Here is a look at what a 5-1-2 8-team playoff would look like dating back to 2004, the first season that the Big East was without Miami and Virginia Tech. I used the current NY6 rotation. When a bowl is hosting a semi-final they'd also host a bowl on or around New Years Day featuring 2 of the 4 highest ranked teams not included in the playoffs. (* = at large selection)

2004
Rose: 1 USC vs 13 Mich
Orange: 2 Oklahoma vs 8 VT
Peach: 3 Auburn vs 6 Utah
Sugar: 4 Texas* vs 5 Cal*
Next 4 Out--
Peach: 7 Georgia vs 10 L'ville
Fiesta: 9 Boise St vs 11 LSU

2005
Fiesta: 1 USC vs 22 Florida St
Cotton: 2 Texas vs 11 WVU
Orange: 3 Penn St vs 7 Georgia
Peach: 4 Ohio St* vs 5 Oregon*
Next 4 Out--
Rose: 6 Notre Dame vs 8 Miami
Sugar: 9 Auburn vs 10 VT

2006
Rose: 1 Ohio St vs 14 WF
Peach: 2 Florida vs 10 Oklahoma
Fiesta: 3 Mich* vs 6 Louisville
Sugar: 4 LSU* vs 5 USC
Next 4 Out--
Orange: 7 Wisconsin vs 9 Auburn
Cotton: 8 Boise St vs 11 Notre Dame

2007
Rose: 1 Ohio St vs 9 WVU
Sugar: 2 LSU vs 7 USC
Orange: 3 VT vs 6 Mizz*
Cotton: 4 Oklahoma vs 5 Georgia*
Next 4 Out--
Peach: 8 Kansas vs 12 Florida
Fiesta: 10 Hawaii vs 11 Ariz St

2008
Cotton: 1 Oklahoma vs 19 VT
Orange: 2 Florida vs 8 Penn St
Fiesta: 3 Texas* vs 6 Utah
Peach: 4 Alabama* vs 5 USC
Next 4 Out--
Rose: 7 Texas Tech vs 10 Ohio St
Sugar: 9 Boise St vs 11 TCU

2009
Peach: 1 Alabama vs 9 GT
Sugar: 2 Texas vs 8 Ohio St
Fiesta: 3 Cincy vs 7 Oregon
Rose: 4 TCU* vs 5 Florida*
Next 4 Out--
Cotton: 6 Boise St vs 12 LSU
Orange: 10 Iowa vs 11 VT

2010
Orange: 1 Auburn vs 13 VT
Rose: 2 Oregon vs 7 Oklahoma
Cotton: 3 TCU vs 6 Ohio St*
Sugar: 4 Stanford* vs 5 Wisconsin
Next 4 Out--
Peach: 8 Arkansas vs 9 Mich St
Fiesta: 10 Boise St vs 11 LSU

2011
Cotton: 1 LSU vs 15 Clemson
Peach: 2 Alabama* vs 10 Wisconsin
Orange: 3 Okla St vs 7 Boise St
Fiesta: 4 Stanford vs 5 Oregon*
Next 4 Out--
Sugar: 6 Arkansas vs 8 Kan St
Rose: 9 S Car vs 11 VT

2012
Fiesta: 1 Notre Dame* vs NR Wisc (12-0 Ohio St and Penn St faced bowl bans)
Sugar: 2 Alabama vs 15 NIU
Peach: 3 Florida* vs 12 Florida St
Rose: 4 Oregon vs 5 Kan St
Next 4 Out--
Cotton: 6 Stanford vs 9 Texas A&M
Orange: 7 Georgia vs 8 LSU

2013
Orange: 1 Florida St vs 15 UCF
Cotton: 2 Auburn vs 7 Ohio St*
Sugar: 3 Alabama* vs 6 Baylor
Rose: 4 Mich St vs 5 Stanford
Next 4 Out--
Fiesta: 8 Mizz vs 10 Oregon
Peach: 9 S Car vs 11 Oklahoma

2014
Peach: 1 Alabama vs 20 Boise St
Fiesta: 2 Oregon vs 7 Miss St*
Orange: 3 Florida St vs 6 TCU
Cotton: 4 Ohio St 5 Baylor*
Next 4 Out--
Rose: 8 Mich St vs 10 Ariz
Sugar: 9 Ole Miss vs 11 Kan St

2015
Peach: 1 Clemson vs 18 Houston
Sugar: 2 Alabama vs 7 Ohio St*
Rose: 3 Mich St vs 6 Stanford
Fiesta: 4 Oklahoma vs 5 Iowa*
Next 4 Out--
Orange: 8 Notre Dame vs 9 Florida St
Cotton: 10 UNC vs 11 TCU

2016
Sugar: 1 Alabama vs 15 WMU
Orange: 2 Clemson vs 7 Oklahoma
Cotton: 3 Ohio St* vs 6 Mich*
Rose: 4 Wash vs 5 Penn St
Next 4 Out--
Fiesta: 8 Wisconsin vs 9 USC
Peach: 10 Colorado vs 11 Florida St

2017
Orange: 1 Clemson vs 12 UCF
Cotton: 2 Oklahoma vs 11 Wash
Peach: 3 Georgia* vs 6 Wisconsin*
Fiesta: 4 Alabama vs 5 Ohio St
Next 4 Out--
Sugar: 7 Auburn vs 10 Miami
Rose: 8 USC vs 9 Penn St

2018
Sugar: 1 Alabama vs 9 Wash
Peach: 2 Clemson vs 8 UCF
Rose: 3 Notre Dame* vs 6 Ohio St
Fiesta: 4 Oklahoma vs 5 Georgia*
Next 4 Out--
Orange: 7 Mich vs 10 Florida
Cotton: 11 LSU vs 12 Penn St

2019
Sugar: 1 LSU vs 17 Memphis
Rose: 2 Ohio St vs 7 Baylor*
Orange: 3 Clemson vs 6 Oregon
Cotton: 4 Oklahoma vs 5 Georgia*
Next 4 Out—
Fiesta: 10 Penn St vs 11 Utah
Peach: 8 Wisconsin vs 9 Florida

Analysis:

At Large Bids by Conference:
SEC: 11
Big Ten: 9
PAC 12: 4
Big 12: 5
ACC: 0
ND: 2
MWC: 1

G5/G6 Autobids:
Big East/AAC: 9
MWC: 5
MAC: 2

Next 4 Out Appearances:
SEC: 20
Big Ten: 11
ACC: 8
PAC 12: 7
Big 12: 7
ND: 3
WAC: 5
MWC: 2
C-USA: 1

I thought I'd dredge this up again since we are talking about an expanded playoffs. I used 2004 as a starting point because that was the first year that VT and Miami were in the ACC and the paradigm started to shiftfrom BCS-6 to P5.

(04-17-2019 07:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I thought I'd dredge this up again since we are talking about an expanded playoffs. I used 2004 as a starting point because that was the first year that VT and Miami were in the ACC and the paradigm started to shiftfrom BCS-6 to P5.

It reminded me of how good VT was between 2004 and 2011. Every season 10 wins or more.

Looks great to me. Don't see any downside really.

(01-05-2019 12:18 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Next 4 Out Appearances:
SEC: 19
Big Ten: 9

That IMO is why you won't see this format happen. Basically, what you have is, compared to a "straight 8" format, a bunch of G5 type teams replacing not just a P5 team, but an SEC or B1G team. Let's look, where "in" is a team ranked outside the top 8 that makes the playoffs, while "out" is a team ranked inside the top 8 that does not make the playoffs:

2018: In PAC ... out B1G

2017: In AAC .... out SEC

2016: In MAC ........... out B1G

2015: In AAC ........... out Notre Dame

2014: In MWC .......... out B1G

2013: In AAC ............ out SEC


So looking at the last six years, you see that the AAC is a huge winner, they'd put three more teams in the playoffs. But the B1G would lose 3 playoff teams, the SEC would lose 2 playoff teams, and Notre Dame would get aced out.

There isn't any way a system that would benefit the AAC at the expense of the B1G, SEC, and Notre Dame is likely to be enacted.

I always thought 2008 was a good argument for an 8-team playoff because there were so many teams with a legitimate claim to deserving a shot at the National championship game.

The Big 12 was especially tricky because it had 3 teams that all finished in 11-1 in 3-way tie for first. For that reason, I believe a selection committee would put 3 teams from the Big 12 in the 8 team field and take TT over Bama.

I kind of feel sick looking at this and realizing how amazing this would have been. Do the right thing and make it happen sooner than later please.

(04-18-2019 08:35 AM)goofus Wrote:  I always thought 2008 was a good argument for an 8-team playoff because there were so many teams with a legitimate claim to deserving a shot at the National championship game.

The Big 12 was especially tricky because it had 3 teams that all finished in 11-1 in 3-way tie for first. For that reason, I believe a selection committee would put 3 teams from the Big 12 in the 8 team field and take TT over Bama.

Bama was #1 before their loss to Florida in the ccg. They would be in.
Tech also lost to OU by about 40 points at the end of the season.

(04-18-2019 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 12:18 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Next 4 Out Appearances:
SEC: 19
Big Ten: 9

That IMO is why you won't see this format happen. Basically, what you have is, compared to a "straight 8" format, a bunch of G5 type teams replacing not just a P5 team, but an SEC or B1G team. Let's look, where "in" is a team ranked outside the top 8 that makes the playoffs, while "out" is a team ranked inside the top 8 that does not make the playoffs:

2018: In PAC ... out B1G

2017: In AAC .... out SEC

2016: In MAC ........... out B1G

2015: In AAC ........... out Notre Dame

2014: In MWC .......... out B1G

2013: In AAC ............ out SEC


So looking at the last six years, you see that the AAC is a huge winner, they'd put three more teams in the playoffs. But the B1G would lose 3 playoff teams, the SEC would lose 2 playoff teams, and Notre Dame would get aced out.

There isn't any way a system that would benefit the AAC at the expense of the B1G, SEC, and Notre Dame is likely to be enacted.

Maybe you tweak the formula slightly to require the G5 champ to be ranked in the top 12 or higher than a P5 champ.

Part of the thought processes that you need to give the G5 some representation to prevent anti-trust action. Also, if the G5 champ is truly inferior they are going to end up facing the top ranked team, who out to be able to blow past a G5.

Quo, it's not like those conferences would be OUT...

(04-18-2019 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 12:18 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Next 4 Out Appearances:
SEC: 19
Big Ten: 9

That IMO is why you won't see this format happen. Basically, what you have is, compared to a "straight 8" format, a bunch of G5 type teams replacing not just a P5 team, but an SEC or B1G team. Let's look, where "in" is a team ranked outside the top 8 that makes the playoffs, while "out" is a team ranked inside the top 8 that does not make the playoffs:

2018: In PAC ... B1G down from 2 to 1

2017: In AAC .... SEC down from 3 to 2

2016: In MAC ........... B1G 3 to 2

2015: In AAC ........... out Notre Dame

2014: In MWC .......... B1G down from 2 to 1

2013: In AAC ............ SEC down from 3 to 2

So looking at the last six years, you see that the AAC is a huge winner, they'd put three more teams in the playoffs. But the B1G would lose 3 playoff teams, the SEC would lose 2 playoff teams, and Notre Dame would get aced out.

There isn't any way a system that would benefit the AAC at the expense of the B1G, SEC, and Notre Dame is likely to be enacted.

I'd argue there's no way a system that puts 3 SEC teams and 2 Big Ten teams into the playoffs while potentially leaving some other P5 conferences completely out will EVER get approved. You're focusing on the G5 side, but you need to focus on the other 3 P5s...

(04-18-2019 04:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Part of the thought processes that you need to give the G5 some representation to prevent anti-trust action. Also, if the G5 champ is truly inferior they are going to end up facing the top ranked team, who out to be able to blow past a G5.

I think a 5-1-2 system is *more* vulnerable to anti-Trust action than is a "straight 8" system. That's because under straight 8, no conference, A5 or G5, is given a formal advantage in making the playoffs. Everyone is in the same pot, Notre Dame or UTEP, Michigan or San Jose State.

But 5-1-2 gives each A5 conference a guaranteed slot while lumping the entire G5 in to one pot, with no G5 conference having its own guaranteed slot. That's a formal difference that could be legally vulnerable.

(04-21-2019 07:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I'd argue there's no way a system that puts 3 SEC teams and 2 Big Ten teams into the playoffs while potentially leaving some other P5 conferences completely out will EVER get approved. You're focusing on the G5 side, but you need to focus on the other 3 P5s...

Well, we already have such a system, basically. Every year, a P5 conference is left out while other P5 conferences get in. That's mathematically certain but the P5 conferences all agreed to it. And heck, in 2017, two SEC teams did get in while two P5 conferences did not get in at all.

But about an 8-team playoff, if history is any guide, your concern is a minor one, because had straight 8 been used, every P5 conference would have gotten at least one team in the playoffs every single year since 2013, except this past year, when the PAC would have been left out. But in 2015, the PAC would have had two teams in the playoffs, so overall, even they would have had 6 teams in over a 6 year period, compared to under the CFP, where they have missed the playoffs 3 times in 5 years.

(04-21-2019 10:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 04:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Part of the thought processes that you need to give the G5 some representation to prevent anti-trust action. Also, if the G5 champ is truly inferior they are going to end up facing the top ranked team, who out to be able to blow past a G5.

I think a 5-1-2 system is *more* vulnerable to anti-Trust action than is a "straight 8" system. That's because under straight 8, no conference, A5 or G5, is given a formal advantage in making the playoffs. Everyone is in the same pot, Notre Dame or UTEP, Michigan or San Jose State.

But 5-1-2 gives each A5 conference a guaranteed slot while lumping the entire G5 in to one pot, with no G5 conference having its own guaranteed slot. That's a formal difference that could be legally vulnerable.

You could modify it to give bids to the top 5 champs and a 6th champ if in the Top 12. But, as others have noted, a non-guarantee to the P5 likely erodes their support for expansion, especially given the main gripes about the current playoff.

(04-21-2019 10:39 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(04-21-2019 10:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 04:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Part of the thought processes that you need to give the G5 some representation to prevent anti-trust action. Also, if the G5 champ is truly inferior they are going to end up facing the top ranked team, who out to be able to blow past a G5.

I think a 5-1-2 system is *more* vulnerable to anti-Trust action than is a "straight 8" system. That's because under straight 8, no conference, A5 or G5, is given a formal advantage in making the playoffs. Everyone is in the same pot, Notre Dame or UTEP, Michigan or San Jose State.

But 5-1-2 gives each A5 conference a guaranteed slot while lumping the entire G5 in to one pot, with no G5 conference having its own guaranteed slot. That's a formal difference that could be legally vulnerable.

You could modify it to give bids to the top 5 champs and a 6th champ if in the Top 12. But, as others have noted, a non-guarantee to the P5 likely erodes their support for expansion, especially given the main gripes about the current playoff.

In the end, I think "support for expansion" will ultimately reside with money. We got the CFP not because of dissatisfaction with the BCS - though there was tons of dissatisfaction with the BCS. We got it because ESPN was willing to pay a ton more money for it.

And if there is a ton more money for an 8-team playoff, then the details will again depend on what TV would be willing to spend money on.

(04-21-2019 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2019 10:39 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(04-21-2019 10:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 04:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Part of the thought processes that you need to give the G5 some representation to prevent anti-trust action. Also, if the G5 champ is truly inferior they are going to end up facing the top ranked team, who out to be able to blow past a G5.

I think a 5-1-2 system is *more* vulnerable to anti-Trust action than is a "straight 8" system. That's because under straight 8, no conference, A5 or G5, is given a formal advantage in making the playoffs. Everyone is in the same pot, Notre Dame or UTEP, Michigan or San Jose State.

But 5-1-2 gives each A5 conference a guaranteed slot while lumping the entire G5 in to one pot, with no G5 conference having its own guaranteed slot. That's a formal difference that could be legally vulnerable.

You could modify it to give bids to the top 5 champs and a 6th champ if in the Top 12. But, as others have noted, a non-guarantee to the P5 likely erodes their support for expansion, especially given the main gripes about the current playoff.

In the end, I think "support for expansion" will ultimately reside with money. We got the CFP not because of dissatisfaction with the BCS - though there was tons of dissatisfaction with the BCS. We got it because ESPN was willing to pay a ton more money for it.

And if there is a ton more money for an 8-team playoff, then the details will again depend on what TV would be willing to spend money on.

Alabama-LSU in 2011 is what drove the move to 4 more than the money. The money was always there.

(04-21-2019 01:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-21-2019 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2019 10:39 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(04-21-2019 10:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 04:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Part of the thought processes that you need to give the G5 some representation to prevent anti-trust action. Also, if the G5 champ is truly inferior they are going to end up facing the top ranked team, who out to be able to blow past a G5.

I think a 5-1-2 system is *more* vulnerable to anti-Trust action than is a "straight 8" system. That's because under straight 8, no conference, A5 or G5, is given a formal advantage in making the playoffs. Everyone is in the same pot, Notre Dame or UTEP, Michigan or San Jose State.

But 5-1-2 gives each A5 conference a guaranteed slot while lumping the entire G5 in to one pot, with no G5 conference having its own guaranteed slot. That's a formal difference that could be legally vulnerable.

You could modify it to give bids to the top 5 champs and a 6th champ if in the Top 12. But, as others have noted, a non-guarantee to the P5 likely erodes their support for expansion, especially given the main gripes about the current playoff.

In the end, I think "support for expansion" will ultimately reside with money. We got the CFP not because of dissatisfaction with the BCS - though there was tons of dissatisfaction with the BCS. We got it because ESPN was willing to pay a ton more money for it.

And if there is a ton more money for an 8-team playoff, then the details will again depend on what TV would be willing to spend money on.

Alabama-LSU in 2011 is what drove the move to 4 more than the money. The money was always there.

I don't think Alabama vs LSU drove any BCS to CFP decisions. If it was LSU vs Oklahoma State, we'd have gotten the same CFP system. The BCS contract was expiring.

This is what needs to happen. Gives the conference championship games meaning again ie you win you are in. Gives everyone FBS team a shot at the playoff via G5 or at large bid.

(04-18-2019 07:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 12:18 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Next 4 Out Appearances:
SEC: 19
Big Ten: 9

That IMO is why you won't see this format happen. Basically, what you have is, compared to a "straight 8" format, a bunch of G5 type teams replacing not just a P5 team, but an SEC or B1G team. Let's look, where "in" is a team ranked outside the top 8 that makes the playoffs, while "out" is a team ranked inside the top 8 that does not make the playoffs:

2018: In PAC ... out B1G

2017: In AAC .... out SEC

2016: In MAC ........... out B1G

2015: In AAC ........... out Notre Dame

2014: In MWC .......... out B1G

2013: In AAC ............ out SEC


So looking at the last six years, you see that the AAC is a huge winner, they'd put three more teams in the playoffs. But the B1G would lose 3 playoff teams, the SEC would lose 2 playoff teams, and Notre Dame would get aced out.

There isn't any way a system that would benefit the AAC at the expense of the B1G, SEC, and Notre Dame is likely to be enacted.

By your definition, the current NY6 benefits the G5 at the expense of the B1G, SEC and Notre Dame. Yet they approved that.

(04-21-2019 02:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2019 01:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-21-2019 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2019 10:39 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(04-21-2019 10:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think a 5-1-2 system is *more* vulnerable to anti-Trust action than is a "straight 8" system. That's because under straight 8, no conference, A5 or G5, is given a formal advantage in making the playoffs. Everyone is in the same pot, Notre Dame or UTEP, Michigan or San Jose State.

But 5-1-2 gives each A5 conference a guaranteed slot while lumping the entire G5 in to one pot, with no G5 conference having its own guaranteed slot. That's a formal difference that could be legally vulnerable.

You could modify it to give bids to the top 5 champs and a 6th champ if in the Top 12. But, as others have noted, a non-guarantee to the P5 likely erodes their support for expansion, especially given the main gripes about the current playoff.

In the end, I think "support for expansion" will ultimately reside with money. We got the CFP not because of dissatisfaction with the BCS - though there was tons of dissatisfaction with the BCS. We got it because ESPN was willing to pay a ton more money for it.

And if there is a ton more money for an 8-team playoff, then the details will again depend on what TV would be willing to spend money on.

Alabama-LSU in 2011 is what drove the move to 4 more than the money. The money was always there.

I don't think Alabama vs LSU drove any BCS to CFP decisions. If it was LSU vs Oklahoma State, we'd have gotten the same CFP system. The BCS contract was expiring.

Alabama-LSU convinced 4 conferences and ESPN that it needed to change.