IF applicable; otherwise loses a lot of meaning)....

1) Correct, the NCAA will have nothing to do with an 8 team playoff, just like it has nothing to do with the CFP and had nothing to do with the BCS.

2) I am not sure how a straight 8 system would diminish the CCGs, because it would just be a continuation of the status quo. Currently, winning your CCG doesn't guarantee a spot in the playoffs, and that would be the same under straight 8.

3) If we have to have autobids for conference champs, I agree that your conditional approach is better than an unconditional approach. But IMO best of all is no autobids. It has never been explained to me why winning a conference is so much more important than other on-field achievements that it should give you a private lane to the playoffs.

(12-28-2018 06:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-27-2018 04:30 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:If they decide to elevate the AAC to a P6 that is what they will have to do.

I agree with Kittonhead -- they won't. It'd be silly holding one's breath thinking that'd happen. The P5 will take teams from the G5, notably MW & AAC, but the AAC will not go P. There is no basis for thinking that's has a probability worth considering. The only evidence goes against that to cement them in G5.

Quote:There is no way the P5 will ever give the Gs both a playoff auto-bid and an auto-bid to whatever NY6 bowls aren't in the playoffs, will never happen.

The NCAA will not give an Unconditional auto-bid to a G5 in an 8-team playoff. Going from G4->G5 with an extra and strong G-level conference (AAC), made them give an unconditional auto-bid to an expansive 10->12 teams in the BCS/NY. Reverting backwards to 8 slots -- even before 10 teams where it was Highly Conditional for the G-conferences -- they're not going to Unconditionally let them in. :)

And with an 8-team playoff, there won't be any REAL "BCS/NY" bowls. They'll basically try and glorify the current non-BCS-level NY bowl + have a couple others amped up -- and sure, put the Top G5 who didn't make it, in there. It wouldn't make as much money as a "BCS" bowl, but it's better than the 2nd-best G5's bowl now.

I *could* see an appeasement to the G5, where if they DO get a Top G5 in the 8-team playoff (ranked close enough to 8) every once in a while -- that they'd STILL give the Top G5 who does Not make the playoff an "upper level" bowl outside the playoffs. But again, those bowls aren't Grand. They'd instead just be Good.

The problem people tend to ignore about the understandable idea of not giving the Top G5 an Unconditional Spot in a mere 8-team playoff scheme is this: What's LESS understandable than actually giving them one regardless of ranking, is giving a P5 Champ one unconditionally, regardless of ranking -- when the G5 Champ is ranked higher, and but both not-so-high! Or Year 1, undefeated #14 Fresno gets left out, and Year 2 P12 Champ Utah on an upset wins it ranked #15.

There's a CLEAR problem that WILL IN FACT OCCUR, given enough years (and we're not talking multiple decades) -- where it becomes Clear that TV audience+popularity > rank. Not for bowls, which is arguable but accepted -- but for AN ACTUAL PLAYOFF FOR THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

Is there any other sport where a conference champion of a higher rank does Not get in, while a conference champ ranked lower Does get in, due to it's conference? And NOT necessarily in the same year?

Even if you had "G5 Conf Champ who's ranked below #8 gets in IF ranked over a P5 Champ" -- that still doesn't fully hold water. Again, one thing for bowls, but not for ACTUAL NAT CHAMP PLAYOFFS. Because that G5 could be #12-16 consistently, and that P5 Champ could once in a while. The first one rarely gets in, the other one always does.

That's why you need a concrete rank-limit drawn for ALL conference champs to get an auto-bid.

What are you talking about? With Auto-bids, every P5 champ will be in and the top G5 champ will be in. So, in what sport do division or conference champs NOT get in. Rank is subjective. Making the right play, at the right time, and winning when its all on the line is literally the definition of a conference champion. There would still be two wildcards to give high ranking deserving teams a SECOND chance to get in after they FAILED to win their conference championship. Nobody is going care if a team is left out because they couldnt even prove they were the best team in their own conference (or even division in some cases)--and then FAILED to convince the even the ice skating judges that they were one of the 2 best teams not automatically in the playoff.

It is astonishing how you argue for the sanctity of winning your conference or division means making the playoffs in every other sport, and then in the next breathe you state that it is OK that this will not apply to the entire G5 - none of the G5 conference champs under your scheme will be automatically in the playoffs, rather a "subjective beauty contest ranking" will pick the best one.

IMO, it's pretty clear what's going on here: You just want to boost the AAC because you think the AAC will dominate a G5 autobid. So you realize that in order to get what really matters to you, a guaranteed spot for a G5 team, you must give autobids to all the A5 conferences. That's the lure to dangle to get that G5 autobid. It's also kind of a legal trap, because if the A5 have autobids but the G5 does not, then that sets the A5 up for a legal monopoly challenge, whereas a straight 8 system wouldn't do that because all conferences are treated equal.

To me, in a scheme where the A5 have autobids, a G5 autobid, if it is to exist, must be conditional, with the conditions being that (a) the top G5 team is ranked in the top 8, or (b) the top G5 team is ranked ahead of at least one of the A5 champs.

That's our quality-control check. Otherwise you can have G5 teams like UCF in 2017 that never prove anything against A5 all year long, they just beat up on other G5, getting a guaranteed lane to a tiny 8 team playoff.

(12-28-2018 04:46 PM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  What did the Auburn / Purdue game tell us ?

1. Auburn obviously got up for the game this year.
(remember last year Auburn was not motivated to play UCF in the
Peach Bowl because they were not in the 4 team playoff.)

So you can eliminate those talking points in the future as the Music
City Bowl is a much lessor bowl to get up for than the Peach bowl.

2. If Purdue had been a team from a G5 conference all we would hear
would be: See the G5 teams can't compete as Auburn from the Big SEC
boat raced them out of the stadium.

Oh; but wait Purdue is out of the power 5, Big 10 Conference and beat ohio state.

#Fair Playoff for all FBS schools.

If we expand all FBS schools should have a path to the playoff.

These points don't make much sense. Let's take them in reverse-order:

2) Yes, G5 teams are regarded as more suspect in quality than A5 teams, but that's with good factual reason: The A5 conferences are stronger than the G5 conferences without fail, every single year. Your complaint is like a fan of a Sun Belt basketball team that is having a good year in the SB complaining that their team doesn't get as much respect as an ACC team that is having a good year in the ACC. Well, that's because the ACC is always better than the Sun Belt so doing well in the ACC is properly regarded as a bigger achievement.

But beyond that, it's also clear that the A5 isn't bulletproof from criticism either. E.g, there has been a long-running narrative, a B1G sore spot with the B1G, that B1G teams just do not stack up to SEC teams, and this wipeout feeds in to that narrative. We've also seen the PAC get slagged this year for its bowl and OOC struggles. Bottom line is when A5 conferences don't perform well they get criticized.

1) It is silly to argue that because Auburn was motivated for this MC Bowl that this refutes the idea that they weren't motivated for last year's Peach Bowl. Different teams different circumstances. Last year's Auburn team was unmovitated for the Peach because it suffered two crushing blows right before that bowl: When AU was blown out in the SEC title game, they (a) lost the SEC title, very important to them, and (b) lost a spot in the playoffs, also very important to them.

Making it far worse though was the facts that (a) they lost the SEC title to a big rival, Georgia, and then (b) had to watch their biggest rival, and a team they beat to boot, Alabama, make the playoffs too! No team has ever had that double dose of salt rubbed in their wounds. Then, to top it off, they get relegated to the Peach Bowl to play a G5 team, a complete no-win situation for them. Slump City!

In contrast, this year's Auburn team struggled all year long. Their national aspirations were over by the first week of October. But being a proud program, they saw this bowl game as a way to get a bit of redemption. They realized they had underperformed relative to their talent, so this bowl was a forum to remind people that Auburn is still relevant.

Different teams, difference situations.

(12-29-2018 07:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It has never been explained to me why winning a conference is so much more important than other on-field achievements that it should give you a private lane to the playoffs.

1. Because the conferences and large groups of fans want it that way.
Such a system reflects the balance of economic power in college football. Big Time College Football is a diversion and a moneymaking enterprise, and operates as a partnership of partnerships--the schools combine as conferences for negotiating purposes, and the conferences negotiate the playoff (including to a large extent negotiating with the NCAA governing bodies to rubber stamp the extra games required). It is fundamentally an entertainment and a moneymaking enterprise, not an exercise in measuring the quality of the football teams involved.

2. Because conference titles have a measure of certainty that rankings do not. Conference titles operate by predetermined rules, so that even if they give a stupid answer (CCG upset, PSU champ over OSU a couple years ago), the answer they give is not seen as "unfair". Many people prefer a possibly stupid, but certainly fair, process over a process that could be influenced--or seen to be influenced-- by the passions and prejudices rampant in college football.

SIDE NOTE:
On the passions-and-prejudices--consider the G5. AttackCoog has marshalled evidence that the CFP systematically underrates undefeated G5 teams compared to the pre-CFP polls. Quo has marhsalled evidence that, compared to the computer ranking systems, the CFP (and I think the human polls) OVER-rate the top G5 teams.

Quo, I'm not asking you to consider whether you're wrong. Assume you're right. Consider, instead--have your data and arguments convinced anybody? If not, then being right DOESN'T MATTER. The weight of evidence and argument for the best possible ranking system is not strong enough to overcome human tribal biases.

HEck, based on the "Access Bowl results are meaningless because the P5 team doesn't care about being there", actual game results aren't strong enough to overcome human tribal biases.

Quo, you place a very high value on a system that maximizes the 8 best teams playing. You value that more highly than most actors in the system, who prioritize maximizing the chance that MY team gets in. You also seem to ignore the fact that achieving good knowledge on the 8 best teams is nearly impossible, never mind achieving agreement that MY team didn't get shafted.

END SIDE NOTE.

Based on these two pillars, I am pretty sure that any expansion to 8 will include P5 autobids. I'd give that a 90% chance of happening. The weaker P5s have enough clout to make sure that happens. Especially if "weaker P5s" includes the Big Ten.

Would the new system be 5+3 or 5+2+1? The leverage the G5 has is political--not in terms of getting Senators to hold hearings etc, but just in terms of jumping up and down and making a stink, and the remote chance of a successful antitrust suit. That is a form of leverage that TPTB seem to have respected over the last 20 years or so. In the current CFP, the G5 was allocated about 1/6 of the CFP revenue and 1/12 of the access.

That *probably* transfers to 1/8 of the access in an 8-team playoff system? It's not nearly as solid as the prediction that the power conferences will want to guarantee their playoff access. The G5 is not a completely united front of interests here--the MAC, SUn Belt and CUSA would (should) prefer more cash over upgrading the Access Bowl that's barely relevant to them. And a lot of the MWC is in the same position.

It may be too clever for reality, but I think an accurate representation of the power relations would be to upgrade the Access Bowl to a playoff spot, while expanding the pool from the G5 to "G5 + Independents", throwing Notre Dame (and BYU and the rest) into the mix.